We’ve received an email from a resident alerting us to the following planning application –
Planning application Permit Number GE/PP-23761/2011
Property 200 East Boundary Road East Bentleigh
Proposal: Use of land as a medical centre, Beauty salon and food and drink premises and a reduction in the standard car parking and bicycle facility requirements.
This application was very surreptitiously placed against the yellow construction fence where no-one in the suburb would see it. Everyone I mention it to does not know a thing about it, though they are outraged when I tell them the news.
The subject will discussed at a planning conferance in the Yarra room at council 6.30pm on Monday 25th July.
We can’t believe they want to allow the developer the right to decrease parking to put in more shops – which we do not need! – and on the other hand they want to destroy the park to facilitate the parking requirements that should have been thought of in the first place. Just what is going on in this suburb?”
COMMENTS:
- With the Clover Estate, GESAC, and soon the Virginia Estate, East Boundary Rd. and the many suburban streets it serves will be entirely grid locked.
- Bicycles? If application is accepted, what does this say about the much trumpeted ‘Bicycle Strategy’ and overall ‘Sustainable Transport Strategy’?
- We wonder how many ‘notifications’ actually went out for this development?
- Watch this space since there is also an application in for 23 double storeys practically next door!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 22, 2011 at 9:08 AM
With limited public transport in the area it is highly unlikely that parking dispensation will be granted. Take it as an ambit claim. Part of the game played by the spivs.
July 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM
There shouldn’t be opening ambits like this. If the guidelines were possibly tighter then it should have been rejected outright. All this does is cost us time and money and needless anxiety.
July 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM
You may wish to call up anyone of the planning ministers that were part of the Bracks/Brumby Governments and and ask why we have such a terrible planning scheme that allows people to take a punt on the outcome. VCAT has the consistency of a Greek tax collector.
July 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM
What’s going in East Bentleigh is what has been happening to many other suburbs in Glen Eira for years. It doesn’t contain a “Major Activity Centre” so its been spared the depredations others have so far had to endure. Notice doesn’t necessarily have to be given for an application for Planning Permit. In this case notice has been given, and it complies with PAEA, regardless of how dodgy it actually is (a sign has been placed on the land concerned). A key question is what “material detriment” would the grant of the requested permit cause. We also know that buildings don’t necessarily comply with their Planning Permits, and that provided the developer has enough money, they will be granted retrospective amendments.
Traffic is always going to be an issue, but the problem is worst where the density is greatest. Council’s planning policies encourage the worst of all worlds, increased density *and* car ownership in and around its activity centres. Its planning for the future is unsophisticated in the extreme. Despite the ridiculous assertions made in GEPS, we’re not seeing a significant increase in employment close to where people live, we’re not building the diversity of dwellings required, we’re not investing in public transport to the extent needed, and the Government continues to pump megabucks into car-oriented projects.
As it happens, *no* dwelling in Glen Eira is more than a kilometre from public transport. It might take an hour to cover 5km by public transport, but it *can* be done. So our Council could choose to set an example and remove parking from GESAC. We know instead they intend to usurp more parkland, pave over it, and encourage more cars to the area. They continue to provide reserved parking for Councillors attending Council meetings. They reserve carparking for their employees, despite Town Hall being accessible by two different modes of public transport. They simply don’t believe in the policies they are imposing on the rest of us. They are bereft of vision.
Council *will* waive the standard carparking requirement. If they don’t, VCAT will do it for them. VCAT isn’t answerable for the consequences of its decisions. Actually VCAT’s view generally is that carparking for commercial purposes should be provided communally [e.g. a precinct parking plan] rather than by each commercial use. Waiving facilities for bicycles sounds bizarre though. I wouldn’t mind riding a bike more often, if it wasn’t for the unacceptable safety problems associated with a) speeding cars on modern roads and b) parked cars whose doors open haphazardly. There’s also the minor matter of where to park a bike securely.
I hate the use of weasel words in planning applications and planning decisions, yet they will be trotted out yet again. The increase in traffic will be considered “negligible” and the local roads “will cope”. That’s what their table of road widths will tell them. They never model traffic flows, quantify times spent at congestion points, or project increased queuing time. I doubt they have the skills even if they were required to model traffic (which they should). [BTW I spent 15 minutes to get 400m from my home last night. That gives you an idea of what Council officers consider acceptable.]