GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 17, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #4

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

Activity Centres & Structure Plans

State governments of all persuasions have encouraged and endorsed councils’ implementation of structure plans. Here’s why:

Structure plans provide the foundation for activity centres change by defining the preferred direction of future growth and articulating how this change will be managed.

Structure plans will guide the major changes to land use, built form and public spaces that together can achieve economic, social and environmental objectives for the centre. To encourage development within centres, government policy encourages local governments to review the purpose and function of individual centres and to revise local planning policies through a program of structure planning for each of their activity centres. (Source: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/urban-design-and-development/Activity-Centres/structureplanning)

Stonnington goes further –

A structure plan is a planning tool that sets out a vision for the future development of a place. It establishes a planning and management framework to guide development and land-use change and aims to achieve environmental, social and economic objectives.

A structure plan takes into account all of the issues affecting an area, including its buildings and spaces, land uses, activities and transport. An essential aspect of the structure planning process is feedback from the community on how the area should evolve. An important phase of the structure planning process requires consultation with the community, local residents, traders and the development industry to determine the best outcome for the centre. Each structure plan will require consultation. (Source: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/Vision/Strategic-Planning/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Frameworks/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Design-Frameworks)

Glen Eira does not have structure plans whilst every other council in the metropolitan area does. Residents have never been provided with an adequate explanation as to why not. Yet we find this paragraph in the current discussion paper on Theme 2 – Urban Design in Activity Centres –

Guidance for development in these areas can include local policies, structure plans, urban design frameworks, zones, and overlay controls. Currently, Glen Eira utilises a combination of zoning and local policies to outline the preferred planning outcomes for its activity centres.High-rise development in commercial zones has recently been raised as a concern as prescriptive height limits do not apply at present.

Readers should also note that:

Urban design frameworks do not exist.
Design and Development overlays of note do not exist
The only ‘overlays’ in activity centres are student parking, and some for flooding and heritage. Yet, in their wisdom, council still decided that some heritage areas should be included in Residential Growth Zones (ie in Bentleigh).

As far as ‘preferred planning outcomes’ goes, all that the planning scheme contains for its major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, are ill-defined, nebulous and contradictory statements. For example – readers should ask themselves what the following means, when no definitions, or precise criteria are provided.

BENTLEIGH

Where opportunities exist, a range of housing types be promoted at increased densities.
Where opportunities exist, medium density housing be encouraged in the residential areas surrounding the centre.
The managed change of the neighbourhood character of these areas be encouraged.

CARNEGIE

Encourage higher-density residential development.
Increased density residential developments be encouraged.
The managed change of the neighbourhood character be encouraged.

ELSTERNWICK

A multi-storey car park may be developed within the existing Coles supermarket car parking area if sympathetically designed to complement the surrounding built form.
All developments provide adequate off street parking to protect the amenity of the residents.
New developments provide an appropriate interface to adjacent valued community assets such as the churches
This precinct be encouraged as an area for higher density development at heights compatible with adjacent buildings.

The height of residential developments be determined by:

Site context, including the scale and character of surrounding development.
Site characteristics, including area, dimensions, orientation and topography.
Existing development on the site, including height, bulk and site coverage.

Returning to the discussion paper, we find the most extraordinary sentence:

This (structure plans) can offer certainty for residents and developers alike but takes time to implement due to the complexity of research required.

Should we interpret this as an admission that because something is ‘complex’ that it is beyond the capability of council administration? And if it does ‘take time’, then council has had 17 years to get its act together and produce some decent planning.

Here are some questions that residents should consider asking their representatives:

Is council contemplating introducing height limits on commercial areas only in the major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie? Will council introduce height limits on commercial sites in its Neighbourhood Centres such as Bentleigh East, McKinnon, Ormond, Murrumbeena, Caulfield North, Glen Huntly, etc?
Why has council refused to introduce structure planning and will they begin this process now?
Why are heritage areas zoned as Residential Growth zones in Bentleigh, when the government’s practice notes clearly state that such areas should be excluded from the RGZ?

