Stonnington Council has the following on its website (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/whats-new-detail/?ID=30). We wish to highlight how this council has approached a major development in stark contrast to Glen Eira. Readers should note:
- The impact on social amenity is emphasised
- The existence of interim height regulations and now Council’s application for permanent controls
- The joint effort with local community groups and the community at large
Glen Eira’s effort in the C60 debacle should be kept firmly in mind – especially the claim that Glen Eira actually set ‘limits’ to the development by its acceptance of 20 storeys.
590 Orrong Road
Planning Application
Stonnington Council refused a planning application by Lend Lease for a major development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale at a special meeting of Council on 30 January 2012, with over 200 people attending.
The planning application was for a development of 475 units, up to a height of 13 storeys.
Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council refused the planning application as it represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. There were a number of reasons for this including excessive height and bulk in an area that has much lower density, impact on the community and neighbourhood character, lack of quality open space, overshadowing, plus traffic and access issues. Council received over 600 objections for the development.
“The 2.5 hectare site at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, located adjacent to Toorak Station and Toorak Park, is one of the most important redevelopment sites in Stonnington and it is important that the right balance is achieved to ensure an appropriate outcome for the site.”
Cr Chandler said Stonnington Council had initially refused to exhibit a planning scheme amendment for a major development from Lend Lease in December 2010, including a proposal for 480 dwellings with building heights up to 16 storeys at the subject site.
He said: “Over the past 18 months, Council has undertaken extensive consultation and received feedback from all stakeholders on this important strategic site.
“Stonnington recently sought interim planning controls, which, if approved by the Minister for Planning, would take effect immediately. Council has also submitted a request to the Minister for Planning to exhibit an amendment to introduce permanent controls for the site. This would mean that any developer and VCAT would be obliged to take the controls into account with regard to development proposals. We’re eagerly awaiting the Minister for Planning’s approval to exhibit the Amendment.”
To view information on the planning application for 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale click here
Adopted Urban Design Framework – Planning Scheme Amendment
As quoted above, Council has submitted a request to the Planning Minister to apply permanent controls for the site through a planning scheme amendment which would go out for further consultation. The permanent controls propose to restrict the height to 17 metres and a site yield of 250 units.
Council adopted the revised Urban Design Framework at Council on 21 November 2011 following community feedback. For further information on the Urban Design Framework and planning scheme amendment visit www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/590orrongroad
Glen Eira Debates 
February 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Some Councils have learnt from the Mitcham Towers debacle. Not sure it’d make much difference at VCAT though. VCAT has a history of ignoring anything that fails to support the decision they want to make. Maybe planning “controls” pyschologically have more of an impact with them. VCAT was clearly frustrated that it couldn’t impose a bigger tower upon Whitehorse when pontificating on Mitcham Towers Mk 2 (aka Mitcham Village Apartments)–the applicant inconveniently closed their case prematurely. The Arists Impressions make it look a helluva lot more attractive than what gets built in Carnegie. I even saw trees!!
February 15, 2012 at 10:42 PM
The difference is remarkable. In Glen Eira there was no consideration of social, environmental, nor even economic impact and there certainly was no collaboration with the community. I’d go so far as to say that the community was seen as a major obstacle and that’s why the decision making was devolved onto the likes of Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams and their master. It has been the biggest betrayel of community in the history of this sad, sad, municipality. And this betrayel continues on and on with the MRC and other developers.
I’m also trying to figure out exactly what this latest application means and if it means handing over title of more land to the MRC. If so, then I also wonder whether this council will demand payment for giving away public land or will we again have to listen to Lipshutz saying that this is only “house-keeping”?
February 15, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Congratulations to the members of the Stonnington Council … they are proving over and again that they are interested in maintaining a balance of the business aspect of their municipality, when they actively protected their shopkeepers and now in refusing to approve this slum like building approval for 590 Orrong Road , however it is palace-like when compared to what our councilo has agree will be crammed into 5.5 hectares in the future slum-suburb called CAULFIELD. oUR PRECIOUS DEVELOPMENT when com[pleted will have 1450 dwellings, 15,000 square metres of retail and an office building in a 20 storey building. If this massive development is to be financially successful at least 10,000 residents, workers, medical and dental patients and not to mention coffee sippers as well as the supermarket shoppers will come on a daily basis and they will all share 2,000 car spaces between them. It will be a great comedy show to witness!!!!
I think the council appears to have cared for the Melbourne Racing Club very well! Were there any fiscal rewards????
February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM
Eventually when the car parks are finally developed it is conceived that many of the residents will not have a car. If you ever get a bit of spare time try going to New York or Hong Kong and see how they live with high density. Maybe in your world everyone has a car. The Caulfield station is right next door as is the tram line. In the City of Wyndham (Werribee) there is a new prep class born every week. When they grow up, say 20 years, where will they live? Then, maybe they to will want to breed. Take into account people are living longer. Stonnington has plenty of successful high density in Chappel St. This place will only be built when the market lets it happen.
The real comody show is where people are seen to be making money it is regarded as a bad thing. If you have a solution to Melbourne’s increasing population then let us all know.
February 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM
New York isn’t Australia. Their public transport system is heaps better as well. Sure Melbourne’s getting more people but that doesn’t mean that we have to have 20 plus stories everywhere with no adequate infrastructure to support them. Your argument is so black and white it’s a joke. How about a little gray area in between where locals can have a decent lifestyle and making money at the expense of local areas isn’t the be all and end all.
February 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM
With the exception of the MRC site have we ever had an application for that many units? (475) This blog is all about just beating up a hopeless Council.We have enough ammunition without beat ups.
February 16, 2012 at 3:44 PM
You should answer your own question about Stonnington as well – have they had any development that comes close to 475 units? Has Moonee Valley had anything that comes close to their 1000+? We’re all in the same boat – one major development each! What the blog shows up is how other councils deal with such proposals and how Glen Eira bends over backwards to help out the developers. If this is “beating up” then Newton, Akehurst and the rest deserve every bit of criticism they get and more. Good going blog and keep it up!
February 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM
What is appropriate development?
If you ask me we are running on on the basic infrastructure laid down well over 100 years ago. I am sure if residents saw good secondary planning being implemented at local government level, to support these developments a lot of the heat generated by local residents would dissipate.
What seems to be happening is we are burning the candle from both ends. Adding more and more people and providing little in the way of improvements to cope with the changes.
This has been the major failing of Newton’s Glen Eira, he has done almost zilch in forward planning in providing for expansion. In a lot of cases he has actually slammed the door on option that we may have had. ie. land sales of land that could have become public open space. Council owned building sold off, that sometime in the future could have been assets for the community.
The right wing councillors that have dominated council business, and coincided with his tenure have swallowed his economic rationalism nonsense hook-line-an-sinker, which is disappointing because instead of successful change we getting bad town planning and community division at the time we can ill-afford it
It is time to switch horses in Glen Eira at the next election. Change will only come by removing the conservative councillors from office and replacing the failed CEO. If this is achieved Glen Eira should find a new directing
February 17, 2012 at 1:08 AM
In Newton’s law we now have expansion at the rate of almost 20% whereas the government only requested an 8% in population for 2020. We have gobbled up every little bit of space which could be sold or developed and if this isn’t enough we then money spent by developers for “open space” loss of compensation to build ore buildings and carparks which gobble up parkland as in the case of CAULFIELD PARK AND THE PARK NEAR THE UGLY MONSTER IN THE SOUTH EAST OF THE MUNICIPALITY. One thing I’m glad its so far away.. so far away… that I will never see it again from the inside or outside.