Amendment C25 introduced the housing diversity/minimal change carve up of the municipality. There was consultation and much opposition to the proposed amendment. We present below extracts from the officer’s report (12^th August 2002) following the consultation period. Readers should note how much was promised and in the space of 13 years how little has been delivered.

++++++++++

Several residents expressed concerns about the lack of formal notification of the Amendment. They felt it was such an important issue that residents especially in the housing diversity areas should have been individually notified. They were also concerned by inadequate consultation during its development. A few residents and Glen Eira’s Save Our Suburbs representative requested that the exhibition period be extended.

Response

A number of people suggested that those in housing diversity areas should have been individually notified. C25 affects the whole municipality, not just people in the housing diversity areas. It is therefore considered that all residents should be treated equally in terms of notification.

Residents felt that there was a lack of information on how the housing diversity areas and minimal change areas were determined. They also felt that some suburbs have more housing diversity areas identified than others. Some residents suggested that housing diversity areas should be based on the suitability of individual streets rather than large areas.

Submitters expressed strong concerns that despite the stated aim of housing diversity areas to encourage single houses and multi-unit developments, housing diversity areas will not have a diversity of housing as the areas would be targeted by developers and single dwellings would be removed.

Residents were concerned that C25 focussed on the protection of the minimal change areas at the expense of he housing diversity areas. They felt that C25 would lead to the destruction of neighbourhood character and historical values in their area. Multi-unit development would be completely out of character and mean the loss of period and historic houses. Residents identified that many housing diversity areas featured a range of period housing (eg California bungalows, Victorian, Edwrdian) that contribute to the history and character of their area. Some submitters felt that important heritage buildings were not recognised by C25 and could be destroyed.

Response

A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:

• Exceed prevailing building heights
• Dominate the streetscape
• Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
• Result in the loss of landscaped front yards.

Apartment buildings would be be encouraged in these areas however in some locations, depending on the size of lots, orientation and surrounding development, developments such as duplexes and townhouses may be appropriate. Not all lots in the housing diversity areas will be suitable for multi-unit development. It is unrealistic to expect a 100% ‘take up’ rate in housing diversity areas. Some areas because of their existing conditions may experience very little change at all.

Further work is required to recognise the specific opportunities and issues, develop preferred character and issues for each neighbourhood centre. The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme Amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.

In terms of the siting and design controls which would apply to the residential areas in housing diversity areas, ResCode would apply,. Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that Council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reductions in open space, car parking standards etc.

….structure plans and urban design frameowkrs are planned for housing diversity areas. These will be developed in consultation with residents to develop an overall plan for each housing diversity area that ensures that development outcomes are both appropriate and sympathetic to the character of the area.

The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledge that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.

The submitters also felt that the amendment will have substantial effects on character and amenity of housing diversity through the loss of significant trees and vegetation. The submissions felt that the Policy did not provide enough safeguards to prevent the loss of trees and vegetation. It was suggested that a significant tree register should be pursued.

….there are a number of improvements that can be added to the policies relating to housing diversity areas to ensure development better reflects existing character. At present, the policy does not clearly link proposed development to existing character. In the long term it is proposed to develop a preferred character for these areas in consultation with the residents.

Proposed changes –

Adding reference in the Housing Diversity policy (22.05) and Residential Character policy (22.06) ‘Policy basis’ section that makes it clear that a radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. Development should respect the existing character unless a preferred character is specified.

The last Planning Scheme Review was completed in August 2010. Half of the ‘recommendations’ have never been mentioned since, much less implemented. What has been the focus for the past 5 years is to pass amendment after amendment that has rezoned land primarily into Commercial 1 or Mixed Use. This of course allows a developer to build one or two shops and hundreds of dwellings on top!

We have gone through all of the amendments put forward by Council since the beginning of 2011. There are 43 amendments of which the vast majority involved clearing the way for high density development – in particular, the Caulfield Village and Virginia Park fiascos, and facilitating the Monash Campus development. There have been only two amendments that looked at Neighbourhood Character Overlays and a tinkering with a few heritage properties – including the attempt to remove Heritage from the Esakoff, Seaview property.

Whilst other councils have been busy shoring up the ‘safeguards’ for their population none of this applies to Glen Eira. Stonnington is a case in point. They have introduced 63 amendments. Of these:

• 23 related to heritage listings of new areas, individual properties, and interim controls becoming permanent controls. Only one amendment sought to remove heritage listing from 2 properties.

• Other amendments involve: ‘water sensitive urban design’; awning and footpath policy; neighbourhood character overlays; car parking rates for 2 activity centres; design and development overlays; urban design frameworks; public acquisition overlays, open space levy where 3 suburbs now receive 8% and council is now asking for a 4^th suburb to be added at 8%.
  

• But the most important point to note is that rezoning to suit residential development appears in only 3 amendments!!!!!

Compare this record with what is happening in Glen Eira. Below is the complete list, plus what has thus far eventuated because of the rezoning. Gazetted dates for each amendment are in parenthesis.

C60 – rezoning of land to a Priority Development zone – ie the stepping stone for Caulfield Village (2/7/2011)

C64 – new Child Care Centres policy – now suitable for minimal change! (5/5/2011)

C75 – rezones Virginia Park from industrial/business to business zone and as with Caulfield Village a version of an ‘incorporated plan’ (2/6/2011)

C76 – rezones 235-237 Murrumbeena Road from Residential to business (5/5/2011) (application now in for 3 dwellings)

C77 – rezones 1030-1082 Dandenong Road from Business 4 to Business 2 zone (6/1/2011) (Permit granted for 12 storeys and 173 dwellings as part of this PLUS other permits for 23 dwellings )

C78 – rezones 791-793 Warrigal Road from Residential to Business (23/5/2013)

C80 – rezones parts of Grange and Glen Huntly Road section from GRZ to Commercial 2 and from Industrial to Commercial 1 (12/12/2013) (Permit for 6 storeys and 117 dwellings)

C83 – attempt to remove heritage overlay from Seaview Street (13/10/2011)

C84 – removed the Development Contributions Overlay from the scheme (8/9/2011)

C85 – rezoning of various places from business to residential (17/2/2011)

C87 – Neighbourhood character overlays (31/3/2013)

C88 – rezoning 331-335 North Road and 120 Patterson Road from residential to business (1/9/2011)

C91 – rezoning of part of Oakleigh Road Carnegie from residential to public park zone (ie Packer Park properties – NOTE: the only properties bought by council in the past decade)

C92 – removes the monash medical centre precinct structure plan (17/11/2011)

C93 – removes the Commercial Centres Policy (28/3/2013)

C94 – Minister for Planning amendment to make “changes to the Schedule to Clause 52.06 to include car parking rates for a dwelling” for the Caulfield Village development (In their haste they ‘forgot’ to include this fundamental clause in the Schedule!!!!) (22/12/2011).

C95 – rezones land in Hawthorn Road Caulfield South (348- 54) and Olive Street from Commercial 2 to Commercial 1 ( 12/9/2013)

C97 – to include Seaview in heritage overlay (25/1/2012)

C98 – rezones part of Tovan Akas from industrial 3 to Residential Growth Zone (12/9/2013)

C99 – student housing parking rates (27/2/2014)

C100 (part 1) – rezones part of Neerim Road Carnegie from industrial to Mixed Use zone (23/5/2013) (permit for 5 storey and unnamed number of units)

C100 – rezones Neerim Road and part of Emily Street from industrial 3 to Mixed Use zone.(26/2/2013)

C100 (part 2) – rezones 394-412 Neerim Road and part of Emily from Industrial 3 to Mixed Use (registered 5/2/2015)

C102 – new non residential uses in residential zones (awaiting approval)

