Below is part of the correspondence between Council and the department. The date of this correspondence is very important – well and truly AFTER the ‘reformed’ zones were introduced. Why wasn’t this glaring and detrimental change picked up earlier? Why hasn’t council done a damn thing about it in the past year? Why was there such indecent haste and secrecy to begin with? And why are we paying large sums of money to Akehurst and his planning department when clearly they can’t get things right? Either they are not doing their jobs adequately enough or are entirely indifferent to the repercussions of their decisions. Whichever, the result remains poor planning and the continued erosion of residential amenity.
Perhaps confusing at first sight, but nonetheless of major significance. Here’s why!
Do you, or any of your neighbours happen to live in a Minimal Change Area? (ie NRZ1)
Does your or your neighbour’s land happen to be larger than its surrounding properties? (say 700+ sqm)
Does your property happen to abut a General Residential Zone? (GRZ1, GRZ2 OR GRZ3)
If you’ve answered ‘yes’ to all of these questions then we regret to inform you that you are in what is colloquially termed, ‘deep shit’. Why? Because this planning department and its ignorant and compliant councillors have overlooked another basic flaw in the current planning scheme. The relevant clause that gives developers the right to erect more than two dwellings in minimal change on larger size blocks just happens to read:
Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly:
- demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone have been met.
In other words, if the land happens to be larger than its neighbours, and if you are on the border of GRZ zones (but still in minimal change), then it is the GRZ ‘standards’ that apply AND NOT THOSE DESIGNATED FOR MINIMAL CHANGE!
There has already been one VCAT decision where the applicant argued along this line. Thankfully the member rejected the application because countless other standards such as setbacks, etc. were not met by the application. However, there was plenty that this member had to say about council and its planning scheme. We quote:
Mr Clarke (for applicant) urged me to apply the GRZ standards because the policy is clear as to its terms and it is sensible to do so when the intention of policy is to allow consideration of more intense development than two dwelling.
I find neither Mr Sissons’ (for council) submissions nor Mr Clarke’s opinions compelling as to what standards should apply for the purposes of applying the policy. The policy is poorly drafted and they have understandably struggled to find a coherent path of reasoning. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/969.html)
This entire episode does not only reveal the ineptitude of Council, but the continual mistruths that are allowed to go out in councillors’ names. Applying GRZ standards to minimal change areas IS NOT A ‘NEUTRAL TRANSLATION’ of what came before. Minimal change stipulates 25% permeability – GRZ 20%; site coverage in minimal change is 50% – in GRZ IT IS 60%; setbacks, and heights also differ markedly.
There are countless large blocks in minimal change that abut GRZ zones. A few examples can be quickly found along Orrong Crescent, Inkerman Road, Angdon road and Craddock Avenue, just for starters. If any of these properties were to come up for ‘redevelopment’ then the applicant has every right to argue that more than two dwellings are applicable and that the standards for GRZ zones should be applied. Not minimal change, we repeat, but the watered down ‘standards’ for the General Residential Zones.
It’s probably taken a year, but residents are finally get a true inkling of what bastardry has been perpetrated with the introduction of these disastrous ‘reformed zones’. Determined to be ‘first cab off the rank’ residents are now paying the price for planning that is not only inept, but constitutes a further erosion of all amenity and common sense. For this we must thank Newton, Akehurst and a band of councillors who simply do not have a clue, or don’t care!
August 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM
I am not sure but I think this applies to all large areas in minimal change and not only those that are alongside the grz. What could happen is that any land right in the middle of minimal change can then have three storeys and forty units built alongside a single storey house and it would be permissable according to the planning scheme and the zoning schedules. Selling off multiple blocks of land to make them bigger will also start in minimal change if I’m right. This is heaven sent for real estate agents and their lists of developers and awful for the city.
August 19, 2014 at 3:02 PM
The Age has caught up with the story of multiple blocks going for sale.
http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/neighbours-join-forces-to-up-sale-prices-in-same-street-20140819-105oeb.html
August 19, 2014 at 8:06 PM
here is another one. this will go for a fortune. Wonder if the politicians give any thought of the the thousands that will be going to Mckinnon High!
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/property-land+development-vic-mckinnon-501236795
August 20, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Cr Magee is Vice President of the McKinnon Secondary College School Council.
