GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

July 13, 2012

Proposed Planning ‘Reforms’

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Matthew Guy and the Department have released what can only be euphemistically called a ‘discussion paper’ (uploaded here). Short on details, but big on generalities and promises, the paper is anything but what most reasonable people would consider to be an objective and informative outline of the proposals, and the potential benefits and drawbacks.

Most concerning is that ‘feedback’ is required by late September, yet full details will only be released in October. In other words, the public is expected to comment blindly on something that they have limited information on. We suggest that readers pay particular attention to the following table extracted from the ‘fact sheet’. Please click on the image to enlarge.

 

 

 

July 11, 2012

Media Release

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Zone reforms to return planning certainty

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

The Victorian Coalition Government’s sweeping reform of planning zones will return certainty to our suburbs and towns and in particular to councils, residents and the development industry.

“Planning zones are the greatest indicator of the style of development for any area. The Coalition Government’s sweeping zones reform package aims to give certainty for areas that deserve protection and those identified as growth nodes,” Mr Guy said.

“The Coalition Government’s zone reforms reflect what communities have been crying out for, for many years – clear identification of areas that can grow and strong protection for areas that are designed to be low rise, low density neighbourhoods,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what makes Melbourne great – our streetscapes, our amenity, our liveability, while encouraging density and growth in clearly defined areas,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s zones reform package features three new residential zones:

  • Residential Growth Zone;
  • General Residential Zone; and a
  • Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

“The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will be an instrument that can be adopted by councils to protect existing amenity of suburbs and towns.

“It will give many areas the protection they deserve and will be the strongest residential protection zone ever offered in the Victorian planning system,” Mr Guy said.

This zone will include a number of features including mandatory height controls, stricter regulations around subdivision and the consideration of minimum lot sizes. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone will also be able to protect existing streetscapes and amenity with clear guidelines on what can be supported by a planning permit application.

In order to support integrity of the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone the Coalition Government has also introduced a number of complementary residential zones that will support development of medium and higher density housing in appropriate locations.

The new Residential Growth Zone will provide for a clear level of growth and change in identified areas that have clear targets for greater density. Councils will be able to use this zone to provide a new incentive to direct density and built form change in areas that are well known and identified.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of the local councils. It will ultimately be the view of the community that will inform which zone best fits where,” Mr Guy said.

“Victoria’s economic integrity is at the forefront of its planning decisions and these reforms are no different. The residential zone reform package supports Victoria’s economy by clarifying where development can occur and what can be built,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, it returns a level of planning certainty that has been sorely missing for the past decade,” Mr Guy said.

Under the Coalition Government’s planning reform agenda, plans for new outer urban growth have been released as well as the identification of Australia’s largest inner city, urban renewal project in Fisherman’s Bend.

These projects, combined with planning law changes and planning zone reform represent a major overhaul of the Victorian planning system since the change of government in November 2010.

“The time is right for planning reform and the Coalition Government is getting on with the job of delivering it.”

The key features of the reformed planning zones will be issued for feedback for a period of 2 months from Monday 17 July until Friday 21 September.

 

July 10, 2012

Letters To The Editor

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[11] Comments 

Council policy detrimental 

IT’S no wonder the blocks in Glen Eira get smaller and the growth gets higher. Glen Eira Council continues to operate planning policy to the detriment of residents.

It will soon get to the point where there are as many amendments to their scheme as there are applications.

A number of voters are calling on the council to review its entire planning scheme and introduce structure plans that can identify density and heights before applications are received.

Newton Gatoff

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

Bitter blow to residents  

NEWS of the Caulfield racecourse development proceeding is a bitter blow to local residents.

While the development will be almost a billion dollars itself, little, if any, infrastructure will be provided to cater for it. This will see both road and rail networks overwhelmed, along with drainage and parking. Open space will also be reduced. Given the chorus of community opposition, you really have to wonder if we are living in a developers’ dollar-dazzler democracy.

Matthew Knight

 

July 6, 2012

VCAT: Telling It Like It Is!

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

Tuesday night’s ‘discussion’ on the VCAT results for the Rosstown Rd application were full of the usual handwringing by several councillors – Esakoff, Hyams and especially Magee. In the end they all continue to miss the point and to parade themselves as concerned, indignant, and outraged residents lambasting VCAT for all of council’s planning ills. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth. In essence, what the member concluded in the Rosstown Rd judgement was clear and unavoidable – if Council can’t apply their own policy, then VCAT would do it for them! And what is this policy? Major activity centres should have up to 10 storey developments according to the ground rules laid down by council and supported year after year by councillors!!!

We’ve said this time and time again. Glen Eira Council’s Planning Scheme is manna from heaven for developers. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, without explicit parking precinct plans, activity centres and their residents have been sacrificed on the altar of greed. The arguments that VCAT is totally to blame remains a nonsense. Magee’s claim ‘I hate VCAT’ is even more insulting in light of his and other councillors’ total inaction. We even are left to wonder if:

  • Councillors have ever read the planning scheme?
  • Do they really understand its full implications?
  • How many of them go back and read the actual VCAT decisions?
  • How do they explain the fact that this council has NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED to gain formal height limit restrictions?

Tang now talks of ‘ideology’. Rubbish we say! Ideology which is quite prepared to inflict such pain on residents has no place in any planning scheme. Councillors who continually ignore the root cause of a major problem have no right to claim to represent residents. And councillors who continually trot out the bogey-man excuse of VCAT have no real understanding of what is going on.

We urge all readers to carefully consider what the member actually stated. Below are extracts from his judgement and from other judgements that he quotes. Newton and Akehurst have set the agenda via their planning scheme. This is the future, unless the ‘revolution’ continues!

“The Council conceded that the site is located within the Carnegie Urban Village, identified as a Major Activity Centre, and therefore in a higher order activity centre where Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement encourages significant urban consolidation.

Carnegie is identified as a Major Activity Centre and therefore is identified as an appropriate location to achieve more intense forms of urban consolidation than would be expected in the residential hinterland, and in lower order activity centres.

the central area of these type of urban villages can be expected to attract redevelopment proposals involving at least 5-10 levels of proposed built form, or even possibly more (recognising however that each application must be assessed on its own merits)

It is clear therefore, from the analysis of policy, that more intense building forms are anticipated within these urban villages, increasing in intensity as one draws closer to the core of these centres.

The review site is therefore firmly entrenched near the core of the urban village. This has implications due to the local policy as to the intensity of development that is encouraged on the review site.

I therefore find that both state and local policy encourages an intense form of residential development to be achieved on the review site, which would represent a significant degree of change from the traditional housing stock. Policy does not anticipate that the form and scale of development will respect the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as would be expected in a location outside of the activity centre. Instead, in this location developments that are more intense than the surrounding character are firmly encouraged.

Both the Council and Mr Dyer demonstrated that the existing approvals for development within the Carnegie Urban Village currently peak at four storeys. However I do not draw the conclusion urged upon me from that analysis, that four storeys should be, or is likely to be, the ultimate height for future development in this activity centre. More to the point, if indeed this Major Activity Centre were limited to four storeys of development in the future, it would represent a significant under-realisation of the expectations of this centre from both State and Local policy. If Carnegie were to develop to a maximum of four storey forms, it would amount to a failure of policy to achieve the outcomes that it so clearly seeks to achieve.

I therefore do not accept the submissions made that four storeys is an appropriate limit for development generally in the Carnegie Urban Village.

In my view it would be absurd to require development on the review site to transition to the existing single storey housing stock, when that housing stock is encouraged by policy to be replaced by more intense building forms.

Having regard to the whole of policy that is before me, it is therefore entirely clear that a five storey development would be entirely consistent with the strategic objectives for this locale. Indeed, from my analysis I conclude that policy supports a building greater than 5 storeys in height in this location, but a five storey development is what is before me, and it is clear that has policy support.”

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

To make matters worse, below is a photograph (taken earlier this week) of ‘traffic management’ in Rosstown Rd!

 

July 3, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[6] Comments 

Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!

The issues we are referring to are:

  1. The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
  2. The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
  3. The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.

It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.

Amendment C102

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

June 30, 2012

Snails Move Faster!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

In August 2010, we had the mock Planning Scheme Review – allegedly based on “extensive consultation” . Funny how resident views via submissions were not published, but such views barely made it into the final “Action Plan”. We thought it would be interesting to go back and review the review. Specifically, we were looking at:

  • What was promised but has not been done in two years time – ie many of the following indicated a completion date of 2010/11. We are now just on two years down the track and there’s no movement at the station. What has been “completed” of course, are all those amendments which would allow more and more residential development!
  • The other completed amendments involve REMOVAL of such important sections as the Development Contributions Levy, Commercial Centres Policy, and this coming week the revamping of the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
  • We simply have to ask: are these really the most urgent, the most important components of the Planning Scheme? Or are they merely those components which will allow more and more open slather for developers and that’s why they receive priority treatment?

Below we list all the so called Action Items which are still to get a look in. They make for some impressive reading we think!

  • Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy
  • Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
  • Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
  • Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)
  •  Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
  • Do not implement structure plans. Instead, complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
  • Review the Housing Diversity Area policy to provide prescriptive guidance.
  • Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
  • Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements
 

June 29, 2012

Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[8] Comments 

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY

PROPOSED   CHANGES
To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas   which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side.   Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

 

 

The   proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

 

 

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

 

 

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

he  standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car  parking and public transport.

 

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

 

Where  car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

 

 

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

 To  encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

 

Encourage the   location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably   compromised.

 

DISAPPEARED   and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas   (as defined in Clause 22.08)

 

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in   a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

 

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

 

 

Retain any high priority significant trees  or landscape features within the design where possible.

 

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in  a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

 

DISAPPEARED
 

June 21, 2012

The Stats: Cars & Dwellings

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has started releasing its data from the last census. Many residents, and a few councillors, have stated that they would prefer to wait for all the figures to come out BEFORE a Community Plan is ratified. The reasoning is clear. Unless we know hwo many people, how many cars, how many dwellings, how many aged, etc. planning can be hit and miss.

We present below two sets of figures:

1. The number of dwellings and their composition (ie family, lone person households) as well as the structure of these dwellings.

2. The number of cars per family/dwelling

Both sets of figures provide some startling results. For example: lone person and single parent households represent nearly a third of all Glen Eira residents making this an extremely high proportion who will be hit the hardest by continual rate rises. Then there are the number of cars per family/dwelling. Again, if anyone wanted ‘evidence’ as to our reliance on the motor car, then it is here in spades. Yet, the question needs to be asked: what is council doing about traffic management, pedestrian safety, bike safety, etc. etc.

Please have a look at the tables and offer your thoughts. Click on the tables themselves to enlarge.

 

June 13, 2012

Council & The Inviolability Of The Law!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[14] Comments 

We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.

We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.

Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.

TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….

COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?

PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’  and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.

ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various  applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’

COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!

LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….

COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?

PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.

TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.

ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?

PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.

MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.

COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!

HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.

COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.

TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).

MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.

 

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

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

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

  1. “ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
  2. “Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
  3. “My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
  4. “The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
  5. “the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
  6. “The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
  7. “”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »