On the 1st of April 2019 at 6:30pm the ‘Urban Planning Special Committee’ of the Boroondara Local Council took place in the Council Chamber at 8 Inglesby Road, Camberwell. The Committee meets fortnightly alternating with the Council and ‘Services Special Committee’ (City of Boroondara, 2019a). During these nights, the Local Council are using the power given to them by the State Government to make practical day-to-day decisions including planning and development (Hurley,2019; Schatz & Rogers, 2016, pp.38-39).
All meetings regard the Boroondara City Council which is 60km-squared located 5-10km east of the Melbourne CBD (.id, 2019). In 2018, 181,289 people lived in Boroondara and the median age was 38 years which is similar to 37 years in Victoria (ABS, 2018;.id,2019). In contrast, two differences are the Chinese population and the housing prices. In 2016, 11.2% of the population spoke Mandarin or Cantonese at home compared only 4.5% of Victoria’s population and the median weekly rent was $406 compared to $325 (Victoria) (ABS, 2018). These two statistic differences demonstrate the high Asian presence in the area impacting society and the high-end property market which is influenced by the inner east location.
In respect to the meeting, there were four presentations of officer reports regarding three properties and one in response to “VCAT decision and decisions under delegation February 2019” (City of Boroondara, 2019b, p.13). Apart from the reports, there was nothing regarding ‘General Business’, ‘Urgent Business’ or ‘Confidentials’ leading to the meeting going for 2 hours. Throughout, the democratically elected councillors were seated at an oval table facing the Officers and Chair (Councillor Watson) at the front of the chamber (Hurley,2019). Officers included K. Johnstone as statutory planner and the director city planner S. Wickramasinghe (City of Boroondara, 2019b, p.1). The public including speakers sat behind the Council in the chamber.
Issues covered in the Meeting
The first presentation concerned 369-371
Cotham Road, Kew with the proposal to build a 3-storey complex with 18 dwellings, though it was quickly carried due to no speakers, Councillor Sinfield moving it
forward and Councillor Healey seconding it (City of Boroondara, 2019b, p.4).
The report referred to
issues on visual bulk to the surrounding properties and “inadequate
opportunities for landscaping” (City of Boroondara, 2019b, p.3). Despite this, the
presence of no speakers may demonstrate the insignificance of the proposal’s
issues on the neighbours or their possible discouragement to have governmental representation
despite their opportunity to (Hordijk et al., 2015). This deterrence could be
due to the lack of information for the development/meeting or not feeling like
they as neighbours may be heard in the meeting and therefore personal time,
energy and money may be wasted (Hordijk et al., 2015).
During the proposal
presentation, Councillor Sinfield stated how the architecture is inconsistent
with the neighbourhood character though she understands the future architecture
will change over time, therefore there is no reason for objection. This shows
how the council needs to compromise between the current neighbourhood character
and the need for medium to high density housing to accommodate the estimated
population growth of 22.73% between 2016 and 2041 (.id, 2018).
In contrast, the fourth presentation '1-13
Shierlaw Avenue, Canterbury' regarded the construction of a 5-storey building
with underground parking, offices and 49 apartments on “the Special Building
Overlay and Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17” (City of Boroondara,
2019b, p.14). The presence of this overlay proves the influence of the local government
planning scheme based on the Victorian Planning Pystem in the governance
process.
With 10 speakers,
questions by council members, response by the officer and an alternative motion
by councillor Hollingswoth, the presentation lasted an hour and a half and
therefore the majority of the meeting. 8 out of the 10 speakers opposed the
development including owners of the adjoining shops and nearby residents. Objections
referred to the building height, impacts on the area’s heritage, parking and
how the proposal would touch neighbouring buildings. Some of these speakers brought
in photos or diagrams to further demonstrate their objections to Council. In
comparison, the 1 supporting speaker was a Town Planning Consultant on behalf
of the planning applicant contrasting with the local citizens speaking on behalf
of themselves who were not experienced. In addition to these local passionate speakers,
36 objections were lodged with 1 letter of support showing more people acknowledged
their democratic responsibility.
Reflections
Throughout the meeting, many governance
issues and observations were made clear to me.
Firstly, some other RMIT students and I tried
to take photographs though an officer walked over and told us off before Chair Councillor
Watson announced the regulation surrounding it (therefore no visuals in this post).
Although it was stated in the meeting papers, there was no other mention of it,
including online.
Secondly, for the fourth presentation,
councillor Addis needed to be absent due to a conflict of interest based on
living in the neighbourhood. This is an example of how the Council aims to
reduce personal preferences impacting Boroondara’s future development.
Thirdly, the demographics of the councillors,
officers and speakers does not reflect Boroondara’s demographics. For example,
as mentioned earlier, 11.2% of residents speak Mandarin or Cantonese at home
though there was minimal if not any representation by Chinese residents. This
difference may reflect the language boundary that discourages participation in
democratic responsibilities including committee meetings (Hordijk et al.,
2015).
Overall the Boroondara ‘Urban Planning
Special Committee’ shed light on local governance in Victoria and the interaction
between legislation, Council and residents.
Reference List
ABS (2018). 2016 Census QuickStats: Boroondara (C). [online]
Quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au. Available at:
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA21110?opendocument
[Accessed 21 Apr. 2019].
City of Boroondara (2019a). 2019 meeting dates. [online] City of
Boroondara. Available at:
https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/council-and-committee-meetings/2019-meeting-dates?
[Accessed 21 Apr. 2019].
City of Boroondara (2019b). URBAN PLANNING SPECIAL
COMMITTEE MINUTES. Melbourne, pp.1,3,4,14
Hordijk,
M., Sara, M.S., Sutherland C., Scott D. (2015) Participatory Instruments and
Practices in Urban Governance. In: Gupta J., Pfeffer K., Verrest H., Ros-Tonen
M. (eds) Geographies of Urban Governance. Springer, Cham
Hurley, J. (2019) ‘Week 3:
Metropolitan and regional governance’, lecture notes, POLI1034, RMIT
University, Melbourne
.id (2018). Population summary | City of
Boroondara | forecast.id. [online] Forecast.id.com.au. Available at:
https://forecast.id.com.au/boroondara/population-summary [Accessed 22 Apr.
2019].
.id (2019). About the profile areas | City of Boroondara | profile.id. [online]
Available at: https://profile.id.com.au/boroondara/about [Accessed 21 Apr.
2019].
Schatz, L. & Rogers,
D. (2016) Participatory, technocratic and neoliberal planning: an untenable
planning governance ménage à trois, Australian Planner, 53:1, 37-45, DOI:
10.1080/07293682.2015.1135816
Comments
Post a Comment