GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2015

Residents: Once Bitten Twice Shy!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

The front page of today’s Moorabbin Leader features claims by the Gillon Group on the proposed Virginia Park development. Residents have been down this track before with the Caulfield Village. When Amendment C60 was first proposed it was stated:

The development will include:

Retail premises consisting of a convenience-oriented neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by a supermarket with additional specialty shops and mini major stores as well as cafes, restaurants and a food court;
Commercial office space
Up to 1200 residential units
Short term accommodation up to 100 beds (Quest style) (minutes of April 28^th, 2011)

Please note:

Caulfield Village is currently set to have 2063 dwellings. 40% are single bedroom units. Retail originally cited as 35,000 square metres – now reduced to 12,500 square metres. By the time development plans are submitted for the remaining precincts these figures are sure to be varied. We see no reason to think that Virginia Estate will be any different. The motive is profit and if profit is derived from residential development, then so be it!

July 4, 2015

Save Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

The scale of development due to the zoning
The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

June 26, 2015

Virginia Estate: Gillonspeak.

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments

Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.

ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.

In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200’. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.

On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).

Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.

On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.

Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.

On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.

They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.

Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.

Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.

June 23, 2015

The People Speak: Virginia Estate

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[17] Comments

PS: a new Facebook page has just started up opposing the Virginia Estate development. We have provided a link to this site via our Blogroll. The URL is – https://www.facebook.com/groups/453771051463638/ /

Last night’s planning conference for the Virginia Estate development was jam packed with outraged residents and traders. Pilling chaired the meeting. What came through loudly and clearly was:

Residents’ total dissatisfaction with council’s ‘communication’. Many stated that they did not receive notification, had no idea this was happening, and definitely had no idea that ‘permission’ had been granted for 10 storey developments in 2011.
Those who did receive formal letters also complained bitterly that the jargon was incomprehensible – ie one resident who had lived nearby for 30 plus years simply said – ‘oh well, it’s already commercial from the time of W.D & H.O Wills, so this is just more commercial.’ The idea of ‘residential’ did not enter his mind. Other residents were not so forgiving and labelled the notices as ‘misleading’ and ‘non-transparent’.
The developer’s retail impact statement was declared suspect by both the Carnegie Traders and the Bentleigh Traders Association.
Residents cited numerous objections – ie. Virginia Estate is ‘landlocked’ with no transport to speak of, alongside residential dwellings, with already choked major arterial roads. Other comments focused on what impact another 5000 residents would have on local schools that are already bursting at the seams. Infrastructure, open space and lack of sporting grounds were also noted.
Once again the chair (Pilling) resorted to the common Glen Eira tactic of trying to shut down one very informed speaker to the loud chorus from the audience of ‘let her speak’. It should also be noted that when the developer then rose and spoke there was no opportunity for residents to ask him questions since Pilling then closed the meeting!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Throughout the ‘introduction’ to the amendment by both Pilling and council planner (Rocky Camera) there was no mention of:

Removal of third party objection rights
The overall number of proposed dwellings – ie Camera insisted that the amendment covered only 1200 dwellings without revealing the significant fact that 1200 was only for PRECINCT 1. Precinct 2, 3 and 4 were still to come. This is deliberately misleading and devious.
Pilling stated that ‘no decision’ had as yet been made. No ‘formal’ decision may have as yet occurred , but the developer revealed that it was council which asked for the 20m link of open space and the 5.7% cash open space levy instead of a land contribution of any significance. Meetings between the developer and council had been ongoing for a long period of time as well.

Finally, we wish to inform residents of how this council operates. When it wants, it can initiate ‘extensive community consultation’ at ratepayers’ cost. The best example of this, is the travesty that occurred with the removal of the Caulfield Park conservatory. There were 2 public consultations. When council did not get the results it was seeking there was a last ditch effort that involved:

The printing of glossy brochures and a ‘survey’ which was distributed to 3,247 properties around Caulfield Park. (Minutes of 24^th September 2013) at a cost of over $14,000 and consultant fees which would clearly make this amount much greater.

In contrast Amendment C75 which set up the platform for the current rezoning only had 500 properties notified. The current proposal has had 638 according to the figures cited last night. When there are literally thousands of thousands of homes impacted by this amendment, 638 notifications written in planning jargon, is a drop in the ocean. Residents should be querying not so much the strategies adopted by council, but asking what are the vested interests behind such a strategy. It is obvious that the intent was to keep residents as ignorant and as quiet as possible! This is ‘consultation’, Glen Eira style!

