The infamous C110 is now available. We will be commenting on this amendment over the next few postings. This post concentrates on the Housing & Residential parameters as stated. All extracts are verbatim quotes from the document and uploaded here.

This amendment has been prepared by the Minister for Planning who is the planning authority for this amendment.The amendment has been made at the request of the Glen Eira City Council.

COMMENT: So much for the myth that Council did not know well and truly beforehand that community consultation would not be occurring. Nor does it excuse the fact that the date submitted to the department was well before the public questions on consultation were tabled at council meetings. The responses were thus untruthful and deceitful.

The amendment applies the NRZ to the Minimal Change areas, the RGZ to the Housing Diversity areas and the GRZ to the small areas around the periphery of the Housing Diversity areas and along transport routes.

COMMENT: Nothing could be clearer than that HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS EXPANDED! Yet Council, apart from admitting changes to the Alma Club site and one other, still maintain that nothing much has changed and that the amendment is simply a ‘translation’ of current zones.

Another objective of Council is to promote the integrated planning of the city. Integrated planning involves working with the community, residents, traders, service providers and other stakeholders to enhance the quality of Glen Eira’s suburbs and their environmental, economic and social sustainability. Integrated planning involves looking beyond traditional town planning solutions. It is important to encourage people to participate in the development of their city and to develop overall visions and plans for areas. It involves holistically looking at a wide range of issues in the local community including; infrastructure, social planning, economic development, recreation and capital works.

COMMENT: So much for the spin versus the reality! So much for ‘integrated planning’ that involves the community. To include such blatant propaganda in an official document that has no relationship to actual events is both insulting to residents and says much about the workings of council.

  • Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character.
  • Encourage the retention of existing vegetation, in particular vegetation and trees which contribute to the City’s tree canopy.
  • Encourage energy efficient housing design, landscape design, construction materials and techniques that will minimise environmental impacts in residential developments.
  • Encourage residents and developers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices such as reducing water usage, recycling and reducing energy use.
  • Encourage rainwater retention and usage in larger developments.
  • Ensure that the community is involved in decision making about their neighbourhood.
  • Ensure that the traffic impacts are adequately addressed when considering new residential development.
  • Ensure that where new development places an increased burden on infrastructure it contributes to the upgrading of infrastructure. 

COMMENT: All motherhood statements that have lacked and continue to lack strategies and policies to enforce these objectives. We have commented numerous times on council’s refusal to introduce Environmental Sustainable Design, water saving design, traffic management precinct plans into its planning scheme. These sentences merely continue the moratorium on action. They are intended to sound good, but are meaningless. How wonderful too that ‘infrastructure’ gets a mention when council REMOVED ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS LEVY. Ironically, they may now be forced to re-introduce it!

  • Using the Commercial Centres Policy to strengthen the core of strip shopping centres, identify declining centres and identify new opportunities for non-retail functions. 
  • Using the Monash Medical Centre Precinct Structure Using the Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy to provide some certainty when planning to establish non residential uses in residential zones (eg medical centres, childcare centres).
  • Using the Heritage Policy to manage new development (including additions, alterations and demolition of all or parts of a heritage place) in all areas covered by the Heritage Overlay.

COMMENT: These sentences are possibly the most damning in the entire document since they exhibit for all to see the sheer incompetence of council’s and the minister’s planning department(s). It simply reveals that Glen Eira council either does not check its work carefully enough, or that it does not even know what is in its own planning scheme. PLEASE NOTE: Council does not have a ‘commercial centres policy’ – that was removed over a year ago as was the Monash Medical centre (and it was never a structure plan!). Childcare centres are lumped together with medical centres. It seems that Glen Eira planners don’t know that they introduced a separate ‘childcare’ policy and removed it from the ‘non residential uses’ quite recently. Sloppy, inept, and totally unprofessional!


  • For housing diversity areas, in conjunction with Melbourne Water, further investigating the capacity of drainage infrastructure to accommodate multi-unit development.
  • Developing local structure plans / urban design frameworks to guide development in the neighbourhood centres.
  • Investigating a vegetation management program which considers appropriate controlsand guidelines to ensure vegetation protection.
  • Developing environmental sustainability guidelines for residential development bydrawing together the best practice in this area to ensure that new residential development is more environmentally sustainable
  • Developing “suburb” plans for each suburb which integrate land use and developmentplanning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens,street trees and business development.
  • Developing local area traffic management plans and parking precinct plans to control the effects of parking and traffic intrusion in residential areas.
  • Implementing local area traffic management changes in existing areas in consultation with communities to improve safety and amenity and discourage use by inappropriate traffic.
  • Investigating mechanisms which require developers to undertake street tree planting.

COMMENT: Promises, promises which we believe will never be introduced or undertaken given the record of this council over the past decade and its abject failure to make a move on most of these aspirations. The 2010 Planning Scheme Review, plus the 2011 Planisphere report recommended reviewing Heritage Areas. This hasn’t been touched since 1996! Readers also need to note that the accompanying ‘policies’ in this document go as far back as 1999. The promises of years and years ago remain the unfulfilled promises of today. This does not fill us with confidence that any of these ‘future’ plans will be acted upon – but they sure as hell sound good for any resident who might decide to actually read the amendment and/or the planning scheme.