MAKING PLANNING BETTER 7pm November 10, Brunswick East
Brunswick Residents network has organised this forum to better understand the “big picture” of planning in Victoria, and how we can most effectively intervene.
*** Carolyn Whitzman is an East Brunswick resident and Associate Professor in Urban Planning at the University of Melbourne. She will speak on:”Place, health and liveability: How can existing and new Brunswick residents get good health and liveability outcomes from current planning proposals?”

*** Carlo Carli, our former local Member of Parliament, is now writing a PhD on planning. He will discuss Caroline’s presentation.
At Clarrie Wohlers Senior Citizens Centre, 51 Albert Street (Fleming Park)

You’re welcome to email back questions you’d like discussed. There will be time for audience discussion.

Contact: albertstreet2020@gmail.com
===========================================================
Also, Sunday 27 November, 12.00-3.00pm
COMMUNITY PICNIC
Come to Fleming Park to:
* Meet other residents
* Share information about building projects and planning issues that effect you
* Be entertained by fabulous local musicians including a fiddle orchestra, and the Melbourne Ukulele Kollective.
Sausage sizzle provided, gourmet items BYO
More details coming . . .

In a ruling released on Friday March 18, VCAT says LPD Developments’ permit should be modified to eight-storey. The ruling re-iterates the DDO of ’5-storey maximum’ on the site, is the maximum height required before a permit is required. Therefore the ‘minimum’ height that a permit is required for the site would be six-storey.

The reasons it gives is that a building higher than 8 (as it is in a side street) would ‘strike a discordant note’ with the council plan of achieving a consistent scale for the the Lygon Activity corridor (see page  14).

It is disappointing VCAT overruled Moreland’s initial decision and allowed an extra storey above what Council permitted.

VCAT needs drastic reform – it is a minefield for residents, but still a field of opportunity for developers.

If residents had appealed the decision in October the result could have been worse as our appeal would have been at the ‘sting of the tail’ of what groups call ‘Madden’s madness’, since been slightly unravelled by the new government, but mostly still leaving design open to interpretation.

After Sept 20 last year, the VC71 State Planning policy allowed for intense development off main roads, watered down criteria for impacting residents and threw out good-design principals.

Please contact Planning Minister Matthew Guy regarding making Brunswick’s interim height controls mandatory. You may remember Mr Guy, when he attended our event in Brunswick on November 11  before he was elected to the Upper House again, promised to to support mandatory height controls, if Liberal was elected as Government.  You can write requesting he make the interim controls mandatory, and that schedule 19 of the DDOs in Amendment C105 are of particular concern to you.

For more information please email us: 170edwardst@gmail.com

You will receive a letter from VCAT requesting another statement of grounds, if you wish to appear at the hearing. Deadline for the issues in dispute (or ‘new statement of grounds’) is December 29.

If you miss the deadline you can not appear at the hearing.  I will email around a statement of grounds that you can copy soon. Stay tuned.

The tribunal hearing is on January 27 & 28, and February 9.

Our Barrister of choice and expert witnesses  will cost $25,000, and this is impossible to raise so quickly particularly as the hearing is in a month. The Barrister who worked the Honeywell case (has offered advice pro-bono thus far)  is across the planning schemes and thi and similar cases, therefore he would be best.

If you have any idea on fundraising please let us know!

If the Planning Scheme  Amendment C105 is not altered to remove the guidelines allowing permits above DDO height controls, developers will continue to prefer to proceed to VCAT in order to have a ‘second bite of the cherry.’  Developers’ appeals are costing council and communities unnecessary fees. If permits were not allowed above height controls then the buck would stop with council. I have written to Minister Matthew Guy who promised us on Nov 11, that he would support mandatory height controls for Brunswick if elected. He got upper house votes based on that promise, so we hope he will initiate this as son as possible. Please check the website for contacts to write to regarding help with lobbying for the mandatory controls.

On November 11, state election candidates running in the seat of Brunswick will front residents on planning issues plaguing the suburb.

A network of up-to 10 residents’ groups has organised the ‘Planning Brunswick’s Future’ forum in the hope that whoever is elected will represent community views and push for results. Suggested results include pushing the Minister to permit ‘mandatory’ height controls (instead of the current ‘discretionary’ ones), and clear boundaries to the Brunswick structure plan before it becomes part of the planning scheme next year.

Residents are mainly worried about character loss in residential streets and traffic congestion.

Lygon Street Brunswick East, with eight and ten-storey developments approved by VCAT, is fast becoming known locally as the ‘Lygon Canyon’.
However of more concern is the issue of high-rise and high-density development in local side streets running off main roads. Edward Street has seen Melbourne’s largest medium density development (the Tip Top development) approved at a reduced height of 7-storey, and Albert Sreet (another local street) has a 14-storey approval while the council has no plan to add traffic calming measures into the narrow street.

Since its inaugural meeting in July this year, Brunswick Residents have achieved the passing of interim height controls for 12-months from September 25 2010.
The network lobbied for the Victorian Minister to accept the request for height limits (Amendment C105- Moreland) that Moreland Council had made two years earlier. Twice refused as mandatory, the minister on September 25 signed-off the limits as discretionary.
Until the recent height-limit sign  off, Brunswick was hit with a wave of high rise proponents.
Details:

When? Thursday 11 November, 6.30pm to 8.00 pm

Where? Clarrie Wohlers Centre, 51 Albert St East Brunswick (in Fleming Park)

Who? Confirmed speakers Jane Garrett (Labor); Cyndi Dawes (Greens); Bill Cawte (Independent) and a Liberal representative (name TBC), plus Phil Cleary if standing.
Inquiries and requests for flyers via this email, or to Nic on 0421 840 100

Facebook event link:
www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166439420052484&num_event_invites=17#!/event.php?eid=166439420052484

Brunswick residents contacts:
Joanna Stanley 0425 735 715
Nic Maclennan 0421 840 100

VCAT now has a 90-day list for developments over $5-million. The appeal should take place by mid-December, with a result handed down by early January.

Please advise of your intentions regarding filing proceedings at VCAT yourself by calling 9380 9596 or email 170edwardst@gmail.com

Joanna

Edward Street

Brunswick Residents (steering group member)

The above opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of all objectors

brunswickresidentsunite.wordpress.com/

Moreland  Council has voted for an alternative proposal including a seven-storey limit for ‘building C’ and a few minor changes to the original plan. This represents a reduction of 40 apartments. The minor changes  include removal of one apartment in Building B (Edward Street) to respect residential set back of neighbouring houses. A public car park was also added in response to mainly trader complaints.  Weston Street will bear the brunt of most of this visitor traffic. Feedback is encouraged on this result.

The developer has agreed to improve upon apartments for people with disabilities, increase energy efficiency (renewable energy lighting, more solar hot-water,  and to water all gardens and flush toilets with  harvested storm-water). The developer has risen above standard practice in these areas but may be still arguable that ‘best practice’ is not being meet across the development.  Developments that do not meet best practice are generally permitted by council – but scaled down to heights below height limits suggested by council.

In this case Council is saying, permitting 2 extra levels  (above the recommended 5-storey)  is a trade-off for the quality features  mentioned above.

A councillor stated he only voted for 7-storey because the sites ‘already had a permit for that’. The community’s argument – that the original permit was for a 7th level penthouse apartment, and did not impact as much – was not understood.

The community is encouraged to please leave comments here.