September 7th 2010
VCAT and the Sires site. The company who stands to make the profit out of the Sires site has changed their proposal, lowered the building by 950 mm (yes!) and reduced the number of apartments to 193. They are still aiming to build a six-storey building on Albert Street, which is already choked. If you want to join the VCAT action please get these documents (memo and letter)
July 23rd 2010
Objections to the Sires site plans MUST be lodged with VCAT before the 30th July. They have to be in writing (VCAT will not accept emails). The complete set of documents served by the lawyers for the company can be found here. If you want to print and fill out the form on page 15 and 16 of this pdf file, please send it to all three of: VCAT, Moreland City Council and the lawyers for the company (MinterEllison) whose address is on the first page of the documents.
Remember, the company (Grange Development Group) want to build a seven storey building with a reduction of car parking on poor little Albert Street. Moreland Council rightly used their structure plan to reject the application and they should be supported in their case at VCAT by the residents.
If you lodged an objection in the past you will need to do it again as VCAT does not have that information from Council.
July 16th 2010
UPDATE ON AMENDMENT C92
Amendment C92, as amended by Cr Connellan's Alternate Motion, was passed
by Moreland Council on Wednesday 14th July. The Alternate Motion was tabled and
spoken to at the meeting by Cr Jo Connellan and it was adopted
unanimously by the Councillors present. The document (SCHEDULE 11 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO11) can be accessed here.
That Alternate Motion made a number of changes to the DPO to address residents' concerns
about building heights, traffic volumes and access, green open space
(gardens) and community consultation. Jo Connellan worked with residents
for several weeks to understand our concerns and to frame appropriate
conditions that would address them. The outcome is a significant
improvement on the DPO put forward by Council Officers and provides
significant safeguards for residents' amenity and interests.
Most importantly, under the DPO as passed last night, once Council
Officers are happy with the developers Development Plan for the
precinct, they must put the plan on public display and notify affected
residents, traders and organisations. The developer must organise an
information session during the exhibition period. After the closing date
for submissions, Council Officers must arrange a consultation meeting
with submitters and others who may be affected by the development - this
enables people to make oral (not only written) submissions. Council
Officers must consider all concerns raised (either through written
submissions or the community meeting) when making decisions about the
Plan.
Cr Connellan acknowledged that the community input had improved the
final form of this Amendment and she thanked the Due Process group for
their time and efforts in working on this Amendment.
Also passed at last night's meeting were:
- A resolution to ask Council Officers to develop community
consultation plans for future rezoning Amendments that involve Overlays
that remove or limit third party rights.
- An Amendment to the Delegation rules so that permit
applications where DPOs are in place are considered by a wider group of
Councillors, rather than decided by Council Officers under delegation.
This effectively ensures that the Albert St decision cannot happen again
and, in particular, that decisions under the Tontine DPO will be
scrutinized by Council members.
This is a real achievement for due process in Moreland. It will
certainly help to ensure that future development on the Tontine site
takes community views into consideration instead of locking us out of
decision-making processes.
Whether the development that was planned for the Tontine site will
proceed as described at the Panel hearings is in some doubt. Bridgehead
Properties no longer own the site - it is being administered by KPMG and
will be sold as soon as possible. The new purchasers may or may not
decide to continue working with the planners and designers who had been
engaged on this project by Bridgehead. Hopefully, they will have more
money and be able to consider a higher quality development!
Of course, the new owners will now be bound by the conditions in the DPO
(and would have to seek a formal amendment to it if they wanted to
change those conditions).
Congratulations to everyone for their hard work and commitment to
getting the best possible outcome for this site. Any prospective
purchasers must surely be on notice now that they will need to consult
with the local community in East Brunswick!!
Three things that we now need to do:
- Write to Kelvin Thomson and let him know that we do not want
a uniform 7 storey height restriction across Brunswick - we want the
heights specified in the Brunswick Structure Plan!
- Write to the Minister for Transport and demand increases in
public transport capacity to meet the needs of all the new residents in
Brunswick
- Make appropriate development and due process State election
issues! We want State members who understand that the community must
have a say in development and planning!
Older news
Moreland Council will be considering Amendment C92 at the meeting on Weds June 9th at the Brunswick Council Chambers. Their officers have prepared a response to the Panel report (and a misreading of it in some parts) that will be presented to Council (get it here). COME TO THAT MEETING AND DEMAND DUE PROCESS!!
If Council approves this Amendment it may be the end of any of our rights as local ratepayers to have a say in the design or construction of the 5 hectare site which are is our next door neighbour. The report to Council is just wrong in some parts, for example they say:
"The application of the DPO tool is specifically recommended by the DPCD for significant strategic redevelopment sites where the merits of the precinct have been appropriately debated in a public forum as part of the planning scheme amendment process. "
This is clearly untrue as local residents did not get any notice of the process until a week or two before Christmas 2009, and most still have no idea of the scale of the proposed construction.
At the meeting organised by Councillor Connellan on Tuesday 21st April it was revealed (for many of us for the first time) that Council can, if they choose, adopt the Development Plan Overlay (DPO 11) without removing the rights of third parties to review further changes. Why has the Council, which claims to be acting in the interests of its residents, ever allowed such removal of rights to be included at all?
What does this mean?
It was made clear that Council is in a difficult position in that, if they reject the present amendment it is likely that the proposal will go to Madden's office, and that means we are completely excluded and he will approve even the worst aspects of the proposal. If Council accepts some parts and rejects others, we may get a better proposal than the one currently on display.
We will have a chance to look at the proposal that the Council's planners put to Council a week before the relevant meeting on June 8th. That is the time when we will need to let Council know what we think of the proposal.
And why are we, the residents of the area, considered to be third parties? In fact, of course, it is the outside companies that want to build inappropriate construction who are the third parties.
WE NEED TO WRITE TO OUR COUNCILLORS urging them to remove that part of DPO 11 that takes our rights to further review of the proposal away from us.