Application lodged for Carnegie Recycling Plant
Residents are facing the prospect of a recycling plant in the unlikely location of Glen Huntly Rd, Carnegie.
An application to build the plant to recycle plastic, foam, timer, metal and bricks at 1254-1258 Glen Huntly Rd is open for objections until August 3. The site also subject to a rezoning application, is 650m from Glen Huntly Primary School.
Trucks would bring materials to the site throught the day. Dust, noise and traffic congestion were worries raised by nearby homeowners. Sam Zervides, who lives nearby with his wife, Helen, said the plant would wreak havoc on the “prime residential area”.
Dust, noise and traffic jams were worries raised by Adrienne Tomzai and other homeowners. “we are completely shocked – this is not an industrial area,” Mrs Tomzai said.
Mrs Zervides said she had not received any written notification of the application, despite living so close. Deputy Mayor Neil Pilling said the council had followed protocol. He said worried residents should lodge objections.
The Leader was unable to contact the plant’s applicant.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 31, 2012 at 10:57 AM
As a resident of this area, I became alarmed at the development proposals for Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie, when the Glen Eira Residents Association put up a posting on the combined proposed planning scheme amendment C80 and a planning permit for a 5 storey office and residential development with the usual car parking waivers. Clearly this area is being targeted for intensive development.
The planning permit (which occupied part site subject to re-zoning from industrial use to commercial and residential use) is a precursor of what is to come. The 5 storey development is way above the predominantly 1 – 3 storeys of the surrounding area. The traffic congestion, rat runs and inadequate on street parking already experienced in this area will only become worse with this type of development. Not to mention the overshadowing and overlooking impacts.
Unfortunately, contacting Council was pretty much useless. I was told that Council only approved the C80 amendment for submission to the Minister for approval to prepare the amendment for exhibition (this is a process that could take 9 months). It is during the exhibition stage that residents would be given the opportunity to voice their concerns.
What the heck is Council doing? If the rezoning process was started in May 2012 why, in August, is Council presenting an application for an industrial use. This is ludicrous and does not indicate that the planning department is as top of it as we are continually told they are.
Never, ever did I think I would be supportive of developers but in this case I argue that not only residents, but also the permit applicants, have a right to know just is going on.
July 31, 2012 at 6:20 PM
What the heck is Council doing? If the rezoning process was started in May 2012 why, in August, is Council presenting an application for an industrial use. This is ludicrous and does not indicate that the planning department is as top of it as we are continually told they are.
Simon what a terrific question. I’d say that this is another classic example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing in the planning department.
August 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Caveot Emptor
July 31, 2012 at 1:26 PM
So it is the last day of July today. Shouldnt the MRC have announced the winner of the right to develop the crown land next to Caulfield Station. I wonder if any developers have been scared off by the dire state of the property market. Lots of houses up for sale including 300 apartments in Dudley Street. Lots of vacant commercial real estate as well
July 31, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Timelines don’t mean much to the MRC. Through David Southwick didn’t they agree with Councillors Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz to make improvements to the racecourse centre. Not much happening there mrc fan club or ever will. Opportunity lost for the residents.
August 1, 2012 at 7:48 AM
I noticed a sign on one of the gates showing the plan for the ‘car park’ in the middle. It says the estimated completion date is early 2013. This has been kept quiet
August 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Early 2013 means June 2013 means 2015. Watch poor Mary Healy keep copping the blame when it had nothing to do with her challenging the car park. You would think Council would support its residents.
August 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM
well they wouldnt be doing works during spring racing season that would be a reason for delay. They are not really interested in people using the racecourse anyway so I am sure they will delay further. What I like are the signs around the racecourse. At GH Park on the fence it says ‘dont make loud noises’ by order of Caulfield Racecourse Management. Who are they and what right do they have to say this. On the track it says keep off track by order of MRC. Again what right do they have?
August 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM
You must be mistaken. There is no Crown land where you describe.The Council agreed to swap this land with some land that the MRC owned. The deal was written up in the paper. You must have missed it.
August 1, 2012 at 4:56 PM
How good a deal was that? It was on the basis of improvements to the centre, none of which has happened 6 months after it was all due to be completed. If the Councillors and government had balls, they would call the whole land swap deal off.
August 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM
The hold up is because a resident took the Council to VCAT. With no planning permit there is no deal. Get it.
August 1, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Actually you too are mistaken Anon. The swap was between the MRC and the previous Labour State Govt as the triangle was crown land designated as belonging to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. The agreement to swap the land was made in about December 2008 – well beofre any significant community consultation occurred on the C60 development.
Just why the Trustees of the Racecourse Reserve let the MRC acquire their land in the absolutely infamous land swap (worse than the Hotel Windsor debacle) is beyond me but they obviously did.
You should all be asking why the current Liberal State Govt. (especially Southwick whose election promises included stopping the land swap) has failed to force the MRC to live up to their part of the deal on the development of the current weed heap (at the Glen Huntly/Kambrook/Booran Road Roundabout) which the MRC heralds as a “new park for Caulfield” in their C60 marketing campaign..
Council’s part in the land swap deal (and it’s the only thing they got right in the C60 fiasco) was to advocate against accepting this land at the roundabout (because it’s location at the busy roundabout was totally inappropriate for a park and the park was to small to be economically maintained – particularly after required carparking had been provided). Instead Council argued that the exchange should be for the land at the Neerim Road/Queens Ave intersection which could be incorporated into Glen Huntly Park. Obviously the development potential of the roundabout land was less than that of the Neerim Road/Queens Ave land so the State Govt caved to the MRC. In this case, blame the State Govt – they are the ones who screwed the residents, its just for this one instance that the screwer isn’t Council.
July 31, 2012 at 7:24 PM
While Cr Pilling may be correct, a more helpful response would be to state what Council’s relevent protocol or policy actually is. From a legal perspective, there is only a limited requirement for people to be notified of a planning application. If “the responsible authority is satisfied that the grant of the permit would not cause material detriment to any person” then notice doesn’t even have to be given to owners and occupiers adjacent to the site. Planning and Environment Act 1987 s51(2) spells out that notice can be given in one or more different ways—Council isn’t obliged to write personally.
The subject land is currently zoned IN3Z, and concerned residents should familiarise themselves with what that Zone is intended to achieve. It can be found in 33.03 of Glen Eira Planning Scheme for example. In short, its to provide a buffer between more intensive industry [IN1Z, IN2Z] and local communities by allowing uses that are compatible with the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive land. For those affected, its definitely worth reading 33.03-02 about amenity of the neighbourhood when drafting an objection.
Regardless of what the Planning Scheme actually says, Council as responsible authority, and VCAT, are not obliged to apply it. Its strikes me as bizarre that it can use words like “must” or “mandatory” or “prohibited”, and yet be treated as only guidelines. Sad fact is that both Glenhuntly and Carnegie have been declared to be Major Activity Centres, and VCAT has expressed its view in multiple decisions that if you live in or near an Activity Centre you are not entitled to have your amenity protected.
Personally, I would never vote Labor or Liberal since both parties have enthusiastically supported the continuing abuses of Victoria’s planning system. I would also like to see VCAT Members be personally accountable for the consequences of their decisions, but I know it won’t happen.
In the meantime the community, if it really values its amenity, needs to become much more familiar with the planning system, get involved at all steps and stages in its evolution, demand with more than hollow threats that improvements be made to the elements of GEPS that are most widely abused, remind councillors they are there to serve us, and never ever accept discrimination as an acceptable policy.
July 31, 2012 at 9:20 PM
You’re much too kind on Pilling. He’s supposed to be a Green so anything that puts this kind of industry smack into the middle of residential areas should be shot down in flames even before it gets off the ground. Reckon his green principles take a back seat when it comes to supporting you know who, or saying anything that could in anyway be seen as critical of he who must be obeyed.
July 31, 2012 at 10:46 PM
The fact that the land is zoned IN3Z means that the proposal is *not* smack in the middle of residential areas—at least not yet. Maybe people have purchased in the vicinity of the industrial zone without doing due diligence. I doubt that a recycling plant complies with the intent of IN3Z, and that should ultimately lead to a planning permit being refused, but the process for assessing the application has to be followed. Anybody affected should lodge an objection and lobby their councillors. If the land is rezoned MUZ or worse still ACZ, then its likely to attract at least a 4-storey development along with its contribution to traffic generation. I don’t like the Greens policies of concrete boxes and no open space, and hopefully will never have to vote for them either.
July 31, 2012 at 10:18 PM
“Deputy Mayor Neil Pilling said the council had followed protocol. He said worried residents should lodge objections.”
Perhaps the reporter should also have mentioned that Pilling added, as an aside, “we won’t listen anyway”
July 31, 2012 at 10:35 PM
I agree with Reprobate – Pilling’s statement was not in itself wrong, however, it falls short way short of being useful to residents when it comes to objecting to this planning permit application. Personally, I doubt he even knows what the protocol is.
It just proves how well this Councillor has learnt to tow the Admin line when dealing with resident’s concerns and issues in his short time as a Councillor. If he gets re-elected we can only expect more of the same.
August 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Online Leader comments –
Betty Joy writes:
Posted on 31 Jul 12 at 10:40pm
I had the misfortune of walking past this place when they were operating without a permit! They dumped a load of old bricks and the noise and dust were unbelievable. I walked 20 metres before I was clear of the dust cloud I was spitting and crunching dust for ten minutes afterwards and my hair looked like it had been hit with a flour bomb. NO way people should have to put up with that in a residential area.
reginald law writes:
Posted on 31 Jul 12 at 10:28pm
I think its disgraceful in this day and age that they would allow people’s lives to be affected in such a thoughtless way by toxins fumes and noise! These places belong in outer industrial zones and Not in the middle of residential areas near schools flats aged people’s homes and so on.
Andrew writes:
Posted on 31 Jul 12 at 08:04pm
No such plans should be ditched
Alex Hehr writes:
Posted on 31 Jul 12 at 06:22pm
This is a ridiculous proposal for the area. The Council really needs to stop this without delay.
August 1, 2012 at 4:11 PM
More Leader online comments –
Lydia writes:
Posted on 1 Aug 12 at 01:56pm
I am appalled that this Council would even entertain the construction of an industrial recycling plant right next to the home of rate paying residents. Having only moved to the suburb a few months ago, it is terribly disappointing to see the lack of respect the Council shows for both the area itself and the residents living here. If the Council had any sense at all, this application, and any future applications of this sort, would not even be contemplated.
David writes:
Posted on 1 Aug 12 at 12:48pm
This proposal is questionable to say the least. The thought of having a recycling plant in such close proximity to homes, schools, etc is ridiculous. The toxins, fumes, noise, dust that this plant will bring to the local area will have a detrimental affect to the surroundings.
This is hardly that best place for a recycling plant and the council really needs to put a stop to this proposal immediately.
Serge Stanislavski writes:
Posted on 1 Aug 12 at 12:34pm
Such a moronic proposal – traffic and noise are already issues in this area given on road parking parking, trams and a level train crossing down the road. Truck’s coming and going will cause further traffic congestion and noise, not to mention the dust & pollution local residents & businesses will have to deal with. I can only imagine how teachers & parents at Glen Huntly Primary school will feel about children walking to & from school in the new ‘industrial’ Carnegie.
Hopefully the Council dismisses this proposal immediately. Given the application to rezone the area and build residential apartments NEXT DOOR, I wonder how the proposals will affect one another. Who wants to buy an apartment next door to a ‘rubbish factory’?
Guess the council will approve which ever proposal generates more revenue for them moving forward…
Sam Zervides writes:
Posted on 1 Aug 12 at 11:45am
Plans should be stopped marked as “COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA” It is primarily a residential area, with many families taking their kids past the site to the local Primary Schools, Parks and local retail shops. We live 100 metres from the site and many times the dust and noise coming from there is ridiculous. We will fight to stop this all the way
August 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM
I am really confused at how Council can both work on rezoning land to a commerical/residential zone while at the same time work on evaluating a permit application for a use (recycling) which, if the re-zoning goes through, will not be allowed to go ahead. Or if the rezoning doesn’t go through the commercial residential developer will be the one to miss out.
For either developer to get their plans to this stage they will have spent $20,000.
So I sincerely hope this isn’t a council stuff up cause if it is you can bet one of the developers will be rightly launching a legal action against Council.
August 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM
I see the Greens have taken over a shop in North Road, Ormond to use as a promotional base for Pilling’s council run. I wonder how this squares with the amount councillors are permitted to spend on elections?