MEDIA RELEASE
Friday 29 April 2011
Council places limits on C60
On 28 April 2011, Glen Eira City Council adopted Amendment C60 with changes to restrict heights, restrict student housing and ensure higher levels of on-site car parking. Amendment C60 rezones land but does not authorise any construction. Future development will need to satisfy Council in six areas: an environmental management plan, integrated transport plan, car parking management plan, drainage management plan, landscape plan and waste and recycling management plan.
Any development proposal which is not consistent with Council’s decision of 28 April would need to start again with a fresh planning application which involves advertising, submissions, decision and the opportunity to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). On height limits, Council did not support the view of the Independent Panel that there should be no height limit at the end nearest Monash University. Council has imposed height limits on 100 per cent of the area ranging from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Road end to not more than twenty storeys at the Monash University end.
On student housing, Council changed the provisions relating to developing student housing in the C60 area and required any student housing to undergo a full and separate planning process including application, advertising, determination and appeal rights to VCAT. On car parking, Council imposed higher requirements for on site car spaces than in recent comparable developments. For retail and supermarket uses, the car parking requirements are higher than recent VCAT decisions for mixed-use developments. For some other uses, Council imposed higher car parking requirements than the State Government approved for the nearby Monash University Equiset proposal. In addition, car parking restrictions will be established in surrounding residential streets in consultation with residents and at the cost of the C60 applicant.
Consultation on C60 has included:
- exhibition of the amendment 19 November–21 December 2009;
- the planning conference of 8 February 2010;
- six days of hearings before the independent panel in May 2010;
- public release of the panel’s report, July 2010; and
- public consultation meeting on 4 April 2011.
It will now be up to the State Minister for Planning to consider Amendment C60 and decide whether to approve it.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM
What a sham.
April 4, 2011 – Residents were advised that only 2000 car spaces would be provided in C60. Residents have heard nothing since then.
April 28, 2011 – Council passes the C60 with bleatings of this is the best we could do.
April 29, 2011 – This Media Release totally revises the parking provisions (mind you this is yet to be proven).
So the game is keep the residents in the dark and feed them doom and gloom then suddenly (I don’t for one minute accept that these negotiations were not known on April 4) make an announcement about how much better parking will be and hope they won’t notice the 20 storey building.
Unfortunately, Councillors and Administration it only re-inforces the mismanagement and shenanigans that have characterised the whole C60 debacle. Rather than enhancing your chances of re-election or contract renewal this media release is the tipping point. The contempt with which you have treated residents will not be forgotten and will be returned to you many times over.
April 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Just heard on the 3aw news “Outrage in Glen Eira”. Must be about C60 I thought. Incredibly no, it was some wanker named Darren Cooksley complaining about the mulch site going because Penhalluriack is trying to corner the Market! Does anyone know this guy? Is he for real??!
April 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM
I just heard it on 3AW too. This time Frank was there defending himself with the decision to close the facility. Pity that he was wasting valuable airtime on this rather than the real issue of C60. Perhaps this was intentional by the Discombe and Newton to deflect the worst planning decision in the history of Glen Eira.
April 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Actually Council voted to *increase* height limits for the controversial Smith St precinct. This can be seen by comparing the Incorporated Plan that Council published on its website (dated July 2008) and the finalized(?) Plan that it was prepared to let the public see less than a week before their decision was announced.
Technically it hasn’t set a height limit either–it doesn’t have the power to do so. What it has done is establish the circumstances that a Planning Permit would have to be applied for. The MRC can build something taller than 20 storeys if it wishes but would eventually have to obtain a Planning Permit should Council insist in that case.
By increasing the “height limit” to 120m AHD (20 storeys), it has set a new benchmark for developers to aspire to in Major Activity Centres. It goes well beyond what even VCAT has been prepared to stomach for Principle Activity Centres.
Less clear is the situation around the sensitive residential interfaces, especially the owners of Lot A. Council has decided to remove all their third party rights, including the right to appeal, provided what is proposed is “in general accordance” with the Incorporated Plan. [Sadly “general accordance” is one of those vague expressions that get bandied about in development circles. Few basement driveways of multiunit developments are “generally in accordance” with AS2890.1-2004 despite our Planning Scheme.]
Although it has been claimed that ResCode applies [itself meaningless since its prescriptive standards are treated as guidelines that can be readily waived], Rescode only covers developments of 3 or less storeys. For 4 or more storeys its “Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development–2004”. Council has endorsed the view of the Panel that 4 storeys without appeal rights is appropriate for the boundary next to Lot A, a single-storey dwelling, which is an extraordinary change to Council policy as contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
It is manifestly unfair to offer the existing residents of the area, especially Lot A, lesser protection of amenity than is provided elsewhere in the municipality. Cr Lipschutz claims the Minister for Planning will not accept the Amendment if it is manifestly unfair. Yeah right.
April 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM
I always enjoy reading Reprobate’s comments. They are erudite and from someone who obviously has an incredible knowledge about current planning statewide and in particular this municipality. Hence, I have to wonder exactly how much our councillors really know, understand and appreciate about the complexities, much less legalities of what they vote in or out. Last night’s performance was a clear example of how little Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz really understood about anything. The gallery were privy to an almost verbatim repetition of the Officers’ Reports (and one must also be concerned about their competence) and for the rest of the time public relations whitewashing of potential impacts on surrounding areas. It was overall a fully stage managed exercise designed to dupe all unsuspecting and possibly ignorant folk. Perhaps councillors themselves have been duped by officers. But this does not excuse them! If they do not know, or understand what they are doing, then the onus on them is to find out, to ask questions and to ensure that their decisions are based on the widest range of expert views available. This they have obviously failed to do and we will suffer the outcomes of such blind ignorance and loopholes that they’ve created. I applaud Reprobate and say to him, if you ever wish to stand for council, then you’ve certainly got my vote, and I think probably the thousands of other votes who want individuals who actually know what they’re doing in planning and refuse to be hoodwinked, – or bought off!
April 29, 2011 at 6:43 PM
Ya just gotta love the bullshit in this garbage. So, we’re supposed to believe that “On car parking, Council imposed higher requirements for on site car spaces than in recent comparable developments”. Come on Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and the other dummies, name me JUST ONE OTHER COMPARABLE development in Glen Eira! There ain’t none. Nothing of this size, height, and white elephant status. The only thing that Glen Eira is good at (apart from collecting rubbish) is to keep producing the bullshit that makes up all their policies and media statements and tries to pull the eyes over residents. This is nothing more than ‘intellectual dishonesty’. What has the almighty lawyers Lipshutz and Tang and Hyams got to say about that?