August 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM
He should be aware that none of the chinese or russian students live in the zone. They rent for 6 months then once the kis is enrolled they move to cheaper digs. The locak land rats tell them how to go about it. Most of them score well in the ATAR so the schhol doesn’t mind.
August 19, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Inept or indifferent? It’s both.
August 20, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Does it matter – the end result is the same.
Developers win, current and future residents get less and less amenity, traffic becomes congested and rat runs develop and parking becomes a night mare. Not to mention rising rates to fund more and more staff who continue to do nothing.
August 20, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Obviously C110 and the hastily-made repair jobs done in its wake are a mess. Council is guilty of deceit, since it hasn’t published details of any motion supporting C110, and officers wouldn’t have delegated authority to request the Minister to exempt C110 from the normal Amendment process without a resolution. Keep in mind that the changes are NOT neutral. Council is guilty of deceit if it claims otherwise. The reference to the standards in the schedule to GRZ in Minimal Change Area policy is an example of a non-neutral change, and an example of ineptness since there are 3 schedules. Which one did Council mean?
None of us mere mortals knows what Council has been lobbying for in discussions with the Minister re C115 [Large Sites in NRZ]. The Minutes of the Council Meeting 17 Dec 2013 only gives a rough outline of what allegedly is being sought. If it can be believed, it’s defining large sites as 2000sqm and above; constraining density to be 1 dwelling per 400sqm; and preserving the amenity standards contained in NRZ. The alternatives are either to subdivide large sites [which is still an option], or have developers seek rezoning to GRZ. Rezoning would be a very undesirable outcome if you care about amenity.
Its pure speculation on my part, but I suspect the reason that the reference to GRZ appears in Minimal Change Area policy is to justify future rezoning for large sites from NRZ to GRZ as being neutral and in accordance with policy, and therefore should be done be done by the Minister without notice [that is, exempted from the normal Amendment process].
It is curious why Council has been so coy about the status of C115 and been very reluctant to share the reasons why it has stalled.
August 20, 2014 at 1:29 PM
Residents also need to take full note of the following:
1. Council’s Quarterly Reports purport to provide information on Amendments – whether these be council initiated or Ministerial amendments. No such ‘report’ has appeared in regard to Amendment C115
2. No reference to this Amendment is to be found anywhere in the Records of Assembly from the time of seeking ministerial approval to advertise. Conclusion? Either officers have NOT reported back to councillors on the ‘progress’ of this amendment or, the records of assembly are again works of fiction, or examples of very careful selective editing. Either way, this speaks volumes about governance, record keeping and transparency/accountability.
3. We also remind readers that Amendment C110 also underwent this same process!
August 20, 2014 at 2:41 PM
It gets a lot worse when lots of under 2000 sqm are taken into account. There must be literally hundreds throughout Glen Eira that fall into this category and now that we’ve got joint sales the sizes will grow and grow. Even a 1000 sqm lot under grz could easily fit anything up to 40 apartments in a three storey. and no car parking. This could also be in a narrow, quiet street miles away from any activity centre.
August 20, 2014 at 5:48 PM
Officially the policy is to discourage consolidation of sites in Minimal Change areas. GRZ is far more permissive than NRZ so yes, if a developer is successful in persuading Council to rezone a “large” lot from NRZ to GRZ then it is likely to be incongruous. I’m less sympathetic about people in narrow quiet streets concerning traffic. They generate traffic too, and if they expect to be able to drive to an activity centre then they’re contributing to the congestion that makes activity centres unpleasant and dangerous.
August 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM
If they don’t give a damn about streets around the racecourse with 2000 apartments going in then they aren’t going to give a damn about streets in activity centres.
August 21, 2014 at 1:07 PM
Phoenix Precinct policy states: “Recognise that the road network within the Phoenix Precinct has a limited capacity to absorb traffic and car parking generated by new development. Encourage development only where the impacts on the road network in the Phoenix Precinct can be managed by appropriate traffic management treatments.” The planning process revealed that traffic is bad and will be made worse, but in Council-speak “managed” doesn’t mean acceptable.
August 21, 2014 at 7:10 AM
The new zones were implemented 22nd August, 2013 and in just under a year Bent Street and Neerim Road neighbours have joined to sell homes. Yet another example of how effective Council policies are?
August 21, 2014 at 9:21 AM
It was the 23rd August 2013. McKinnon Road has now joined the growing throng of Bent Street & Neerim Road.