July 10, 2013
When Is Enough, Enough?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[22] Comments
[22] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- July 10, 2013 at 9:46 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
July 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM
I remember the rezoning of this area very well. The whole process was despicable. No real plans put up by the developer and council even saying that 10 storeys was all right and that it was like the MRC and the racecourse. Details would be worked out a lot later. Lipshutz and Magee were behind accepting the amendment then. The whole thing has been a disaster from the start. East Boundary road and the surrounding streets are already gridlocked thanks to Gesac. Now this from the same developer going back years. All these people have to do is get the land and wait for the government and council to work out their dirty little deals behind everyone’s back. People should know that there are no appeal rights when this went through and won’t be now.
July 10, 2013 at 3:44 PM
Was this sent to an independent panel for an assessment, and then the council accepted their recommendation?.
July 10, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Chances are that this did go to a panel. That’s not exactly the ring of confidence for the efficacy, much less fairness, of such panels since 90% work out in favour of the applicant as council well knows. Going to a panel is practically another guarantee that the applicant will be rewarded. The only panel decision that I can remember that went in favour of residents in Glen Eira was the Seaview Heritage property owned by the Esakoffs. This was such a lame case that even the panel had to recommend abandoning the amendment. All the rest have come out in resounding support of the developers’ requested amendments.
July 10, 2013 at 11:43 AM
The Brick statement about “consolidating” one zone in order to “protect” other residential areas comes straight out of the mouth of Newton and Akehurst and the conservatives. This is the lie that we are supposed to swallow about housing diversity and minimal change.
East Boundary Road is gone. Gesac is only a fraction of what’s wrong. There’s the Clover Estate that got through with contamination all over the place and now there’s this. Bailey reserve has to go and become a gigantic car park to fit everyone in. It’s also a real “coincidence” that these developers wait until July 1st after so many years. Only an idiot would think that they haven’t been talking to certain people in secret who would have told them to hang on and they can get what they want for nothing and too bad about residents and other local shopping strips.
Every developer in the state gets welcomed with open arms in Glen Eira.
July 10, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Why is Miller getting involved in planning matters?.
July 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM
I would think Miller’s involvement is due to Liberal Party politics and Council’s all too ready agreement by the ignorant and the Libs on council. Magee screaming blue murder is now too late. He voted for the original amendment as they all did. Whenever any developer be it the mrc or this lot get away with a rezoning when there is no definite plan published then this is what happens. Residents have no say and the final submitted plan somehow has grown and grown over the years. The C60 started off with 1200 units. Now it’s supposed to be 1500 units. By the time any proposal comes to council it will be 1800-2000 units and not 23 storeys but closer to 30. The same will happen here now that the ground rules have changed. Watch out for 10 storeys at least all along this strip. East Bentleigh has gone to the dogs thanks to the incompetents running this council who don’t give a stuff about people.
July 11, 2013 at 8:46 AM
MIller’s involvement is due to electioneering for the upcoming State election and Liberal party developer fundraising.
The concept of working and living in one locality, while an appealing ideal, just doesn’t work in a major urban context. Historically and globally, the evidence is overwhelming – it was, and still is, a major driving force for the introduction and development of public transport systems. Car usage further illustrates the ideal’s “unworkability”.
Using the ideal, to justify intensive development, is spurious as it ignores the reality of the modern urban environment, economic and social circumstances. Where people choose to reside and businesses locate is governed by many varied factors, the connection between the two has to do with a matching of the social aspirations and the economic opportunities/circumstances of the two (individuals and businesses). For these reasons, only a very small minority of urban dwellers choose the live and work locally option, the vast majority of urban dwellers choose not to live and work locally.
Given the above, should a residential area be sacrificed for intensive commercial/industrial development? I don’t know – the answer is difficult – the pro’s and con’s are many and some are emotionally charged. But what I do know is that the decision should be made by an informed community and based on substantiated planning principles.
July 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Interesting comments from Jim Magee (Labor pre-selection candidate) and Elizabeth Miller (Liberal re-election candidate) as they line up for the coming State Election.
it’s a real shame that both of them see fit to focus on one aspect of the new zones yet neither of them have the temerity to comment on Glen Eira Council’s woeful silence the whole of the reform zones – the lack of information Council has provided and the absence of any plan to consult with residents is abysmal. The enfolding Magee/Miller stoush is respresentative of the significance of the reform zones, not just in commercial zones but also within residential zones. If Council’s whole approach to the reform zones isn’t a case going “behind the backs of residents” then I guess I don’t know what is.
July 10, 2013 at 8:16 PM
I don’t think Labor is mad enough to preselect Magee. He is a one man circus.
July 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM
The article contains a number of errors. The new residential zones were introduced on 1 July, but the new commercial zones haven’t been gazetted. That is expected to happen on 15 July as part of VC100, which has been exempted by the Minister so technically we don’t know what is in it until then. The new commercial zones remove the need for permits for various uses, but doesn’t remove the need for permits to construct buildings or carry out works. They continue the qualified exemptions from notice, decision criteria, and review that apply to the old business zones [the exemptions don’t apply to land within 30m of residential zones].
Under VC100, B1Z, B4Z, B5Z moves to C1Z; and B3Z, B4Z moves to C2Z. It seems the issue for the part-owner at Virginia Park is that the mixture of C1Z and C2Z that will result from the rezoning doesn’t permit them to do what they want with the site. I’m a bit dubious, but we’d only really know if there was a concrete plan that could be assessed. One might well wonder what it is that they can’t do currently with the mixture of B2Z and B3Z.
It does seem bizarre that Elizabeth Miller has chosen to get involved. Being a politician, she is unlikely to have done the necessary research to have an informed opinion as to which zone(s) are appropriate for the site. [The same criticism applies to Cr Magee, whose ignorance has supported elsewhere all the problems he doesn’t want for East Bentleigh.] I do hope people are asking Elizabeth for her reasons why she has rejected ACZ or MUZ for any or all of the site, and why she favours C1Z over C2Z.
In blunt terms, the planning system has been corrupted by those who wield decision-making power. So much of Planning Schemes are discretionary, meaning they’re not binding on Council or VCAT. Where “Standards” are specified, these are discretionary: “should” rather than “must”. In practice, this means few if any multi-storey multi-unit developments comply with residential amenity standards. The new commercial zones, just like the older business zones, are open to this abuse. You might have a review right because you’re nearby in R1Z, but there is nothing to stop Council or VCAT from waiving non-compliance with the Standards that affect your amenity. Compliance cannot be enforced.
What this suggests to me is that the government has failed in its drafting of C1Z or C2Z. Everywhere they are used, there should be an intermediary buffer zone, either MUZ or RGZ, separating them from GRZ and NRZ. Since RGZ is wide open to abuse [13.5-14.5m for 4 storeys just so commercial premises in residential zones can have higher ceilings], the use of RGZ itself should be limited to a narrow strip. Either that, or Council needs to get off its behind and establish lower, mandatory height limits where the schedules to the new zones permit.
July 10, 2013 at 6:58 PM
I admire your obvious knowledge and expertise in this area, but I’m very lost. Could you please explain what all the acronyms are in everyday English and what they really mean for residents. I think this would help a lot of people understand things better.
July 10, 2013 at 7:28 PM
See: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/theplanningsystem/improving-the-system/new-zones-for-victoria/new-commercial-zones
July 10, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Practically all amendments originate from developers. In other words, Glen Eira planning is not doing its job. This further compounds the piece meal approach that has dominated planning in this council. My objection is not strictly about the ad hoc planning. It’s more to do with the way such amendments are concocted. At first there is a benign sounding officers’ report done at the behest of the developer. No one suspects a thing. Then, a few years down the track once the amendment has been exhibited and approved, all the gory details become evident. Rezoning land is the first step in the process for high density development whether this occurs in two or three years time is irrelevant. It’s planned and executed with perfection. Nor am I naive enough to believe that the original amendment was going to content itself with a mere commercial rezoning. Residential is where the real money is. Shoddy buildings put up in no time flat and no urban design and the results are a windfall for big companies like this one. With their political mates they are privy to insider information that would tell them about the proposed residential and commercial zone reforms well before anyone else knows. Their friends on council would also turn a blind eye and pretend that by going to an “independent” panel that the community is safeguarded. Bollocks and more bollocks. This has happened far too often for it to be coincidence. People need to start following the money trail. That will reveal all the dirty linen.
July 10, 2013 at 9:31 PM
NEWS FLASH: at recent council meetings Hyams, Lipshutz and co have declared that they would grant a permit but insist that the developer place a sign on the site that no residential parking permits would be granted. Much was made of this – ie people would know and therefore not purchase if they wanted to house their cars etc.
Well here is the first VCAT decision that we know of that has basically told council that their condition is ‘beyond the scope of a planning permit’. Here’s what the member said on this point:
“Council submitted that Condition 18 is required to communicate to future occupants of the dwellings Council’s position regarding parking permits. The intention is that this sign would be placed inside the building in a common area such as the ground level lift lobby.
There is no question that Council will not issue parking permits for residents of this development, nor will it issue visitor parking permits. Condition 18 seeks to communicate this position. I consider that this condition goes beyond the ambit of what can reasonably be required as part of a planning permit. Removal of this condition will not have any impact on the fact that Council will not issue any resident or visitor parking permits for this development. I therefore find that Condition 18 is unnecessary and should be deleted.”
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1109.html)
Perhaps now the gallery will no longer be assailed with the empty huff and puff of these councillors!
Finally, there is another implied criticism by the member of council’s lack of urban design within the planning scheme – “The planning scheme does not specifically address these detailed urban design matters, although it does contain numerous broad brush statements requiring development to achieve good urban design outcomes and to be respectful of existing neighbourhood character.” In other words, vague waffle, that will more often than not be meaningless when controlling what is built in Glen Eira. Another example we believe of the ineptitude of the Planning Scheme and council’s failure to address such issues with a detailed Urban Design Framework as numerous other councils have done!
July 11, 2013 at 3:35 PM
might want a separate article on this but pictures from the fun run day are on the MRC facebook page. Check out https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151520285204733.1073741830.110996564732&type=1
looks like fun !!!
July 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM
The truth about Southwick fudging the truth is out. His media releases talked about a special running track. He just forgot to say that it’s a special running track that cost millions for horses and not people. Great one David! One more porkie into the piggy bank of lies.
July 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous 6 asks about acronyms and what all the changes mean.
Under Victoria’s Planning System there are thousands of pages of text covering how land is to be managed and developed in Victoria, so there are limits on the extent to which that information can be summarised. In the case of all the old and new zones, it gets very tedious to spell them out in full and Government and Council tend to use short 3-letter acronyms with Z instead. Each zone has a set of “rules” that are supposed to be applied to land in that zone, covering the purpose of the zone, when a permit is required, what is prohibited, and any constraints on what should be given a permit.
Permits may be required for a particular use, or for constructing a building, or for subdivision. In the case of Virginia Park, there are 3 different zones involved. The developer naturally seeks to maximise their profit, and has calculated that the way to do this is to get the whole of the land rezoned Commercial 1 Zone [C1Z]. There are very few constraints associated with this zone, which is unfortunate since it abuts residential zones and Glen Eira City Council has a history of granting permits that don’t comply with the amenity standards that are supposed to protect residential zones. I was arguing that there should be intermediate zones separating commercial zones from residential zones, ones whose associated schedules allow Council to specify mandatory amenity standards. This could be a Mixed Use Zone [MUZ] for example.
Council would still need to insert content into these buffer zones to make height limits mandatory, and Council hasn’t consulted the community what the minimum standards should be for each zone. Instead, Council has secretly decided not to consult the community and is attempting to have the Minister amend the Glen Eira Planning Scheme without the usual exhibition/public notice and review steps. If challenged, they will undoubtedly claim this was dealt with as part of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review. It is of course utter bullshit, and acts as a reminder that councillors aren’t that familiar with their own policies.
July 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM
We have already stated that it is our firm belief that this council has no intention of involving the community in the translation of the Residential Zones. In other words, no public consultation, no reassessment based on current figures and analyses, and no transparency. This is not a surprise given the complete adherence to a planning philosophy that cares not one fig for social, environmental amenity when this comes up against commercial and major high density development. Such a view was clearly articulated in 2009 in response to the State Government’s then ‘consultation’ on residential zones. We quote from the minutes of 7th April 2009 –
“Translating Council’s policies into new residential zones in a neutral way is imperative.
Neutral translation would not change the existing delineation materially and therefore would not entail changes requiring further public exhibition.”
AND
“If Glen Eira is subjected to public exhibition as part of an amendment process of these residential zones, a different planning direction and outcome could occur.
It is strongly argued that Glen Eira having already delineated the municipality in a manner approved by the Minister for Planning, should be able to implement the new zones, following a neutral policy to zone translation, by a Ministerial Amendment (ie. without public exhibition again).”
This was the view in 2009. There is no feasible reason why such logic should have changed in 2013. In 2009 there was no consideration for the community and this state of affairs is still very much evident.
July 12, 2013 at 2:07 AM
Funny thing about that local members funny day in our racecourse , when one looks at gate notices the area where competitors ran is in a “Restricted Area for Authorised use only” What a land robery the whole racecourse issue really is. His pretence is just another example of the charade which surrounds him and the council views of public entitlement to the area!!
July 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM
if you have ever walked accross it you would realise it would not be suitable for humans to running on. It is horrible. I think they probably flattened it out for the funny run. I actually had a though though if they made the main track a sand track like in the states then this could be used for training as well. I imagine the water requirements would be drastically reduced.Then every other track would be redundant and it could be made parkland. no chance it would happen though as it wouldnt look very good on racedays.
July 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM
How Dumb and Dumber could Miller be? Hopefully, labor candidate will turf her out of the office.Miller is just an ‘outside show’ and nothing inside her head. She loves to appear in the press. Miller enjoy the rest of your term, the residents have made up their minds..
July 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Hyams is doing everything in his power to help Miller. He will even (MODERATORS: part of sentence deleted) including his gang of liberals on the council. Much has to be done by Delahunty who has promised residents transparency in her election material.