We have received a slightly edited version of a letter that was sent by a resident to all Councillors early this year in regard to planning in general, and the planning scheme review in particular. We note, that only 3 councillors bothered to respond to this letter. We further note, that of all the comments made, only 1 even received token comment in the final planning scheme review.

I wish to bring to your attention some matters relating to planning in Glen Eira and seek your support in addressing these issues in this term of council.

You will be aware that the Save Carnegie Action Group has been active in Carnegie over recent years, trying hard to retain some character and residential amenity in a neighbourhood under intense development pressure.  I will continue to work to ensure my children have an opportunity to grow up in the type of suburb and neighbourhood that made us want to purchase our home 30 years ago.

I have major concerns about the inadequacies of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and how these inadequacies have offered residents of my neighbourhood little or no protection against inappropriate high-density development.

I am familiar with the planning scheme, Melbourne 2030 and now Melbourne @5m.  I am aware that it is easy to blame state policies whenever development proposals are put forward.  But it is and always has been state policy linked heavily to councils planning scheme that have threatened and continue to threaten the character and community of Carnegie. Council always states that state policy drives the planning scheme but many other councils have planning responses that more heavily protect residents.

You need to look after residents across the whole municipality on planning matters, not only those people who have been fortunate enough to live in ‘minimal change’ areas.

Twenty percent of the Glen Eira municipality has been designated for high density development with little protection of residential amenity, the other 80% get far more protection.  Why are not all property owners being treated equally?

I want you as councilors to see ensure that the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is rewritten and redeveloped in consultation with the community so that we can preserve and maintain some of the great features of this, and other neighbourhoods across the city.

Some points I want to raise with you:

  1. Glen Eira has not prepared structure plans for any of the 5 urban village (activity centres) within its boundaries
  2. The plans that have been prepared have the planning work dated as 2000 – TEN YEARS AGO! – Good planning cannot take place when the plans and consultative processes leading to the plans are over 10 years old
  3. The 10 year old plans are no longer relevant to the city and certainly not relevant to Carnegie
  4. C25 contains no where near enough details to guide development of most of the Carnegie neighbourhoods
  5. There is no rational thinking behind the designation of urban village (activity centre) boundaries in Carnegie – with areas better suited to higher density development being ignored and streets with single storey family homes designated as appropriate to 3 (and higher) storey buildings
  6. Unless the planning scheme is changed council will not be able to stop inappropriate high density development as the scheme, as it is now, gives developers the full go ahead and gives little protection to existing land owners
  7. Glen Eira already has a very dense population for a ‘middle ring’ municipality – the density per square kilometre of Glen Eira’s population sits more closely with inner ring municipalities rather than middle ring municipalities, based on population figures from 2006

 

City/Shire LGA Area km2 People in 2006 Density/ km2 Ring to CBD Rank Melb Rank Aus Develop Cap %
Port Phillip 20.62 85,096 4127 Inner 24 363 6
Yarra 19.5 69,330 3555 Inner 30 514 10
Stonnington 25.62 89,883 3508 Inner 13 63 12
Glen Eira 38.7 124,083 3206 Middle 12 56 8
Moreland 51 142,325 2791 Inner 25 376 4
Boroondara 60 154,450 2574 Middle 4 9 9
Bayside 36 87,936 2443 Middle 3 8 5
Moonee Valley 44 107,090 2434 Inner 21 191 6
Darebin 53 128,067 2416 Middle 27 386 5
Whitehorse 64 144,768 2262 Middle 5 24 10
Maribyrnong 31.2 63,141 2024 Inner 29 503 14
Monash 81.5 161,241 1978 Middle 11 51 6
Melbourne 36.2 71,380 1972 Central 31 574 4
Banyule 63 114,866 1823 Middle 8 31 3
Kingston 91 134,626 1479 Middle 16 99 1
Brimbank 123 168,215 1368 Middle 26 381 2
Knox 113.8 146,740 1289 Outer 7 26 1
Hobsons Bay 65 81,459 1253 Inner 20 163 2
  1. Given the already high density of population in the city, why are we under pressure to increase this density?
  2. Glen Eira has a similar population density to the Cities of Yarra and Port Phillip  – why has there been such a ‘planning push’ to increase the density of our city any further?
  3. The only winners from high density development are the developers – the community loses on every front including:
    • Loss of amenity
    • Increase traffic in our local area
    • Increased on street parking
    • Increasing numbers on an already overstretched public transport system
    • More cars on local roads with increasingly lengthy waits at railway crossings – sometimes the traffic along Darling Road heading south can be backed up almost to Waverley Road’ at peak hour
    • Loss of diversity in the Carnegie shopping strip – nearly every vacant shop is being redeveloped as a café or Asian supermarket
    • Continual noise and disruption from construction works
  4. Carnegie is not suited to be an activity centre – we have no public open space in the activity centre – this is a factor considered as very important in state planning guidelines for activity centres but was totally ignored when Glen Eira council nominated Carnegie as an Urban Village.
  5.  The size of blocks in the Urban Village in Carnegie are quite small, with most having 50’ frontages and being 122’ deep,  so intense development really pushes what is reasonable and acceptable on small blocks and challenges residential amenity when high density development is located next to residential properties.
  6. The inappropriate and amenity-compromised outcomes of high density development in a low density housing area  

What you as elected representatives need to do is: 

  • Immediately review the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, particularly C25 – genuine review that includes detailed consultation with residents 
  • Undertake planning with a focus on the ‘public realm’ rather than a singular focus on housing – Carnegie needs a new planning scheme that will result in a neighbourhood with vitality, viability and vibrancy – this is not what is happening at the moment 
  • Oppose inappropriate development that results in 3 (or more) storey buildings being constructed next to single residential dwellings 
  • Limit the height of developments so as to protect residential amenity 
  • Continue to challenge the recommendations of council’s planners who often get it wrong and present incorrect information in their reports to council 
  • Listen to what the community wants and offer us some protection to our residential amenity, our property values and the values and character of our neighbourhoods