April 15, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #3

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

PREFERRED CHARACTER STATEMENTS

Part of any planning scheme review is the imperative to locate any gaps or deficiencies in the scheme and to plug such holes. Councils generally approach this task by diligently analysing VCAT decisions and determining the grounds that VCAT stated in rejecting council positions. The next step is to return to the planning scheme and determine how it can be bolstered to ensure that the grounds available to VCAT are closed off or at the very least, made far more difficult to ignore.

Needless to say, there is nothing in the current Discussion Paper which provides even a hint as to what the ‘problems’ might be. Yet, decision after decision makes it absolutely clear – the failure of council to provide any statement as to ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ in housing diversity (ie GRZ, RGZ) and totally inadequate ‘policy’ in minimal change (NRZ) areas – where ‘waffle’ replaces fine grained statements.

Yes, we repeat! Even large areas within the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are in the same boat as residents living in GRZ or RGZ zones.

Here are two recent VCAT decisions for developments in the so called ‘protected’ areas of Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Some areas have council’s version of ‘preferred character statements’ which amount to nothing more than waffly, motherhood pronouncements, whilst other areas in the NRZ do NOT HAVE even this pretence of such a statement.

The Council’s concern also relies on a misplaced emphasis on preferred character rather than existing (or prevailing) character. It is correct that the minimal change area policy has a specific objective relating to preferred character. However, there is no formal statement of preferred character in or under the scheme for the relevant character precinct in which the land is located. The objective relating to preferred character is to ‘encourage development that is responsive to its site and context, integrates with and enhances the prevailing neighbourhood character. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/306.html

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not include a preferred neighbourhood character statement for this area, and the Clause 22.08 local policy broadly encourages dual occupancy developments in this location in a side-by-side layout, provided that they respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/870.html

Thus, further question that residents should consider asking their elected representatives are:

· What gaps in the Planning Scheme has VCAT identified through its decisions? Will council address each and every one of these gaps?

· Will council introduce preferred character statements for all of Glen Eira that are detailed, specific, and work to ensure that neighbourhood character is protected? If not, why not?

April 14, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #2

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

Theme 1 of council’s Discussion Paper focuses on the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). This is supposed to outline the ‘vision’ and the policies that will enable the achievement of this ‘vision’. Much of the MSS is ridiculously out of date. A total rewrite is required especially when figures from the 1996 Census are sprinkled throughout this section, or the so-called Community Plan of 2001-2004 provides the basis for planning.

Of greater concern however are the Objectives and the Strategies which are supposed to implement these objectives. There is a total disconnect between what council purportedly aspires to, and how local policies can achieve such objectives. In many cases there are no policies that are in any shape or form available to support the stated aims.

Here is a limited list of objectives taken verbatim from the MSS.

Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character.

Question: how can ‘high quality urban design’ be ‘facilitated’ when there are no urban design frameworks?

Identify a preferred future character for housing diversity areas.

Question: how many more VCAT permits will council allow before it ensures that housing diversity areas do have preferred character statements and thus closes off this loophole so well exploited by developers?

Encourage the retention of existing vegetation, in particular vegetation and trees which contribute to the City’s tree canopy.

Question: how can council achieve this objective without a tree protection policy?

Ensure residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems.

Question: When will council introduce decent Parking Precinct Plans and stop agreeing to car parking waivers?

Ensure that where new development places an increased burden on infrastructure it contributes to the upgrading of infrastructure

Question: How can this objective be met when council has removed its development contributions levy from the planning scheme?

It is all very well to have grandiose statements in the MSS. It is another matter entirely to ensure that there are policies within the planning scheme that will have the legal weight to bring these aims to fruition. As we’ve stated, in Glen Eira, there is not only a lack of policy, but a total disconnect between aims, objectives, and strategy. Thus, the answer to council’s question –‘Are there additional policies that should be included in the Planning Scheme’ – is a resounding ‘yes’!

April 13, 2016

Leader

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

April 10, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

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

The opening few pages of council’s Discussion Paper on the Planning Scheme Review correctly state that:

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of ‘mid to high rise’ apartment blocks built in middle ring suburbs such as Glen Eira
That population growth in Glen Eira is anticipated to require 12,000 new ‘households’ up to and including 2031. This figure is calculated from 2011 according to Vic Future 2015 and not 2016 as implied. That means that Glen Eira needs an average of 600 net new dwellings per year to meet its ‘quota’.

What the Discussion Paper DOES NOT REVEAL and is essential for a complete understanding of what is happening in Glen Eira due to the Planning Scheme and the zoning, is –

that building approvals are approaching 2000 new dwellings per year. Hence a 300+% increase on what is deemed as necessary to meet demand.
Building approvals of course, do not take into account the number of planning permits granted and these figures have also gone through the roof since the introduction of the zones. Even if only 50% of these planning permits are acted upon and construction completed by 2031, we estimate the number of net new dwellings per year to be in the vicinity of 2,500 new dwellings given current trends.
Council does not reveal that since the introduction of the zones close to 5000 planning approvals for net new dwellings have been granted. Thus, apart from the 300% increase per year, Glen Eira will meet its nominal ‘quota’ not in 2031 but more likely in 2020 at this rate!

Council provides no figures that enable comparisons with other neighbouring councils. Residents have no idea as to building activity in these other municipalities. No comparisons are provided on number of new houses built compared to number of apartment blocks; no comparisons in terms of ‘density’ and what this ‘building boom’ does to overall density and impacts on open space. This is significant since Glen Eira with its meagre 38+ square kilometres has one of the highest population densities in the state. The only council with a higher population density is Port Phillip – but this council is unique in terms of its Capital Zone Status, its ‘inner ring’ categorisation, the Docklands, etc., and its large tourist and commercial centres.

The table presented below is worth considering in our view. It reveals how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours in the Southern Region and elsewhere in terms of building approvals for the six months from July 2015 to December 2015. The stats come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in early 2016.

COUNCIL	DENSITY PER SQK	SIZE – SQK	BUILDING APPROVALS FOR HOUSES	BUILDING APPROVALS FOR UNITS	TOTAL NEW DWELLINGS
GLEN EIRA	3385	38.7	198	741	942
BAYSIDE	2680	36.0	199	160	375
CARDINIA	57.92	1280.6	812	74	888
CASEY	615.72	409.9	1867	161	2041
FRANKSTON	1032	131.0	163	93	259
DANDENONG	1627	36.26	289	220	514
KINGSTON	1479.4	91.0	206	217	425
MORNINGTON	200.09	518.23	483	252	738
MORELAND	2887	51.0	240	858	1120
DAREBIN	2719	53.0	167	820	995
GEELONG	177.64	1247	1105	111	1222
HUME	332.5	504.0	1133	239	1372
MARIBYRNONG	2458	31.2	99	1339	1441
MELTON	536	527.3	894	153	1047
PORT PHILLIP	4871	20.62	27	1176	1217
WHITEHORSE	2365	64.0	296	1050	1348

In Glen Eira, the relationship between single house replacements and multi unit development is around 1:74. That means that for every single new house built, there are 74 apartments built. With just under 39 square km, and no open space to speak of density, infrastructure, traffic, will inevitably be impacted upon.

So what does the Discussion Paper propose, or even ask, in response to these trends? What can the Planning Scheme do to halt the further erosion of residential amenity? If we are to go on the questions proposed it would seem that very little can be done. We do not agree and feature some preliminary questions below that residents might like to consider asking at the forums. We welcome any other suggestions that readers would like to proffer.

Will council be introducing any Environmental Sustainability or Water Sensitive Urban Design policies into its planning scheme as Bayside, Yarra, Stonnington, Whitehorse and other councils have done? If not, why not?
Will Council be introducing Parking Precinct Overlays into its RGZ and GRZ zoned areas to manage traffic in its centres? If not, why not? Will Council be creating the long promised Parking Precinct Plan for its activity centres? If not, why not?
Will Council be introducing any tree protection measures into its Planning Scheme in order to halt moonscaping as other councils have done? If not, why not?

April 8, 2016

Revisiting Hyams’ Bullshit!

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

Given recent events, we thought it would be illuminating to revisit one of our earlier posts (June 19th, 2013) so that residents may gauge for themselves how much credibility to assign to anything our councillors say, and especially Hyams. Here is an article from the Leader of that date. The comments for that post are also worth re-reading since time has proven them to be very prescient.

April 7, 2016

8 Storeys For Centre Road Bentleigh

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

VCAT has granted a permit for the Centre Road development. It will be 8 storeys and 33 dwellings, plus car parking waivers. The original application was for 9 storeys and 40+ dwellings, but amended plans were submitted following the compulsory conference. PS: correction. Here is the link to the full VCAT decision – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/538.html

These extracts from the decision once again point out the deficiencies in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. As per usual, any talk of introducing height limits for commercial allotments is far too little and far too late. The horse has bolted! Council had a decade and more to act. It has steadfastly refused to do a single thing! This is now the result!

Some quotes –

The acceptability of the height of this proposal is influenced by the planning scheme’s policy framework as it applies to this locality.

The policy identifies three urban villages in the municipality (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) and no distinction is drawn between them in terms of the role and scale of each centre.

Significantly, there are no height controls applying to the Bentleigh urban village, or to any of the other urban villages.

The policy framework outlined above provides a strong level of support for a building on this site that is higher than the prevailing one and storey scale of development in the centre. The achievement of the Council’s urban village and housing diversity objectives will almost inevitably involve the introduction of buildings into the urban village that have a greater height than the buildings that currently comprise the Bentleigh centre.

In the absence of more detailed built form controls or guidelines than those currently in the planning scheme, our finding that higher buildings can be contemplated where the Commercial 1 Zone abuts the RGZ, does not greatly assist us in forming a view about the acceptability of an eight storey building on a site that has an abuttal to the GRZ and the NRZ.

In these precincts, developments of three to four storeys are emerging on consolidated sites in both the RGZ and the GRZ. That analysis demonstrates that the urban village designation and the associated policies are having a profound impact in changing the built from character of the Bentleigh centre in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of those policies

We commented during the course of the hearing that Clause 55 does not apply to the consideration of a building of 5 or more storeys. Consequently, reliance on Standard B17 is limited to its use as a guide only. In this case compliance with B17 up to level 3 (including the width of the lane) is of some assistance because it is these levels that will have the greatest visual bulk impacts on the immediate neighbours. Above level 3, the additional setback is significant. Having regard to the nature of the interfaces we have described previously, and having regard to the strategic context of the review site, we are satisfied that the interface treatment is acceptable.

We acknowledge that the building will be viewed from the wider residential hinterland to the south. The visibility of the building is not however an impact that is beyond the reasonable expectations that emanate from the Council’s designation of this locality as an urban village and a housing diversity area.

April 6, 2016

Claire Street – More Crocodile Tears To Come?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Readers will remember the saga of Claire Street, McKinnon and Magee’s crocodile tears of woe on the steps of VCAT. The street featured again at Tuesday night’s meeting with Magee jumping on the same old bandwagon – everything is VCAT’s fault rather than council policy, planning and zoning.

The only reason that the VCAT member knocked back the first Stellar application for three storeys and thirty plus units was that the developer was exceedingly greedy. No decent setbacks, and internal amenity suitable for a mole – ie subterranean apartments! Another application has now gone in for 33 units and will end up at VCAT again.

But things have now got even worse. There is another application in by the same company Steller, for 1-9 Claire Street that will see: ‘six, three storey townhouse and two three storey apartment (44 dwellings)”. Stellar has basically bought out the entire street and the sole remaining resident has decided that enough is enough and has put his property (4 Claire St) up for sale.

