The rush for ‘larger than conventional lots’ in quiet residential streets is gaining momentum. Readers should note the sales pitch that is now standard – ie. ideally ‘zoned’ for ‘density’. From this week’s offerings!
And the accompanying blurb for this Jasper road ‘combo’ reads –
Exciting development opportunity in the Residential Growth Zone
2 adjacent dwellings offered together
Site area of 1,115m2 approx.
Great development opportunity (STCA)
Versatile opportunity for development: boutique apartment block, townhouses, childcare / early learning centre (STCA)
Build either a multi – storey, multi – dwelling development, in the newly zoned ‘Residential Growth Zone’ in the heart of the of McKinnon College Zone
The two adjoining properties are being sold together and provide 1,115m2 of land area (STCA)
Flexible settlement terms available
Surrounded by excellent retail and lifestyle amenities, including the cafe culture of McKinnon village, McKinnon station, schools & parklands
279 & 281 Jasper Road, McKinnon is for sale through an expressions of interest campaign closing Tuesday 21st October at 5pm
Blurb for this one –
bring your vision for prestige development (subject to Council Approval) and build wide to maximise streetfrontage, stand tall to capture views and add prestige to capitalise on an off-Centre, in-Zone address!
PS: We also remind readers that with the new zones that are so ‘developer friendly’, this Council refused to introduce a MINIMUM size for lot subdivision as most other councils have done. What this means is that properties can be subdivided and then subdivided again. A 650sqm block of land can feasibly result in 3 or 4 properties going up and that includes the supposedly ‘protected’ Neighbourhood Residential Zones!!!!!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Oh goodie more 4 storey, boundary to boundary developments that won’t have any impact on traffic, parking, open space demand, drainage, surface run off, over shadowing, over looking or anything else.
September 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Oh Anon! So cynical but so so correct!
September 20, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Councillors by now must have a pretty good idea of the carnage they’ve let loose on residents. The results of leaving everything up to officers and accepting their bullshit is as clear as crystal. What happens next is important. Residents have to start asking these councillors two basic questions –
1. What are you going to do about this mess?
2. Why did you let this happen?
September 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM
The answer will be don’t blame us blame the State Government, we did the best we could with what they provided.
Which is an even bigger pile of bullshit than the pile that accompanied their zone announcement.
Council could have done a lot, lot more but Councillor’s were happy to leave it in the Administration’s hands and just read from the script they were handed. Rumour has it that they are not so happy now that the results of their lackadaisical approach is biting them in the bum.
For starters, here’s what they could have done –
. consulted the community
. not adopted the State Government’s zone maximum height guidelines
. applied logic to zone boundaries
. defined more schedules for the zones. The schedules being geared to a specific areas built form
. completed the few schedules that they did define (eg. minimum lot size)
. created Neighbourhood Character and Design Development Overlays.
The list goes on and on.
September 20, 2014 at 1:58 PM
In the context of this reader’s comments, it should also be highlighted that:
1. Height limits in the zones were ‘negotiable’. Council could set whatever they wanted
2. The schedules also left plenty of room for ‘negotiation’ – ie permeability, site coverage, set backs, etc.
As we’ve repeatedly alleged, Newton and his cohorts were so determined to be the first council in the state to have the new zones that all necessary preparatory work was not done. We remind readers again that the Housing Strategy has NOT BEEN TOUCHED since 2002 (and this was based on data from 1998). Other councils have introduced their new zones on the basis of a thorough and comprehensive review of their housing strategy – some as recently as 2013 and ALL with extensive and detailed community consultation.
It should also be borne in mind that not only was this introduced in secrecy, by stealth, and without consultation, council’s dissemination of information is abysmal – deliberately so. Whilst other councils could put up on their websites interactive maps, so that residents could type in their address and see exactly what their zoning was, Glen Eira provided none of this – pre – or post introduction of the zones. We certainly challenge the spin that residents are perfectly aware of what zone they are in. The entire exercise was to keep residents ignorant and unaware. That continues to this very day!
The biggest con is that the introduction of the zones represents a ‘neutral translation’. Such a statement is obscene and residents need to be fully aware of how untrue this claim is.
September 21, 2014 at 11:39 AM
If the mayor’s discussion with Penang Street residents last week is anything to judge by, I think you will find that the answer to the two questions will be:
1. Nothing
2. Because we could, and because we were all consulted in 2010 – LOL!
PS Planning conference for Penang St is tomorrow evening (22 September at 7pm) for all those interested.
September 20, 2014 at 4:01 PM
A Real Estate agent marketing this property as in Residential Growth Zone should be prosecuted, since it isn’t. It is in GRZ1, nominally meaning 10.5m height limit [~3 storeys].
Just because a property is located in GRZ1 doesn’t mean it should automatically be granted a permit for 3 storeys, although Council and VCAT disagree with me despite what the Planning Scheme says. A development must meet all of the Objectives and *should* meet all of the relevant Standards. It is supposed to take an alternative design solution before waiving compliance, but in practice the standards are widely ignored by decision-makers.
Our goose of an attorney-general, Robert Clark, was in the papers again Friday, this time attempting to say the fall in disputes at VCAT was unrelated to the dramatic price hikes in VCAT fees imposed on Victorians last year. He demonstrated his ignorance of Planning with the following quote concerning “Objectors” and fees: “This is appropriate because in such cases the objector is seeking to overturn a decision that has been made by elected local community representatives”.
In reality, few decisions are made by councillors, assuming that is what he meant by “elected local community representatives”. Most decisions are made by council staff, who are definitely not elected, who make decisions without transparency, and who routinely fail to consider relevant policies.
On a related matter, last May our A-G increased the fees for Section 114 VCAT applications [dealing with noncompliance] by 1800% and subsequently misled [much politer than “lied to”] the public in a Press Release about the magnitude of the price hikes. Through his Ministerial Staff he issued a veiled threat that anybody who uses S114 at VCAT could have costs levelled against them if unsuccessful too. He didn’t provide a strategic justification for the exorbitant cost for something that should be much cheaper to resolve than an S89 or S93 application. The Regulatory Impact Statement didn’t justify it either. I really hope the current incumbents lose the next State election but don’t really want the “alternative” either.
September 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM
RGZ or GRZ – seems to be all much the same thing so far as the council is concerned, save one floor less. Practice Note 78 referred to in an earlier post regarding heritage listings makes a really interesting read. It makes clear that GRZ should consist of ‘moderate’ housing growth, that ‘respects and preserves’ urban character, consisting of single dwellings, dual occupancies, ‘some villa units and in limited circumstances townhouses’. A copy is here: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/159946/PN78-Applying-the-Residential-Zones.pdf
I would be interested to know whether this Practice Note 78 does or should carry any weight either at council level or VCAT? thinking whether to supplement existing Notice of Objection re Penang St. Struggle to see how 3 floors and 24 apartments fits within description. I am sure same applies to other developments.
September 20, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Could the “elected local community representatives” also mean the State Members of Parliament – Elizabeth Miller and David Southwick? Robert Clark is a funny man!