Clover Estate is now up and running thanks to an Amendment passed by Council in September 2007. The site is directly opposite GESAC and extends back in part to a Minimal Change Area. What is extroadinary about this development is:
- No third party appeal rights.
- When first advertised there were 173 submissions – we believe a record for Glen Eira
- No permit required for subdivision
- No permit required for planning application
- A building permit required ONLY IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS of the Development Overlay aren’t met. In other words, pretty much open slather for developers
- The auction for these lots just happened to occur at the Caulfield Racecourse on June 18th
- Parts of this development will encroach on surrounding streets (eg. Malane St) which has already seen numerous objections to planning applications
We’ve also checked out the Panel Report and below are some quotes from the report –
“From the submissions to the Amendment, we identified a number of key issues that need to be addressed. The issues raised in submissions can be summarised as follows:
- Traffic and parking congestion in the surrounding streets due to the increases in traffic movement and car parking.
- Traffic management in the immediate area.
- The future amenity for occupiers of the units and townhouses having regard to the visual and acoustic impacts of the adjacent industry.
- Vegetation retention.
- Potential contamination of the site from previous industrial activities.
A number of submissions relate to the development application:
- Parking provisions for the houses and units / townhouses and potential impact upon on‐street parking and traffic congestion, while compromising safety due to the narrowness of the proposed internal roads.
- The number of dwellings proposed.
- The provision of open space”.
“The DDO is structured so that a permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works provided certain design requirements are met”.
“If the requirements of the DDO schedule are met no permit is required under the DDO. In the course of the hearing it was clear that the expectation of Council was that a permit could be sought to vary the requirements in the DDO schedule. We think that the DDO should state this explicitly.”
“Council suggested in the hearing that the DDO should be silent on height. If the DDO is silent the provisions of Clause 55 would apply for a multi unit development.”
The existing councillors who voted the Amendment in are Tang, Esakoff, Lipshutz.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 7, 2011 at 6:40 PM
East Boundary Road is already full on mayhem. Still awaiting “development” is the Virginia Estate right across the road from this as well as gesac. There will be absolutely no parking anywhere and side streets such as Malane will become a disaster area. This council should be sacked for its inability to plan comprehensively. What we have now is bit by bit encroachment on all areas and a planning scheme that provides very little protection to residents.
July 7, 2011 at 8:04 PM
I guess you may as well remove third party appeal rights if you are not going to require a planning permit (nothing to appeal against).
What is gobsmackingly obvious is that Council aided and abetted this and yet again can sit back and lay the blame elsewhere.
I disagree with Colin, Council did comprehensively plan – it’s just that the comprehensive plan was not for the area or the residents. The comprehensive plan was how to ensure maximum return for the developer by minimizing residential amenity and then being able place the blame elsewhere. Unfortunately for Glen Eira and its residents this plan worked so well they have been doing it eversince.
July 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM
We’ve copied this from another website. According to the commentator these are the prices that were achieved at auction. So much for “cheap housing” – remember, this is only for the block of land and NOT FOR A BUILDING –
Lot # Area (sqm) Starting Bid(‘000) Selling Price(‘000)
16 513 600 700
6 357 470 550
19 527 620 740
36 400 470 650
49 402 500 650
40 546 620 740
8 425 520 670
1 364 460 600
30 512 600 700
24 400 500 645
50 403 ? 650
41 546 650 736
9 400 500 630
18 525 610 745
31 499 620 740
26 400 500 620
14 436 530 675
5 413 500 625
27 400 500 629
35 400 510 645
47 565 670 747.5
21 532 650 739
10 401 500 650
17 522 600 739
4 400 500 640
29 537 620 710
July 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Newton is rubbing his hands in glee. Imagine the rates that will come in. Most of these will end up being over a million dollar properties by the time houses are built. More money that he and these dumb councillors can squander on taj mahals, synthetic grass, more car parks, and lawyers.
July 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM
You can do yourself a favour. Read the LGA. and gain an understanding of how rates actualy work. In fact the with more rateable dwellings it may reduce your rates. Go figure. I am sure gleneira understands.
July 7, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Thankfully this blog has reported on council meetings and councillors statements on various planning decisions. I’ve been amazed at the nature of the arguments put forward – their total lack of initiative and understanding of what planning should be about. Most of the time it seems that all councillors can do is read out the spin that officers have prepared, or grandstand with populist arguments designed to woo the gallery. Or there is the Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang take on things (eg the lawyers’ distortions) where we get the mumbo jumbo about “quasi-judicial” responsibility of council. These arguments are of course all very flexible depending on situation, context and the number of objections that have come in. Then there are contradictions galore from one meeting to the next. I have to wonder whether all of these councillors have early onset of dementia because they deliver statements that oppose what they stated the previous meeting. If it wasn’t so serious, and affecting countless people’s lives, it would be sheer farce. Basically, it’s a dismal performance by all. The only message that I, and I suspect many others in Glen Eira have come to believe, is that we have an appalling planning department and an even more intellectually bankrupt group of councillors who simply refuse to confront the hard issues and insist on proper consultative planning that accords with community wishes.
July 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM
At least one correction is required to the post: a Building Permit *will* be required. From the DDO and Panel report it does appear that Council has decided that if the conditions are met then reasonable amenity will be maintained for existing residents and a Planning Permit is therefore unnecessary.
The subject area is actually divided into two parts, based on whether it is “immediately adjacent to neighbouring industrially zoned land”. If it is, then the DDO places no limit on height. A building could, provided it complied with the other conditions, be more than 20 storeys high, without a Permit. Maybe it’ll shade C60.
The Panel comment about Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme is wickedly misleading, since it only applies to two or more dwellings that are 3 storeys or less in height. There are no standards for developments of four- or more storeys. [And VCAT considers the Standards in the Planning Scheme to be only guidelines that they are free to ignore.]
Even for areas that are not immediately adjacent to neighbouring industrially zoned land, they are restricted to something vague, “two storeys (not including basement and attic)”. A literal reading of the DDO implies that a maximum-sized compliant development could overshadow 100% of the secluded private open space of adjacent properties.
The traffic issue was given the usual incompetent treatment by the Panel, but is consistent with the unprofessional approach Council adopts. There is never any quantification of existing traffic, a profile of delays at choke points, modelling of projected increases in queue lengths, or risk assessment. Instead the standard approach is to use a table of road widths and number of vehicle movements, and ignore any impediments to smooth traffic flow.
From the Panel Report it does appear that Council has attempted to constrain development to fit reasonably with neighbouring properties. This is likely to be because it’s in what Council euphemistically calls a “Minimal Change” area.
Whether somebody is unethical or mischievous enough to exploit any weaknesses in the conditions in Schedule 1 of DDO1 remains to be seen, but the future residents of Clover Estate are likely to be much better off than residents in “Housing Diversity” areas. In Housing Diversity areas the relevant standards are rarely complied with. That’s why Council accepted 100% overshadowing of the secluded private open space of a neighbour to a “major project” in one notorious example. It was more important to help the developer maximize their profit.
July 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Since all developments are different in nature, isn’t flexibility a good thing. Dogmatic planning rules lead to many problems, as the past has shown.
99.9% of the community couldn’t care about what is happening in Glen Eira or anywhere else for a fact, until it happens in their street, then they are born again caring residents.
Lets face it, most residents are NIMBY’s concerned only for themselves. If the development was happening 1 kilomter away in someone else’s street they wouldn’t care less.
The big disconnect that has become a plague of our modern times, angry residents fighting battles that have already been lost years ago. Young bureaucrats losing heart after years of trying to connect with the dead, and getting abused when decisions effect change that isn’t 100% to there liking.
No wonder most councillors get sick and tried of such shallow people.
I can understand why you guys fight for your own values and views, that also maybe shared by others but please don’t call on the silent majority as supporters. They are Zombies.
What about some posts about alternative solutions for the myriad of problems we face.
Tang Lipshutz and Hyams are not demons. I am sure they are and can be influenced by good ideas.
How do other councils handle community relations? I don’t personalty know, do they do it better than Glen Eira, or are we all equally as hopeless?
July 8, 2011 at 7:34 AM
Glennie, I might have agreed with you a few years back. Things are different today. NIMBY’s are everywhere, which means that opposition to poor planning is rearing its head throughout all suburbs. I certainly care that my sister’s life has been ruined by C60 and I know all hers and my friends are also outraged not only by the ultimate decision, but how that decision was made. You’ve also asked about other councils. In my humble opinion no other council works like this one does or has such contempt for its residents. That brings me to Tang Lipshutz and Hyams. They mightn’t be demons as you say, but they certainly do not seek to find out what people think. They are the ones primarily responsible for endorsing much of what is wrong with this council and its insistence on secrecy. My guess is that by keeping things behind closed doors this ensures their power base. What is yet to be discovered is why this is happening. I doubt very much whether altruism and community service could be the motives behind such a philosophy.
July 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM
After 11 years of planning stuff ups what would you expect. At one point the head of vcat had on a few hats. Head of vcat, developer, senior alp supporter. In fact he was so good the mrc engaged him to devise c60. They probaby gave him a bonus. Hr certainly had the ear of the government when the mrc had a special status declared. Victorian town planning is a mess. It has led to higher prices. As long as vcat only needs to “take into account the local provisions” it will not improve.
July 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM
VCAT is certainly guilty of stuff ups as you say. However, this does not absolve Glen Eira Council for their innumerable failures.
July 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM
It was good to learn theat the mrc Senior council who is on a good salary according to him can afford a double block for his family to relax and he advocated that the C60 only give ‘silver'” to Glen Eira Council instead of an open space allocation (usually 5% of area at the Caulfield Station complex. |He came out day and night in the interests of mrc but the representative, Mr Montebello, for the City of Glen Eira 130,000 residents was only a solicitor, much cheaper, and apparently he could not come out at nIght for the residents’ sessions. tHE MONEY PAID FOR THE c60 IN LIUE OF OPEN SPACE WILL PROBABLY PAY TO BUILD SOME TAJ MAHAL ON YET ANOTHER PATCH OF GREEN GRASS. wHERE WILL I PLAY BALL?
Also of interest his company Maddocks is apparently where the former mayor has secured a job while he was mayor