It is with a disturbing degree of cynicism that we read the latest proposal regarding further development of Melbourne through the imposition of New Residential Zones. We are further disturbed to note that you consider that members of the public "were unclear about what changes would mean for their neighbourhood." Let us assure you that members of MEG and the groups in the Planning Backlash Network are acutely aware of the implications of NRZ...and we deplore them.
Malvern East Group
MEG Supports PLANNING BACKLASH
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email meg@chezsamuel.com
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
It is with a disturbing degree of cynicism that we read the latest proposal regarding further development of Melbourne through the imposition of New Residential Zones. We are further disturbed to note that you consider that members of the public "were unclear about what changes would mean for their neighbourhood." Let us assure you that members of MEG and the groups in the Planning Backlash Network are acutely aware of the implications of NRZ...and we deplore them.
We applaud the decision to retain third party notice , objection and appeal rights in all zones (even though the developers do not want them) but note that this will mean absolutely nothing in the light of the Government's stated intention of increasing the Minister's 'call in' powers, of increasing his interference in VCAT cases and the proposed introduction of DACs. It would seem that our rights are to be given to us with the right hand and taken away with the left. We further note that Councils will have the power to exclude these rights.
We also applaud the sentiments expressed in the "improved features" in which it is stated that the Government will "allow capacity to specify preferred neighbourhood character and preferred design outcomes." However, this is negated by the fact that Stonnington's Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Character Study approved by Council in Dec. in 2006 and lodged with the Department in January 2007 still gathers dust somewhere in DPCD. Council is unable to get permission to even exhibit the document. The overt deceit in the statement that we will be allowed to specify "preferred neighbourhood character" when, clearly, we in Stonnington are not allowed to do just that beggars belief.
PROCESS
The "devil in the detail" in the process lies in the term "transition." The underlying assumption for Stonnington and similar municipalities is that Res.1 and Res.3 zones will be arbitrarily placed in the Incremental Change Zone during transition...which could last forever. Selected overlays would be placed in the Limited Change Zone. However "existing overlays may be removed if they include development requirements that can be included in one of the new zones. 'Development requirements' occur at Activity Centres where public transport (unreliable as it is) is available. We can assume from this that most of Stonnington will be littered with the ubiquitous 3 storey plus residential developments with an increased commercial element. It follows that the 'neighbourhood character' can neither be protected nor respected. The intrinsic qualities of the neighbourhood will be altered forever.
We cite an example of what could occur in Malvern East as a result of this. The Gascoigne Estate Heritage Overlay is bounded by the Caulfield Major Activity Centre which incorporates the Caulfield Station Transport Hub and Monash/Caulfield, the Neighbourhood Activity Centres of Waverley Rd., the Burke /Wattletree Rd. intersection and the Wattletree/Tooronga Rd. intersection. We can only assume from your statement that the Gascoigne Estate will be a target for development for up to 3 storeys plus...and we could say the same thing about any of the overlays in Stonnington.
CONSULTATION
We note that it is only previous submitters who have been notified and provided with copies of this slightly modified proposal. This is reprehensible.
This has the potential to impact on all Victorians and there has been no attempt to engage communities in information and consultation sessions. We assume that NRZ is to be arbitrarily foisted upon residents as M2030 was. It is a further example of the autocratic behaviour of this Government and its bureaucrats. (We are aware of the Minister recently overruling a vote of Parliament!)
As neither the Government nor Councils chose to inform the community of NRZ, Residents' Groups such as MEG felt obliged with our very limited resources to attempt to fill the gap. MEG reaches only some people in Malvern East and a minimal number in the rest of Stonnington.
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ZONE
As this zone identifies where housing growth is appropriate...i.e. within walking distance of shopping and transport all of Stonnington, except for a small area in Toorak can be included. This is an appalling prospect and an indictment of the authors of NRZ. It is an "anything goes," "let her rip" zone.
We note on P.4 of 6 the exemption from notice an review, no permit required to construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling...what is normal?
For developments of 4 or more storeys the reference is 'Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development...guidelines which are totally meaningless as no standards are set, nothing is mandatory, amenity issues are not considered let alone prescribed. They are what this zone already is ...an "anything goes," "let her rip" area and an example of this is the Forrest Hill Precinct in Stonnington...Docklands in the suburbs.
A schedule to this zone may specify that it is exempt from notice and review. Why?
INCREMENTAL CHANGE ZONE
We have already pointed out the inaccuracy in the statement that Councils are able to identify particular characteristics of neighbourhood and have housing which respects the existing character. Stonnington is not allowed to do this.
Respectful additional housing is to go into this zone. A recent VCAT decision defined 'respect neighbour hood character':-
"it requires a building to be a comfortable companion to the other assets that are characteristic of the area whether they be buildings or vegetation. Sometimes this can be achieved by elements which 'complement'
some of the features in the area. Some of these elements are self-evident...style, height, setbacks, materials, colours, etc., while others are more intangible such as rhythm, spacing, recessive elements and public realm."
In this zone, development will be limited to 3 storeys but the paper then goes on to say that "requirements of Cl.55 must be met but not if the application is 4 storeys or more." It follows that the Incremental Change Zone can have developments that are the same as those allowed in the Substantial Change Zone. It is noted that Council may schedule an exemption from notice and review as in the Substantial Change Zone. We wonder if this entire paper was written to confuse the reader and what it indeed means is that any sort of development can go anywhere.
The meeting of the standards of Cl.55 is a nonsense. These so-call standards are discretionary and are varied at whim. Applicants consistently exceed the standards. For instance, we could cite any number of examples of applications exceeding the height limit set in Standard B13 of Cl.55 and if Council does not allow it VCAT invariably does.
LIMITED CHANGE ZONE
Even in this zone you state a maximum heights of 9m....3 storeys. What do is meant by 'appropriate locations" where Council can set a lower limit? The implication is that even in the overlay areas there has to be medium density housing up to 3 storeys and a further implication is that 4 storey plus can be permitted.
There is to be no less than 2 dwellings per lot. Does this mean there must be more?
......................................................
FURTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED
SPECIFIED MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
In practice maximum heights are automatically seen by applicants as "target heights." This is to be avoided. The aim of any planner or Government should be to protect the liveability of its citizens. Setting heights to 3 storeys (plus) in areas which are primarily 1 and 2 storey compromises liveability.
USES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT
In none of the zones is a permit required for Residential Aged Care Facilities nor for a Bed & Breakfast for up to 6 people in an existing building. Both of these uses have the potential to impact heavily on existing residential areas and yet they can be established virtually by stealth with owners having the knowledge that they do not have to consider anything or anyone nor do they have to provide adequate facilities. We are aware of a number of municipalities which have this same situation with regard to 'student accommodation by stealth.' Enforcement procedures are difficult in that Councils simply do not have the staff nor the funding to ensure compliance with existing regulations.
LOSS OF THE GREEN CANOPY
As moonscaping of sites is a common occurrence now, we dread to contemplate what will inevitably happen under this proposal. Government fails to recognise that the green canopy provides the lungs of the city. If we are to repeat Docklands throughout the suburbs Melbournians will not be able to breathe. The tree canopy is an asset which must be protected. There is nothing in your proposal which pays it the slightest attention.
SUSTAINABILITY
The opportunity to incorporate sustainable building and design practices into the consideration of residential development has been omitted. Another grave omission!
INFRASTRUCTURE
The proposal does not take into account the ageing infrastructure in the older municipalities. There is no information regarding Government action re the replacement of drains and sewers, let alone improving the public transport system. The system was not designed for to accommodate higher density development. It cannot cope adequately with the present population so it stands no chance of coping with all the people which you intend to cram into the established suburbs. Existing problems with all of our infrastructure can only be exacerbated by NRZ. The Government and its bureaucracy are in denial when this is not acknowledged in a document which, literally, proposes to worsen the situation.
SOLUTION
A Task Force has been formed to carry out consultation with regional communities. We hope that their work is not confined to Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat but extends to Warrnambool, Portland, Horsham, Mildura, Traralgon, Shepparton and any number of other smaller towns which could sustain an increase in population. We are aware of an Upper House Committee which has been formed to inquire into Regional Development.
Melbourne does not have to be the 'primary accommodation' for new housing .
It is in strategically-directed, incentive-driven decentralisation that the answer to Victoria's population increase lies not in the ever-expanding Urban Growth Boundary of Melbourne. A lesson can be learned from Ireland and the pattern of population distribution which has been developed there is one that this Government could pursue if it could just 'think creatively.' "Ireland offers a model for taking pressure off Melbourne while still allowing the state to develop and population to rise."
Please find attached an article by the Planning Barrister David O'Brien...Age Sept.16/08..."REGIONAL CITIES MUST BE KEY TO VICTORIA'S FUTURE." ( I can provide you with a hard copy of this if the scanned article is illegible.)
CONCLUSION
MEG believes that the New Residential Zones proposal sounds the 'death knell' for the leafy suburbs which help Melbourne to survive. These suburbs contribute so much, not only to those who live in them, but to the general population. The vegetation so many of us work hard to sustain helps to absorb the pollution the city creates.
People who moonscape sites replacing trees and shrubs with endless buildings and those who encourage them to do so steal amenity from the rest of us. This proposal is much more than a development proposal. Its essence lies in what it will destroy rather than anything positive that it will promote.
We believe it is a gift for the 'urban vandal.'
Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)
