The sheer insanity of the GRZ zoning is evident in the screen dump of Murray Road, McKinnon below. The left hand side of the street is deemed as ‘suitable’ for 3 storey developments. The right hand side of the street is zoned as minimal change. Please note carefully the following:
- Even with single storey dwellings huge shadows are already being cast – and it’s winter! What happens when 3 storey dwellings go up? What amount of overshadowing and loss of sunlight will those poor buggers living on the opposite side of the street experience? And what kind of light can neighbours living on the ground floor of a three storey block expect when GRZ1 zoning provides no protection in terms of adequate side, front and rear setbacks?
- Note how narrow the street already is, so that 3 cars have difficulty in passing. What kind of landscaping and protection of the environment is possible with 3 storey chicken coops being permitted?
- Residents need answers as to why such decisions were endorsed by councillors? What questions did they ask? What information were they given? Did they care?
- Councillors must be held to account for accepting zones that were implemented in secret, were devoid of up-t0-date analysis, and which relegated huge swathes of Glen Eira into third world territory.
- We repeat once more that other councils saw fit to do their homework (and to consult). For example: Bayside has 8 schedules to the GRZ ZONES; Boroondara has 4; Stonnington has 13; Manningham has 4. All Glen Eira could come up with was 3 – and one of these is exclusively for the rezoned Alma Club land (ie from minimal change to housing diversity and 76 units in a dead end local street!). Such is the woeful governance, transparency and planning that goes on in Glen Eira!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Dont worry about landscapiing because boundary to boundary developments on the GRZ side will take care of that lok and their shade impact, plus traffic fumes and road dirt, will take care of the NRZ lot.
Am sure folks in the single storey bungalows will learn to adjust. Who knows they might grow to actually like 3 storey rendered box like structures. Also the overlooking (known in the development as passive surveillance opportunities) will probably foster the sense of community Council constantly strives for
September 10, 2014 at 12:08 PM
Not just three stories but as of right four stories next to beautiful old houses with historic value – neighbourhoods trashed. Thank you councilors!!
September 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM
The examples given by ResCode which is what council relies on in the GRZ/RGZ zones, says that a wall of 10.5 in height casts a shadow of 16.8 metres. Council could have introduced different standards in their schedules. They chose not to!
For a rundown of what the ResCode standards are readers should access the following –
Click to access 27-Understanding-the-Residential-Development-Standards-ResCode-PN27_June-2014.pdf
We also note that other councils as part of their suite of GRZ zoning have stipulated heights of 9 metres in some instances. Truly amazing what other councils can achieve in stark contrast to our ‘do it once and do it properly’ one!
September 10, 2014 at 4:08 PM
Just going off topic, there seems to be a bit of talk about Miller and Staikos and where they are getting their campaign funds from? Do the party’s pay or is it up to the candidate to fundraise?
September 10, 2014 at 6:41 PM
“Residential areas outside the urban village boundaries will be treated as Non Preferred Areas for multi dwelling development as defined in the MSS and other local policies.” That’s what “our” Planning Scheme says.
Anonymous 2 talks about four storeys “as of right” and while Council and VCAT treat developments in RGZ as if they have a right to be big, that is not literally true. They should still comply with the amenity standards specified in clause 55 and/or schedules to the zone. The trouble is that the standards aren’t mandatory, there are no decision criteria worthy of the label, and Council and VCAT regard failing to comply with the standards to be acceptable through a dodgy interpretation of what it means to satisfy the “objectives”.
GEPS actually says “A standard should normally be met. However, if the responsible authority is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.” In practice, there is no alternative design solution, just a substandard design.
Bizarre zonings aren’t just a McKinnon phenomenon either. Carnegie Urban Village Precinct 7 Residential (North) states: “Increased density residential development be encouraged in Chestnut and Blackwood Streets”, which is rather hard when most of those streets are zoned NRZ, including properties that are less than 100m from the railway station. Then there’s the “policy” for Precinct 1 Dandenong Rd, which expired 30 September 2007. It is now officially a policy-free zone.
We don’t even have structure plans, since Council embraced Jeff Akehurst’s recommendation that we shouldn’t have structure plans. This contradicts State policy concerning activity centres, but helps give unaccountable decision-makers greater freedom to support large developments generally.