We have no doubt that both Stellar applications will be passed by VCAT. Not because they ‘ignore’ council policy, but because it IS COUNCIL POLICY TO ENCOURAGE 3 STOREY DEVELOPMENT ON CONSOLIDATED LOTS and the zoning is GRZ. When the VCAT member rejected the first application for 6-10 Claire St., he made it absolutely clear in his judgement that zoning and lack of preferred character statements make Claire St.(and much of McKinnon) a candidate for this kind of rampant (over)development. It is Council policy. Please note the number of times the phrase ‘policy’ or ‘planning scheme’ feature in the extracts from this judgement (below).

Magee and the other councillors can continue with their nonsense and the spurious blame game, but residents need to appreciate the truth. Any Planning Scheme Review that fails to address zoning and the limitations of the schedules is not a review – it is a whitewash!

The judgement below says it all in our view.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1762.html

These local policies strongly support the development of apartment style buildings in Claire Street , McKinnon, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by the Glen Eira City Council. It allows policies to also be implemented that reduce the ability for any meaningful level of medium density housing to be developed in the majority of other residential areas within the municipality. In other words, the Council has chosen to allow significant change in limited neighbourhoods, so as to preserve to a strong level the existing character of most of its other neighbourhoods.

While this individual proposal fails to address some important design matters, it is inevitable, in applying the local policies drafted by the Glen Eira City Council, that Claire Street, McKinnon will be subject to significant levels of change in the short to medium term.

Although townhouse developments of two and three double storey dwellings have started to appear in this area, the restrictions now in place over most of the municipality will act to focus more intensive development into areas such as this in McKinnon. It may not mean the whole street is filled with three storey apartment buildings but it almost certainly means that the existing single dwellings on a lot will be gradually replaced. It may take twenty or thirty years but, based on submissions and statements of grounds, I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

In this proceeding, Mr & Mrs Menko lamented that most of the lots in Claire Street have now been purchased by developers, and are likely to be subject to forms of development like the one before me. They resist this level of change, and the likelihood that only two of the original single dwellings will remain. They also raise concerns about how this extent of development can be suitable for a dead-end street, with its only access point to McKinnon Road, and limited on-street car parking supply. They also question the ability of McKinnon Road to accommodate the additional traffic. I understand the frustrations and anger expressed by residents about the rate of change that might occur in Claire Street . However the extent of redevelopment that is likely to occur is a direct realisation of the very clear intent of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, in particular the local policies created by the Glen Eira City Council.

 That is, this form of development and rate of change, is consistent with the planning scheme that I am charged to apply. Further, it is not my role to review, on an ad-hoc basis, the suitability of this dead-end street to accommodate this level of change, nor the ability of McKinnon as a whole to accommodate additional population and traffic. The Glen Eira City Council has had the opportunity to carefully consider such matters, over an extended period of time, and has identified Claire Street McKinnon as an appropriate location for the placement of a housing diversity area, to take the additional housing demands of the municipality.

 The Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly supports substantial development in Claire Street McKinnon. This substantial development is not expected to imitate or reflect the style and form of the single dwellings that currently exist in this and other streets. Instead, a policy intent has been clearly been articulated for Claire Street by the Glen Eira City Council, that encourages more intense and more diverse housing forms. Invariably this means that apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood.

It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street , McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council.

the apartment building is excavated below natural ground level to the rear boundary, such that the ground floor level will be around 1.3 metres below natural ground level, and the ceiling height of the ground floor apartments will be roughly matching the standard fence height on the boundary.

The residents urged upon me that a more appropriate development will consist of two storeys in scale. I agree with their submissions that the two storey apartment building at 13 Claire Street represents a more successful integration into the surrounding context. Further, for the reasons set out above I agree that this proposed three storey building is too big and bulky, with inappropriate setbacks, for the review site. However I have not been persuaded that the site is unsuitable for a three storey apartment building per se. Given the extent of policy support for a significant level of additional housing in this location, and the vast size of this consolidated site, I am not willing to conclude that it is not possible for a well designed three storey apartment building to be found to be an appropriate built form response to this context

Mr & Mrs Menko also raises a concern with the potential increase in traffic in Claire Street and their difficulties in accessing McKinnon Road. I acknowledge that this proposed development, if approved, would have increased such traffic levels, and the delays currently experienced in turning onto McKinnon Street. However the traffic impacts of the proposal were considered by Council’s traffic engineers, and in their independent and expert opinion, the surrounding road network can accommodate the expected increase in traffic.

