There can be no doubt that Glen Eira City Council will bend over backwards to assist greedy developers. We feature below the latest trend in property sales – the combination of several blocks of land into one, thereby creating larger size blocks and reaping a benefit to developers (and residents). Whilst council has no control over these private arrangements, they certainly have control over the number of dwellings that can be squeezed into one lot and the zoning that is applied. We have already seen the joint sale in Bent St., Bentleigh, and this is now happening throughout the municipality. Fair enough that residents are cashing in, but they are cashing in because they realise they cannot continue to live in these areas where all amenity is sacrificed for the holy dollar.
The photos below are the latest example PLUS another photo which provides a good reason why someone would want to leave the area.
And what is council doing in the meantime? Absolutely nothing it seems! Here is a public question that was asked at last council meeting. We urge readers to pay particular attention to:
- The failure to respond to the first part of the question
- The emphases on OFFICERS. Where are councillors? Surely it is their role to decide on the policy that will constitute an amendment?
- Other councils (Kingston, Boroondara, etc) have all specified the number of dwellings per lot size. Glen Eira’s OFFICERS, apparently refuse to do the same. The reason is obvious. They want to be able to cram as many as they can into whatever size block!
In December last year, Council resolved to seek Ministerial approval to exhibit Amendment C115. Why has there been no reference to this in Council’s Quarterly Reports and what is the current position of this Amendment?
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Amendment C115 concerns large lots (greater than 2,000m2) located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The aim of the amendment is to increase the number of dwellings beyond 2 which would be the maximum number for a large lot zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). Council cannot exhibit the amendment until authorisation is obtained from the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (Minister).
Authorisation has to date not been forthcoming on the basis that each large lot should have a stipulation as to how many dwellings will be allowed. This approach is not supported by Council officers as it would prejudge a dwelling yield in the absence of a specific development plan.”
Glen Eira Debates 
August 15, 2014 at 2:45 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/phenomenal-chinese-demand-for-property-set-to-continue-20140815-104bpj.html?rand=9101706
August 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM
Actually the aim of C115 is to work around (“subvert”) limitations of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and pack in dwellings at a density greater than ordinary lots in NRZ are permitted. Developers can always subdivide their large lot, and there is no minimum lot size [although Victoria Planning Provisions permit a minimum lot size to be specified]. Developers can also request an Amendment to rezone their lot. As we now know, Council officers are generally supportive of rezoning, especially if notice and review rights are extinguished as a byproduct. The Minister can also use his/her extraordinary powers to help developers out. Jeff Akehurst has considerable experience negotiating with the Department on their behalf. Unusual to see councillors admit they’re not in control of their own policies.
August 15, 2014 at 5:34 PM
The for sale sign has got these places at 1115 square metres. It’s not in a neighborhood zone so that means they can pack in as many units they want on this size land. Economics make it likely to be one bedroom places as the majority. For arguments sake there could be 40 units and if 20 are at 300000 that’s six million. On top of this is another 20 are two bedroom and the going price is about 450000 another 9 million. Land might cost 3 million at a stretch and building about another 5 or 6 million but I would think less. A terrific profit and council gets another 40 times 800+ in rates.
August 15, 2014 at 6:38 PM
Deciding policy is not the task of officers. That is the exclusive domain of councillors. The public question response gives the game away as Reprobate and the post rightly point out. Councillors have no say, have not demanded a say, and have left everything in the hands of a rapacious and incompetent planning department working to Newton’s and developers’ agendas.
August 16, 2014 at 11:09 AM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/three-glen-huntly-neighbours-hit-jackpot-by-selling-their-homes-together-for-32m/story-fngnvlpt-1227025770997. Just about continuous high rise between grange and manchester on Neerim Road now.
August 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM
The rush is now on for sure. Make the quick buck and get the hell out of Glen Eira.
August 17, 2014 at 6:24 AM
Exactly what Council’s 2013 implementation of the new zones was intended to do. The Administration, (Newton, Akehurst and Burke) aided and abetted by Lipshutz, Hyams Esakoff and Pilling, lead the charge with other Crs. (Magee, Lobo, Souness, Okotel and Delahunty) willingly following blindly behind.
No wonder the zones were implemented without any community consultation.
August 17, 2014 at 11:40 AM
from online Leader –
As James said, fantastic news for the 3 property owners and for the developers but bad news for the neighbourhood.
Who would be happy to be overshadowed by what will no doubt be, a huge monstrosity? Family life, privacy, amenities such as parking etc will all be compromised by such over development. So yeah, congrats to the 3 families – huge sympathies to the neighbours left to deal with the outcome.
Councils need to reign in these super developments quick smart as far as I am concerned!
Fantastic news for the no doubt asian property developers who will build more monstrosities as we clutter up our suburbs with endless development, and the neighbours have to put up with over a year of total disruption with semi trailers, bulldozers , dust and mess that goes with these developments and impacts on their privacy.
Yes wonderful news that these people have their short term gain but bad news for the neighbours. Lets pull every house down , make all our suburbs high rise and destroy all that made our suburbs the best places to live in the world.
@James What does being Asian have to do with anything?
August 17, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Well, just got notice for 24 unit development on 2 blocks on Penang Street, McKinnon. No auction or for sale signs, so developer and owners must have done quiet deal. We are a little street of only 8 single dwellings, already no parking weekdays because of McKinnon commuters and parking restrictions closer to station. Really looking forward to the four fold increase in households, noise, traffic and parking (not). Objections by 28 August, but from what I read seems like it will be a fait accompli.
August 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM
obviously related to Mckinnon High. Soon there will be 20,000 going there. It will be a victim of its own success
August 17, 2014 at 4:09 PM
Doubt so – these are not large blocks, so expect will be 24 shoebox size 1 bedroom slum apartments, not for families with children
August 17, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Some people from other countries rent for just long enough to
get their kids into mackinnon high then move to Clayton where they buy. Any rental in the “zone’ they have to pay 6 months rent upfront. ask the agents they tell them how to get around the rules.
August 17, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Unfortunately for the residents that wish to remain, Penang St is zoned GRZ. It is still important for residents to participate in the planning process so as to ensure Council [or more likely whoever they delegate the decision to] consider and respond to all the relevant policies, including the residential amenity standards. Yes, the decision has mostly been predetermined—but there is scope for tinkering with setbacks. Usually what happens is that a developer attempts to squeeze in an extra dwelling or two by going 10% over the standards in the expectation that a council officer will still recommend a permit be granted.
Looking at the overall zoning around McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre, something very strange has happened with the choice of boundaries. It’s quite bizarre…did a councillor use to live in Hawthorn Grove?
August 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Just wondering, and I am sure others have looked at this before – but is there any legal recourse in the fact that the council has failed to consult the community on any of this? Or lack of due process, natural process. After all, not the first time glen eira councillors have been removed….
August 17, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Actually Council claims it didn’t consult the community because the community was well informed on the previous housing diversity/minimal change areas. The zones just build on those areas. The Minister (liberal Mathew Guy) accepted the argument.
You, and just about every resident, can argue that is not the case but being able to prove it to a point that will get Council dismissed is another matter.
Unless you can actually prove, gross misconduct or dysfunctionality, your only recourse, which will come in 2 years time, is not to re-elect any current Councillor. You can also decide not to support the current State Government in the upcoming State Elections.
August 17, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Expect that is right. It may not be a question of getting council dismissed, but if they have failed to follow their own regulations / legal requirements in community consultation, perhaps they might be ordered to go back and start again. Politically, this is the most marginal of state electorate, and state election only a few months away. Interesting to see how much either main candidate cares about being elected / reflected on this issue. I sent a note to both miller and labor candidate on Facebook. They both showed as having read it, but curiously it now shows as unread. Perhaps neither want to take on the elephant in the corner!
August 17, 2014 at 4:07 PM
All of the comments are a very good indication of what is occurring in local streets and made possible because of the revolting planning scheme. It is a total misnomer to call these abominations ‘reform zones’. The only ‘reform’ to occur is to make things a lot easier for applicants and a lot worse for residents residents. Developers have been granted a blank cheque to make huge profits and to completely ignore social, environmental amenity of people.
When a council and officers who are being paid handsomely forget who they are supposed to be serving then they should resign or be dismissed. I have no faith in this administration and 100% no faith in the diligence and integrity of any of these councillors. Their silence on so many important issues is abominable.