VCAT has allowed a 6 storey development at the Coles supermarket site in Elsternwick. The decision allows for: 99 dwellings; basement carparking; 500 square metres of retail in a Residential zone 1 area, and a waiver of car parking requirements. Councillors rejected the application – Officers recommended adoption.
The member states: “It is our conclusion that there is strong policy support for this development and council’s position that we do not need to push the boundaries for residential development when other issues are coming into play are not supported. We consider developing this site to its full potential will relieve development pressure in other parts of the city that are purely residential in nature and often covered by heritage controls.”
Policy, policy, policy. Again we ask: Are Glen Eira’s planning policies tight enough? What can and should be done? Why hasn’t it been done?
There is also one incredibly interesting sentence in the judgement – “Council raised an issue indicating that with regard to its required provision of additional housing that the rate that they are currently achieving housing growth is sufficient and that this site would put the level above what is required.”
In document after document from Council, residents are presented with the argument that thousands and thousands of new residents need to be provided for; that hundreds and hundreds of new dwellings are required. What’s happened to this argument? How can Council now claim after all the preceding propaganda that the rate is ‘sufficient’? Have we been sold a furphy all along?
Finally, there is the question of resident support from council. The previous Ripon Grove/Glen Huntly Road developers had Chris Canavan QC, Barnaby Chessell, barrister representing them. They also called ‘expert witnesses’ in Vaughn Connor (town planner of Contour); Mark Shepherd (Urban designer of David Loch) and Stuart McGurn (town planner of ERM). Council had Ian Pridgeon, solicitor of Russell Kennedy. In this latest supermarket decision, developers were represented by J. Gobbo QC; B. Chessell (solicitor). Experts were A. Biacsi (town planning); M. Sheppard (Urban design) and J. Walsh – Traffic. Council had C. Bowdern (town planner). Memories from the panel hearing for the C60?
In many major decisions, residents have every right to feel that Council does not represent their interests adequately enough and that the support they receive is negligible. Perhaps it is time that the playing field is levelled out and that Council ensures its resources are marshalled to properly defend cases and the community? If we can spend millions and millions on sporting venues, then surely a proper and sustained legal defence in major cases is also warranted?
PS: On the 24th November 2004 the following public question was asked by Robilliard – that is, prior to her becoming a councillor. As far as we know, no response was given, no action taken, and the current situation still persists.
“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?”
The question was taken on notice for reply.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM
I’ve been reading these posts and trying to figure out the reason behind council’s refusal to act. There hasn’t been real consultation on the planning scheme and nothing of substance has changed in it. We go through Windsor type consultations every single time. So I’m trying to figure out what’s the purpose and the motivation behind such actions. I’m sure that the official response to the lack of structure planning will be that it’s too expensive and arguments along these lines. I don’t buy that. Heaps of other councils are also strapped for cash, but they’ve done it and they’ve also got policies that really try to discover what their residents want. Glen Eira doesn’t in my opinion. So I’m back to the original puzzle of asking about the reasons for this. For me it all boils down to what has Newton got to achieve by cutting out the public and often councillors and creating a city where it’s all in favour of development. Money is one obvious answer. But I reckon there’s lots more going on than meets the eye. I’d love someone to give me their views on this and to tell me if I’m way off the mark in my suspicions.
March 31, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Ego, power, control and self aggrandisement.
March 31, 2011 at 1:26 PM
Gazing into my crystal ball I can see dear old Lipshutz standing up, wringing his hands in mock dismay and putting it all onto VCAT. They’re the villians not us poor councillors. Wrong, wrong and double wrong. If councillors are really doing their jobs properly they would make the time and effort to really have a go at the nonsense that is put before them. They’d ask questions, demand detailed statistics, and shake the hell out of a planning scheme that is a disgrace. Using VCAT as the continual scapegoat is wearing very thin. Look into your own back yard councillors and do what you were elected to do – manage this place and curb the powers of often incompetent managers.
March 31, 2011 at 6:57 PM
Anonymous, VCAT is far from perfect and I think it’s Reprobate who has several times pointed out that they don’t have to accept council policy. These are only guidelines. However, this certainly doesn’t excuse councillors from using this as you say, as the scapegoat. I agree with you that they must search their own backyard and explain why nothing has been done since at least 2004. There have also been grants galore available from the State Government for any council that wishes to implement structure plans. This blog has also had items on Bayside and their success in gaining permanent height controls. The bottom line is that no attempt has been made to either get funding and assistance from experts on structure planning, and neither has there been any attempt to receive approval for interim or permanent height controls. This leaves the municipality literally at the mercy of developers and their QCs and consultants.
March 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM
Oh Effie, mycareer.com.au is good also.
No worries, John
March 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Johnno, go easy on the lass. She’s only doing her master’s bidding.
March 31, 2011 at 11:14 PM
hey colin, i have been wondering the same thing . just like you i do not know why glen eira is doing things so differently to any other council. i do know this, “to know where you are going, you have to know where you come from”. in the case of this council it is very clear that whatever is happening now is a result of what has happened to our ceo andrew newton from the beginning of his time in glen eira. dig deep there – he was after all the director of business development.
April 1, 2011 at 8:31 AM
You don’t have to dig too deep to see manipulation and heaps of little white lies all over the place. First we’re sold the line about the population explosion and how Glen Eira has to, just has to, accommodate stacks of people every single week. This line has been used to great effect for years now and justifies everything in the planning scheme. Now all of a sudden it’s claimed that we’ve got enough people and that the rate is doing just fine thankyou. The truth in this is as pliable as the administration wants to make it. They change their tune whenever and whatever suits them. What sticks in my craw is that they continually get away with it. They’re laughing their heads off I bet.
April 1, 2011 at 10:53 PM
This decision is an example of how Victoria’s Planning System has progressively been perverted over more than a decade, but deeper understanding requires some
historical background.
Four or five failed Planning Ministers ago, Melbourne 2030 appeared and was foisted upon the community. Each Municipality was given a quota of new dwellings they were to provide through their individual Planning Schemes over various timeframes. “Our” Council panicked. They drew crude circles around various shopping centres, called them Urban Villages, and promulgated policies to encourage developers to develop in those preferred areas, well away from where councillors and council officers live. This was the birth of the hideous 80-20 rule. (“The good news is we will protect the amenity of 80% of the municipality”–senior Council officer)
Although not directly relevent to the Coles decision, under the “guidelines” from State Government, it was indicated that an Urban Village should have more than a specified amount of retail space to be considered suitable. Carnegie was too small, so Council changed suburb boundaries, shrinking Glenhuntly, and expanding Carnegie. To Council’s great annoyance, State Government continues to classify Glenhuntly as a Major Activity Centre. [The term Urban Village didn’t catch on, and eventually GEPS will have to reflect that.]
All this chicanery should help to explain why it is that Council doesn’t embrace any limits on development, but *will* on occasion fight certain developments. They want development in 20%, but not at any price…enough that the 80% where they live is safe, but not so much that the Community wakes up to whose interests they really serve.
Melbourne 2030 starts off with some interesting comments. The first is an oxymoron: “Planning for sustainable growth”. Then there’s the out-and-out lie: “increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity”. This leads us to the sad sorry mess that euphemistically gets called Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
Much of a Planning Scheme is dictated by State Government, but there is still a significant amount of local content that has to be provided by a Council. Well, almost. The local content still has be to be approved by the Minister, and anything that might limit development is unacceptable. There’s also a grave danger that if anything measurable is specified then somebody might measure it. [People like me for example.]
For this reason, Planning Schemes deemphasise standards, preferring a “performance-based” approach. The theory goes that a development must meet the “objectives”, which is likely to occur if they follow the “guidelines”, which are called “standards”, but by legal fiat are not binding on councils and VCAT. Overshadowing, site coverage, setbacks, signage, neighbourhood character, infrastructure…there isn’t a single standard that Council and/or VCAT will insist upon, if it a) helps the developer make more money and b) is in the 20% of the municipality that Council has targeted. (That’s the “strong policy support” rubbish.)
Despite the lack of standards there are a bunch of matters that “must” be taken into account by Council and VCAT in reaching a decision, according to the Planning and Environment Act. Hogwash. Practical reality is they don’t. If you have sufficient money you don’t have to comply. You can build a 4-storey major project without a Planning Permit. The only constraint is that you take a risk. Eventually you will have to apply for a permit retrospectively and it might not be granted. [Hah!] Even the conditions on a permit are close to meaningless, because Council rarely enforces them. The Carnegie Fringe shopping centre on the edge of the municipality still doesn’t comply after 3 years.
When it comes to arguing who is more culpable, Council or VCAT, I say VCAT. Council at least has *some* accountability for its decisions. Every 4 years (used to be 3 but State Governments don’t like democracy) we can vote out the incumbents if their decisions bear no resemblance to the ones we would make ourselves. Councils have to wear some of the costs of planning decisions. [Little known fact: residents subsidise developer’s planning applications, as well as have to pay for the infrastructure to support their endeavours.] VCAT isn’t accountable at all. Its not a democratic institution, is above the law, doesn’t have to pay for its mistakes. Its Casey Council and EPA who have to pay for Member Horsfall’s blunders re Brookland Greens.
Despite the VCAT Act spelling out that VCAT is supposed to be making a decision in Council’s place when it conducts a review, it does no such thing. It freely substitutes its own policies. And then there’s the weasel words (“there is strong policy support for this development”). Inevitably there is conflicting policy. VCAT refuses categorically to do as required by PAEA and account for all the matters the Act specifies. From S4(1) of PAEA, listing Objectives of planning in Victoria: “(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value”. So we get the decision to demolish the heritage-protected Elizabeth Towers Hotel in Parkville.
Sure, I would like to see many improvements made to GEPS. Like many residents I have attended meetings, made submissions, lobbied. Without a change of culture in Council and at VCAT I doubt changing the Planning Scheme will make the slightest difference. It will take concerted effort on the part of residents, lobbying for reform of VCAT’s Planning and Environment list, reminding Council repeatedly of its own policies and demanding explanations of its increasingly bizarre decisions, to make a difference.