June 22, 2015

Virginia Estate History

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

As with the Caulfield Village, the history of Virginia Estate goes back many years. The processes involved are subtle, incremental, and ultimately identical – namely:

Rezoning to allow high density development
Removal of third party objection rights via Incorporated/Development Plans

The First Amendment

On the 4^th November 2009, council first considered the question of rezoning Virginia Estate from Industrial to Business 2 and Business 3 – thus allowing for residential development to occur. The proposed amendment also introduced the euphemistically entitled ‘Development Plan Overlay’. This set the scene for 10 storey development in the centre of Virginia Estate.

As to the purpose of the amendment, the officer’s report stated:

The amendment seeks to facilitate a shift from traditional heavy industrial and warehouse uses, to technology based industries and office uses. It will also enable a limited amount of retail, directly related to the uses on the site, to meet the needs of tenants.

The word residential did not appear once in this report or the public notice. Conclusion? Devious, deceptive, and not stating up front in clear, precise language exactly what this amendment would mean.

The resolution read:

Crs Hyams/Magee

That this item be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 24 to allow Council to receive more detail.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest)

Meeting of 24^th November 2009

No ‘more detail’ was provided in the officer’s report this time around and incredibly placed last (Item 8.17) in a long, long agenda list. Given that the resolution stated that it was ‘Council’ (with a Capital ‘C’) to receive this additional ‘detail’, then this additional ‘detail’ should have been included in the officer’s report. It wasn’t. Instead the November 24^th version was identical, word for word, with the 4^th November effort. Thus once again, decisions are made on the basis of information with-held from the public, and the public record and decided behind closed doors.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Council

Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C75.
Exhibit the amendment no earlier than January 27 2010.

Meeting of 8^th June 2010

The amendment (following advertising) was considered again. No submissions were published and officer comments were largely supportive of the amendment.

Euphemisms continued as per the following:

Proposal – Amendment C75 proposes to rezone the Virginia Park ‘industrial’ estate in East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East to a Business 2 and 3 Zone to facilitate commercial redevelopment.

14 submissions were submitted. No detail given as to how many opposed the amendment and how many supported the amendment. The resulting decision was to send off to a panel.

Meeting of 15^th March 2011 & The Panel Report

The following paragraph from the Planning Panel report is significant in that it mirrors exactly what happened with the C60 version(s) of the Incorporated Plan – ie. residents were not privy to the ‘negotiations’ taking place between the developer and council and hence their objections were based on what had been advertised and NOT what was now before the panel. Further, since none of the submitters attended the panel hearing, presumably believing that their submissions addressed what was advertised, they were not provided with the time, or the opportunity, to challenge the changes. One must seriously question whether ‘natural justice’ had been afforded to objectors.

A schedule to the DPO was exhibited with the Amendment. Council submitted a revised schedule on 24 August 2010 and Mr Scally on behalf of the proponent tabled a tracked changes version of the schedule at the hearing. It is understood this version followed further discussion between Council and the proponent before the hearing. The blue text is the further changes proposed by Council and the red text is the further changes proposed by the proponent. It is proposed to use this version as the working document in this report

The council resolution stated:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

CURRENTLY

As we’ve stated previously, resolutions mean nothing in Glen Eira. Here was a decision regarding setbacks and now the amendment wishes to reduce this setback. No Section 173 agreement has been made public.

CONCLUSION

Residents should ask themselves:

Why does this council continually agree to remove resident third party objection rights?
Why does this council continually cave-in and meet the vast majority of developer demands?
Why does this council continually fail to advertise and inform widely on such important issues?
Why should residents have any faith that the projected 4,600+ dwellings is the final figure, given the experience of C60?

June 18, 2015

Virginia Estate Planning Conference

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

Over the past 4 weeks we have received numerous emails from residents complaining that they know nothing about the proposed rezoning of Virginia Estate and where they can find information. This is a damning indictment of council’s failure to not only live up to its charter and Community Plan in ‘ensuring’ community input into development, but we would go further and allege that this is all part of the culture of this council – ie the less people know what is going on, then the better from the point of view of ramming things through. God forbid, there should be extensive community involvement!

Council has spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars upgrading its website. We challenge anyone to find any ‘useful’, coherent information on the plans for Virginia Estate. It’s not listed under ‘Major Projects’ (in fact, nothing is at the time of writing). Under ‘Public Notices’ one would have to know which amendment number refers to the Virginia Estate proposal. In other words, users have to click on every single amendment listed. Not only is this woeful website design that a 4 year old could do better, but it makes things as difficult and time consuming as possible for people.

Once found as Amendment C135 residents are overjoyed to find the following ‘explanation’

(The Amendment proposes to rezone part of the land to Commercial 1 to enable an integrated mixed use development over the entire site and amends Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) to enable a broader mix of uses across the site)

Accurate? Of course! Informative? Never! How many residents really know what Schedule 2 is and means? How many know what the ramifications of rezoning to C1Z means? And as for Development Plan Overlay, that belongs in the stratosphere 0f total incomprehension for most people. There is absolutely no excuse why Council can place ad after ad in the Leader for GESAC, (at what cost?) and only one notice about Virginia Estate which would be the largest single development in the municipality’s history. Don’t people deserve to know what is really going on and what it could potentially mean?

Compare this with Bayside and the documentation that accompanies their proposals – ie actual documents online; ‘have your say’ available, and most importantly, a PLAIN ENGLISH EXPLANATION of what is proposed AND WHY! http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/amendment_C139_bayside_drainage_development_contributions_plan.htm

The same can be said for Boroondara and countless others – http://boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/building-planning/strategic-planning/amendments/amendment-c178-introducing-permanent-heritage-overlays

Even typing the word ‘amendment’ into council’s search engine brings up a page of gobbledygook – ie a list of amendments. Click on any one, and all that comes up is the ‘public notice’ published in the Leader. Informative? Conducive to resident involvement? No way!

We are now living in the age of social media. Glen Eira Council still belongs in the dark ages. We also believe that the substandard website is nothing more than the physical manifestation of this culture which is determined to carry on business as if residents don’t matter, shouldn’t know, and definitely not be given the best chance of becoming involved and voicing their opinion(s). Yes, council adheres to the legislation – at the literal and minimal level. It will not go one step further in ensuring that people know exactly what is going on.

How much more incompetence, sub-standard performance, and anti-community behaviour, will this set of 9 councillors allow? When will they exert their legal muscle and say ‘enough is enough’?

We urge as many residents as possible to attend Monday night and for once, let us hear the community – loud and clear!

May 5, 2015

Where Are You Councillors?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

The Minister for Planning has now removed the Residential Growth Zone in Yarra. Another bonus for proactive councils believing they can do more for their residents! Here’s the Yarra Media Release and the new schedules – please take careful note of the height limits in the General Residential Zones. Glen Eira has 10.5 metres.

Council welcomes decision on new residential zones

04 May 2015

Yarra Council welcomes the State Government’s decision on Yarra’s new residential zones.

Yarra Mayor Cr Phillip Vlahogiannis said the new residential zones will provide greater certainty about the height and scale of developments that can be built in those zones.

“Council is pleased to see the State Government endorse Yarra’s strategic vision for maintaining Yarra’s liveability and protecting neighbourhood character – especially in our heritage precincts,” Cr Vlahogiannis said.

“Yarra’s submission to the State Government on the new residential zones was based on robust strategic planning considerations and extensive community consultation. Our submission was sensible and responsible,” he said.

In early 2014 Council undertook extensive consultation with the community, evidenced by the near 400 written submissions received.

“Council knows that Yarra’s population is growing rapidly, with roughly 25,000 extra people expected to be living here by 2030. With that projected growth in mind, Council aims to deliver the best outcomes for Yarra as a whole, to protect Yarra’s residential heritage character, while identifying areas for housing growth.

“Yarra will accommodate housing growth in appropriate areas across the municipality, such as activity centres that have capacity.

“The Minister for Planning’s decision is a deserved vindication of the good work of Council’s strategic planning professionals and brings some relief to the Yarra community whose amenity has been constantly challenged by ever-intensifying development.

“We are particularly pleased that the Minister has indicated that the Residential Growth Zone is no longer necessary as this will provide comfort to residents concerned about overdevelopment in their neighbourhoods,” Cr Vlahogiannis said.

The approved residential zones will apply as follows:

The Neighbourhood Residential Zone applies to about 74% of Yarra’s existing residential zones. This would restrict larger-scale development in Yarra’s heritage precincts and includes a building height limit of eight metres.

The General Residential Zone applies to about 26% of Yarra’s existing residential zone. This zone is similar to Yarra’s existing residential zone, but with the added protection of limiting building heights to nine metres.

“Yarra has not shirked the responsibility to provide its fair share of housing to meet the needs of Melbourne’s growing population. In Yarra’s case, that additional housing stock is being, and will be, delivered predominantly through other zones – particularly the mixed use zone and the commercial 1 zone,” he said.

Source: http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/News/council-welcomes-decision-on-new-residential-zones/

PLUS

No Residential Growth Zone

The Minister for Planning removed the requirement for the Residential Growth Zone in Yarra.

This zone provides for increased housing growth and density.

The Minister’s determination is consistent with Council’s position that the Residential Growth Zone is not needed because housing growth is already occurring in Yarra’s mixed use and commercial zones.

The process to evaluate the introduction of the Residential Growth Zone (draft amendment C179) is no longer required.

Source: http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/planning–building/State-Government-Planning-Initiatives/new-residential-zones-/

Summary table of zones and schedules – approved 2015

April 30, 2015

Zones: What A Circus!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

Another very, very long post so our apologies. However, the significance of the issue, and what occurred is we believe deserving of a full and comprehensive report.

The following discussion on the Lobo request for a report on the impact of the new zones is quite astonishing. It is replete with:

Incorrect information and countless bogus or misleading statements by councillors
The non–existence of good governance revealing clearly how decisions are made behind closed doors and that council meetings themselves are only the ‘public performance’ of these pre-determined decisions.

We ask readers to keep in mind the following:

Labor pre-election only committed to reviewing the PROCESSES involved in the IMPLEMENTATION of the new zones – not the zones themselves or where they are placed. On this alone Glen Eira should be condemned for its failure to inform, much less ‘consult’ with residents!
Lobo’s request for a report said nothing about the ‘building boom’ – yet what is produced is a document that seeks to divert the focus with page after page of ‘discussion’ on the ‘building boom’. Extraneous but self-serving!
Hyams’ and the report’s dissembling and deliberate obfuscation of the ‘facts’. Building approvals are NOT the same as planning permits for new dwellings – which we have no doubt he and the administration is well aware of.
Magee either does not know about the spread of the zones or he simply does not care. There are NOT 3 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONES in Glen Eira as he claims. In fact there are 5 – two of which are NOT in Activity Centres or anywhere near railway loops.
Lobo’s motion does NOT state that the minister should review ‘where the zones’ were put as some councillors inferred!
The most crucial and telling point that is missing in all that follows is the continued refusal of this council to be proactive and begin to investigate first off, if anything needs changing, and then going about the processes to implement those changes. The first step in all of this is the amendment process. Countless other councils (post zones) are still consulting, still putting up amendments, and still fighting for better outcomes for their residents. They are not sitting back and saying ‘we could be worse off’ or leaving (review) decisions to ministers. These councils are doing the work themselves in consultation with their constituents. There is no scare mongering, no delays, and no waiting on ministers to initiate anything! Amendments originate first from councils. But that requires the will, the work, and the possible admission that perhaps ‘we were wrong’. All not part of the Glen Eira ethos and culture!

+++++++++

Lobo moved motion which was an ‘alternative’ to the recommendation(s) – (1) council notes the report and that there has been a ‘development boom in Victoria’. (2) that monthly figures show an ‘upward trend’ in Glen Eira (3) March 2015 data hasn’t ‘been included (4) there has been an ‘extraordinary increase’ in Carnegie, North Caulfield and Bentleigh (5) new zones don’t permit anything more than the ‘former arrangements’ (6) new zones ‘provide certainty’ (7) there are height limits (8) new zones have ‘directed developments to where it should be’ (9) development in General Residential Zones is ‘changing the neighbourhood’ and placing ‘some pressure on current homeowners’ (10) Council to write to Minister and ask him ‘what he would like to do’ in regards to the new zones. Delahunty seconded.

LOBO: said that the ‘data’ showed an increase in the number of new dwellings post zones – 744 after and 426 prior to the introduction of the zones. Said that it is true there is a development boom and more people arriving. Said that two main things had changed when looking at the old and new zones. Previously councillors ‘had the authority to take into account’ objections and with the ‘planning policy in place we would make the proper decision’. With the new zones there is ‘certainty to the builders’ where they can build and ‘thus the council power is limited’. Council ‘has to follow the law’ of the government. In all of this, ratepayers are ‘subsidising property developers’ as shown by the application fees discussed in Item 1. Therefore ‘we need to graciously accept that there is a need to go back to the drawing board’ since there is ‘always room to review’. Said that ‘we have heard and saw placards in the gallery’. He accepts that council sought ‘the best possible outcome’ from the government but ‘it would have been safer’ if they ‘had gone to the community’ and ‘showing them the new zones’. Claimed that the ‘new government’ takes ‘a different approach’ and is having a ‘review’. Wanted to ‘use that opportunity to obtain a far better outcome’ and to ‘leave a legacy’ that council has gone to government and it will help ‘mitigate the growing concern’ of residents. Said he checked with Bayside and that they will have 0.02% as a Residential Growth Zone; and 1% of Boroondara is a Residential Growth Zone whilst Glen Eira has 2.2% as the growth zone. Asked councillors to ‘put their differences aside’ and to ‘get the state government to rewrite the history on residential zones’ and to ‘protect the residents’.

DELAHUNTY: said she supports Lobo but would ‘like stronger language’ about what council writes to the Minister. Stated that it’s a ‘worthwhile report’ and shows increased development which isn’t ‘unexpected’ and has ‘gone into areas that we almost predetermined that it would go’. ‘We did seek an arrangement with the former government’ but not sure if ‘that is currently the best deal on the table’ given that other council have got improvements. So the motion is basically a ‘due diligence exercise’ to ensure that what Glen Eira has ‘got at the moment is the right thing’. Said she would like the Minister to ‘have a good look at East Bentleigh’ and she’s not sure about the ‘piece meal planning’ they go through with every application that the ‘zoning is correct’ especially since there is a ‘lack of public transport’ . She also met Elsternwick residents who were advocating for more growth zones in that suburb’s commercial area. Council has always said that if they say where development can’t go, it is their responsibility to say ‘where it can go’. As an Elsternwick resident she ‘supports that – yeah it can go there’ since ‘it’s on top of a train station’. Council can’t do anything about transport in East Bentleigh ‘but we can certainly have a look’ to see ‘if the zoning is right’. She ‘hopes that the Minister will do that’ and if the residents support increased development ‘in that little pocket of Elsternwick’ then that should also occur. Said it’s ‘not a statement that we did the wrong thing’. ‘We all stood here and talked about whether we were doing the wrong thing at the time’ and ‘whether or not we took that to the people’ . She is ‘convinced that the consultation we did prior’ ‘informed how we went about seeking those zones’. Also, since other councils have ‘differences’ in what ‘they were able to achieve’ so it’s ‘really an exercise’ to ensure that ‘we’ve got the best outcome’. Perhaps the Minister might come back and say ‘yes, you’ve got the best outcome’ or maybe he might come back and says ‘we need to pull it back here, we need to put a schedule there’.

PILING: thanked Lobo for requesting the report and that there is ‘some good information here’ although ‘not surprising’ that Carnegie and other suburbs have had ‘more development’. Said that ‘the problem’ with Lobo’s motion is that it ‘draws the inference’ about Glen Eira but that the ‘whole of Melbourne’ needs to be looked at in order to ‘see what is happening’. Said that they are being asked to ‘adopt a policy position’ in saying that ‘the present zones aren’t working’ but ‘I think they are’. He also wasn’t happy with ‘some of the language’ of the motion such as ‘extraordinary increases’ and this isn’t ‘reflective of where this council is’. Claimed they ‘did a lot of work 18 months ago’ and it gives ‘surety’ to developers and residents. Agreed with ‘part’ of the motion that there is development in areas where ‘it should go’. Said that Lobo mentioned Bayside and the current government’s promise to ‘review the zones’ but in his view these are both ‘politically expedient’ and Bayside has got an ‘unusual arrangement’ whilst the review was promised under ‘political pressure’.’I am not in favour of a review’ and although not against talking about ‘improvement’ didn’t think that ‘this was the place’ to ‘set upon a ‘policy position’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and it was a ‘great report’. Read out Lobo’s clause about ‘extraordinary’ development in Carnegie, etc and then asked ‘what’s so extraordinary’ about this given the ‘boom throughout Victoria’? Said that there’s ‘nothing extraordinary about this’ since development is going on ‘everywhere’. Said that Lobo ‘talks about the old ways’ but ‘now we have certainty’ for ‘everyone’. Previously there was ‘policy that VCAT ignored’ but now ‘we have law’ and ‘people know exactly what can be built and what can’t be built’. He has difficulty with the item where Lobo wants council to ‘write to the minister and see what he wants’. Couldn’t ‘understand’ this. Asking him what he wants means ‘don’t worry what we want’. It should be council that ‘sits around’ and ‘talks’ about whether ‘there are improvements’ that could be made. Then after they’ve decided they ‘advocate to the minister what we want’. You don’t go to the minister and ask ‘what do you want’ – ‘that isn’t the way this council ever operates’. Lobo also talked about ‘pressure on homeowners’ next to developments but ‘ultimately you’re looking at the building boom’ and with development ‘suburbs are changing’. Today things aren’t all ‘triple brick veneers or Californian bungalows’. ‘We are looking for development’ and because of the zones ‘we have certainty’ about ‘what we want to do’. Thought the ‘intention’ of the motion was ‘good’ but ‘analysing’ it, ‘it is wrong’.

SOUNNESS: wanted Lobo to clarify part of his motion about writing to the Minister and Lobo said ‘I have changed that. I have left it out’.

Lobo then read out the clause again and this time said that since the new government had ‘promised’ to ‘have a look at the new zones’ that council writes to Wynne to ‘comment’. Several councillors then commented that this is now different to what the original motion stated.

MAGEE: ‘that is quite different’.

LOBO: ‘that’s right’ because ‘when we had the discussion inside we changed it’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘point of order’ about the different motion.

MAGEE: asked Lobo if there ‘was a different document’ that he was ‘reading from’

LOBO: said he changed it because in the ‘pre-meeting we had some disagreement’ and that ‘people were not happy with my words’ so ‘I changed’ it.

MAGEE: told Lobo that councillors now ‘didn’t understand what the motion is’. Lobo claimed ‘it was the same one’ but Magee said ‘I don’t believe it is’.

SOUNNESS: proposed that what Lobo read out the second time is different and that the second version should be the motion.

LOBO: said that he had to ‘change’ things because of ‘some words’ which were part of the ‘internal document’ that ‘didn’t go to the public’. Lobo read out this part of the motion again that council writes to the Minister to ‘see what he wants to do’.

LIPSHUTZ: commented that that was what Lobo read out the first time.

Magee asked Sounness if ‘he was happy’ and Sounness said he was.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got an issue with several item in the motion. Sounness ‘didn’t feel’ that the development in Carnegie and Bentleigh was ‘particularly extraordinary’ and it was all ‘part of the general boom’. Problem with paragraph j is that it makes it sound as ‘if we’re advocating for change’ but what council is doing is just enquiring about the ‘review process’ and that they are not ‘asking for anything particular to be done’. Another problem is that the document ‘hasn’t spoken about Bayside’ or other municipalities. ‘Knows’ that there’s development ‘generally speaking’ everywhere but the report doesn’t cover this and how people will be ‘fitted in’. Said that there have been comments that what is occuring in Glen Eira ‘is unfair’. Said that ‘there are processes to go through that’ and asking the minister isn’t the right process because the ‘process should be’ for ‘all of Victoria’ to ask how the growth can be accommodated. ‘What can Melbourne do’ and how Glen Eira ‘would fit into those elements’. Acknowledged that others had ‘received good outcomes’ from their rezoning. Glen Eira in their ‘negotiation’ received ‘greater permeability’ and setbacks.’Some councils have won and some councils have lost’ as a result of their ‘negotiations’. In terms of voting on the motion he would ‘have to think about things as they progress’.

HYAMS: agreed that council should write to the minister. Said people could read the figures and because there is more development come to the conclusion that ‘the zones must be the cause’. Said this isn’t ‘necessarily the truth’ because other factors are involved. What’s important is ‘whether there have been more approvals in Glen Eira’ compared to other similar council areas. ‘Given the building boom it’s very unlikely that that’s the case’. The ABS table in the report shows that building approvals have increased ‘across the board’. Said that the new zones aren’t stopping people building anything ‘they couldn’t build before’ but ‘there’s plenty’ that could have been built previously but now ‘can’t be built’. This is especially true of the Neighbourhood Residential Zones where there is ‘far greater’ protection than before but ‘also true’ for RGZ and GRZ zones because of ‘height limits’ and setbacks. Claimed there was a ‘rush’ to beat the implementation of the zones. Said that ‘there are some who keep saying that the zones allow more’ but for him these people fit into 3 categories – to make money; playing politics and those who ‘who are being mislead by the first two’ categories. Said that ‘without the zones’ there still would have been an ‘increase’ but council ‘wouldn’t have had tools as good to deal with the increase’. Further, it ‘doesn’t mean’ that maximum heights are always granted. Council ‘still takes into account neighbourhood character’. Said that the zones were ‘overall a positive’ but if the government wants to review, that ‘doesn’t mean’ that council wouldn’t be ‘seeking an even better outcome’. But he doesn’t want to ‘suggest’ that the ‘new zones weren’t a good idea’ because he is ‘adamant that they were.’

OKOTEL: Stated that she in asking the government to ‘review where the zones are placed’ she ‘maintains’ her position on consulting with the community and that council should have consulted before bringing in the new zones and the ‘proposal they put’ before government. Felt that ‘the proportion’ of neighbourhood residential zones to general residential zones ‘is a good outcome’. Worried that by asking ‘the minister to review these zones’ then ‘we are allowing open slather for the minister’. Said that ‘again we are not consulting’ before ‘asking for a review’ and that this is ‘highly inappropriate’. Thought that ‘we should always consult with our community’ prior to ‘putting forward such a major proposal’ that ‘the zones be reviewed’. This becomes even more important since council doesn’t ‘know what this review looks like’ and they haven’t had a response to their letter. So now going ‘to the minister and asking for a wholesale review of our zones’ and especially ‘not knowing what implications there are’ is a ‘huge, a massive risk’. Council could lose ‘that 78 protection’ or maybe ‘gain greater residential zone coverage’ but if council loses then ‘it would be a devastating outcome’. Thought that if ‘asking for a review’ then council should ‘first consult with our community’ instead of ‘providing open slather for the minister’. Councillors ‘have a responsibility to ensure best outcomes’ and ‘not pass the buck to the State Government’. Wanted council to ‘keep advocating’ for residents.

