VCAT has approved an 8 storey ‘mixed use’ development of shops, offices, 54 dwellings and waiver of resident, visitor, and loading bay requirements. The site is at 28 Riddell Parade, Elsternwick. Below are extracts from the decision. Whilst VCAT will undoubtedly be ‘blamed’ by Lipshutz & Co for this decision, the member once again highlights how the Glen Eira Planning Scheme holds little terror for developers. The full decision is available at –
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2006.html
- We find the policy guidance on height turns on the weight to be given to State policy, which clearly supports larger scale buildings in Major Activity Centre that do not conflict with surrounding land uses. Mr Sheppard expressed this policy direction succinctly by saying State policy anticipates new development will lead to Major Activity Centres having a different character than that which currently exists.
- The absence of a Design and Development Overlay specifying a preferred maximum height for new development on the review site influences our interpretation of the site’s policy setting. It implies that a development’s height is only limited by the specific combination of the policy and physical context of this, or any other, site in this Major Activity Centre that is not encumbered by such an Overlay.
- We found it relevant that numerous other 7 to 10 storey buildings have been approved in this Major Activity Centre, with many of these buildings having direct abuttals to low scale residential development. These buildings all display a different character to what currently exists and indicate that buildings of a comparable height to what is proposed have been considered acceptable in this centre.
- To this end, we distinguish Mr Scott’s evidence as relying too strongly on the notion of respecting and maintaining the centre’s existing character. We find his reliance on the ‘success’ of recent four storey infill development is too heavily weighted towards the assumption that policy discourages any visual competition to this centre’s heritage character. We found Ms Heggen’s opinion that the proposed development is one of the ‘next generation’ of activity centre buildings better reflects the policy framework and the recent history of this centre.
- We do not accept the concept that only the western end of Glen Huntly Road can accommodate taller buildings, as it is not reflected in State or local policy nor is reflected on the ground. The local policy does not distinguish between the eastern and western sides of the railway line nor does it call for ‘gateway’ buildings along Glen Huntly Road.
- Rather, it separates the centre into precincts where particular development outcomes are anticipated. We note that the zone boundaries make an intentional deviation to include this site. It anticipates larger scale buildings at heights compatible with adjacent buildings in the precinct containing the review site and identifies Stanley Street as a ‘point of transition from larger scale to the north’ to ‘lower scale to the south’. We find this explicitly encourages larger scale development on the review site, despite it lacking a frontage to Glen Huntly Road and despite it being on the east side of the railway line.
- Much turned on the meaning of these phrases in the local policy. We find the first phrase – heights compatible with adjacent buildings – is to be interpreted as including heights envisaged by the policy framework rather than just the height of the existing adjoining buildings. In this interpretation, it is reasonable to assume a larger scale building could occupy the commercial site to the north or could be constructed on the council managed car park to the east.
- We find local policy is not clear on whether a gradual or an abrupt transition is required. To this extent, Mr Barber’s interpretation is credible yet we consider it is not correct. The policy guidance for Precinct 4 does not imply taller buildings are discouraged in Precinct 6, rather Precincts 5 and 6 require a ‘transition’ between the Stanley Street precincts. We see the term as standing on its own and being capable of interpreted as either an abrupt or a gradual transition.
- Separately, Messrs Barber and Scott rely on the Design Vision for Elsternwick Planisphere 2004 to varying degrees. We find this is not helpful to our decision, as this document has no status in the Planning Scheme.
In summary, we find the policies of the Planning Scheme support the height of the proposed building.
Overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza
- We do not accept that the public amenity impact of overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza caused by this building is reason to reduce its height. The building will cast shadow on the southern corner of the Plaza, yet this shadow will recede before 10am at the equinox. We find this is a marginal and acceptable impact.
- We acknowledge that local policy discourages such overshadowing yet find this must be balanced against other policy considerations that promote larger scale development on the review site. We also acknowledge Mr Brazilec’s observation that greater shadow will fall on the Plaza at times other than the equinox, yet remain of the view that the shadow is acceptable, as it will fall on a relatively small section of the Plaza even in mid-winter.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 6, 2013 at 12:27 PM
I like this comment ‘We find the policy guidance on height turns on the weight to be given to State policy, which clearly supports larger scale buildings in Major Activity Centre that do not conflict with surrounding land uses’
What does this mean for 4 storey in Truganni Road where if permission is granted will have a building overlooking a school and kindergarten?
December 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Pretty amazing that all councillors cried crocodile tears about the Bolinda st application and how it would set a precedent in minimal change. No such concerns with housing diversity and activity centres. Anything goes here and handing vcat the perfect argument to permit more and more high rise. Anyone living within a stone’s throw of these places should be screaming blue murder and asking what kind of people let this happen when they had the chance to introduce height limits for everything years ago.
December 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM
The comment about the absence of a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) says it all – Council could have done something that would have been binding but didn’t. No doubt Council will now blame VCAT when once again it is crap planning in Glen Eira.
All residents, not just those in the high density areas, should be screaming – the DDO could also be applied to the NRZ (minimal change zone) but of course they haven’t been.
December 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM
I agree DDO’s are something that should have been implemented,particularly for those areas that didn’t qualify for a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay. Instead Council opted to appease residents with references to statements of “preferred character” – the kicker being that these frequently referred to statements quite simply don’t exist – every time they are referred to residents should ask to see them.
Doesn’t matter whether its a designated high density area or an area defined as offering limited infill opportunities there is nada nothing – either in the old system or the recently implemented zone system
With regards the DDO their effectiveness can be gauged by Bentleigh’s Clover Development – Council quite clearly demonstrated it has no intention to ensure compliance.
December 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Council and council staff are to blame for several deficiencies in the Planning Scheme. The boundaries of Activity Centres, as DTPLI well knows and VCAT is oblivious to, have never been defined in Glen Eira. GECC has no structure plans for its activity centres. It has never defined the preferred character (such as through structure plans and Overlays) for these vague areas. It has overused Commercial Zones, placing them too close to existing residential areas with single dwellings. It has repeatedly failed to apply relevant policy [Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development; Activity Centre Design Guidelines] when assessing proposals. It hasn’t done the strategic work required by GEPS to ensure infrastructure is adequate or that development of a similar size can be accomodated adjacent to large development proposals.
VCAT is also to blame since they’re supposed to know the State Planning Policy Framework. It is extremely offensive to “interpret” council policy so wilfully as to deny it the effect Council intended. Design Guidelines Objective 2.6 is “to ensure areas can develop with an equitable access to outlook and sunlight”. Objective 5.7 is “to ensure that a good standard of natural lighting and ventilation is provided to internal building spaces”. Instead the decision is to compromise development to the north, that it is appropriate for 1-bedroom units not to have direct natural light and ventilation, and that 8 sqm of balcony space is excessive for smaller units. What baloney. I certainly don’t believe VCAT when it asserts that the design provides “equitable development rights to the property to the north”.
It’s a helluva stretch to describe an unsubstantiated opinion as “evidence” when somebody makes as nebulous a claim as “congested, yet manageable” and “will not result in an unacceptable degree of saturation”. It’s about time for some quantification—just what is an acceptable degree of saturation? What happens with the next development, and the one after that? But then VCAT doesn’t have to make decisions that “achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions”.
December 8, 2013 at 7:38 PM
“But then VCAT doesn’t have to make decisions that “achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions”. Maybe not, but council certainly does. I would wager that they don’t have a clue about the numbers of properties being landbanked, the number of permits that are extended time and time again, the number of car parking spaces that they will need in activity centres in the next 5 years. All done on a wing and a prayer and all favouring those people that put in planning applications.
December 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM
It was both amusing and infuriating to read in the Age Matthew Guy has signalled his intention to introduce mandatory building height limits around Parliament House. There are of course already mandatory height limits that apply to properties such as the Palace Theatre site. What he is really flagging is that he proposes to lower the mandatory height limit to reflect the current discretionary limit. He obviously doesn’t trust VCAT.
So we now have VCAT ordering a permit be granted for a building that is taller than Matthew Guy will tolerate in the Bourke Hill precinct of the Capital City Zone. Residential amenity, sustainability, and infrastructure mean nothing in the suburbs, but Parliamentarians take a dim(!) view of having their own amenity compromised. The ridiculous runt of a building where the glass shard was once to stand is a reminder that Parliament is not very competent on planning matters.