GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 7, 2022

Our Constipated Tree Register!

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

Trees, and their protection, have become the focus for many in the community.  It is also just on a year since council reports started recommending the inclusion of trees into their Significant Tree Register. Progress however is glacial – as has been noted several times already by residents and some councillors themselves.

The following dates and numbers have all been taken directly from council agendas/minutes and reveal that the grand total of 68 trees have been added to the register. Of these 68 only 13 are on private land. That makes it a percentage of 19.11%.

At this rate it will take at least another 2 years before the register approaches 200 trees.

TREE REGISTER DATA

16th March 2021 – 7 trees (2 private land)

19th May 2021 – 5 trees (4 private land)

29th June, 2021 – 9 trees (2 private land)

10TH August 2021 – 18 trees (3 private land)

23rd September 2021 – 7 trees (0 private land)

12th October 2021 – 4 trees (2 private land)

3rd November 2021 – 5 trees (2 private land)

23rd November 2021 – 5 trees (0 private land)

14th December 2021 ( 8 trees – 0 private land)

Given council’s acknowledgement that our tree canopy is in free fall, and that the major culprit in this decline rests with private development that removes every single blade of grass, much less any trees, then surely council must reassess its priorities.

Here are a few of our suggestions that would help in getting more private trees onto the register:

  • Lists of nominated trees on private land be assessed before trees on council land – ie this category be given priority number 1
  • The employment of an additional arborist to assist in evaluation
  • Tree register details to be prominently displayed on council’s home page and repeated requests for nominations on a regular basis in Glen Eira News
  • All nominations to receive prompt responses, not as currently the case, up to 12 months later
  • Objections to nominations to be made public and displayed on website so that residents know what is happening throughout the municipality
  • The guidelines for reviewing of objections be updated so that all such objections are decided at a full council meeting and not as the ‘rules’ currently stand, by officers alone. This would be in line with countless other councils’ processes.
  • A six monthly report to council on: number of trees added to the register; number of objections; number of objections upheld and a map showing where new trees have been added.
  • Most important of course, is an amendment to the various schedules for the residential zones. If council is serious about climate change, our urban forest strategy, and the protection of trees, then the schedules have to reflect this. Particular attention has to be paid to: permeability requirements, landscaping, site coverage, underground car parking, etc. Unless this happens, and happens quickly, the same level of destruction will be maintained.
 

February 2, 2022

Glen Huntly Station & Tree Removal

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

At last night’s council meeting, it was revealed that over 600 trees will be removed by LXRA in order to complete the Glen Huntly station development.

With their typical lack of sufficient detail, the LXRA webpages only provide very scant detail. Please see this link: https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/glen-huntly-factsheet-vegetation-removal

The promise to plant 2 trees for every one removed would mean that at least 1200 new trees are planted. We won’t hold our breath, and we also have to wonder whether a 3 foot sapling can in any way be equated with what is about to be destroyed. The onus is thus on council and residents to ensure that as many trees as possible are saved.

 

February 1, 2022

The Bastardry Continues

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

‘Planning mess’: Outcry over Caulfield Racecourse redevelopment

By Cara Waters and Damien Ractliffe

February 1, 2022 — 12.01pm

The destruction of 100-year-old trees for the redevelopment of Caulfield Racecourse caused community outcry, but local authorities are unclear who bears ultimate responsibility.

Demolition work at Caulfield began on January 10 after a Christmas Eve amendment by Planning Minister Richard Wynne overruled heritage and council controls on the $570 million development of the racetrack and surrounding area.

One of the 42 trees destroyed was an Aleppo pine grown from the seed of Gallipoli’s Lone Pine. The works also involved the demolition of a toilet block and asphalt removal.

Heritage trees were cut down with chainsaws, prompting the interim protection order.

Work stopped this week after Heritage Victoria made an interim protection order on January 27 that means it must sign off on any work in the next four months.

