The officer’s report for the proposed Virginia Estate Amendment recommends that the Minister appoint an ‘independent’ Planning Panel. No surprises there! Nor is the ‘quality’ of the report itself a surprise. Once again it is short on justification, short on comprehensive analysis, and most importantly fails to adequately address and answer residents’ concerns.

By way of contrast, we feature below the officer’s report from 17th March 2010, which recommended sending the Caulfield Village Amendment C60 off to a planning panel. Whilst this Amendment itself is steeped in controversy and back room wheeling and dealing, we ask readers to carefully consider the far greater detail that went into this report – in contrast to what’s been dished up now with the Virginia Estate amendment. We also acknowledge that the C60 was based on what was called an ‘incorporated plan’ rather than a Development Overlay as with Virginia Estate. However, the end result is basically the same – ie setting height limits, etc and both needing a Development Plan in the future.

Please compare the two and note the details that are lacking for this current amendment. It highlights once again in our view:

  • The failure to present all the relevant information
  • Questions need to be asked regarding how ‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ the report actually is?
  • And the most vital question – why are residents once again ignored, spurned, and not listened to?
  • FYI – we’ve uploaded the officer report HERE

VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_1VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_2

Advertisements