Glen Eira Debates

Readers might remember a planning application dating from 2011, where the developer applied for a permit for two buildings consisting of 80+ units, both 4 storey, and naturally reductions in car parking. Council bent over backwards to ‘assist’ in that they ceded part of their car park and were supposedly reimbursed with a public toilet worth about $300,000. Now, three years on, the developer wants more! We’ve also uploaded another application that give us a glimpse of the concrete canyons that are being created.

Below we feature some extracts from a very recent VCAT decision on an application for a 3 storey and 10 dwelling development in McKinnon. The area is zoned as General Residential Zone (GRZ1). Whilst council did refuse the application, the member still has quite a bit to say about the zones in general and council’s failure to even consider traffic!

Needless to say, such a decision has major ramifications for every other development in GRZ and RGZ and gives plenty of hope to residents – if they do their homework properly and if they are prepared to fight inappropriate developments.

Here are some quotes and the full judgement is uploaded HERE –

1           This hearing has again highlighted the very different expectations about the future of our neighbourhoods and where we live. Different expectations about what we want for ourselves, for our families and our neighbours, and for our community.

2           On the one hand, I have heard from residents who, whilst accepting that some evolutionary change will occur in Prince Edward Avenue and nearby streets, do not accept the physical change which is likely to occur because of the controls and policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

3           As I observed at the hearing, the absence of demolition controls, the zoning of the land as GRZ1 rather than Neighbourhood Residential, the proximity to train station and shops, and the encouragement given to more intensive development in a Neighbourhood Centre, will eventually lead to a very different character for this area

4          I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme

5           Open space is provided by way of relatively small balconies of at least eight square metres in area.

6           However I make the point that more intensive development does not necessarily mean that individual lots along Prince Edward Avenue will be capable of accommodating three storey apartment style buildings containing ten dwellings. It may be, for example, that individual lots are unable to comfortably accommodate such development and that lot consolidation will provide a means whereby such buildings can be comfortably accommodated in this area. It is certainly the case that policy at Clause 22.07-3 encourages lot consolidation to promote development opportunities.

7           Whilst I agree that the building is inside the 10.5 metre mandatory height limit in GRZ1, providing a three storey building on a relatively narrow site results in a building that dominates its surroundings. This is contrary to policy for these areas which is seeking to ensure that residential development is sited and designed so that it does not dominate the streetscape and that it be of a lower scale and density to that in the mixed use and commercial areas.

8           Lot consolidation will generally allow for higher and larger buildings because of the ability to achieve various ResCode standards, such as those for side and rear setbacks, over the whole site rather than trying to achieve the same setbacks for individual buildings developed on each separate site. Consolidation therefore makes for a much more efficient use of land and allows for intensification of built form without the adverse impacts that can arise from trying to achieve a similar level of intensification on a smaller lot.

9           In making these comments I acknowledge that there are newly constructed double storey dwellings in Prince Edward Avenue which have minimal landscaping and appear visually dominating. Aside from the fact that individual dwellings do not require a planning permit, they are not buildings which I would use to demonstrate acceptable built form. It is incongruous that, in most cases, individual dwellings do not undergo the same assessment against neighbourhood character and other policies as do developments comprising two or more dwellings, and that these individual dwellings can undermine the character of an area to a greater extent than medium density developments.

10        The request to reduce visitor car parking by two spaces and adverse impacts on the local street network did not form part of Council’s grounds for refusing the application. However these were issues of concern to residents.

11        Although the site is very close to the train station, as discussed at the hearing, I am concerned that far little attention is being given to the cumulative effect of allowing reductions or waivers in the provision of on-site carparking in suburban areas such as McKinnon. Whilst the radial rail network might be convenient for workers travelling to and from the city, the train network is less convenient for non-radial trips. It is less convenient to rely on bus services, particularly at weekends and evenings, when I am consistently advised by traffic witnesses that most visitation occurs. If that is correct then there should be even less justification for allowing a reduction in on-site visitor parking.

12        Given this is a street and an area earmarked for more intensive development, then a threshold will be reached where on-street parking will reach saturation point. Although I accept that might be some way off, I nevertheless consider it inequitable that this development does not provide for all its parking needs within the basement. Moreover, as I observed during the hearing, the encouragement being given by the State Government to train travel has not been, for the most part, matched by the provision of sufficient additional parking facilities at train stations. The result is an expanding level of commuter parking in nearby residential streets, which inevitably compounds parking congestion. I accept that the commuter parking is not such an issue in the evenings and weekends but the lack of parking is symptomatic of a failure to address parking needs in a holistic manner.

13        I also agree with Mr Fairlie that if existing parking and traffic arrangements are unsatisfactory to residents then they need to approach Council to see if improvements can be achieved.

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!

Item 9.2 – 487 Neerim Road – 7 lot subdivision (Esakoff on leave and Magee late to meeting)

Hyams moved motion with amendments requiring 4 metre setbacks to some of the units to the east and that there must be council approval to ‘vary envelopes’ (ie building envelopes) like ‘variations to a restrictive covenant’. Also included that there could be variations to garage placements and this would need a planning permit amendment. Lipshutz seconded.

HYAMS: went through the past history and the VCAT approval for a 3 storey development. Permit has now ‘expired’ and the site is in minimal change (NRZ1) so there can’t be a new application because the new zones only allow ‘two buildings on site’. Hence ‘the sensible response to that’ for large sites is to ‘apply for subdivision’. Hyams then said that the developer would currently be paying a 4.25% open space levy instead of 5.7% ‘which is due of course to our amendment being held up’ by people who are ‘being good friends to the developers’. He hoped that ‘those people know what they are doing’. Went on to say that planning permits are required for ‘the actual buildings’ because of the Special Building and Design Overlays. Objectors thought this was all a ‘bit vague’ but that the ‘clarity will come later’. But the ‘application does come with building envelopes’ and once that is approved then things are set and that’s why he moved the amendment about setbacks. Objectors were worried about the trees but they will be ‘protected’ via a Section 173 agreement which ‘will require a tree management plan’. ‘That will ensure’ that the trees ‘are looked after’. Neighbouring units will be ‘protected’ because of the 4 metre setback. Said that other standards like permeability and site coverage have been met and that there will be 3 visitor car parking spaces and 2 resident spots for each unit. Overlooking ‘will be addressed at the planning permit stage’ and he’s confident that this can be resolved by ‘treating’ the windows. Thought that this was ‘good use of the land to subdivide’ and that it also ‘protected the amenity’ of neighbours.

LIPSHUTZ: said that the developers had ‘extensive discussions’ with officers before the application went in and that’s ‘a good thing because it allows things to progress pretty easily’. Said that setbacks weren’t discussed with officers but now that it’s realised the developer can ‘deal with the setback quite readily’. Said the ‘building envelope is quite important’ because buildings are ‘planned a particular way’ and ultimately ‘council has control over it’ with the next planning application.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams’ comments and his amendment because they do ‘strike a balance’ between protecting the neighbourhood and getting the ‘best outcome for that parcel of land’. Said she ‘completely supports’ this motion.

SOUNNESS: thought this was the most ‘comprehensive’ subdivision he’d seen and was very pleased about the emphases on protecting the trees. Recognised that this does ‘constrain’ how many units can go on but that there are also ‘trade offs’. Hoped that the developer will support the conditions and ensure that the trees are maintained even though it will come at a financial cost.

LOBO: said that ‘initially’ he wasn’t ‘happy’ with the application because 7 units means that it will be ‘too congested’. But with Hyams’ amendment ‘I feel more comfortable’ but ‘yet not sure that I will vote for it’.

PILLING: thought that the amendment goes ‘a fair way’ to addressing resident concerns and does ‘strike the right balance’.

HYAMS: said that Magee also ‘expressed’ support for increased setbacks.

MOTION PUT AND VOTED FOR UNANIMOUSLY

When one considers that planning applications have the power to impact dramatically on people’s lives, the least that councillors could do is to actually consider and debate the merits of the case. Instead, what invariably happens in chamber is that councillors merely regurgitate the officer’s reports (verbatim at times), possibly make some minor amendments and the whole matter, from start to finish, takes approximately 5 minutes – if even that long! People’s lives, their amenity, surely deserve more than 5 minutes of weasel words?

By way of contrast, slapping themselves on the back about the moving of the Toy Library to a council owned building takes around 12 minutes and ten years of community pleading! Requests for reports, turn into marathons of political grandstanding, constant contradictions, and a focus on ‘feel good’ issues that many would argue are beyond council’s control. These requests take close to half an hour of argey bargey and political point-scoring.

Of course no information is provided to residents on:

• What happened at the VCAT ‘mediation’ over the Caulfield Village Development
• No explanation as to why the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion will not be completed until half way through next year
• No insight into whether the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion is over budget

In short, all the important issues, are downplayed, given short shrift, or the code of silence descends. That is the incontrovertible message that these councillors send to residents. The priority for this Council and its councillors is to continually slap themselves on the back and state again and again how wonderful they are.

PS: The triple block of land in McKinnon Road (1112 square metres and zoned GRZ)  was sold today for $3.61 million! At that price, residents can look forward to plenty more chicken coops so that the developer can recoup his outlay!

Below we feature two pages of meeting notes that occurred between the Minister, Newton, Hyams, and department reps. We urge all readers to pay particular attention to the last 5 paragraphs of Page 2. These paragraphs reveal plenty about the manner in which this council operates and its hidden agendas!