Help Save Knoxfield

Home Alert for Knoxfield

2011-09-02T21:20:00.000+10:00

Hi Folks,

I think we may have a fight on our hands again. No 52 Kathryn must be preserved as a site of local significance. This is probably the only remnant bushland set amongst residential houses in Knoxfield, No 52 also has been designated as a "Site of Biological Significance" by the City of Knox and the advert has no notice of this fact, but advertises it as a site suitable for development. You can find the Knox web page devoted to this site at the above web page. No 48 Kathryn Road is also advertised for sale too.

The scenario we presented to VCAT when we attended to fight numbers 40 and 44 Kathryn Road is now presenting itself. That is six acre blocks with 10 to 12 apartments on each. We already have four of those blocks either built on or pending. This is the massacre of Knoxfield we feared.

At all costs we must save No 52 Kathryn Road from the developers. What a wonderful idea it would be if the City of Knox, the State Government and Knox Environment Society could work out a scheme to preserve this site of remnant bushland.

Planning the main headache for Melbourne and Yarra residents - put a comment

2011-03-08T17:01:00.001+11:00

It is not only Knoxfield residents that are concerned with planning. Read the article below for an explanation.

A walk down Kathryn Road makes one wonder whether we live in the inner or outer suburbs. Look at the gardens in these latest developments, an absolute disgrace to residents that have pride in their suburb. Whatever happened to those magnificent gardens that were presented and articulated in VCAT? Whatever happened to the advanced canopy trees that were to be planted? Most have simply died as they were planted in water logged clay.

This is just as we expected, without constant supervision from Knox City Council the developers get away with the cheapest option.

Here’s the article from the Melbourne Leader.

Melbourne Leader Article

Planning the main headache for Melbourne and Yarra residents

THE threat of skyscrapers destroying the character of their neighbourhoods causes Melbourne Leader readers to lose sleep at night.

A Leader survey has found residents in the Melbourne and Yarra municipalities are the most prone to worrying about planning and development matters.

Respondents were asked to rate their concerns across a number of issues, ranging between zero (not at all concernced) and 10 (extremely concerned).

Local readers' mean score on planning matters was 7, compared with 6.3 across the metropolitan area.

Former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin, now chairman of the North and West Melbourne Association, said he wasn't surprised by the results.

"I think it's a very informed response. It's clear that planning was out of control under (former Planning Minister) Justin Madden and the Labor Party, and it has resulted in a lot of inappropriate developments being approved," Mr Chamberlin said.

Melbourne and Yarra residents were also more concerned than average about crowding on public transport (mean score of 7.8), climate change (7.6) and urban density (6.2).

But Melbourne and Yarra readers were less concerned about urban sprawl (5.8), access to the city (4.4), access to schools (3.5), water shortage (6.9) and petrol prices (5.5).

The results were from Leader's 2010 Cash for Comment. Readers told us what matters to them, what makes them happy and what bothers them.

Some lucky readers shared in the $10,000 cash prizes offered by Leader.

>>What needs to be done to alleviate residents' concerns about planning and development? Have your say below

http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/planning-is-a-local-headache/#comment-form

__._,_.___

McDonald's Win - Leader Newspaper publicity

2011-02-09T10:23:00.001+11:00

All Knoxfield residents that participated in having the McDonald’s Restaurant overturned in VCAT are invited to a photoshoot by the Knox Leader newspaper on the McDonald’s site at 9.30am tomorrow (Thursday 10^th Feb)

McDonald's VCAT decision

2011-02-08T18:06:00.001+11:00

Some great VCAT news for Knoxfield.

At last we’ve had a win. The McDonald’s review against Knox City Council’s decision not to approve the restaurant on Ferntree Gully Road, Knoxfield was won by the council and residents.

The main reasoning was that it was considered to be an inappropriate activity in a Residential 3 Zone and residents’ concerns with traffic management.

This is a wonderful result for the power of the little people and excellent representation by Knox City Council at VCAT.

So after eight visits to VCAT we have had a win and I must say the most important win as a McDonald’s restaurant would have had a major detrimental impact on Knoxfield.

What a pity some of the other VCAT visits did not have the same result!

McDonald's Restaurant

2010-12-20T15:23:00.000+11:00

Congratulations to the eight objectors that ventured to VCAT for the McDonald’s Restaurant proposal and presented their arguments. A good hearing was conducted by the chair enabling a well-balanced argument against the restaurant to be heard. Objections centred on disruption to the neighbors’ lifestyle, traffic problems created by the proposal, lack of parking space within the restaurant, security in the vicinity, increased traffic, litter and smells for Kathryn Road residents and the undesirable effect on the Knoxfield Shopping Centre.

VicRoads also presented an argument against the traffic flow proposal presented by McDonalds, forcing McDonalds to present two scenarios. Option A had traffic entering and leaving the restaurant in both Ferntree Gully and Kathryn Roads and Option B with entry only from Ferntree Gully Road and an entry and exit in Kathryn Road. Option B was VicRoads desired plan, which creates numerous problems for management of the restaurant with three entry points and only one exit point for all traffic including delivery vans. At the conclusion to the hearing, the chair announced that as VicRoads control Ferntree Gully Road option B is the only option he can consider. McDonalds do not want Option B, so they announced that it looks like we’ll all have to return to VCAT in the future.

With some luck or good fortune we can hope that McDonalds will see the problems their proposal creates and withdraw their plan for a restaurant at the corner of Kathryn and Ferntree Gully Roads.

Congratulations must go to Kerry for his research into the parking for this and nearby McDonalds’ stores. His close questioning of expert witnesses also added much input to the residents case against. Thanks also to Peter, Rafaele, Nick and Ian for their presentations.

We now await the decision of the VCAT.

Tawny Frogmouth in Knoxfield

2010-11-01T10:32:00.001+11:00

Today I took this photo of a Tawny Frogmouth and her young one in a tree in Kathryn Road, Knoxfield. The Tawny Frogmouth feeds on rodents, small possums and large insects. You may hear them banging their prey on your spouts at night while they kill them.

With the continual building of townhouse units in Kathryn Road and depriving the wildlife of their habitat, what is to become of special visitors like these to our gardens. When was the last time you saw an Eastern Spinebill honeyeater in your garden. In the past they were frequent visitors to our gardens. Try planting some native plants like Correas and Epacris (heath) in your garden may encourage them to come back.

Knoxfield is rich in wildlife, it’s a shame that we are continually depriving them of a home just to over-populate our suburb.

VCAT has notified us that the hearing will now begin on the 14^th December 2010 and go for four days. Please keep these dates clear in your diaries if you intend appearing before the tribunal

McDonalds and VCAT

2010-05-17T20:42:00.000+10:00

If you lodged an objection to Knox City Council against the McDonald’s Restaurant planning application you should have received notification from URBIS that they are taking the planning application to VCAT. In the letter of notification you should have received a “Statement of Grounds” form. It is important that you complete this form to again lodge your reasons for an objection. To do this follow these steps:

1. Complete your personal details

2. List briefly your objections that you submitted to Knox City Council

3. Make two photocopies of your Statement of Grounds and forward them to: URBIS and the Knox City Council

4. Write in the space provided the date you forwarded these copies to URBIS and Knox City Council

5. Mail your Statement of Grounds to VCAT by Friday 28^th May 2010

Completion of this form then registers you to make a presentation of your objections to VCAT. The date and time of the hearing will be notified to you in due course. It is essential that as many objectors as possible attend this hearing to show the tribunal we don’t want this restaurant at this site in Knoxfield.

Should you require assistance in completing the Statement of Grounds you may contact me on 0425756688

Ian Simpson

Knoxfield Residents are not afraid of Change

2010-04-30T11:28:00.001+10:00

At the 27th April Knox City Council meeting Cr Gill, when moving an amendment to approve the McDonald’s Restaurant, stated that residents (of Knoxfield) were afraid of change. I need to correct Cr Gill, as Knoxfield residents appreciate that change and development must take place to house the population explosion we are experiencing, but this development must be in character with our suburb and be in pace with the infrastructure of roads and services. Not over-development as we are witnessing in Kathryn Road wherein a distance of 250 metres four houses will be replaced by thirty-five residences. This development must respect the leafy green bushland type character of the area and the wildlife that visits our properties. If we wanted over-development Cr Gill we would be living in inner suburbs like Richmond.

Our Garden for Wildlife is frequently visited by pardelotes, eastern spinebills, crimson rosellas, rainbow lorikeets to name a few and we have nightly visits from possums, tawny frogmouths, fruit bats and occasionally the powerful owl. We wish to retain this environment and preserve our trees.

Knoxfield residents vigorously opposed the McDonald’s Restaurant mainly because it was an inappropriate development in a Residential 3 Zone, that would have created dangerous traffic conditions for Kathryn Road and Knox Place, safety issues for pedestrians, damage the economy of the Knoxfield Shopping Centre and have a major environmental impact on immediate neighbors.

The first argument that developers have stated in various forums is that residents are afraid of change, it is a shame that some councilors that have the responsibility to independently assess developments use the terminology of developers. How independent are they?

Knox Council Refuses McDonald's Planning Application

2010-04-28T12:10:00.001+10:00

On a vote of 6 to 3, council last night refused the planning application for McDonald’s on the following grounds:

That Council issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for Use and development of the land for a convenience restaurant with associated landscaping, carparking, advertising signs and alteration of access to a Category 1 Road at 1563 Ferntree Gully Road, Knoxfield due to the following grounds:

1. The proposed use does not satisfy any of the purposes of the Residential 3 Zone and is inappropriate for the chosen site.

2. Traffic management arrangements are unacceptable and would have an adverse impact on existing traffic movements and on surrounding uses.

3. The proposed use and development would cause unreasonable adverse amenity impacts to surrounding residential uses, is an overdevelopment, and the landscaping design and package of advertising signs are inappropriate and unacceptable.

Cr Andrew Walter passionately moved the motion stating this application would create a dangerous intersection at Kathryn and Ferntree Gully Roads. He also stated that it would be dangerous for the youth that use the skate park, would create overspill of parking at Knoxfield shops and impact badly on Kathryn Road.

The meeting threatened to develop into a stale mate with Cr Gill initially moving an amendment that would have permitted the McDonald’s application. The fourteen page legalistic motion presented by Cr Gill took 40 minutes to read and was seconded by Cr Cole and supported by Cr Pearce. All other councilors opposed the amendment, and then the original motion to refuse the application was put and won. Besides Cr Walter’s passionate argument, intelligent reasoned and supportive comments were also made by Crs Cooper, Van der Vreede and Mortimer.

Now if it goes to VCAT residents need to reply to VCAT’s correspondence and attend the hearing in large numbers to have an impact on their decision.

Refusal Notice for McDonalds

2010-04-21T18:58:00.001+10:00

This decision is due to your objections and attendance at the PCC meeting. Find below the email addresses of all Knox City Councillors

1. The proposed use does not satisfy any of the purposes of the Residential 3 Zone and is inappropriate for the chosen site.

2. Traffic management arrangements are unacceptable and would have an adverse impact on existing traffic movements and on surrounding uses.

