GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

August 29, 2013

Open Space: Here We Go Again!

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

We’ve reported previously on the sale of 487 Neerim Road that abuts parkland. Council claimed that it could not buy the land to extend open space and so was sold off to a developer for over $2 million. It is on the market again – as a mortgagee’s auction! (see below). However this time, the pending sale is in concert with a planning application for 17 ‘villas’. Obviously a ploy to increase the value of the land and reap the biggest return. We reiterate, that what was originally Minimal Change is now well and truly planted in the middle of a Growth Zone. So much for council’s concern for neighbouring amenity. This speaks volumes of the incremental, secret, and ongoing increases in Housing Diversity throughout the municipality. For those interested, GERA, made several postings on this matter a while back. See: http://geresidents.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/lost-open-space-opportunity-update/

487

PS: Surprise! Surprise! Here’s another large sized property up for sale and Yes, there’s a planning application in for “multi-level” and 30 dwellings – all smack in the middle of Minimal Change! The application went in on the 15th August – well after the official announcement by the Minister but before the gazetting of the new zones! How convenient!

st aubins

 

August 18, 2013

Worse Than Car Salesmen!

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

Below are the ‘responses’ to last week’s public questions. We ask readers to consider:

  • How much credibility do any of these ‘responses’ deserve?
  • How much faith should residents place in the imputation that the zones are largely the handiwork of the Minister and that little ‘ol Glen Eira Council was not the instigator and/or responsible for the outcomes?
  • Why would a Minister bother with such a small site as the Alma Club when he hasn’t intervened in the C60 or other major developments such as the Clover Estate, etc? In our view, the rezoning of the Alma Club and other sites has to be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of Council and not the Minister.
  • Who wrote the schedules? Surely not the Minister?
  • Please note how many sections of these questions are totally ignored
  • Once again, not all public questions were read out or their existence even acknowledged.
  • And the most important question was – why the secrecy?

QUESTION 1

1. On what precise date was Amendment C110 (Residential zones) submitted to the Minister and/or DPCD?

2. Why hasn’t the full Amendment and its schedules been made public by council prior to its being gazetted – especially since it has now been announced?

“Council does not have Amendment C110. It is, of course, not possible for Council to publish a document that is not in our possession.

When the Minister announced the creation of three new residential zones in March 2013, he said that he would translate Councils’ planning schemes into the new zones by Ministerial Amendment. A Ministerial Amendment is different to the process you are familiar with which involves Exhibition, an Independent Panel and Adoption.

After the Minister announced his openness to Ministerial Amendments, this Council sought differential zones and mandatory maximum height limits, which the Glen Eira community and Council have sought for many years, based on the established Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies. On 5 August, the Minister announced that he had approved a translation into the new residential zones and issued a Media Release to that effect.

Ministerial Amendment C110 also includes some elements which Council did not raise such as the rezoning of the site of the former Alma Club in Caulfield North to the General Residential Zone and the rezoning of the ABC’s studios in Gordon St, Elsternwick to the Residential Growth Zone.

It follows that there was no precise date on which Amendment C110 was submitted to the Minister in the way that most planning scheme amendments which have been prepared and adopted by a Council.

Amendment C110 is scheduled to be Gazetted on 23 August 2013. The mandatory maximum height limits and other benefits will apply to applications lodged on and after that date.”

QUESTION 2

New Residential Zones were announced last week which show 1 Wilks St site allocated General Residential Zone Schedule 1 with minimal setbacks to the abutting Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1. This fails to meet the Transition Buffers as elucidated to in “5.9 Transition Buffers” of the Guide to the New Residential Zones; buffers which apply to all other abutting transitions. 

Question 1. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning for 1 Wilks St site was not retained as Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the equivalent of the old Minimal Change Area, particularly as it completely contravenes all the reasons given by Council for unanimously rejecting the Planning Application GE/PP25557/2013? 

Question 2. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning was made General Residential Schedule 1 not General Residential Schedule 2, particularly as 1 Wilks St is abutted on over 3 sides by Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1?  

Question 3. Who (officer, department, council or government person or the like) made these aberrant recommendations and who authorised these aberrant decisions?

Question 4. Under whose or what authority were these decisions made?

Question 5. Further to my question on zoning of 1 Wilks St, what action is Council now taking, or intends to take to rectify the error in Transition Buffers for all properties abutting the 1 Wilks St site? 

The Minister for Planning applied the new zones by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account and largely adopting requests from Council. However, Council did not canvass any change for the site of the former Alma Club at 1 Wilks Street, Caulfield North. Council assumed a direct translation from Minimal Change to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Council was advised on 5 August that the former Alma Club had been included in the General Residential Zone. Council’s understanding is that the site will have its own Schedule which will be consistent with the setbacks set out in the officer report on the planning application considered by Council on 2 July 2013. Details should be clear by the time of Gazettal which is scheduled for 23 August.

The planning application for the site is before VCAT. That appeal would be determined in accordance with the rules which applied at the time the application was lodged, including the Minimal Change policy

QUESTION 3

Given that the

1. Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010 and scheduled for the 4 yearly review in 2014 and

2. Council had 12 months to implement the new residential zones Could Council please provide its reasons for electing not to consult with the community on the introduction of the new residential zones? 

Glen Eira has had policies in the Planning Scheme for the last nine years which differentiate the municipality into Minimal Change Areas and Housing Diversity Areas. Those policies were incorporated into the Planning Scheme following extensive community consultation. The policies are well understood within our community. (Policies are, however, open to interpretation as is regularly seen at VCAT and greater certainty could only be achieved by the use of controls ie zones.)

Council undertook a Review of the Planning Scheme in 2010-11. Through the consultative mechanisms of the Review, the community made clear that it is seeking:

 mandatory maximum height limits binding on all parties, including VCAT;

 transition controls to step development more gradually between higher and lower density areas; and

 greater certainty for both existing residents and providers of additional residential housing.

The three new zones provide the opportunity to achieve these enhancements which are not possible under a policy framework.

Based on the outcomes of these consultative processes, Council sought a direct and neutral conversion to the new zones which achieved the outcomes sought by the community. If the process had not addressed the community’s expressed priorities, Council would have discontinued that process.

The translation which has been approved introduces greater protections for the benefit of existing residents as well as greater clarity for those wishing to proceed with residential development. The mix of zones, like the policies before them, provides for a clearer balance between retaining valued Neighbourhood Character and opportunities for higher density sustainable development at appropriate locations around public transport and shopping centres.

It is important to bear in mind that these zones were applied by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account, and largely adopting, Council requests. It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community.”

 

July 31, 2013

Another Chain-Saw Massacre?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Council has announced another community consultation for a landscape plan at Koornang Park. The accompanying blurb states: “The plan sees the removal of the predominant row of over-mature Cupressus macrocarpa trees (Monterey Cypress) which are at high-risk of tree limb failure.” The blurb then goes on to say: “The development of the landscape plan has been guided by principles which prioritise safety, increase useable open space and promote environmental sustainability.”

Council has also provided a link to their ‘Have Your Say’ on their webpage. We acknowledge the fact that this time there is at least some form of ‘consultation’ (unlike the Duncan McKinnon episode) and the questions are open-ended. However, we are entirely sceptical as to the claim that ALL OF THESE TREES represent a physical danger, or if in fact, any of them do.

We ventured down to Koornang Park today and spoke with numerous residents who had no idea of what was going on. They also expressed alarm at the prospect of losing so many of these cypress trees. Please note that the ‘landscape concept’ does not indicate anywhere how many of these trees are to be removed.

What many of these residents did say was:

  • The trees provide a terrific sound barrier to block out the traffic noise from busy Koornang Rd
  • The trees also provide a natural barrier from the playground to the street so that young children cannot run onto the road – the playground is not fenced.

Apart from the fact of losing valuable and we maintain healthy trees, the safety issues in the above points would appear to go against council’s claim of ‘prioritising safety’. Rather, we are at a loss to understand why cypress trees have suddenly become public enemy number one for this council!

P1000163

P1000164P1000161

 

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

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

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

  1. A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
  2. The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
  3. The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
  4. The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
  5. The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28th May and submissions closed on the 6th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

  • How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
  • Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
  • Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
  • How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
  • To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
  • What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

 

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

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

plazaCOMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

++++++++++++++++++

And from The Stonnington Leader –

car share

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

 

July 1, 2013

‘Consultation’ Glen Eira Style!

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

Residents beware! Council is pretending to undergo a ‘community consultation’ process on the Caulfield Park Conservatory. Despite the fact that the ill-named Community Plan endorses and emphasises the need for multiple methods of consultation, all that is being done in this case is a ‘survey’ with preset and predetermined questions. Far from being a ‘neutral’ set of questions, here we have questions that are not placed in context and completely fail to provide residents with the information that is essential in order for them to ‘prioritise’ a single thing. Grandiose statements such as “Council is asking residents to express their views via a survey” (from website) ignores the simple fact that there simply is no avenue for residents to write a single word about their views. It is all ‘tick the box’ approach to a predetermined and slanted set of questions.

Following a few demographic questions such as what use do you make of the park and whether the respondent is a resident or trader, the heart of the issue is presented as a series of ‘options’ that residents are requested to grade from 1 (most preferred) to 10 (least preferred). How convenient that ‘cafe’ is first in the alphabet and ‘repair/restore’ comes last!

Here are the relevant questions in the order they are presented:

Please list your preferred options for the Conservatory from 1 to 10 (1=most preferred to 10=least preferred).

  1. Cafe – indoor/outdoor – capacity 50
  2. Cafe/tearooms – indoor/outdoor – capacity 80-100
  3. Children’s garden/playspace
  4. Community room/s
  5. Native/sustainable garden/environmental education hub
  6. Plant nursery
  7. Recreational/exercise area
  8. Remove Conservatory and return to open space
  9. Repair, restore and replant gardens
  10. Other

No real definition of anything is provided nor the implications. If the ‘capacity’ of 80 -100 is chosen as Number 1, then what does this mean in terms of ‘footprint’ of the ‘café’. How much open space will be lost to accommodate this number since it is certain that the current conservatory size will never be capable of seating this number within its walls. And exactly what is a ‘café’? Will full meals be served? Will the place remain open until late at night? Will there be a liquor license? And what of toilets/sewerage, kitchens, loading bays, parking and general access? Will we have roads built into the park to enable access for all service deliveries? How much more land will be lost? How many trees will be placed in jeopardy?

Asking residents to ‘prioritise’ when they have absolutely no idea of what it is they are prioritising is devious, deceptive, and deliberately misleading. Yet, council has no qualms in spending ratepayers’ money on glossy, meaningless ‘surveys’ if they know it will get the Lipshutz’s of this world the result that he and the other ‘conservatives’ want!

Another issue – apart from the question of using public open space for commercial purposes – : who will pay for this ‘redevelopment’? Will council outfit the place and then simply lease it to some commercial operator as it has done with the café at GESAC for the princely sum of over $300,000? Will Council and therefore ratepayers pay for sewerage connections? Will we pay for access roads or will the lessee have to cover ALL the costs?

We reiterate! None of the answers to these questions have been included in the bogus ‘survey’. It is akin to asking people to vote on something that they have no idea of what they’re voting for. Only when residents can evaluate the options based on a full understanding of what they actually mean can we call this ‘consultation’. Only when residents are offered the opportunity to actually express their individual views as they wish, can we have any faith in any of the ‘consultation process’ that this council introduces.

 

June 24, 2013

Agenda: Budget, Council Plan & Open Space

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –

  • As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
  • Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
  • Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!

Open Space Policy

  • Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
  • Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
  • Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.

Defined Benefits Scheme

Here’s the Swabey recommendation –

“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June

2015 in accordance with the following schedule:

– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;

– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and

– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.

We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.

As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.

Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –

The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25th June 2013)

On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.

Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.

 

June 20, 2013

Racecourse, Council & Government: The ‘Unholy Alliance’!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space
[7] Comments 

We’ve received an email from a resident regarding a complaint sent into the Minister. Here is the response. Please note that the final sentence of this letter should read: “It is hoped that the Trust and the MRC will continue to work with Glen Eira City Council to monitor the use, and if required, improve the community facilities provided in the centre of the track.”

Racecourse Centre0001

 

June 18, 2013

ABC Studios

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[5] Comments 

abc

PS: The potential sale of the ABC studios is nothing new. In fact, it has been on the cards for at least ten years. That raises the question of what Council has been doing in the meantime? Is it another instance of too little, too late? The horse has already bolted? Below are some media reports that will interest residents. Please note one real estate agent’s comments regarding the lack of height limits set by council!

The Rippon Lea Estate point of view – http://www.nattrust.com.au/advocacy/campaigns/abc_for_rippon_lea

PLUS

ABC’s Slice of Rippon Lea Estate, Elsternwick, Expected to Sell For More than $25 Million

Written by Marc Pallisco

Monday, 26 October 2009 23:16
 

Rippon Lea

AN 8,000 square metre slice of Elsternwick’s historic Rippon Lea estate, compulsorily acquired by the State Government in the 1950s for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – is likely to be sold to residential developers, if the ABC vacates the property in 2012.

ABC project director Ray Moore told Secret Agent it is considering selling two Elsternwick properties, currently occupied as studios and offices, including a major complex on Gordon Street abutting Rippon Lea – built on what was once the property’s southern boundary.

Moneys raised from the sales will fund the development of a new $90 million studio at 102 Sturt Street in Southbank, Mr Moore said. The Sturt Street development, which would be next door to an existing ABC office at 120 Southbank Boulevard, is subject to parliamentary approval, but expected to occur.

Sources estimate the value of ABC’s outgoing Gordon Street office to be about $25 million.

They say the land could make way for an apartment complex, similar to that being proposed around the Stonington mansion in Malvern, or a lower density subdivision, as occurred behind Canterbury’s Frognall mansion in the early 1990s.

At close to a hectare, the site could also make way for several apartment towers offering Port Phillip and CBD views, over Rippon Lea’s established gardens.

ABC offices and studios were developed on part of the Rippon Lea estate, prior to the opening of the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games. Popular television shows including Countdown, The Big Gig and The Late Show were later recorded at what is known as the “Rippon Lea studio”.

The land occupied by the ABC is not on the Victorian Heritage Register, but a Heritage Victoria spokeswoman said the ABC could still return the land to the estate, if it wanted. The imposing Rippon Lea property is managed by the National Trust, and open to the public.

Source: http://www.realestatesource.com.au/abcs-slice-of-rippon-lea-estate-elsternwick-expected-to-sell-for-more-than-25-million.html

 

PLUS

 

ABC set to leave home

Phillip Hudson and Nathan Mawby

3 May 2013

Herald-Sun

THE ABC will be leaving its historic TV studios at Ripponlea and the valuable property may be sold for high-rise residential development under plans to build a new headquarters for the national broadcaster in Southbank.

Famous ABC programs such as Countdown were produced at the Gordon St studios, which opened in 1956 with the introduction of television.

In recent years, it has been home to programs such as Adam Hills chat show In Gordon Street Tonight and filming for the series Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries.

Under the plan, the ABC will build a five-storey headquarters next to its existing Southbank offices, where its TV news moved in 2001.

It will include new TV studios and a major TV production centre.

The overhaul is aimed at guaranteeing jobs and production in Victoria.

The Federal Government will loan the ABC $90 million, which it has to repay by 2020.

ABC managing director Mark Scott said the new building would be designed to put the ABC’s many services on show.

“All the plans for this area are to make it more visible, more highly trafficked by pedestrians, make it more of a centrepoint of the centre,” he said.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the new building would be home to the ABC’s radio, television and digital production operations as well as its broadcasting and support services.

Senator Conroy said consolidating operations would allow the ABC to achieve operational savings and productivity benefits.

Local architect Robert Mills said the Ripponlea site’s proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and shopping meant that while a feasibility study would be done, it would likely become a residential site.

“It will be controversial, but I predict the final outcome will be a high-rise,” he said.

Mr Mills said that while the building had no council height restrictions, its height would likely be limited by shading.

The former Channel 9 studios in Bendigo St, Richmond, are being transformed into apartments and townhouses, selling for up to $1.2 million.

 

 

May 6, 2013

The Alma Club: Bye Bye Open Space!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

Alma Club

PS: As a footnote to the entire issue of planning and the failure of this council to not only implement but have any strategic vision for the city, we thought that residents would be interested in the following comments from one VCAT member in a recent decision.  This concerns a Dudley St application which has been making the rounds for nigh on 6 years. The area is listed as MINIMAL CHANGE, yet application after application has been rubber stamped for 5 storey student accommodation and other developments. Here’s what the member stated in his decision –

It is perhaps unfortunate that the future of this area is being considered on an ad hoc basis through multiple permits and amendments to permits when the locality has offered a real opportunity for a strategic planning exercise to acknowledge the land’s relationship to the Phoenix Precinct and other attributes. Sadly, the street interface along Gibson Street with garages, a substation and an extensive area of encased fire services, is an example, in my view, of a lost opportunity to achieve a quality and integrated solution for an area that could have had a much higher level of street amenity. Having said that, there is a strategic context provided by the Scheme within which decisions about individual applications can be made and the lack of a specific position in policy about the area’s future direction does not provide a reason to refuse the current amendment request.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/512.html

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »