Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Kensington Soviet Style 9 story housing developments

The Melbourne City Council has proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning scheme to allow for soviet style high density nine story developments in the City Council’s  Planning Amendment C190 Arden-Macaulay

Supported by the Greens Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak the proposed development plans will transform the inner Melbourne Kensington suburb with minimal provisions for community open space or amenity.

Unlike soviet high rise developments the Melbourne planning scheme will allow for closer overshadowing developments creating a canyon of tall apartment buildings

To add to the folly of the City Council’s development plans the City of Melbourne rejected the proposal to consider an overlay that would allow the Council to collect contributions from developers who fail to provide the requisite car parking provisions, forgoing a potential $400 million in loss revenue to pay for infrastructure and open space not provided by developers.  Costs that will have to be born by future generations and ratepayers.

By forsaking the opportunity to impose a Parking Contributions overlay the City of Melbourne has removed from its arsenal significant financial incentives to encourage good design outcomes for Melbourne. A developer could be exempt from paying the Parking financial contribution if it could be demonstrated that the proposed development has an overwhelming community benefit.  Likewise it could apply the imposition of the Parking levy to discourage inappropriate poor outcome developments.

Instead of considering this option as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C208 Development Contributions Plan (which covers the Arden- Macaulay, City North and Southbank precincts). Our Melbourne City Councillors sat dumbfounded and remained silent. These contributions can only be recouped at the development stage and if the mechanism and schedule is not in place then the Council and the community misses out.

Future generations will pay for the mistakes and oversights of our ideologically driven Green Councillors

Melbourne Planning Scheme

45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

45.09-6 Financial contribution requirement
A schedule to this overlay may allow a responsible authority to collect a financial
contribution in accordance with the schedule as a way of meeting the car parking
requirements that apply under this overlay or Clause 52.06.
A schedule must specify:
?
The area to which the provisions allowing the collection of financial contributions
applies.
?
The amount of the contribution that may be collected in lieu of each car parking space
that is not provided, including any indexation of that amount.
?
When any contribution must be paid.
?
The purposes for which the responsible authority must use the funds collected under the

schedule. Such purposes must be consistent with the objectives in section 4 of the Ac

 

Sept 11: City of Melbourne – Lack of sensitivity in Citizenship ceremony planning

The City of Melbourne has scheduled September 11 for the holding of a Citizenship Ceremony.

Citizenship  ceremonies, like birthdays and anniversaries, are a date to remember.  Those unfortunate new citizens  who are scheduled to become citizens at this ceremony will have to endure the rememberance of this date for the rest of their lives.  A date for money not celebration.
 

Stephen Mayne endorses new Commercial 1 planning zone Gaming Venues as of right use

Melbourne City Councillor and Deputy Chairman of the Planning portfolio has endorsed the proposed new planning regime and the “as of right use” “No permit required” Gaming venues and Taverns under the new Commercial 1 zones that will replace Business 1 zones

Under a current Business 1 zone Gaming venues and Taverns require a planing permit.  Under the new revised Commercial 1 zones Gaming venues and Taverns no longer require a planning permit

Stephen Mayne, who is known to campaign on concerns about the impact of gaming venues, has stood by complacently on his watch as Deputy Chairman of Planning and allowed the establishment of the new planning zones, which come into effect on July 1, 2013 to pass by without comment. 

The Lord Mayor Robert Doyle; Steven Mayne, Greens Councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oak and ALP member and Chairman of the Community Welfare portfolio, Richard Foster, stood silent and remained complacent and negligent by not calling for written a detailed report on the new planning changes in particular the new  Commercial 1 zones and their effect in Melbourne.

The changes to the planning scheme means that applications for use of premises as a gaming venue or tavern within a commercial 1 zone will not require a planing permit. Neighbouring inner city residents will not have any appeal rights and Councils will not be able to object or refuse the proposed use, instead the Council would have to rely on heritage overlays and built form permits to protect residential amenity.

34.01 COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE

Shown on the planning scheme map as B1Z, B2Z, B5Z or C1Z.
Purpose
To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy
Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.
To provide for residential uses at densities complementary
to the role and scale of the commercial centre.
34.01-1 Table of uses
Section 1 – Permit not required

  • Retail premises (other than Shop)
  • Shop (other than Adult sex bookshop)

The defination of retail premises includes:

  • Food and drink premises
  • Gambling premises
  • Landscape gardening supplies
  • Manufacturing sales
  • Market
  • Motor vehicle, boat, or caravan sales
  • Postal agency
  • Primary produce
  • sales
  • Shop
  • Trade supplies

The defination of Food and drink premises includes:

Convenience restaurant

Hotel
Restaurant
Take away food premises
Tavern

Previously Business 1 zone (To be phased out on July 1) listed under

34.01  BUSINESS 1 ZONE

34.01-1 Section 1 – Permit not required

Food and drink premises (other than Hotel, Restaurant and Tavern)

34.01-2 Section 2 – Permit required

Retail premises (other than Betting agency, Food and drink premises, Postal agency, Shop, and Trade supplies)

Tavern