Report Prepared By: Planner (Nick Robins)

Report Authorised By: Director – City Development (Angelo Kourambas)

Knox City Councillors

Cr David Cooper - david.cooper@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Adam Gill - adam.gill@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Andrew Walter – andrew.walter@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Peter Cole – peter.cole@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Joe Cossari (Mayor) – joe.cossari@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Sue McMillan – sue.mcmillan@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Mick Van der Vreede - mick.vandevreede@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr John Mortimore - john.mortimore@knox.vic.gov.au

Cr Darren Pearce - darren.pearce@knox.vic.gov.au

Urgent Message - Maccas Meeting Tomorrow

2010-03-15T12:29:00.000+11:00

Just a reminder that the Planning Meeting with McDonald’s restaurant and the council is on tomorrow night at the council offices at 7.30pm. Please try to make it as we need as many people in attendance as possible to show that there is opposition to this proposal. Michael Colling had a meeting with Cr Andrew Walter recently and was told by him that as no-one has contacted him about McDonalds he assumes that there’s NO opposition to it. Maybe the petition of 600 voters might change his mind. If you haven’t signed the petition there’s a copy at the Knoxfield Newsagency and Tony’s Fish and Chip Shop, but only until Tuesday morning.

Cheers and hopefully see you tomorrow

Ian

McDonald's Objections and Petition

2010-02-09T15:34:00.002+11:00

If you still wish to lodge an objection to the McDonald's Restaurant it is not too late. Council will accept objections up until a council meeting considers the objection, which will be in April.

There is also a petition circulating. Most Knoxfield take-away foodshops, the newsagency and pharmacy have copies of the petition for you to sign. Let's show the councilors that residents in Knoxfield DON"T want a McDonald's Restaurant in our suburb.

Ian

McDonald's Campaign

2010-02-08T20:58:00.000+11:00

Today I rang Paul Dickie, Manager of Planning, Knox Council, re McDonald’s Application and was told that to date 106 objections have been received by the council. This does not mean that you can’t still send in objections, as council must receive them until decision day which will be Tuesday 29^th April 2010.

Knox Council has set down the 16^th March for a Planning Consultation Committee meeting with the objectors, the applicant (McDonalds), councilors and Planning staff. You must mark this date in your diaries as it is essential that all objectors attend to display our opposition to this planned restaurant. Usually everyone that attends has an opportunity to speak. All objectors will receive an official invitation to this meeting from Knox City Council. Hopefully we’ll be able to present our concerns to McDonalds, the councilors and the council officials that make the decision.

Today I delivered petition forms to the take-away restaurants, butchers and newsagency, hoping that we can get many hundreds of signatures in opposition to this planning proposal. The petition only counts as one objection, but it delivers a message to the councilors about the wishes of residents.

If you wish to help further with the petition I have included a copy in this email. It is essential that everyone signs in the appropriate place and that only this form be used. Additional pages attached without the wording will not be accepted.

Thanks for your assistance and let’s win this campaign

Ian 0425756688

Macca's Campaign

2010-02-05T17:37:00.002+11:00

My apologies to everyone as I typed the wrong application number on the objection form, which went to council. Fortunately all that were delivered to my house were corrected before being submitted but some got through the system. Everyone apparently got a the same letter stating the wrong application number was entered.

I’ll check on the final number next week, but earlier this week there were about 100 objections lodged.

Ian

McDonald's Restaurant

2009-12-16T22:22:00.006+11:00

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

2009-11-20T09:54:00.001+11:00

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

2009-07-15T10:40:00.000+10:00

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

2009-07-08T10:47:00.010+10:00

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

2009-06-29T16:57:00.004+10:00

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

2009-06-23T20:32:00.000+10:00

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.

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.

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.

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

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

2009-06-22T10:09:00.001+10:00

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

2009-06-19T10:10:00.001+10:00

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

2009-06-11T18:37:00.006+10:00

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

2009-06-05T16:49:00.001+10:00

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

2009-05-26T11:29:00.000+10:00

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

2009-05-21T11:36:00.001+10:00

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

2009-05-06T19:45:00.001+10:00

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

2009-04-30T20:07:00.001+10:00

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

2009-04-16T10:36:00.001+10:00

This is a response to my email from Peter Shearman, which I think puts everything into perspective. I thought it worth sharing with everyone.

Cheers,

Ian

A disappointing outcome but not unexpected after the previous two approvals.

It appears that there is nothing that council or residents can do to stop these overdevelopment's even when ResCode rules are flaunted..

Even our most obvious & sensible objections appear to have been given little or no weight in VCAT.

Essentially it appears to be nothing more than a rubber stamp approval process for developers.

But our efforts haven't been wasted.

1 We have delayed these projects by up to 12 months & in the current economic climate the developers may decide not to proceed especially if they are borrowing money.

2 We have cost the developers' a significant amount of money in fighting our objections & paying highly for expert witnesses.

3 We have made estate agents & developers wary of trying to get these developments through council in Knox.

4 We have made the council very aware that there is a huge groundswell against this type of development which they ignore at their peril

5 We have kept a real estate agent from becoming our local councillor

6 We have brought together a large number of residents who have stood up & been outspoken up about these developments

7 We have developed friendships with many of our neighbours.

Whilst we may not have stopped these developments we can still keep the pressure on by watching & recording the way in which these developments are built.

We need to take photos of all stages of the works especially noting any environmental damage, traffic problems, OH&S breeches, and unsafe work practices.

All of this can be used to fight future development proposals.

We need to take a few photo's up Kathryn Rd with no parked cars and then use this for comparison after these developments force cars to be parked on the street at all times of the day.

Planning Application for No 61 Kathryn Road/No 72 Anne Roads Gains Approval at VCAT

2009-04-15T17:03:00.000+10:00

Most of you probably received the frustrating news in today’s mail that VCAT have passed the Planning Application for Nos 61 Kathryn and 72 Anne Roads, opposite the fish and chip shops. In doing so, Madam Chair took more notice of the “Expert Witnesses” provided by the developer, than expert local knowledge. Following the hearing we were very confident that either changes would be made to the application or it would be refused, so assured we were that we’d counted or ‘trumped” extremely well all the arguments presented by the expert witnesses in Traffic Management, Landscape Architecture and the arborist.

To me the process demonstrates two clear problems for objectors, firstly the VCAT process provides easy access for developers and makes it more difficult for objectors to present their arguments. Developers always have the last say and are provided with the option of trying to counter our arguments, as happened in this case, without an opportunity for objectors to counter their lies or mistruths. Secondly, unless the council backs the residents’ arguments it is very difficult to get a clear hearing in VCAT. In this case the council did not present an argument against the removal of the trees, nor did it see any traffic management or parking problems with this development. The council’s planning policies do not stand up to VCAT’s interpretation. They are so loosely written that any interpretation is enabled by VCAT. The Knox City Council’s Planning Policies and in particular, the Housing Policy, must be rewritten to make their intention very clear. Apparently Maroondah Council have excellent success in defending their decisions in VCAT, as their policies are far more tightly written.

I would have thought that this was one development we’d really influence. This decision nearly makes our year’s effort and much personal cost absolutely wasted. We wait now for the decision for No 40 Kathryn Road. The hearing at VCAT for No 32 Kathryn Road is on 20^th May.

Thank you to everyone who joined the campaign to save Knoxfield. It seems our efforts have been in vain.

Ian Simpson

Journal - Planning Knox Council 8-4-09

2009-04-10T13:38:00.001+10:00

Planning policy blasted

BY WINSTON TAN

8/04/2009 10:30:00 AM

KNOX Council's planning policy has been slammed by residents opposed to overdevelopment in Knoxfield.

In recent weeks, residents have argued in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal against a number of proposed developments in the suburb.

Resident Ian Simpson said he had been disappointed by the lack of detail in the council's policies, which "no one" at VCAT understood.

He said council representatives who attended the tribunal appeared not to know how to interpret the council's policies and did not have an in-depth knowledge of the policy. When a VCAT chairman wanted to know about the nature of the council's 400-metre zone on neighbourhood character, Mr Simpson said the council representative was unable to answer.

"That was because it really wasn't detailed in the Knox Council planning policy - how it works, and how it should operate."

Director of city development Angelo Kourambas said the council's interpretation of its housing policy could at times differ from VCAT's interpretation.

"Council is looking at ways it can strengthen the policy to ensure greater clarity in line with its own expectations, and those of the community.

"A stronger housing policy would also be a helpful tool in assisting council [to] uphold its commitment to limiting unit development in areas not classified as activity centres."

Mr Simpson said he and other residents were involved in discussing planning matters with the council.

"They're reviewing the policies, and we've all had some kind of input into it. But I wish we had been to VCAT first and known what we'd talked about and what needs to be updated."

Mr Kourambas said the council was monitoring all housing approvals against the aims of the Knox Housing Statement, and will consider strengthening the

housing policy as part of its 2009-10 budget deliberations.

The council would also be monitoring VCAT's decisions affecting the housing policy.

"Council has made a submission to the State Government's residential zones review and will continue lobbying the State Government for more clarity and capacity to uphold the aims of its housing policy."

Mr Simpson said residents hoped their visit to VCAT would make an impact to ensure properties were not too overdeveloped and trees saved.

"But if they're all passed willy-nilly, we're going to be very exasperated."

VCAT and No 40 Kathryn Road

2009-03-30T22:35:00.002+11:00

Today we’ve spent a day in VCAT for No 40 Kathryn Road, our third to date and Knox City Council’s Planning Policies are not standing up to scrutiny, being constantly criticized by members for lack of detail and direction to their representative. I felt very sorry for the representative today as the chair constantly questioned him, for which he had no answers. No wonder Knox loses the most cases at VCAT. It is constantly being compared with Maroondah which apparently has very tightly written planning policies.

Today when discussing Knoxfield Neighborhood Activity Centre and whether the 400 metre zone was appropriate, we were told that Knox City Council’s planning policies should reflect the wishes of the residents. I was told today that obviously KCC has not helped the residents with the 400 metre zone around Neighborhood Activity Centres. These planning policies certainly do not reflect the wishes of the residents.

Again a formidable team of objectors attended VCAT. David and Valerie Chaney presented a strong case based on overdevelopment, lack of adherence to Rescodes, and general design faults with this development. David compared other decisions from VCAT to support his case. Obviously by the questioning from the chair good arguments were presented. Ian Simpson’s case centred on vegetation removal, affect on wildlife, community support of a leafy green environment without two storey townhouses and traffic on Kathryn Road. Joyce Ward presented a passionate argument for children, problems with infrastructure, safety of residents and overdevelopment. Lip Tan’s argument centred around his lack of privacy being a next door neighbor. Irene Fullarton discussed and outlined scientific evidence on the value of and importance of trees to our environment.

I gained the opinion that the member was going to make a decision today from his earlier comments. But this proved not to be the case and he reserved his decision to have a site inspection. We must have made some impact. All we can do know is hope. We’ve given it our best effort. Many thanks to the residents that attended today as observers to support our case.

Ian Simpson

A Day at VCAT for No 71 Kathryn and 72 Anne Road.

