GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

June 6, 2012

Community Plan/Budget: Short On ‘Solutions’

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

The draft Community Plan deserves credit for highlighting the problems and issues which will, and already are, impacting dramatically on residents. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to realise that traffic management, planning, and open space are key concerns. The Community Plan has this to say on these matters:

Population/Planning: “Additional dwellings required to support population changes in the future will impact upon Council’s town planning, traffic, parking, assets and infrastructure services. The appropriateness of new development and maintaining heritage of local housing continues to be a strong concern of local residents. Council needs to work with the State Government to ensure Victorian planning controls appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents.”

Traffic: “The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009 (VISTA) commissioned by the Department of Transport reveals that 72 per cent of all trips in Glen Eira during a weekday are undertaken as a car driver or passenger, ten per cent use public transport, 15 per cent walking and two per cent use a bicycle. These facts reveal opportunities to target and promote sustainable transport options”.

So, what STRATEGIES, what actions, what performance measures and what investment does the budget and the Strategic Resource Plan propose in order to address and resolve these ‘problems’. Sadly, very little. The above quotes are a good indication of how bereft, and unwilling, council is to tackle the core of the problem rather than merely tinkering with the edges. Planning should be about more than ‘maintaining heritage’ or working with government. It needs to ensure that the Planning Scheme has done everything it possibly can to ‘appropriately balance the needs of current and future residents’. There is no mention of this in the Action Plan apart from the very limited C87 and the ‘transition’ policy – already rubber stamped! Nor will the creation of 4 speed humps per year solve the growing problem of rat runs through local residential streets. If ‘safety’ is the primary concern, then much, much more needs to be planned and budgeted for. Residents should really ask: how many traffic lights have been installed; how many pedestrian crossings; how many roundabouts; how many splitter islands in the past two years?

The most obvious failing of these plans is the inability (or perhaps deliberate) blurring of what constitutes a strategy and an objective. We maintain that very few ‘strategies’ exist. The community/council plan is loaded with lofty goals, but is short on feasible, comprehensive strategies. The result is a complete lack of integration between goals, strategies and performance measures. Yet, heading after heading proudly states ‘strategy’. The following are NOT strategies – they are warm, fluffy, motherhood statements undoubtedly intended to provide the illusion that something is actually being done. We ask readers: are these ‘strategies’?

Improve safety and movement of road users and provide a fair and equitable balance of parking.
Improve road safety and manage congestion on the local road network.
Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas
Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.
Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

The list goes on an on. None are carefully laid out strategies that clarify, detail, nor provide clear criteria against which performance may be evaluated in the Action Plan and its ‘measures’. The result will be more of the same – a budget and council/community plan big on rhetoric, but failing in action and appropriate funding.

June 5, 2012

VCAT: More Council Failures?

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

Readers may remember a highly contentious planning application for 1a Albany Court, North Caulfield. This was for the extension of numbers and access for a synagogue. The gallery was full of objectors and the decision by councillors was split. This has now gone (again) to VCAT in the hope to extend the pedestrian carriageway. The full VCAT decision may be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/669.html

We present some extracts from the member’s decision which highlights the fact that Council:

Hasn’t sought enforcement orders for continual breaches of the permit
Hasn’t bothered to notify residents of this new application

“The Council explained there had been a synagogue (shul) operating at 1A Albany Court for a number of years without planning approval.”

“Nearby residents oppose this application for two main reasons. The first reason is the history of non-compliance by the permit applicant with the planning scheme (for operating an illegal synagogue); with the current planning permit (for erecting a walkway that is not on the land to which the permit applies); and other non-compliance with permit conditions. This is not a matter that I can deal with as this application is not an enforcement proceeding for compliance with the planning permit.”

“The Council initially opposed this amendment but during the hearing advised it no longer opposed this because the amendment is a relatively minor requirement. On the face of it, the creation of an easement may be considered a secondary aspect of this proposal. However, it is also an aspect for which separate planning permission is required and the Council needs to then determine if material detriment may result that necessitates the giving of public notice. As the planning application lodged with the Council has not been processed, I am not aware if the Council made a decision on this aspect of the processing of the application. In any event, the notification given as part of this section 87A application was limited to four properties at 2 and 3 Albany Court, 4 Grimwade Court and 18 Kambea Grove. If notice was required as part of a planning application, it would have been to at least the adjoining properties (as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires), and the notification undertaken by the Applicant in this case does not include all properties adjoining 2 St Aubins Avenue. Further, the extent of notification given in this application did not include all persons who originally objected, nor the persons who were originally notified of the proposed synagogue at 1 and 1A Albany Court (as identified in the Council’s Practice Note material provided to the Tribunal after lodgement of this application). For all of these reasons, I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include the additional planning permission for the creation of an easement in this permit”

May 23, 2012

Debate: Does It Really Exist?

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

We beg readers indulgence since we’re about to repeat ourselves. We have continually stated that residents have made it absolutely clear that their prime concern is inappropriate and/or over development. We have also stated that part of the problem is that far too much power is granted to officers via the delegations process and councillors rarely get a look in.

We’ve also remarked on how Tuesday night’s council meeting had a warm and fluffy feeling where everybody was congratulating everybody else for GESAC, for parks and gardens, and so forth. Yet, hidden away in the agenda there was another draft of delegations.

Residents should expect that what happens in chamber is more than back slapping and mutual admiration societies. That when important agenda items crop up (ie delegations, environmental sustainability) that there at least be ‘robust’ discussion and that these recommendations are not simply rubber stamped by a bunch of either disinterested or compliant councillors.

What we’ve done below is feature the time taken to decide on some of these agenda items as well as the discussion on the GESAC report. Readers should note that delegations warranted a bare 90 seconds of council time. Compare this to the amount of time expended on the back slapping!

9.1 GESAC

Moved Lipshutz; seconded Lobo

LIPSHUTZ: started off with explaining that GESAC opened on 7^th May with a ‘soft opening’ and the official opening will be on 22^nd June. The facility is an ‘unmitigated success…..beyond our wildest dreams….quickly taken up by members…..almost 5000 members….because 95%…is indoors (it can be used all year round)….(so the delay) ‘whilst unfortunate is not significant’…clubs haven’t used it fully (as yet because of) ‘mid season’….we expect that the next round of seasons’ (facilities will be taken up fully)….83 schools within (area)….’of course teething problems’…(such a success that contacted by Australian Properties & other councils and invited to) ‘nominate for an award for innovation’…’at the present moment this is the benchmark’…’feather in the cap’ (for this and previous councils and public for their vision)…’wonderful facility’

LOBO: GESAC is ‘a jewel in the crown of Glen Eira’….’privileged to be one of the foundation members’…’great place offering all year round health’…..’I visit GESAC twice a day’….4914 (members)….numbers skyrocketing….’was budgeted to cost $41.2 million and to the great financial management of this Council ….has paid $37 million’….(staff members live locally and work part time. Rest of speech was basically a regurgitation of the Newton provided Officers Report apart from the aside – ‘Glen Eira Debates and Glen Eira Residents’ Association need to take a positive look of this worthwhile project……(instead of negative)….’it takes courage to say a spade is a spade’….(Thanked the Steering committee – ie Lipshutz, Esakoff & Magee for their ‘fantastic’ job and Newton and his directors).

ESAKOFF: began by saying how as a child learning to swim at the Bentleigh pool the transition is ‘quite amazing’….seed that was planted back in 2005….consultation period….to watch it grow …through that process of design…..watching it grow and now seeing it in its full glory (an amazing experience)….(thanked government for subsidies).

MAGEE: GESAC ‘has no equal’…’gratifying to be a councillor at this time’….’this council is the major stakeholder’….’we are the ones that built it…..we couldn’t have done it without our community…..community through their rates will fund this…(community has endorsed GESAC and) ‘waited patiently’….(5000 members shows that community) ‘weren’t put off by GESAC opening that few months late’…..(took so long because of quality work) ‘the fittings, workmanship’….GESAC will be there for the next 50, 60 hopefully the next 100 years’….(thanked Waite and his department, but ultimately has to thank) ‘our CEO…without….(him the project wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality it is)….’nowhere near as successful …..’thank…from the bottom of my heart’….

TANG: ‘thrilled’ it’s open….’great disappointment that construction project that went behind time’….(visited on Sunday and compared to the pools of his youth. Place was packed with all range of ages)….(Numbers are ) ‘far beyond council’s expectations’ (and thus this isn’t just) ‘a white elephant, a monument to how big a building can we build’….’community facility’….(needs people and there are people there)….’budgetary aspect is certainly something that we have to report on’ (42 million and spent 37 million) ‘and hopefully not too much more’….we need to monitor carefully’….(courts were something community crying out for) ‘starting in the middle of the season….hasn’t been great….that’s the area for improvement’…..’have to get the people who are driving to Nunawading, driving to Albert Park (who don’t have these facilities to take up the ones at GESAC)

Asked CEO question about press reports on membership and compensation for members

NEWTON: ‘members have not been charged anything up til now….(that will start this week and first debits in June as recognition that project was delayed and some of these people) ‘would have had to pay memberships at other places’….’that’s been very well received’

PILLING: agreed with other councillors and that he and his friends have been down and it is a ‘great facility’…..(said that) ‘there are some gaps’ (in the courts)…’that’s understandable given’ (missed start to season)….’aquatic features are full’ (whenever he’s visited. Hoped that over the next 6 months all the courts would be) ‘well utilised’…..’down the track we will have to consider Carnegie Pool…..I don’t think the success of GESAC should (influence Carnegie)…I’m looking forward to having an argument down the track….

HYAMS: ‘great work that many people have done’ (steering committee, ceo, staff members)….’there will be gaps in the high ball courts….because they can’t transfer over in time…(but expected to see them all busy in a couple of months)…’little parking left (when he’s gone done which is an indication of) ‘how well it’s going’…..’if anyone wants any indication of (what people think of it just look on Facebook site). …’most significant capital project for years and years to come’….(agreed that Carnegie Pool was a facility that should be retained)

LIPSHUTZ: Esakoff had spoken about ‘seeds’ and coming to fruition. Lipshutz then said that ‘someone has to plant that seed’ (Newton)…..(in 2005 when new council came in Newton told them) ‘what a mess our two pools were’…..’losing money hand over fist and he certainly planted a seed……(went on to say how hard the Pool steering committee had worked and Waite and his team)….’builder certainly tried to cut corners…because of the way our project team worked (corners) were not cut’…’previous pools were losing money….this pool is built to make money…it will also be a financial success….’.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY – took approximately 18 minutes.

ITEM 9.2 quarterly report – 3 speakers – Pilling, Lipshutz, Tang. Approximately 7 minutes

Item 9.3 VCAT watch – 2 speakers – Lipshutz & Tang – approximately 5 minutes

Item 9.7 Park user surveys – 7 speakers Esakoff, Lipshutz, Tang, Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Hyams – approximately 13 minutes

Item 9.8 – environmental report – 3 speakers – Tang, Pilling, Lipshutz – approximately 8 minutes

ITEM 9.9 DELEGATIONS – 1 speaker – Lipshutz

APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS AND THIS INCLUDES THE AMENDMENT/CHANGES PUT BY LIPSHUTZ.

May 16, 2012

Appeal Rights – Going, Going,….Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[2] Comments

State moves to reduce building appeal rights

Jason Dowling

May 16, 2012

AN OVERHAUL of Victoria’s planning laws will begin next week when Planning Minister Matthew Guy introduces legislation that could mean up to 11,000 building permits being assessed annually without the current notification to neighbours or appeal rights. The government said the changes would apply to ”small-scale, low-impact applications such as home extensions and small works such as fences”.

But a detailed ministerial advisory report released last Friday indicates the new system would also be used for new buildings and subdivisions.

Council and community groups say the public is being kept in the dark on the extent of the planning changes, known as ”code assess”, including what rights of appeal will remain and if residents will be notified if next door decides to add a second storey.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the changes were code for ”unchecked development in our suburbs”. ”It will strip away a person’s fundamental right to say no to inappropriate development,” he warned.

Mr Guy told a parliamentary committee yesterday the planning changes would be for ”small” building applications.

”Where we have those small-scale low-impact applications, that’s where I see in residential areas a code assessment model brought forward and that may be for a pergola [or] home extension,” he said. ”Home extensions constitute around 20 per cent of the 55,000 permits that go through the planning system every year,” he said.

Mr Guy said most people did not care if they had no say over their neighbour renovating.

”The vast majority of Victorians want to have a say on planning, not around someone’s pergola or home extension. It is whether an eight-storey building can be built next to them, for instance,” he said.

The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said the planning changes should include the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments. ”We would ask that the whole system looks at multiple storeys,” she said. ”If we are just going to play around at the sides then we are not going to improve the system.”

But Ian Wood from Save Our Suburbs said there had not been enough community consultation about the planning changes. He said giving the community notification and appeal rights on planning ”leads to better planning outcomes and more accountability”.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said the government should make clear the planning changes before they were introduced to Parliament.

RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton said the government’s planning review was a missed opportunity.

”For example, one way to reduce work loads [of councils] is to introduce mandatory height controls in various areas so developers know that here we can build a 30-storey tower, there we can build a seven and there it is only two, and that would reduce the workload for councils overnight, that kind of certainty,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said while councils welcomed planning changes to reduce red tape, they would not support the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments.

May 11, 2012

The Leader, Council & The MRC

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

About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:

The resident was phoned up by The Leader. An ‘interview’ time was arranged
The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference

So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?

What also needs to be noted is:

The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?

Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council. We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.

To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?

After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

May 11, 2012

News Flash: Planning Review Reports

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments

The Minister for Planning has finally released the Committee’s report on the State Planning Review as well as the government’s response. The panel’s report is a hefty document and on a very cursory scan, together with the Minister’s response, we do not believe this augurs well for community involvement in planning issues.

From the DPCD website –

The Victorian planning system affects the everyday life of all Victorians. It regulates or relates to buildings and homes, the location of shopping centres and community facilities, as well as the location of transport infrastructure and recreation space.

Advisory Committee initial report

The Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy released the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee report and the Government’s initial response on 11 May 2012.

Some of the key recommendations that have already been actioned include:

continuing to develop a new metropolitan planning strategy and regional growth plans
taking action to reduce the backlog of cases and waiting time at VCAT
reviewing the adequacy of the current schedule of application fees
developing a new code assessment process for straight forward, low impact permit applications.

Recommendations that need further work to progress include:

reviewing the permit and amendment processes to make them more efficient
reviewing the operation of aspects of planning schemes, such as how local policy and planning overlays work
improving how the development contribution system works.

May 10, 2012

We’re Not Even At First Base!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments

Ivanhoe locals fear checks on high-rises will be too late

Carolyn Webb

May 10, 2012

Concerned Ivanhoe residents at the site of an advertised “Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity”. Photo: Wayne Taylor

IVANHOE residents fear developers could begin high-rise projects before the City of Banyule gives approval to its revised higher-density guidelines for the upmarket suburb – and the council agrees.

The draft Ivanhoe structure plan drew 800 objections when it was released last July. It recommended high-density buildings up to eight storeys in business hubs on Heidelberg, Upper Heidelberg and Lower Heidelberg roads that are mostly single or double storey at present.

After consultation, the revised structure plan, due out for review in July, is expected to lower the recommended building heights, and scrap five and six-storey developments at Ivanhoe and Darebin stations.
Architect Rob McGauran, who is advising the council, says buildings of up to four storeys are slated for the one kilometre of shops along the main Ivanhoe shopping strip on Upper Heidelberg Road, with the two upper storeys set back from the street.

A similar four-storey model is planned for the rundown Darebin shops along Heidelberg Road.

But locals are apprehensive about a recent flurry of real estate activity in Darebin, with agents already marketing single-storey houses and businesses as prime sites for multi-storey apartments and offices.

Helen Carr, co-convener of residents’ group Save Ivanhoe, would agree to a four-storey height limit in Darebin but pointed out that after its release, the structure plan could take years to be approved – a time frame Banyule City Council confirmed with The Age.

Ms Carr says there is a risk that developments approved in the interim ”could set a precedent for higher, large buildings”.

Banyule director of city development Scott Walker agreed, saying that: ”While there is no formal structure plan within the [Banyule] planning scheme, there is a risk of developments being approved by VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), because the structure plan provides less weight and guidance with VCAT until it’s formally in the Banyule planning scheme.

”Council has sympathy with residents’ concern about not having a structure plan.”

Ms Carr says the interest in property in normally sleepy Darebin in recent months is ”unprecedented”. On March 24, a VicRoads-owned car yard at 1065 Heidelberg Road sold for $1.89 million – $600,000 over the reserve price. On the same day, an art deco house at 1023 Heidelberg Road netted VicRoads a further $1.2 million, $400,000 over the reserve.

The purchaser of the latter was Ivanhoe Panel Works, whose owner, Angela Sahyoune, says she is meeting developers this week to discuss possible development of 1023.

A third VicRoads property – Stokers Coffee Lounge and car park – is expected to sell for more than $1.3 million at auction on May 26, according to Aaron Silluzio, of estate agents Barry Plant. The sale board markets it as an ”Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity”.

Elsewhere are developments rejected by the council that are subjects of appeal to VCAT.

Katrina Watson, who lives in Heidelberg Road, Darebin, called for a council moratorium on planning applications until the structure plan was approved.

Dr Watson moved to her present address because it had ”such a nice village atmosphere, trees, and lovely views over the hills because there’s no high-rise”.

”What’s allowed to be built there should be done according to community and council wishes with the protection of town planning opinion.”

May 8, 2012

VCAT: Telling It Like It Is

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[7] Comments

With practically every VCAT decision it is becoming clearer and clearer that this Council’s Planning Scheme is woefully inadequate in protecting residents from overdevelopment. The latest example features the decision on Etna St., Glen Huntly. Council approved this application for a four storey development (27 units) in November, 2011. Residents objected. The telling points of the VCAT member’s decision relates to the failure of Council to:

Delineate exactly where Housing Diversity begins and ends
The myth of ‘neighbourhood character’ being a ‘protection’ in Housing Diversity

We cite the relevant paragraphs below and also alert readers to the fact that not one word of the proposed Council Plan addresses any of these shortcomings. The full VCAT decision is found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/420.html

“In the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), Glenhuntly is designated a Major Activity Centre. The strategies for Principal and Major Activity Centres include

Have the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses

There is no requirement here that the development of Major Activity Centres should have any regard to issues of neighbourhood character. This is in contrast to the SPPF’s strategies for Neighbourhood Activity Centres, which do include (my emphasis):

Encourage higher density housing in and around Neighbourhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhances the character of the area while …

The site also meets the SPPF’s definition of a Strategic Redevelopment Site, being a site suitable for “for large residential development”.

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not define the extent of the Glenhuntly activity centre as such. However, it does designate Glenhuntly as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, being third in the activity centre hierarchy below urban villages and the Phoenix Centre. The site is also situated in a Housing Diversity Area^[, being an area which, amongst other objectives, is to promote increased housing diversity in terms of housing types, layouts and sizes whilst

Ensuring that density, mass and scale of residential development is appropriate to the location, role and neighbourhood character of the specific housing diversity area.

It is clear that Housing Diversity Areas are intended to accommodate increased housing densities, with the appropriate density around any centre being dependent on contextual factors. Contextual factors should properly include the status of each centre.

With respect to any conflict between the SPPF and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), s.7(4)(b) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 states

(4) If there appears to be an inconsistency between different provisions of a planning scheme—

(a) the scheme must, so far as practicable, be read so as to resolve the inconsistency; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a)

(i) the State standard provisions prevail over the local provisions; and …

Because of this, the centre must be treated as a Major Activity Centre wherein “intensive housing developments” should be encouraged. The only conflict that is to be avoided is that relating to “surrounding land-uses” (i.e. not neighbourhood character).

In order to read Council’s policies relating to neighbourhood character in a way that is consistent with s.7(4)(b) of the Act, much greater weight must be placed on increasing housing diversity and density around Glenhuntly Activity Centre than on maintaining the existing neighbourhood character. That is, any interpretation of the term “respectful of neighbourhood character” in relation to a Major Activity Centre, being a policy introduced in the LPPF and not overtly supported (though not excluded) by the SPPF, must be read down from the way it should be applied in a Neighbourhood Activity Centre as designated consistently with the SPPF.

I find that the SPPF should be read as supporting a substantial increase in housing densities, including increased building height, on a site such as this that is within or adjoining a Major Activity Centre (and although not a requirement, this finding is in my opinion consistent with Clause 22.07)”.

May 6, 2012

Council Plan: Planning & Development

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

Below is the section on Planning & Development from the Council Action Plan for 2012/3. We’ve numbered each ‘activity’ for ease of following.

Strategic Activity	Action	Measure
Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.	Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals.	Report the number of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly
2. Enforce the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and building control requirements across the City as well as compliance with any planning permits.	Conduct proactive site inspections for compliance with planning permit conditions and Local Law requirements, and investigate building enforcement matters. Enforce building control requirements.	300 proactive site inspections completed 200 building enforcement matters investigated
3. Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas.	Make decisions in accordance with Council’s Minimal Change area policy with an emphasis on Neighbourhood Character.	Report the number of neighbourhood character assessments carried out on residential developments within Minimal Change areas quarterly.
4. Strengthen town planning protection of residential areas identified as having significant character.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which uses the Neighbourhood Character overlay to better protect areas displaying significant character.	Following a report of independent Panel, Neighbourhood Character Overlay actioned in accordance with Council resolution
5. Reduce the intensity of residential development within Housing Diversity areas which interface with minimal change areas.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which moderates the intensity of residential development at the interface of the Housing diversity/ Minimal Change policy areas.	Once authorisation for the planning scheme amendment is obtained from State Government place the Transitions Policy on public exhibition
6. Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.	Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes.	Publish a Glen Eira News article
7. Provide an opportunity for all residents to be informed and to participate in town planning applications where they (and others) object.	Maintain both the non-statutory planning Conference (Council decision by resolution) and Delegated Planning Committee as forums for resident involvement in the town planning process.	Report on a quarterly basis the number of planning conferences and Delegated Planning Committee meetings held
8. Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.	Review the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) process and introduce process improvement which benefits all parties.	Trial a mediation process and report to Council on the results. Prove an information video which explains the DPC process for the benefit of residents involved
9. Ensure residents and ratepayers have access to simple and easy to use information about the Council town planning process, the responsibilities of developers and how to participate in the process.	Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) factsheet on town planning processes and controls	FAQ fact sheet developed and posted on the Council website.
10. Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers	Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process and identify areas for improvement	Report survey results back to Council
11. Encourage environmentally sustainable design (ESD) for new buildings.	Produce a standard information kit for planning applications to define ESD and Water Sensitive Urban Design in developments	Information kit distributed and placed on council website

QUESTION #1: Do the listed Measures really ‘measure’ what the ‘action’ proposes?

