So, you think you’re safe because you’re one of the lucky minority that happen to live in the designated ‘Minimal Change Areas’ listed in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Yes, you think that because you’re in the 20% of supposedly ‘protected’ neighbourhoods, your property, your lifestyle, your privacy, and your capital asset is safe from encroachment by (greedy) developers. Think again! Under the policies of this Council and the inconsistency in decision making, no-one is safe. Minimal Change Areas are not immune to rampant over-development. This is why. According to the Planning Scheme:
- Single dwellings can suddenly metamorphasise into double houses/units. If the second unit is built at the back, then recent examples have them as double storeys – even though the planning scheme ‘recommends’ back units as being limited to only single storey
- If the block is large then you’re in real trouble. Multiple storeys and multiple units are a real possibility because council states that it is not against high density in large lots – ie. “The proposal meets the tests of the Minimal Change Area Policy allowing consideration of a more intensive form of development. The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone does not apply in this instance because Res Code does not apply to four storey proposals”. (Minutes – 3rd February 2009 – rest of quotes are from these minutes). We’re really in Catch 22 territory now!
- Bad luck if you happen to sit right alongside a Housing Diversity area, or if council has already approved some 2 or 3 storeys down the road. Then you’re facing this predicament – “The prevailing development on abutting properties is characterised by multidwelling development of up to 3 storeys (in the form of developments constructed, and approved but yet to be constructed)”.
- And don’t try to object by screaming about lack of open space and overshadowing because Council’s view is: “It is considered that the private open spaces are sufficient in the form of balconies. All dwellings are provided with balconies with adequate access to sunlight and daylight and provide an appropriate level of internal amenity for future occupiers”.
- Finally, none of these ‘standards’ are set in concrete and applied consistently. Developers are merely ‘encouraged’ to do what’s right and permits are granted when only a couple of the requisite boxes are ticked off and others remain outstanding.
By way of example, we’ve gone through some of the minutes from 2008 until now and selected a few of the decisions on developments in Minimal Change Areas or those areas adjoining Minimal Change. Please note, these are only the ones that actually arrive for Council decision – we simply do not know how many others are rubber stamped by the officers under their delegated authority. We’ve prepared a table which we hope is self explanatory
|
ADDRESS |
DETAILS OF APPLICATION | OFFICER RECOMMENDATION |
COUNCILLORS’ DECISION |
| 7-13 Dudley St., Caulfield East | A four storey building comprising 112 dwellings with two levels of basement car parking, and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement | Permit – (three storey building/up to75 dwellings) |
Permit – unanimous |
| 846-848 Centre Rd, Bentleigh | Construction of a two (2) storey building comprising fourteen (14) dwellings with basement carpark | permit – allowing the construction of a two (2) storey building comprising up to ten (10) dwellings |
Permit – carried |
| 264-266 Grange Road, Carnegie | Construction of four (4) double storey and two (2) single storey dwellings and alteration of vehicle access to a main road | Permit – for the construction offour (4) double storey and two (2) single storey dwellings |
Permit – unanimous |
| 29 Holloway street, Ormond | A two storey building comprising 14 dwellings and basement carpark | Permit – the construction of a two storey building for up to 10 dwellings |
Permit – on casting vote of chairperson |
| 332 Alma road, Caulfield Nth | Construction of 10 dwellings | Permit |
Permit – carried |
| 19 Parker St., Ormond | Construction of four dwellings (two double-storey dwellings at the front of the site and two single storey dwellings at the rear) | Permit – allowing the construction of four dwellings (one double-storey dwellings at the front of the site and three single-storey dwellings at the rear)- |
Permit – carried |
| 56 Morgan St., Carnegie | -Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by a Special Building Overlay | Permit |
Permit – carried |
| 12 the Highway Bentleigh | Addition (carport) to the existing dwelling and the construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear | Permit |
Permit – unanimous |
| 31-39 Anthony St., Ormond | Subdivide the land into six (6) lots – Heritage Overlay | Permit |
Permit – unanimous |
Glen Eira Debates 
February 22, 2012 at 1:40 AM
HOW ILL SLEEPING BE… EACH ONE OF THESE SHELVES IS TO HAVE ITS VERY OWN AIR CONDITIONER WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BALCONY. tHE NOISE WILL BE WONDERFUL!!
February 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Minimal Change areas probably cover closer to 80% of the municipality, as measured by area (certainly not by people or dwellings). It is only “policy”, just as ResCode is. Pretty much the entire GEPS document is just “policy”. The reasons Council gives for protecting the amenity of residents in Minimal Change areas should apply equally to residents in so-called Housing Diversity areas and Urban Villages. In a democracy, the decision-makers should be forced to account for their decisions, but as we have seen repeatedly, they’re not keen on being the subject of scrutiny.
Having set the bar so low for residents in the traditional established suburbs that have been targetted for much higher densities, it is appropriate to use that standard for all development, in order to meet the key VPP objective of fairness. It might remind some residents that well all have shared responsibility for what is unfolding. I don’t support Council’s planning policies, which I consider to be illogical, inconsistent, and blatantly unfair. Council doesn’t particularly care much for their policies either. We saw that with the hasty decision to expand car-parking at GESAC rather than improve public transport.
Remember, all residents in Glen Eira are less than 1km from public transport. It may be lousy, may not be frequent, may not run at convenient times, but it exists. Since public transport and shops are the two criteria principally used to justify development (oh “policy” gets used too, but that’s a circular argument), and public transport exists throughout the municipality, it just leaves shops. Well we have quite a few shopping centres too. Council isn’t keen on a more appropriate distribution of shops throughout the municipality, just as it isn’t keen on ensuring open space is in close, safe proximity of its emerging urban ghettos to compensate for the lack of open space within them. I do think DPCD deserves a lot of criticism too, but they have published some reasonable documents which Council has chosen to ignore.
We’re all going to experience change, and it comes down to how to manage it. Don’t leave it up to our f______g Council if you want outcomes that respect people, protect amenity, and provide liveable environments for all.
February 22, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Someone asked Hyams a question on Tuesday night at the community plan forum about minimal change areas. Not a word about any of this of course. Either he and council doesn’t want the truth to get out to people or he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Dosen’t matter though since everyone is up in arms about how their suburbs are being ruined so council can stick their minimal change policies up their jumpers. It’s not going to save them.
February 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM
The post does not make any comment on the number of permits that have been handed out to synagogues, child care centres, medical offices, and other commercial and non-residential businesses within the minimal change areas. Most of these have been heavily contested as they do have a major impact on neighbouring properties and traffic. I would imagine that once these are taken into account that the “myth” of protecting such areas has to implode entirely.
February 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM
I suggest you try reading the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Look carefully at Non residential uase of residential land. No myth just laws,
February 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM
I wish you knew what you were talking about. A friend of mine was an objector to the Albany Court synagogue extension. They’ve just emailed me the minutes of that decision and the officers report. You can verify all this from the minutes of 31/8/10. I’ll just quote you some of the points and let people make up their own minds about this rotten lousy policy and lack of consideration for people living nearby.
Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy
This policy recognises that it is appropriate to locate complimentary uses within
residential areas. The policy also recognises that poorly located non-residential
uses have the ability to progressively erode the quality of Glen Eira’s residential
areas.
The policy sets out a number of tests to determine whether a non-residential use
can successfully integrate into a residential area with a minimum impact and loss of
residential amenity.
The sites are both located within the Residential 1 Zone and are surrounded
solely by residential properties. There are no commercial or non-residential uses
within the immediate area, however the amenity of the area is influenced by
Melbourne Grammar School approximately 400 metres to the north.
• The sites are two of seven properties located within a relatively small cul de sac.
Although policy objectives generally require sites to abut a main or secondary
road, the applicant has attempted to overcome this by creating a separate
pedestrian access directly to St Aubins Avenue, effectively removing the court
address and access point of the synagogue. If appropriately managed via
conditions of permit (as described in the Appendix) it is considered that there
will be limited impact on the residential amenity.
The Planning Scheme requires 36 on-site car spaces for a place of assembly.
The application seeks to waive the car parking requirement associated with the
synagogue. Whilst two car spaces are available on site, these are to be used by
the residents of the dwelling.
• Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has indicated that the parking demand
for the proposed use can be accommodated within the street and nearby
residential streets and that the surrounding road network can accommodate any
increase in traffic associated with the use.
February 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM
No Law, just Policy. GEPS is currently a 797-page document, but yes, buried amongst it are clauses relevant to non-residential uses in residential areas. These include 15.01 Urban Environment; 21.08 Institutional And Non-Residential Uses In Residential Areas; 22.02 Non Residential Uses In Residential Areas Policy; 22.11 Child Care Centres Policy; 32.01 Residential 1 Zone. The policies, in the opinion of their authors, should ensure that non-residential uses integrate successfully, with minimum impact or loss of residential amenity. Council defers to “Future Strategic Work” the monitoring of outcomes to see if they got it right.