The State Election has come and gone. Forgive the cliché, but we may be at a ‘new dawn’ not only in the State, but more significantly in Glen Eira. With a Liberal Lower and Upper House the time is ripe for significant change. The Southern Metropolitan Region has indeed seen a remarkable turnaround. Of the 11 parliamentarians, 9 are now Liberal. In the Upper House 3 are Liberal, 1 is Green and 1 solitary member is Labour. What does this augur for Glen Eira? How will these figures impact on the Caulfield Racecourse development and the C60? How will it impact on what has traditionally been seen as a Liberal dominated Council? Will it energise an otherwise compliant and passive lot of councillors to finally listen to their community? What planning changes should the community expect following the pre-election promises of these Southern Reps – especially Southwick? We ask again – will they deliver on such promises?
Listed below are the names of members, their districts, and their contact details. We urge residents concerned about planning, and other issues, to contact their state representatives and to lobby for what they believe is important for this municipality and its surrounds.
| First Name | Last Name | District/Region | Party | Position | Contact |
| David | Southwick | Caulfield | Liberal | MP | 95273866 |
| Ann | Barker | Oakleigh | Labor | MP | 9568 4625 |
| Michael | O’Brien | Malvern | Liberal | Min Energy & Resources + Gaming + Consumer Affairs | 9576 1850 |
| Clem | Newton-Brown | Prahran | Liberal | MP | 99819501 |
| Martin | Foley | Albert Park | Labor | MP | 9646 7173 |
| Louise | Asher | Brighton | Liberal | Min Innovation Services & SB+ Tourism & Major Events | 9596 9680 |
| Elizabeth | Miller | Bentleigh | Liberal | MP | 9557 6661 |
| Murray | Thompson | Sandringham | Liberal | MP | 9598 2688 |
| Graham | Watt | Burwood | Liberal | MP | 9809 1857 |
| Ted | Baillieu | Hawthorn | Liberal | Premier + Min for the Arts | 9882 4088 |
| Andrew | McIntosh | Kew | Liberal | Min for Anti-corruption Commission | 9853 2999 |
| TOTAL ASSEMBLY | Liberal + Labor | 9 + 2 | |||
| John | Lenders | Southern Met 1 | Labor | MP | 9529 1733 |
| David | Davis | Southern Met 2 | Liberal | Min for Health | 9888 6244 |
| Andrea | Coote | Southern Met 3 | Liberal | PS Families & Community Services | 9681 9555 |
| Sue | Penniciuk | Southern Met 4 | Green | MP | 9530 8399 |
| Georgie | Crozier | Southern Met 5 | Liberal | MP | 9555 4101 |
| TOTAL COUNCIL | Liberal + Labor + Green | 3+1+1 |
Glen Eira Debates 
January 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM
While we have had a change of state government, most planning decisions are made by a combination of Planning Authorities and VCAT. Little has changed for them. Councils can continue to ignore their planning schemes, while VCAT can continue to pick the bits of schemes they like (the ones that encourage developement) and ignore anything that might limit a developer’s profit (for example the 34 “Standards” in Clause 55 designed to protect residential amenity).
In NSW an attempt was made to curb the purchase of influence by property developers, by banning political donations from them. While it appears to be a failure, apparently because the rules are too easily thwarted, Victorian political parties have shown no interest in removing their snouts from that particular trough.
Within days of the election a letter was published in The Age (Letters 2 December) from Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, University of Melbourne, calling for “medium-rise development in activity centres and along transit corridors as a matter of right”. I don’t support that view. If developers want to develop “as of right” then they should have to comply with residential standards *and* pay for the infrastructure they currently expect the public to provide to help them make their profits.
One final reform that is desperately needed in our planning system is a concept known as “negative feedback”. Councils and VCAT are free to be careless and trash amenity if they don’t have to pay for the consequences. Since developers are so confident that their proposals have no adverse impacts, it should be a rule that they have to pay to amelioriate their mistakes if it subsequently transpires that, despite their confidence, there is indeed an amenity impact. And Councils and VCAT should pay if they recklessly accept whatever a developer says.
The ongoing mess that is the Brooklands Estate (City of Casey), created by order of VCAT, in which VCAT wilfully ignored expert evidence about the size of an appropriate buffer, confused “tipping zone” with “tipping area”, relied on an out-of-date standard, and applied the barest minimum when conditions were far from ideal, is a reminder to us all how corrupt Victoria’s planning system has become.
January 10, 2011 at 7:44 AM
thanks for this insightful comment. i’d suggest that you raise this with the new minister for ‘anti-corruption commission’ andrew mcintosh, mp for kew (9853 2999). his district is part of the southern metropolitan area. so he represents you and me anyway. give him something to do and may be we’ll gain something in return.
January 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM
From The Age – 10/1/2011
Melbourne’s phantom developments Marika Dobbin
January 10, 2011
.PHANTOM building projects are reaping multimillion-dollar profits for property speculators while inflating land prices, upsetting residents and clogging up the planning system, critics say.
The Age has identified 30 sites granted permits in the past two years for buildings of 10 storeys or more, which developers have put back on the market at a higher price shortly after winning planning approval.
They include the O’Donnell factory in West Melbourne that has been sold four times since 2003, with developer Salvo more than doubling its money in just 18 months after winning approval for a 14-storey block of apartments.
Advertisement: Story continues below Records show Salvo purchased the Batman Street building for $4.28 million in November 2008 and then sold it for $9 million in April, just a few months after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted a permit for 136 apartments.
The chief executive officer of the City of Moreland, Peter Brown, said councils and residents were tired of wasting energy and resources on proposals that were never subsequently built – but which were resold at a profit. He said the constant on-selling of sites after rezoning and planning approval was forcing up land values, ultimately making any housing eventually built less affordable.
”Each time the land is on-sold, the new developer has to push for more storeys to justify the price he paid,” he said. ”It’s putting pressure on communities to accept overdevelopment because if we say no, the land just sits there and that’s bad for everyone.”
Mr Brown said permits should be conditional on the developer building on the site and should not be transferable, a rule imposed in some European countries. ”That would keep land prices reasonable and building more affordable.”
He said Kodak had sold a factory in North Coburg for $40 million in 2006 that was on-sold again in September for $79 million, ”even though nothing has happened there except paperwork – rezoning and planning permits.”
”The same thing happened at the Pentridge Piazza site, where Valad is pushing for more storeys because of the price they paid.”
The head of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, Tony De Domenico, said while it was obvious that sites were worth more with planning approval, it was unfair to generalise that developers who on-sold were just after an easy return.
”There are probably speculators out there but the great majority are reputable developers who have genuine reasons for not going ahead with the project after getting planning,” he said. ”The final permit might be very different from what the developer wanted, which means that he may not be able to afford it, but some other developer can buy it off him.”
Mr De Domenico said other hurdles to starting building work were an unwillingness by banks to fund some projects, unreasonable holding costs due to planning delays, and fluctuations in demand for apartments and office space.
He said making planning permits non-transferable would interfere with the market and lead to more red tape, with permits having to be duplicated.
Other on-sold sites identified by The Age include a vacant office building in Frankston for which Asian Pacific Building Corporation paid $11.25 million three years ago and is now selling for up to $16 million with new planning permits.
The site has repeatedly changed hands and was listed for sale again in November, three months after one of its chain of owners won approval to redevelop it into shops, apartments, conference facilities and a five-star hotel – the intended centrepiece of Frankston’s rebirth into one of Melbourne’s six central activities districts.
Moreland is introducing a caveat system for land to be sold or leased as part of its urban renewal project, the Coburg Initiative, in an effort to cut out speculation. The system will specify in the sales or lease contracts how big any future development could be.