There are 3 significant planning applications in for decision tonight. Each is for multi-unit development and each has been recommended for approval. The details in brief are –
- Four storey, 33 dwellings, 2 retail, 2 offices and reduction in carparking and waiver of loading bays
- Part six and seven storey, 39 dwellings, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and waiver of loading bays
- Two storey child care centre for 118 children in a minimal change area.
Council’s recent trend of NOT DISCLOSING how many proposed units will be one bedroom should be deplored, especially when residents are continually fed the rubbish about creating ‘diversity’ in the municipality. What is even more deplorable is the continuation of officer reports that are entirely bereft of sufficient detail, though replete with waffle, repetition, generalities, and plain old humbug. ‘Clerical errors’ still manage to creep in – ie Council has labelled one zone as operating under Schedule 1 whereas it is in fact designated as Schedule 2. It would be wonderful if planners actually knew their own planning scheme or at least double checked what went out!
Here are some of the most memorable lines from the various officer reports –
Guidelines suggest 6 car spaces for the proposed shops. Four are proposed. Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the reduction of car parking for the shops, given that two spaces have been provided for each tenancy. Given the size of the shops, this will cater for the likely staff demand.
All habitable rooms will have access to daylight either directly through windows facing the front, side and rear boundaries or light courts which will provide an acceptable level of internal amenity.
Here’s a quote from the second application which is for the 6/7 storey building –
Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.
By way of comparison, the following quote is from the first application (ie 4 storeys). Please note the repetition with no explanation of why one design is deemed to be ‘high standard’ and the other application is only of ‘relatively high standard’ –
Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a relatively high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.
There are further gems as well! We especially love the logic that since there already are 3 and 4 storeys in another municipality, that a six and seven storey building is therefore acceptable!
In light of the emerging built form in this centre (up to 5 storeys has been approved to the south at 77-79 Poath Road), and opposite in the City of Monash (3-4 storeys) the scale of the building is considered suitable.
State Government guidelines suggest seven (7) on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the on-site visitor car space provision. On balance, this is considered reasonable in this instance given: Visitor parking is most common after normal business hours…
There are countless other examples we could have provided, but we believe these will suffice in order for residents to come to some conclusions as to the quality and transparency of planning application reports.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 12, 2014 at 12:35 PM
reading about the officer reports concerning the political parties attitudes about opening up Caulfield racecourse. Looks like every party apart from the greens are siding with the MRC.
August 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Once a building goes up that is higher than its neighbours then that is the passport for even higher and higher construction. Neighborhood character is a meaningless concept in Glen Eira and especially in housing diversity. Arguing that because one building has been permitted so another is all right should never be the reason to allow even higher and more dense developments to occur. Councillors have to take stock of how many parking waivers are being granted for each specific area and not continue to argue that applications must be looked at on a case to case basis. That is plainly ridiculous. If one major road has been allowed to waive say 200 car parking spots, then the onus should be on council to consider what the impact of all of these waivers is having on surrounding streets and localities. With the proliferation of restaurants and many staying open at night the reasoning that there will be less visitors at night is completely fallacious. When 72 units are being built and there is only a handful of retail going up then 72 units are sure to have plenty of visitors at night too.
I for one would love to know how many of the 1700 new dwellings built in Glen Eira in the last year are single bedroom and how many are 2 bedrrom and 3 bedroom. I also want to know what is the size of these dwellings. Council has included the plans but they are impossible to read. I would also love to know whether any councillor has had the brains to ask any of these questions and if they got the answers. That would tell me plenty about how this council and its administration works and the conscientiousness of our elected people.
August 12, 2014 at 3:01 PM
Planning guys are on easy street judging by this. All they have to do is take stuff from a template and a bit of cut and paste and there you are – a report done and dusted in maybe ten minutes. They don’t have to give any reasons and they don’t have to give any figures. Easy as pie and we pay them for this slack arse work.
August 12, 2014 at 3:15 PM
It is time to remove from Council anybody who uses expressions such as “emerging character” or “emerging built form” when justifying a recommendation to grant a permit. That is not part of the decision criteria of the Planning Scheme. A key question is whether 7 storeys is the preferred future character for the area. Ron Torres’ report claims without evidence that 7 storeys is inline with local policy expectations. Clearly this building will dominate the area and look out of place.
Once again a spurious argument against providing adequate “visitor” parking is used that contradicts the physical evidence Council has collected about street parking generated by multiunit developments. The proposal lacks diversity in the range of apartment sizes. The report remains silent on this. The proposed density is not complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.
It is appalling that a Council officer confirms the loss of amenity due to overshadowing and ignores relevant decision criteria. He was supposed to consider “the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land in a General Residential Zone” AND “the interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas” AND all the Objectives and Design Guidelines in Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development such as Design Suggestion 2.6.2: “maintain sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings in accordance with clause 55 of planning schemes”. I do hope councillors insist on compliance with Standard B21 AND ask Ron how many hours of sunlight the secluded private open space of each affected property receives between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.
The current conflict is typical of the mess that is the Victoria Planning System, which encourages such widespread abuse in commercial zones even when they abut residential zones. At least residents have the right of review, albeit practically worthless given the current politics of VCAT. Any councillor that votes for less amenity than they would accept for themselves should resign.