We’ve commented numerous times on the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and its deficiencies and loopholes. In this post we pinpoint exactly why the scheme fails to do what it is supposed to do – ie provide a detailed and comprehensive blueprint for the future – a vision that has been developed in CONJUNCTION with residents and which has the full support of the community. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme is ill conceived, poorly articulated and does not benefit the majority of residents. As an integrated planning (as opposed to town planning) document it is a shambles. Here are our reasons why –
Quote from Ian Wood, President Save Our Suburbs:
“Found this recently: The Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy 2005 was endorsed by Council in March 2005. This strategy is yet to be incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. [http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1641&h=1] [last updated 7 Sept.2010]!!!!! How bloody long does it take DPCD [Department of Planning & Community Development] to approve this stuff????”
COMMENT – If this is true, here are the likely reasons for the Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy (GEACS) not being incorporated i.e. not accepted by the Planning Minister:
- The 2005 Strategy is inconsistent with Melbourne 2030 on the status of Glen Huntly;
- The 2005 Strategy proposes no Structure Plans;
- The 2005 Strategy has no impact statement on Centres due to population and housing growth;
- The 2005 Strategy has no relevance to transport issues like congestion and level crossings;
- The 2005 Strategy has not worked through its implications for the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Glen Eira PS) and Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) established prior to 2005;
- The 2005 Strategy identified 52 shopping centres, but the MSS mentions only 17 centres;
- In March 2005 Councillors who endorsed the GEACS were – Bury, Erlich, Grosbard, Hyams, Martens, Marwick, and Sapir. Esakoff, and Goudge opposed it.
- In July 2006 the issue of the Glen Huntly status was deliberated and Councillors voted against developing a Structure Plan to determine its status. Councillors that unanimously rejected the Planning Minister’s suggestion were: Ashmor, Esakoff, Feldman, Lipshutz, Robilliard, Spaulding, Staikos, Tang, and Whiteside;
- LPPF Section 21.03 Vision Strategic Framework states – “The Glen Eira Community Plan identifies the corporate direction of Council over a 3 year period (2001-2004)” and from 1996 “Glen Eira 2020 identifies a long-term vision for the municipality over the next 20 years. Glen Eira 2020 identifies a desired future for the City and was developed through analysis of trends and consultation with the community”. This is a back to the future Vision. Where is the new updated and accepted by the community, Community Plan?;
- LPPF Section 21.04 Housing & Residential Development – extensive & detailed to develop 20% of Glen Eira, whereas only 8% development is needed. No justification for this course of action is given;
- LPPF Section 21.06 Business – policy focus to improve Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie and nowhere else. That is in spite of the population and housing growth everywhere in Glen Eira;
- LPPF Section 21.08 Institutional & Non-residential uses in Residential Areas – policy focus only on schools/hospitals. Nothing on “medical centres, churches, childcare and kindergartens”. Purpose of this policy is to “encourage uses that retain housing stock”;
- LPPF Section 21.09 Public Uses / Community Facilities – general and non-specific with this telling statement “With the corporatisation of a number of government utilities it is no longer necessary for sites owned by private utility company to be included in a Public Use Zone”. MRC was structured in 1990s to utilize this argument admirably;
- LPPF Section 21.09 again “The plan also examines properties that are Council owned or zoned for public uses in order to determine the opportunities for each property to maximize the potential return to the community.” Can anyone explain this gobbledygook?
- LPPF Section 21.12 Transport – Short and sweet. No problems. Forget about complaining;
- LPPF Section 21.13 Open Space – states the shortage of Open Space. No mention of the Crown Land provisions at the Caulfield Racecourse and no strategy to increase the amount of Open Space. Accept the reality!
- LPPF Section 21.14 Monitoring & Review – “A review of this planning scheme will be undertaken at least every three years”. The last Review accepted by the planning Minister occurred in 2004, gazetted with permanent control 27 May 2004. No acceptable review has taken place in 2007 or 2010;
- LPPF Section 22.02 Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy – extensive & detailed description of how “medical centres, schools, parks, churches, childcare, and kindergartens [are placed and located] within residential areas”. No objective or policy analysis as to whether we need more or less of such community facilities and why we may need it. No factual information and data to support the objectives and policies. One of the objectives states “To encourage proposals that retain the existing housing stock within the municipality”. Increasing the stock is certainly retaining it;
- LPPF Section 22.04 Commercial Centres Policy – Deals with Business Zone. Short and sweet. Only Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie are to develop their retailing space. The following telling statement summarises the Policy “Retail and commercial floorspace is at a level that currently serves the needs of the community. Additional floorspace must be closely monitored ensuring established centres are not weakened”. Can anyone explain how does the support of Caulfield Village with its proposed 35,000 square metres additional commercial floorspace maintain consistency with this Policy?
- LPPF Section 22.05 Urban Villages Policy – Deals extensively and in detail with the 3 Urban Villages of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, whose Structure Plans were developed in June 1999. However, they never followed the guidelines of Melbourne 2030, in particular in regards to Community Consultation Process. For this reason those Plans are described in Structure Plans Status document as Other Spatial Plans. Essentially those plans have never had even a modicum of acceptance by the residents of those Villages. Each one of them has now got Residents Groups up in arms as to the way those areas are being developed
All the information on LPPF and the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is available on line www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/gleneira/home.html .
The question arises what makes for a good Planning Scheme. The answer is very simple. Any area plan affecting residents should have a modicum of support from people living in those areas. There is not one shred of evidence that this has happened in Glen Eira. The six point Community Consultation is a tick the box approach to satisfy the legislation and nothing else.
Yet some stakeholders have benefited from the great development that has occurred in Glen Eira. The question arises who are those beneficiaries and who on the Council has also benefitted if there is no general support from the community?
Glen Eira Debates 
February 14, 2011 at 11:41 PM
This is Newton’s & Burke’s legacy. A bevy of piecemeal policies that are not integrated and only look good as public relations exercises, without the mandatory public input. What will it take councillors before you realise the folly of your ways? Aren’t you getting the message with hundreds of placard waving residents at council meetings. These events should tell you exactly what the residents think of your lousy planning laws and planning schemes. Get used to it – more and more of this will be happening. There is a people power revolution just around the corner!
February 15, 2011 at 8:42 AM
The ‘Key Land Use Visions’ are the most hypocritical set of statements ever produced by this council when compared to what is actually happening. I’ve copied them –
Allow for sustainable redevelopment which balances the needs of current and future
populations
Ensure a greater diversity of housing to meet future housing needs
Improve and protect the liveability, neighbourhood character and amenity of Glen Eria
Promote environmental, social and economic sustainability
Improve access to housing for residents with special housing needs
Ensure integrated neighbourhood planning of Glen Eira’s suburbs
Protect and enhance the natural environment – the combination of parks, gardens, trees and street trees which give Glen Eira a valued garden city atmosphere
Maintain high quality residential image, with an emphasis on character of local areas and heritage areas
Identify and consolidate urban villages containing attractive and convenient retailing,community facilities, entertainment, tourist, educational and cultural facilities. Promote
smaller commercial centres and appropriate mixed use development
Stimulate and improve the vitality of Glen Eira’s commercial centres
Promote recognised and well used regional recreation, entertainment, tourist, educational and cultural facilities
Create safe environments for residents, workers and visitors
Ensure adequate consultation and subsequent publicity about Council services and
facilities
None of these ‘visions’ have been achieved. Safety – alcohol bans in Centre Rd – argued against by Lipshutz and co
Parks – another joke! Maintenance a total disaster
Improve special needs housing – by selling off everything
Promote smaller commercial centres – has never happened – remember the Leader stuff about McKinnon Rd traders not getting a look in from Council.
It just goes on and on and I can only be bothered itemising these couple of points. The stuff about neighbourhood character and ‘integration’ I’ll leave to others.
The only beneficiaries are developers and their mates.
February 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM
Here we go again about Glenhuntly becomming an Activity Centre. Wasn’t it Orik Tenen, the Secretary of the Glenhuntly Traders Group who wrote a Reference for Prime Life employee the very X, Cr Goudge? And wasn’t Esakoff’s partner a senior memmber of the above Group whilst his wife was a Councillor? Don’t worry about Newton and Burke and look at the actions of Goudge and Esakoff. Ask Tenen why he wrote Goudge, his favorite Councillor a Reference?
February 16, 2011 at 5:52 AM
Good questions. And don’t forget that Esakoff got onto Council because she and her family did not want to have the skateboard facility in Princess Park opposite their house. Guess what, they got their way once she got onto the Council. Self-interest? Conflict of interest? And now she is the Mayor for the third time!
People complain all the time about Newton and Burke. Can’t they see that it is the Councillors that manipulate the system to suit themselves!
That leads me to Hyams, who now is the Deputy Mayor! What is in it for him as a Deputy Mayor? Does anyone know? Worse than that, the twosome of Esakoff and Hyams is now a formidable and influential force on the Council. Examine the voting pattern and you will find that those two always supported each other! Also, they like to do things secretly and behind everybody’s back. Can anyone find out what those two are upto?
February 17, 2011 at 11:44 PM
The community spoke loudly at the sessions I attended, and several of us followed up by making written submissions to the so-called Review of Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
The result was not worth the salaries paid to the officers involved. Not a single recommendation to improve the planning scheme was made. Not a single flaw in the scheme or the way it was administered was identified. It *did* at least acknowledge some of the matters residents raised, but was silent about their merits.
The main recommendation of the Review was to remove from public view the drafting of any changes to the Scheme Council Officers wanted.
There are hundreds of issues raised by the current Scheme, compounded by profound weaknesses in the planning system overall. While NSW acted to prohibit political donations from developers in a belated attempt to reduce the visible level of corruption there, Victoria has made no such attempt.
When Council makes a decision it has to notify objectors, but generally doesn’t provide its reasons. Our bizarre planning system requires the applicant to be given detailed reasons if the decision is a refusal. Council advises that the matter can be taken to VCAT, but fails to reveal its obligations under S45 of VCAT Act 1998, in which it can be requested to provide a statement of reasons for decision.
Most of the contentious decisions in Glen Eira involve applications that violate policy and/or standards in the Planning Scheme. While I’ll continue to fight for improvements to the Planning Scheme, ultimately its futile if both Council and VCAT continue to ignore it. In the interests of transparency, there should at least be a written record of all the policy violations, and why they are acceptable to Council.
Residents quite properly should wonder why a developer’s profit is sufficient reason to waive non-compliance, especially when it involves a loss of amenity to existing residents.
“…government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished from Glen Eira.