GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

October 8, 2016

Why They Must Go!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[22] Comments 

PS: An update on this afternoon’s Tucker Ward ‘Meet the Candidates’. Those present were: Magee, Lobo, Taylor, Searle, Brewster, Mackie, De’Arth.

ABSENT: Hyams, Okotel, Bonney, Elliott, Karlik, Cade and Andonopoulos – the last with apology due to family wedding.

We have reported on planning decisions made by these councillors over the past 4 years. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/for-the-record-2/). This post we concentrate on the area that has bedevilled this council for over a decade – governance and how community aspirations have been continually ignored and/or thwarted.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Councils had until June 30th 2014 to introduce their individual versions of the new residential zones. Glen Eira was the first, with Guy’s announcement on August 5th 2013 followed by official gazetting on 23rd August 2013. Countless other councils held extensive community consultations. Glen Eira did not. Even those councils which applied for the ‘fast track’ ministerial intervention under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, tabled their intentions and the relevant details of the proposed zonings at formal council meetings. This was then voted on by councillors in an open and transparent fashion at their respective council meetings. Thus their citizens could see what was to occur and had the opportunity to at least contact their representatives. Glen Eira did not, thus being the only council in the state which did not provide its residents with any information and any opportunity to voice an opinion.  There was no council resolution and no official ratification of anything. Another example of decision making behind closed doors!

Add to this various public questions dating from July 2013 asking when council would begin its community consultations and we find responses that were blatantly untrue and designed to mislead and deceive. There was never any intention to alert the public or consult with them. We know this because as far back as 2009 Akehurst had written an officer’s report that said there would be no community consultation if the zones, as they were proposed in 2008 were ever to come in. We also know that Guy, the department honchos, Hyams, Newton and Akehurst had been busy meeting since at least April 2013 and spending taxpayers’ money on getting legal advice as to how best to thwart any potential legal challenges and, we assume, whether or not a formal resolution had to be tabled at council meetings. The intent was always to avoid public consultation and accountability. We, the residents, were irrelevant to the devious and secret collusion going on between Matthew Guy, the department and council.

The following comes from the documents obtained under FOI and reveals the full treachery that all the present councillors allowed to occur and some positively encouraged –

image0059

NOTICE OF MOTION & PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Notice of motion is an essential element of good governance  and community representation since it allows a councillor (once seconded by another councillor) to have an item placed on the agenda for full and open debate and decision. Glen Eira is the only council in the state that has repeatedly refused to grant this right to councillors – and therefore residents who request a councillor to initiate some action on an issue. It has come up at least twice in the past 4 years and been defeated by the conservative faction led by Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel and Lipshutz.

Adding insult to injury, the recent changes to the public question format means that unless the questioner is present in chamber the response will not be recorded in the official minutes. The result? No public record that will provide interested residents with any idea of what council’s position is and what the issues that concern some residents are. With no public record there is no accountability and certainly no transparency.

Those councillors who vetoed these democratic rights are: LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING & HO

GUNS IN THE PARK

Readers will remember the furore created by this secret (and potentially illegal) in camera vote that permitted private security guards to carry guns in local parks. Those responsible for keeping this secret and deciding that this was in the best interests of the entire community were – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, MAGEE

FROGMORE

When Council had the opportunity to proceed to a Panel Hearing over the application to build a Jewish Care aged care home at Frogmore, the proposed heritage amendment was abandoned. This meant that the developer  moved in overnight and demolished the building and removed nearly 90 trees – 4 of which were categorised as ‘significant’. Over 1000 signatures on a petition had requested council to implement heritage protection and another 200+ submissions had gone in anticipating a formal panel hearing where residents would get the opportunity to have their say and to present their well researched evidence. Esakoff and Delahunty conveniently declared a ‘conflict of interest’ and Magee was absent. Pilling used his casting vote to ensure that Frogmore was no more. Those who voted against going to the panel were: PILLING, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ. Thus 3 councillors (a minority) thwarted the stated wishes of over a 1000 residents!

CONSERVATORY

Two expensive community consultations, plus several council resolutions, made it clear that the conservatory at Caulfield Park be maintained and restored. Not satisfied with the results, there was another go to get rid of the building. This time it worked. Those councillors who ignored community views, their own previous resolutions and succeeded in removing the structure were: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, DELAHUNTY, PILLING

CONCLUSION

These examples are only some of the outrages that have occurred during this council’s term of office. If residents want more of the same, if they want to be continually ignored and told fairy tales, if they want more internal strife and division, then they should retain the incumbents. However, if residents feel that Glen Eira must change and improve their overall performance in so many areas, then these sitting councillors have to go.  Most of them have been there for 8 years. They have achieved very little except to alienate countless residents, each other, and cost ratepayers a fortune in legal fees  – which by the way is far from over given this statement from the 2015/16 Annual Report just published –

Contingent liabilities

(a) Arising from legal matters

Council is presently involved in several confidential legal matters, which are being conducted through Council’s solicitors.

