Readers will remember the 12 storey, 173 dwelling application for Dandenong Rd. that went to council on November 13th 2012. Lipshutz, Magee, Sounness and Pilling all thought that 12 storeys was fine but the rest of the councillors reduced this to 8 storeys and 90+ dwellings. The officer’s report had the following to say about traffic –
“The proposal is considered to activate the Dandenong Road Frontage
It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channeling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.”
We’ve since come across a Youtube video created by a Monash student (see below). What is most striking about the video is the sound. Listen carefully and ask yourselves, is this really a ‘significant advantage for this development site’.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 3, 2013 at 9:52 AM
For the health and well being of future residents of this development and the Princes Complex (promises to be even bigger) I hope they have good sound proofing in both developments – the Dandenong Road traffic noise featured in this video is not only 24/7 but is also worse in peak periods.
January 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Glen Eira your reporting on the voting here is incorrect – for the record i voted against the 12 storey application and supported the alternative 8 storey as reflected in my seconding and comments made. Cr Okotel voted against the 8 storey – she as her comments on the nite indicated supported a full refusal of the application – this led to the 4-4 vote (Cr Lobo absent) with the decision in favour of the alternative on the Mayor’s casting vote
January 3, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Glen Eira you have the voting record wrong here – I voted against the 12 storey as my seconding of the alt 8 storey and comments on the nite indicated,
Cr Pilling
January 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM
Apologies Cr Pilling! You are correct. We reprint here what you stated on the night – “PILLING: supported Esakoff because it was ‘more modest’ even though the site is ‘right for development’ and is in a “fairly unique part of Carnegie’ but he does ‘have problems with the 12 storeys’. Went on to explain that in Carnegie currently most buildings are four stories even though VCAT did allow a couple of 5 storeys recently, so to go ‘from 5 to 12 is…too much for this area’. Said that “it was never envisaged that Carnegie would have 12 storey towers’ but that the alternative of 8 storeys “is appropriate”. Said that council needed to look at heights in some areas to give “better surety” to people.”
January 3, 2013 at 7:35 PM
What’s your reasoning that 8 storeys is “appropriate” when you say that the norm in Carnegie is 4 and vcat have granted a few 5 storey developments. Please explain what “appropriate” means! Reminds me of 10 storeys in Glen Huntly Road as being “inappropriate” but 8 storeys in the end would be okay.
January 3, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Lets face it – 8 storeys in Carnegie is in appropriate – but at least an 8 storey office building (double glazed sealed windows) is more acceptable than an 8 storey complex with commercial/retail on the bottom levels and residential at the top. Traffic noise and road dirt will mean these residents will have to live in an airconditioned cocoon – unable to open double glazed windows and enjoy any balconies because of noise and road dirt.
Hardly a “green” environment and definitely another in road into healthy living standards.
January 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Tell me Neil, how many more instances, of the relevant ward Councillors voting either against or for a scaling back of a development being out voted by the other Councillors, is it gonna take before you realise that this Council is stacked and operating in the interests of the administration rather than the residents – when are you Councillors actually going to start working together in a impartial way that represents the residents interests. This is not politics, its selling the residents short.
January 3, 2013 at 10:32 PM
The conditions to this development in relation to noise reduction read:
“Before the plans are endorsed, an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
The report must prescribe the form of acoustic treatment to:
(a) protect nearby dwelling occupants (including future residents within the building) with a direct interface to commercial tenancies above, next to or below from associated commercial noise sources, including but not limited to loading dock (including reversing beepers), plant and equipment;
(b) protect all dwelling occupants from external noise sources with specific regard to railway;
(c) protect all dwelling occupants from external noise sources associated with the abutting rail system to achieve an internal noise level of 50dBA Lmax in
bedrooms and 60dBA Lmax in living rooms and to achieve internal structure borne vibration induced noise levels not exceeding 40dBA in bedrooms and
50dBA in living rooms; and
(d) the mechanical plant equipment and ventilation mechanisms installed or
constructed as part of the development.
The Australian Standards for traffic noise reduction state the following:
“This standard recommends design criteria for conditions affecting the acoustic environment within occupied spaces. The standard is applicable to steady/quasi-steady state sounds such as road traffic noise. Table 2.3 below indicates the recommended design noise levels for houses and
apartments near major roads”. The MAXIMUM acceptable levels are designated as:
TheLAeq Sound Level Maximum LAeq Sound Level
Living Areas 45 dB(A)
Sleeping Areas 40 dB(A)
Work Areas 45 dB(A)
Apartment common areas 55 dB(A)
We must then ask – WHY DOES THE OFFICER’S REPORT NOT ADHERE TO MANY OF THESE RECOMMENDED STANDARDS?
January 5, 2013 at 7:49 AM
To Chandra – I do not like the crap you have written. It is easy to preach or for that to type your message. It is unfortunate that you and others do not find fit to put your hands to be Councillors. Are you the Chandra we all know?
January 6, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Thanks for the informed and constructive critique.
January 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM
It is a very hostile environment, dominated completely by cars. Certainly few people walk there, other than between their cars and the buildings. As a pedestrian (I’m one of the few), you’re assaulted by the noise of the passing traffic, and have the heat from not only the concrete and asphalt but also reflected off the buildings. There is no shade. In the worst stretch, there’s a 1.8m footpath, which gets narrowed by the overhangs of cars (angle parking) to 1.4m, and further narrowed when rubbish bins are placed on the path. One of the few pieces of vegetation will be obliterated by the development. Whether all this is Council’s preferred character for the area is unknown as Council hasn’t done the necessary strategic work for the precinct (or for that matter, any precinct listed in its Urban Villages policy).
On the topic of voting record, the official record (Council’s Minutes) just lists the motion as carried on the casting vote of the chairperson—no councillor called for a division. Since we don’t have transcripts or recordings of meetings (Council policy), we only get an idea of what councillors said in support of their vote through the diligence, time and effort put in by the moderators.
January 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM
For a report on the “debate” on this item see our post of the time – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/too-late-she-cried/