2009-03-17T15:40:00.000+11:00

Yesterday David and Valerie Chaney, Iren Fullarton, Joyce Ward and Ian and Maree Simpson attended a VCAT hearing for No 61 Kathryn and 72 Anne Road, opposite the shops. Council was represented by a private Consultant Town Planner.

We presented our arguments exceedingly well, covering removal of vegetation, traffic congestion especially with three driveways opposite the shops, the overdevelopment of the proposal, the damaging effect on Knoxfield’s wildlife, safety aspects for children walking to school and parents to the kinder establishment and sustainability of the development.

It was really interesting to learn that the Knox City Traffic Department, didn’t oppose the development as a traffic or parking concern. Neither did the Knox Council oppose the removal of the vegetation from the site, but preferred an Onset Agreement to replace existing trees lost by this development. How do we get them to understand that the wildlife of Knoxfield cannot wait another 15 years for these trees to grow? What about the effect on our environment in a time of climate change when up to 16, 100 year old trees are removed. Where do the parrots find new hollows to nest in? The questions flood to mind, but it seems that no one cares. We all thought and felt proud that Knox was committed to keeping our suburb, leafy green and a welcome place for our wildlife. The way things are going there will not be any old urban forest canopy trees left in Knoxfield. I wonder what the council’s report into the unique character of Knoxfield’s trees will report. Sorry we couldn’t find any trees.

The council didn’t find need to oppose the removal of vegetation, or concern with traffic problems but the developer was so concerned that he employed three expert witnesses to counter our arguments. Valerie and David Chaney researched and refuted the claims of the expert witness for traffic. His claims of available parking, dangers for local traffic with the development were counted expertly, but after lunch he arrived late with new counts of parking spaces available and traffic measures to permit traffic access to the site. Irene Fullarton and Ian Simpson tackled the vegetation removal and landscape problems so well, the expert witnesses were sometimes finding it difficult to counter the arguments presented. Joyce Ward in her excellent style, presented arguments to demonstrate this development was not child friendly and created dangers for children living onsite and those passing to school. Joyce also mentioned that the current infrastructure was hardly coping with the current population. David Chaney in his usual professional style brought the attention of the tribunal to lack of adherence to the Rescodes, especially to set backs on Kathryn Road.

The tribunal Chairperson is to make a site visit and we will learn of her decision in the near future.

On the 30^th March at 10.00am we return for the hearing on No 40 Kathryn Road. This is we must win to prevent double storey townhouses lining Kathryn Road all the way to the Knoxfield shops and 60 double storey townhouses on the six acre blocks. Please try to make it to VCAT we need people at the hearing. Yesterday 6 objectors attending out of 114 initial objections did not look good at the tribunal and certainly wouldn’t have pressured the chairperson to favour our arguments, especially when the council didn’t support them.

Ian Simpson

Future Hearings at VCAT - Help

2009-03-05T21:22:00.000+11:00

The future hearings at VCAT are for the following planning applications:

· 15^th March at 10.00 am – Nos 61 Kathryn and 72 Anne Roads

· 30^th March at 10.00 am – No 40 Kathryn Road

· 20^th May at 10.00 am – 30 Kathryn Road

If you have time to attend or present a case at VCAT for any of these applications we would appreciate your assistance.

Maybe you would just like to assist us in collecting evidence, such as traffic counts on Anne and Kathryn Roads, searching evidence for retention of trees in a Vegetation 3 Overlay Protection Zone, researching wildlife numbers, researching parking problems at the Anne Road shops or by contacting David and Valerie Chaney or Ian and Maree Simpson at 28 and 30 Kathryn Road.

Looking forward to your assistance. Together we’ll win this fight. Remember 10 Valetta Close and 50 David Street may well be next at VCAT.

Ian Simpson

VCAT Hearing for No 44 Kathryn Road - 5th March 2009

2009-03-05T21:11:00.000+11:00

Today seven residents attended and presented submissions to VCAT for the No 44 Kathryn Road Hearing.

Madam Chair Fong presided over the hearing and provided a fair hearing for all that attended. Mr. Simon Skinner, a consultant town planner, represented the Knox City Council. Simon presented the Knox Council case in a clear and precise manner and generally covered many of our concerns.

David Chaney led our case strongly with concerns about non-adherence to ResCodes, and planning issues that did not meet Knox Council Planning Guidelines. David presented a case for 8 single storey dwellings on this site.

Valerie Chaney’s case centred on evidence collected that double storey townhouses does not meet the landscape of Knoxfield and therefore cannot be considered as neighborhood character. Out of over 2,000 properties studied only 65 were double storey. Valerie suggested that 7 single storey dwellings would be a good result.

Ian Simpson’s case centred around the quality of life and mental well-being of Knoxfield residents, how two storey townhouses destroy the open space and contrast with the leafy green image of the environment of Knoxfield, Vegetation 3 Overlay Protection of trees in the area, sustainability, community support via two petitions, the effect on wildlife, safety of children, increase in traffic, the fact that 4 developments are to be considered by VCAT all from a short distance in Kathryn Road and then presented an alternative plan for 6 single storey houses.

Joyce Ward’s case centred around the needs of children in a development of this type, problems with infrastructure in the area, visitor car parking and increasing traffic on Kathryn Road.

In conclusion Simon Skinner, on behalf of Knox Council presented an alternative plan to reduce the plan to 8 single storey dwellings without the two double storey houses. The council plan incorporated many of the residents objections to the plan and all respondents present considered this plan to be a worthy compromise. Obviously the developer did not agree.

Madam Chair Fong concluded by stating that she would make a site visit in the future and present her findings at a later date.

I’m confident and hopeful that the Knox Council proposal will be accepted by VCAT. Well done to everyone that presented and attended in support.

Ian Simpson

Justin Madden's response to the petition of 1,543 signatures from Knoxfield

2009-02-20T21:21:00.002+11:00

The response is exactly as I anticipated. Justin Madden has interpreted the petition to his own advantage. What we wanted him to do was to impose a moratorium on development in Knoxfield, to save the trees, so the study would in fact have trees to study. At the current rate of tree removal the council report will have no effect on retaining the indigenous canopy trees the Vegetation 3 Overlay is suppose to protect.

Justin Madden stated that it was up to the council to request a moratorium on development in Knoxfield. 1,543 signatures has had no affect on the Minister.

Save Knoxfield - Maintain the fight

2009-02-19T23:04:00.002+11:00

I believe we are having an impact on development in Knoxfield, as the rush to develop tied with the economic times has created a downturn in interest. Maybe it's also because we fight every over-development.

We must keep up the fight against double storey townhouses and over-development.

If Planning Applications are posted in your street let us know through our email

saveknoxfield@ozemail.com.au

Together we can over come this challenge.

Next month we have three applications to be heard in VCAT. These are for No 62, 40 and 44 Kathryn Road.

David Chaney at No 30 Kathryn Road will keep you posted with information also on his notice board.

Keep our councillor Andrew Walter informed on your concerns about over-development, increased traffic and removal of valuable indigenous trees.

Ian Simpson

Planning Consultation Meeting - 50 David Street

2009-02-19T22:56:00.000+11:00

Congratulations to the residents of 50 David Street that presented a passionate argument against the over-development of 50 David Street with three double storey townhouses.

Immediate neighbors were incensed that their privacy ought to be invaded by this terrible development. Other issues included:

increased traffic congestion on an already heavily congested minor road,

removal of vegetation,

safety of children,

car parking and rubbish bins,

character of Knoxfield consists of single storey houses with gardens,

visual impact and the affect on wildlife,

increased noise,

salinity caused by impervious surfaces,

density of the development over 60% of site, and the

failure to adhere to Rescodes.

Most people that attended had the opportunity to speak at a well conducted meeting. Thanks must go to the Planning Department on the organization for the meeting tonight.

The Value of Trees

2009-02-19T22:41:00.000+11:00

This article was published in The Age today Thursday 19^th February 2009. These are issues we need to keep reminding ourselves about. The development of double storey townhouses in a time of climate change and global warming is ridiculous. Councils need to re-assess the value of trees to the environment especially the Knoxfield environment.

Doctor's plea for trees

VICTORIA has lost 12 per cent of its trees during the drought, with up to 50 per cent under threat if it continues, a leading arboriculturist has warned.

Dr Greg Moore, a special guest at a water crisis symposium being held tonight in Melbourne, is concerned the economic, health and environmental values of trees are seriously underestimated.

Trees and urban vegetation have been assets for years and their benefits should not be taken for granted, he said.

A study of trees in South Australia showed they had a value of $200 each in shade and carbon sequestration, Mr Moore said. "If there are 70,000 public trees in Melbourne, that's $14 million worth of value to the city. I'm worried that if we don't understand these benefits it will be at our peril. Suddenly you'll find Melbourne is not the liveable city it was because our trees, green spaces and vegetation have been lost."

He said localised warming due to the increase in paved and dark-coloured surfaces reduced significantly when cities had adequate green belts.

This meant the appropriate use of resources was needed to maintain these assets, such as water, especially in a drought.

Mr Moore said most councils had acted quickly to protect their parks and gardens, even though they faced hostility from residents opposed to such a "waste" of water.

"Melburnians can be wonderfully self-righteous yet the councils have stood their ground. Turf too has had a terrible time and yet it's an effective ecosystem in its own right and good at holding carbon.

"I'm worried about our obsession with water, and it's a justified and reasonable obsession, but sometimes it blinds us to other components in this overall environmental equation. It's glib to the point of dangerous to say we've got problems with water but we're not going to look at these other elements."

While most of Melbourne's trees are shedding their leaves early to survive, other trees are being removed for high-density developments, he said.

"There are pockets dotted around Melbourne where housing density is so great that you can't plant a tree of any substantial size in gardens."

Mr Moore said Sir William Guilfoyle, the second director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, understood that his creation had a functioning role as the lungs of the city.

Many Melburnians, though, consider trees to be ornaments rather than environmental protectors, Mr Moore said.

Value of Trees in cooling

2009-01-23T10:28:00.000+11:00

How can we get the planning decision makers in local and state governments to read and act on this article from today’s Age.

It's time literally to go green

Peter Fisher
January 23, 2009

Cities go green. Photo: Dyson

As air-conditioner sales soar and concrete abounds, the role of trees, grass and other plant life in helping reduce carbon emissions is often overlooked, writes Peter Fisher.

GOVERNMENTS are seriously overlooking what city trees can do to reduce water use and fight climate change. This week's scorchers have certainly focused the mind on how to stay cool. For some years Australia has experienced a staggering growth in the installation of air-conditioners, with sales surging by as much as 10 per cent each year, and some houses having more than one. Whether the looming recession results in less take-up and use, or a resort to electric fans, remains to be seen.

These units are ravenous electricity users, imposing heavy demands on peak-load generating capacity, especially the older, less-efficient models. And they're the most pernicious of black balloons with their own feedback spiral — the more air-conditioners to fight the stifling heat, the more the carbon emissions, the more the planet heats up, and so on.

Adding to their workload is the explosion in hard surfaces — patios, pebble gardens, car parks, walls, roads and buildings — that retain heat, causing an urban heat island effect. That is, areas with excessive hard surfaces can experience a temperature spike.

