GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

August 12, 2011

Newsflash: MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We’ve just learnt that the scheduled Planning Conference for next Monday evening HAS BEEN CANCELLED!

This is an extraordinary turn of events for several reasons:

  • In the first place, Council initially decided that a one week time lag between the closing date for objections and the holding of the planning conference was sufficient ‘notice’.  Given that objections might arrive at council late Friday afternoon, and that notification would then possibly not go out until the following Monday or Tuesday, this would mean that people would only receive notice of the meeting around Wednesday or Thursday – that is, 4 days notice only!
  • Now at the last minute, the meeting is cancelled. One can only speculate as to the reasons why and what is going on behind the scenes
  • The history of this application is definitely tainted – first the MRC withdraws just before the April 4th meeting; next there is the sudden ‘revitalisation’ of the application, and now, it’s pulled again.

Surely residents have every right to ask what is going on and who is responsible for all of the above?

 

August 12, 2011

MRC Application

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

A reminder that next Monday (15th August) the Planning Conference for the Centre of the Racecourse application is scheduled. Details are:

Time: 6.30pm

Location: Town Hall, Auditorium

 

August 11, 2011

Caulfield South: Sky’s The Limit

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off on Caulfield South: Sky’s The Limit 

For a vision of what’s potentially around the corner, residents might be interested in the following report:

Caulfield South Housing Diversity 1-1

 

August 8, 2011

Final VEAC Report

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

The VEAC report was released today. We have not had time for a thorough read, however the following paragraphs are pertinent to this council and its performance. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC152-MMI-Final-Report-FINAL-low-res.pdf

Recently released Australia Bureau of Statistics’ population estimates for metropolitan Melbourne indicate that the current population in some municipalities (Bayside, Brimbank, Glen Eira and Moonee Valley) has already exceeded the projections for 2016 (that is, population growth has been more rapid than anticipated).

Development of facilities on public open space in Caulfield Park

Caulfield Park is in the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of North Caulfield. The Park is about 25 hectares in area and is on Crown land. It was permanently reserved for public park, gardens and public recreation in 1866. It is managed by Glen Eira City Council as a committee of management. Much of the park contains sportsgrounds and hard courts, while the western end contains a parkland area. The park also contains a playground and conservatory.

The construction of a new Caulfield Park Pavilion in the central part of the park was completed in 2009. The 0.4 hectare pavilion and car park replaced a small sports building and storage shed (0.04 hectares in size). The footprint of the new pavilion is significantly larger than that of the old building and shed, and involved the construction of an additional access road in the park. The expansion of the pavilion transformed freely accessible public open space into an enclosed area where access generally requires membership of a particular sports club or payment of hire fees.

Sporting groups using the park generally favoured the construction of the new building as it enhanced their sporting activities. There was, however, opposition to the redevelopment from other users who were concerned about the loss of amenity and reduced area available for non-organised recreation and informal activities at the park.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R6 Prior to considering proposals that would result in the reduction of open space, government and local councils undertake a public process to assist them to determine the costs and benefits to the community of proposed reductions in public open space on public land and land owned by local councils.

R7 The principle of no net loss of area be applied when public open space on public land and land owned by local councils is used to deliver non-park related services and facilities.

R8 Public open space on public land and land owned by local councils be managed to maximise public access and to provide the widest range of user opportunities.

R9 Government review the open space contribution policy and provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions and Subdivision Act 1988 with the aim of assisting metropolitan local councils meet the challenges of population increase by maximising the contribution of open space through subdivision of land. This would include:

(a) reviewing the contribution level in the Subdivision Act to determine whether the minimum contribution should be set at five per cent

(b) streamlining the process for creating a contribution schedule to clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(c) removing the uncertainties in the interpretation and use of the SubdivisionAct and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(d) reviewing the provisions in the Subdivision Act and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions that exempt some subdivisions from the requirement to make an open space contribution

(e) considering whether the open space objectives in clause 56.05-2 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, which detail standards for neighbourhood open space, can be made to operate with the provisions in clause 52.01, which require people proposing to subdivide to make specified contributions to the local council.

 

August 6, 2011

VCAT ‘Ticks Off’ Council Planning Department

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

VCAT often designates some decisions as ‘Red Dot’ – that is, ‘cases of interest’ and which then form part of its ‘practice notes’. Glen Eira is the latest ‘Red Dot’ case. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1422.html)

The reason why this case is highlighted is simply that Council FAILED TO INFORM ALL OBJECTORS of an amendment. This isn’t the first time that residents have complained that they did not receive any notification of either applications, or appeals by developers, or later, amended plans submitted by applicants. One has to wonder at the efficiency of this planning department – how good is its record keeping? How up to date are its records? Or is the failure to notify and inform possibly more than a ‘clerical error’. It would appear that ‘clerical errors’ are suddenly coming thick and fast!

Below are some highlights of the member’s judgement:

“At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.

This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.

As it transpired, it appears that there were three objectors to permit application GE/PP-21828/2009, namely:

  • (name/address omitted), Caulfield East
  • (name/address omitted),  Caulfield East
  • Vic Track, GPO Box 1681P, Melbourne.

Only one of these objectors (Vic Track) was given notice.

…it is unclear whether the list of persons previously notified is based on up-to-date records held by the Council to reflect current ownership and occupancy details.

The adjournment of hearings involving s.87A applications as a result of incomplete notice being given has arisen on a number of occasions in recent times. It would appear that the obligations of Responsible Authorities in proceedings of
this kind, is not well understood.  

Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.  

 

August 3, 2011

Racecourse: What’s The Rush?

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

Council can move at supersonic speed, but only when it wants to!

The planning application for the centre of the racecourse was advertised in the Leader with the closing date for objections listed as the 8th August. We’ve now learnt that the planning conference for this application will be held on the 15 August – that is, one week later! Given that it usually would take at least 24 hours for objectors to be notified by mail, we  assume that most people wouldn’t receive their letters until the Wednesday – at  the earliest! We simply ask – what’s the rush? Why is there such a short time frame between the close of objections and the actual planning conference? Even  more suspicious is the fact that the VEAC report is scheduled to be made public  on the 8th August.

We’ve commented before on the inverse correlation that is a clear  trend in the way that this council approaches notification to residents regarding  planning issues. Far too often we find:

  • Poor and negligible publicity and/or advertising
  • Missing files
  • Not all objectors officially notified

The list goes on and on.  We simply assume that this is just part of the  overall agenda – anything to do with the racecourse is rushed through, kept as  quiet as possible, and signed off on with very little debate, argument, and/or  consultation. If the MRC can remove their application at a moment’s notice (ie the April 4th meeting), then Council can surely timetable a planning conference that gives residents time to organise their lives, read the VEAC report, and submit carefully crafted objections.

 

August 1, 2011

VEAC Investigation

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

From the VEAC website:

Final Report

A final report was submitted to the Minister on 1 August 2011.

The report will be available to the public from 8 August 2011.

 

July 29, 2011

Planning: Still Singing From the Same (Pro-Development) Song Sheet!

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

At the last council meeting, one item in particular highlighted the schemozzle that is the current Planning Scheme. It focused on transition zones between Diversity Areas and Minimal Change Areas. The application was on Dandenong Rd – Item 9.2 in the agenda.

This is not the first time that the issue of high rise/multiple storeys adjacent to minimal change areas has cropped up. Several meetings previously Penhalluriack noted the failure to address the issue of transition zones. Here’s what Magee said last week on this application:

MAGEE: (on the surface looks okay but had) the opportunity to stand in the back yard of one of the houses (affected) ….what I was faced with was looking up….(and seeing in time) 3 storeys of concrete looking down over a back garden…Problem I have is in diversity areas it’s all well and true and fitting…..but over the back fence is minimal change….so really what we’re imposing on minimal change is a housing diversity area…..I don’t know where you draw the line….do we respect the minimal change or do we respect the housing diversity area? I don’t think we can do both….I couldn’t live to doing that to someone (neighbours)…..(he chose minimal change to live in so that there wouldn’t be tall building next to him)…and I think a lot of these people have done exactly the same and I think it’s unfair of us to do that….

Even more damning is the fact that in August 2007 Spaulding and Esakoff requested a report on:

“That a report be prepared outlining what planning mechanisms/ tools are available to provide greater certainty for development outcomes in the buffer area between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.”

We note:

  • 4 years on, nothing has changed except that the problem has worsened
  • Logic is again a severe casualty in the report – ie. no need for prescriptive criteria since VCAT doesn’t have to adhere to them!!!
  • The report itself is full of self congratulations so that the recommendation is that nothing be done since Glen Eira is handling the problem marvellously well. We’ve uploaded the ‘report’ and invite comments from readers.
    (diagrams and footnotes have been left out)
  • How much longer will councillors allow this situation to continue before they demand that the Planning Scheme is amended and that proper buffer zones are included around Activity centres and Housing diversity areas that front Minimal Change Areas?
  • The ‘report’ resorts to dissembling quite often, especially in its claims that the majority of residents were supportive of the amendments. The real question is: how well did residents understand the implications of the amendment? How much information was provided?

How many more times must residents be assailed with hand wringing and ‘woe is us’ from councillors before they decide that a major part of the problem begins and ends with the Planning Scheme? When will they actually do their jobs and start setting policy?

 

July 27, 2011

A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off on A Resident’s View 
 

July 26, 2011

Compare and Contrast: Planning

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[6] Comments 

Council and community heard on Boronia planning

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Knox City Council will be able to consider whatever height limits it chooses in the Boronia activities centre, after constructive discussions with Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

The Council sought authorisation from the Minister to implement discretionary height controls of 7.5 metres in residential areas of the Boronia activities centre, as part of the Boronia Structure Plan by the Council.

The previous Labor Government bullied the Council and refused this request, stating it would not accept any height limit under 9 metres.

Mr Guy said he had heard the Council and the community’s concerns on the height issue, and wants the Knox City Council to be able to consider 7.5 metre discretionary height limits.

“I have listened to the community and recognise there needs to be some guidance on what is considered reasonable residential development in residential areas that adjoin activity centres. Planning should never be a ‘one size fits all’ approach,” Mr Guy said.

“It is important we support appropriate development in key defined areas while still providing protection for neighbouring residential amenity.

“I have written to Knox City Council advising I want the Council to provide me with its recommendation, not one dictated to it by the previous Labor Planning Minister. If the Council feels 7.5 metre discretionary height limits in this area can be justified, they can make that determination.”

Member for Ferntree Gully Nick Wakeling and Member for Bayswater Heidi Victoria said they supported Mr Guy’s decision to give the Council its say on height limits, and that community concerns could be heard through the council process.

COMMENTS: We’ve said it before and will say it again. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, 14 storey developments in Activity Centres are here to stay. Without properly researched and implemented transition zones Minimal Change Areas will be looking up at 5 and 6 storey developments. Without a total revamp of the Planning Scheme – in genuine consultation with residents – this Council remains a sitting duck! Residents should ask council:

  • Have you applied to the Minister for height limits? If not, why not?
  • What are your reasons (fully explained) for rejecting structure plans – (and forget cost if you’re prepared to spend a million in the coming year on car parks!)
  • Why has the housing policy not been updated for over a decade?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »