Orrong Group media release



On 20 December, Stonnington Council refused outright the Vivas Lend Lease proposal for a massive tower development for 590 Orrong Road Armadale.

This was a significant win for the community which ran an intensive campaign over 4 months. Councillors and politicians were swamped with community submissions and the community came out in huge numbers to Public and Council meetings in October and December.

This decision was also significant in that this is the only major development application left with a Council to decide. Other similar developments were taken out of the hands of local government and community by “Ministerial Call-Ins” and these were always decided in favour of the developers.

The community is realistic. This victory is for Round 1 only and we have now moved into Round 2 of our campaign. We have asked Council to urgently protect the site by preparing, in consultation with community representatives, an Urban Design Framework and to defer further negotiations with developers until this framework is in place.

Victory Square, a small neighbourhood park is an appropriate venue for celebrating our Victory – our campaign has saved this little park permanently from the clutches of the developers who intended to use this little park as “borrowed open space” for their development.

Stonnington Councillor and local politicians have been invited to join the community at the “picnic in the park”. We are disappointed that the councillors have felt it necessary to decline our invitation because of governance restrictions which come from the Winkypop Supreme Court decision. This decision directs Councillors and Council staff to avoid any action that could indicate they have pre- conceived ideas about any planning applications. Even attendance at a community picnic apparently puts them in a position where they could be seen to be favouring the community against a developer. We see this as an undemocratic ruling by the court and we aim to have this decision overturned.


One response to this post.

  1. Posted by lincoln li on February 5, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Should the court rule that Ministers of the Federal Government be prohibited to meet with their constituents so that they would not be influenced by the electorate, would this be considered constitutional?

    The ruling forbidding members of council, as elected members of the City of Stonnington, might have impinged upon the basic constitutional rights of citizens. The court’s ruling should be challenged.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: