We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:
- 20 storeys for C60 instead of mooted 23 storeys
- 8 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 10 storeys (10 storeys in the end)
- 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 14 storeys
- Glen Eira has no interim or permanent height controls. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to gain such controls
- Glen Eira has no structure plans for activity centres. Instead there is ongoing steadfast refusal to have structure plans
- No consistent/adequate public consultation
When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.
126 Apartments Axed
Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7th February
Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.
More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.
Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”
Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”
Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.
Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.
Chaos over control
Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7th February
City needs minister to step in over plans
STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.
The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.
Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’
Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.
Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.
PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February – Linh Ly
Club details sought
MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.
Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.
The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.
The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.
The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.
The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.
Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM
All of these examples have one thing in common – proactive and concerned councils that are prepared to “go the whole hog” in order to safeguard neighbourhoods from inappropriate development. I don’t imagine that any councillor would have the gall to stand up and spout the myth that if we reject completely, VCAT will give the developer everything they want, so let’s vote in 8 storeys instead of 10. This tack has proven to be a disaster, and residents are paying for it.
The Moonee Valley Racecourse issue is another case in point. Not only has the Moonee Valley Council probably spent many thousands of dollars on its own research, but their response to the racing proposal includes many of the issues which this council completely ignored. I particularly like the reference to open space and surrounding infrastructure as well as commercial impact on local shopping centres. In Glen Eira all that was compared was Chadstone.
I can only see two probable conclusions from all these examples. Either Glen Eira administration and councillors are entirely incompetent or, they simply do not care what happens in the municipality. The cards are all stacked in the developers’ favour and this council does not lift a finger to assist and support its local residents.
February 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Well said. Every single amendment that has come up since the 80/20 is just there for window dressing. It tinkers with the edges and refuses to admit that the minimal change policy is both discriminatory and useless and doesn’t safeguard neighbourhoods when you have planning officers turning a blind eye repeatedly to things that should be rejected outright.
February 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Stonnington works with residents and gets off its backside an seeks height controls. Glen Eira works against its residents in secret. That’s been the case ever since Newton set foot into this municipality and its what the gang endorse.
Boondara says outright get lost. Glen Eira wriggles its way out of saying no by bitching about vcat.
Moonee valley does its homework and puts demands on racing clubs. Glen Eira bends over and always kisses their arse.
February 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Some years ago Glen Eira council did write to the Minister requesting a change to the Planning and Environment Act so that VCAT was required to apply it. It may come as a surprise to many people but under PAEA, Councils and VCAT are not required to apply their Planning Schemes. About all the pathetically weak legislation says is that they must “take into account any relevant planning scheme”. There is *no* legislative requirement to abide by what a planning scheme says. In this sense, a Control is no different to a policy. Both can be ignored. The religious belief of the Glen Eira’s Director of City Development is that VCAT is more likely to apply a Control than a policy. Its simply an act of faith.
Of all the matters that have to be taken into account or given regard to in PAEA, there is only one that is required to be given effect to, and that’s relevant State environment protection policy.
Height “controls”, interim or otherwise, appear in Planning Schemes, so they are not binding. Its up to the whims of DPCs, Council, VCAT whether to apply them. In the case of C60, Council issued a press release, duly reported by The Leader, that they had voted to place height limits on it. They didn’t. They voted to remove 3rd party appeal rights, unless a development exceeded the building envelope (which includes heights) contained in the Incorporated Plan. A developer is free, maybe even encouraged, to apply for something in excess of the reported heights. Naturally The Leader didn’t explain this to the community, since they rely on Council for their information.