{"id":437,"date":"2008-04-19T09:10:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-18T23:10:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T14:00:00","slug":"weakeningtheresidentialzones-sossubmission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/2008\/04\/19\/weakeningtheresidentialzones-sossubmission\/","title":{"rendered":"Weakening the Residential Zones – SOS Submission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the summary we have attached to our submission –<\/p>\n

SOS Submission on New Local Residential Zones<\/h1>\n

The proposed new zones are completely unacceptable, for the following reasons –<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No<\/strong> new zone should compulsorily replace the existing Residential 1 Zone. If a new zone is required, it should be made available to Councils to use at their discretion.<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  2. All of the proposed zones weaken the system of planning controls by allowing an unspecified ‘fast track’ for permit approval. This will be open to abuse and it is unacceptable that residents’ rights to appeal a decision, and to get notice of an application, are being removed!<\/strong> The fast track process should be reversed, ie there should be a fast track refusal process for applications that do not meeting a minimum set of ResCode standards.<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  3. Notice and Review rights can not be<\/strong> limited to the adjoining and opposite properties, or not all!<\/strong> Many developments impact the surrounding area for a considerable distance.<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  4. Non residential uses, such as the listed medical centre, child care centre and supermarket, should always require a permit in a residential zone ie not be exempt from requiring a permit!<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  5. The reduction of block size from 500m2 to 300m2 for requiring a planning permit for a single dwelling will mean most single dwellings will not require a permit, even in the inner city. This is the opposite of what should be done.<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  6. Notification of these proposed zone changes has been appalling. Given the impact that they will have on Melbourne, there should have been wide spread publicity – many people normally not interested in planning WOULD <\/strong>be interested if they knew their Residential 1 zone was to become a fast tracked development zone!<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  7. The suggested zones – aimed at increasing density and making it easy to get a permit, while also reducing residents’ rights – do not address any of the fundamental problems with the current planning system, and it’s only developers who will be happy with them. The current problem is not that higher density isn’t allowed, the problem is not being able to stop excessive inappropriate higher density development!<\/li>\n

    <\/p>\n

  8. If the point of the new zones is to ‘streamline’ the planning system, there are much better ways of achieving this, as we have documented in many other submissions.<\/li>\n

    \n<\/ol>\n

    In short, the new zones should be completely abandoned in their current form. While some of the purposes appear acceptable, their actual implementation – from the details that are available – indicate that they will not achieve the purpose described. <\/strong> <\/p>\n

    Ian Quick <\/p>\n

    President Save Our Suburbs (Vic), 18\/April\/2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Here is the summary we have attached to our submission –<\/p>\n

    SOS Submission on New Local Residential Zones<\/h1>\n

    The proposed new zones are completely unacceptable, for the following reasons –<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. No<\/strong> new zone should compulsorily replace the existing Residential 1 Zone. If a new zone is required, it should be made available to Councils to use at their discretion.<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    2. All of the proposed zones weaken the system of planning controls by allowing an unspecified ‘fast track’ for permit approval. This will be open to abuse and it is unacceptable that residents’ rights to appeal a decision, and to get notice of an application, are being removed!<\/strong> The fast track process should be reversed, ie there should be a fast track refusal process for applications that do not meeting a minimum set of ResCode standards.<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    3. Notice and Review rights can not be<\/strong> limited to the adjoining and opposite properties, or not all!<\/strong> Many developments impact the surrounding area for a considerable distance.<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    4. Non residential uses, such as the listed medical centre, child care centre and supermarket, should always require a permit in a residential zone ie not be exempt from requiring a permit!<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    5. The reduction of block size from 500m2 to 300m2 for requiring a planning permit for a single dwelling will mean most single dwellings will not require a permit, even in the inner city. This is the opposite of what should be done.<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    6. Notification of these proposed zone changes has been appalling. Given the impact that they will have on Melbourne, there should have been wide spread publicity – many people normally not interested in planning WOULD <\/strong>be interested if they knew their Residential 1 zone was to become a fast tracked development zone!<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    7. The suggested zones – aimed at increasing density and making it easy to get a permit, while also reducing residents’ rights – do not address any of the fundamental problems with the current planning system, and it’s only developers who will be happy with them. The current problem is not that higher density isn’t allowed, the problem is not being able to stop excessive inappropriate higher density development!<\/li>\n

      <\/p>\n

    8. If the point of the new zones is to ‘streamline’ the planning system, there are much better ways of achieving this, as we have documented in many other submissions.<\/li>\n

      \n<\/ol>\n

      In short, the new zones should be completely abandoned in their current form. While some of the purposes appear acceptable, their actual implementation – from the details that are available – indicate that they will not achieve the purpose described. <\/strong> <\/p>\n

      Ian Quick <\/p>\n

      President Save Our Suburbs (Vic), 18\/April\/2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-public","category-sos"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}