The above graphic is the perfect illustration of how inept and indifferent to residential amenity this council really is. Newton and his band of willing accomplices (ie councillors) have succeeded in creating thousands upon thousands of second class citizens in Glen Eira. These residents do not deserve open space, sunlight, “diversity” of apartments and parking. In short, if people happen to dwell within cooee of an activity or neighbourhood centre then they have become the sacrificial lambs to rampant over development and, all achieved of course, in secret, and without any public consultation.
The featured map makes a mockery of any suggestion of ‘buffer zones’. Zoning a commercial centre that has no height limits, right up against a residential zone is planning gone mad and, if not ineptitude, then total disregard for those particular residents and their rights.
217 Koornang Road is a recent VCAT decision which approved a three storey building, 13 dwellings, 3 offices and waiver of car parking. Council did oppose this application, but its zoning, and therefore planning scheme was the chief culprit in the decision. The inequity of standards is made starkly real in the following statements by the member. We quote from the judgement –
“Ms Rawadi was particularly concerned about overshadowing of her north facing windows and the open space of her dwelling to the south of the subject land. In RPC architects Member Cimino, having discussed in some detail the reasonable amenity expectations of a dwelling in a Commercial 1 Zone (then the Business 1 Zone) when confronted with the redevelopment of another site in the Commercial 1 Zone to the north reached the following conclusion:
- Given this, it is unrealistic to expect that solar access in accordance with the relevant standard of Clause 55 be maintained to north facing windows or that the backyard will not be overshadowed to a substantial extent.
- I agree with this assessment. The overshadowing impact of the proposed development on Ms Rawadi’s windows and open space will be significant and would not be acceptable if both properties were located within a residential zone. However, the properties are located within a Commercial 1 Zone and in that context the amenity relationship including that in respect of overshadowing which will result from the construction of the proposed building is an acceptable outcome. It should be noted that the dwelling and open space to the south will not be overshadowed for the entire year. I would expect that for approximately 5 months of the year the north facing windows of the dwelling will receive some sunlight ranging from relatively unfettered solar access at the summer solstice to more limited solar access towards the middle of the day close to the equinoxes. A greater level of solar access will be enjoyed by the open space areas”.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/561.html
The take home message? For all the spin and propaganda there are no ‘buffer zones’ in Glen Eira. Even in NRZ1 zones where 2 storeys are permitted, there is no guarantee that neighbours will not be deprived of sunlight and bear the brunt of significant overlooking.
PS: Residents should also note the following. On the 30th August 2011, Council passed unanimously the following resolution:
Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.
In December 2011, according to the Quarterly Reports the Minister had given ‘conditional’ approval for exhibition. This was supposed to be exhibited in March 2012. The next Quarterly Report noted that the exhibition period would now be May/June 2012. Then, in the minutes of 30th November 2012, there is this buried little sentence – “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”.
No public statement explaining why this amendment was not exhibited as the resolution mandated has ever been given. As per usual, residents have been left in the dark. Whilst C90 was full of loop holes, the ensuing Residential Zones ignored much of what was then stipulated. Stealth, secrecy and keeping the public as ignorant as possible is the continued and unacceptable modus operandi of this council.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM
The Residential Zones Ministerial Advisory Committee [RZMAC] had this to say: ‘But alternatively the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal has considered this matter at length in many cases and determined that the “Tribunal and its predecessors has consistently held that the amenity expectations of residents who live within a Business zone, cannot be the same as those of people who live in a residential neighbourhood zoned for residential purposes”. While taking this into account, and to deal with reasonable expectations of amenity, the Committee has included an additional decision guideline in the buildings and works section of the zone to consider overlooking and overshadowing impacts affecting adjoining land to a range of residential zones.’
Council is definitely guilty, but so is VCAT, RZMAC, and the Minister against Planning. C1Z is now a defacto residential zone, just one that has no amenity standards. The subject land has been inappropriately zoned C1Z rather than say MUZ, but Council has done this across the municipality. Ten times more land is zoned C1Z than MUZ.
Part of the problem is that “Decision Guidelines” such as “The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.” are meaningless. They don’t say what should happen if somebody doesn’t comply. VCAT is free to ignore them, as it has chosen to do here. The decision here, as in many previous decisions, is that there are no minimum standards and should be no minimum standards if you have the misfortune to have your land rezoned inappropriately.
I was incensed to hear Greg Garde last year say VCAT is “not a policy-maker”. Of course it makes policy. It makes policy every time it chooses what standards, if any, it requires to be met. It makes policy when it unilaterally decides that the amenity of traditional residential suburbs will not be protected. It makes policy when it exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure and commits Council to expenditure without the revenue base to fund it.
Council is aware of all these problems and in particular that C1Z is easily abused and provides no protection of residential amenity. Council has however stated that this is appropriate.
May 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Those residing in Bentleigh and East Bentleigh should pay particular attention to the above. Remnants of the small convenience shopping strips that previously existed throughout the metro area (until malls and supermarkets made then uneconomic), still exist in those suburbs. Every one of them has been zoned Commercial 1.
They, along with parks, schools and other public land, comprise the white rectangular shapes shown on the new zone map Council issued without any discussion on Commercial 1 zoning implications. Not one them has any associated transition zone.
For these C1 zones the planning guidelines have been tossed out the window and replaced with whatever the developer thinks is economically viable at the time (the higher and greater the site coverage the better the return). Residential amenity, transport and utility infrastructure and environmental considerations are consigned to the past – even though past failures to consider them are the reason why planning was introduced in the first place.
Don’t bemoan the 3-4 storey block recently built next to you – the development of strata title means that at least it will always remain as it is. It’s those in the 3-4 storey building next to you that should be concerned about the 5-6 storeys that will be built next to them once you have decided to move on.
May 27, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Council had plenty of time and chances to do some good planning. They basically didn’t have the skill, inclination, or concern for residents that was required. Too damn worried to get the C110 rushed through so they could take all the glory and have residents cope with the collateral damage. Examples like this show up what a complete balls up they’ve managed to achieve. It can only get worse when everyone is in cahoots with developers. The C60 is now the golden rule that will apply in all commercial and mixed use areas.
May 27, 2014 at 6:10 PM
No sunlight welcome lack of vitamin D … then osteoporosis, tuberculosis, rickets like the Singapporean children and inability to read due to failure of body to “create” the necessary chemicals for good health from lack of sunlight and fresh air..
May 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM
The post isn’t strictly about planning as I see it but governance. Who made the decision to withdraw the proposed amendment? When was this done and why isn’t there a council resolution to this affect? Important questions I’d say and to make things even worse I don’t believe that officers are delegated to make such decisions on their own. If I’m wrong here then could someone please correct me.
May 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM
I would have thought if you are to be sacrificed for the “greater good” then the authority in charge would ensure that you at least had some input into defining the “greater good” and that you were fully informed of the sort of sacrifice that would be asked.
No so, it seems, when the authority in charge is Glen Eira Council.
May 28, 2014 at 5:16 PM
Greater good means more profit for developers and friends of friends.