If you happen to live in a street that is now zoned as Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone, then you might consider doing what countless Glen Eira residents have already started doing – getting the hell out of the municipality before the area really goes to the dogs and making some money in the process. We now know of 6 instances where owners are getting together and selling their properties as one lot. This trend will no doubt continue – especially when people start realising that their streets and their neighbourhoods are about to be over-run with inappropriate development thanks to Council’s welcome arms approach to development and their unwillingness to undertake current and proper strategic planning.
A perfect example of the insanity of this planning scheme can be seen by what is happening in Penang St. McKinnon which has now inconceivably been given the green light for 3 storey developments. Two properties at 2 and 4 Penang St were bought by the same developer and there is now an application for a 3 storey, 24 apartment, and of course, a reduction in visitor car parking. The combined land equals roughly 1360 square metres. However, that’s not the end of the stor(e)y.
Penang is a quiet residential street consisting of only 9 dwellings and several which front Jasper Road. Many of these nine dwellings are single storeys and the double storeys add their own character to the street as the photos below will show. We cannot see any rhyme or reason why such as street has been placed in this zone, in contrast to say Wattle Avenue which has been left as minimal change, yet consists of several scruffy looking blocks of flats and units. As one commentator on this site has asked – no one from council could possibly be living in Wattle Avenue could they? In terms of another 24 apartments and growth in the surrounding streets, then Penang is the perfect setting for the latest rat run as drivers try to avoid the lights at the corner of Jasper and Mckinnon. Needless to say, there is no parking plan overlay for this Neighbourhood Centre!
To make matters worse, the houses at 2 and 4 Penang St. are ‘classical’ and with their demolition this will now create the precedent for more triple storeys in the street and surrounding areas. Here’s what will be lost and replaced with box like dwellings no doubt – the slums of the future!
Some of the other houses in the street look like this!
We remind readers that Council has:
- Introduced these zones in secret & without consultation
- Council has never stated what is the optimum population for Glen Eira
- No Housing Strategy review has been done since the late 1990’s
- A one size fits all approach based on antiquated data is unacceptable.
We urge all readers to inform themselves of what zoning they fall under and to protest and protest at whatever application comes in that they believe will threaten their amenity, lifestyle and environment. Remember, amendments may be made, but they can also be tossed out – especially with a new set of councillors who actually give a damn about what’s happening to neighbourhoods all through the municipality!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM
It’s incredibly sad to see such beautiful homes falling into the hands of developers. The photos show numerous full grown trees which will probably also be removed once a permit is granted. Even if councillors start pretending that they are doing something and pull their usual stunt of saying 20 flats instead of 24 that will not make much difference to this little street. It is opening the door to further development and a deterioration of amenity.
September 4, 2014 at 7:04 PM
How do I find out what my place is zoned as?
September 4, 2014 at 7:37 PM
The easiest way to locate your particular zoning is to go to the government website and type in the address you require. The link is: http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp
September 4, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Off topic, but important. From today’s (4/9) Hansard –
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—The matter I wish to raise is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is for the minister to correspond with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust with a view to progressing the negotiations between the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and the trust regarding the lease agreements. I understand the renewal of the agreements with the MRC will continue the long-term operation of the racecourse, and I understand it is a complex process. Certainly it is important that the community gets absolute maximum benefit out of this agreement. At the same time we also need to preserve the great racing history of Caulfield. My major concern is with regard to the land at the centre of the racecourse, and particularly around community and sporting purposes.
Last year the minister and I launched a $1.8 million upgrade, which was funded by the MRC. On the same day we had a fun run, attended by 1000 people from the local community and with 500 people doing the run, which raised $50 000 for local community charities. This particular upgrade included a barbecue, a jogging track, picnic areas, a small sportsground and a walking track. One of the things that this area does not have is an activated sporting area. No matter what we do— and we have certainly been very active, and it is something that I have been working on since being elected—we cannot get people into the centre of the racecourse. We are desperately short of open space in the Caulfield and Glen Iris areas. Unfortunately, because of the racetracks and the difficulty in accessing the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, it is very hard to get people into the centre of that racecourse.
We know after lots of hard work that the only way to do that is to activate it through sporting grounds. We need to allow football, soccer and even baseball and cricket clubs to use these facilities. I understand that the MRC has moved a long way since our first discussions and is keen to provide the sorts of sporting facilities that create a Happy Valley at Caulfield. If you think of Hong Kong and the Happy Valley Racecourse and how that activates the centre, you realise we have a great opportunity to activate the centre here in Caulfield at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.
The big issue is that the longer these negotiations continue the longer it is that the sporting clubs in my electorate are locked out of this valuable piece of land. We are locked out, and in fact we are landlocked in terms of sporting opportunities in my area. It is really important that we do something about it. I believe there have been three mediations and 12 months of negotiations—it has been a long drawn-out process— and I think now is the time to get some real action on this to ensure that we open that space for the sporting clubs in my area.
AND THE RESPONSE
Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change)—I rise to respond to the member for Caulfield, who raised an issue regarding the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. For some time the member has been advocating strongly for adequate public space to be provided for residents in his electorate. I understand that the city of Glen Eira has the least amount of public open space in metropolitan Melbourne. What is available should be jealously guarded, and the member for Caulfield has been a great advocate, ensuring that we get better community access to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, among other areas.
I advise the member that there have been some very successful mediations between the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust andMelbourne Racing Club. It is of utmost importance that we make sure that these tenure arrangements are progressed as quickly as possible so that we can allow those parties to continue with some certainty for the future. The Victorian government is committed to ensuring that the community aspirations for the reserve are met, and with the assistance of the member for Caulfield we can achieve that outcome. I would be happy to write to the parties involved with a view to having these particular negotiations progressed as quickly as possible. I know residents desire a speedy outcome.
September 4, 2014 at 10:39 PM
The trustee website has had this up for a while now:
“As the current lease was about to expire (22 April 2014) and the Trustee was concerned at the possible impacts, the trustee wrote to the Minister & the MRC on 25 March 2014 proposing the following course:
That the Minister approve the Trust entering into a short term lease (6 months) on condition that if agreement is not reached, the matter be determined by the VG -V and both parties will be bound by the VG- V determination.
The MRC responded on 28 March 2014 declining to go to arbitration, but indicated it would be prepared to have the matter determined by the Minister for Environment & Climate Change on advice from the Valuer General – Victoria.”
According to Hansard Davis is washing his hands from the matter when he should be “determining the matter”. Southwick doesn’t even know he’s in Glen Eira and thinks it’s Glen Iris and keeps calling a synthetic horse training track a “jogging track”. What a joke! Mind, there’s not one word in all of this about removing training.
September 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Grow up . This is an adult blog. Hansard is transcribed electronically which is not perfect. Saves a lot of money rather than having people typing in every word. I am sure as sure as you are that Southwick said Glen Eira not Glen Iris.
September 5, 2014 at 7:27 AM
I see the Member for Taking Credit is at it again – this time taking credit for the racecourse centre landscaping. Readers should read Hansard and know that this was ordered by the Minister in 2008 when Davo was nothing but a hopeful contender for preselection for the MLA seat of Caulfield.
Oh and Davo as for the centre of the racecourse not being used –
. how much of the centre is designated for public usage
. what about the 4 community days per year the MRC agreed to hold
. what about making the centre usable by removing all the fencing
. what about making the centre accessible by improving both the number and condition of the access points and removing the fencing which locks the land away from public view
. what about the C60 development plans not recognising the parkland across the street from the development rather than focussing on Caulfield Park usage.
September 5, 2014 at 9:57 AM
so do you think libs will announce the sportsgrounds as a promise at the election and say that Southwick has fought for it?
September 5, 2014 at 10:21 AM
Nah, Napthine’s love of racing will see the MRC being given the racecourse gratis. The Member for Taking Credit will do another flip flop and simply take the credit for that too.
September 5, 2014 at 1:58 PM
One may think that the Minister for Environment and Climate Change Mr R. SMITH has been given a copy of the upcoming Auditor-General report, (Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve), He tells Mr Southwick “you better get on the record with this before this report gets handed to Parliament”. Southwick in a dud and should be exposed for his inaction over the last four years. The Trust is gone. And hopefully so is Southwick.
September 5, 2014 at 2:53 PM
agreed if you look at pictures of Southwick they mostly cover events being held at the MRC and with police. Delivered zero for Caulfield whilst Josh Burns (labor) is promising upgrade to GE College Southwick says they get nothing
September 4, 2014 at 10:44 PM
The idiocy of Council’s policies can be seen from the planning maps. It has areas within 100m of a railway station that are zoned NRZ; areas 800m from a railway station zoned RGZ or PDZ. So the decision can’t be based on proximity to fixed-route public transport. Huge chunks of the municipality are less than 800m from public transport but are zoned NRZ, so it’s not based on proximity to public transport.
Is it distance to shops then? The original conception of activity centres was for everybody to be less than 500m from one. GECC rejected State policy. There were to be no new activity centres. People were expected to drive to the existing ones. The consequence is what we are familiar with—centres of congestion, lacking in parking plans, and little encouragement for other forms of transport. Compare the number of railway stations in the municipality with the number that have Parkiteers. Or the amount of money lavished on Cr Delahunty’s pet projects vs on the places accident statistics identify as dangerous.
Remember the political promises of the increase in density not being at the expense of amenity in traditional residential suburbs? Gone. Scrapped by fiat. Unilaterally. No consultation. GECC believes in relying on 15 year-old planning data, and claims the “consultation” held back then means no further consultation is warranted. Well, how many people exactly DID they consult? And having rejected the feedback obtained, how does that justify the loss of amenity 50% of the community is expected to wear? Where is the employment to match the increase in population? Has Council’s policies really reduced emissions, congestion and parking issues, as they claim? Bullshit!
Amidst the carnage there is one constant: councillors don’t know what they stand for and don’t know who they represent.
September 4, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Nah, councillors know who they represent. It’s Newton and his henchmen.
September 5, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Add “and don’t care” to your last sentence and you have it in a nutshell.
September 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM
GECC are masters of Orwellian doublethink (i.e. the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct), even within the one document. In their own Guide to the Community regarding height limits (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/News/Height_limits_over_all_residentially_zoned_land), they state on page 7:
“Before going into the detail of the new arrangements, it needs to be clearly understood that this is a different system, not an enhancement to the old system. The old framework consisted mainly of policies (not binding). The new framework is built around zones which are, or can be, binding on the key issue of height.”
…And yet unashamedly transpose the old Housing Diversity and Neighbourhood Centres zones, formulated around 15 years ago, onto the new planning scheme without reviewing their appropriateness under the “different system” or consulting with affected parties.
Not only that, but the GECC has the nerve to go on to conclude (page 14) that the broad consultation that may or may not have taken place 15 years ago, under an admittedly different planning scheme, means any consultative processes have been adequately addressed:
“There is a general appreciation of Council’s differentiation into Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policy areas. Few people attempt to argue that higher density development should not be located around railway stations.
The community’s priorities have been made very clear over a number of consultative processes:
a. Maximum height limits
b. Transition buffers between higher and lower densities
c. Less discretion for VCAT and greater democratic control of land use strategy by the locally elected Council.
The new arrangements give effect to the long-expressed views of the community without shifting the boundaries which have now been in place for 10 years.”
Yes, I am a resident of Penang Street.
And, of course councillors know who they represent – developers
September 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM
If you read the rubbish that council put out at the time their excuse for not consulting residents, much less even informing them that this was being done in secret, was that they feared worse outcomes. Of course they did because no one in their right mind would accept both what has been done and how it has been done.
Personally I put the blame not so much on Newton and Akehurst but the wimps of councillors who let this happen. One post up here shows that Hyams sat in with Guy and the other heavies when he was mayor. He has been mayor twice at $90,000 plus a year and his job is to advocate for residents. He didn’t and neither did the rest of the rotten lot. What he has achieved is to affirm that Glen Eira is ripe for the picking and to hell with everything that residents hold dear such as open space, neighbourhoods that attract families and the protection of the environment.
This council is nothing short of a disgrace. They should all be sacked and sued for bringing local government into disrepute.
September 7, 2014 at 6:13 PM
Kerin, I agree whole heartedly with your comments Council’s logic (although I am not so sure logic or reasoning or even thought processes are appropriate terms to use when talking of Council decision making.
If you really want to gauge the full extent of the Councillors ability to disconnect their mouth from their brain might I suggest you trundle along to a Council Meeting. They occur every three weeks – no need to stay for whole meeting, a hour should pretty much have you cringing.
September 5, 2014 at 8:20 AM
They certainly didn’t consult with ME!!!!
And yes, I live in one of the streets 800 metres away from a train station, in Penang Street. Our small residential street is facing with being obliterated by a ridiculous 3 storey development, completely at odds with all other properties in the street. There are many streets in Mckinnon, much closer to the station, with a history of higher density, and less character, that could absorb more developments.
I can’t wait for the opportunity to vent my anger at GECC at a planning meeting for Nos 2 – 4 Penang Street!!!!!!!
September 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM
I’m in Jasper and often walk my dog down Penang and other side streets. I always admire the houses there. Won’t be much to admire anymore with what’s happening. Traffic and parking buildup is already terrible along Graham Avenue because of people visiting the retirement village or parking to walk to the station. Jasper has been a dead loss for a long time already.
I wish you and the neighbours luck in stopping this development.
September 5, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Aside from Council’s absence of rhyme or reason in defining the growth zone boundaries and failure to inform the community, you can add its failure to do anything to protect an areas character – a extremely important component of residential amenity and fostering a sense of community (which feature prominently in Council’s mission statement).
Rather than implementing Neighbourhood Character Overlays and Design Development Overlays (both planning tools urged on Council since 2002 by several independent planning panels) Council only implemented a piddly few (by individual street only) in 2012. Instead of the Overlays Council opted for policies, policies which even Council admits had/have no standing.
The failure to implement Overlays is particularly significant in the former Housing Diversity Areas, now the growth zones. Council supports the concept of “emerging character” for these areas. Already, the wisdom of this approach can be seen – not only in terms of incoherence and questionable architectural merit but also in the building equivalent of gardening’s concept of “mass plantings”
September 5, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Been looking at the last minutes. This is like the titanic sinking and councillors keep dancing even when the water is up to their necks. I’m not against gay marriage, and looking into grants, but jesus, is this the most important stuff they could come up with? If these nongs did spend all the time telling each other how great they are then we are in deep shit. I want them to get their act together and start doing something that works about development traffic and waste and I want to be consulted.
September 5, 2014 at 2:53 PM
I venture to say that only one councillor has bothered to read the planning scheme. The rest are very prepared to sit back and swallow every distortion that is put before them by Newton and his planning department. I’d go even further and suggest that councillors haven’t got a clue as to what is happening all around them. They might get some lousy statistics like there have been a zillion applications but that is all. They don’t know and worse don’t care and then don’t have the will to do anything about this awful state of affairs. If they did care then Newton wouldn’t have been reappointed.
September 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM
One Councillor has read the planning scheme?. I think on councillor has.
September 5, 2014 at 2:58 PM
How about ceasing to be like whinging Poms and do something about the new zones. This is an important issue which needs actions by the residents. Let us not take it down sleeping.
September 5, 2014 at 6:09 PM
I think most residents in Glen Eira deserve this inappropriate development, its hard to generalise with people but most residents don’t give a stuff unless its happening in there street or next door. So they have sat back over the years and done nothing, now the machine is eating them. I find it hard to feel any sympathy for the middle class do-nothings that make up most of Glen Eira residents. I bet most of them will vote Lib or Lab in the next election, sealing there fate even further. Divide and rule has worked well with the peasants of Glen Eira.
September 5, 2014 at 8:10 PM
There are parts of Glen Eira that are protected (80%) from inappropriate development. Do you live there?
Those of us who had the wisdom to buy properties close to shops, schools and transport are keen to voice our opposition to inappropriate development. There has been a community reaction to inappropriate development !
Why should developers be the only type of buyers ? Let’s ask estate agents to only sell to families with a dog so that the family home with a garden can be preserved!
September 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Here’s a suggestion, if we consider that as we age an appropriate home for down-sizers could possibly be the two storey townhouse separated by a garage with energy efficient solar panels and front and back treed gardens, close to amenities. This seems more appropriate than three storeys and up to twenty four apartments with no provision for energy efficiency and other sustainable features. Not to mention the peak hour traffic congestion and parking. Then there’s the potential reduction of well established trees per block of land, no longer available to absorb the increase in Co2 from the increase in traffic.
Did the research for these planning zones not reveal these negatives?
Did our elected Council /State representatives not speak up and say, “hold on this is not appropriate?”
September 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Councils stated position on most environmental and amenity issues is that everything is a state responsibility and that in their wisdom, this council will wait until appropriate legislation is introduced. This has been council’s constant position on:
1. incorporating sustainable design features into the planning scheme whilst other councils have
2. instigating dwelling sizes becomes a state responsibility
3. parking overlays only exist for students
4. no tree protection on private property
5. no real ‘buffer zones’ anywhere
6. no development contributions levy to be paid by developers and largely subsidised by residents
The list goes on and on and councillors have accepted this situation time and time again.
September 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Some councils have taken an active role in this process,
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current/eedadvisorycommittee