While this effect has been known for some time, not so well understood is the extent that trees, shrubs, lawns and wall gardens can cool places. Estimates by the Co-operative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures, for example, are that they can lower temperatures by 2-8 degrees because increases in evapotranspiration reduce building energy use by 7-47 per cent.

Then there is shading: A Californian study has found that the average electricity saving per tree due to lower air-conditioning use ranges from 70-90 kilowatt hours a year, with savings even greater at peak times reducing overall energy demand by 10 per cent.

Melbourne has a rich assortment of trees, shrubs and grassed areas — a resource now widely known as the urban forest. Importantly, much is on private land — it's not just in public parks and along roads and nature strips — so that even in a densely settled locality like East Melbourne 60 per cent is in street blocks.

This green infrastructure is a legacy of the dedication of generations of gardeners and plenty of rain. As much time and effort and precious water has been invested in the trees alone, they represent an asset that should not be squandered.

Greg Moore, of Burnley Horticultural College, has calculated that the 100,000 mature trees in inner Melbourne sequester 1 million tonnes of carbon, worth close to $20 million. These trees have the capacity to offset the more extreme temperatures and ferocious winds in prospect while helping to mitigate climate change. As such, they are worthy candidates for inclusion in Australia's emissions accounting.

Last month's rainfall provided some relief for the city's drought-stressed specimens; quite a few of the deciduous varieties had seemed reluctant to set leaf this spring. Many still look sickly, even prematurely colouring — especially the elms. Others appear to have come good but some may still throw in the towel in the hot months ahead.

The longer-term outlook is similarly bleak. Extreme winds, in combination with deluges, which weaken root anchoring, may lead to domino tree falls and withering heat may fry plants and have detrimental effects on pollinators.

Although plants could initially benefit from increasing carbon dioxide, they will wilt if average global temperatures rise by more than a few degrees. They could also be hit by plagues of south-moving insect pests and may face severe competition from rampant weedy species.

In the face of this botanical nightmare, we will need to breed plants that are more sympathetic to climate change — extra pest and disease-resistant, fire-retardant, shade-providing but trees less prone to branch fall; vegetation that can better resist erosion in coastal zones subject to sea-level rise and strong storm surges; and an expanded variety of resilient food plants suitable for backyard plots.

The possibility of harsher water restrictions implies that tap water released to the environment for urban gardens is a luxury we can no longer afford. But, might this be a false economy?

The water saved in power stations due to lower demand for air-conditioning in cities because of shade trees may be greater than that saved from zero or drastically reduced irrigation of suburban gardens and public lands.

Equally, the loss of trees (which began to gather pace last autumn) means we are steadily losing an opportunity to lessen the "carbon footprint" of our city — a typical mature tree can store as much as 10 metric tonnes of carbon. Then there are the other environmental benefits they can provide: stormwater retention, dust settling and air pollution absorption.

This sort of greenery also goes some way towards offsetting what Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson — who popularised the idea that we are biologically drawn to natural landscapes — has called our entry into an Eremozoic age, an age of loneliness, isolated from all other living organisms.

A greater commitment is needed to help people maintain and develop suitable gardens to avoid Melbourne becoming a hot, dusty, desiccated landscape in the decades ahead — something that could be hard to reverse given the difficulty of growing back large trees with reduced rainfall.

Certainly, the trend to treeless, hard-surfaced private spaces should not be encouraged where it translates into an overall diminution in an area's green coverage. Regular, systematic audits of the city's tree canopy are well overdue.

Dr Peter Fisher works in the environment industry, specialising in water and climate change adaptation.

Planning Consultative Meeting for No 10 Valetta Crescent

2009-01-21T23:48:00.000+11:00

A Planning Consultative Meeting was held for No 10 Valetta Crescent tonight, where 8 double storey townhouses are planned with the destruction of many 80 to 100 year old Eucalyptus cepholacarpa (mealy stringybark) trees. These trees are the original canopy trees of the Knoxfield area and also the trees which the Knox Council is currently studying their unique character hopefully for a report recommending their protection.

The residents of the area are to be congratulated for their presentations to the meeting. Thanks go to Irene Fullarton for her organization, to David Chaney for his leading of the debate and to Pauline, Chris, Peter, Tina and others who spoke from their hearts on the matter.

Among the objections presented to the meeting included:

does not meet with the ResCodes, destruction of the vegetation, no parking areas in Valetta Cres for visitor or excess parking, safety for children walking to school, no turning points for cars, lack of plans for rubbish removal, overdevelopment of the site, increase in traffic for both Valetta Cres and Kathryn Roads, lack of access for the disabled and the removal of the wildlife habitat.

If the trees are removed where will the yellow-tailed black cockatoos, superb parrots, barn owls, tawny frogmouths, Owlet-nightjars, bell-birds, kookaburras, black-faced cuckoo shrikes, red and little wattle birds, rainbow lorikeets, galahs, yellow-crested cockatoos and crimson rosellas feed? What about the habitat for the ring-tailed possums, bushy-tailed possums, sugar-gliders and bats live. Most people came to live in Knoxfield to be close to the wildlife and to live in a leafy green area, with open space.

I’m certain our opposition to double-storey townhouses was clearly heard tonight, with a resounding chorus of only single storey houses acceptable.

Moratorium on Development in Knoxfield

2009-01-08T17:53:00.000+11:00

Happy New Year everyone,

A response from Kim Wells on the petition for a Moratorium on Development in Knoxfield has arrived, but I’ve been a bit slack over Christmas and the New Year and omitted to send details on to you. So here it is, find attached a copy of Hansard indicating that 1,581 signatures signed the petition and the other attachment is a letter from Kim to Justin Madden requesting his response to the petition.

Let’s hope over one and a half thousand signatures at least gets a response from the Minister.

Ian Simpson

Views of the Knoxfield Residents and Visitors to the Area

2008-12-02T06:59:00.012+11:00

Well the Petition is finished. Early this morning, for the first time for ages, I heard a lone Kookaburra laughing.

One of the main complaints from the residents of Knoxfield is the lack of wildlife and birds in the last few years. Kookaburras and back yellow-tailed cockatoos were the main birds that are missing.

Many teenagers are passionate about the old canopy trees and the wildlife they protect and often they were the driving force in the parents signing. I was often badgered to let them sign as well, which I didn’t of course. In some households the male signed for the rest but in others all lined up to sign.

Some of the addresses are not Knoxfield but pretty well all these people have some connection with the area. They either grew up here or were back in the neighbourhood shopping or were visiting grown up children who now live here. Others were visiting aunts, cousins or friends; some were house sitting. It was very surprising how many people still shop here even though they have moved out of the area.

Comments were mostly about Kathryn Rd. Many will not park on it as it is viewed as very dangerous now. Others thought the treed part was where they wished they could have lived but now, with all the development, they were glad they didn’t. The next preferred address was Foster Cres.

Some who bought into the area a few years ago were lead to believe it was a low-density area but now find that it is rapidly changing. They are not amused to put it politely.

Some have already moved out because too much is going on but still shop here. They were sad this had to be the case. One man who has a house just over the fence from him is now able to sleep because it has new less noisy occupants. Others could not work at home because of noise from neighbours; others couldn’t hear their TV at times because of traffic on Kathryn Rd. Many had had their driveways blocked by cars after parties. Privacy was a big issue.

All were very concerned about over-development and canopy tree loss. Many asked don’t they realize trees bring rain and provide shade?

One person explained about the size of the sewerage pipes (he saw them being installed) and said they will not be able to cope with all this development.

Some didn’t sign although they agreed with the issues. They wanted individual letters to be sent. One “tradie” said he wanted the work so he didn’t care how much development went on but the government should plant trees in the catchment areas so it rains there, then we could have plenty of water here.

Some couldn’t see without their glasses to sign, some couldn’t write and wished they could sign.

Others looking for houses in the area said they did not want to live in someone’s backyard and they wanted more space.

Pretty well each time I was wished luck. It was a very humbling experience. I think that I am learning a lot about the environment but some of the information I was given and things I was shown absolutely amazed me.

What a great community with so much knowledge about this area.

Last EDO VCAT Workshop for 2008

2008-12-01T13:22:00.004+11:00

EDO workshop – VCAT Planning & Environment Appeals

At Carlton Tuesday 9th December 2008, 5.30-7.30pm.

The 60L Green Building, 60 Leicester Street Carlton

Visit our website for details EDO Victoria

Registrations essential: call the EDO on 8341 3100 to register.

Council Elections

2008-11-30T21:53:00.003+11:00

I've been informed on very good advice that ANDREW WALTER has been elected as the councillor for FRIBERG Ward. We look forward to working with Andrew for the betterment of Knoxfield and to ensure that any developments in Knoxfield meet with Knox City Council's policies and planning rules. And more importantly are appropriate to our suburb.
Congratulations to Andrew Walter, a resident of Knoxfield.
Ian

More success at Council

2008-11-26T12:25:00.003+11:00

Last night was a most successful meeting at council for us, as all the lobbying paid off with three developments around Knox being refused. Our next door neighbor emailed all councillors about one development in Bayswater, which was a three storey development which did not fit the character of the area, open space provisions and height requirements, and her email was read into the motion of refusal.

The lobbying for No 32 Kathryn Road was also successful with our councillor, Debbie Field, moving a motion of refusal which was also enthusiastically supported by other councillors.

No 40 Kathryn Road was refused too, so overall a very successful night. We are making a difference,but we must ensure that council policy is adhered to with all planning applications. Councillors are directing their residents to us for advice, so our influence is spreading. Most developments though have gone to VCAT, where our fight will continue.

Our next battle is 10 Valetta Cres, where vegetation is planned to be removed for 8 double storey townhouses. 17 of these indigenous, canopy trees are 80 years or more in age. How can the planning department even consider advertising such a development in times of climate change and destruction of the few remaining wildlife corridors in our district. Neighbors behind this planned development have noted 32 different birds, some very rare to our suburb, that visit their property. Get an objection form today and submit your objections to this senseless development.

It’s going to be difficult to save Knoxfield as we know it, but it will be a fight worth the effort. If you value our suburb’s environment, act today.

EPBC Act review - submissions due 19 December 2008

2008-11-12T08:40:00.002+11:00

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has commissioned an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which is required to be reviewed every 10 years. This is the first review of the EPBC Act since its commencement on 16 July 2000. The review will assess the operation of the EPBC Act and the extent to which its objects have been achieved.

Community participation in the review is encouraged through public consultation sessions and opportunity to make submissions.

Public submissions are due 19 December 2008. Further information is available on the review Website, including how to make a submission, terms of reference and the discussion paper.

The Review

The Discussion Paper

The Petition

2008-11-09T10:37:00.003+11:00

The Petition that is currently circulating in the Knoxfield area is going very well.

However, if you haven't signed it or would like to collect in your area please email Save Knoxfield for details.

Some of the comments that I have had when collecting are:

"Since trees in Philip Rd have been cut down there are less birds."

"I moved here 15 years ago because I liked the area and now I have units all around me; this is not what I wanted."

From people who moved out because of all the development but still shop in the area.

"I just had to move because everything I cared about in the neighbourhood was going."

"Too much clearing of the native vegetation."

Others who had recently bought houses were concerned at the way the neighbourhood was going. Some wondered if they had made the right decision in moving to the area.

One person who didn't live in the area said why would you want to live here. You can't get anywhere without a car.

All wished us luck and said we are doing the right thing.

Why are we doing this? Well for me this video says most of it. We don't have the solutions to fix climate change yet we keep breaking it. There is a better way.

Severn Suzuki

Questions for Knox City Council Meeting - 28-10-08

2008-10-28T22:56:00.002+11:00

Tonight at 5.30pm two questions for tonight’s council meeting were faxed to Knox City Council Offices, but somehow they were lost, misplaced or pigeon-holed due to their controversial nature. The fax machine from which they were sent provided a message stating they had been sent successfully.

These are the questions:

QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING 28-10-08

Knoxfield residents congratulated council on the action taken in the budget to study the unique character of Knoxfield’s indigenous canopy trees. I’m seriously concerned, though, that if the felling of trees by developers continues as in No 75 Kathryn Road, there will not be any trees left to study.

Eleven indigenous Eucalyptus cephalocarpa (mealy stringybark ) canopy trees were removed. Only one tree was retained a grevillea robusta (native of northern Australia).

A moratorium on granting planning/building permits needs to be instigated immediately to save existing indigenous canopy trees.

Shaun Leane, MP, recently wrote to the CEO, concerning a moratorium and stated,

“I have been advised that in keeping with the Planning Act, the protocol is a formal request in writing from the council is required if council deems it appropriate to involve the Minister.”

A precedent exists for the Minister to grant a moratorium, as witnessed in Seaspray recently,

Therefore, following advice to council by Shaun Leane, MP, does the Knox City Council intend to request the Minister for Planning that a moratorium on granting planning/building permits be imposed in Knoxfield until the study into its unique indigenous canopy trees is completed?

Following my question to the May council meeting requesting traffic count figures for Kathryn Road, I was unhappy with the Director of Engineering and Infrastructure’s response, as he stated that according to traffic counts development had little impact on the most recent traffic count.

I followed this up with correspondence and the Director’s response to Knoxfield residents and to me dated 13^th June 2008, was that the most recent traffic count for 2008 was 2,980 vehicles per day and stated this was a reduction on the previous year of 3,383 vehicles.

This statement inferred that traffic on Kathryn Road was not a problem and could cope with further development.

In actual fact figures provided to Cr Field by the Traffic Engineer indicate the traffic count taken in May had increased by 630 vehicles on the Director’s figures.

Therefore, would the Director of Engineering and Infrastructure explain what the actual traffic count was for Kathryn Road in May this year, as he has stated they were 2980 vehicles, while 3610 vehicles were released by the Traffic Engineer to Cr Field and if these recent figures are correct will the Director agree that development in Knoxfield has an impact on traffic flows on Kathryn Road?

Ian Simpson

The No 72 Anne Road & 61 Kathryn Road Development goes to VCAT

2008-10-19T21:19:00.001+11:00

Objectors to the development for application for Nos 72 Anne & 61 Kathryn Road has gone to VCAT. The developer is contesting all grounds of refusal by the Knox City Council. The 123 residents that objected to this development should have received notification from the developer that he is taking the matter to VCAT. All objectors now have the opportunity to lodge their objections to the development on VCAT Form B “Statement of Grounds”. Assume that VCAT knows nothing about the development and stress your concerns for this overdevelopment opposite the Anne Road shops.

If you are having trouble completing the form, seek help from David and Valerie on 9753 4243 or Ian and Maree on 9763 6226. Please remember that a copy of the form also needs to be forwarded to the developer “Planning Vision” and Knox City Council.

We need your help. Many people have expressed their frustration with the process and feel that they are being worn down by the developers. This is exactly what they want you to feel. We must remain strong and continue the fight.

FW: Journal article

2008-10-19T21:03:00.000+11:00

For those that don’t get the Knox Journal, here’s an article from last week’s issue.

Libs put suburb growth concerns on the agenda

BY WINSTON TAN

15/10/2008 12:49:00 PM

KNOXFIELD residents have met Liberal MPs in their latest move to prevent overdevelopment in their suburb.

The residents, Scoresby MP Kim Wells and Opposition planning spokesman Matthew Guy discussed their concerns this month about the State Government's Melbourne 2030 plan.

Resident Ian Simpson said a petition to Parliament was "in the pipeline" as a catalyst for a discussion of overdevelopment issues.

"Matthew Guy will be asking questions in Parliament pertinent to Knoxfield.

"That might get us greater publicity, and the more publicity we can get, the less the developers are likely to come in there."

Labor MP Shaun Leane said a 'moratorium' on overdevelopment in Knoxfield was still on his agenda. He said progress had been made in discussions with Planning Minister Justin Madden.

"It is predominantly a Knox Council issue, but I fully understand where the residents and councillors come from."

Mr Leane said he fully supported the council if it decided on a moratorium on planning permits until a study into trees in Knoxfield was done.

Mr Simpson said attempts to contact Mr Leane about the progress of his discussions had been unsuccessful.

"No one's been able to contact him. I've rung his office and been assured I'd get a call back and that hasn't happened. I've emailed him and didn't get a reply.

"Other people have tried to contact him too."

However, Mr Leane assured Knoxfield residents that he was still working on the matter.

Knoxfield planning issues

2008-10-17T19:06:00.000+11:00

This week Matthew Guy, opposition planning spokesperson asked the following question of Justin Madden, Minister of Planning on Tuesday. To date he has not received a reply.

Tonight I raise an issue for the Minister for Planning concerning

development occurring in the city of Knox in Melbourne's outer eastern

suburbs. Recently I was alerted to an interesting newspaper article in the

Knox Leader of 23 September where I noted a member representing Eastern

Metropolitan Region, Mr Leane, calling for a moratorium on all development

in the suburb of Knoxfield until neighbourhood character studies have been

completed by the council.

Development moratoriums are an interesting topic particularly here in

Gippsland where the minister has recently placed one at the request of the

Wellington Shire on areas along the Ninety-Mile Beach. This is despite the

moratorium closing off the rights of local people to build on their own

land, even something as small as a garden shed.

But Knox is suffering what many people across the metropolitan area are now

dealing with -- that is, a complete change in urban character thanks to

Melbourne 2030. Melbourne 2030 has forced high-density development in

smaller streets, such as Kathryn Road, developments that are very much out

of character with the existing urban and street character of the suburb.

It is only when listening to the concerns of local residents, and viewing

maps that give an indication of the change that is happening to some of the

smaller streets in Knox, that you can appreciate the concerns that many

locals have with such enforced change and a one-size-fits-all Melbourne

2030 policy and what it has brought to those local communities. But worse

-- and what I fear more is planned for Knox -- is development that will be

out of step with this urban character that is planned through the new

residential zones (NRZ) document.

The government's NRZ plan will destroy the semblance of urban character

that the suburb has through the mandating of high-rise, high-density

dwellings with no corresponding upgrades in road, rail, water or power

infrastructure. The NRZ plan will change the way the suburb looks. The plan

contains three new zones, two of which mandate high-rise. This plan will

devastate many areas of Victoria. It will devastate Knoxfield. Leafy urban

areas that are such a drawcard for people to live in Melbourne's east will

be a thing of the past.

Tonight I ask the Minister for Planning to listen to the people of Knox, to

listen to the local residents and to local members on both sides of the

house who understand that inappropriate development in this suburb is

getting way out of control, and to do one good thing for the people of Knox

-- that is, to scrap the planned new residential zones document.

THE VCAT COMMUNITY FORUM

2008-10-17T18:44:00.001+11:00

TO ALL GROUPS

Wonderful to see so many of the groups represented. I believe that if it were not for us, they would have had about 4 people there.

What was wonderful and came out very clearly was the spread of Melbourne we represented. including but not complete Broadmeadows, Darebin, Carlton, Southbank, Maribyrnong, Seddon, Hobsons Bay, Bayside, Stonnington, Malvern East, Carnegie, Boroondara, Whitehorse, Doncaster, Kingston, Mt Eliza, Camperdown, Daylesford and others. That is quite a spread. Others were registered but could not show up for various reasons.

Congratulations to all who came in spite of the bad timing. I know others did not come because they feel so disillusioned with VCAT, or because the timing did not suit them or because they are just too busy.

Most of those mentioned spoke and spoke extremely well. From different angles but the same stories.

The chairs of the meeting were VCAT President Justice Kevin Bell (still a Supreme Court Judge I understand) and Deputy President Helen Gibson.

Eventually she was pushed into letting people speak.

Many issues were raised for eg.

The unfairness of the developers being able to afford top barristers and these expert witnesses and so many councils not able to keep funding these fights. There were 2 suggestions about this 1 - that there be a blind bank of experts set up and you take who is available 2 - that the barristers and experts be cut out completely and return to a level playing field and the developer speaks for himself and the council speak for them selves and so do the residents. Instead of Justice only for the rich.

When the scandal of Brookland Greens in Casey was raised, Justice Bell said we are not here to discuss individual items. (Nice way to hide from a discussion about it)

Malvern East told how they had written a number of issues to be raised and were told they were not suitable items. They had then written to Justice Bell asking what would be suitable and he actually admitted that he had not replied. What was interesting was that all those forbidden subjects were brought up by others.

Seddon raised the fact that VCAT only use the policies from M2030 that support development and ignore the policies that protect neighbourhood character.

It was raised in various ways that VCAT should not be a planning authority but just a review board to make sure that councils follow their own policies.

It was raised that if a developer brings amended plans to VCAT they should be told to take them back to council to be looked at again. (VCAT responded that they were trying to save councils time and money)

It was raised that the 60 days is abused by developers and they delay getting info to councils and then rush off the VCAT b ecause they know they have a better chance of getting it approved by VCAT.

VCAT were told they are unelected and unaccountable and the community has lost all respect for the system.

It was raised that councils often pass an inappropriate development because they say VCAT will approve it so we are wasting time and money to oppose it so many things that are bad dont even get to VCAT, because councils have no confidence in it.

It was raised that the local people and local councils usually know better about their area than VCAT, yet they are overruled.

This is getting long. I am sure I have missed many great points.

If you want something passed around do get back to me.

Who knows if those VCAT people listened or actually heard. As an optimist I hope so, as a realist, I doubt it.

They have heard from the community and as usual ignore it.

But I felt proud to be there with so many really great people who are trying to keep the Marvellous in Melbourne, as well as coast and country.

Mary

VCAT Community Forum on the 13th October

2008-10-14T07:36:00.006+11:00

I attended this forum on behalf of the Save Knoxfield and Friends of Egan Lee Group.

For VCAT Justice Kevin Bell President of the Tribunal (appointed in April) and Mrs Helen Gibson Deputy President.

There was not a huge attendance but enough very interesting and qualified people from the Melbourne area. (There was also one from Camperdown and one from Daylesford.)

This forum was part of a Review of VCAT by Justice Bell. There will be notices in the newspapers later asking for written submissions.

