Esakoff moved, and Sounness seconded the following motion on roof top gardens –
That Council:
1. Include the concept of Rooftop Gardens and Open Space in Council’s submission to ‘Plan Melbourne’, and
2. Commence the process of applying for a Planning Scheme Amendment to include this concept within our Residential Growth Zones and Commercial Zones on the basis that Glen Eira has the last (sic) amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne.
Ostensibly, this sounds terrific. But like most things done in Glen Eira it is too little too late and won’t be achieved (if at all) until years down the track. It is vital that residents appreciate what this administration and its councillors could have achieved if they really cared via Amendment C110 – the ‘reformed’ residential zones. Boroondara for example has 4 different schedules for its General Residential Zones. That means that they have looked at their neighbourhoods and carefully differentiated the respective areas. Glen Eira really only has 2 because the third schedule applies solely to the Alma Club site. Glen Eira has no limits on subdividing land less than 500m and sets a height limit in this zone of 10.5 metres. In contrast Boroondara believes that 9 metres is necessary and permits are required for land less than 500 metres in area.
What’s really important however is Boroondara’s emphases on open space. Glen Eira relies on the miniscule ResCode standards. Here’s what Boroondara stipulates in its GRZ zones –
And it’s not only Boroondara. Kingston, Stonnington and others are ensuring that their schedules meet basic principles of non chicken coop living. Their permeability requirements, together with open space requirements (and the inclusion of increased open space levies in some schedules) put Glen Eira to shame. All of this could have been done with Amendment C110. It wasn’t. So now we have this cry for an amendment that in the end is meaningless. With no real urban design framework and no ESD mandates in its planning scheme, the prospect of forcing developers to do anything is pie in the sky in our view. This call for rooftop gardens is nothing more than an afterthought, designed to counter the mounting criticism and to give the appearance that council is actually doing something. But, with little hope of ever being legally viable, and potentially years down the track, it remains a pipe dream.
The opportunity to institute real reform has been squandered, or worse, never intended. The open invitation for unfettered development in Glen Eira still stands – only it’s much worse!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM
It’s very comforting to know that Cr Esakoff cares so much about open space and at heart is a greeny wanting gardens up on 10 or 20 storey buildings. That’s why she voted to turn open space into car parks at gesac. Maybe she could let us all in on what she said when they were plotting the secret introduction of the c110 amendment. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall then.
November 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM
It should also be borne in mind that previous council resolutions (and hence ‘orders’) for council planning staff to prepare amendments have never, ever, again seen the light of day – ie on increased permeability that would encompass housing diversity as well as minimal change is just one example. Resolutions are passed then, it would seem, are either conveniently forgotten, or are consigned to the never-never land of ‘works in progress’. Needless to say, no councillor has ever asked ‘what’s happened to that resolution?’. Out of sight means out of mind – or at least not in open and transparent discussions in council chambers.
November 30, 2013 at 2:58 PM
One of the many hippocratic moves to increase her popularity. All residents will see her and her other colleagues through and through once audio visual recordings are in place. Any reason why Esacaugh refused this?
November 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM
Amazing what the rush to be first to implement the planning zones left out – add roof top gardens to the list that starts with Community Consultation (in big bold capitals).
Oh, since you’re looking at what’s been left out perhaps you could also add some sustainable requirements (eg. solar panels and water tanks) to the Commercial, Mixed Use and Residential Growth Zones. On second thoughts since most of these will be boundary to boundary developments perhaps you just need to add water tanks if there is a roof top garden.
December 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM
The cited resolution includes a reference to Plan Melbourne. Once again residents are left out in the cold as to the actual council submission. It is “secret”. Since submissions close this week, residents will not have clapped eyes on what council submits. We highlight again, and again, the failure of this administration and its councillors to be open, transparent and accountable. Residents have a right to know how council views the impact of this major policy statement on Glen Eira’s future.
In the agenda papers for Stonnington’s December 2nd council meeting, there is their full 18 page submission on Plan Melbourne. Other councils have also published their submissions. Nothing is “secret”. Stonnington in fact has gone to great lengths to hold information sessions, providing literature, etc. and urging their residents to lodge submissions. Glen Eira has predictably kept mum about it all. No media releases, nothing up on the website, and no formal resolution to endorse whatever council has decided to submit. Appalling governance – again and again.
We also note that the Stonnington submission makes much of Plan Melbourne’s pre-emptive application (possibly January 2014), especially in light of Strategic Frameworks, and the new residential zones. They have much to say about the Caulfield Major Activity Centre and the lack of clarity on what differentiates a ‘neighbourhood centre’ from an activity centre. All is relevant to Glen Eira as well.