The table below comprises:
- decisions made by this group of councillors (Dec. 2008 until February 2012)
- decisions which represent mere ‘tinkering’ with the original applications
- not included are all those decisions which were simply passed without such ‘tinkering’
- not included are those decisions which Council did refuse (that will come in a separate post)
- not included are those decisions which councillors went against officers’ recommendations – (again, a separate post)
Our constant claim has been that this Council is not doing enough to protect its residents – especially in so called Housing Diversity Areas which dominate this table. Reducing the number of units, or even the number of storeys, is applying cosmetic treatment rather than the required radical surgery – the complete makeover of the Planning Scheme.
We further restate our belief that many decisions made over these years have nothing to do with existing planning policy, but resident opposition. It would seem that anything over 40 objections suddenly has traction, especially in 2012 with the election looming large. Our sacrosanct planning policy is thus receiving a hell of a battering from certain councillors suddenly aware that their jobs may be on the line.
|
ADDRESS |
APPLICATION |
DECISION |
| 40 Koornang Rd, Carnegie | 5 storeys & 26 units | 4 storey & 16 units |
| 135 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 3 storey & 44 units | 3 storey & 33 units |
| 309 Hawthorn Rd., North Caulfield | 2 storey & 7 units | 2 storey & 6 units |
| 7-13 Dudley St., Caulfield North | 4 storey & 112 units | 4 storey & 100 units |
| 273 Grange Rd., Ormond | 3 storey & 19 units | 2 storey & 14 units |
| 19 Parker St., Ormond | 4 dwellings 2 double storey and 2 single storey at rear | 1 double storey & 3 single storey at rear |
| 1902 Glen Huntly rd., Glen Huntly | 3 storey & 10 units | 3 storey & 8 units |
| 29 Holloway St., Ormond | 2 storey & 14 units | 2 storey & 10 units |
| 846-848 Centre Rd. Bentleigh | 2 storey & 14 units | 2 storey & 10 units |
| 341-55 Murumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena | 4 storey & 40 units & 6 shops | 3 storey, 23 units & 6 shops. |
| 443-57 Hawthorn Rd., Caulfield | 5 storey, 42 units, 7 shops | 4 STOREY |
| 400 Dandenong Rd., Caulfield Nth | 3 storey & 18 units | 3 storey & 17 units |
| 894-900 Glen Huntly Rd., Caulfield | 4 storey, 24 units & 1 shop | 3 storey, 16 units & 1 shop |
| 2-4 William St., Murrumbeena | 4 storey & 41 units | 3 storey & 29 units |
| 111-113 Poath Rd., Murrumbeena | 4 storey, 10 units & 2 shops | 3 storey, 8 units & 2 shops |
| 15 Dudley St., East Caulfield | 5 storey & 29 units | 4 storeys & 27 units |
| 17 Railway Pde., Murrumbeena | 3 storeys & 19 units | 3 storeys & 16 units |
| 243-247 Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick | 10 storey & 130 units | 8 storeys & 95 units |
| 41 Murrumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena | 2-3 storey & 59 units | 2 storey & 50 units |
| 385-95 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 4 storey & 32 units
17 double storey units (Emily St.) |
3 storey & 25 units
12 double storey units (Emily St.) |
| 2 Anzac St., Carnegie | 3 storey & 22 units | 2 storey & 19 units |
| 16 Malane St., East Bentleigh | 2 storey & 8 units | 2 storey & 6 units |
| 221-29 Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick | 14 storey & 3 shops & 109 units | 7 storey & 46 units & 2 shops |
| 22 Station St McKinnon | 7 double storeys units | 6 double storey units |
| 54-56 Rosstown Rd., Carnegie | 5 storey & 20 units | 3 storey 10 units |
| 402-4 Dandenong Rd., Nth Caulfield | 3 storey & 37 units | 3 storey & 32 units |
| 276-280 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 5 storey & 42 units | 4 storey & 30 units |
| 188 Hawthorn Rd Caulfield | 3 storey & 8 units | 3 storey & 6 units |
| 259-61 East Boundary Rd, East Bentleigh | 3 storey & 9 units & shop | 3 storey & 5 units & shop |
| 127-129 Murray St., Caulfield | 4 storey & 31 units | 3 storey & 21 units |
Glen Eira Debates 
March 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Take note people – the 14 storey application that was cut down to 7 had Newton declaring a conflict of interest cos he lives round the corner. Handy isn’t it when 10 levels are only cut back to 8 and then get slammed at vcat. Guess who got the brownie points on this one! And even better no residential parking permits. A home run for sure.
March 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Well guess if you live in GE it’s only a matter of time till a development proposal turns up in your nieghborhood. Ten back to eight, hardly a victory there to write home about.
March 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM
I would hazard a guess that most of these “reductions” would have been contested at vcat and won by the developers. The member’s decision would comment on how much the application is supported by local and state planning policy and that would be the end of the story. Or even worse the judgements could have gone on to say that there is not too much difference between 9 double storeys and 8 double storeys particularly in housing diversity areas. Sure there should be decisions based on the planning law but when that law is so out of kilter with what people see as reasonable then it is incumbent on councillors to do something about local policy. They haven’t except with some more silly adjustments that don’t achieve a single thing.
March 25, 2012 at 6:58 PM
The table is likely a reflection of a phenomenon that Prof Rob Adams commented on in the report he co-authored, “Transforming Australian Cities”. He notes that developers ‘overbid’ “in the hope that additional development potential can be achieved through the planning process”. Cutting back a development by a storey or with increased setbacks in many cases just gets a proposal back to the sort of building envelope that the Standards in planning schemes envisage. Where it gets really annoying is if after trimming, the proposal still fails to respect its neighbours. I don’t accept Council’s excuses why 100% overshadowing and other non-compliances are acceptable.
Fact is, people don’t really figure in Council’s, and VCAT’s, policies. Its all about dwelling count. The smaller the dwelling the better–that bumps up the statistics. Accomodation suitable for families is disappearing at the same time as the number of families in Melbourne needing accomodation grows. There is more money to be made from building 1- and 2-bedroom apartments, aided and abetted by “planners”. Hence we get developers explain why there is so little open space in their proposals, or why the bedroom doors have to open outwards, or why ceilings as low as 2.1m are appropriate, or why they shouldn’t have to provide diversity of accomodation. Trivia question: what percentage of the “units” listed in the table above do people consider to be suitable for families?
Much as I malign DPCD, if you look really really carefully, you can find them referencing a book called “Housing as if people mattered”. What a sobering thought that our alleged policy-makers haven’t read it.
March 25, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Well said Don – by the way, were you a councillor in a previous life?
March 25, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Reprobate,
It has a lot to do with State Government insistence on providing more housing. It seems the method by which that is achieved is of little consequence. That’s why overshadowing is regarded as being inconsequential; the overlooking guidelines have been butchered; blending with existing streetscape no longer has any meaning; nor does site density. And so it goes. Sad times indeed.
March 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Today in Shanghai the population divided by the number rooms available, equals about 16 people per room. I think Calcutta would beat Shanghai by a country kilometre
Welcome to the over populated earth, Glen Eira, you have been discovered, not by Mathews Flinders via the Captain Cook process. But by China and India some time in the early 2000’s
Now what’s the problem again? where you see problems, others see nirvana with carpet, and real fair dinkum bedrooms doors that are actually there
The last time I looked, Shanghai and Calcutta got around the bedroom door problem by using bi-folds, same effect, and only half the fold-back space
Human history tells us, that went humans enters a new frontier the animals that in-habited that areas get smaller, it takes about 300 hundred years for this to happen, the process towards dwarfism is not fully understood
Maybe the next stage of our evolution is we begin to get smaller