McDonald's Restaurant

Did you read the Opinion page of the Knox Leader for the 15^th December 2009?

A very interesting letter exists which spells danger for the residents of Kathryn Road and the Knoxfield Shops.

Macca Mayhem

Knox residents are being very smart by opposing the proposed 24/7 McDonald’s in Ferntree Gully Road.

I live within the vicinity of the Ferntree Gully 24/7 McDonald’s in Clyde St and am constantly frustrated with the disruption this Macca causes to the neighborhood.

The drive-through constantly blocks access to Clyde St at peak times with vehicles lining up in both directions, forcing other vehicles to have to either wait for up to 10 minutes or make unsafe passes around these vehicles in order to access the rest of Clyde St. How there has never been no accident to date is beyond me.

Another 24/7 Macca in the area will just bring a new set of problems especially in Ferntree Gully Rd with hoon drivers.

T B, Ferntree Gully

Could you imagine the how this scenario could play out in Kathryn Road at the intersection with Ferntree Gully Road?

This application must be turned down by Knox City Planning Department. But unfortunately from past experience with development in Knoxfield, I don’t have much confidence in the Traffic Department to assess this problem and to present a solution.

Maintain your opposition and join the protest on the council steps when council considers this proposal. We will inform you of action to take when the application is advertised. Be prepared for action over the Christmas break, as it could very well be advertised then.

McDonald's Restaurant

McDonalds’ Restaurants have submitted an application to Knox City Council to build a restaurant at the corner of Ferntree Gully and Kathryn Roads, with traffic exiting into Kathryn Road. Knox Council Planning Department are in consultation with McDonalds at this stage. When plans are finalized they will be advertised with a notice on the corner site. It is then that we are able to submit objections about this development. So keep a watch to see when this notice is displayed as we only have 14 days from this time to submit an objection. Ten or more objections must be received by council to have a Planning and Consultation Meeting (PCC Meeting) at the council with the developer.

To date the “Save Knoxfield “ campaigners have been to VCAT on 6 occasions and to date have lost five cases, as can be seen by the destruction of trees and vegetation in Knoxfield. So even if council refuse this permit the likelihood  of VCAT passing it is obvious. What must be done is to get as many concessions out of McDonalds to help retain some of the beauty of Knoxfield. This may seem to giving in but it is realistic from our experiences.

We have had informal discussions with Knox Council and these were the main concerns presented to them. We can only hope they have addressed them with McDonalds to get some changes to their plans.

Ian Simpson

saveknoxfield@ozemail.com.au

 

 McDonald’s Knoxfield

 

Knox City Council must consider the McDonald’s planning application together with the one at 3/5 Kathryn Road, as together they both will have a major impact on safety for Knoxfield residents.

 

Concerns:

 

• Will create more traffic for Kathryn Road – admitted by Paul Vallay from McDonalds
• Will create traffic chaos at Kathryn and Ferntree Gully Roads intersection. Possibly four crossovers between FTG Rd corner and Knox Place bus stop in Kathryn Rd an extremely dangerous situation.
• A McDonalds store will have no competition locally, except for local takeaways – anti-competitive. Will result in lack of variety in takeaway services in Knoxfield.

Of the 21 shops, 7 are take-away food shops, that is 30% of the shops will lose trade. Anne Road shops will also be affected with 4 of the 7 shops offering takeaway foods.

• Environmental issues including smells, litter, noise and lighting. Removal of two indigenous Eucalyptus cephalocarpa trees.
• Will result in teenagers congregating in groups and moving through the estate noisily at night time – possibly more vandalism.

 

Concessions Requested from McDonalds:

 

·   No Exit into Kathryn Road

·   Left turn lane from FTG Road into Kathryn Road

·   Limit hours of operation

·   Plant and sound barriers

·   Diffuser for exhaust system to eradicate smells

·   Some road works to limit speed and density of traffic

·   Signs forbidding access to High Street Road

·   Policy on dealing with unruly and noisy behaviour especially at night.

·   Design to include retention of trees.

 

No 32 kathryn Road - VCAT Decision - VCAT Review

NO 32 Kathryn Road 

VCAT issued an Order  yesterday for the approval of the development of three double storey townhouses and one single storey townhouse on No 32 Kathryn Road Knoxfield.

There is no appeal unless we take it to the Supreme Court.

The main issues that are of concern with this decision are:

1.  The Order was issued for the wrong address (probably a typo, but how could they get it so wrong)

2.  No mention is made in the decision of residents’ concerns. Our efforts and the voices of 437 people with the petition have BLATANTLY been ignored in the process.

3.  Amendments were made to the plans, submitted before VCAT. Changed plans ought to have been resubmitted to council again for approval. VCAT is usurping the role of council and becoming a defacto planning organization.

4.  Agreements made with the developer in VCAT were not issued in the Order, therefore the developer can get away with issues they watered down in VCAT by saying they’d agree to building 2 metre high fences at their cost and retaining screening hedges to block out the units from neighbors vision.

There are some gains though that we did gain in the process. We now have a far better development than that initially submitted. We delayed the process by 16 months and in that process seemed to have dissuaded developers from approaching Knoxfield as a development area. There are now awaiting a decision on No 40 Kathryn Road. The hearing was 4 months ago. As the proverb says, ”No news is good news”.

Chairnan’s Review of VCAT

Yesterday four residents attended a meeting with Justice Bell, the Chairman of VCAT.

The meeting was an open forum for people from all over Victoria to express their concerns with the VCAT process and to initiate change. Justice Bell ensured everyone had a chance to express their opinions on issues and he followed up discussions on how the process could be improved.

The main issues we have from our experiences are:

1.      Procedure of Hearings. The applicant ought to address the hearing first, followed by council and then other submissions. The applicant could have a right of reply at the end of the hearing. This would bring the hearings into line with the legal system.

2.      The weight given to the evidence provided by “Expert Witnesses”. These witnesses are in the employ of the applicant and should be treated as such. At one hearing we attended, the applicant organized the expert witnesses over the lunch break to present new evidence to counter everything we said. Our evidence proved that of the expert witnesses to be false. This new evidence was accepted and the chair passed the application unchanged as she accepted the evidence of the expert witnesses over the local residents.

3.      The low weight applied to retaining indigenous vegetation, especially in areas protected by a Vegetation protection Overlay 3.

4.      The low weight applied to the planning regulations like the Rescodes, in favour of Melbourne’s 2030 Policy and the desired future outcomes.

 

Most of these issues were expressed by people from other areas of Victoria, from Port Campbell, Macedon, Kilmore, St Kilda, Camberwell, Hawthorn, Knox. The issues are the same and I genuinely think that Justice Bell was shocked with some things that were stated at the meeting.

·    Basically people do not have confidence in the VCAT Review system, which is not operating as a system of justice as originally planned. People have a perception that local authorities do not have confidence to present good decisions on planning, as developers see VCAT as the final decision maker, and budget for this in their costs.

·    Appeal Process: The only appeal process is to take the decision to the Supreme Court. Justice Bell is suggesting another level of appeal could be implemented for decisions made which are flawed. This process would be available for all involved in the process.

·    Mediation: Justice Bell suggested that VCAT could operate a system of mediation to try to usurp the need to take Planning Applications to VCAT. This would be done at the local level. We are fortunate in Knox that the council will conduct a Planning Consultative Committee Meeting if there are 10 or more objectors. Basically from experience though this permits residents to air their concerns but has only resulted in one developer submitting alternative plans and that was for No 32 Kathryn Road. The other developers took the applications directly to VCAT and see the council process as only a stepping stone to VCAT.

·    Appointment of Members: Justice Bell was clearly shocked when told that having a chairperson as a Town Planner just doesn’t work. The process is incestuous, with Town Planners for the developer presenting to a Town Planner who is the chair and having the council argument presented by another Town Planner. As we have discovered they are all acquaintances, mostly having worked together at a council planning department. At one hearing concern was raised with the council’s Consultant Town Planner that the chair was overly interrogating him on issues, and his comment to me was don’t worry about it as he was my past boss at a local council. Justice Bell did say that in the past 18 months that he has been chair he’s been immediately involved in the selection process. But it does seem that the Minister of Planning has direct control of that process.

·    Leagal Representation: VCAT  was set up to be the Peoples’ Forum where people could get mediation without legal representation. That has now generated into a legal forum and unless you have legal, professional representation with “Expert Witnesses” you don’t really get a hearing. When you are fighting developers that have millions in their bag to throw around what hope has the small citizen have in the process.

·    The acoustics of the Hearing Room were also discussed and how the developers and their representatives intimidate residents with bullying tactics. The rooms need to be setup to provide everyone with equal space and position to be heard by all.

Finally a quote from one person present at yesterdays forum:

“It seems to be Government policy that VCAT presents decisions for developers”.

 

Knox City Council’s Landscape Plan for Knoxfield

Over the weekend you would have received notification from the Knox City Council of a Landscape Plan for Knoxfield. (We have been fighting for this planning control to limit over-development in Knoxfield.) The results of this assessment will hopefully set planning limits for Knoxfield and will be set into State Govt Planning Agreements with KCC. It is important that you respond to the survey. The Tree Study is also part of this investigation.

Our emphasis in the past has been on

· At least 9 metre setbacks from the road for all dwellings,
· Retention of trees, especially the indigenous canopy trees which help to make the character of Knoxfield what it is,
· Only single storey developments to fit the main character of Knoxfield,
· Over looking issues imposed by double storey developments,
· Speeding traffic on feeder roads, especially Kathryn and Anne Roads,
· The intrusion on our Human Rights and mental well-being imposed by over-development
· The affect of over-development on Knoxfield’s wildlife, birds, possums, etc
· Strain on Infrastructure.

The Survey is also available at www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Forms.asp?Form_id=71

Please spread the word to your neighbors that this is important. The aim of the study is to develop a Planning Control to be submitted to the Planning Minister to retain Knoxfield’s character and subsequently limit over-development.

Please try to visit the Knoxfield shops on Saturday and tell the council officers what you want and do not want in Knoxfield.

The Save Knoxfield Website has been updated and a link to the Survey is available from it as well http://members.optusnet.com.au/~saveknoxfieldws/

Launch of the Save Knoxfield Website

I am pleased to announce that the Save Knoxfield Website is up and running.

From time to time it will be enhanced.

Meeting with Justice Bell - VCAT

Several residents from Knoxfield are joining with the Marvellous Melbourne organization to discuss VCAT procedures. Recently we have attended VCAT on 5 occasions and believe we have a good knowledge now of the VCAT procedures. We are very concerned with many of these procedures which definitely favour the developer over local residents.

 

1. Procedure of Hearings. The applicant ought to address the hearing first, followed by council and then other submissions. The applicant could have a right of reply at the end of the hearing. This would bring the hearings into line with the legal system.
2. The weight given to the evidence provided by “Expert Witnesses”. These witnesses are in the employ of the applicant and should be treated as such. At one hearing we attended, the applicant organized the expert witnesses over the lunch break to present new evidence to counter everything we said. Our evidence proved that of the expert witnesses to be false. This new evidence was accepted and the chair passed the application unchanged as she accepted the evidence of the expert witnesses over the local residents.
3. The low weight applied to retaining indigenous vegetation, especially in areas protected by a Vegetation protection Overlay 3.
4. The low weight applied to the planning regulations like the Rescodes, in favour of Melbourne’s 2030 Policy and the desired future outcomes.

 

Many other issues are also of concern, which we hope to address at the meeting on July 14.

 

 

From Today's Age

 How to sell a planning decision

Jason Dowling

June 22, 2009

IT READS like a script from the ABC's political satire The Hollowmen — "preferred slogans", "communications challenges" — but it is in fact taxpayer-funded advice to the State Government on how to sell controversial planning decisions.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment commissioned the advice from Auspoll in January 2007 and the Greens obtained it through freedom of information.

Auspoll's research showed the public thought "the State Government was performing poorly on planning", the Victorian planning tribunal VCAT "does not allow people to object effectively" and "few people were aware of (the State Government's planning blueprint) Melbourne 2030".

There was also advice on how to sell planning decisions.

"Where there is controversy surrounding the rejection of an application the core communication messages should be based on the following themes:

■ Developments which are not sympathetic towards the existing character of the neighbourhood will not get approval.

■ We are protecting the lifestyles and streetscapes of people living in the area.

■ Developers can't expect to get whatever they want just because they have money (i.e. to build and/or appeal decisions)."

The research showed it was harder to sell a controversial development approval to the public than reject a development application.

"When it comes to approving development applications arguments based around limiting urban sprawl and/or improving the availability of commercial services are unlikely to prove effective," the Auspoll advice said.

"Urban sprawl is simply not on the radar for ordinary people. Further, most people are happy with the commercial services in and around their area and feel that everything they need is close at hand."

Greens MP Greg Barber said the Government had fought hard to withhold the Auspoll advice. "It is politically based market research conducted in marginal seats paid for by the taxpayer," he said.

A spokeswoman for Planning Minister Justin Madden said: "Planning language can be complicated and technical. It is important effective strategies are in place to make it accessible to the community."

 

10 Valetta Cres - Sale - VCAT

By now you would have received notification that the development at 10 Valetta Cres has gone to VCAT. You may also notice that there is a “For Sale” notice on the property. The L J Hooker website describes the property as:

DEVELOPMENT SITE

$900,000+

Superb level site of 2350sqm approx. Situated in a nice court location there is a current council application for 8 units (STCA). The current existing 3 bedroom residence would command a rental of $250 p.w. This site is convenient to public transport, schools and only a short bus ride trip to Knox City.

You may also have attended the council meeting when this development WAS REFUSED.

Is it just me or am I imagining that improvements are made to the streets just before development applications are made, especially by Planning Vision. The round-a-bout at the intersection of Kathryn-Anne Roads was improved before No 61 Kathryn - 72 Anne Road was submitted and now Valetta Cress has been improved with new kerbing and sealing of the road. Is there any coincidence that the native street trees have been removed and replaced with deciduous maple trees, thus urbanizing the environment, especially when one of our arguments is to save the 100 year old trees on this property?

This property forms an essential part of the Knoxfield Wildlife Corridor, joining the lake with the creeks south of Ferntree Gully Road. To remove these trees and replace them with double storey townhouses is just desecrating our environment. The developer is a smooth talker and performs well in VCAT. He will present arguments that the trees are so old they are dangerous, they are diseased, but will ignore the fact that they are essential for the biodiversity of the area. Further arguments will settle on the changing landscape of Knoxfield with No 7 Valetta also being approved for townhouse development and will show photographs of other double storey houses nearby.

If you are concerned about Knoxfield, especially Valetta Court and saving trees in Knoxfield, you must forward a “Statement of Grounds” to VCAT within 10 days. It is essential to take time to appear at VCAT also and present your arguments, just like you did at council. VCAT is not overpowering and everyone that wishes to speak is given an opportunity. Please give this your serious attention.

REPORT ON RESTORE RESIDENTS RIGHTS RALLY

I attended this Rally when, at the last minute, others could not . Resident Peter also attended.

It was well presented although where I was I could not hear Mary Drost's presentation and only parts of Rosemary West's.

Signs had messages such as get off our democracy but I think this one says it all:




Comments and requests from other presenters were:

Loss of privacy, sunlight and safe places for children to play. The denial of fundamental rights of people to protest.

Give us our rights we demand to be heard.

Strengthen the role of local Government's voice in future planning that affects people's life styles.

If you run rough shot over the people they will come back to bite you.

Consistency in planning decisions.

Give the community a voice and give us planning laws that give us a community.

We have the right to protest about things that matter to us.

We can conform, consume and not be heard. If this happens it leads to disengaged people and possibly depression.

People

There were many councillors and even one from Brimbank apparently! Helen Harris from Whitehorse Council, who I know well so could recognize, was there and others from Banyule, Port Phillip. I didn't see anyone from Knox but I certainly couldn't move around easily because of the crowd.

Matthew Guy, Shadow Minister for Planning made a lively speech and there was a bulldozer that knocked down some paper buildings, a petition presented, and lots of people from Wonthaggi who were protesting about the Wonthaggi Desalination Project.

At a local level I thought about what one resident had said at a PCC Meeting; she wanted to be able to keep the house she had, raise her family and be able to go to her clothes line in her underwear in the privacy of her own backyard.

For me that sums it up very well.

I caught up with both Mary and Rosemary and unfortunately was about to speak to Matthew but he was called away.

A View of the Rally

Rally to restore resident's rights

 RESTORE RESIDENTS RIGHTS

           

            PREMIER BRUMBY IS REMOVING

          RESIDENTS RIGHTS TO OBJECT OR

            APPEAL AGAINST DEVELOPMENT

 

  RESIDENTS & A COALITION OF CONCERNED

    COUNCILLORS JOIN FORCES IN PROTEST

                           AT A RALLY

 

  ON THE STEPS OF PARLIAMENT

  

  WEDNESDAY  10^TH JUNE   AT 1 PM

     

    

 

   Come to the rally to send a message to

                Brumby and Madden    

           

                           

 

See over for more information …………………………..

 

Contact :  Mary Drost  9882 2829   0401 834899

 

                                 

 

YOU COULD GET A MULTI-STOREY APARTMENT COMPLEX NEXT DOOR & YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO DO A THING ABOUT IT !                  

 

• Premier Brumby has announced he is by-passing planning laws to bulldoze our suburbs so he can fast track the building of hundreds of apartment complexes and school extensions without the need for council permits.

 

• He has already moved to take away resident’s rights to

object or appeal against such projects.

 

• This follows his proposal for new residential zones which will effectively change our low scale suburban areas into blocks of three or four or more storeys of apartment complexes.
• He is appointing unelected and unaccountable Development Assessment Committees to take over planning from our councils in Activity Centres to ensure that apartment towers will be built in these centres.

 

• Victoria’s Planning Act is to be reviewed which will formalize these government edicts including property acquisition.

 

• And what’s even worse, Planning Minister Madden is to be entrusted with greater planning powers to “call in” projects or over-ride councils to push high-rise development into the suburbs.

Can he be trusted with these powers? After all he is the Minister who knew nothing about branch stacking and

corrupt practices at Brimbank managed from his own

electoral office.     We don’t think so.

 

If you don’t come to the protest they will think you don’t care

 

                                                                        

 

                                                   

                                                                          

                                              

                                                         

                                           

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

                

 

AN UNEXPECTED ALLIANCE - PLANNING BACKLASH & CCC

Just received this from Mary Drost. Maree and I certainly are not protest attenders but this is so important for our futures, we have decided to participate.

Maree and Ian

 

 

THIS IS MY PERSONAL  PLEA TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO SUPPORT ME IN THIS NEW VENTURE

 

Today Sunday, I was called to a meeting of Mayors.    They have formed a Coalition of Concerned Councillors (CCC) and are right now writing to all councillors across Victoria asking them to become part of the Coalition.

 

This Coalition asked PLANNING BACKLASH to form a joint venture with them in their strong opposition to Brumbys high handed takeover of Planning and Development, so eliminating residents and councils from having any say in what happens in their areas.   Hard won resident rights have been removed with the stroke of a pen.     This is the end to resident rights and in effect – democracy.  

 

A decision was taken today to start this campaign on the Steps of Parliament on  Wednesday 10^th June  at 1 pm  and invite parliamentarians out to hear our position.

 

Much planning is still be done, but this public statement must be made while the media is still interested in the subject.     Did you see the letters in the Age on  Saturday including one from me?

 

Getting  together with the Coalition of Concerned Councillors (CCC) is a first and will get media interest.       However,  the CCC is  relying on us to get residents there and to run it.  They will help with resources.  

 

It is vital that we have a huge crowd at the rally so that the Government recognizes our determination to reclaim and retain our democratic rights.

 

So please, please, don’t let me down.   Be there and bring others.  Tell your members and neighbours and friends and family.  

This is an incredible opportunity, unprecendented, but without YOU it will be a flop.   

 

in all sincerity

Mary       

  

 

 

VCAT Hearing for No 32 Kathryn Road

 Fortunately things went much better yesterday, as the Knox City Council consultant town planner, performed excellently and was well briefed by the Planning Department. Maybe my stirring after the last VCAT hearing did some good. One downside though was that VCAT did not have all sets of plans relevant to this hearing. Whether this was the fault of Knox’s Planning Dept or VCATs I have no idea, but it did not place Knox City Council’s Planning Department in a very good light again. Three sets of plans have been submitted by the developer, the first in April ’08, amended plans in Sept ’08 and finally amended plans in April ’09. VCAT only had the plans for April ’08.

The issues addressed by the Knox Consultant town planner and objectors included

·    overdevelopment,

·    the impact of the visual bulk of two storey buildings,

·    two storey townhouses do not meet with the surrounding neighborhood character,

·    impact of the buildings, especially for the neighbors in No 30 Kathryn Road,

·    Heat bank affect of these buildings during summer,

·    The value of trees, even exotics, to the community and the desire to retain the cypress trees and photinia hedge at the rear of the property,

·    The impact of all developments on the infrastructure, traffic and safety of school children and residents,

·    Traffic danger imposed by the Laura, Kathryn Road intersection, bus routes and the problem of rubbish bin collection.

Initially at the hearing the developer had provided amended plans, reducing one dwelling to a single storey, and an hour’s discussion ensured around accepting this change. This then put the process behind time and enough time was not left for the developer to make a presentation. The hearing was then adjourned until Thursday next week at 2.15pm. I’m unsure whether this is in our favour, as the developer now has a week to counter our objections. The council town planner’s opinion is that the chair wished to allow sufficient time for the developer’s presentation as we’d presented quite a formidable case against this development. Time will tell!

Many thanks to the six residents that attended the hearing.

Ian Simpson

 

Vandalism to No 75 kathryn Road

This evening, I was shocked to learn about $10,000 worth of vandalism to the No 75 Kathryn Road development and I was even more outraged to find the Knox Leader newspaper rang me to ask if I knew anything about it. Apparently someone graffitied fresh concrete and windows of the buildings with slogans about trees.

I explained that we are a loose group of residents concerned with the development in Knoxfield, come from a professional background and certainly do not condone such unwanted vandalism on the district. After expressing my horror at the vandalism, I explained how the footpath outside my house was graffitied after the path was replaced last year.

One only has to look at the graffiti around Knoxfield, the smashed bus rest station at the Knoxfield shops and smashed mailboxes to realize that vandalism is a problem in our district.

I am sending this to you in case someone may mention to you that our opposition to development has caused this problem, so you will be able to respond positively.

Ian Simpson

Submission on Modernising Victoria's Planning Act

 

 We believe that planning outcomes in our area should be controlled by Council and that the increasing government interventions are abhorrent. Councils and their communities need to be able to rely upon  prescriptive guidelines that have been through a democratic consultative process for inclusion in their planning policies, which reflect the needs and desires of the local community.

Council’s decisions should  not be subject to routine over-rules  by the  undemocratic, “captive” VCAT process which is dominated by planners who often rely upon the development and construction industry for their livelihood. The current VCAT model is not an independent body to review planning applications, but an incestuous organization of planners to promote their occupation and greedy overdevelopment of the suburbs.

However, we do accept there is a need for an appeal process that is totally independent of government and the planning industry. Whilst we are not clear on how this might be set up, it seems that planners making decisions on planning is subject to too much tunnel vision and decision-making that heavily favours the industry. It seems to us that Tribunals made up of  legal  professionals would make better and more democratic decisions. We repeat that any appeal process must be, and seen to be, totally independent of the planning industry and the government.

Our belief is that housing affordability should be included in the planning process and all development issues should include health and wellbeing matters. We do accept and insist that specific objectives relating to heritage, culture and local protection zones should be included to ensure protection against unacceptable development in sensitive areas.

5 & 6.  PROCESS

A system of pre-lodgement certification by private practitioners would lead to diminution of councils control over planning and this notion is rejected. The idea of cutting red tape by having three classes of notification is totally rejected by us.. General notification must be mandatory in every case involving multi –dwelling, commercial, mixed use  or industrial developments. This will ensure that residents democratic and human rights will be upheld.

We believe that  triggers for wider notification could be included where development sites are of wider community interest .  With regard to “objections” we say that this term should be replaced with “submission” and these could be specific to the submitter or could be related to broad community concerns. This change in terminology should eradicate frivolous and irrelevant objections. This process should be seen in the same light as a submission to VCAT for a review of a Planning Application.

Planning decisions must remain open and inclusive as possible especially in view of the government’s appalling implementation of Melbourne 2030 and the exploitation by some developers in their applications to council and appeals to VCAT. The current Act requires all “objections” to be considered by the responsible authority. However if the responsible authority determines to reject an “objection” it should be on properly considered grounds, whether substantive or procedural ; e.g. the objector does not disclose a proper basis for refusal, the objector does not have standing or the objection is out of time.  The “sixty day rule” is only a short cut to VCAT by developers that do not respect the application process. The developers we’ve had contact with in Knoxfield have no interest in respecting the local community’s needs, environment, supporting wildlife or mental well-being.

The public interest is best served by affording all stakeholders reasonable opportunity to participate in the appeal process and be advised of the grounds on which the objection was considered and finally determined. This is what we consider would promote transparent decision-making. Currently it seems that residents who make a submission to council or VCAT are treated as a nuisance, as it is deemed to hold up the DEMOCRATIC process. Anything less would make the review process clouded and open to abuse.

7. PLANNING SCHEMES & AMENDMENTS

Criticism of “pro former” objections is not relevant. The fact that some responses are pro forma or raise common or similar issues is not a valid reason to disregard them. To say they can add significantly to the processing costs of planning authorities is a specious argument. It is generally very difficult to engage community in planning or development issues even when their own interests as community stakeholders are affected. To devalue or discount submissions of those who do get involved is a denial of natural justice and will inevitably lead to unrepresentative decision-making and lack of transparency. We say that this happens far too often especially at VCAT where pro-former Form B’s are virtually ignored.

8. SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

The discussion paper points to the lack of formal criteria about which projects are of state significance thereby allowing the Planning Minister to intervene at VCAT or “call in” a particular project; and suggests that such criteria would make the decision making process more transparent. We reject this notion, as it is only a tool to speed up massive development at the detriment of the local community. Development at all costs will destroy Melbourne as we know it and create ghettos and slums of the future.

There must be a specific process for assessment of state significant projects and the exercise of Ministerial intervention must be strictly prescribed and subject to review.

FINALLY

We note the potential action for consideration on page 59 indicating the desire to extend the powers to the minister under Act 171 & 172. To us the Minister already exercises such power too often to the detriment of many local communities and we demand that this potential action be deleted. To provide ministers with unfettered power results in dictatorial government action and puts much of the decision making in the hands of the faceless bureaucrats in the Planning Department.

We understand the need for development to house the rapidly increasing population but this must respect the character and needs of the local communities. Developers have seized on this notion to overdevelop residential blocks and fill their pockets with profits. Non of the developers currently pursuing planning applications in Knoxfield live in or near our suburb. We are the fodder for real estate agents, developers and town planners, who are destroying our suburb.

Maree and Ian Simpson

28 Kathryn Road

Knoxfield 3180