It was clearly stated by all there that the people were not being heard at VCAT.

That where VCAT suggested changes to the Council's Planning Scheme to stop inappropriate development they were not being accepted at Government level.

That only certain clauses were being given weight where as others, that would protect the environment and neighbourhood character, were largely being ignored.

That some VCAT members and Councils were not aware of all the facts or if they were they were being ignored.

The importance of considering neighbouring properties in the decision (which we know is not done in Knox). There was a case where a development had a brick wall on the plan and the one next door to it had balconies facing this wall. Eventually someone (VCAT) woke up and it was fixed.

Expert witnesses are a big problem at VCAT as far as the average person is concerned. (I am sure none of them slept well last night.)

The need to have the plans (as amended) available online and not hidden in Council Planning departments.

The Forum went over time so that everyone who attended could be heard. I was most impressed with this fairness and I am sure others were as well. Mrs Gibson answered questions after it concluded.

After the forum, what also came to light in discussions with the attendees was the number of people calling trying to get help with planning, VCAT and Council matters and most Groups said they didn't have the resources to help.

Neighbourhood character and its importance was also mentioned both during and after.

Ian will be back on Thursday and he, David and myself are off to the EDO VCAT seminar.

More later.

Irene M. Fullarton.

Further Meetings with local Politicians

2008-10-09T23:08:00.000+11:00

On Tuesday, Irene Kelly, Iren Fullerton, David Chaney and Ian Simpson ventured to Parliament to meet with Kim Wells, MP for Scoresby and Matthew Guy, Opposition Spokesperson on Planning. Both agreed that Knoxfield is under attack like much of Melbourne from developers, as a result of Melbourne’s 2030 Planning Policy.

Action decided upon at the meeting included

· Questions being asked in Parliament of the Minister for Planning, and

· Another petition being circulated to enable Kim Wells to present it to Parliament and enabling him to address the issues confronting Knoxfield residents from developers.

Both agreed that the Opposition, if they gain Government at the next election, would disband Melbourne’s 2030 Planning Policy and encourage development in areas of the city most suitable for medium/high development. They also warned that from January 2009 when new Planning Laws will be implanted that ONLY immediate neighboring residents to developments will be able to object to that development. This is taking away our rights as citizens in a democratic society to express ourselves when a grievance arises. If you are concerned by this action email, write or ring the Premier and Minister for Planning and inform them of your objection to this removal of democratic rights.

Email of Support for the Save Knoxfield Campaign

Well talk about taking my words out of my mouth - tonight I attended the Friends of Koolunga 15th Anniversary Celebration. Amongst the many volunteers and Council staff attending (it was agood night) was a Planning Officer who sought me out as she knew of my association with Save Knoxfield. She wanted to let me know how very important the lobbying and pressure being applied by Knoxfield residents re the developments and developers. Apparently there was some reluctance on behalf of the developer of No. 75 to carry out the net gain required by Knox Council re that property but Plannning Officers were able to add pressure on him by saying the "local people" were very passionate about the environment and were very active and no doubt would be watching. The officer wanted me to let the group know how much the officers appreciate their efforts as she is very aware that at times it can seem very difficult and thankless for community groups who can feel they are getting nowhere but she wanted us to be aware how effective this type of pro active behaviour can be.

Cheers and well done

No 44 Kathryn Road VCAT Notice

Tonight a BBQ was held for objectors to No 44 Kathryn Road development to inform them of how to respond to the VCAT notice received last week. To our surprise we discovered that some objectors have NOT received information from the developer re his VCAT Application, as is his duty, under VCAT rules. If you were an objector to No 44 Kathryn Road (2 double storey townhouses and 8 single storey) and did not receive information from the developer please inform either David and Valerie Chaney or Ian and Maree Simpson immediately. All applications to lodge an abjection to VCAT must be in by the end of next week.

Computer Expertise

If anyone has computer expertise, has time to spare and is willing to help spruce up this Blogpage with the added ability to forward email petitions and make it more interesting please contact

saveknoxfield@ozemail.com.au

Update on Developments in Knoxfield

2008-10-02T15:12:00.001+10:00

No 44 Kathryn Road

Today objectors to the development at No 44 Kathryn Road of 2 double storey houses and eight single houses would have received notification that the developer has appealed the process to VCAT. The developer has appealed against the time taken by Knox City Council to make a decision on this matter. Councils must make a decision within 60 days of the close of the advertising period of the application. The developer has taken no notice of the reasons for the development being refused by council. The reasons being:

1. The development is contrary to Clause 19.03 and 21 (State Planning Policy Framework) and Clause 22.10 (Local Planning Policy Framework - Housing Policy) of the Knox Planning Scheme in the following instances:

(a) The site is not within a preferred location for new housing being outside an Activity Centre, Principal Public Transport Network and not an identified Strategic Redevelopment Site and is not consistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.

(b) The development does not comprise a range of dwelling size and type.

2. The development will detract from the garden character of the neighbourhood due to the extensive hard surface areas and is contrary to Clause 22.07 – Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy.

3. The development provides insufficient private open space to Dwellings 2 and 9, contrary to Standard B29 of ResCode.

4. The development (Dwellings 1 and 2) will unreasonably overlook adjoining properties contrary to Standard B22 of ResCode.

It seems that anyone that wishes to appear before VCAT to lodge an objection needs to complete the Form B Statement of Grounds, to appear at the hearing. We must lodge our objections again to VCAT.

VCAT has assured us that this application will not be heard until January 2009. Keep watching this page for updates.

No 72 Anne Road & No 61 Kathryn Road

Now objectors to this development might be surprised that this application has been refused by the Knox City Council planners without it going to a council meeting. Presumedly this action is to beat the 60 day rule. Why then couldn’t the planners for the No 44 development have taken the same action? In reading the report for No 44 Kathryn Road, which was presented to council at its September meeting, one would assume it was passed until you read the last paragraph. There are some serious questions that need to be asked about the action taken in the case of No 44 Kathryn.

The reasons for No 72 Anne Road & 61 Kathryn Road are:

VCAT Action

All this action seems to be taking place either in the lead up to Christmas or just after when people are on annual holidays. Is this surprising that it makes it easier for the developer to get a favorable decision.

We must stand firm and keep on objecting otherwise our appeals to Knox City Council mean nothing.

Keep checking this page for further updates. A meeting of objectors is being planned for a date in the following week. Notices will be delivered shortly.

A Win and a Loss

2008-09-28T20:13:00.004+10:00

A WIN

The campaign to save Knoxfield from developers has moved up a notch with a win from Knox City Council. At its meeting last Tuesday council refused a permit for the development of No 44 Kathryn Road. This means that the application will in all probability go to VCAT for a decision.

A LOSS

Have you seen the destruction of No 75 Kathryn Road to development.
Here's a video taken with the previous owner's permission of the front garden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2WM6UCHrkE

And here's a photo after the clearing of the block last week.

So much for the "Green and leafy image of Knox" so often mentioned in Knox City Council's policies. How this development was passed we have no idea! There are many questions to be asked about this development as plans were continually unavailable to residents during the application process. This action calls into doubt the application process .

To date some residents have met with Shaun Leane, State Upper House member for this area and a meeting is currently being set up with Kim Wells and Matthew Guy, the Opposition Planning Spokesperson. It seems that questions need to be asked in parliament, to stop this terrible destruction of our environment, just to make some people very wealthy.

Planning Consultative Meeting for No 40 Kathryn Road

2008-09-17T07:58:00.001+10:00

Tonight the Planning Consultative Meeting for No 40 Kathryn Road was conducted at the council offices and attended by The Mayor, Jim Penna, Cr Debbie Field, planning staff, the developer, and approximately 20 objectors. Unfortunately the meeting was controlled so rigidly I think the Mayor was afraid it might get out of hand. Other PCC meetings have been much more relaxed and offered everyone the opportunity to speak and question closely. The Mayor has made it known that he doesn’t want Knoxfield residents interfering in the State Planning Laws.

David Chaney, Peter Shearman, Ian Simpson, Margaret Oaten, Joyce Ward and Jeanette Spencer addressed issues concerning residents. The developer tried to counter our arguments concerning Rescodes, over-development, infrastructure, safety issues, rubbish bin collections, additional traffic on Kathryn Road and car parking implications caused by the development. The developer gave us the impression he wasn’t willing to negotiate any changes, even though he said he’d discuss a reduction in dwellings with the owner. At the close of the meeting Cr Debbie Field addressed the issues of concern that were not covered by the speakers for the residents. She stated the importance of trees and open space for the mental well being of residents and surveys showing 80% of motorists speed along Kathryn Road.

Most Knoxfield residents are not against development, but over-development as this planning application demonstrates. Developments that meet the neighborhood character and retain trees would be welcomed. A maximum of six dwellings on this site would retain high canopy trees and support the unique character of Knoxfield.

Council will consider the development at No 44 Kathryn Road at it’s meeting next Tuesday 23^rd September at 7.30pm. This business should be over by 8.30, so come along and show council the residents of Knoxfield don’t want over-development and wish to retain our high canopy trees.

Knoxfield Planning Issues

2008-09-07T21:55:00.000+10:00

Planning Issues in Knoxfield.

Cr Mick Van de Vreede along with Cr Debbie Field have both been active in their support of Knoxfield residents in their fight against over-development, especially double storey townhouses. Both played a critical part in developing the Knox Housing Policy of 2007 and have stated quite unequivocally that they got it wrong concerning the 400 metre distance from Neighborhood Activity Centres for medium/high density development. They have stated they did not realize the impact this would have on village type neighborhoods like Knoxfield. Thus Cr Mick Van de Vreede moved the call-up item for Cr Debbie Field in her absence at the August Council Meeting. If council’s report supports the move to alter the Knox Housing Policy of 2007 and have it approved by the Minister for Planning for inclusion in the Melbourne 2030 Planning Policy it will alleviate the impact of this medium/high density housing in Knoxfield and in Kathryn Road in particular. I’m confident council’s report will support this move. This call-up item is the result of much lobbying by David Chaney and myself.

Combined with this call-up item is also the report being drawn up by council for an earlier call-up item by Cr Debbie Field to look at “preserving the unique character of Knoxfield’s high canopy indigenous trees”. Each development includes the removal of trees, as in No 75 Kathryn Road, where development has just commenced.

Last Friday representatives of Knoxfield residents, Irene Fullerton, Irene Kelly, David Chaney and Ian Simpson, met with Shaun Leane MP Legislative Council, to brief him of our concerns and he recommended that a “Moratorium on Development in Knoxfield” be applied until Knox City Council completes its study of the “unique character of Knoxfield’s trees”. Shaun Leane said he would make an appointment with Justin Madden, Minister for Planning, this week to recommend his course of action. The residents were delighted with this recommendation, as it will provide some breathing space from the constant barrage of planning applications being submitted to council for the Knoxfield area. This pressure has been constant since April when we were first alerted to the impending developments.

Residents will be aware, though, that a Planning Consultative Meeting is to be held for the development at No 40 Kathryn Road on the 16^th September and No 44 Kathryn development will be considered by council at its September 23^rd meeting. Residents are appreciative of the opportunity provided by Knox City Council to object to developments and to provide constructive criticism at the Planning Consultative Committee Meetings. This does not occur in many councils across Victoria.

Melbourne 2030 and its lack of foresight in planning is the major cause of the problems in Knoxfield. The effect of the 400 metre medium/high density development zone around Neighborhood Shopping Centres is the direct cause of the planned developments in Knoxfield. Policy developers just looked at a solution to a problem without considering the impact of that policy and how it could devastate a community. Lack of planning to upgrade 1960’s infrastructure has resulted in power blackouts caused by a transformer not coping with the load on cold mornings. Drainage and sewerage problems are a constant problem as is the water pressure. The older suburbs, ill planned as they were in the 1960s, just cannot cope with the demand placed upon them by a large increase in the population. Other issues include Knoxfield Shopping Centre being included as a Neighborhood Activity Centre, which is the smallest of those listed in the Knox Housing Statement 2007, it doesn’t have the transport facilities of the others named and doesn’t even have traffic lights controlling entry to the centre for cars and pedestrian traffic. Other centres like Wellington Village, Rowville Lakes, Studfield and Knox Gardens are larger, have greater services, traffic lights and much better public transport services.

Other Melbourne 2030 issues that are of concern are the restrictions placed on planners in relation to planning applications:

Planning applications must be considered in isolation, even when neighboring properties both have planning applications which would result in an additional 21 houses.
Rescodes are only guidelines and are not prescriptive
“Vegetation Overlay 3” does little to protect the indigenous high canopy trees
Restrictive timelines imposed upon the council to make decisions, and
The repetitive nature of residents needing to object to each planning application when similar arguments apply to all applications.

Knoxfield indigenous canopy trees are being removed

2008-09-04T19:32:00.006+10:00

Soon most of the indigenous canopy trees at number 75 Kathryn Rd will be gone. Most would be 80 to 90 years old.

While this property has a very long story (more on that to come later) I would like to tell you that there is a Cinnamon Wattle (Acacia leprosa) in the front garden. (See video below.)

Under the Vegetation Protection Overlay 3 on this property none of the under-story or any trees that are not covered by the VPO 3 can be counted so they can be off-set somewhere else. This is a tragic loss in the wildlife food corridor to Egan Lee Reserve.

About the Acacia leprosa:

"Federation Flower for Victoria

Acacia leprosa (Cinnamon Wattle - red flowered form)

Scarlet Blaze

Newly Discovered Wattle Becomes Victoria's Federation Floral Emblem

Scarlet Blaze, one of the twentieth century's most surprising and significant horticultural discoveries is Victoria's Centenary of Federation floral emblem.

The blood-red variety of the Cinnamon Wattle (Acacia leprosa) was found growing in a Victorian forest in 1995 by two bush walkers. They took cuttings to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, which manages a specialised plant conservation program, thereby saving many plants from probable extinction."

The Knox City Council are planning to spend money to educate residents to plant more trees and native vegetation. The purpose of my posts will be visually educate the Council just what is happening in special areas like Knoxfield.

Now residents have realised that their area is being destroyed they are fighting to save it. In the 10 years we have had canopy tree protection much of it has been removed. We can't allow this to continue.

Regardless of what the experts say we know there is a big problem. Many of us are trying to keep our plants alive but, with shade vanishing, the area is becoming hotter. There are big changes in the native bird population.

Large habitat trees clean the air, store carbon and generally make you feel better. They are the lungs of the Urban area. They bring much needed rain.

Victoria has one of the worst records for loss of wildlife and plants.

More people are dying from the effects of heat than ever before.

Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

Australia's climate is one of the world's driested.

And developers want to concrete much of Knoxfield contributing to climate change.

We say NO.

Enjoy the video.

Press Release from Peter

2008-09-02T21:16:00.001+10:00

Look what they’ve done to my suburb Ma! (with apologies to Melanie Safka)

With the backing of the Victorian State Government, developers are moving in, buying up existing single dwelling properties and then turning them into high density double story townhouse ‘estates’. This is not only happening in the city of Knox but right across Victoria.

Some larger ‘garden suburb’ blocks in Knoxfield are set to be redeveloped with 10 or 12 double & single story townhouses.

The impact of up to 50 people living on a single block is compounded by the growing number of similar developments already built or currently in the planning stages.

Developer supplied plans are often vague, ‘ResCode’ rules are being bent and council guidelines are being ignored in the rush to put as many ‘investment units’ as possible onto existing blocks in quiet established residential areas.

Neighbours are suddenly realising that they will have multiple two storey houses on their fence line, restricting their views, natural light and encroaching on their privacy.

These high density developments are also overloading critical utility services such as power, gas, water, sewerage & storm water systems. These utilities, planned in the 1960’s, were never designed to handle multiple occupancy housing. Who will plan, organise & pay for the required infrastructure upgrades? Not the developers!

These developments usually require the clearing of all existing established native & non-native vegetation. This flora cannot be replaced in the short term and is already impacting on the numbers of native birds & wildlife that are unique to ‘green’ suburbs in the Knox region.

Limited off-street parking provided in these developments leads to traffic problems and accidents where residents & visitors have to park in numbers on narrow suburban streets.

Many of these developments supposedly cater for family living but little though is given to providing a reasonable community area on site for children to play in safety.

Neighbourhood action groups are springing up all over Melbourne to fight many of these proposals but local councils only have limited powers to reject these planning applications. The developer can always appeal to VCAT which can over rule council & residents objections.

Under the State Governments ‘Melbourne 2030’ housing plan any remaining local government powers will soon be removed. This will prevent all but adjacent residents from fighting development proposals and it will be at State Government level.

Whilst residents continue to oppose inappropriate local development the real changes are needed at State Government level. We need to tell our elected State Government representatives that local planning decisions must remain with our elected local government representatives and not with someone in an office in the CBD who has no idea of local planning issues.

We need people to write to their local State Government representatives asking them to force changes to the 2030 plan to allow major control to remain with local council planning groups.

Peter Shearman

Janden Close

Knoxfield.

Successful Council Meetings on Tuesday 26th August

2008-08-27T10:17:00.000+10:00

Tuesday 26^th August 27, 2008 was a successful day for our campaign against overdevelopment in Knoxfield. A meeting was organized by Cr Debbie Field with the Mayor, Jim Penna and senior representatives of the Planning Department at Knox City Council. Then the monthly council meeting provided success again for our lobbying of councillors.

Firstly representatives of the residents met with the Mayor, Jim Penna, the Director of City Development, Angelo Kourambas and Paul Dickie, Manager of Planning. The residents were represented by David Chaney, Irene Kelly, Irene Fullerton and myself. We were provided with opportunity to address our concerns, which were:

· Overdevelopment of planning applications

· Concern with double storey townhouses which are out of character with the area.

· The intensity of development in Kathryn Road

· The detrimental effect on the old 1960’s infrastructure on sewerage, drainage, power and gas supplies and traffic on Kathryn Road

· Concern with the removal of remnant forest canopy trees and the effect on wildlife

· The poor quality of plans released by the Planning Department for advertising, especially with a total disregard for Rescodes and Vegetation Overlays

Paul Dickie responded to our claims stating the restrictions in which the planners had to operate especially in regard to the Melbourne 2030 Policy. Paul Dickie intimated that the current planning applications will in all probability go to VCAT for a decision, which infers that council will not pass them. If this occurs we must attend VCAT in numbers to present our case.

Secondly, at the monthly council meeting last night Cr Mick van de Vreede moved a “Call-Up Item” to reduce the 400 metre perimeter, which enables medium/high density housing around Neighborhood Activity Centres, to 200 metres. This was achieved after much lobbying by both David Chaney and myself. We are mindful that to bring about change to the Melbourne 2030 Policy will be very difficult and we’ll need much help from the community of Knoxfield.

The doors of communication are now open with the responsible planning officers in council and we’ve been invited to contact them whenever necessary. We certainly intend doing that.

Support for Cr Debbie Field

2008-08-21T21:16:00.002+10:00

Hi Folks,

You may have noticed an article in the Journal this week criticizing Debbie Field for not attending Council meetings. Debbie is quite ill and having weekly treatment, which does not sound good. Even though she’s remained in contact with me and has willingly returned phone messages or emails. This article smells to me like a dirty election campaign. One candidate, Tony Holland – a REAL ESTATE AGENT, said at a meeting I had with him recently that Debbie was useless and never attended meetings.

Below is my response to the Journal. Whatever you do DO NOT VOTE FOR TONY HOLLAND! I’ve had it on good advice that the aim is to get him elected to improve the chances of electing Adam Gill to the position of Mayor. Guess what, they're both real estate agents. What hope will we have with Adam Gill as Mayor.

Cheers,

Ian

Dear Editor,

Re: “Often absent councillor insists she’s still in touch” by Winston Tan

I can assure all Friberg Residents that Cr Debbie Field is definitely in touch with issues in Friberg Ward, especially in Knoxfield.

I am incensed by the insinuation in the Knox Journal of August 20, that Cr Debbie Field is absenting herself from Knox Council and relinquishing her duties as a councillor. Cr Field may have been on leave from council since July, but that has not prevented her from providing wonderful support to the Knoxfield residents in the fight against medium/high density housing in our suburb. Cr Field’s advice and direction has only been a telephone call away and at times she has called to see how the campaign is going.

This insinuation that Cr Field is not fulfilling her duty to residents of Friberg, seems very much like a dirty election ploy. A candidate opposing Cr Field made similar accusations to me at a private meeting recently.

The reasons Cr Field has taken leave from council is her private business and should not become an issue in an election campaign.

Decent people respect the privacy of others.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Simpson

New Planning Application for No 32 Kathryn Road

2008-08-21T21:14:00.000+10:00

Say NO to FOUR double storey townhouses at

No 32

Kathryn Road.

If these are approved will your neighbor’s property be the next targeted by developers?

These townhouses will:

Be out of character with the surrounds,

Generate more heat and use more power,

Not be sustainable in a time of climate change,

Be a danger to passing school children,

Create more parking on Kathryn Road,

Create stress on 1960s infrastructure,

Not be family friendly, no play space for children,

Not have facilities for disabled persons,

Have a direct affect on wildlife of the area.

The struggle to maintain the “leafy character” of Knoxfield is so important. Over the past month VCAT has turned down two applications in Knoxfield to maintain the leafy image. We know that Knox Council will support their policy to keep Knoxfield “leafy green”.

This developer is treating planning laws with contempt, as they provided plans for this new development without any measurements. Is this to make our task of objecting more difficult or is it to hide the fact that FOUR double storey townhouses will not fit onto this block. This planning application is a massive over-development of the site.

Knox Council planning department officers have informed us that there is nothing they can do to get more detailed plans. The developer was contacted and they absolutely refused to provide more detailed plans. Where do we go from here? Does anyone have any suggestions?