MAGEE: only the Minister ‘can do anything’ about the zones. When in opposition, Labor was ‘very clear’ that they were going ‘to review zones’ but haven’t done ‘anything about it so far’. He ‘believes’ that ‘we’ve got a very good system’ . In 2009/10 there was a ‘public review’ of the planning scheme and three things emerged that residents wanted – height limits, buffer zones, and ‘less discretion at VCAT’. ‘That’s exactly what the zones are doing’. Regardless of council ‘advocating for this change or that change’ or whether ‘we want a review the minister at any time can review’. Said that MPs are asking the minister to review zones in their electorates. Said that council was’ criticised at one point for not consulting’ but he thought ‘we very much did’ and now to ‘do a review of our consulting’ they would be ‘accused of doing the very same thing’. Glen Eira’s ‘system puts development’ where he thinks ‘it should be’ – in activity centres and along transport routes. Said that there are 3 Residential Growth Zones and the rest of the residential zones are in ‘shopping strips’. Thought that Glen Eira ‘is very, very lucky to have what it has’. If the minister ‘wants to tinker with that and reduce that’ then no council would have room for residential growth zones. If councils all got what they wanted it would all be neighbourhood residential zones. This would be ‘totally inappropriate and disrespectful’ to the 1000 people a year who come to live in Glen Eira. They have to be ‘accommodated somehow’ and currently council has got a ‘system that I certainly won’t be voting to change’ until the minister tells them ‘what that change will look like’. Was worried that if council ‘opened this up’ that the growth zones would increase and ‘neighbourhood zones would decrease’.

LOBO: said that if there were ‘second thoughts’ then they shouldn’t have asked for the report. Said Okotel was ‘right 50%’ but ‘it doesn’t mean that our realisation’ since the introduction of the zones ‘should be just kept under the blanket’. Stated that his intention was ‘to pin down the minister for just making promises’. Lobo ‘wanted to check if he meant what he said’.

MOTION PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR – LOBO, DELAHUNTY.

VOTING AGAINST: LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS, OKOTEL, SOUNNESS,ESAKOFF

MOTION LOST.

Hyams then moved motion that council write to the minister and ‘enclose’ their letter of December 23rd and telling him that council hasn’t as yet got a response to that letter. Lipshutz seconded.

HYAMS: given the four months for no reply, it is worthwhile resending letter and will be ‘useful to know’ the ‘form the review may take’. Thought it was a ‘good report’ and disagreed with Lobo that ‘we didn’t see things the way that he wanted to move his motion’.

Lipshutz didn’t speak to the motion.

DELAHUNTY: thought the report was ‘useful’ and thought that what Lobo was trying for was to ensure ‘that we still have the best deal’. Said that there is ‘hand wringing every time there is an application in front of us’ especially along Neerim Road – ‘oh what can we do?(sarcastically)’ ‘well what we can do is ask for a review of the zones!’. Said that there ‘no harm’ in asking for a response from the minister to an earlier letter. Said that judging by the previous comments from councillors and the focus on consultation she asked Hyams to include an amendment in the letter that insisted on ‘community consultation prior to any changes’. Hyams agreed to the amendment.

Lobo then wanted Hyams to ‘read out’ the letter sent to the acting planning minister of the time. Hyams told him it was ‘in the agenda’. Lobo asked again if he would read it out for people ‘in the gallery’.Magee said the gallery has got the agenda and that ‘we are pressed for time’.

LOBO: said that his role was to give council the chance to ‘be transparent’ because ‘we are all the time accused that this council is not transparent’.

MAGEE: asked Lobo if ‘you feel that this council is not transparent’?

LOBO: ‘it is not what I believe – it is what people say’

HYAMS: said that those complaining about council not being transparent are ‘themselves very transparent’. Thought that ‘it is our role to get the best deal we can’ and ‘if it becomes possible to get a better deal maybe we should go for that’. First council needs to ‘know things the way they are’ and write to council for this information.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

April 21, 2015

Council Plan Versus Community Plan

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

From today’s Caulfield Leader –

We anticipate that once the agenda comes out, residents will once again find the following sentence – Council proposes to retain the existing Council Plan

As a memory refresher we invite readers to peruse our comments from years ago and to consider whether anything has really changed in this council.

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/community-plan-versus-council-plan/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/budget-community-plan-the-continuing-consultation-con/

April 12, 2015

Public Questions

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

“When will Council be undertaking a comprehensive review of its planning scheme (as opposed to the Council Plan)? Will council be holding full public consultation on such a review?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council will undertake a review of its planning scheme once the State Government has completed its comprehensive review of both the State and local planning policy frameworks. The State Government review will help to guide Council’s future planning scheme review.

Other Councils are also awaiting the completion of the State Government review before undertaking their respective planning scheme reviews.

Council will undertake public consultation of the next planning scheme review in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”

From the above response it is clear that it will be at least another year or so before residents see any attempt to address the anomalies and inadequacies of the current planning scheme. Whilst public consultation is mentioned it is also worth pointing out that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 simply states that councils are obliged to undertake ‘regular reviews’ of their respective schemes. Consultation is not mandatory or even mentioned in the Act. If consultation does eventuate, then the extent, form, and nature of that ‘consultation’ is totally in the hands of Council. Then of course, council is only obliged to ‘consider’ what residents state.

The claim that ‘other council are also awaiting the completion’ by the State Government is open to debate. Bayside is at this very moment reviewing its scheme. They are not ‘waiting’. Below we feature some of these ‘other councils’ who from the time of the introduction of the new zones (July 2013) have either started, or completed their reviews. The list is impressive.

http://www.mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/planning-scheme-amendment/review-of-the-moonee-valley-planning-scheme.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/caring_for_bayside/bayside_planning_scheme_review.htm

http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/haveyoursay/planning-review/index.htm

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=11381

http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/files/9c3084db-334b-4fa9-8468-a35e00db8a2d/Appendix_6_-_Hobsons_Bay_Planning_Scheme_Review.pdf?streamFile=true?streamFile=true

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Planning/Strategic_Planning/Strategic_Planning_Projects/Frankston_Planning_Scheme_Review

https://www.campaspe.vic.gov.au/hardcopy/112123_194033.pdf

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/building-and-planning/planning-policy/moreland-planning-scheme.html

http://www.queenscliffe.vic.gov.au/infrastructure-and-development/planning-and-building/strategic-planning/queenscliffe-planning-scheme-review?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=2914&element=0c2b1dac-d2ef-4b7a-820f-fb343adee7ca&method=download.

ttp://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/2e17c914-5e8f-4382-8078-a3d8010faa3c/Draft_Planning_Scheme_Review_No_3_Report.pdf.

http://www.wangaratta.vic.gov.au/services/planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects.asp

http://www.colacotway.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=4571&h=1

http://www.warrnambool.vic.gov.au/sites/warrnambool.vic.gov.au/files/documents/property/planning/projects/Planning%20Scheme%20Rewrite%20Project%20Final%20Report%20Jan%202015.pdf

http://www.latrobe.vic.gov.au/Building_and_Planning/Planning_for_the_Future/Current_Strategic_Projects/Latrobe_Planning_Scheme

http://www.pyrenees.vic.gov.au/What_We_Do/Planning/Strategic_Planning_and_Major_Projects

https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/planning-and-development/planning-for-the-future/scheme-and-amendments/planning-scheme-review

http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?Page_Id=1996&h=0

http://www.basscoast.vic.gov.au/getmedia/e86cb0ac-2338-412a-811c-f3bc0d8219d7/2014_06_11_Planning_Scheme_12B_Review_Report_Adopted_June_2014_%28ED14_86426%29.PDF.aspx

http://www.wodonga.vic.gov.au/building-planning/planning-for-the-future/images/Wodonga_Planning_Scheme_Review_Report_%28Final_%29.pdf

http://www.basscoast.vic.gov.au/getmedia/e86cb0ac-2338-412a-811c-f3bc0d8219d7/2014_06_11_Planning_Scheme_12B_Review_Report_Adopted_June_2014_%28ED14_86426%29.PDF.aspx (2014)

What also needs to be pointed out is how the following councils either are in the process, or have reviewed their Housing strategies in recent times. This is in stark contrast to Glen Eira’s 1996 and 2002 efforts!

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (2014)

http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/haveyoursay/planning-review/documents/Monash_Housing_Strategy_2014_Consultation_draft.pdf (2014)

http://yoursaydarebin.com.au/darebin-housing-strategy/faqs (2013-14)

http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/pbs/city-strategy/ballarat-strategy.aspx (November 2014)

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/document/27580/greater-dandenong-housing-strategy-2014-2024.

https://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Files/FINALMaribyrnongHousingStrategy1101205.pdf. (2011)

http://www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/files/950908bd-c5e7-4897-864a-a0c90115f690/Adopted_Brimbank_Housing_Strategy_Home_and_Housed_August_2012.pdf.

http://www.warrnambool.vic.gov.au/sites/warrnambool.vic.gov.au/files/documents/property/planning/strategies/City-wide%20Housing%20Strategy%202013.pdf

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeetingAgendaItems/Attachments/11564/JUN14%20FMC2%20AGENDA%20ITEM%206.3%20Draft%20Housing%20Strategy.pdf (2014)

http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_ID=3081&desc=Housing_strategy

http://www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=3863 (2015)

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/Meetings/Lists/CouncilMeetingAgendaItems/Attachments/11564/JUN14%20FMC2%20AGENDA%20ITEM%206.3%20Draft%20Housing%20Strategy.pdf (2014)