Tuesday night’s council meeting resolved that the application for the 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd. be reduced from 14 storeys and over 100 units to 7 storeys and 69 units. The resolution also included a rider that no residential car parking permits be on offer. The vote was passed on the casting vote of Esakoff.
Two conflicts of interest by Newton (lives close by) and by Magee (put in an offer on a property in the vicinity). Here’s what happened.
Motion moved by Hyams/Tang
ITEM 9.1 – GLEN HUNTLY RD.
HYAMS: started off by saying that there would definitely be development on this site but the question for council was to decide what kind of development -‘how big’….’we make this decision in the shadow of’ the 10 storey development close by. ‘There is a difference between that one and this one’….’this recommendation deals with some of the concerns raised by the objectors’. In terms of car parking ‘no resident will get a permit’ ….’also concern about cars driving in and out ……one of the conditions is that the laneway will be doubled’ (in width)…’ further increased setback on McCrombie Rd’. The difference between this one and the earlier 10 storey application is ‘it didn’t back straight onto houses….it backed onto the church….this application goes straight onto the neighbours….and I think it’s probably a bit too much to ask those neighbours …..to expect to put up with a ten storey building right on their doorstep….obviously we do have to allow a development here…..for those reasons hope we allow a smaller development ‘.
TANG: said that he ‘needed to declare at the outset that I am grudgingly supporting a 7 storey development’ since ‘there is no grounds for refusal’ on this application….’I don’t support the application for 14 storeys’, nor the officers’ recommendations for 10 storeys and he foreshadowed that ‘if two more councillors indicate support for refusal’ he would move that motion. Tang then declared that ‘it is actually too small a proposal and what some councillors would like to see is a large 10 storey building’ or even 14 storey’. ‘In this instance there is no buffer to the residential area and thus I can’t see a 14 storey proposal or even a 10 storey proposal….fitting in to this urban context’. …’emerging character was going to be of a high density but was never going to be…. 10 or 14 storeys….that’s the way I read the Elsternwick Urban Village….so on those grounds I will grudgingly support the 7 storey proposal at this stage, but if two councillors’ indicate their opposition then he’ll move the motion to refuse.
PILLING: ‘I am supporting the motion as printed……I think this is a sensible, reasonable option…(there’s been a decrease in dwellings)…’it is close to public transport; it ticks all the boxes in that regard’. The VCAT decision is ‘the reality of what we’re dealing with’ and officers have ‘balanced’ all the concerns. He stated he’d vote against this alternative recommendation and praised the officers because ‘they’ve got it right’.
FORGE: ‘This area is ripe for development; it’s the gateway to Glen Eira…this is a special area which can take large development….amply serviced by public transport…..good traffic flow (stated she was ‘down there’ and there were 3 or 4 cars in side streets. Also stated that taking 4 storeys off the middle part is less effective than taking four storeys off the top and ‘I support a ten storey building’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I agree this is the gateway to Elsternwick….a happy mix of some beautiful old Victorian houses, narrow streets’, schools, and this area is zoned Business 1. ‘The developer has made adequate provision for car parking…I would support the original application for 14 storeys’.
COMMENT FROM GALLERY: ‘Would you like to live next to it?’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I will reluctantly support 10 storeys’ but agreeing with Forge ‘not if it’s going to be a huge reduction in the number of residents’…..’this is a Business 1 Zone….and unfortunately if you happen to live close …..you have to accept that this is a Business 1 zone….it would be nice if there was a transition introduced in our Planning Scheme. There is not. You go straight …..the narrow line goes from big to little ….I have been speaking for a long time about transition zones because I believe that is essential’. He would vote against the motion.
ESAKOFF: Stated she was concerned about the ‘impact’ on McCrombie St. Referred to the near by development where ‘council supported 8 storeys which went onto VCAT which supported 10’….’that development didn’t have the same interface as this one….the ten storey (of earlier proposal) didn’t immediately abut McCrombie St…..I believe there needs to be some discretion while remembering that Elsternwick is an Urban Village ….where higher density is and will occur…..while Council continues to have input, we can and will (ensure) that impact is kept to a minimum….even though they sit in (urban village or housing diversity area)’. ‘The very usual difficult balancing act that we are dealt’. Doesn’t support 10 stoerys and believes that a more appropriate solution is 7 storeys.
HYAMS: ‘I saw some disbelief on the faces of the gallery when they were told that McCombie st is a quiet street….the street itself is fairly quiet’ but trying to turn into GlenHuntly Rd. Hayms stated it took him ‘a number of minutes’ ….’I can imagine in peak hour’ what it’s like…..(the 10 storey) ‘was a far larger block’…’our urban villages policy divides the Elsternwick area into precincts…..(this is precinct 2)….’one of the conditions …..(and it’s old and superceded and discretionary), ‘but one of …..development to the west of the railway line should be no higher than the terrace properties on the South side of Glen Huntly Rd’. That’s one of our policies…..’When you add them all together they don’t (sometimes) complement each other…so it’s a matter of adding them up’. ‘Bearing in mind that that’s part of our policy having a 14 storey building …..is too much of a stretch (but 7 storeys is okay).
VOTE WAS DRAWN – ESAKOFF USED HER CASTING VOTE TO PASS THE MOTION
Glen Eira Debates 
May 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Well, well, well. What’ya know. All of a sudden we have councillors who want us to believe that they’re concerned about impact on residential amenity. Gosh, they’ve forgotten the C60 already! Now the bit that sticks out like a sore thumb has to be Newton’s and Magee’s conflict of interest. Mind you, I don’t blame them at all. I sure wouldn’t want to live next to a 14 storey monstrosity. And ya gotta love the fact that Newton’s declaration is so up front, a full page listed at the beginning rather than like every other mortal just a little note stuck in somewhere. Just goes to show that as CEO you can do and get whatever you want and it’s all legal!
May 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM
Let’s try this little hypothetical scenario and see where it leads. Magee declares an interest, meaning he can’t vote. That would probably have defeated Hyams motion since Esakoff couldn’t use her extra vote. I’m assuming of course that Magee would have voted against the 7 storeys since he voted for 8 and talked about how much Glen Eira is changing and there isn’t anything that could be done about it – it’s the future folks, face it! Out of the vote, the coast is clear for the old gang. Then there’s Newton who lives nearby and certainly wouldn’t like to have 14 storeys up his nose and the traffic congestion this would bring. Maybe, just maybe, a little back room dealing, or a little you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, and the end result is a shoe in. No 14 storey but a mere 7. A victory for all concerned. But what do I know. I just like painting pictures and expressing a point of view.
May 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Far and away the most telling comment in this post comes from Penhalluriack – the desperate need for some carefully planned and instituted transition zones. It again highlights the real deficiencies of the planning scheme and the failure of councillors to address such issues. Instead we get the ramblings of Pilling, the ‘tick the boxes’ approach of all of them, and the live on a hope and a prayer mentality. It’s just not good enough. There is no security and surety for residents anywhere. I sincerely hope that what happens next is that some large development will be proposed next door to Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, and in fact, all councillors. Maybe then they will get to feel what an increasing number of residents experience in their city as a result of the lack of vision, lack of planning, and the surrender to developers. Maybe then they will start doing something about a planning scheme which as it currently stands is an abysmal failure and which has had no community input of any depth.
May 19, 2011 at 7:51 PM
Well! The truth about Greens Policy comes out. Full and utter support for high rise in our municipality. No concern for residents only full support for outrageous proposals that will over-develop our neighbourhoods and condemn the residents who live in these areas to a life of hell from traffic and parking chaos and loss of amenity. Pilling and other councilors including Forge support this type of development,the Glen Eira Planning Scheme allows and encourages this to happen. With these councilors there is no interest in protecting the Glen Eira community only interest in developers and what they can make out of the wholesale sell out of our neighbourhoods. Forge is a member of Save Our Suburbs, what is she doing! I have no trust or faith in any councilor in Glen Eira. Our city is up for grabs, developers come and get us!!! make your millions!!! No-one is going to stand up for the community and least of all Pilling and Forge and the rest of the pathetic councilors who think this is a good idea.
May 19, 2011 at 8:45 PM
“only interest in developers” – well said. Not only that but we the ratepayers are subsidising developers through loss of amenity and a refusal of this Council to impose a developers levy. The only people who gain are the developers and the Council (via more rates!!!). Why are we allowing our elected respresentatives to sell us out again and again?
May 20, 2011 at 9:57 PM
I’m not convinced that the problem lies with the planning scheme itself. Glen Eira’s planning scheme provides a fairly comprehensive guide to development – with minimum change zones, heritage overlays, urban village precincts, etc.
Rather, it seems that Glen Eira’s councillors and officers are regularly ignoring these guidelines in their recommendations and decisions.
The Glenhuntly development is a good example of this.
The development is in a business zone1 – which under the planning scheme encourages intensive retail and commercial development. But this development is residential.
The triangle area between Glenhuntly Road, Hotham St and the railway line is part of the Elsternwick urban village, designated “Precinct 2 Medium Density Housing”.
Although “medium density housing” is not defined we get some clues from the reference to the area on the opposite side of Glenhuntly Road (also designated medium density) which says
“Heights of buildings in Horne Street, north of Rusden Street, progressively decrease from the existing 5 storey building”
So doesn’t that suggest medium density is less than 5 storeys?
Yet out councillors have decided that anything from 7-14 storeys is now OK. The planning scheme suggests otherwise.
I note that our “peoples’ champion” Frank Penhalluriack would be quite happy with 14 storeys. Frank complains that we need “transition” zones. But I defy anyone to look at this area and tell me how a transition zone would make any difference to the residents living near this development. In fact, all a transition zone would do would be to allow developments to encroach further into the low-rise residential area.
Glen Eira has a planning scheme that might work if only they would use it rather than continually giving in to developers.
May 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM
Glen Huntly, you are right on planning scheme and implementation and you are wrong on both counts. Of course with some intelligent judicious approach to the Planning Scheme one could make better decisions. The problem is that one should NOT make so many judicious decisions.
A better defined and more acceptable to residents and property owners Planning Scheme would minimise the present adversarial approach to Glen Eira development.
Worse still is the deliberate approach of the Council NOT TO PLAN public spaces and services like roads, shopping strips, transport, traffic, parking, kindergardens, food security, health etc. Reason? They are said to be NIMBY issues, unless the Council has FULL control over them.
Examples are: 1)Housing Diversity Areas (Amendment C20) with 20% given to development (no other Council did that); 2) Caulfield Village (Amendment C60) – no Council plans for transport, traffic control or parking; 3)Caulfield Racecourse, public recreation and public park given away for a song. Plenty of other examples if you only care to look.
The Transition Zone in the Planning Scheme would mean getting rid off Amendment C20 that allows 20% of Glen Eira to be developed. That I think is definitely worthwhile, Glen Huntly. Don’t you agree?