The policy framework of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly articulates a future for Claire Street McKinnon that anticipates significant change and more substantial housing developments. The Glen Eira City Council has adopted such a vision as a means of protecting much of its other residential areas from even a moderate amount of medium density housing. That is the policy framework that has been adopted and applied to this municipality for over 11 years, and is the vision that I must have regard to and implement in my decision making task.

April 5, 2016

Item 9.2 – Planning Scheme Review

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

NEWS FLASH: KELVIN HO IS COUNCILLOR ELECT

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that one of the ‘requirements’ for councils is to regularly review their planning schemes and this was last done in 2010/11. People then told council that they ‘wanted mandatory heights’, ‘transition zones’, and ‘better protection of neighbourhood character’. Council therefore ‘implemented neighbourhood character overlays’, plus the new zones ‘had height limits’. In regards to Commercial zones then VCAT ‘disagrees’ with officers who believe that ‘our policies should protect’ against ‘this type of height that VCAT has been allowing’. Said ‘I don’t have a lot of faith in VCAT’ but they make the decisions and this is ‘binding’ so it’s ‘something that we need to look at’ in order to give Commercial zones ‘greater protection’ in regard to heights. The government is now looking at the residential zones, so ‘it is good’ that the discussion paper ‘doesn’t focus directly on those’ because ‘whatever we decide’ can be over-ridden by the government. Stated that the original Plan Melbourne talked about 60% of development going into established suburbs, but with the new Plan Melbourne Refresh the figure is no 70% of development in established suburbs so that means ‘cramming more dwellings into established suburbs’. He hoped therefore that the ‘protections that we do have aren’t diminished by Plan Melbourne Refresh’.

Claimed that ‘community consultation’ is very important and that ‘what the community tells us’ from the review ‘will guide us’. Went through the various scheduled meetings and the themes of the discussion paper. Said that council would collate all the information and then send it off to the Minister in August. Changes ‘will require a formal planning scheme amendment’ so this will ‘need to go through a lengthy process’ of consultation, planning panels and then council’s position sent off to the Minister. So even if ‘we all agree’ about height limits in commercial zones, and other things, it will still depend on the Minister.

LIPSHUTZ: planning schemes are ‘integral’ because it ‘certainly affects everyone’ so it is ‘important that the community be involved’. Agreed with Hyams that it’s important that people are involved and they come to the meetings and ‘present their views’ because they can then ‘go to the government’ and say that ‘we’ve listened to the community; we actually know what the community wants’. Said it’s not 9 councillors saying this is what we like, but the ‘community saying this is what we require’. With the new zones people were saying that there is now development that ‘wasn’t allowed before’ well, ‘no one can build anything now that they could not before’. People can ‘twitter’ as much as they like and use other social media but ‘at the end of the day’ it’s ‘so important’ that people come ‘to these meetings and put your views’. Thought that the ‘zones are working well, but they can be improved’. Problem is VCAT because ‘they allow one thing in’ and the ‘next development comes along’ and they say ‘it is a street that is changing, therefore we will allow a second one’ and this ‘opens the floodgates’. Welcomed the review and wanted community ‘answers’ to take to the government’.

MAGEE: said he welcomed the review and that he wrote to the Planning Minister ‘last year asking for various types of reviews’ especially on the commercial zones and imposing overlays. ‘We had already commenced those discussions with the Minister’. So it is good that the ‘MInister is now formally requesting us to do what we were asking the Minister to let us do’. Said that ‘we can change our planning scheme, we can change our zones’ but this ‘won’t make one iota of difference’ if the Minister doesn’t also review VCAT. VCAT must ‘apply’ the planning scheme and shouldn’t be able ‘just to consider’ it. So council ‘can do all this work’ which they have done in 2002 and in 2010 and the ‘community told us’ what they wanted. ‘We knew street by street’ what people wanted through the minimal change areas. This was then changed into the new zones and ‘there were still problems’ because those problems are due to VCAT. Perfect example is Claire Street, McKinnon where there was a ‘totally inappropriate’ application. The ‘applicant lost at VCAT and came back to us a few months later’ with a new application which is ‘very little difference’. ‘So if there is no clear guidance from the Minister to VCAT’ then this planning scheme review is just ‘window dressing’. ‘It looks good, it sounds good, we’re all happy’ until the first council rejection goes to VCAT and ‘they disregard our planning scheme’. ‘You’re in the hands of an individual at VCAT’. Welcomes community input and ‘that will be what this council puts forward’ but unless the Minister looks at VCAT then ‘I worry that we are doing all this for no reason’.

ESAKOFF: said she was looking forward to community views and that ‘it is hard to imagine that anyone would want more’ development. Thinks that people will say that they want ‘less development’. Said she remembers community forums in 2002 where people were ‘horrified’ at the thought of 3 storey shop-top housing. For Council ‘to put forward what our community says’ is ‘going to be a difficult one’ because for ‘us to go back with a lesser footprint if you like’ that what is there now, ‘we know where that is going to be put’ and ‘it won’t be accepted’. ‘Anything other than more won’t be accepted’. Hoped that she was wrong in this forecast. What the community has got to say is ‘important’ because they might come up with ‘ideas’ that council ‘has yet to hear’ so this is ‘well worth listening to’.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got some experience in planning elsewhere where height and density is combined in other states. Victoria is different and complex and hard for people to understand. Said that the themes are good and people should respond not with planning language but with ‘your vernacular’. Thought that the 3^rd theme on environmental sustainability was ‘vital’. Said he’s got a major concern about climate, and how ‘we adapt and manage’ these changes. Temperature increases mean less water and impacts on farming and food production.

LOBO: said he would try not to be ‘controversial’. Said he forecasts that the zones could ‘remain the same’ but people will have the opportunity to voice ‘their concerns’ and ‘what they have lost and hopefully what they will not lose in the future’. Said that the repeated ‘sentence’ that you can’t do now what you could do before’ is true, but the ‘zones’ have given ‘authority to builders to open up the floodgates’. Council can’t stop this or stop VCAT. So council is insisting on ‘democracy for Skyrail’ and ‘in this case we may have overlooked the democracy of asking the residents to comment’.

PILLING: said that Carnegie and Bentleigh East were ‘the real hotspots’ where residents ‘are concerned’ as well as the activity centres. ‘This is a chance for residents to get involved’. Thought this would be a ‘really valuable exercise’.

HYAMS: commented on the consultation on the zones and the consultation on Skyrail that Lobo referred to. The zones ‘were a direct translation’ from minimal change and housing diversity areas. The difference was that ‘in each of those zones we actually put more restrictions on what could be built’ and put on mandatory heights and increased setbacks. ‘So we actually did provide better protection right throughout Glen Eira’ and that’s why ‘we didn’t feel it was necessary to consult because’ it was basically a ‘transition’ and they were only ‘implementing the findings of the previous consultation’ where people wanted height limits and transition zones which ‘came with the’ new residential zones. But with Skyrail the government is ‘proposing to put in something that completely changes the neighbourhood amenity’. Didn’t think there was ‘any valid comparison’ between the two examples. Urged people to ‘take advantage of the opportunity’ to comment and let council know ‘what they are thinking’. Said there’s a ‘tension’ between the need to ‘preserve neighbourhood character and residential amenity’ and to cater for a ‘substantial population growth’. This is what they tried to achieve with the zones by directing growth to transport corridors, ‘closer to shops so there would be less driving’. Not everyone’s going to ‘get what they want’ but important that people have a say.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

NOTE: DELAHUNTY WAS ABSENT

April 1, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

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

We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.

Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates