We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
A “shattered” Margot Carroll speaking outside the Supreme Court with Francis Gallichio after the decision was handed down about 590 Orrong Rd, Armadale. Picture by Derrick den Hollander Source: News Limited
RESIDENTS who fought tooth and nail to stop a controversial high-rise development in Melbourne’s inner east are “shattered” by its approval.
The Supreme Court this morning dismissed an appeal of an earlier VCAT decision to approve the 12-storey, 448-apartment development at 590 Orrong Rd Armadale.
Orrong Group spokeswoman Margot Carroll said in theory, developer Lend Lease could start construction tomorrow.
“There will now be 1500-plus people coming into this small area. It is going to be like a little city. The impact is going to be enormous. Armadale’s population will increase by 10 per cent,” she said.
“We’re shattered”.
Stonnington Council Mayor Matthew Koce said Planning Minister Matthew Guy now needed to “step up” and residents and the council had been united in opposing the application.
“It is a dark day for democracy,” Cr Koce said.
“It has been a long wait (for this decision). It has been a long road. We need planning reform. No one wants a 13-storey building going up to their home.”
“I take my hat off to the Orrong Group. Margot Carroll has had her life on hold for four years.”
“It’s a really grim day for democracy. Residents know what is best for their local area.”
There is one last glimmer of hope for those fighting the development.
Planning Minster Matthew Guy is yet to sign off on a planning scheme amendment which would set a height limit of six storeys with a maximum of 250 units and 50 per cent coverage of the Orrong Rd site.
The amendment was passed by Stonnington Council in February, after going through an independent planning panel.
If approved, it would drastically reduce the scale of what Lend Lease can build.
10.30am: A CONTROVERIAL high-rise development in Armadale has been given the green light after a Supreme Court ruling this morning.
Justice Karin Emerton ruled the 12-storey development at 590 Orrong Rd, which will include 448 apartments up to 12 storeys and 18 townhouses, should proceed despite numerous objections from residents and Stonnington Council.
The council had challenged a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision in April to approve the apartment complex, arguing the tribunal had made an error of law in failing to take into consideration the objections and having described them as an “irrelevant consideration”.
The council last year unanimously refused a permit due to the development size and design.
Developer Lend Lease then had the decision overturned at VCAT, despite 627 objections and the unanimous opposition of the council and local politicians.
In handing down her findings, Justice Emerton said VCAT had “comprehensively considered the merits of the proposal, based on proper planning consideration” and the appeal should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal against VCAT’s decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for a major development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale.
Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce said: “This is a dark day for democracy.
“It is disappointing that Council’s appeal has been dismissed. The permit was unanimously rejected by the Council, local MPs, and residents. A massive 600 objections to the development were received on this planning application proposing 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.
“No-one wants a 13 storey monstrosity going up next to their home and VCAT’s decision to issue a permit despite more than 600 objections is devastating for the local community.
“Council took a stand in challenging VCAT’s decision in the Supreme Court and to advocate on behalf of the community for a sensible and responsible community outcome.
“I call on the State Government to urgently reform its planning system.
“The Minister must recognise community views and the angst that occurs when developments are imposed that are not in keeping with neighbourhood character.
“The Minister has the power to ensure planning controls are put in place, which reflect community views as part of the current residential planning zones reform.
“The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents concerned about the controversial Armadale development site.
“Residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.
“We are once again calling on the State Government to make a timely decision on the Planning Scheme Amendment that has been submitted to the Minister for approval.”
The Kornhauser family, who control a property and business empire worth an estimated $430 million, have taken their bid to run a religious school from their mansion in a residential area in St Kilda East all the way to the Supreme Court.
The legal move comes after Eliezer (Eric) and Nicole Kornhauser failed to secure planning approval from the Glen Eira Council and lost an appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The dispute centres on the operation of an ”education centre” the Kornhausers have run from their two-storey contemporary mansion built across two allotments on Springfield Avenue in St Kilda East.
The northern wing of the U-shaped property holds classrooms where 14 boys receive Jewish religious instruction during the day, and intensive courses are held for young local and international Jewish women through the Merkos Women program.
Some of the visiting women live next door at another property owned by the Kornhausers. After complaints began to mount from neighbours about ”creeping” intensity of use at the site – particularly noise, parking and traffic problems – the Kornhausers sought formal planning approval for the education centre. Glen Eira Council refused the application and the decision was upheld at VCAT in July.
VCAT member Philip Martin found the Kornhausers’ proposal represented a ”fatally poor planning outcome”.
”I have some sympathy for the line of thinking that a dead-end residential street zoned Residential 1 is not an obvious place to establish this type of combined ‘women’s and children’s religious studies’ use,” he said.
Mr Martin also found that it was likely that a 95-year-old covenant established over the southern allotment prohibiting the use of the land for ”any religious educational or charitable use” was being breached by students using the pool on the residential side of the property.
The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Nicole Kornhauser could not be reached for comment. A directions hearing is set for November 29.
This afternoon’s LARGE Community Forum had a terrific turnout and very informative speakers. Apparently all Glen Eira councillors and some senior planning staff were invited. To their credit the only councillors to show up were Lobo, Delahunty and Magee. No officer turned up and no other councillors.
Since the afternoon was videotaped we’re assuming that LARGE will upload a full record of the formal presentation on their website (http://www.largeinc.com.au) so we won’t comment on this aspect of the event. Instead we will focus on some of the questions or comments that members of the audience made and the remarks made by the above councillors in response.
One resident asked that the map of the new zones be put up on the screen. He was from Wheeler St., Ormond which is a ‘purple area’ (4 storeys). He expressed ‘sorrow’ for anyone who lived in such areas because they were ‘high density zones’. His problem was that it was also a ‘flooding zone’ and there had been some progress with melbourne Water and council about upgrading drains but ‘without upgrades of infrastructure’ council is ‘still approving development’. They went to VCAT opposing a 3 storey development and they won. But that was several months ago, before the introduction of the zones, so the resident wanted to know what this means for the new development now – ie could there be another application and a permit granted because this is now a higher density zone. The resident asked if ‘council is stronger than VCAT?’
Professor Buxton explained that there are other forms of control via layers of overlays and if there is one he felt that VCAT would uphold it – although he didn’t know the extent of Glen Eira’s overlays. Delahunty then said that council is continuing to ‘look for new areas to apply neighbourhood character overlays’ and these are ‘primarily in the green section of the map’ (minimal change). Said that with permeability controls, height controls and other things that ‘we are quite proud of’ and that ‘VCAT cannot overturn’. She didn’t forsee any change to the current flooding zone.
Another member of the audience then began her question by saying that the data that the residential zones are based on comes from figures of the nineties. Things have changed a lot since then and the floods of 2011 impacted on a huge area near her. Yet council still grants permits and hasn’t taken into account ‘greater surface’ for buildings which means ‘greater flooding’ and all this whilst there’s been ‘limited infrastructure upgrades’. Said that she lived in the ‘purple zone’ and that council has been ‘quite remiss’ in blocking themselves off from the community. (applause). ‘there is definitely no regard for us living in this area’. Claimed that she had spoken with planners at council and asked what consideration was given to ‘infrastructure’ and their response was ‘oh, we looked at it in 2000’ and that she should take it to council. Mentioned ‘schools bursting at the seams’ and whilst a state responsibility, council still has to advocate but it ‘seems that our rights in Glen Eira have been overlooked’. Schools and kindergartens are ‘bursting at the seams’ and whilst there is a train station there is no bus service’. Talked about traffic and that ‘yes’ 3 storey limit is great’ but it’s not enough.
Another speaker then said that she finds the ‘of right uses’ (ie no permit required) ‘abhorrent’ since it removes her rights as a resident to object, ‘voice my concern, to be heard’. Asked if this is in fact an abuse of administrative and legal power as well as a ‘denial of natural justice’ (applause). Buxton answered that the government has justified this by granting ‘certainty’ and removing delays therefore saving money for everyone. Said irony of all this is that there are heaps of Section 2 uses (service stations etc.) that can then get permits. Government hasn’t prohibited anything and there are no height controls for commercial areas and will be a huge problem because these of right uses don’t have height limits applied to them.
Buxton also stated that the criteria to assess these uses in residential areas are ‘very vague’ so anything could go into a residential street. Said that these ‘criteria’ are supposed to be ‘performance measures’ but they are anything but performance measures – ie will they cause ‘detriment’ to someone. These are vague and all subjective. Buxton then went on to say that a planning scheme is a legal document and people’s rights are either ‘given’ or ‘taken away’ via the planning scheme.
Several residents then gave examples of battles they had won elsewhere and the call was for ‘people power’.
Another residents asked whether VCAT could still ignore ResCode standards if councils simply defaulted to these in its schedules since VCAT often ignored ResCode in the past. Buxton responded that if specified in the schedules such as height then this was mandatory but it was vital that councils apply ‘the maximum powers they have under the schedules’. Gave the example that council could have stipulated one dwelling per lot but Glen Eira didn’t – they’ve allowed 2 dwellings per lot. Where there is medium or high density and there is no specifications by council then they will be assessed under ResCode. Problem is that ResCode only applies to 3 storeys so applications for 4 or more storeys in Residential Growth Zones won’t even have these ‘standards’. ‘No developer in his or her right mind is going to apply for a 3 storey development in a commercial zone when there’s no height control’. Also the guide that assesses higher density is ‘even less strict than ResCode’. So ‘not only do you get an incentive to go over 3 storeys but you’re being assessed against a weaker code’…’you’d have to be nuts not to do it’.
One ‘brown zone’ resident said she was ‘shocked’ by what has been said. Asked if it’s true that those living in these areas have no rights and no protection and that the lovely heritage places around her have no value whatwoever except for developers. Buxton said that ‘you lose rights if application relates to Section 1 uses’ otherwise people can still go to VCAT. (SECTION 1 INCLUDES ‘food and drink premises’ within 100 metres of commercial zones; shops, medical centres, places of worship etc.) Many of these are ‘high impact’ that people won’t be able to do anything about. The other problem here is that there are no height limits on such uses so a hypothetical could be a 9 storey application with no rights to objection next door to a single storey.
Comments from Backlash about population growth and no planning for infrastructure – transport. Buxton claimed that no government is confronting the planning for a city of 6.5 million people by 2050 because it will cost 25 to 50 billion just in transport.
LOBO then spoke saying that ‘it’s a pity the other 6 councillors did not turn up’. Said that Labor lost ‘because of Justin Madden’ at the last election and now we’ve got Matthew Guy ‘who became mad’ and is ‘on his way out’. Told residents that they should ‘go to the State Member of Parliament’ and that when councillors promise to stop development so that the ‘next time’ they come to ‘your house’ asking for your vote ‘throw a bucket of water on their face’. He then said that ‘personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree’ and that ‘I made that very clear’ and as he’s already said that ‘Melbourne is going to be like Calcutta’.
After a few more questions and comments on community activism and networking Magee spoke.
MAGEE: said he wanted to bring the discussion back to ‘some basic’ facts. Said that previously they only had ‘policies’ and not ‘zones’ and the former weren’t ‘enforceable’. This meant that ‘quite often’ at VCAT the ‘developer would win’. Claimed that ‘now’ the green areas were about ‘78% of Glen Eira’ and that developers therefore know that 2 dwellings is the maximum and that 2 storeys is the maximum. ‘that is not arguable through VCAT’. The blue zones are ‘a maximum of 3 storeys’ and the light blue is also 3 storeys and has ‘the greatest setback between the light blue and the green’. Brown is another zone with 4 storey maximum. Said that even with permitted uses in Glen Eira ‘not a lot has changed’. Said that in 2010 there was ‘quite significant’ consultation althought people might disagree with this. So all that’s happened is that the policies have ‘been changed over to zones’.
Another resident then stated that the spin doctors were outin force because the zones were rushed through and therefore they didn’t have time to consult with residents. Said that previously there were transition areas between the brown and blue zones and now there isn’t any. Asked if you own a house in a green zone and next door in the brown zone someone builds a 4 storey and blocks your solar panels what rights do residents have?
MAGEE: conceded that buildings could be 4 storeys but that ‘have to set back from 4 to 3 to 2’ and said this was a ‘natural setback’ and even in the growth zones (brown) these are ‘bordered by general residential zone’ (light blue)
DELAHUNTY: said that council had tried to have ‘transition zones in the past. Now we actually have transition zones’ and that ResCode could be applied to 4 storey buildings and council was trying to make transition zones enforceable whereas before they weren’t and now they are.
One resident got up and asked that those councillors who are present take back to their groups the community feeling that community consultation is what is needed and that rather than having the plans ‘left at the library where someone has to go with a magnifying glass’ to make head or tails out of it.
MAGEE: said that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space and that ‘there is no way that we are looking to encroach on open space’. The white areas on the maps are open space but ‘predominantly commercial zones’. Said that the first test is ‘about to come up’ in regards to the Virginia Park industrial site. Claimed that the Minister was approached by the developer to rezone without public consultation. Said that MP Miller had written to council and ‘endorsed’ the Minister’s position ‘not to go to public consultation’. Said that ‘council has actually fought that’ and will be putting it out under normal amendment processes which means public consultation. ‘These things are not debatable in council’. Said that council and ‘i’m one of them, I’m very proud of these zones’. Said that nothing has changed except that they have ‘guaranteed’ ‘maximum height limits’ in 98%’ of the municipality.
One of the range of videos created by Moreland City Council on their proposed implementation of the new residential zones. Please note a couple of stark differences:
10 information sessions for residents
An online survey
2 months of public consultation
TWO STOREY LIMIT FOR GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (Glen Eira has decided that 3 storeys are fine!)
The saga with GESAC rolls on and on. Contractual problems such as liquidated damages, delays in opening, another year’s extension on final settlement, and now the unwilling admission that there are some major construction faults doesn’t paint a pretty picture of council’s oversighting of this entire project. There’s no doubt that there are problems when pools are closed for weeks at a time for ‘maintenance’ on a facility that has barely been in existence for a year. Lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank whilst council is still pouring more and more money into GESAC. In the past 6 months there’s been the diversion of $45,000 from a maternal child care centre to GESAC, plus another $15,000 recently announced. And we mustn’t forget 2 car park extensions and the ludicrous relocation of a playground that has ended up costing over a million dollars. Now full page colour advertisements have started again. When we’re repeatedly told that the place is a roaring success, then we have to ask whether continued, and expensive advertising, is warranted or even necessary.
The latest evidence of things not going smoothly just happens to be a tender advertisement in The Age.
“Contract No.: 2014.025 GESAC – Replacement of AHU and Associated Ducting
Requirement: Replacement of pool air handler and associated return & exhaust portion of ducting.
Tenders Closing date:
4 October 2013 by 4.00 pm.”
What caught our eye is the fact that it is not Hansen & Yuncken that are tendering but council. Does this therefore mean that ratepayers are footing another bill to rectify problems with GESAC? Given that this has gone out to tender, then we can assume that the costs will run into tens of thousands. Of course, expecting council to actually inform its residents as to the real state of affairs is nothing more than a pipe dream. The illusion of smooth sailing must be maintained. Here are some fundamental questions about GESAC and its overall governance:
Have any councillors ever seen, or even requested, a ledger account of every cent spent and every cent earned?
Did any councillors ever clap eyes on the contract with Hansen & Yuncken, or was all this left in the ‘capable’ hands of officers?
And if we’re talking of tendering, was the architect’s work ever tendered, since we can find no record of this in any newspaper?
When will residents (and councillors) be told the true costs of GESAC?
Are ratepayers still subsidising the Warriors for the basketball allocations?
The difference between Glen Eira’s open slather approach to development compared to other councils is made even clearer when the schedules for the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1) are looked at side by side. In Glen Eira, the GRZ1 has been applied holus bolus to existing ‘Neighbourhood Centres’ and Main Roads. Suddenly, developers have been given the green light for 3 storey apartment blocks in countless residential streets.
Instead of using the schedules to achieve a balance, and to ensure the protection of local amenity, Glen Eira’s councillors have simply rubber stamped the Newton and Akehurst agenda.
Please note carefully:
Glen Eira imposes a 10.5 metre height limit. BOROONDARA FOR THE SAME ZONING IMPOSES A 9 METRE MAXIMUM.
Glen Eira has no limitations. Boroondara imposes plenty.
Here are the schedules from both Councils. We ask readers to compare and contrast and start questioning whether our elected representatives are indeed acting in the best interests of the community?
Here’s the Boroondara version for the identical zone –
Prior to the Minister’s announcement of the new residential zones for Glen Eira on August 5th, media reports had already been stating that Glen Eira, together with Boroondara, were to be among the first councils to introduce the zones. Council of course denied all knowledge of this at the time.
Unlike Glen Eira, Boroondara has now released its draft for the zones. (Uploaded here) It differs dramatically from Glen Eira’s vision for the future. The main differences can be summarised as follows:
The draft incorporates over 2 years of extensive community consultation on its Neighbourhood and Urban Design Strategy (completed in September 2012)
No deceit, secrecy – the proposals are there in black and white
Extensive local analysis that has divided Boroondara into 75 distinct areas with plenty of emphasis on Heritage and Development and Design overlays. All Glen Eira has done is introduce C87 that looked at a paltry 17 areas and altered many areas from Minimal Change to Housing Diversity.
The most important difference lies in the proposed schedules. Boroondara has done its homework and come up with countless ‘limitations’ in the schedules that are designed to protect streets and neighbourhoods.
Another major difference lies in the zoning itself. All that Glen Eira could come up with was basically 5 zones (Neighbourhood Residential – one zone; General Residential – 2 zones and Residential Growth zone – 2 zones). Boroondara has 7 distinct zones including the all important GRZ1, 2, 3 AND 4. Each of the accompanying schedules differs markedly allowing for greater control of distinct areas. Glen Eira in contrast has none of this fine detail and differentiation within the zones themselves.
Boroondara is also asking for a Ministerial drawn up Amendment to introduce the zones. But, at least this isn’t being done by stealth and secrecy as Glen Eira did. Boroondara also states that given they have a year to finalise the zones, there will be further amendments and the opportunity for community input.
Below are some of the Boroondara schedules followed by the Glen Eira ones. Readers should note the differences on permeability, open space, tree plantings, set backs etc. They should also start questioning their councillors as to why, when the opportunity was there to really protect neighbourhoods Glen Eira has failed to act? Residents have been merely thrown the bone of ‘height limits’ – something they could have had 10 years ago. The philosophy of untrammelled development remains enshrined in these minimalist schedules to the detriment of thousands and thousands of residents.
The following motion highlights again the continued whittling away of what most people would regard as protocols conducive to transparent and open government. No surprises in guessing who moved the motion, nor who seconded. Readers should pay careful attention to the potential consequences of this motion, in that:
Since agenda items are only made public from Friday afternoon, and the motion reduces the time for submitting public questions by 24 hours, this really only leaves the weekend for residents to consider agenda items, and submit their questions. We would have no objections if the publication of the agenda also came out several days earlier allowing residents the necessary time to either contact councillors, gather information, or simply to compose their queries.
Lipshutz states that 2 questions are the limit and that a question consisting of several parts will be deemed as separate questions. Again, limiting public participation and accountability.
No minuting is the equivalent of no accountability.
Here is what occurred:
Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff
That the following be referred to the Local Laws Committee for the purpose of amending the Local Law with respect to meeting procedure. That Local Law 232 with respect to Public Questions be amended to provide:
1. Questions must be received not later than 12 Noonon the preceding business day;
2. Where a public question has been asked and the person having asked the question is present at the Council meeting then that person may read the question;
3. Where a public question has been received but the person asking the question is not present at the Council meeting that question will not be read but will be answered in the mode that it was received (mail or email);
4. Answers to Public Question shall not be minuted;
5. Public Questioners shall be limited to 2 questions per person. Where more than 2 questions are submitted the Chair shall answer the first 2 questions.
That when the Local Law Committee look at Local Law 232 that they also provide guidance on where Public Questions should appear in the Agenda.
AMENDMENT
Crs Okotel/Pilling
That answers to Public Questions be minuted.
The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION (c) was again put and CARRIED.
LIPSHUTZ: Thought that most people agreed that there should be public questions. Receiving information is important for making decisions and if questions come in on the ‘same day’ it doesn’t give officers much time to compile the requested information and give answers. He agreed that ‘there should be transparency’ but if people aren’t present and they ‘simply ask the question because they want to embarrass’ ‘or someone put them up to it’ they ‘should get the answer’ but in the way it was submitted. It shouldn’t be ‘read out and waste our time’. Some people do want the questions in the minutes but he thought ‘no’ it’s the same as when people write directly to councillors and they get answers but they are ‘not minuted’. Tonight there were 4 questions by the same person and we’re for 2 questions per person and ‘that’s it’. If a question has several parts then that will be regarded as 2 questions. If council wants to encourage people then ‘you don’t have someone hogging questions’.
ESAKOFF: basically said she’d already given her views on the Delahunty motion and didn’t need to repeat herself.
Delahunty asked that the reference to the Local Law committee be considered and both Lipshutz and Esakoff agreed. Delahunty said that her position hadn’t changed and that she opposed the motion.
PILLING: thought there were ‘merits’ in the motion and asked that an amendment that questions be minuted be accepted. Lipshutz refused to accept this as an amendment. Okotel then moved that public questions be minuted. Hyams allowed this as an amendment even though Burke’s view was that since it’s the ‘opposite’ of the motion it can’t be an amendment.
OKOTEL: said that the ‘purpose’ of public questions is that they go ‘on the record’.
HYAMS: supported amendment.
Amendment put and carried. Motion was put and carried.
Glen Eira Debates 