It is with utter disbelief that we read the following Officers’ Recommendation for the 10 storey proposed development in Ripon Grove, Elsternwick located in today’s agenda items –
Never has there been anything so vague, so ambiguous, and so pro-development as this report. How can any planner worth his salt recommend 3 to 10 stories – either it is 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. or 10! Instead we have:
“It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 10 storeys in height represents a signifcant change. In considering the merits of the proposed 10 storey height, a number of contextual factors must be considered: The subject site contains several allotments adding up to an area of 3,450sqm. This represents a unique and major opportunity for significant redevelopment in this centre.”
A little further on, there is this gem: “Having regard to the site’s context and policy considerations, the 10 storey scale of the proposal is considered acceptable. It is a significant but policy-appropriate change of character that ought to be expected in this location and can be absorbed in this location given the contextual factors. A building of high architectural quality will be achieved. However, it is considered that some aspects of the proposal are inconsistent with the urban context of the site and will need refinement.”
As far as parking goes, we then have: “The Planning Scheme requires 358 car spaces for the combined shop and residential uses. The Planning Scheme acknowledges that the parking rates for each use can be waived or reduced. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department considers that a more realistic figure of 178 spaces for the proposal reflects anticipated car parking demand”.
We urge all residents to carefully read this report. It will soon be coming to your neighbourhood! If councillors do not reject this report, ask numerous questions about its findings and recommendations, then as Whitlam once said, ‘nothing will save them’!!!
September 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM
All this is only the thin end of the wedge and must be traced back to a planning scheme that is inadequate in its protection of residents.
September 18, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I’d go further and say that the Planning and Environment Act is
inadequate. It is quite legal for Council and VCAT to fail to
apply key policies and standards contained in the Planning
Scheme–they’re only “guidelines”. Anything that is designed to
protect the amenity of residents is particularly likely to be
waived if it otherwise impacts the profit of a developer. That’s
why we see 4 or more storeys being constructed opposite
single-storey dwellings, and why 3-storey developments
invariably fail to fit within the building envelope specified in
S55 of the Planning Scheme. In some ways it should be easier to
get approval for a 4-storey development because there are so few
standards covering them.
The Brooklands Estate fiasco is a reminder of what can happen
when standards are *not* applied. Curiously, although VCAT made
major mistakes in its decision [referenced out-of-date standard
that had passed its sunset clause, confused tipping area with
tipping face, used less than minimum distance specified for an
unlined tip], its Casey Council that is getting sued.
I would certainly like to see Council and Council officers being
held accountable to the State Auditor General for every
non-compliance with standards they have waived when granting
Planning Permits.
September 18, 2010 at 12:15 PM
The recommendation raises very serious questions for our future in this municipality as we can now see how the administrators of planning in Glen Eira deal with planning applications.
It beggars belief that approval can be recommended for a 3 – 10 storey building! and that traffic and parking issues are dismissed along with overlooking and the impact on nearby single storey dwellings
Residents of Glen Eira Unite! Our biggest foe are the planning scheme and the planners!
September 18, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Readers should see the comments put up by Elsternwick Community. See: http://elsternwickcommunity.wordpress.com/