JOIN CAG

SmithStreet.org « CAG « Timeline « April 2005

2005-04-01

MP Wynne and Yarra Councillors meet with Planning Minister Hulls: strike a deal to fast track Smith Street Structure Planning

Local MP Richard Wynne, along with Yarra Councillors (Meadows, Farrar, Jolly) and senior planning officers, meet with Planning Minister Rob Hulls to discuss the Banco planning application and ask that it be considered in the context of Council developing an Interim Structure Plan for the Smith Street precinct. The Minister was also asked to refer Council's adopted Interim Structure Plan to a Priority Development Panel with a view to recommending whether it should be adopted by the Minister. Despite having done nothing in the past 2 years to develop the required Structure Plan for Smith Street as an Activity Centre, Council agrees to fast track the process so that Council can consider and adopt an Interim Structure Plan at the June 2005 Council meeting.

2005-04-05

CAG reps attend Council's Planning & Community Development Committee meeting for agenda item on 'Smith Street Mixed Use Precinct Urban Design Framework'

Council's website does not have a report for this agenda item until shortly before the meeting so CAG reps attend the meeting with little opportunity to read the report and consult with Ward Councillors. CAG reps make submissions to the Committee pointing out inaccuracies in the report, noting it does not reflect the community motion overwhelmingly passed at the 23rd March public meeting, and proposing the Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee. Councillor Maltzahn successfully amends the motion to include acknowledgement that the draft Urban Design Framework (rejected by community resolution at Yarra Council's public meeting on 23 March 2005) as only one input to developing a Smith Street Structure Plan. During the meeting Councillor Meadows comments that 'just because the community wants something the Council doesn't have to do it'.

SUBMISSION BY COLLINGWOOD ACTION GROUP - STEERING COMMITTEE'S TERMS OF REFERENCE

YARRA COUNCIL'S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING, TUESDAY 5 APRIL 2005
AGENDA ITEM 2.5 - SMITH STREET MIXED USE PRECINCT URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK PLAN

Steering Committee - Structure Plan for Smith Street

Proposed Terms of Reference:
To design and oversee the development of an Interim Structure Plan for the Smith Street Activity Centre.

In particular, the Committee is requested to:
- Develop and oversee the implementation of an appropriate communications strategy to support the process, based on genuine community consultation;
- Ensure that the process follows the relevant guidelines issued by the Department of Sustainability & Environment;
- Agree on an appropriate expert to be a member of the Steering Committee;
- Recommend and ensure the Steering Committee has access to relevant experts as required;
- Form sub groups of the Steering Committee to provide expertise as required;
- Provide input as required into the Interim Structure Plan for the Smith Street Activity Centre; and
- Agree on an appropriate timeline for the Steering Committee's operations to achieve the above.

- The Steering Committee is to be chaired by a Councillor.
- The Steering Committee is to report monthly to Council's Planning and Development Committee.
- The Steering Committee is to report regularly to the community as outlined in the communications strategy.

2005-04-06

Melbourne Times publishes CAG correction

Melbourne Times says 'Yes, TMT did get some of the fine detail wrong'.

2005-04-07

Banco's lawyers write to objectors re VCAT appeal

Deacons (legal reps for Malvernway and Davgab - Banco) write to objectors to Banco's proposal (PL03/1407) advising that Banco applied to VCAT re Yarra's refusal of their planning application; outlining that to be heard in relation to the Application, a Statement of Grounds must be completed and served to Deacons, Yarra Council and VCAT within 14 days of receiving this notice; and enclosing the document to complete the Statement of Grounds.

2005-04-12

CAG writes to Ward Councillors re status of Yarra's VCAT case against Banco and raises concerns about the Council report refusing the planning application.