As these matters are yet to be finalised and the financial outcomes are unable to be reliably estimated, no allowance for these contingencies has been made in the Financial Report. (page 214)

Open and transparent governance is dead in Glen Eira thanks to those councillors named above. Glen Eira desperately needs new councillors who put community, honesty and fiscal responsibility first!

 

October 6, 2016

A Resident’s Questions To Candidates

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

A comment has been received from a resident which we feel should be highlighted here as a separate post. The suggested questions are excellent and the recommendations sound and pragmatic.

We have commented numerous times on how many dwellings have already gone into Glen Eira in the past 5 years and how we are well ahead of projected population growth if this trend continues much longer. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/more-on-hyams/

We have also highlighted how the recent planning scheme review and its ‘workplan’ will take up to 20 years to complete if this council has its way. That is literally much too late to save the neighbourhood centres such as McKinnon, Bentleigh East, Ormond, Caulfield South, etc. We are already seeing 7 storeys in Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.

Thus, instead of producing a meagre 2 structure plans in 4 years (and somehow Elsternwick has already been written off without any community consultation), action is required now. That means reorganising the budget, setting aside funding for outside consultants and beginning the work immediately. We also have to question why, when the Minister ordered council to move its butt way back in December 2015, the first structure plan isn’t already on the drawing boards and in the public domain for consultation.

We repeat again. These councillors have failed its residents and do not deserve to be re-elected.

Here is Mr. Ptok’s comment in full –

I was not able to attend, but am grateful for the information provided here, and the comments.

As someone involved in objecting to a number of developments in Carnegie (including appearing at VCAT at the recent 90-94 Mimosa Road application, which got approved today), I have penned a few questions I emailed the candidates in Rosstown Ward. Still waiting to hear back from some of them, but the following includes some key steps which, I believe, will help strengthen council’s position in VCAT hearings. Especially in light of today’s decision, I have concluded that the only hope of preserving anything of our neighbourhoods, is implementing the full Planning Scheme Review Work Plan in the coming term of council. This may require paying external consultants, but if it’s not done, looking at the speed of development in Carnegie, there won’t be much left of the old Carnegie come 2020.

Please feel free to circulate / ask your candidates, if you think any of the following can help strike a better balance between competing needs:

Dear [candidate],

I am a resident and voter in Carnegie.

I believe that whilst development is necessary, it needs to strike a balance between the needs of existing community, the developers, and future residents. Having been involved in a number of VCAT hearings, I believe there are things council can do to better manage the developments.

Could I ask which, if any, of the following actions you are willing to initiate and support, if elected to council:

1. Regular (at least quarterly) reporting on net dwelling approvals and dwelling type. This should include retrospective reporting, at least to 2013 when the new residential zones were adopted, ideally to 2003 when the municipality adopted policies to differentiate the municipality into housing diversity and minimal change areas.
This will allow comparison of dwelling approvals to population targets, and confident answering of the question: “is Glen Eira doing its fair share of meeting new housing required in Melbourne?”

2. Council’s VCAT watch report should include, where decisions went against council, a section on “actions council can take to avoid a similar outcome in future”.
This will give Councillors a clear idea of what would “strengthen” the Glen Eira planning scheme to ensure council decisions stand.

3. A review of the Planning Scheme Review Work Plan, including a presentation of council’s representative at VCAT. As the workplan currently spans more than a decade and relies heavily on internal resources to be completed, the concern from a resident point of view is that by the time the workplan is completed, the municipality will no longer be recognisable. As resident and ratepayer, I would be very happy if council used funds to pay external consultants so the work required can be completed in the next term of council.
A review of the work plan will give the newly elected Councillors an early opportunity to shape the management of development in Glen Eira.

4. Seek an amendment to the planning scheme to better manage change in neighbourhoods and where different planning zones meet. The amendment I am suggesting is that the maximum building height of any new development be the lower of:
– the height of the lowest adjoining property (including across the road) plus two stories, or
– the maximum height permitted under the zones.
This approach strikes a balance between the needs of neighbours (who would prefer a 1 storey increase) and developers (who would prefer going straight to the maximum), and allows for more managed change of neighbourhood character over time.

I am asking the same questions of all candidates in Rosstown Ward and look forward to your reply. If you require any further information on any of the points raise, I am of course happy to answer any questions.

Kind regards,

Greg Ptok

 

September 28, 2016

For The Record!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Planning
[23] Comments 

Election packs will soon be arriving in letter boxes and residents will be casting their votes. We therefore ask everyone to carefully consider the document we have uploaded HERE. It is a long document but a very important one since it records, in chronological order, how each of these remaining 8 incumbents voted on planning applications throughout their 4 years on council.

Residents have been assailed with comments  in the Candidate Statements as to how these councillors will ‘protect neighbourhood character’ (Esakoff); how they will ‘ensure development is fair’(Sounness); how they will oppose ‘inappropriate development’ (Ho, Hyams, Okotel,Lobo). Then there are the few for whom planning does not even rate a mention (Pilling, Magee) or we get the minimalist claims of Delahunty (‘I’ve extended the heritage overlay to protect Camden Ward’s oldest buildings).

When planning for the past decade has been in the forefront of community angst such statements deserve to be scrutinised and evaluated. Have these incumbents really practiced what they now preach? What consideration over the past 4 years have they really given to opposing inappropriate development? What evidence is there to support their claims that they give a damn about neighbourhood character? Because surely, if they did, then much could have been done since November 2012 to address the woeful planning scheme and ensure that developers do not have such an easy time of it. And if they really and truly cared about ‘overdevelopment’ then the zones and their schedules would have been much more ‘neighbourhood friendly’.

The document we’ve uploaded contains the following:

  • All councillor decisions on planning (except for a couple on child care applications)
  • Who voted for what and who moved and seconded motions
  • The officer recommendations and then councillors’ decision
  • Where VCAT has become involved we also cite some of the member’s comments (please note that there are some VCAT cases pending from the later decisions)
  • We also highlight again the fact that on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION that these councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the number of apartments and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Not because VCAT is woeful, but because for 4 long years these councillors have refused to accept the fact that the fault lies largely with them and with the planning scheme. Please also remember that it has taken the Minister’s intervention to even get this council to review its incompetent and out of date planning scheme!
  • Thus for all the talk and crocodile tears shed by councillors in the past 4 years, their voting record belies their professed concern. Appraising the voting patterns, the most consistent councillor in voting against development is Lobo – and even he is inconsistent!
  • The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that Glen Eira’s councillors have failed residents completely and ALL MUST FALL ON THEIR RECORD! We urge residents to ensure that they can no longer have any say in what buildings go up in Glen Eira!

Here’s another link to the document

 

September 28, 2016

The ‘Right People’ – Rosstown

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

The Lib/Lab show is also on in earnest in Rosstown. Labor too pushes the boundaries with its preferences but nowhere near how blatant the Libs are in Tucker. Determining who is truly ‘independent’ is difficult given that the phrase ‘inappropriate development’ is on practically everyone’s lips – as are countless other slogans.

What irks us most is the cry to ‘keep rates low’ – especially from incumbents across the board. The truth is that Glen Eira for the past decade has had one of the highest annual rate increases in the state – 6.5% apart from one year when conscience got the better of them and they voted in an increase of slightly less. Were it not for the current rate capping, then the original proposal was that the 2016/17 budget would also include a 6.5% rate increase.  Then of course, we need to consider the financial management and oversight provided by these incumbents. Council is now back up to the huge debt of $24 million, yet still splurges on mega palaces and still cannot bring in projects under budget and on time.

Our position remains unchanged. If residents want a council that listens, that acts in concert with its community, then there is no option but to replace all incumbents.

Here is the Rosstown candidate information in full (uploaded HERE) and some individual statements –

npddkar

 

September 27, 2016

The ‘Right People’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning
[21] Comments 

leader

When it comes to winning an election it would appear that all notions of ‘fair play’, and individual integrity go out the window.  Dirty tricks dominate and collusion makes for some strange bedfellows. Promises are nothing more than fairy tales or straight out fibs. All of this is made crystal clear with the publication of the ‘candidate statements’ that raise the question of who is the ‘right person’ and how much they should be trusted with the stewardship of Glen Eira.

In this post we will concentrate on Tucker Ward and ask readers to note:

  • How the Libs have engaged in highly dubious legal and (un)ethical tactics by publishing their defacto preferences in these statements – something that the legislation forbids!
  • How Magee (the once Labor) man is so anxious to be re-elected that he has joined this circus and preferenced the brother and sister act for the Libs. We are told that he intends to ‘rejoin’ the Labor party after the election. We sincerely hope that they show him the door in much the same way that the Greens have excommunicated Pilling.
  • Statement after statement is either meaningless slogans or bare faced lies. For example, Okotel claims to have ‘fought hard against inappropriate development and striven to preserve the character of Tucker Ward’. Beside the point that she was previously a Rosstown Ward councillor and not Tucker, her ‘fight’ to preserve ‘character’  in Tucker does not bear up to scrutiny when we find she has voted in favour of permits for the following (and we only concentrate on her voting pattern in Tucker) –

8 Railway Crescent, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 10 units

451 South Road, Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 12 units

261 Centre Road, Bentleigh – now 5 storeys, 31 units

674 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 8 units

730 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 21 units

115 Poath Road, Murrumbeena –  6 and 7 storeys, 39 units

22-26 Bent St, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 36 units

670 Centre Road Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 50 units (later increased to 67 units & part of Brown’s Road)

14-18 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 55 units

817 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 24 units

23 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 34 units

10-12 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 35 units

15-19 Vickery Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 39 units (VCAT gave the developer his 4 storeys and 47 units)

So much for ‘preserving the character of Tucker’!!!!!!! We also remind readers that her record on tree protection, notice of motion, etc. is equally abysmal and that her presence in council was perceived by many as merely Esakoff’s clone!

We’ve uploaded the full document for Tucker Ward HERE but thought we would also highlight the following statements! Many should at least be good for a laugh! (Click to enlarge)

 

September 25, 2016

More On Hyams!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

Several weeks ago Hyams & Delahunty were interviewed on the JAir radio station. Below we present the opening section with Hyams. The audio goes for 5.24 minutes.

As per usual with Hyams he is not averse to making statements that are misleading, incorrect, and blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Here are some examples:

HYAMS: What’s going on in Glen Eira is actually a lot less than what’s been going in some of the neighbouring municipalities

COMMENT

Dead wrong! We have compiled data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on building permits for the past 5 years and uploaded the 2015/16 data HERE so that readers can check for themselves. What residents need to realise is:

  • Of our ‘neighbouring municipalities’ Bayside, Kingston, Port Phillip, and Monash have had less development over the past 5 years! The only ‘neighbours’ with greater numbers are Stonnington and Boroondara – and there are some good reasons for this!
  • Glen Eira has 2.8% zoned Commercial. Stonnington according to the recent State of Play Reports has 8%, Boroondar has 3.6% and Port Phillip has 12% plus this latter municipality being in the unique position of being ‘capital city’ zone and a tourist hub. In these municipalities the majority of new development occurs in these commercial areas, whereas in Glen Eira, the overwhelming majority of new dwellings are in our quiet residential streets – thanks to the zoning and the small percent zoned commercial.
  • The number of houses built in Glen Eira is small compared to many other municipalities – thus development in Glen Eira is primarily apartment blocks
  • Other municipalities are double or triple the size of Glen Eira which already has the highest density per kilometre in the Southern Region. The impact on density and liveability is thus far greater in Glen Eira than say Kingston.
  • Victoria in Future 2016’s projections (UPLOADED HERE) indicate that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira will require an additional 11,800+ new dwellings to meet its population needs. The figures on building permits show that in Glen Eira more than half of this target has been reached in the space of 5 years AND these figures DO NOT INCLUDE THE 1500+ UNITS FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE AND POTENTIALLY ANOTHER 4000+ FOR VIRGINIA ESTATE. At this rate, Glen Eira will meet its ‘target’ not in 2031 but in 2020. Then what?

Please consider the following table carefully. The figures in parenthesis represent the number of houses with building permits for that year.

building-approvals

There are plenty of other statements that amount to arrant nonsense and we believe designed to deliberately mislead:

  • Minimal change areas have had 50% site coverage, 25% permeability, and 4 metre setbacks since Amendment C25 which was gazetted in 2004. The only thing the zones have changed is making 8 metres mandatory and 2 dwellings per site – and not as Hyams so inaccurately portrays that these ‘additional’ protections are a result of the zones! What he also neglects to mention is that even this ‘protection’ is not sacrosanct if the size of the lot happens to be larger than its surrounding blocks of land. In Glen Eira at the time of the introduction of the new zones there were 1,795 lots of land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which were greater than 800 square metres. (Source: DEWLP document procured under FOI)
  • There are no setbacks to the Residential Growth Zones apart from ResCode. They have been there since time immemorial and again have nothing to do with the zones!
  • Developers buy up multiple blocks because they can squeeze more units on and this is explicitly encouraged in the Planning Scheme!
  • Glen Eira does not have 78% zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – it has just under 70%

But the best line must be – It’s not like we changed the zones to allow more development without telling anyone…..

Really? Is that why the zones were introduced in secret and public question responses were nothing but lies and all such responses ‘signed off’ by councillors without a single murmur?

There’s much, more more that could be said on Hyams’ performance on JAir. We will leave it to our readers to comment further.

 

September 22, 2016

Andonopoulos Flyer

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

ra

 

September 15, 2016

Residents, Candidate Promises, & How To Decide

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

fairy-tales

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning, 

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for? 

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what. 

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?  

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry. 

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other. 

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

  • Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
  • Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
  • Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
  • Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
  • Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
  • Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

 

September 15, 2016

Ms ‘Independent’!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

esakoff

 

September 9, 2016

Gross Incompetence!

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

In January 2013 Amendment C87 was gazetted. This amendment introduced some revised Neighbourhood Character Overlays into the planning scheme with the objective of ‘protecting’ certain streets and areas of the city. Council’s stated objectives in the recently completed planning scheme review is to implement more of these overlays.

But there is a major problem with council’s planning as illustrated in a  recent VCAT decision which calls into question whether council is totally incompetent, or simply so pro-development that nothing they do to foster more development should come as a surprise to residents. This latest VCAT decision involved an application to build a 2 storey building containing 4 townhouses. The site was in Murrumbeena and included in a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NOC6), plus a Design and Development Overlay, plus a Special Building Overlay (ie flooding). Yet, council in its wisdom also ZONED THIS AREA UNDER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1.

This raises a multitude of important issues –

  • Why has council included areas that have NCO’S in the GRZ and RGZ zones?
  • Discussion on the introduction of the new zones was already happening in 2013 and probably well before. Didn’t council planners know what they were potentially undermining? Or didn’t they and councillors care?
  • What happens now to the several hundred properties that find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena application?
  • Why can’t council write amendments that actually mean something, instead of the contradictory and useless waffle that they continually produce? And who ultimately is responsible for vetting their nonsense? Here is an example of two statements that come from this NCO6. We maintain that they contradict each other –.

To ensure that new dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings respect the dominant building height, form, façade articulation, materials and roof forms of the streetscape..

New buildings should interpret the detailed elements of older dwellings that contribute to the neighbourhood character significance of the area in an innovative and contemporary manner that complements, rather than replicates, period dwelling styles.

Thus we have an NCO that is seeking to protect existing neighbourhood characteristics on the one hand (ie ‘respect) and then there is the injunction NOT TO ‘replicate’ but merely ‘complement’ the area. No definition of course exists as to the meaning of these two terms. You could literally drive a truck through any of these statements, decision guidelines and objectives!

The VCAT decision went the developer’s way with the member making this important point –

The construction and application of the zones, overlay controls and policies to this locality creates a tension within the planning scheme with respect to the future built form character of the area. This is a locality identified as a diversity area in which the Council seeks to encourage redevelopment and increased residential densities. It is one of a confined number of diversity areas in this municipality in which redevelopment is directed and specifically encouraged. Simultaneously the Council has applied an NCO to this locality, the purpose of which encourages development to be in accordance with a preferred neighbourhood character that is largely based on the protection of existing neighbourhood character. Notwithstanding this site’s diversity area location the Council opposes the demolition of a modest and relatively non-descript (my description) dwelling because it is a dwelling originating from the interwar period. (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1494.html)

As for the other ‘protections’ afforded this site, they are useless. The Design and Development Overlay only applies to fence heights (like another 2 from council’s ‘generous’ 5 DDOs) and hence was irrelevant. The member also makes the point that council’s opposition to demolition should not be based on a Neighbourhood Character Overlay, but on a Heritage Overlay! Melbourne Water had no objections to the Special Building Overlay requirements following amended plans.

What does all this ultimately mean? We believe that:

  • No property should be zoned GRZ or RGZ if it is also covered by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay. This of course means changing the zoning – a definite ‘no-no’ for this council since they are ‘perfect’ and got everything right the first time around
  • At least another 200 properties now find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena site. What will council do to ensure that they are fully ‘protected’?
  • Until there is a complete and utter re-write of the planning scheme, and eschewing reliance on useless waffle, then no resident anywhere can expect that his neighbourhood or street  is ‘safe’.

In the public interest, we provide some screen dumps of the other areas that are covered by an NCO, but also zoned for increased density. Residents in these areas – BEWARE!nco2

nco1

nco3

 

 

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »