The State Government and Council’s strategy is transparently obvious [reduce amenity for all but start with the significant minority in “targetted” areas] and it continues an inglorious tradition started by Labor when Melbourne 2030 was released. Remember this statement: “The character of established residential areas will be protected through Rescode, and increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity.”? Not that Council or VCAT ever took it seriously.
Yesterday’s announcement reaffirms the Government’s belief that it should be able to reduce people’s amenity without consulting them; taxation without representation. It doesn’t matter whether Lib or Lab or Brown, that is the principle.
Look at the huge chunk of Residential 1 Zone properties that are now about to find themselves in Residential Growth Zones or General Residential Zones. Where once they had ResCode, which included a 9m height limit, now they don’t. Council argues quite shamelessly that people will be better off because now there is “certainty”, since previously Council and VCAT ignored ResCode if it suited them. The same people who repeatedly abused the planning scheme are still in charge. What guarantee do residents have that whatever the schedules might say (and of course these remain top secret) that this planning department won’t continue with its old ways of handing out dispensations on countless of these ‘standards’?
Remember too that height limits only apply to dwellings or residential buildings. It won’t be long before we see some imaginative applications that push the envelope, quite literally. And of course, there simply aren’t any height limits for the old major activity centres and the main roads they sit on. Glen Huntly Road already has 10 storeys. That is the future – minimal ‘commercial’ or ‘retail’ and stacks of apartments.
Then there’s some seemingly random choices made, all without any transparency. Glen Huntly, which is a major activity centre, is now to be surrounded by GRZ. It has a railway, a tramway, 2 State Arterial Roads, and open space. Then look at what Council is doing to a bunch of Edwardian homes and California bungalows in Carnegie, which instead is to be rezoned RGZ.
The media releases remain silent on the contents of the Schedules to the Zones, yet the map does give a strong hint that at least some content has been inserted to replace “none specified” for various amenity standards. Who decided what should be inserted? Council staff. Council couldn’t even be bothered to vote on it.
The recent decision to refuse a Permit for Wilks St (Alma Club) is suddenly looking shaky, until such time as people can evaluate the implications of being rezoned to GRZ and Schedule 1 (no increase in rear setbacks). It’s no surprise that this has suddenly dropped its Minimal Change status and is now designated as General Residential Zone. In other words, 3 storeys is fine and 75 units in a dead end street is perfectly okay.
If Elizabeth Miller believes “the Victorian Coalition Government is delivering on their promise of protecting residents’ backyards” then she should be prepared to state how many backyards have just been condemned to being buried underneath concrete. I wonder if she even knows. Yesterday’s obligatory soundbite was carefully filmed in a tree-lined street. There won’t be many trees left when there’s no permeable soil available for roots in the targeted areas.
Will the State Government accept responsibility for flood damage when the drains are inadequate for the rapid runoff of water from these concrete ghettos? Does it have a crime strategy for the consequences of creating an unhealthy imbalance in demographics? Has it identified where the new sports facilities will be located?
Expect traffic to be managed when areas that you have to pass through have their population swollen by several thousand residents? There are no amenity standards for traffic congestion, no money to eliminate railway level crossings in the municipality, and it’s not even safe to ride a bike since Council/VCAT encourages street parking for multi-unit development [count the number of applications which seek and obtain a waiver]. Besides, the speed limits are generally too high for the population density. Will people be walking to their nearest open space? Depends how far it is. Yesterday’s announcement ignored that element of community well-being.
Clearly the policies behind yesterday’s announcement are unstable. If you increase the population faster than the jobs in an area, then more people will have to be travelling further distances at a slower average speed by less convenient means. Council admits its planning for an extra 18000+ people over 20 years, so it should be able to show its traffic modelling along with documented assumptions like where they have to go for work, recreation, services. Of course such detailed planning is not Glen Eira’s forte. The irony is that when council officers front up at VCAT and argue that the municipality has already exceeded its population forecasts, then that only throws more doubt on the figures produced by council this time around.
Planning for a community is so much more than trumpeting a bunch of discriminatory height restrictions. This entirely begs the question of where council has been for the past 10 years? No height limits throughout this time; no structure plans; no parking precinct plans (then or now); no Environmental Sustainable Design (then or now); no Urban Design Framework (then or now). It’s been hell bent on more and more development. This latest announcement only provides further evidence that the philosophy, strategy, and ambition remains intact. Glen Eira will remain the developer’s paradise.
Finally, we remind readers that in March 2012 the officers in their wisdom wanted to introduce a greater percentage of permeable surfaces but ONLY FOR MINIMAL CHANGE. Councillors passed a resolution that in part read: “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to lower the percentage of impervious surfaces within the Minimal Change Area and Housing Diversity Areas.”. No such amendment has seen the light, so we can only conclude that once again a council resolution has been ignored or conveniently forgotten and not acted upon in a ‘timely manner’ as required by law. Now we discover that the ORIGINAL recommendation of 25% permeable surfaces will only apply in what was formerly known as Minimal Change. This is how this council works and residents need to be not merely aware but alarmed at how their rights have been continually trampled upon.
Last but not least, here is a glimpse into the future for all those areas with the nice little light blue lines marked on them!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM
I’ve been looking at the map and nothing makes any sense except that what used to be minimal change has now become general residential zone. That means that less houses and properties are protected. The 78% that they claim has to be pure bullshit judging by the number of properties that can now have 3 storeys put on them. 3 storeys could be 20 or even 30 units. No car parking for sure and nothing to say how they’re going to manage traffic and parking. It’s a total joke.
August 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Whats your problem – as per the Alma Club Development Proposal this represents an “increased passive surveillance opportunity”.
August 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM
A great post that shows up the distortions that council presents as truths. No concrete strategic planning has taken place. It never has in this municipality. The only scheming (and that’s a pun) has been to ensure that some people are aided and abetted in their attempts to become wealthier. The claim that this is taxation without representation is accurate. Withholding the amendment and its schedules until the Minister formally approves does not belong in a society that claims to be democratic and transparent. More and more I’m starting to think that under the Newton dictatorship we could be better off in China or Russia. At least there we would know who the enemies of the people are.
August 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM
There is no sense of shame in Glen Eira City Council. Statement after statement in the erroneously entitled “guide” would make other councils cringe I venture. There is no shame associated with announcing that the Housing Strategy was created in 2001-3 and based on figures that surely date back to last century. It has remained a static document ever since and never been put out for public review and consultation.
The statements about structure plans are of the same ilk. To argue that the new zones will replace structure plans may be well and good for those councils that have taken the trouble to apply various overlays across their cities. Glen Eira has practically zero. Structure plans do more than mark lines on a map. Most include important elements of open space planning, transport and parking and so on. Glen Eira of course has done none of this so there is no great loss if the lack of structure planning continues. To argue however that what these new zones signal is an improvement takes plenty of front and complete shamelessness.
August 7, 2013 at 1:45 PM
I’ve noticed that part of the pretend protection goes on about “buffers between higher and lower densities”. Not a zone as such only upper levels recessed. For a four story building all this means is that the ground floor will be close to a neighbours fence and then the next floor back a bit and so on. Hardly a buffer and no different to what’s there now. What’s going to be important is if there’s a 10 story place and the overshadowing it does for streets all around.
August 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Like a good little soldier Delahunty is following the council party line holus bolus. I got this from her Facebook page
New planning zones for Glen Eira – what does this mean?
In 2010 the Council undertook consultation on the planning scheme. One of the main themes to arise was the community’s desire for mandatory height limits that could not be overturned on appeal to VCAT.
We have taken the current planning scheme, added mandatory height limits across most of the municipality and had it approved by the Minister.
The main points are:
– 2 storey maximum across 78% of the municipality, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (formerly Minimal Change Areas)
– 3 storey maximum in Neighbourhood Centres and along tram routes
– 4 storey maximum in the 2.2% of Glen Eira residential zones comprising the Urban Villages around the railway stations of Elsternwick, Carnegie and Bentleigh.
For more information give me a call or try the Council website …
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/News/Height_limits_over_all_residentially-zoned_land
August 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM
so much for labor
August 9, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Cr Delahunty doesn’t explain the unilateral expansion of areas to which GRZ/RGZ apply, or why Council’s policies are considered to be so meritorious. I remember Council getting feedback in 2010 that their policies for Housing Diversity stunk. She is talking about areas that are zoned R1Z and should have been afforded greater amenity than they have. People who participated in the mock consultation that took place prior to the imposition of the “Urban Village” concept are aware that what eventually emerged didn’t reflect the consultation feedback.
The implementation has been botched too—lack of diversity, no open space, destruction of valued trees, traffic congestion leading to unsafe and down-right illegal manoevres. Both M2030 and M@5M list Glen Eira’s Major Activity Centres to be Bentleigh, Carnegie, Elsternwick *and* Glenhuntly, so one has to wonder who lives in Glenhuntly that causes it to be treated so differently. Then again, Stonnington doesn’t have a single Major Activity Centre. Hmmm.
August 8, 2013 at 7:36 AM
The last Planning Scheme Review was is 2010 with the next review being scheduled for 2014. Now here we are towards the end of 2013 and faced with the largest, single most drastic reform of the urban/town planning in Victoria and although Council had until July 2014 to implement the changes, Council has decided to forgo any community consultation and get in first. Like most Council processes this sucks and any Councillor that ignores the lack of community involvement deserves to have his/her A kicked.
While there are some good things in proposed changes there are also not so good. The community deserved to be informed and given the opportunity to comment – this was not done. The last major change to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme done in 2002, related to the creation of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas. Just like the current planning changes this was pushed through with minimum consultation and no awareness. It’s taken a long time for the implications of the 2002 change to be felt and it’s going to take a long time for these implications to be felt. The community’s growing, and increasingly vocal, awareness of planning impacts deserved more than simple disregard.