Pilling and Sounness were absent. Lipshutz moved a motion that the Residential zones item (listed last on the agenda) be considered first. Motion passed unanimously.
Hyams moved motion and added that council writes to Minister thanking him for ‘translating our existing policies’ into the new zones. Seconded by Lobo.
HYAMS: started off by saying that this is ‘possibly’ the most “important planning reform’ in history. Council introduced in 2004 the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity/Urban Villages policies but this isk even more ‘important’ because these are ‘mandatory zones’. ‘So what we say goes’. That contrasts to the past where VCAT could ignore council because they were only ‘guidelines’ and this ‘will no longer exist under these zones’. Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’. Stated that Glen Eira is the first council to ‘achieve’ this. Talked about the 78% being Neighbourhood Residential Zones and these were all the previous minimal change areas. These will have 8 metre height limit; 2 units per block, 50% site coverage and 25% permeability. All of this ‘will preserve the leafy backyard character’ of most residences. Next there’s the General Residential Zone (previous housing diversity) and this will have 10.5 metre height. Said that there would be ‘two types’ here – Schedule 1 ‘in the neighbourhood centres’ and Schedule 2 along tramlines. These latter ones that abut ‘neighbourhood residential zones’ and ‘they will have increased rear setbacks’. Last is Growth zones and they ‘conform’ to villages and height limit of 4 storeys and ‘mandatory setbacks’. ‘These are great outcomes for Glen Eira’ because development can still go on but is ‘directed to the right areas’ whilst ‘residential areas are protected from over development’. There’s also ‘certainty’ which is good for both residents and developers. Back in 2010/11 when the community was consulted, people said they wanted mandatory height limits and ‘now they have those’. Also achieved increase in permeability from 20 to 25%. ‘That’s basically why we didn’t consult this time around’ since ‘we had the old Minimal Change Areas and Housing diversity Areas which were well understood’ plus they got what the community wanted. Said that even if they had consulted he couldn’t see how ‘we would have got a better outcome’.
Said that the zones are ‘applied’ by the Minister in ‘discussions with us’ and ‘we got most of what we were after’ because they could show that there is ‘adequate’ space for ‘growth in Glen Eira including the C60 Caulfield Village’ and because the staff had ‘such a good grasp’ of all the issues in Glen Eira. They could answer all questions and ‘put a case very quickly and convincingly’. Congratulated Newton and Akehurst. Said that existing applications would be considered on old scheme and it could take a year before all of these were gone through.
LOBO: said that residents have been saying that Glen Eira needs a ‘structure planning policy’ to protect ‘people’s greatest asset’. Said that many residents had ‘borrowed from the greedy banks’ or used their super money to pay out the banks and ‘free themselves from the big claws’ of these banks. So they are now realising that ‘good attention’ is needed for ‘good planning’. What’s happening in the streets is of ‘great concern’ and people are right because ‘the value of the property will decrease’ and they took this into account when ‘preparing the new zones’. Matthew guy created the zones ‘earlier this year’ and ‘he has a carte blanche authority’ and that this is ‘different’ to the normal exhibition and panels for amendments. The Minister ‘has amended the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and included ‘many things that council wanted’ as well as ‘changes initiated by the Minister’ such as rezoning the Alma Club site and the Ripponlea ABC studio site to what was formerly Housing Diversity from minimal change. Residents got what they asked for ‘three years ago’. Now people will know ‘for certain what areas will be clearly protected’ and what areas will be developed. ‘With this, the wings of VCAT will be clipped’.
LIPSHUTZ: Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’. “it is revolutionary’ because VCAT can’t now ignore. It’s LAW. Said that newspaper reports say that it will ‘stifle development’ but as he ‘lives in the area, I don’t want high rise in my suburbs’ . there are ‘appropriate’ areas for high rise but ‘not in many of these areas where we have fine homes’ or heritage, or ‘single storey’. The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. Congratulated officers and ‘the government’ because the latter ‘had the guts’ to do something about an issue that has been going on for years.
ESAKOFF: stated that in the past VCAT only had to ‘consider’ policy and now it is mandatory. Was sure that there ‘would be far less applications to VCAT’. Noted that there are ‘other zones’ but they’re not included in the amendment and ‘they will be treated the way they have always been treated’.
MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’. Said he bought his house in minimal change and away from main roads but his back door neighbour built 3 units and he can touch them ‘with a broom’ and that ‘this won’t happen again’ with these zones. Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’
DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites.
OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty.This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
August 14, 2013 at 6:51 AM
The biggest planning change in the history of Glen Eira and no need to consult – words of the Mayor and all re-inforced by all Councillors present, neither of whom stinted in their praise for either their decision or the wonderful planning department (and ergo themselves).
Being first and making a big media splash overrode everything and allowed the Minister or his department to decide the fates of the currently being decided Älma Club and the yet to be presented ABC site. Council obligations of being “open, transparent and accountable” and focused “working together to achieve the best outcome for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects” were completely tossed out the window.
Instead of backslapping they should all be slinking off in a corner (and consutling their lawyers)
August 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Reading this makes me want to puke at the performances of these 7 little Newton puppets. Hyams remarks on the decision not to consult with residents is the best puke inducing. His analysis that the minimal change versus housing diversity areas are “well understood” is untrue. Most people would not even know what areas they live in unless some developer has come along and attempted to build next door to them. Only then would they be informed by council what zone they live in.
Relying on the dregs of poor “consultation” that go back 3 years can never justify what has been done now. Consultation is there to gauge the views of the community about the present. Then the role of councillors is to represent those views. The only reason I can see why this was perpetrated with such secrecy is that the community would have had plenty to say about the disregard for amenity and terrible planning approaches of the last ten years plus the culture of this council where consultation doesn’t exist at all. Developers and development come first in Glen Eira. Residents and their lives come a long way second.
August 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Seriously, I have to question how it is good practice to convert planning documents developed in 2000 from 1996 census data into planning maps 17 years later. Glen Eira has changed significantly in this time. Where I live, in the past 3 years we’ve had floods due to inadequate storm water infrastructure, we’ve got schools bursting at the seams, limited access to public open space, congested roads (mainly due to lots of parked cars) and yet, we’re zoned for 3 storey development. Yes, we have train stations but no other public transport infrastructure worth using. The site coverage permitted for impervious surfaces is higher than in the ‘green areas’ (ie. max height of 2 storeys) resulting in higher rates of runoff so we’re likely to see more flooding and thus greater damage to homes built greater than 13 years ago. Lipshutz has no regard for such dwellings based on his comments during a council meeting following the floods, I’m wondering whether such sentiments are shared by the council officers!
If only GE planners did have a good grasp of the areas that they’re strategically planning for, this area wouldn’t be zoned for higher density development.
Are we going to have housing diversity or developments full of one-two bedroom apartments that will soon be ghettos as they’re so cheaply built?
What role will developer contributions pay? Oh, that’s right, GE doesn’t have them….let’s give all of the benefits to the developers whilst they destroy our amenity!
Yes, the positive that there are now height limits across GE can be perceived as good however, identifying suitable areas by way of the existing infrastructure and services should have been undertaken in a more thorough manner based on NOW not 13-17 years ago.
August 14, 2013 at 11:45 AM
You make many excellent points that are way beyond the understanding of our councillors. I would seriously query the few statistics that we’ve been given. It’s significant that no real mention apart from the Esakoff aside was made about the commercial zones. Here developers can do what they like so we can expect many more applications for ten storeys plus. The quoted figure of 78% is totally suspect when subdivision after subdivision has already impacted on minimal change areas. There is and will continue to be the destruction of our “leafy backyards”. Next the claim that only 2.2% will be the four storey level is questionable at best. Main roads like Glen Huntly, Centre and Hawthorn Road, even when the commercial centres are removed would equal more than a mere 2.2% of available land. Of course none of these cited figures are documented in any way. We are asked to simply believe them. I most definitely do not.
The last thing I want to say is that I also do not believe the protestations by Delahunty and Okotel and others that it was the minister who arbitrarily decided to switch the zoning of the Alma club from minimal change to housing diversity. My view is that in these “discussions” officers probably raised the bait and were quite willing to sacrifice this area if other parts of the design were accepted. From Newton’s perspective the land was already sold and the developer was already heading to Vcat. It doesn’t make any sense why a Minister would intervene in this way unless he was asked to do so – either by council or the developer himself.
August 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Now we know what really goes on thanks to Okotel and Delahunty. Both claim to have wanted consultation but poor old Delahunty “lost that argument”. None of this was ever said out in public. Nothing about the zones was said in public. Secret Newton business is where all decisions happen. Okotel even tells us how the “quick turnaround” to make sure they are first was designed. That means that the decision was made ages ago and they’ve been working their backsides off to make it happen knowing all along that there wouldn’t be public consultation. Nothing excuses these councillors. Delahunty and Okotel if they are fair dinkum about wanting consultation needed to say something a long time ago. That’s what’s supposed to happen in a democracy. People give their views out in the chamber and not in such a dishonest way. We are their bosses and the law says that decisions are made in public and not in secret. They are all a disgrace.
August 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Magee is unreal. Yeah, developers are going to give a stuff about the size of their flats because of the setbacks that are on the fourth storeys. Gimme a break. This belongs in noddy land or the insane asylum. What a way to deliver planning!
August 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM
You can fool some of the people some of the time but councillors you can fool all of the time. More C60 around the corner.
August 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM
This is crazy stuff. No one has said what the optimum population figures are. Not council or the state. Density per square km is already third highest in the state but not a thought about parking drains and all the other essential infrastructure needs. Carnegie is already stuffed to maximum capacity but it remains unprotected and more can now go in to neighbouring streets. Add this all up and it makes a mockery of protecting 78%. The vast majority of the population now live in housing diversity when you add up the numbers and what’s to come.
August 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM
Good feed back – What are we going to do about it? If you think the Council and the Minister are wrong, why don’t all like minded people on this forum get to gather and do something about it. Also, take up the matter with the paper, the local Members of Parliament (who have supported the proposal) accountable and make sure that they are not re-elected. Just talk and no walk is a waste of time. Okotel and Delahunty have exposed Hyams and others; however they left their one eyed cats among the pigeons.
August 14, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Me thinks that mandatory height limits in residential zones is a welcome change to GE Planning Scheme. It will provide more certainty to many applications, but not to those that many people have been objecting to. Essentially the changes have been restricted so there is minimal change to GE Planning Scheme. There is no changes to transition zones and no changes to zones other than Residential, which is a State Government designation and has nothing to do with GE Minimal Change, Housing Diversity, and Urban Villages areas. Couple of examples:
1. Virginia Park on East Boundary Rd is zoned industrial. The developers want it to be Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) to get residential development going. It was rejected. I think they will be able to get that either from Council or VCAT. Nothing changes in this instance.
2. Glenhuntly Rd was rezoned from industrial to MUZ from Grange Rd towards Mimosa St. The developers can probably have any height they like consistent with building regulations eg overshadowing. Again no changes with existing arrangements.
My conclusion is that the number of objections to VCAT will reduce, but only because in such areas developers do not have to consult or even go to the Council as my understanding is that they can get approval as of right in such zones.
August 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Until C110 is gazetted [maybe today?], the public simply doesn’t know what it says. The media releases and other propaganda are deliberately vague about the set of amenity standards the Amendment specifies for each new zone. Overwhelmingly the emphasis is on NRZ, and the changes that encourage loss of amenity and diversity in GRZ and RGZ have been downplayed.
1. There are a mixture of Zones in the area of Virginia Park: C1Z, C2Z, IN1Z (and PPRZ and soon-to-be-defunct R1Z). I’d be very surprised if developers are arguing for MUZ for the existing commercial and industrial parts. Their profits can be maximised if it’s all zoned C1Z, and has the additional benefit to them of removing the need to comply with any amenity standards.
2. Glenhuntly Rd west of Grange Rd is to be rezoned C1Z, not MUZ. There are no enforceable amenity standards for C1Z, in particular no binding constraints on its impact on neighbouring residential properties. There is a general prohibition, almost always ignored, that a use must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.
The changes, so we are told, introduce binding contraints on decision-makers for developments in the new residential zones NRZ, GRZ, RGZ. Permits generally will still be needed to construct 2 or more dwellings on a lot, subject to easily-ignored “guidelines” and some binding constraints. Whereas once a 3-storey building had a height limit of 9m in R1Z, developers can now build much taller 3-storey developments in GRZ and RGZ. The 9m limit was not always honoured by our Council, and was subject to the ridiculous loophole that S55 [containing many amenity Standards] didn’t apply to 4-storey or higher developments. The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development that applied to 4+ storeys were also easily ignored, as our Council has repeatedly done.
The lack of consistency in applying Standards was the hallmark of how degraded the system had become. C110 addresses just one aspect of planning that had been abused, but only for some residents, and leaves untouched many others.
August 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The view of Ratio Consultants (a big planning, traffic, engineering company that has represented numerous developers) should give plenty of food for thought. They state on their webpage: “These changes only affect land zoned residential. There is therefore clearly some merit in targeting commercially zoned land.”
August 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Yes. The RZMAC report on commercial and industrial zones argued for C2Z as a means of ensuring *some* commercially zoned land could remain for commercial purposes. They’re aware that residential development is more profitable and that C1Z is likely to be heavily used for residential development. One of many flaws in current “planning” is that population density outstrips employment growth in most activity centres, meaning more people have to travel further for work. Additionally the services available in the centres are increasingly food-based. As a result they only meet some needs.
August 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Whatever zoning Virginia Park owner/developers will decide upon, they want to maximise their return on their asset. I think they would be very disappointed with GESAC as an intrusion into commercial activity. So they would like to give GESAC some competition. Watch it grow with East Boundary Rd exploding in car traffic. After all there is no forward plans in Glen Eira for this area or any other ones.
August 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Just another little quirk. At present GEC Planning Scheme allows large high-rise developments on larger properties. So, ABC land in Elsternwick could be a large development regardless of its zoning. If a developer holds several land holdings next to each other would that still apply?
August 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Site consolidation is encouraged in the areas Council has targeted for higher density development. There’s a vague statement in SPPF Clause 15 that “Site consolidation should not result in street frontages that are out of keeping with the complexity and rhythm of existing streetscapes”, but other than that, developers could acquire adjacent parcels to facilitate a bigger building. They’d still have to comply with mandatory height limits and probably side and rear setback amenity standards if in the new/modified residential zones. There’s also some constraints on development that abuts a property in a lower-density zone. The Council document “New Residential Zones and Mandatory Maximum Heights A Guide for the Community” discusses a number of related issues.