Minister Wynne’s amendment to the planning scheme was requested by the Melbourne Racing Club. A spokesman said the club had done “everything by the book”, and had consulted on its plans with club members, the broader racing industry and the local council.

“We will also continue to do the right thing and work with Heritage Victoria on how we can proceed where appropriate,” the spokesman said.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust said it was aware of the planned demolition work but did not realise it would start without any chance for public consultation.

Andrew Paxton, general manager of the Trust, said it was unusual that Minister Wynne approved a planning amendment scheme, which did not require public exhibition, on Christmas Eve.

 “The community of Glen Eira have an expectation of consultation and being engaged,” Mr Paxton said.

The local council said it was “blindsided” by the minister’s actions and the destruction of the trees. The Glen Eira council said it was yet to receive a response from Mr Wynne, confirming it was the Glen Eira Historical Society which applied for, and secured, the interim protection order after some trees had already been cut down.

The local council said it was unaware of the demolition work until it occurred, noting it lodged a request with the government on August 18 last year, seeking Mr Wynne authorise a heritage amendment to protect the racecourse.

“We’re a small little volunteer-run organisation, so not geared up to dealing with an entity like the Melbourne Racing Club,” volunteer Anne Kilpatrick said. “What we’ve come around to realising is that somebody needs to step up for this. In this instance, we thought well, no one else is, we will do that.”

Glen Eira Mayor Jim McGee said the council was “blindsided” by the demolition work. They’ve given the Melbourne Racing Club the go-ahead to do whatever they like, and unfortunately, they’ve started by destroying what I believe to be heritage buildings, destroying heritage trees and just going hell for leather,” he said. “It’s just another example of the Melbourne Racing Club, paying absolutely no attention to residents. They haven’t done it in 150 years, so I’m not surprised that they are not doing it today.”

In a letter to Mr Wynne, Cr McGee said the process for approving the redevelopment work on Christmas Eve appeared misleading and secretive.

“The community are rightly outraged about what’s happening at the racecourse,” he said.

Mr Wynne said the government had engaged extensively with the council, including as recently as last year, on its plans to redevelop the racecourse area into a “people friendly community recreation space”.

 “It beggars belief that the Glen Eira council is claiming to be surprised by the development occurring at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve – which the government has made significant investments in to unlock open space for the community,” he said.

However, many people, including MRC members, said they were surprised by the works.

“We have been racing at Caulfield for 150 years and most people would be very surprised that nothing at Caulfield has any sort of heritage protection,” MRC member Anthony Del Monaco said. “[The] question is why the club, the council or the government haven’t taken action earlier to get heritage protection for this much cherished state asset. and avoided the planning mess that has resulted.”

Member for Caulfield David Southwick MP said the community was consulted about the plans for the construction of buildings and new sports fields, but not about the demolition work or removal of heritage trees and buildings.

“They’ve gone so heavily in terms of consulting with the community about what could be in the middle of the racecourse, yet they’ve forgotten to actually look at protecting some of the heritage value around the actual precinct itself,” he said.

“There’s been no consultation with them, and the fact that the minister on the 24th – Christmas Eve – can effectively rubber stamp something and have these trees, including an Aleppo pine, destroyed I think is really upsetting.”

Mr Southwick said the way the redevelopment was handled had important implications for planning across the state.

“[If] you’ve got one minister, a planning minister, who can do whatever he likes in anyone’s backyard without any third-party appeal, then he’s a real concern for any Victorian right now,” he said.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/planning-mess-outcry-over-caulfield-racecourse-redevelopment-20220131-p59si3.html

COMMENT:

The MRC in the above quote, admits to ‘consulting’ with members, race goers, and council. Significantly, the one important omission is the community/residents of Glen Eira.

Also surprising is Council’s claim to have requested interim heritage protection in August last year. There is no formal council resolution that we can find to this effect. Why wasn’t this brought before a full council meeting in order to (1) make this request public, and (2) to ensure full ratification by councillors?

Will council now make public all of its communication(s) with the Minister, the MRC, and with the department? Did Council employ its own heritage advisors or did they rely on the MRC appointed advisors? Were councillors fully aware of any of these meetings, communications?

There are a myriad of questions that need answering from all – including the Minister, the MRC, the Trustees and Council.

 

January 28, 2022

Council Submission On The Planning Act

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Council has published its submission to the inquiry on the current Planning & Environment Act, 1987 in today’s agenda. Whilst we agree with many of the comments, there are several major issues where council’s response is far from adequate or valid.

First, the ‘good points’.

  • Yes, there should be specific attention paid to the environment and sustainability
  • Yes, housing affordability is an issue, though most things are out of council’s control
  • Yes, heritage is important and there should be a fast tracking process for interim protections

Now for the ‘questionable’ responses!

SOCIAL/AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Here’s what council has to say in regard to providing social/affordable housing –

Council has a policy requiring a minimum of five percent affordable housing on rezoned sites. Ideally, this should be extended to higher density development proposals and adopted at a state level.

By way of comparison, readers should note what Yarra Council as one single example only, has done with its percentages on social/affordable housing. In its 2019 Housing Strategy, Yarra states:

Yarra has worked with a number of site owners to provide at least 10% affordable housing. At the former GTV9 site, Richmond, affordable housing will represent at least 10% of the total number of new apartment dwellings. At the former Gasworks site, Fitzroy North a range of dwelling types will cater for a variety of housing needs including the provision of up to 20% affordable housing. Council will continue to seek additional affordable housing for our very low, low and moderate income community. (page 18)

Why Glen Eira should be ‘satisfied’ with a meagre 5%, when other councils are seeking up to 20% is the central question here. When we are so ‘committed’ to the need for social housing, then why has council been willing to settle for 5% on such massive developments at Caulfield Village over 2000+ apartments, and soon East Village, with at least 3000 dwellings on the cards. Further, why limit the creation of social housing only to those areas that will be ‘rezoned’ – presumably sites listed as Comprehensive Development Zones, or Priority Development Zones, etc. There have been plenty of developments on straight forward MUZ, or C1Z sites, that are well over 100 apartments.

Maybe, the answer is very simple. Requiring too much from developers in terms of social/affordable housing, will simply be another impediment to development that council is not willing to put in place!

MANDATORY APARTMENT SIZES

A little background first. According to the 2016 census, Glen Eira has just under 9% of single bedroom dwellings and just under 30% of its dwellings that contain 2 bedrooms. That equates to well over a third of all our dwellings. Yet we have 50.1% of our population listed as families with children. This number is very likely to have increased by 2021 and is the cohort which according to common sense requires space. Further exacerbating the issue, is the lack of open space in the municipality.

Given these above stats, then the issue of space becomes vital – especially in this COVID world where more and more people are likely to remain working from home.

Over the years, there has been report after report (especially from the City of Melbourne, and The Age) revealing the dog boxes that have been going up. Many single bedroom apartments were under 20 square metres, and 2 bedroom apartments, less than 50 square metres.

So what is Glen Eira’s response to the question of whether there should be mandatory, minimum apartment sizes? Here’s what was stated:

Apartment sizes are already discretionary. This enables consideration to be given to the quality of the space in terms of flexible furniture layouts, circulation and good natural lighting. Smaller apartments are more affordable and policy and controls that aim to improve the quality of the space may be more useful than mandating a minimum size. Well designed smaller housing accommodates more people in well connected areas, close to shops and services, and offers an affordable housing option. The quality of the space is more important than mandating a minimum size. Mandating a minimum size may contribute to making affordable housing even more elusive than it already is.

We will leave it to readers to interpret the above and decide the real reasons for council’s opposition to mandatory sizes.

Submissions to the enquiry close this coming Monday. See: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/inquiries/article/4819

 

January 20, 2022

A New Year

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

Source: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/resource-library/planning-permit-activity-in-victoria/planning-permit-activity-quarterly-report#Reports-tabs2

If anyone had any doubts about the rate of development in Glen Eira, then the above graph should provide plenty of food for thought. This municipality is grouped together with Bayside, Boroondara and Stonnington in the State Government’s planning agenda. The figures clearly show that we are far outstripping even Stonnington which is really an ‘inner’ municipality rather than a ‘middle’ council such as Glen Eira.

The numbers in the graph represent approved subdivisions from January to December 2021 and hence are a far more reliable figure than simply building permits. Each subdivision means that a new ‘lot’ has been created – whether this be for single blocks being subdivided to accommodate 2 dwellings, or apartment blocks being subdivided for each new unit. Reliability is also greater than for the building permits, since the subdivision process in the vast majority of case comes after the planning permit has been granted, and after the building permit has also been granted. Subdivision is usually near the completion of the building – either to sell off the plan, or to sell upon the completion of construction.

The subdivision figures from 2016 onwards are also frightening in that Glen Eira has consistently recorded well over 1200 net new dwellings per year. Council’s annual report in fact recorded 6343 additional ‘rateable properties’ for these 5 years – an average of 1269 completed homes per annum.  So again, we have to question the strategic planning of this council when we have consistently exceeded the Victoria in Future ‘required’ net new dwellings of 900 per annum. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in this council with structure planning that continues to encourage and facilitate more and more development.

Even more concerning is that all of the above figures do NOT include what is to eventuate at East Village (at least another 3000 apartments) and at Caulfield Village (precinct 3) another 1000-1500 with a height of 22 storeys being mooted. We are also still awaiting the release of the Caulfield Station structure plan. We have no doubt that this will feature a total indifference to heritage and will provide the green light for heights approaching 15 to 20 storeys.

Thus council keeps forging ahead with amendment after amendment PRIOR to the completion of a housing strategy. The fundamental question remains ignored: do we need the heights proposed in these various structure plans when our projected housing needs will have been well and truly exceeded? How does this benefit the community? Or, does it only benefit developers?

 

December 28, 2021

Time To Reflect

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[9] Comments 

With another year almost gone, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on what has happened throughout this period. What, if anything, has improved? What has gone backwards? What has remained static? Have the new councillors performed well? Have the old councillors ‘improved’?

There have been some positive steps, although we must admit they are tiny baby steps compared to what is required. We finally, after 18 years of talk, got a significant tree register. However, the roll out of this program is well and truly behind schedule and ultimately will take another few years to reach even the miniscule figure of 250 trees given the current rate. More disheartening is the fact that the tree register remains part of council’s Local Law, rather than being enshrined in the planning scheme itself. A recent VCAT hearing had the member make this comment which reveals how important it is that controls are included in our planning scheme. We quote:

The site contains five (5) trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the car park development. All are of exotic species and the planning scheme does not have any tree removal controls. Hence, their removal is acceptable.

(SOURCE: – https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT//2021/1549.html)

Whether or not one finds the conclusion valid, is a moot point. If council did have a planning scheme which sought protection of ALL trees meeting certain criteria, then perhaps such judgements would be far less frequent.

We have been told again and again that councillors are determined to address the municipality’s lack of public open space, sustainability, increase our canopy cover, and take real action on climate change. All well and good and to be applauded. However, when such aspirations are not backed up by sufficient funding, then we have to query whether anything will really improve over the next few years. The Open Space Strategy states that at least 150 hectares of additional open space is required to meet the community’s needs. The long term financial plan allocates roughly $7M per annum for each of the next four years. This is just enough to purchase roughly 1500 – 1800 square metres of property per annum. Even with the current proposal for an 8.3%  open space levy (when other councils are looking at 10%) this will still not be sufficient to come even close to the ‘required’ 150 hectares.

The above comments can also be applied to council’s action plan on increasing the canopy cover, and acting on reducing carbon emissions. Unless such policies are backed up by sufficient funding, then we can only anticipate a further loss of important canopy trees, and little improvement in climate management strategies. This of course goes to the heart of priority setting by this administration and its elected representatives. When council is committed to massive spending on infrastructure projects such as the Carnegie Pool, to the tune of now $52M (up from the budget forecast of $51M), and when no business case has been made public, we have to doubt the efficacy of such decisions – especially when countless comments from residents wanted the ambience and the foot print of the current pool retained. Very few desired another (mini) GESAC. 

Planning in Glen Eira remains as it has for decades – pro development, and lacking in enforceable strategies and policies. It is quite unbelievable that after the mandated Planning Scheme Review of 2016 we still do not have:

  • Permanent structure plans for Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie
  • After being promised structure plans for our neighbourhood centres, we only have ‘guidelines’ (ie Built Form Frameworks) for three neighbourhood centres which are not as yet even in the planning scheme. No indication has been given as to what to expect for the remaining centres.
  • No developer contributions on parking as promised in 2016
  • No Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) policy
  • No review of the residential zones and their respective schedules since 2013
  • And the most damning fact – no housing strategy since 2002 and council steam rolling ahead with amendment after amendment all PRIOR to the completion of an essential housing strategy.

Politics has continued to play an important role in many councillors’ decision making as evidenced by the car park issue and the acceptance (or not) of the $18M funding from the Federal Government. Politics is also evident in the alacrity with which some Labor aligned councillors so heartily support draft structure plans and applications that include heights so out of keeping with resident wishes.

Council signed an ‘agreement’ with several other councils this year to demand greater community and council input into the State Government’s planning agenda. Thus far, we have heard nothing back.  Have discussions been ongoing between councils and the department? If so, why not some updates?

We must also comment on the volume of useless community consultations. We maintain that they are indeed ‘useless’ when the questions on surveys are simply designed to elicit certain responses, and when councillors and the community consultation committee has no input into the final product. Residents are often faced with planning jargon that most will not be familiar with, or with hundreds upon hundreds of pages to plough through in order to come up with some decent submissions. The absence of Discussion Papers that are truly objective and informative is a major failing of this council. Surely a brief document that accurately summarises the issues would not go astray.

Several councillors have bemoaned the fact that the response rate on various issues is poor. Perhaps council needs to start asking why this might be the case. Is it simply because residents are apathetic? Or perhaps it might have more to do with the fact that so many people believe that their views will not be acted upon? Or maybe, the manner in which consultations are carried out, and the ‘useless’ questions are seen as a complete waste of time by residents?  Then again, people are simply tired no doubt, and flooding them with mock consultation after mock consultation is simply demoralising and counter productive. Perhaps more people would respond if more information was included that meant something. For example: pretty pictures of draft designs is not enough. Why not include some basics like -size, cost, footprint? Surely this would elicit some very relevant and greater feedback. The greatest fallacy however would be for this council to assume that because the response rates might not be up to par, that means that the majority of residents are in FAVOUR of the various projects. In our view, nothing could be further from the truth. Disquiet is growing and until this council addresses the fundamental issues of housing, open space, and sustainability, we will continue to head backwards. It is the role of councillors to ensure that this trend is reversed.

Our best wishes to all for a much healthier and far more fulfilling 2022.

 

December 20, 2021

Heritage!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

The Planning Panel Report on the ‘Hidden Gems’ amendment is now available. Council’s amendment is ‘appropriate’ and the panel has supported most of the recommendations contained therein. More importantly, the panel repeats previous criticisms of the Department and the Minister, where their refusal to include all the precincts identified by the external heritage advisor as suitable for heritage listing were omitted. The rationale was that listing these precincts in the Elsternwick Urban Renewal South, would likely be the ‘primary driver for development outcomes’. In other words – let’s not put any impediments in the way of the mooted high rise that is to go into Elsternwick.

To the Panel’s credit, this was not only commented upon, but the criticism is fully warranted. What is most disappointing however, is that there was not a single peep out of council (at least made public) when they were informed of these exclusions. Would it have killed council to announce their opposition to this decision? Would it have killed council to publish any letters it may have written in response – in fact, was there any correspondence, or did council merely and meekly accept a decision that goes against current legislation, planning practice notes, and its own VPPs? If this was the case, then once again, this council has chosen the route of compliance, rather than support for what the community values – ie heritage!

The following pages, taken directly from the Planning Panel report, show what the Panel thought of Wynne’s and the Department’s decision making and its justification –

 

December 2, 2021

Open Space Levy

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

As everyone has known for years, Glen Eira has the least amount of public open space per capita in the state. We also lay claim to the 5th densest municipality behind Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and Stonnington (all of these being ‘inner municipalities’). Our rate of development continues practically unabated and lest we forget, East village and Caulfield Village are waiting in the wings for at least another 7,500 residents. Given these facts, it behooves all residents to ask some basic questions of their council – namely:

  • Why can Darebin, Monash produce current amendments which seek a 10% open space levy?
  • Why can Yarra produce a current amendment which seeks a 10.1% open space levy?
  • Why is Glen Eira ‘satisfied’ with a 8.3% levy in the face of its rate of development and lack of existing open space?
  • Is the Open Space Refresh document a valid strategic justification for this 8.3%?

Residents have until late December to provide a submission to this latest proposed amendment. We urge all readers to compare what other councils (with far greater existing open space) see as required compared to what Glen Eira proposes. Until a decent levy is imposed, Glen Eira will continue to see a decrease in its open space requirements.  

 

November 29, 2021

The Car Park Mess!

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

The Age has today published a letter from the Commomwealth Minister for Infrastructure in relation to the multi-level car park funding. It is presented below:

Whatever one may think of the entire car park issue, there have been plenty of ‘wrongs’ committed along the way by council and government.  Consider the following:

  • The first real inkling that residents had of council’s possible intention to built high rise car parks came with the structure planning for Bentleigh & Carnegie. At no stage were residents provided with the opportunity to say ‘yeeah’ or ‘naay’ SPECIFICALLY to these structures. An earlier background report for Bentleigh even suggested that two such car parks be erected and that council owned land could be sold off.
  • Now that there has been plenty of adverse criticism for the funding, a ‘consultation’ is finally taking place. But like most Glen Eira consultations, it is far from acceptable. (See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/10/13/multi-storey-carparks/
  • If council are so fantastic in their strategic planning, then why didn’t they get the proposed locations right the first time around?  Why were residents told that a 6 and 5 storey construction was required, to now have these heights reduced – without of course informing us as to the new proposed heights!
  • As for the Minister’s letter, thinly veiled threats are far from acceptable. Nor do we really know whether council was ‘tapped on the shoulder’ (as claimed) for these grants, or whether there was a formal submission. Perhaps if such a document exists, it could be placed in the public domain?

In our view none of this would have happened if a logical and clear process was followed. Namely:

  1. First the decision is made AFTER community consultation that such multi-level carparks are required.
  2. Consultation provides all the necessary detail – ie costings, design, etc.
  3. Government grants and the rationale for decisions are made public

So we are now really and truly in the proverbial! If for example the community is in favour of only one of these car parks, will council receive half the money, or none? Will council react to this clear intimidation, or meekly cave in? If this letter was sent in September, when were councillors informed as to its receipt? Or did they only find out today?

And when will politics finally keep its grubby little hands out of local affairs? Labor and the Greens are keen to use the ‘tainted’ nomenclature to earn some brownie points against Morrison’s gov , whilst the Libs are also not averse to screaming ‘community benefit’.

It will be very interesting to see which way this council jumps – assuming of course that residents will be informed of everything leading up to the final decision!

 

November 23, 2021

Second Bite At The Cherry!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Readers may remember the recent application for a 9 storey development at 217 Nepean Highway, Gardenvale. This was supported by officers, but rejected by councillors. The ensuing VCAT appeal by the applicant was refused. We now have the second attempt. This time for a six storey development and 18 apartments. The plans are not yet available.

Gardenvale presents a fascinating insight into the council agenda. According to the CURRENT planning scheme, Gardenvale is deemed a LOCAL centre. With the arrival of the City Plan, it has been upgraded to a Neighbourhood Centre and earmarked for “substantial’ development. The current Planning Scheme Rewrite seeks to enshrine this new designation. City Plan proposes that commercially zoned sites be set at the preferred height of 5 storeys. This application, whilst lower than its predecessor, is already seeking something higher. It will undoubtedly be recommended for a permit by officers, given that they were in favour of 9 storeys.

Yet, we cannot find one single word anywhere which justifies the re-classification of Gardenvale as a Neighbourhood Centre from a Local Centre. Nor can we find any logic behind the failure to treat each activity centre as an individual entity with its own height nominations. Time and again we are told that locations should be assessed on their unique characteristics, but what we have are strategic plans which treat all neighbourhood centres as mirror images of each other – ie 5 storeys for anything zoned as Commercial – regardless of their residential surrounds or various transport options.

More concerning is the failure of council to safeguard all of our neighbourhood and  local centres. Will all of these be candidates for structure plans, or will residents have to be satisfied with meaningless built form frameworks that are nothing more than ‘guidelines’? And what is the time frame for any other work? Another 5 years of nothing, 10 years?

This current application will probably be determined well and truly before anything is finalised in terms of the current planning scheme rewrite, and the adoption of the city plan. It will set a precedent and that means it will be too late to halt other, and probably higher applications.

Finally, we present below, the VCAT decision which rejected the original 9 storey application. The comments relating to the wisdom of designating Gardenvale as a neighbourhood centre instead of its current local centre status are worth reading. The comments are still very relevant. How does council answer these judgements? Where is the justification and the strategic work that should underpin such changes? It is non-existent, we assert!

·  The provisions relating to the scope for Patterson and Gardenvale local centres to have more intense development are however quite limited in scope because the policy encourages only gradual changes in building heights between existing buildings and new developments. Where building heights are above the prevailing height of existing development, policy encourages the building design to reduce the visibility of the additional storey(s) by either;

  • Incorporating the additional storey(s) into roof space (attic style).
  • Limiting the additional storey(s) to an envelope that is significantly less than the floor immediately below and is significantly set back from the front and rear of the site to limit visibility from the street in front or the properties to the rear.

·  I was referred to the Council’s City Plan[8] which was adopted by the Council in February 2020. By virtue of having been adopted by the Council, this is a document to which I may have regard as appropriate[9], but it is not part of the planning scheme. City Plan includes the review site in a Substantial Change Area 3 in which development up to 5 storeys is contemplated. Structure plans for activity centres are to be prepared.

·  With respect to the applicant submission that the proposal should be assessed on the basis that Gardenvale is akin to a neighbourhood centre or even an urban village, the submission ignores the fact that Council has had ample opportunity to change the local centre designation for Gardenvale but has not done so. I must apply the planning scheme’s provision as they exist, and it would be inappropriate to accord a different status to that which appears in the planning scheme.

·  I have also commented previously that Gardenvale is a small, confined centre surrounded by Commercial 2 zoned land that extends north and south along Nepean Highway and by residential areas predominantly zoned Neighbourhood Residential. I am not persuaded that Gardenvale is anything other than a local centre with very limited capacity to expand beyond that designation. This application must therefore be assessed having regard to the policy settings established for this local centre.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2021/263.html

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »