Why is Glen Eira Council doing absolutely nothing about height limits, urban design frameworks, heritage reviews and controls, ESD’s and much more? And of course, there’s that absolute ‘no-no’ of structure planning! Why are residents fed the continual clap trap about better to lop off a few storeys than to reject outright? Why must there be this moratorium until the proposed Planning Zone Reforms come in and are rubber stamped with glee by Newton, Akehurst and the gang? The only amendments that have come up in council are all to do with preparing the ground for further development, or extending the Housing Diversity areas. The C87 for instance was nothing but a sham that resulted in the ‘protection’ of barely a thousand or so dwellings and, of course, all suggested ‘inclusions’ into these significant character areas were made by officers and NOT residents and councillors.
Other councils are not sitting on their backsides doing nothing. Amendments after amendments are flowing, each designed to add protection after protection to its neighbourhoods and residents. Yes, many of these amendments are subject to Ministerial approval, and yes, many will require a huge amount of budget expenditure, and yes, they will take time. And yes, some may not get up. But at least the will, drive, and vision are there. And above all, there is the recognition that something must be done. Allowing municipalities to descend into high-rise ghettos (or as Lobo has called them, new Calcuttas) is not sound planning and certainly not what the majority of residents want.
It’s really farcical that now, after thirteen years of doing nothing about height controls, some councillors are lamenting the fact that Glen Eira does not have these limits. The argument of course goes – ‘oh well with the new zone reforms we will be able to set limits’. We dread to think what these ‘limits’ will be!
There’s one agenda item set down for 12th February from Port Phillip which is worthy of highlighting. It’s an amendment that proposes to introduce an Urban Design Framework for St. Kilda Rd as well as mandatory height limits for this zone. They are also seeking to speed up the process by requesting Ministerial intervention. We’ve uploaded the full officer’s report, but present below some extracts which should provide a clear example of what can be done when the will, vision, and welfare of a municipality is at stake.
“This report recommends that Council request that the Minister for Planning introduce interim planning (mandatory height) controls for the St Kilda Road South precinct via a Ministerial Amendment to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
1.4 It is further recommended that Council commit to the preparation of an Urban Design Framework for the precinct which would inform a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent built form and height controls for the area.
While the current strategic framework directs growth to this area there is no detailed urban design framework or planning controls to guide the form, style and height of new development. In addition there has been increasing development pressure on St Kilda Road south.
3.11 This increase in development activity, coupled with the absence of height and built form controls has contributed to uncertainty regarding desired planning outcomes and the future character of the precinct
Recent planning approvals and development applications in this area include:
• 26 storey (91 metre) apartment tower at 3-5 St Kilda Road;
• 18 storey apartment tower at 42 Barkly Street (fronts St Kilda Road, pending VCAT hearing)
• 18 storey (56 metre) apartment tower at 2-8 St Kilda Road
• 13 storey apartment at 181 St Kilda Road
• 8 storey, 88 Carlisle Street (pending VCAT hearing)
• 8 storey, 3-7 Alma Road; and
• 8 storey, 25-29 Alma Road.
3.13 In all of the above applications, the lack of detailed design and height controls in the planning scheme were determining factors in the overturning of Council’s decisions by VCAT and the granting of the permits.
3.14 To ensure that the planning of the development of this area is orderly and consistent with Councils strategic vision, detailed planning controls are required for the area. These planning controls can only be developed from the preparation of a detailed urban design framework for the precinct.
Interim controls will provide time for Council to develop detailed urban design guidelines and height controls for the precinct.
3.20 A request for interim controls generally requires a commitment from Council to the preparation of an urban design framework and permanent planning controls.
Stage 2: Urban Design Framework and Permanent Height Controls
3.21 Council would then need to undertake a detailed planning assessment of the precinct, prepare urban design guidelines and a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent planning controls through the normal planning processes.
3.22 This would include community and key stakeholder engagement.
It is anticipated that this work will cost approximately $160,000 in 2013/14. Funds will need to be allocated in the 2013/14 budget to progress the study.
5.5 LEGAL & RISK IMPLICATIONS
5.5.1 The interim height controls will provide a degree of certainty whilst a detailed Urban Design Framework and permanent planning controls are prepared. Interim controls would also provide a statutory framework for assessment of future development applications in this area.
5.5.2 There is some risk that the Minister will not agree to introduce interim mandatory height controls.
5.5.3 This risk may be reduced if there is a commitment by Council to undertake the preparation of the Urban Design Framework and permanent planning controls though a detailed planning process that will include extensive community and industry consultation.”
Glen Eira Debates 
February 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM
There will be a landslide of high rise applications in the next 12 months. While Rome burns doing nothing developers will get really busy knowing that they can get away with murder.
February 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Absolutely correct … developers will make mince meat of Glen Eira in the next 12 months. And that 12 month timeline limitation is only applicable if Council shows a willigness to change which it doesn’t. So developers will focus on Glen Eira, get the necessary permit and increase their landbank assured that Glen Eira will rubber stamp their extensions in perpetuity – Glen Eira’s refusal to undertake monitoring of permit extensions has already confirmed this.
The big questions are when will residents realise they missed a golden opportunity to effect change at the recent Council elections and how much more will residents take before they get off their big fat A’s and actually do something.
February 9, 2013 at 4:27 PM
the lack of detailed design and height controls in the planning scheme were determining factors in the overturning of Council’s decisions by VCAT and the granting of the permits.
This says it all as far as I’m concerned. Hyams can crow as much as he likes about the value of no height limits. Results show it’s a catastrophe and his role in this duping of the public shouldn’t go unnoticed.
February 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM
The need for height limits are a symptom of a failure to do strategic planning. This goes back to the days of Melbourne 2030, when the then-DSE labelled certain suburbs as “Major Activity Centres”. That was the extent of the strategic planning work done. Well—almost. DPCD, which inherited the DSE’s lack-of-planning function, published Planning Notes and related policies, incorporating several of them in SPPF. They spell out the strategic work that is *supposed* to be done for activity centres. Even the woefully out-of-date Municipal Strategic Statement identifies strategies that Council has ignored. But no policy or guideline or standard or strategy or schedule to a zone actually has to be applied.
We have a situation where Council deliberately classified traditional residential areas dominated by single-storey dwellings as Housing Diversity areas, which of course includes its Urban Villages. The sorts of building envelopes envisaged for Major Activity centres are incompatible with these land uses—too big, generating problems of overshadowing, overlooking, and traffic congestion in local streets where vehicles queue to enter the arterial road network. Since Council hasn’t defined preferred characters, VCAT has been free to define its own, and its horrific. No trees, no open space, nothing on a human scale, even the needs of pedestrians are treated contemptuously.
By the Government’s own criteria, most of the Major Activity centres are not major activity centres [the difference is in the capitalisation, between a name and a function], and they have failed to secure infrastructure investment to support the rapid increase in population density. All the problems we complain about are only going to get worse, since there is no strategy to tackle them. Height limits are just a necessary intervention until such time as policy- and decision-makers listen to the people and plan comprehensively for the future. It will still all turn to shit though, because the nature of compromise is that nobody ends up responsible for the outcomes.
February 10, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Planning is a debacle everywhere and you’ve pinpointed the consequences well. Nothing can excuse the Glen Eira planners and their elected sycophants. Residents for years have complained about these things and the response has been stonewalling, silence, or passing the buck to vcat. Allowing more and more high rise is the objective. Arresting this trend would involve some decent work for a change which I doubt this planning department are capable of undertaking. Real competence is required for the preliminary groundwork and analyses. Councillors are mostly out of their depth. Clueless about the planning scheme, schedules and codes are hieroglyphics to them. Most of them either wouldn’t care, wouldn’t understand, or haven’t taken the time to find out I suspect – especially if it means standing up against the current administration. I’d bet that none of them live in housing diversity either. The only good thing is that this trend won’t stop at housing diversity. Watch out minimal change – the avalanche is heading your way.
February 9, 2013 at 11:05 PM
GERA has a new post up on its ‘communication’ with council regarding open space. Given that the ‘new’ open space strategy is now in ‘consultation’ mode, readers should find the information most informative.
See: http://geresidents.wordpress.com