Our previous two posts have focused on planning and highlighted the difference between Bayside’s and Glen Eira’s approach to planning in general, and structure planning specifically. Through its structure planning Bayside has been successful in gaining Ministerial approval for mandatory controls in its numerous activity centres. Glen Eira has steadfastly refused to implement any structure planning. Why? What is the ‘real’ reason behind this reluctance to plan for our future?

The recent Planning Scheme Review was nothing short of farcical. The published ‘Discussion Paper’ distinguished itself by its deliberate refusal to realistically address the concerns of the community; to provide real information; and the general side stepping of issues such as transport, parking, environmentally sensitive design, open space, and many other factors that the community has continually emphasised. This claim is abundantly clear when we look at the sections on ‘Structure Planning’. The document read:

“Structure Plans paint a picture in some detail of how development should look down the track. Individual planning decisions made in accordance with a Structure Plan ultimately deliver the desired Structure Plan future. Structure Plans provide a desired vision and add certainty. On the other hand, critics of Structure Plans argue that they:

• are too expensive and difficult to include in the Planning Scheme, with arguments arising about theoretical development; • stifle innovative development; and • can be changed too readily when a “real” development proposal is being evaluated”.  http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Planning_Scheme_Review.pdf)

Readers should note the short shrift given to the ‘advantages’ of structure planning, and the somewhat nebulous arguments decrying their benefits. Could someone please explain what is meant by the three bullet points above? Or is this just typical council mumbo-jumbo designed to confuse, distort, and ultimately misinform?

According to the Department of Planning and Community Development, the benefit of structure planning is to enable “the community and other stakeholders to actively participate in consideration of the future form and function of centres, ultimately helping to secure their confidence in the centre’s development”. (http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansandpolicies/activity-centres/activity-centres-faqs#5)

But the real sting in the tail comes from this objective: 

“Community engagement is essential for the structure plan and involves the wider community and may include targeted consultation. Community engagement is appropriate during key stages of the development and implementation of the structure plan. This will include developing a vision for the centre, scoping community and stakeholder issues, developing the plan, seeking feedback on the draft plan, and outlining how the community and stakeholders can continue to be engaged during the implementation phase. Broader community involvement at these key stages can be supplemented by ongoing involvement of key stakeholder representatives, for example through a reference group or steering committee. Community engagement can be undertaken through various methods, and it is important to ensure that the project team has the appropriate skills to plan for and undertake effective community engagement. The plan should aim to ensure that a representative community is engaged. This can be achieved by engaging the community about matters that are of interest to them, for example safety, housing choice, shopping, car parking, open space, bicycle paths rather than focus purely on the structure plan document”. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/41672/PN58_Activity_Centres___Structure_planning_for_Activity_Centres_Web_version.pdf

 ‘Real community consultation’ is not the Glen Eira Way, nor has it been for the past decade. We suggest that the failure to conceive, and implement structure plans by this council has as much to do with disenfranchising the community as it has to do with pro-development and the corporate ‘business plan’. The reverse is ostensibly true of Bayside and the ethos which appears to inform all their policy directions. For example, when developing one of their structure plans, the process involved:

“At Council’s request consultation with property owners and residents in all areas, of both high and moderate significance, was conducted as the next stage in the project. This included an information package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open house’ drop-in information sessions. Over 1,000 submissions were received, via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site survey work and in some instances adjustments to precinct boundaries or descriptions have been made.” (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/11_July_08_Final_Report.pdf) 

In the past two years Bayside has WITHDRAWN its original draft open space strategy when public response was largely negative. It has gone back, and instituted an entirely new consultation process that involves committees, dedicated websites, online surveys, email newsletters and public meetings. (http://au.cpg-global.com/projects/BaysideOSS/Index.html. Then there is also the ‘community engagement framework’ which sets out clear steps and commitments. (see: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/community_engagement_framework.pdf).

Nothing like this exists in Glen Eira. Despite the repeated jargon of ‘extensive consultation’ that is sprinkled throughout annual reports and other documentation, meaningful interaction with the community is non existent. To introduce structure planning that has any merit would mean turning the non-engagement principle on its head  – something this autocratic council sees as anathema.

Below is an agenda item from Bayside’s upcoming council meeting regarding Bayside’s success in gaining Ministerial permission for permanent height controls and setbacks in major activity centres. What is produced below is only ONE of the reports on several amendments pertaining to their activity centres. We post this as a contrast to the persistent argument that emanates from the Glen Eira Council – ie. no need for structure plans, no need for height controls in activity centres,  etc. etc. etc.

Major Activity Centre Controls – Sandringham C100 and Interim Controls for the
Major Activity Centres C91
City Strategy – Urban Strategy
File No: COR/6309/5790
1. Purpose of the Report
To consider the redrafted proposed amendments to introduce permanent and interim controls for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre (C100 & C91) in the context of the outcome of a meeting with the Minister for Planning on 14 October 2010.
2. Background
Council received a report on 28 September 2010 to consider correspondence received from the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) in relation to Council’s request for authorisation to prepare a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent and interim controls for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre. The response was received by Council, however, a decision on redrafting the amendments to make mandatory residential heights discretionary and removing upper level setbacks, as requested by DPCD, was deferred for one meeting cycle to allow a meeting with the Minister for Planning to occur.
On 14 October 2010, the Mayor, CEO and Director City Strategy met with the Minister for Planning to raise concerns relating to the Major Activity Centre amendments, particularly in relation to DPCD’s insistence on discretionary height controls in the residential areas of the Major Activity Centres and the deletion of upper storey rear setback provisions on commercial land.
In response to the specific concerns raised, the Minister advised that he will approve mandatory 3 storey height controls for the residential areas within the major activity centres and also council’s proposed upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
The Minister advised that he would confirm his undertakings in a letter which would be received prior to the Council meeting on 26 October 2010.
3. Discussion
Following the meeting with the Minister for Planning on the 14 October 2010, and Council’s resolution at its Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2010 to redraft the amendment (C100) into a revised Local Planning Policy Framework and Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay based on current zonings, the amendments have been redrafted and are attached for consideration.
As agreed with the Minister for Planning, they include mandatory 3 storey height limits for the residential areas within the Sandringham Major Activity Centre and upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
4. Implications
4.1. Policy
The 2009-2013 Council Plan, Commitment 3: Managing our built environment is the relevant Council Policy reference for this matter. Amendment C100 will provide additional policy support to enable Council to manage Bayside’s built environment.
In addition, the proposed amendments C91 and C100 are consistent with the Sandringham Village Structure Plan previously adopted by Council.
4.2. Legal/Statutory requirements
Any planning scheme amendment must be undertaken in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
4.3. Financial and resource implications
Funds are available in the 2010/11 Budget to progress the amendment requests.
4.4. Environmental impacts
The amendments will introduce controls to guide the preferred form of development within Bayside’s Major Activity Centres.
4.5. Social impacts
Not applicable to this report.
5. Consultation and engagement
Consultation took place during the Structure Plan Process. Additional consultation will take place as part of the formal exhibition period for amendment C100.
6. Summary
Following a meeting with the Minister for Planning on the 14 October 2010, the Sandringham Major Activity Centre Amendment has been drafted to include mandatory 3 storey height limits for the residential areas within the Centres and upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
Recommendation
That Council:
1. seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning under Section 8A (3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to prepare amendment C100 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, in the form of attachment 1 to this report;
2. requests the Minister for Planning under Section 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to introduce interim controls (C91) through a schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre mirroring the controls contained within the DDO provided in attachment 1; and 3. authorises the Director City Strategy to make any minor editorial changes to the amendments.

This post is entirely speculative. Given the information that we have, we are simply exploring a couple of possible scenarios and wishing to alert the public to what may be a most unfortunate outcome in regard to the C60 Panel Report.

The report was handed down in July 2010. Thus far nothing has been forthcoming from officers or council. The next council meeting is set for November 3^rd. That is OVER 60 days that council has had to deliberate and present their recommendations. The law requires a response in 60 days. It therefore seems that Council may not have met its legal obligations thus allowing the developer to go straight to VCAT. This has already happened with the Bay Rd development in Bayside.

So the questions come thick and fast:

1. Will the developer stand on his rights even if the C60 report is on the next council agenda?
2. Is this a deliberate ploy by council to wipe its hands of any decision making and again say it’s all VCAT’s fault?
3. Are councillors fully aware of these time limits? If so, what have they done about it?

Our suspicions are further raised when we read the following paragraph that is on the MRC Caulfield Village website:

“Overall the submissions made to the Panel recommended Caulfield Village as a positive response to Melbourne’s expanding population and demand for services close to public transport.

Council’s closing statement described Caulfield Village as “a reasonable response to the opportunities and constraints afforded by the land and the area” and that “a development of the magnitude proposed has the capacity to bring about significant public realm benefits and contribute significantly to the achievement of community ‘betterment’ leading to a clear net community benefit”.

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Magee, with righteous indignation, declared  in relation to the application at 848 Centre Road – ‘a terrible decision, so VCAT shame on you’!! (Council’s version of events is printed in the minutes). So once again, VCAT becomes the culprit bringing down decisions that councillors bemoan and residents suffer from. 

Let us state quite clearly that we do not endorse, condone, or in anyway support VCAT’s decisions. Nor do we blithely accept council’s version of events! It is exceedingly easy, and politically savvy, to throw up one’s hands and to lay ALL the blame at the feet of VCAT and the State government as this council has repeatedly done. Yet, when one looks closely at the various judgements a different picture emerges. Listed below are extracts from the Centre Rd judgement. We especially wish to highlight: 

1. The member’s repeated remarks about council’s failure to provide ‘evidence’ and,
2. The ‘failure’ of council to get its act together
3. Questions as to the ‘preparedness’ of council in presenting cases 

We cite directly from the judgement: 

“Neither the Council’s Traffic Engineers or VicRoads raised any concerns regarding the likely traffic generation or any potential safety issues at the intersection. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that removal of the four dwellings is justified on traffic safety grounds.  

The Council submitted that the areas should be increased in size to 60m² in order to accommodate sufficient landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. This view, however, is not supported by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who, in their referral comments, raised no concerns regarding the opportunities for landscaping throughout the site. 

I also note that the Standard relates to the following Objective: To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.

1. 20.           Further, the associated decision guidelines refer to the useability of the open space area, its orientation to the street and the sun, and the availability or access to public/communal open space. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, there is no mention of landscaping in either the Objective or decision guidelines.
2. The Council quite fairly conceded that the proposed courtyard areas are adequate for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, and I agree. I can find no support in Clause 55.05-4 for an increase in the courtyard sizes. In my opinion, the proposed open space areas are of dimension and area that are appropriate to this development. I agree with the comments of the earlier Tribunal that some flexibility can be exercised in assessing the open space provision against the Standard, given the apartment style of the development.
3. The courtyard spaces are able to accommodate landscaping, including appropriately sized canopy trees. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that areas of at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of approximately 5.0 metres are unable to support adequate planting to enhance the amenity of the development and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.
4. 30.           From my reading of the documents provided by the Council, notably the referral comments of the Traffic Engineer, it is evident that the 6 metre width reflects a desired outcome – rather than one which is necessary to ensure that the driveway can function in an acceptable manner. I note the Council’s submission that the increased width is required to comply with an Objective of Clause 55.03-9. I was not provided with any evidence to the effect that compliance with Standard B14, and with the requirements of VicRoads, would not allow this Objective to be met.
5. 31.           I consider that a fair and objective assessment of this issue, based on the information before me, must lead to the conclusion that the proposed 5 metre width is acceptable. Had I been presented with evidence which demonstrated the width to be inadequate to allow for the passing of vehicles, then I may have formed a different view.

 Conclusion:

1. What do such decisions reveal about the current planning scheme and its inadequacies?
2. What do such decisions reveal about the adequacy of council’s presentations at VCAT?
3. What does all this say about adequately protecting residents?
4. What does all this say about the recent planning scheme review?

Front Page – Bayside Leader.

Plan up in the air