We are becoming increasingly concerned over what, to all intents and purposes, appears to be the social divide that is occurring within the municipality. Whilst Bentleigh, Carnegie, and other areas are allowed to go to the dogs, certain areas appear to have the ‘protected species’ assigned to them – many being in Camden Ward!
The latest agenda features 2 applications that would seem to endorse this view. One is for a 5 storey building of 3 shops and 57 dwelllings in Neerim Road, Carnegie. It is zoned Mixed Use (ie no height limits) and located in the Murrumbeena Neighbourhood Centre. Officers recommended a permit and the waiving of 4 visitor car parking spots.
The second application is Hawthorn Road, North Caulfield. It is zoned Commercial (again no height limits) and is seeking a permit for 6 storeys, shops and 40 dwellings. Both applications are surrounded by other Commercial zones and the General Residential Zone. Yet, officers decided to reject this second application outright and to pass the Neerim Road one.
It should also be borne in mind that council’s approach is often to chop off one floor and a handful of apartments and hence grant approval. This hasn’t been done for the Hawthorn Road application. So whilst the application seems to meet all the planning scheme requirements in terms of zoning, height, and even ‘mass’ it doesn’t get the nod. Instead we find some remarkable statements that are applied to one site, which didn’t enter council’s consciousness on applications in other areas. For example: council now appears worried about setting a precedent! They are also concerned about drainage, when countless applications are passed in Carnegie resulting in basement car park flooding – and this is when this report contains an engineering recommendation that the developer pay for extra drainage. No such additions have appeared in the countless officer reports for these other areas!
Thus we have to ask:
- Are parts of Glen Eira being allowed to become part of the ‘great unwashed’?
- Is Camden Ward being accorded ‘privileges’ that other areas aren’t? If so, why?
Finally, we’ve uploaded the two zoning maps for these applications and ask residents to ponder the ‘differences’ which results in one application being granted a permit and the other one a rejection by planners. We also wish to state that we are NOT endorsing either application. We make no comment on the quality of the proposed plans. We are simply concentrating on the officer comments and the resulting recommendations.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM
You seem to ignore the proposed development that will be built on the racetrack carpark. That is in North Caulfield. Going to be bigger than anything that will be build elsewhere. Maybe the planners think that will do North Caulfield for now. They are, after all seen to be strange lot.
September 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM
Correct. But this developer isn’t the MRC; the land hasn’t been designated as a Priority Development Zone and nor will he be paying upwards of $5m for the privilege of building.
September 19, 2014 at 2:42 PM
It doesn’t take Einstein to detect the differences between the 2 reports. It’s in the tone, what’s emphasised and what’s left out in the respective reports. Their minds were made up and then the reports written to argue what had already been decided. North Caulfield is to be saved as much as possible and the rest of Glen Eira can be transformed into slums. I await the volume of spin and squirming that will take place on Tuesday night when councillors have to front up and make their decisions.
September 19, 2014 at 3:16 PM
There’s another ginormous application in for Carnegie – 12 storeys and 138 apartments on Woorayl near the station.
September 19, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Most of N Caul was done over with flats in the 60’s & 70’s. Also land value is very much higher, making developers profits less, Carnegie’s largly gone, developers are just cleaning up whats they left over from there 60’s get rich quick schemes.
Bentleigh and McKinnon are the new rape and pilling zones … whooops pillage zones.
The young Jewish people wanting to be close to there family’s and centres are now very happy to move across the ralline and still be in GE. When there numbers rise, Schools, Kindergartens, and places of worship will be needed.
The big wide world is coming to you soon.
What people need is affordable housing in an area relevant to themselves and their families in well planned neighbourhoods, not this pell-mell developers scam that happening again.
September 19, 2014 at 5:48 PM
http://joshburns.com.au/caulfield-racecourse-southwicks-failure/
September 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM
One of the excuses that Torres uses to reject the Hawthorn Road development is that the commercial zones surrounding the site are all pretty small. The maps though show the same argument applies to the Neerim Road property.
Comments on traffic are also different. Both main roads, both grz1 in surrounding locations but there isn’t parking on Hawthorn Road but there is on Neerim. I respectfully suggest that Mr Torres and his colleagues need to get out of their offices more often and drive around these locales.
The two reports do contradict each other as far as I’m concerned. What’s good for Carnegie is definitely not good enough for North Caulfield.
September 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM
The pillage of McKinnon is gathering momentum!
Yesterday, 2 adjacent properties at 279, and 281 Jasper Rd, have appeared “on the market”, appealing to those who will take up this “exciting opportunity” to you-know-what!!!!
The Glen Eira Council INSIST that the proliferation of planning applications in this area have nothing to do with the recently imposed residential zoning, but we, as residents, know better.
It is no coincidence that developers are targeting McKinnon, Bentleigh and Ormond, because they have been given the green light, from GECC, to cut a swathe through these suburbs, with gay abandon.
The real estate agents, and developers are like pigs at a trough, and we, the unfortunate residents are left to deal with what’s left behind.
RIP McKinnon, Bentleigh, Ormond, and Carnegie.
September 19, 2014 at 9:10 PM
I’ve been checking out all the upcoming vcat appeals and there are a stack of them all for three and four storey places like
Alterations and additions to the existing building and creation of an additional level (3 storeys) incorporating a total of eight (8) dwellings
Construction of a three (3) storey
building comprising eleven (11)
dwellings with basement
Construction of a three (3) storey
building comprising up to ten (10) units
Construction of a three (3) storey
building comprising five (5) dwellings
above a basement carpark
Construction of a three (3) storey
building (plus basement level)
comprising fifteen (15) dwellings.
Construction of a five storey
building above basement car
park comprising of shops and
dwellings
Construction of a four storey residential
building comprising up to 16 dwellings
Construction of four (4) double storey
dwellings
Construction of a three (3) storey building
comprising fifteen (15) dwellings above a
basement car park
Council can make out like they care and knock these back and then the developer goes to vcat and because council has given the green light for all 3 and four storey places with the zoning developers know they’ve got a great chance of getting what they want. All they have to do is argue that its in the planning scheme and vcat will say okay.
You’re right in what you say and this proves it. There never were so many applications for this sort of development before. Now there is and its because of the zones. Council has basically said to developers – go for it and we will back you to the hilt.
September 20, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Agree with you 100% Robyn.
The Administration knew and Councillors were not interested.
Councillors, now forced to face the result of their lack of interest, are merely wringing their hands.
The Councillors’ problem solving approach accurately reflects the level of attention they gave to the zone implementation.
The calibre of Glen Eira’s Councillors is clearly shown by the fact that not one of them has suggested looking at the havoc and assessing alternatives that will at least contain the damage while a complete review of the zones and the planning scheme is undertaken.
September 19, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Included in the agenda is another zone implementation promise, and a significant one at that, consigned to the P.H. Ucking gurgler
Remember that the one about planning applications lodged prior to 23/8/13 (the official zone implementation date) would be judged under the zones applicable at that time, applications lodged post 23/8/13 would be judged under the new zones. Off with it’s head!!!!
Agenda item 9.4 150 Tucker Road Bentleigh – amended planning permit application. The proposal states it is
“Amend Planning Permit GE/PP-21042/2008 by changing
the “description” of what the permit allows/covers to provide
an increase of 7 dwellings (from 13 to 20 dwellings)”
Read further and guess what a change of description it is definitely not.
The lot was issued a planning permit in 2009 by VCAT – 3 two storey buildings and one three storey apartment building (13 units). The lot was subdivided into 4 lots in 2012. Three of the lots (the 2 storey dwellings) were on sold and their development has been completed.
The fourth lot which was to house a 3 storey apartment building comprising 13 dwellings has not been completed. And far from wishing to change the description the Officers Report clearly states that “The current application relates to the balance of the site fronting Tucker Road and seeks to replace the current approved 3 storey apartment building (max height of 9m) with a revised design containing 7 additional dwellings for a total
of 20 dwellings”.
The Officer’s Report recommends approving the addition of an additional storey (an extra 1.5m and 7 units) on a planning permit granted in 2009 (clearly prior to the zone implementation) because “the proposed building’s height of 10.5m would be consistent with the maximum height allowed under the General Residential Zone (Schedule 1).
Not only is Council ignoring the zone implementation spin, they are also setting a huge precedent. Council has previously admitted (2012) it has no clue about planning permits extensions and sees little point tracking them. This permit is 5 years old!!!!. Planning permits are supposed to be valid for 4 years (which give 2 years to start and 2 years to complete).
Listing this item as a change of description and being given the nod by officers is not only grossly misleading and it is also totally contrary to Council’s zone implementation comments.
Any Councillor who votes to approve agenda item 9.4 150 Tucker Road, Bentleigh, hasn’t taken their head out of their R. Soles.
September 22, 2014 at 6:57 PM
401-407 Neerim Rd proposal fails to comply with Council policy so should be rejected. Probably won’t though. Council prefers to redesign a proposal through conditions unless it affects the amenity of people with power and influence. Yes, I did notice the officer’s use of rhetoric in an attempt to influence Council’s decision. Mary Delahunty assures me though that councillors are aware of this and are immune to being influenced by such crude devices—not that I believe her.
There’s something else extraordinary and noteworthy about the officer reports: they recommend as conditions pedestrian sightlines of 2.5m x 2.0m, and in the case of Hawthorn Rd, access ramps approximating AS2890.1:2004. For years Council has compromised pedestrian safety through granting permits for substandard accessways and failing to insist on compliance with permit conditions. Has there been a secret change of policy?
September 23, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Interesting to note that Councillors’ know of the officer’s use of rhetoric in an attempt to influence their decisions. I agree that I don’t believe that Councillor’s are immune to this.
I do wonder why Councillors don’t put a stop it. Seems to me that as the legally responsible persons in charge of the Municipality, stopping a known crappy practice should be with their grasp.