Next Wednesday, the 7th May, will see the Planning Conference for the Big Screen at Caulfield Racecourse take place.
TIME: 6.30pm
CHAIR: Cr Jim Magee
VENUE: Town Hall
We can only hope that this time:
- doors will not be locked
- that clear directions are provided to residents so they can find the exact location
- that enough plans are provided to go around
- that the MRC deigns to appear and answer questions, and
- that in future Council consider that 6.30pm is NOT the best time for such meetings if their objective is to truly engage with residents!
+++++++++++++
PS: and if any further evidence was needed to prove how Glen Eira City Council operates in contrast to its neighbours, we provide the following:
Residents and councillors reject State Government call for greater housing density in Boroondara
- Progress Leader
- May 01, 2014
Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew Guy for an increase to the proportion of residential growth zones in the municipality. Source: News Limited
ANGRY residents and councillors have rejected last-minute planning zone changes that would see more neighbourhoods opened up to 13.5m-high residential developments.
More than 600 residents packed into the Camberwell Town Hall this week to hear councillors unanimously reject a planning scheme amendment that would see a greater proportion of residential areas allocated the Residential Growth Zone.
It was originally planned for 0.8 per cent of areas to be given the zone, under amendment C190. Planning Minister Matthew Guy asked for this to be increased to 2.5 per cent, under amendment C199.
A total of 123 residents wanted to speak at the special planning committee meeting, of which 52 were heard. The meeting stretched into the early hours of Tuesday morning.
Cr Jim Parke described the proposed changes as “utter nonsense”.
“What was put forward (originally) is a great outcome for Boroondara and council had every right to expect they would be approved by the minister,” Cr Parke said.
“Not for one moment did council tend to alter the protection of our city. It goes to show with the depth of feeling here tonight, that should also be conveyed to our local state members.”
Boroondara Residents Association President Jack Roach said there had been an unnecessary delay in approving the C190 amendment, which many people had found “unacceptable and detrimental” to the region.
“We request the minister approve C190 without delay,” he said.
‘There are 700 people here tonight who do not like this growth. These added bits are an insult to us all and the minister has to be told the people are not happy with this.”
The Leader asked Mr Guy’s office for a response to the meeting and details of when he plans to finalise planning scheme amendment C190.
A spokesman for Mr Guy said “An independent advisory committee is considering the merits of this issue and will give a recommendation back to the minister.”
++++++++++
And from Council Minutes 29/4 –
It has become apparent overtime, the Gallery feel we should have the opportunity to be able to speak as we are a democratic country. Instead we’re being gagged. Afterall we the ratepayers are paying the Councillors wages. So a motion should and needs to be passed on the above. During a meeting with the Mayor (Neil Pilling) last month he said he would agree to the idea of the Gallery being able to voice questions with certain restrictions. EG: time restraints. If the Councillors are discussing a particular subject the Gallery should be able to interject and ask a question by raising their hand, which is allowable in VCAT. What’s the point of attending Council Meetings monthly when we the ratepayers can’t voice our opinions.
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Over recent years Council has considered the issue of meeting procedures including the provision for a public question time.
Council, by a majority decision, decided not to change the current format.”
Glen Eira Debates 
May 1, 2014 at 3:04 PM
The MRC will not be happy when they see who is chairing
May 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM
Hope the representatives from MRC come in big numbers.
May 1, 2014 at 4:02 PM
The planner should bring an electronis pointer or even as brrom handle so as location can easily be pointed out
May 1, 2014 at 4:06 PM
Could ever image Pilling standing up for the residents of Glen Eira, the Mayor is a mouse
May 1, 2014 at 4:37 PM
Cr Lobo is the only Councillor that stands up for the residences.
May 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM
Lobo means wolf in Spanish, Pilling means mouse
May 1, 2014 at 6:08 PM
You belong to a very small clique. The mayor is representing the other 130,000 that live in Glen Eira. He is doing a fine job. He is also representing the MRC as he should.
May 2, 2014 at 8:24 PM
well said Jamie, I guess you want to be mayor again
May 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Does he read this blog? he he he
May 1, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Just last Sunday I was in the municipality of Boroondara to attend the 90th Anniversary and final service of St Columba’s, a victim of the ineptitude and dodginess of the Victorian Synod of the “Uniting” Church. Somehow from the congregation owning their own land, Synod got their hands on the title, and refused to manage the land in accordance to the undertaking they had given concerning viable congregations. The land is of course to be developed so the zoning affects just how much the developer can squeeze onto the land. For this and other reasons I have more than a passing interest in what happens in Boroondara and the C190 vs C199 planning contretemp.
Whether C190 or C199, there is something very odd going on. Land on one side of Whitehorse Rd for a distance of about 500m is to be zoned GRZ, while on the other side it’s to be NRZ. There is a tram that runs down the middle of Whitehorse Rd. The land on the north is on a steep hill. It is difficult to ensure light to habitable rooms with even 2-storey developments side-by-side, let alone 3-storey developments. The obvious conclusion is that amenity standards will be sacrificed in Boroondara, just as they have in Glen Eira. While height limits are mandatory [for the moment], setbacks and solar access are purely discretionary.
It’s a bit of a stretch to describe any Government-appointed committee as independent of Government, but that’s the dubious claim made for the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee [RZSAC]. Whether at State or Federal level, it’s rare to find a committee with sufficient integrity to deny a Government the outcome it wants. I find it strange that the Minister is seeking public advice when he didn’t give a shit about Glen Eira and the unprofessional, mistake-ridden, sloppily prepared material used in secret here.
May 1, 2014 at 6:58 PM
It should be pointed out that the response to the public question council has once again resorted to fudging the facts and omitting some crucial information.
The following comes from the minutes of 3rd September 2013 –
“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 Noon on 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.”
Not only is this a clear change to the ‘current format’ but it is definitely not set in concrete. In order to amend any aspect of the Local Law, which this is, there must be the advertising, and call for submissions under Section 232 of the Local Government Act. Residents have now been waiting over 14 months for a Local Law which was promised by Lipshutz to be available by March 2013. It was meant to include “clarification” of the organised sport section (ie the Frisbee affair) as well as the notorious Tree Register. Fourteen months later – deadly silence. When and if this draft Local Law finally makes an appearance councillors will have to pass a resolution to accept any amendments and residents will also have the opportunity to DEMAND that this administration and its lackey group of councillors be dragged screaming into the 21st Century.
May 1, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Did anyone else see a recent Age article where developers and planners were bleating about councils not providing enough in their rezoning plans for high density? There was a list of inner councils and Glen Eira had the highest percentage area (8%) that was set aside for high rise. I mention this because the Boroondara reaction to Guy’s demands are very pertinent to what did not occur in Glen Eira. The stock ruse that Lipshutz, Newton, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling have consistently used from the time of the C60 is that there has to be “compromise” otherwise the Minister will step in and give developers even more than they ask for. Strange that Boroondara and other councils have not bought into this rubbish. Glen Eira’s “compromise” has raised the benchmarks to a minimum of 20 storeys and high rise in residential streets. That’s what “compromise” means in Glen Eira. I would even bet that in a couple of years time once Newton and Akehurst have finished with the larger lot sizes in minimal change 8% (if that’s anywhere near the mark) will have blown out to close to 15%. Progress it’s called for developers and cowardice and duplicity by administrators and councillors.
May 2, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Not 8% it is 2% I think?
May 2, 2014 at 1:06 PM
Nope, I found it again and it says 8%
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planners-warn-new-housing-zones-could-make-rich-richer-poor-poorer-20140428-zr0w8.html
May 2, 2014 at 1:58 PM
The source is listed as a Council [Yarra]. It is published by a newspaper. That’s 2 reasons not to trust it. It doesn’t actually provide a definition of “high-rise development” so it is essentially meaningless. If it is taken to mean medium density and higher, eg GRZ + RGZ + MUZ + C1Z, then the figure for Glen Eira is 16.22%. This will be further increased over time when industrially-zoned land [IN1Z, IN3Z] is rezoned to C1Z. The Minister can always unilaterally rezone land too, as he is attempting to do in Boroondara.
May 2, 2014 at 3:17 PM
Reprobate, if your figures are correct then it makes the Glen Eira position ten times worse.
May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM
Forgot to include PDZ2, which is another 0.20%. Numbers are based on cadastral data supplied by the State Government.
May 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM
The AGE article is wrong. It is 2.2%
May 2, 2014 at 12:58 PM
In rough terms as a percentage of the area of the municipality, Glen Eira is now 70% NRZ; 11% GRZ; 2% RGZ. This can be misleading though, as roads tend to be lumped into the same zone as the abutting properties. Government and GECC now encourages residential development in C1Z, and this is a further 3%. MUZ is a paltry 0.26%.
May 2, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Glen Eira City Council has won approval for mandatory maximum height limits over all residentially-zoned land in Glen Eira. The maximum heights are: two storey maximum across 78 per cent of the municipality, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (formerly Minimal Change Areas)
three storey maximum in Neighbourhood Centres and along tram routes
four storey maximum in the 2.2 per cent of Glen Eira residential zones comprising the Urban Villages around the railway stations of Elsternwick, Carnegie and Bentleigh.
The height limits are binding on all parties, including VCAT.
May 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM
I consider GECC to have misled the public. The data is in the public domain but does take some expertise to convert it into a summary by Zone and Schedule. It might be that GECC doesn’t have the expertise. A sanity check is to add up all the areas by Zone/Schedule to see how it compares to the published 38.7 sq km. I calculated 38689572.067 sq m, which in round terms is 38.7 sq km. NRZ1 was 26919498.947 sq m, or 69.58%. I again emphasize though that these numbers include roads.
May 3, 2014 at 9:14 AM
In case it is not obvious, the only Zone/Schedule that specifies a height limit of 8m is NRZ1, and even that isn’t strictly true—it depends on the slope of the ground. A slope of 2.5 degrees raises the height limit to 9m, enough for a 3-storey development. If a building is permitted to go 1m below ground on “flat” land, then it too could be 3 storeys. Nobody should read and believe Council’s press releases uncritically.
May 1, 2014 at 8:39 PM
How can this Council allow Magee anywhere near Chairing this Committee.This is a sick joke and will place this Council in a bad light. Is this a joke?
May 1, 2014 at 10:49 PM
How can council let Lipshutz anywhere near the trustees and mrc?
May 2, 2014 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous 7 you must be from the MRC. Or a council trustee?
May 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM
By the way, do the maths on the area of the electronic sign, excluding the 3 metre high pylons it will sit on, the sign is over 400 sqm – bigger the minimum lot size Council has imposed on large lots (ie over 2000 sqm) in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Hard to know which is worse – minimum lot sizes smaller than a sign or a sign larger than the a lot size people live on.
But not to worry, even though people live in less space, because believe it or not the sign will not have any negative visual impact on the public parkland it sits on.
May 1, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Off topic but very important!
In what can only be seen as another cave in or gift to developers the Government has published its response to the 2 year ‘review’ of development contributions. Please note that the mooted changes will basically only apply to GROWTH AREAS. Urban areas remain open slather for developers – which on our reading means that it will be ratepayers who continue to subsidise development. And even worse for Glen Eira which has NO DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS LEVY whatsoever.
See: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/228003/Development-Contributions-Reform-Government-Response-1-May-2014.pdf
May 2, 2014 at 12:59 AM
To Anon 3.05
It will be most interesting to see if Cr Magee actually chairs his meeting. It has been noted that Magee did not come at the last minute to another planning meeting concerning the MRC and guess who was the substitute chairperson… none other than Hyams.Alo note that concerning some of the issues regarding our park racecourse and recreation ground doors were locked, locations changed without notice so there could be a prize if all goes according to the council plans..
May 3, 2014 at 9:33 AM
MODERATORS:comment deleted
May 3, 2014 at 6:24 PM
Interesting comparison between Boroondarra and Glen Eira.
Minister intervenes in Boroondara and public outcry.
Minister intervenes in Glen Eira by
1) changing the NRZ zone classification for the Alma (slap bang in the middle of the NRZ) and Glen Eira didn’t notice and when it did, not a quibble was raised.
2) putting up a Planning Scheme Amendment that changes the planning scheme to fit the MRC Caulfield Village so that balconies can intrude into public space and overhang lower apartments. Administrative advice to Councillors is it’s not significant (so much for making developments fit the planning scheme rather than vice versa) and you can’t say no. Not one councillor raised any question and all just voted to approve.
Pretty much sums up the performance of GE Councillors