Tuesday 12 April 2005
Councillors Annabel Barbara, Jenny Farrar, Steve Jolly
City of Yarra
PO Box 168
Richmond VIC 3121

Dear Councillors Barbara, Farrar and Jolly

Re: Planning Permit Application PL03/1407 for 132-172 Smith Street Collingwood and 61-73 Little Oxford Street Collingwood

We are writing further to Council's written advice (correspondence dated 4 February 2005) about Council's decision to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the above planning application and recent information from Council of the Applicant's appeal to VCAT (email communication to Councillors dated 31 March 2005 and provided to CAG by Council's A/Director, City Development). This correspondence:

* provides feedback on the Council officers report refusing the planning application
* seeks clarification about Council's preparations should the matter proceed to VCAT or to a Priority Development Panel.

First, CAG's consistent position has been to highlight the expert concerns about Banco's proposal raised in the report Inner urban conservation and redevelopment. We have put this position in our communications with Council, our local state member, the Planning Minister, the media, and the community. We refer to Yarra Council's resolution of 14 December 2004 which requires Council officers when assessing the permit application and preparing the report to consider, inter alia, the report Inner urban conservation and redevelopment. CAG is concerned that:

* the officer's report appears to fail to adequately reflect the panel report's expert views, and therefore does not follow the resolution.
* while the report mentions the report's origin and the issues it covers (p 18), it appears there is no analysis of these relative to the application, with the exception of the 'equitable building envelope' (Fargo's contribution).
* this expert body of opinion seems to have been ignored in a document with the potential to play a significant role in future decision-making in other forums.

Second, the background of the report and later section titled 'schematice - without prejudice plans' (pp 43 - 46) omits some important matters, most notably:

* the imposed confidentiality conditions of the meetings with the Applicant, Council and CAG (also see page 3);
* the agreement by Council and CAG at a facilitated meeting (held at SOCOM's offices, 14 October 2004) that there was insufficient time to address all the issues of concern in the scheduled series of meetings - these remained unaddressed (also see page 3).
* The refusal report describes the Applicant as tabling 'plans' at the end of the (confidential) meetings - we refute this and believe 'schematic drawings' is the more accurate term (also see page 3) and one that experts would agree with.

The report also seems to imply other issues, such as the schematic drawings being produced early in this series of meetings - on the surface one could infer that this afforded opportunities for consultation and the 'plans' had been the subject of community and expert consultation. This was not the case. In combination these omissions and implied events could have a bearing on how a third party analyses these and could unduly favour the Applicant (and Council). Possibly of less importance are the report's errors of fact relating to the status of residential developments on Little Oxford Street (see page 6). The report claims the rear of 180 Smith Street - the Old Post Office - is nearing completion yet it was completed by October 2004. This may seem insignificant yet its impact on Little Oxford Street (in terms of increased traffic, etc) would not have been considered in preparing the various advices called for in the refusal report.

The third issue involves the consistent claim by Council and the Applicant that the schematic drawings were confidential and had no legal status. CAG members were expressly forbidden to seek expert views on them. Therefore we are shocked that the officers report includes 'urban design comment' on the schematic drawings, apparently subsequently sought by Council. In brief our concerns are:

* at no stage was CAG alerted to the existence of this advice or given the opportunity to provide comment.
* if CAG had been aware that Council proposed to publicise its consultant's views on apparently confidential plans we would have consulted our own experts and provided this information to Council for inclusion in the report.
* the advice comes across as overly sympathetic to the Applicant.
* including this 'advice' seems out of place in a refusal report concerned with the above planning application (PL03/1407) and not the schematic drawings (the refusal report earlier states the schematic drawings 'have no statutory weight some discussion of these plans will be included in the report', see page 3).
* the broader community was neither aware of the schematic drawings nor had an opportunity to comment on them.
* including 'urban design advice' on the schematic drawings in the officers refusal report demonstrates a lack of professional judgment by Council and its consultants and could prove prejudicial to the community if VCAT views it as Council's acceptance of these drawings.

In CAG's view, experts could not provide the type of detailed advice apparently able to be provided to Council by a professional as per the 'urban design comment'. In short, the schematic drawings do not have the level of detail necessary for a professional to exercise this level of judgement. To give a considered position requires access to identical information as was the case for Planning Application PL03/1407 - that is, detailed plans, and an opportunity to analyse them and consult the community and experts. To illustrate, a concern in the report Inner urban conservation and redevelopment related to substandard housing. We contend that the schematic drawings are simply too fuzzy to assess whether this remains the case. Council cannot be seen to support substandard housing.

Finally, we find that some of the comments in the report's 'referral' section (pages 22 - 26 in relation to traffic, noise, the environment, etc) are in dire need of strengthening. To illustrate, planning application PL03/1407 would increase traffic movements in Little Oxford Street from the current daily movement of 430 to a massive 3760, rising again with the even larger car park proposed in the schematic drawings. We therefore find the fact that this significant issue does not rate a detailed mention as alarming. Likewise Council's noise management comment (page 24): 'for vehicles producing standard noise, the increase in noise will be noticeable, yet unlikely to be on major concern to most residents'. Again, in relation to amenity impacts, this statement about noise (page 38): 'it is recognized that it is likely that there will be an increase in noise due to traffic and from Little Oxford Street although this is not considered to be significant. Council's Noise Management Officer also stated that in particular vehicles entering the car park on the site may create some disturbance to some residents. This is not unusual for an inner city location however this should be moderated through improved design'. This is only one example.

On these and other grounds we have grave concerns about whether Council has either the capacity or will to properly represent the views of the those outside who objected to Banco's proposal in record numbers.

We ask you as our Ward Councillors these questions - will the community support the following: an 8 storey tower on Smith Street; an increase in parking spaces up from some 417 (in PL03/1407) to approximately 450 with resulting increases in traffic movement and congestion, loss of amenity and OH&S issues; the destruction of Smith Street's heritage? If you believe the answer to these questions is no, then we share similar concerns. If you are familiar with Council's refusal report or were among the handful of people privy to the Applicant's schematic drawings for Smith Street, you will know that all these features can be found in these drawings (yet they still attracted favourable comments by Council's external 'urban design' consultant).

The Collingwood Action Group believes we must be ready for all eventualities. This includes preparing a proper community case for VCAT in the unfortunate event the Minister for Planning fails to intervene. Therefore we request the following information and documentation be provided to CAG:

* A report on Council's proposed approach to developing the case for either VCAT or the Priority Development Panel, timelines and its current status, the name of the officer responsible for managing this process and the proposed process for reporting to Council and the community on progress.
* A list of Council's proposed experts for these cases, and their areas of expertise (eg heritage, urban planning, traffic).
* Whether any of these proposed experts have conflicts of interest in relation to the Applicant.
* A list of Council officers proposed to give evidence for the above case, and their areas of expertise.
* The name of the barrister (and firm) representing Council's case or proposed to do so.
* A copy of all reports either referred to in Council's refusal report, or advice prepared for this purpose, by Council officers or experts (eg on heritage, traffic, noise, urban design etc as identified on page 22).
* Any correspondence or reports on the above planning application from Yarra Trams and Vic Roads.
* A copy of the 'urban design advice' about the schematic drawings referred to on pages 44 and 45 of Council's refusal report (please note that according to the officers report this advice has been forwarded to the Applicant).
* An indication of whether Council intends to commission additional expert advice or prepare additional in-house reports, in which areas, and the names of any external parties.
* The steps Council has taken, formally and informally, to follow-up with the Minister for Planning on Council's February 2005 request for Ministerial intervention, and any future plans in this regard.
* When and where Council intends to hold the public meeting about Banco's appeal to VCAT, as outlined in the communication to Councillors (31 March 2005), and the proposed process, including its communication strategy and timelines.

We also ask that as our Ward Councillors, the above questions about Council's legal preparations in the event the case proceeds to VCAT or to a Priority Development Panel, be put on the public record at Council's April 2005 meeting. It may be possible for Councillor Farrar, in her capacity as chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to use Councillor's question time for this purpose.

We realize that Council is under pressure at present with dual and complementary processes in train - preparations for a possible appearance in VCAT and development of an Interim Structure Plan for Smith Street. However CAG has now been involved in this planning issue and worked closely with the community and Council for over one year. Given these experiences we consider our concerns are valid. When we meet with our local member Richard Wynne later in April we intend to raise these and other related issues with him.

The Collingwood Action Group believes that the best antidote to these concerns will come from Council respecting the community's wishes for there to be a genuine, consultative process to develop an Interim Structure Plan for Smith Street. And one that involves Council officers, Councillors and the community. We look forward to working with you on the Steering Committee to achieve this.

Given the tight timelines and enormous effort and resources required for a volunteer group like CAG to prepare for possible eventualities, we would appreciate a response to the questions raised here and copies of all relevant documentation by Friday 22 April 2005. We also wish to meet with you all as a matter of urgency to seek your advice on the matters raised here and how we can work together to achieve the community's vision for Smith Street.

Yours sincerely,
Cliodhna Rae, Spokesperson, Collingwood Action Group

2005-04-12

CAG reps attend Yarra Council meeting for agenda item on Smith Street Mixed-Use Precinct Urban Design Framework

CAG reps attend for the agenda item on 'Smith Street Mixed-Use Precinct Urban Design Framework' to hear Council consider the recommendation from the Planning & Community Development Committee meeting of 5 April 2005. Although Council has had over 2 years to develop a Structure Plan for Smith Street the Council agrees with the recommendation that binds Council to develop an Interim Structure Plan in 8 weeks and consider the Plan at the June 2005 Council meeting.

2005-04-13

Yarra Council seeks CAG rep for Steering Committee

Council writes re its resolution to prepare an interim structure plan for the Smith Street Mixed Use Precinct, and invites CAG to appoint one representative to a Steering Committee; and advises its terms of reference are 'to provide advice and input on the development of an Interim Structure Plan for the Smith Street Mixed Use Precinct'. The first meeting is 15 April 2004, 7:30am - 9:00 am, Fitzroy Town Hall. Letters seeking reps are also sent to National Trust, Smith Street traders and residents groups - Postcode 3068, CARA (Collingwood and Abbotsford Residents Association), and FRA (Fitzroy Residents Association).

2005-04-14

CAG issues media release: Community calls on MP Richard Wynne to save Smith Street

2005-04-15

First meeting of Smith Street Steering Committee for Structure Plan

2005-04-19

CAG advises how to become a party to Banco's VCAT hearing

CAG issues email 'fool's guide' to its mailing list advising the 1500 objectors with letters from Banco's lawyers Deacons, what steps they need to take in order to become a party to VCAT proceedings, including being heard in person at VCAT; explaining the need to complete a 'Statement of Grounds' and providing a proforma within 14 days; and links to email addresses to serve the Statement.

2005-04-20

Melbourne Times report 'Community calls for Hulls to intervene in Smith Street battle'

2005-04-21

MP Wynne reneges on public promise to 'call in' Smith Street development in meeting with CAG reps and Yarra Councillor Jolly

CAG reps and Yarra Councillor Steve Jolly met with local MP Richard Wynne requesting he urge Planning Minister Rob Hulls to intervene over Banco's proposed Smith Street development. CAG called the meeting against the backdrop of Wynne's long-standing public promise of support for the community which he also put in writing to locals back in March 2004. In his March 2004 media release, Wynne claimed Banco's proposal selectively used Melbourne 2030's principles, and stated 'I will ask the Minister for Planning to call the matter in'. Subsequently this position was widely reported in the local press.
At the meeting with CAG and Jolly, Wynne contradicted his previous position, saying 'I will reserve my judgment on what action to take' until after VCAT's Directions Hearing on Friday. Wynne's excuse was Yarra Council met the Planning Minister on 1st April 2005 and assured him an Interim Structure Plan would be complete in 8 weeks. Wynne told CAG the Minister would make his decision then. In the meeting, CAG pointed out recent precedents for Ministerial intervention in Camberwell, Wheeler's Hill and Glenroy, and questioned why the Minister would be reluctant to call in the Smith Street development.

2005-04-21

CAG issues media release: MP Wynne delays decision on Smith Street development

2005-04-29

Meeting of Steering Committee for Smith Street Structure Plan