We are bemused by the notion that merely listing the ‘number’ of applications can in any shape or form influence the nature of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom unit developments in our neighbourhoods.
Measures 1 and 3 are practically identical, and further, simple ‘reporting’ on the ‘number’ of assessments does not influence the outcome of those assessments.
When there are over 1200 applications per year ,and consistently growing, do 200 and even 300 ‘proactive’ inspections ensure sufficient supervision? Also, what if any action follows such inspections? For example: does Council pursue developers for infringements? How many? How often?
Measures 1, 2 and 3 are identical to those listed in the 2011/12 Action Plan – despite the increase in applications. Hence nothing has changed. The budget and Council Plan promise the maintaining of existing services. Keeping the same target does not meet this objective. More importantly, Council has failed to act in accordance with its own promises. THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN BOTH MINIMAL CHANGE AND HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED. What has been provided in the Quarterly Reports are PERCENTAGES and even these do not provide any guidance on the NUMBERS for Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change.
Encouraging ‘community involvement’ in the planning process is admirable. However the Action relates to the Fast Track program and can hardly be said to apply to the vast majority of residents. The program is primarily geared to developers. Further an article in the Glen Eira News is hardly a convincing ‘measure’ of ‘support’.
Item 10 speaks of broad issues such as the MSS, and the Planning Scheme. The objective is to ensure that ‘it meets the needs’ of the community. But once again, the actions and measures employed to achieve this are meaningless – ie. a ‘survey’ of participants in the DPC and the ‘reporting’ of results. Readers may remember that this is really a blast from the past in that years ago, such surveys were conducted and were actually published in Council minutes.

QUESTION #2: Do any of these ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ solve the planning issues as repeatedly stated by residents?

Nothing new, or effective, has been done in relation to the Planning Scheme itself. The current situation remains. References to ‘transition policy’ refer to last year’s resolution where all ‘transition’ means is a greater setback for multiple storeys, rather than an actual ‘transition zone’ that takes in a specific area. Residents can therefore still find themselves living next to 3, 4 or even 5 stories if they happen to abut Housing Diversity Areas. The same may be said for the recent C87 decision to go to a Panel. The Amendment covers less than 3% of the municipality and both residents and councillors were never provided with the opportunity to submit their own recommendations or suggestions for inclusion in this overlay.
Information sheets are fine as far as they go. There already are plenty of ‘information sheets’ available on Council’s website. Will this just be more of the same?

CONCLUSIONS

There’s plenty more that we could say – but the post would be far too long. What’s particularly disappointing is that after all the hullaballoo about ‘consulting’ with the community and acknowledging the angst that inappropriate development is causing, this Action Plan does not deviate one iota in any meaningful sense from the set in concrete agenda of this council. The Planning scheme will only be tinkered with, and the essential questions as to the 80/20 divide, structure plans, height limits, public realm policies, etc. remain untouched. Perhaps in the end Council could have saved themselves mega-bucks rather than going through the charade of ‘intensive community consultation’ – especially when there was never any intention to actually do anything to remedy what residents see as intolerable.

May 4, 2012

Budget: What We’ll Be Slugged!

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

Rate increase of 6.5% for 2012/13 and again NEXT YEAR

Rate increases for the past 8 years are:

2004/5 – 4%

2005/6 – 4.1%

2006/7 – 4%

2007/8 – 6.5%

2008/9 – 6.5%

2009/10 – 6.5%

2010/11 – 6.5%

2011/12 – 6.00%

2012/13 – 6.5%

TOTAL – 50.6% INCREASE IN 8 YEARS!

INCREASED CHARGES

240 litre bin charge up $50
120 litre bin charge up $20
240 litre family bin up $32
Childcare for 3-5 year olds, up $10 per day

We will comment in greater detail once we’ve had time to fully digest these documents.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates