The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is a beauty. Here are our comments on those items we’ve not yet covered.
LOCAL LAW ADVISORY COMMITTEE
After years and years and years of pussy footing around the issue of ‘organised sporting groups’ (ie permits, Frisbees, Schleppers, kids in the park, conflict of interest, and heaps of negative publicity) the issue has reared its ugly head again. Two options were presented – one which we advocated months ago – ie give priority to those groups with allocations and allow everyone else to use ovals when vacant. The committee also ‘investigated’ the inclusion of ‘guidelines’ into the Local Law and decided that this was the best option. However, the ‘action’ resulting from this reads: “The Committee agreed legal advice should be obtained on incorporation of the guidelines into the local law.” Unbelievable! Here we go again with more money being spent on ‘legal advice’ when 2 lawyers plus corporate counsel are present on this committee and the ‘solution’ would appear to be dead simple!
AMENDMENTS
3 Amendments and referrals to Planning Panels are up for decision. We note that had any of these amendments been ‘reasonable’, then there would probably not have been any submission objections and the resulting costs of thousands of dollars for 3 panel hearings and lawyers galore! The proposed amendments are:
- Rezoning of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS application for 5 storey & 62 dwellings, offices & carpark. 10 submissions were received and the objections related to: overdevelopment; car parking, this is a flood prone area and plans have no flood mitigation proposals. Melbourne Water opposes the development. Also included in the officer’s report is this paragraph:
“It is considered that the proposed amendment should still be supported in anticipation of the draft commercial zones being introduced. Department of Planning and Community Development advice is that any rezoning requests ‘in the pipeline” should not be delayed due to the proposed new zones process”. It’s a great pity that this same argument isn’t used when it comes to height limits. On this issue the pathetic council response is ‘we’ll wait for the planning zone reforms to be in place’. Consistency, transparency, and credibility are not this council’s strong points!
- Amendment C95 – more rezoning on Hawthorn Rd. The real purpose of this Amendment is revealed in this sentence: “enable residential development opportunities in accordance with Councils Housing Diversity Area Policy….”. Once again it’s full bore ahead with no need to wait for the zoning reforms: “The purpose of the new Commercial 1 Zone is to provide for economic growth and land use flexibility within activity centres. Advice from the Department of Planning and Community Development is to precede (sic) with amendments, such as this, not-withstanding possible new commercial zones in the near future”.
- Amendment C98 – Tovan Akas Ave, Bentleigh. This constitutes the most objectionable of all the proposed amendments. Apart from setting the scene for more residential development this Amendment also proposes to “(Amend) the planning scheme such that selected Rescode provisions do not apply”. We find this totally unacceptable especially when it has often been argued how wonderful this council is in that their conditions EXCEED the ResCode requirements (ie private open space). It would appear that all is expendable when more and more dwellings can be crammed into various sites. In this instance building heights and front setbacks will be the casualties.
The site we’re told is just on 5,500 square metres and “is surrounded by residential land uses immediately north-east, east and south, a car sales businesses fronting Nepean Highway to the west, and an industrial site used as a training facility to the north-west.” Yet this council argues that it is appropriate to reduce the ResCode requirements because “The reduced setback is considered reasonable in this instance, as the site abuts a car sales business to the west (rather than a dwelling) and a unit development to the east with a front setback of 6m.” If nothing else, this statement alone is clear evidence of how short sighted planning policy is in Glen Eira. There is no consideration of what could happen several years down the track – ie what if the car yard goes out of business and decides to sell? Would council then go through another amendment to undo what it has put in place now? All council can say is: “Facilitating the land to be converted from industrial to residential in this location is generally considered to be a positive outcome and the departures from ResCode are considered to be responsive to the context of the site and its neighbours.” What about 2 years, 3 years, down the track? And why should any of the minimalist ResCode regulations be dwindled down any further?
It also needs to be noted that this is a MINIMAL CHANGE AREA and that submissions noted that the street is predominantly single storey. The amendment allows 4 storeys in a MINIMAL CHANGE AREA!
Once again we have the nonsense argument supporting the full steam ahead approach –
“There is no impediment to considering and supporting this amendment despite the soon to be released zones. The inclusion of a detailed building envelope control (Design and Development Overlay) will provide even greater control than any replacement residential zone. In this respect the proposed Design and Development Overlay represents a safety net to ensure compatible and appropriate future development.”
Given the pre-election mantras from most councillors about opposing inappropriate development it will be interesting to hear the logic that supports (or opposes) these amendments and the huge costs of 3 Panel hearings. We remind readers that the Hawthorn Rd heritage debacle cost $9000 for one lawyer for half a day PLUS paying the panel members. Multiply that by 3 and we’re really talking big bikkies!
CAR SHARE
What a surprise! The recommendation on this issue by Akehurst reads: “Notes that car share systems could be used within new developments in the future.” Given the glacial pace at which this council moves, we envisage that this issue will crop up at least another 3 times in the next decade; it will have report after report tabled, but the outcome will still remain the same – ie NO ACTION!
It’s also worth pointing out that the only other council mentioned is Melbourne City. A quick Google search has revealed that numerous other councils have already introduced this scheme into their municipalities and that others such as Bayside have earmarked this for introduction in the next year to two. The links below will explain how other councils see their role in reducing the numbers of cars on our roads –
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/car_share.htm
http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Parking-roads-and-transport/Sustainable-transport/Carsharing/
http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/car-share-discount
http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/residents-and-services/parking-and-transport/car-share-program/
Glen Eira Debates 
December 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM
A hefty agenda designed to get everything rammed through before xmas break and whilst the new councillors are still learning the ropes and won’t put up too much of a fight.
It will be front seat attendance to catch Pilling and Sounness. Green on the outside and probably yellow on the inside. Environment and urban design will be the loser as always intended.
Reading the Boyd park item is deja vu all over again. Incompetent planning and design so the solution is to return the money. Water harvesting was never going to solve the flooding problems. The tanks would fill and then what? This was in 2010 and even then they knew about the possibility of arsenic. I’m glad that the govt will get their money back. This council doesn’t deserve a cent from more taxes. It wastes, delays and can’t plan it’s way out of a paper bag.
December 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM
You mentioned under Amendments: “Rezoning of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS application for 5 storey & 62 dwellings, offices & carpark. …..etc Is this all of GlenHuntly Road and what is the amendment number?
thank you
Ros Gold
December 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM
It’s amendment C80 and the details are: 1232, 1232R, 1234, 1236-1238, 1240, 1242, 1248, 1254-1258 Glen Huntly Road &122 Grange Road Carnegie
December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM
The last few posts make it very clear how uncommitted Glen Eira Council is to implementing positive environmental change, or halting the rampant development that further impacts on the environment and residents’ amenity. Even the “crown in the jewel” (Gesac) has been allowed to be a major polluter and energy consumer of enormous proportions that cancels out everything else that council might be doing with its other facilities.
December 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM
OK, although Im a great supporter of this Blog-I have often made comments here in th past -its great tool & I thank GlenEira for such accurtae & on the pulse information.
I do believe its time now alos for Residents Action to complement this Blog …
If we dont move to the next stage- Council will continue to call us the RTBAGS & simple continue to ignore us…
Lets take PortPhillip, Stonnington, Yarra & other inner councils as examples- all of these councils have excellent vibrant local residents action groups set up. These councils do not make a move without talking/consulting with these local groups.
How about it everyone? Id be interested in your feedback….
December 17, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Publicity and more publicity is the answer. They hate to have their dirty linen exposed. People have to speak up but don’t bother complaining to council. Ring up Neil Mitchell and Jon Faine and tell them the bullshit that goes on here. Write letters to the Age and Leader even if this last lot won’t publish them. Write to Miller and Southwick. An elections coming up and they want your vote. Put a spotlight on all that’s wrong and don’t let up. Tell your friends and anyone who will listen.
December 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM
All this you suggest has been tried. Last year John Faine, Neil Mitchel slots & talkback etc & the old gang got relected & still rules!
Ive written to Southwick re traffic issues & rat runs in local residential street. Ive written to VicRds Minister (even to good old Ted Baillieu) about the adverse/perverse 40kph speed limit policy in main shopping strips & 50kmph in local streets- a wird perverse policy.
But alas, a lone wolf achieves zilch!
We need a more concereted and strong collective action from residents…..
December 18, 2012 at 8:09 AM
I agree that residents need to be involved and they need to be pretty determined since this Council has honed to perfection it’s ability to totally disregard any alternative view – forget considering the merits of the alternative view. Council considers any alternative view as being negative and never misses an opportunity to slam the group presenting that view. If you don’t agree 100% with Council forget it.
That being said, getting an active residents group together will definitely be a step in the right direction but to do so is going to be a long slow frustrating time consuming process.
Unfortunately I only have limited time but I would be willing to become involved if such a residents action group formed.
December 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Once a council officer decides what they want and if they’re obliged to write a report, then they have to provide some reasons, no matter how specious. Yes, the State Government is determined to press ahead with their proposed changes to Zones (note, they’re not reforms, just changes). Contrast however the arguments used to support C80 and C95 [which the officers want] with the lack of support for C90 concerning the interface between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas. In the one case its argued it should be full steam ahead regardless of Zone changes, in the other case the argument is for abandonment despite knowing that the proposed changes don’t address interfaces and transitions. Actually even the need for prescriptive guidance is an admission of failure of the planning system, that development in certain areas have repeatedly failed to respect character or protect amenity or meet most of the Objectives of Planning in Victoria. Council and VCAT essentially have the same decision criteria, and both abuse them.