The more we dissect Glen Eira Council’s new zoning, the more convinced we become of its total ineptitude. The latest atrocity is the manner in which the zones have been applied in relation to Heritage Overlays. The Planning Scheme contains the following statements in relation to Heritage – whether these overlays be in the equivalent of minimal change, or housing diversity. Here are some quotes –
The policy recognises that some locations in housing diversity areas may be constrained by their heritage significance or local flooding and that this could reduce their development potential.
Recognise that these areas may have a limited capacity for multi-unit development.
Ensure that residential development respects the scale, form and setbacks of buildings on properties affected by the Heritage Overlay and does not compromise heritage values.
Even the State Government’s Practice Note 78, makes it very clear what should be included in Neighbourhood Residential Zones as shown by the following –
So what has our wonderful planning department done and which councillors have ticked off? Large areas that are included in Heritage Overlays have now been zoned as GRZ1 and even worse, RGZ– suitable for 3 & 4 storey developments respectively. The fate of these areas is now sealed. The pink lines in the maps below are the overlay borders for individual heritage overlays. Residents need to start asking how something like this has been allowed to occur?
PS: The following appeared in today’s Moorabbin Leader. Questions need to be answered on this latest use of GRZ3 – ie the Alma Club current zoning.
- The advertisement states that this amendment has been ‘prepared’ by Council. If it is indeed a Glen Eira Council instigated amendment, (at the behest of the developer perhaps?) then why wasn’t a formal resolution passed which requested permission from the Minister to advertise?
- If done under Section 20(4) then why hasn’t this proposed amendment been listed in any of the Quarterly Reports? Further, if it is a ‘fast track’ amendment, why does it even need to be done ‘secretly’ via this clause of the legislation? What’s the rush – or have plans for large residential developments already been discussed with officers?
- If the amendment is the result of the developer going straight to the Minister and requesting the rezoning, then we expect that there should be some public item in the coming agenda. We expect the item to be as per normal – bereft of any real detail!
- Has the Alma Club zoning (which council claims all ignorance of until it appeared) become the thin end of the wedge, where large land holdings (often stuck in the middle of minimal change) will now be rezoned to the GRZ3 ‘standards’ – as per the changes to the planning scheme? So much for a ‘neutral translation’ of the old minimal change/housing diversity to the new zones!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Council claims a direct and neutral translation when it implemented the zones.
Using the SALT (same as last time) Method, rather than taking a step back and analysizing the data and the significant changes that have occured since the 2002 Housing Diversity/Minimal Change implementation means unrecognized errors are perpetuated. Shonky work in 2002 becomes even shonkier in 2014.
September 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM
for you to analyse
September 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM
plus the report
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2014-15/20140917-caufield-racecourse.aspx
September 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM
I notice that as at 18:30 on 17 Sep 2014 Council’s website hasn’t been updated to include C124 as a current Amendment. Odd too that GRZ3 [infill] was chosen rather than GRZ2 [trams, main roads, residential transition] when the justification used at Council was for it to act as a transition between an RGZ [C98] on Tovan Akas Avenue and NRZ to the north and east.
You’d have to wonder how the hell C98 got away with RGZ when it sits in a “minimal change” area. C124 also applies to a “minimal change” area. And we’ve seen Council support the subdivision of large sites in NRZ [eg Neerim Rd Murrumbeena], which undermines the spurious argument used by the officer report at Council [22 Jul 2014] that NRZ isn’t appropriate. Reality is that the DDO5 introduced by C98 didn’t consider what might happen to the land to the north that is the subject of C124, only to the east.
Neither C98 nor C124 are particularly well-served by public transport either. Patterson Station is over 10 minutes’ walk away, leaving just a Nightrider bus and a meandering local bus on route 823. Wonder what council officers think “well-located” means.
September 17, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Expecting consistency instead of opportunism in planning is really pie in the sky when it comes to this council. Mind you, they are excellent on spending much time and money in covering up all their stuff ups and then creating the necessary spin to camouflage what has happened. The fundamental problem is that the old ethos of “case by case” operates instead of bona fide strategic planning. This way, developers can get what they want.
September 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Would be interesting to see similar overlay with SBO (flooding) mapping given what the Practice Note says about local flooding and development. Can certainly vouch for large part of McKinnon GRZ zone is subject to that SBO.
September 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM
Please note that an SBO does NOT address the issue of hitting the water table and the adequacy of council’s drains. All the SBO overlay addresses is the potential for flooding due to storms, heavy rains, etc. It merely means that houses have to be built up an extra metre from ground level. It does not in any shape or form seek to remedy the damage caused by excavating large site areas to put in underground car parks.
September 21, 2014 at 12:21 PM
sigh – things just get better and better.
September 21, 2014 at 6:58 PM
It also doesn’t in any shape or form to address the impact of surface runoff. All that rain hitting the building that used to go into the garden and will hit seep into the minimal permeable surface then hit the concrete roof of the basement car park and probably end up in the neighbours..
It’s called problem solving by transfer (to somebody else)