When residents are screaming that their neighbourhoods are being raped and pillaged by overdevelopment and that the (discriminatory?) 80/20 Minimal Change Area is simply not working, how does Council respond? With more ‘discrimination’ via its spin that the c87 Amendment will solve all these problems. Yes, the proposed Significant Character Overlay (SCO) will be more prescriptive, and yes it will ‘protect’ some aspects of street scape – but it will never solve the problems that the Planning Scheme has created. In fact the suggested amendment will only cover less than 2% of all housing in Glen Eira! So instead of an 80/20 policy we are marching towards a 98/2 policy.
In case there is any doubt about these figures, we’ve done a quick count of the properties earmarked in the documentation. Here’s the table taken directly from the provided documentation (Plenisphere). Please note that the ‘approx’ are the result of possible alleyways which weren’t discernible on the maps – but we’ve included these as part of the property count.
| SITE | NO. OF PROPERTIES |
| The Highway, Bentleigh | 34 |
| Chestnut St., Carnegie | 23 |
| McPherson Ave., Carnegie | 68 |
| Queens Ave., Caulfield East | 50 |
| Clarinda St., Caulfield South | 31 |
| Derby Cresc., Caulfield East | 30 |
| Downshire Rd., Elsternwick | 192 (approx) |
| James Pde., Elsternwick | 138 (approx) |
| Exhibition St., McKinnon | 61 |
| Field St., McKinnon | 38 |
| Lindsay Ave., Murrumbeena | 47 |
| Oakdene Cresc., Murrumbeena | 69 |
| Boyd Park, Murrumbeena | 238 (approx) |
| Lydson St., Murrumbeena | 20 |
| Murray St., Elsternwick | 49 |
| Prentice St., Elsternwick | 27 |
| Kambea Gve., Caulfield North | 30 |
| TOTAL – 17 AREAS | 1085 PROPERTIES |
To illustrate the above more graphically, we’ve also uploaded the map which shows exactly how little of the entire municipality is considered to be worthy of greater protection.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 1, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Doesn’t Newton live somewhere near Riddell Parade? What a coincidence!
February 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM
hi does this mean you cannot build anything big in Queens Avenue? The last development of 6 townhouses was pretty ordinary. I have also noticed that developers are struggling to sell. Look at Dudley Street Caulfield East in Realestate.com. They are trying to sell whole floors of the building 28 apartments for 3.5 million. Who would be stupid enough to invest in such a thing for 7% yield. Imagine having to collect all the rent each month. My feeling is that it will be a number of years before the MRC project goes ahead. There is no money and developers cannot sell anything at the moment.
February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM
interested in the Queens Avenue Derby Crescent areas. It says joining streets removed even though that is about 100 metres at most. That means we will have these really nice houses in the protected area but once you go behind these houses there will be 4 level apartments. Derby Crescent I admit has lovely houses but who would want to live there with the train noise. This to me would be the ideal place to build apartments to block the noise for the rest of us!
February 2, 2012 at 11:54 AM
With no proper transition zones this is precisely what is going to happen. One “significant” street will have looming blocks opposite them, beside them, or behind them.
February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Today’s ‘evidence’ from the Moorabbin Leader revealing the true consequences of inadequate planning and inadequate consultation (that is now well and truly out of date!)
‘Jungle’ fear on units in Bentleigh
Council
1 Feb 12 @ 05:00am by Jessica Bennett
BENTLEIGH residents say a proposed three-storey development will turn their street into a “concrete jungle”.
The group claims Mavho St does not have the infrastructure to support Vujic Property Group’s planned 10-dwelling apartment building at No.32.
Are you worried about over-development in your street? Tell us below.
Neenu Badger, who lives opposite the site, said residents were concerned the development would create traffic congestion in the street, which leads on to busy Centre Rd.
She said the proposal only provided basement parking for 12 cars.
“It’s not enough. Part of the street is all-day parking, so traders and shoppers will park here all day,” Mrs Badger said.
“On Saturdays you can’t get a park anywhere in the street – there’s no room for the residents’ cars as it is.”
Mrs Badger said Mavho and surrounding streets had been deemed appropriate for high-density living by Glen Eira Council with “no concern for current residents”.
“We have been doing a letter drop of nearby streets to let them know they could be next, unless we say enough is enough,” she said.
Neighbour Ann Chandler said the residents did not oppose all development, as long as it was “appropriate and sensible”.
“We don’t want our streets to become unbearable,” she said.
Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said a planning conference would be held soon.
He said objections could be submitted before the conference.
Mr Burke said the Urban Villages policy was adopted by council in 2004 and was the subject of extensive public consultation across the municipality.
February 1, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Here’s a comment from a resident that’s gone up on the online version of the story –
“As a resident of Bentleigh, living within the impacted area, I don’t recall any notification or consultation. Residents of Mavho Street were not consulted and some of them have been there for 40 years! These developments impact on residents, privacy and do not promote a sense of community. They are not in keeping with the character of the streets.”
February 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM
If anyone in Glen Eira thinks they can protect themselves from inappropriate development is dreaming. Your better off praying for a world wide financial crash to stop development across the board.
February 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Inappropriate development can be put on the back foot. All it will take is getting rid of Newton and Akehurst, chucking out Hyams and Lipshutz in particular and then redoing the planning scheme. A big order I know – but possible and essential.
February 1, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Everyone needs to read the documents that come with this amendment, in particular those people living in the streets named and who might now think that they’re safe. Well they’re not! Multi unit development is still allowed as is double storeys regardless of whether the street has any of these. This won’t offer people the safeguards they’re looking for, not just in those select streets but everywhere throughout Glen Eira.
February 1, 2012 at 6:59 PM
Hey Jamie, looks like you’ve taken weasel words to a new height with your latest bulldust in the GENEWS. How about being 100% honest for a change and stop using the word “elected”. Mate, you weren’t “elected” you won a coin toss. Christ it’s bloody boring as well to see this word just on half a dozen times in the space of a coupla paragraphs. I repeat. You WERE NOT ELECTED. so stop trying to pretend you were.
February 1, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Get over it pal. He is the mayor. Doesn’t matter how he got there. He will probably outlast the prime minister.
Couple of councillors were not really elected as well.
February 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM
The Urban Villages policy may have been adopted by council in 2004 but the discussions held with the community were at a time when development was considered to be dual occupancy. At no time in my involvement in the consultative process were three and four storey (or higher) apartment blocks muted for residential areas. Get real Mr Burke the consultation was never around this issue. You make it sound like the community was consulted and agreed to the idea of these massive developments. We did not, we do not and we don’t want them
February 2, 2012 at 7:08 AM
Change is ineviditable. get with the program or move out.
February 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Clearly anonymous you have no threat of three of four stories next to your home as so many of us do. Or maybe you live in one of the 80% areas with a little more protection than resident in Urban village areas who have lived here a long time and had a planning concept thrust upon them which has a major impact on the Neighbourhood. You are way too dismissive and your attitude exudes utter arrogance.
February 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.
Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.
We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)
Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.
As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.
February 7, 2012 at 6:07 PM
I wonder if the overdevelopment in our suburbs became a council election issue, how many of our councillors would be re-elected?. Maybe our votes should do the talking in the next election. we may even be able to find people willing to enhance our suburbs instead of destroying them.