C106 – rezones part of Monash precinct from Commercial 1 to Public Use Zone (ie educational purposes and paves the way for Monash major development of 22 storeys). (16/7/2014)

C107 – include Moodie and other street(s) in Neighbourhood Character Overlay (waiting for approval)

C109 – removes the Minister as planning authority for the Monash Village development (29/8/2013)

C110 – introduces new residential zones (23/8/2013)

C111 – introduces changes to the Caulfield Village priority development Schedule – ie allows encroachment of setbacks and height (16/1/2014)

C112 – includes ‘transitional provisions’ into the new zones (3/10/2013)

C113 – heritage overlay to several properties in Caulfield as a result of Panel report (5/3/2015)

C114 – corrects an ‘administrative error’ regarding schedules to General Residential Zone 2 (19/12/2013)

C116 – corrects parking overlay ‘anomalies’ for amendment C99 (10/4/2014)

C117 – tried to apply a special dispensation to allow an illegal office in Kooyong Road to continue – councillors voted to abandon this amendment (last council meeting)

C119 – Corrects height controls for the Caulfield Village Incorporated Plan (10/4/2014)

C120 – open space levy (12/3/2015)

C 121 – Rezones 641 – 685 North Road from Commerical 2 to a Mixed Use Zone (set for directions hearing)

C123 – revises Child Care amendment – Panel set

C124 – Rezones 16 -20 Clairmont Avenue Bentleigh East from Industrial 3 to Mixed Use Zone. Council still to vote following recept of Planning Panel report.

C125 – rezones 1051 Glen Huntly Road from Public Use 1 to Public Use 6

C128 – Rezones 11 Princes Avenue, Caulfield East from Residential Growth Zone to Public use Zone 2 and removes the public acquisition overlay from the bounds of Monash Caulfield Campus. (18/12/2014)

C130 – Environmental overlay to 101-113 Grange Road and 2-4 Watsons Grove Glen Huntly and 118 Grange Road (16/4/2015)

C135 – public acquisition overlay to 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale (being exhibited) (removed in 2008 after ten or so years of existence, and now re-applied!)

C137 – heritage overlay to 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie (being exhibited)

We acknowledge that land which has ‘served its purpose’ should be rezoned. In Glen Eira however the rezoning has consistently advantaged developers rather than residents. One might query why so many of these changes resulted in the status of ‘commercial’ rather than the more limiting ‘mixed use’ zoning and why so few of these amendments have addressed what residents see as vital to limit the damage wrought by over development. The Design & Development Overlays available to councils are the perfect case in point. Glen Eira has 5 – 2 of which facilitate further development and 3 concern themselves exclusively with the height of fences! That is the agenda in a nutshell!

27th March 2015          Ratio Consultants

http://www.ratio.com.au/minister-approves-new-res-zones-for-moreland

Minister advises Moreland City Council of New Residential Zones approval

Amendment C153 to the Moreland Planning Scheme implementing the new residential zones was verbally approved to Moreland City Council by Minister for Planning Richard Wynne on 13 March.

The Minister’s decision has been made despite the recommendations of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee, which were released on 20 June 2014.

The Standing Advisory Committee Report recommended that Amendment C153 to the Moreland Planning Scheme should not be approved and that Council should prepare a Housing Strategy to properly inform and justify the application of the new zones. According to the Committee, the strategic planning frameworks contained within the Planning Scheme, and the strategic work undertaken by Council in relation to the proposed Amendment C153, together did not provide the justification required for approval. Accordingly, it was recommended that residential land within Moreland be rezoned to General Residential Zone.

The decision to adopt and submit Amendment c153 to the Minister for Planning was made at the Council meeting on 10 December 2014. The version of Amendment c153 adopted by Council at the meeting contained revisions to the Schedules to the Zones and minor changes to the Zone maps.

The areas where the zones are to be implemented and the key features of the Schedules to the new Residential Zones are summarized as follows:

• The Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ1) contains mandatory height controls that limit development to 8 metres and apply a density control of 1 dwelling per 250 square metres for developments of 3 or more dwellings on a lot. The NRZ1 has been applied to Residential land north of Moreland Road, west of Melville Road, Heritage Overlay Precincts and land more than 800 metres from an Activity Centre or Rail Station.
• The Neighbourhood Residential Zone 2 (NRZ2) contains mandatory height controls that limit development to 8 metres and apply a density control of 1 dwelling per 200 square metres for developments of three or more dwellings on a lot. The NRZ2 has been applied to residential land south of Moreland Road, east of Melville Road, areas within Heritage Overlay precincts and beyond General Residential Zone transition areas.
• The General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1) contains a mandatory height control of 8 metres and variations to Clause 54 and 55 relating to landscaping and Private Open Space requirements. The GRZ1 will be applied to residential land north of Moreland Road within approximately 800 metres of Activity Centres and a Rail Station, Residential land south of Moreland Road and along the Melville Road tram corridor.
• The Residential Growth Zone 1 (RGZ1) and Residential Growth Zone 2 (RGZ2) contain mandatory height controls of 13.5 metres and 10.5 metres respectively. These do not apply if the height of development on abutting land is greater than 13.5 metres or if the land is within an endorsed Structure Plan that nominates a greater height for development on the site. Both of these zones have been applied to land within activity centres.

We advise that at the time of printing, the zones are yet to be gazetted.

Should you have any queries in relation to the amendment please contact our planning team on 9429 3111 or at mail@ratio.com.au.

When big money is involved (for both developers and council) then transparency and truth are the inevitable victims. We revisit the Virginia Estate proposal since the claims by the developer, council officers and councillors appear to be at odds and are strikingly reminiscent of what occurred with the Caulfield Village enterprise. Here’s why:

• Gillon cites 1250 new dwellings in this week’s Leader articles. In the officer’s report the figure of 4,400 was stated. Magee even claimed 5000 new dwellings.
• Caulfield Village started off with a proposed figure of 1100 dwellings. At this stage it has ballooned out to over 2000 – on a site that is half the size of Virginia Estate. We anticipate further increases once the remaining development plans are submitted.
• How council can cite 4,400 new dwellings and Gillon only 1250 needs explanation – especially when the existing amendment (or equivalent of the Caulfield Village Incorporated Plan) grants permission for towers ranging from 4 to 10 storeys.
• Council quotes directly from the ‘Retail Impact Statement’. Hence detailed documentation by Gillon does exist. It would also have existed when they approached the department and the Minister. Undoubtedly private discussions between Gillon and Council have been going on for some time. Requests for changes to setbacks and other conditions of the current amendment are not agreed to without some clear indication of why this is needed. Setback reductions can only mean more land for more development. Council’s reasons for agreeing to this are top secret as revealed in the non-answer to this public question –
  

“In 2011 Council resolved that the schedule for Amendment C75 maintain the 8 metre setback to East Boundary Road. The officer report now states: “The DPO will be amended to require that any land development within 6 metres of the East Boundary Road must be to Council’s satisfaction”. Why and on what basis has it been recommended to renege on a previous council resolution and the terms of the gazetted Schedule 2?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The request to change the existing DPO is a new amendment process and is totally separate to Amendment C75. The proposed changes to the existing DPO will be required to go through a full

public exhibition and independent panel process. At the conclusion of the amendment process, Council can decide to either support or reject this amendment.”

And as with the Caulfield Village fiasco, residents are the last to know what is really going on. Yes, a ‘public information event’ might be held. But how much veracity residents can rely on from both council and the developer is the real question! Finally, as has already been noted – when each and every councillor basically spoke against the requested amendment, why on earth did they vote to exhibit rather than reject! Given Andrew Newton’s email to the Minister’s Office, the writing is on the wall that the proposed Amendment will be pushed through – aka Caulfield Village!