Marvellous Melbourne

2008-08-07T21:07:00.001+10:00

Save Knoxfield has posted another article on the Marvellous Melbourne Web Page. It can be viewed at

http://marvellousmelbourne.org/drupal/?q=node/320

Objections to the Development at No 40 Kathryn Road Flood In

2008-08-07T18:04:00.001+10:00

To date 65 objections have been handed into the Knox City Council Planning Office objecting to the development of FIVE double storey and SIX single storey dwellings at No 40 Kathryn Road. Among the objections lodged residents of Knoxfield have highlighted the overdevelopment, lack of playing space for children, that the safety of children is paramount, the lack of sustainability in the plans, the severe traffic problems that already exist in Kathryn Road, and the effect on wildlife with the removal of most vegetation on the site.

One resident of 35 years stated that their family had moved to Knoxfield for the “country feel”, but Knox Council is now allowing our small suburb to be carved up without any consideration of long term residents. Council needs to be aware of the destruction these developments will and have already caused and take a stand against these money hungry developers. I am disgusted that the “lore of money” now overrides commonsense. This overdevelopment is not necessary and will spoil what used to be a friendly and caring community.

Another resident wrote … can anybody remember the old Knoxfield of country living and dirt roads and the atmosphere of trees and wildlife. We don’t want concrete jungles as it will be wall to wall units and townhouses…..

And yet another stated …The proposal also calls for the removal of vegetation which is at odds to the Knox Council’s policy of maintaining the leafy image…. And add these11 units to the proposed 10 for No 44 Kathryn Road, plus the 4 proposed for No 32 and the 7 for the corner of Kathryn and Anne Roads and no wonder we are worried.

And there are more…..

……..Our leafy image is disappearing, so are our beautiful birds. Thanks to those GREEDY developers who have made their money and don’t have to live with the monstrosities they are trying to build in our beautiful area – we love this place that’s why we moved here……

Such a development in Kathryn Road is scarey. Traffic in this street is already disrupted by roadside parking(residents and their visitors). Extra traffic will put pedestrians(especially children) at risk with school crossing, bus stop and busy Laura Road intersection(especially at school time)all close to No 40. Emergency vehicle access will be hard. Rubbish collection days will be horrendous – stress on an already overloaded infrastructure. We chose Knoxfield for its country lifestyle, sadly the trees and thus the birdlife are not what they were . WE MUST KEEP WHAT’S LEFT. This type of development is not suited to Knoxfield – we don’t want grownups doll houses. Keep it as it is. We have already lost too much. Developers are not interested in the future of Knoxfield or the NOW residents.

Whilst Kathryn Road is legally wide enough for the traffic it carries, parking on the street or exiting driveways has to be done with care. It is too narrow for its role…..If more than one vehicle is parked out the front you must cross onto the other side of the road to pass taking extreme risk…….

……In recent years, especially morning and evening traffic levels have risen to the level where I believe that at times is congested. I have on several occasions been involved in verbal altercations with other motorists who fail to give way or who it seems are frustrated with the volume of traffic using Kathryn Road as a thoroughfare. Exit to Ferntree Gully Road between 7.15am and 8.30am could see you placed in a line of 7 or 8 vehicles………It is only a matter of time before we have a serious accident.

We don’t need to publish any more as we know these stories well, but how do we make the Knox Council understand?

Image of Area Under Attack- Knox Journal 22-07-08

2008-07-24T20:15:00.000+10:00

Property problems: Knoxfield resident Ian Simpson (front) and neighbours (from left) Geoff and June Proctor, Therese Woodyard and Joyce Ward are angered by overdevelopment in their neighbourhood. Picture: Melissa Banks

RESIDENTS worried about overdevelopment in Kathryn Road have accused developers of wanting to make money at the cost of their lifestyle.

They took their case to Knox Council's planning consultative meeting last week, with 61 Kathryn Road and 44 Kathryn Road among their concerns.

Knoxfield resident Ian Simpson said developers "just wanted to make their quick buck and get out''.

"I don't think they have any idea. If they were people who actually lived in the houses ... they would understand what happens,'' he said.

"People like living here because of the wildlife, the birdlife, the leafy green tree area.''

Mr Simpson said 100-year-old canopy trees and 80-year-old eucalypts were under threat should the development at 61 Kathryn Road go ahead.

"To replace those with five double-storey townhouses and one single-storey unit, is just crazy.

"The traffic problems caused by this development would be terrible.''

Mr Simpson also criticised the development at 44 Kathryn Road.

He said the proposed double-storey townhouses would not fit in with the "image'' of Knoxfield.

Mr Simpson said residents would continue to fight hard.

"As soon as one gets approved there will be no holding back from the other ones. It will just escalate.

"We could be surrounded by double-storey townhouses on our own individual blocks.''

Knox councillor Debbie Field said the residents had put forward a strong case.

"A lot of people may jump up and down and make a lot of noise, but the residents to their credit were very polite about putting forward the facts,'' she said

"They had really done their homework.''

Knox Council was unable to provide details of the developer by deadline.

The future of the developments will be decided at a council meeting in September.

A Win!

2008-07-24T10:51:00.001+10:00

This email has just arrived with some very good news from Phillip Road.

I thought you might be interested to know that VCAT agreed with Councils decision to deny the application a for double storey unit at the rear of No. 14 Philip Road quoting it did not fit in with the amenity of the “leafy” neighbourhood and had parking concerns.

There is hope when the Knox Council supports the “leafy image” of Knoxfield. I believe VCAT has stated they will uphold decisions by our council which are firmly based on the Rescodes and Council Policy. All our hard work may be paying dividends

Safety on Kathryn rd

2008-07-22T17:49:00.001+10:00

Safety on Kathryn Road

Will this be the future for Kathryn Road while all these developments progress? Knox Council should ensure Traffic Management is in place when one lane is blocked. Council were alerted to this problem but no action was taken.

Craig wrote this last Friday 19th July 2008.

7:06am this morning

I was on my home turning into kathryn road this morning and headlights from a stationary truck were brightly shining directly at my eye level, mid way up the hill, opposite the tennis courts and facing me in the same lane as throughway traffic. I was not sure if it was a late garbage truck or not, it was early morning and dark. I could not see around it properley to determine the safety of going around it (No signal/flagmen were present at all nor was any signage of warning). As residents, we know how narrow Kathryn road is.Let alone on that crest, in the dark with lights shining in your face as you approach that hill. You could imagine my nervousness as i indicated and proceeded around this vehicle cautiously into the oncoming traffic lane to find it was a cement mixing truck with another 6 vehicles behind it. The other vehicles over the crest had "witches hats" in a line next to them, yet not visible from the bottom of the crest of the hill( still no signal/flagmen nor pre warning signage) . All constuction related vehicles!

If i had to avoid an oncoming vehicle i would have had to make many decisions within a split second: should i run up the gutter and possibly kill somebody, smash into the vehicles kerbside parked, endangered a prpoerty and the occupants or even a collision with an on coming vehicle.

Perhaps i could have reversed and hopfully avoided contact with another vehicle/person, or just sat there and waited for the vehicle with it's lights shining in my face, facing the wrong way on a thoroughfare to depart. Maybe i could have parked my car on Kathryn road also and walked the rest of my journey, or sat at the bus stop and caught a bus to get home safely.

Perhaps it is me at fault for entering what is becoming a twilight zone within Knoxfield.

Even in daylight hours this is a rediculous scenario and i do not wish to experience it ever again.

Now what do we do when the whole of Kathryn road becomes a carpark?

I just want to get home safely from work and also know that my family and neighbours are safe whilst living in this area.

Craig Money

Knoxfield Residents Have Their Say!

2008-07-16T01:29:00.001+10:00

Tonight approximately 70 Knoxfield residents attended the Planning Consultative Meetings for both Nos 44 and 61 Kathryn Road. After David, Peter and Ian presented a case against these developments the floor was open to other residents that wished to have their say. All the issues were discussed, including children’s safety, overloading of infrastructure, overdevelopment of both sites, the loss of canopy trees and the effect on our wildlife, biodiversity, the breaking of Rescodes in the developments, how out of character the developments are, heavy traffic on Kathryn and Anne Roads, the dangerous round-a-bout at Kathryn and Anne Roads, lack of parking spaces along our roads and the effect of global warming on the developments.

Overall a most satisfactory night. We wish to thank Cr Mick van der Vreede for attending in Cr Debbie Field’s absence through ill health. Mick supported our arguments with crucial questioning of officials in attendance. Special thanks got to David and Peter for their research and in leading the arguments for the objectors. Special thanks go to all who attended the meeting, both young and elderly, and especially those that spoke and expressed their opinions. The main issues were reinforced again and again. Well done everyone!

That now is stage two of the battle. We now must keep pressure on the council to ensure these developments are not passed at the council meeting on the 23^rd of September. It is crucial that all objectors to both developments attend this important meeting, to show the council we are concerned about our wonderful suburb and wish to keep it leafy green and retain the village like atmosphere that we so enjoy.

The Destruction of Knoxfield

2008-07-10T09:19:00.001+10:00

Here's a copy of a Post I have added to the Marvellous Melbourne website. Visit it at www.Marvellousmelbourne.org

The once leafy green and semi-rural suburb of Knoxfield is being devastated by greedy developers grabbing the large blocks, with incentives of high prices for the owners. Knox City Council has approved the building of 40 townhouses in Kathryn Road replacing six and now there are applications for 36 townhouses where there once was only six. That's seventy-six houses replacing only twelve. But Knox City Council tells us that they DO NOT assess these developments total effect on the suburb, but only consider each individual development on its own merits. Meanwhile the unique canopy trees are being destroyed, birds are disappearing and residents even notice the lack of honey bees in the area. Narrow roads now carry increased traffic flows and 1960's infrastructure is struggling to cope with the increased pressure. The planners seem to favour the developers and consider the resident objectors as the enemy. Once Justin Madden's plans are implemented next year, a beautiful semi-rural suburb will become dominated by double storey developments along each street. When does commonsense play a part in development?

2008-07-07T18:43:00.000+10:00

Knoxfield residents take on developers

Marnie Reid

01Jul08

KNOXFIELD has become a developers' paradise and angry residents are sick of their leafy streets being turned into a high-density suburb.

David Chaney, of Kathryn Rd, is one of more than 100 Knoxfield residents fighting the construction of massive proposals including:

* five double-storey and six single-storey dwellings at 40 Kathryn Rd;

* two double-storey and eight single-storey dwellings at 44 Kathryn Rd;

* six double-storey and one single-storey dwellings on the corner of Anne and Kathryn roads; and

* four double-storey dwellings at 32 Kathryn Rd.

Council has given the go-ahead to two double-storey and one single-storey dwellings at 75 Kathryn Rd, but has knocked back proposals for three double-storey dwellings and another seven double-storey houses on Kathryn Rd.

Mr Chaney said Knoxfield's larger blocks meant real estate agents were offering residents million-dollar prices for their homes.

And residents were taking the money. City Development director Angelo Kourambas said 10 planning applications had been received for double-storey multi-unit developments in and around Kathryn Rd since January 2006.

Five planning permits were still being processed by council, four of which were in Kathryn Rd.

The Knoxfield group is fighting all four.

The group has sent a 412-signature petition to council objecting to future double-storey townhouses in the area.

Mr Chaney, a retired engineer, said they were protecting their environment and didn't want trees and wildlife to make way for high-density dwellings.