Residents' Planning Victory: "Some of us aren't rubber-stamping robots!"

"Some of us aren't rubber-stamping robots!" was my defiant cry as we debated the fate of 53 Franklin Street, Doncaster East.

I have always supported good and appropriate development, it is necessary for urban renewal and growth. Our planning department had great foresight to introduce Amendment C53, one of the first councils to act to control high-rise developments in quiet suburban streets. However, I reject the views of my fellow Councillors Mayne, Ellis, Gough and La Vella, who supported the development and variously stated during the night that "this development ticks all the boxes" and should be allowed, accused residents of being NIMBYs, insulted the good Councillors of neighbouring Boroondara* and accused councillors like myself of "pandering to residents".

Well, I don't just tick boxes. Nor do I prejudge planning applications. At the submitters meeeting the night before, I listened to the developer. I listened to the residents. I saw that there are multi-villa developments just two blocks away and that this is a designated activity centre, and as such, designated for higher density development. Crucially though, I saw that a walk-up appartment block was inappropriate for our ageing demographics and the neighbourhood character. Multi-villa units would have achieved the same density target, whilst retaining more character and being more flexible for the future.

Cr "Tricky" Gough has served on council longer than any of us and certainly knows all the tricks (as evidenced by his clever use of deferments to closed committees he chairs), so I would never dare suggest he has lost sight of our role in being the compassionate adjudicators between strict rules and natural justice. All I know is that whilst I support our planning rules, I also listen to those who elected me. I listen to my judgement when it tells me, something that "ticks all the boxes" can still be an overdevelopment for a given neighbourhood.

"We cannot give up on our residents just because some think we might lose at VCAT!", has been my rallying cry. I said the same whilst opposing the gross overdevelopment on King Street (proposed nursing home). Sadly, Crs Mayne and Gough in particular, frequently argue that we should just follow our planning officers' recommendations because otherwise we'll just "waste money at VCAT". Rich, given that  between them they advocate the sale of community assets (like family parks) and champion 6.5% rate rises!

Cr Mayne has previously accused me of "flip-flopping" on planning matters. What he clearly cannot see, is that I judge each application on its merits, which is vastly different from his uniform, conforming approach of following officers' recommendations. I listen to all arguments, then make my own decision.

Happily, as the minutes will record, Crs Chuah, Downie, McMillan, Pick and Reid sent a clear message that higher-density can be good, but only if it is done is a manner sensitive to the neighbourhood character.

*Gough, actually on another debate that night, family parks; presumably a reference to their Kew Cottages fight on residents' behalf.

Town Planning

Recently, I've been getting numerous calls from residents concerned about proposed building developments. Unlike some other councils, Manningham had the foresight to intorduce (about 2 years ago), explicit planning overlays for all areas of Manningham, which makes it easier to enforce sensible controls on proposed developments outside designated high activity centres. Unfortunately, there will always still be developments which just don't seem to fit into the neighbourhood. Rescode explicitly refers to "existing neighbourhood character" as one of the parameters that need to be satisfied by a planning application. There may also be instances where overshadowing of north-facing windows/living areas is excessive. When this happens, residents can lodge objections, which are considered by council officers when planning applications are assessed. Objections should be lodged within 14 days of the development notice being errected. Petitions are less effective than individual objections. An excellent overview of the planning/objection process is provided by the national group "Save our Suburbs" (www.sos.org.au). Here is the link to the guide, which is a few years old, so do your own research as well.

What can councillors do? Well, individually, councillors have little power, but where there is enough concern from residents, a planning application can be referred to a full council meeting for a decision. Regardless of the outcome at council, an application can still be appealed at VCAT, so it can be a long process. My advice is:
1. do your own research into Rescode and SOS
2. speak with all councillors in your Ward
3. speak with the council planning officer responsible for reviewing the planning application, and ensure you familiarise yourself with the details of the plans
4. work with your neighbours
5. seek discussions with the developer
6. lodge any objections factually and promptly

At the end of the day, Manningham needs continuous development to meet the demands of a growing population. The vast majority of developments are worthy additions to our evolving cityscape. Where a development appears to be unsuitable, there are clear processes which seek to ensure a win-win outcome for all. Take the time to do your research and we can all work together for a better Manningham!