Below is our analysis of the first two planning applications and the officers’ reports. We have for ages lamented the quality of such reports, their lack of detail, lack of cogent reasoning and overall lack of consistency from application to application. For example: one application might rate a mention of ‘internal amenity’, another might skip this altogether. But the overriding characteristic of all the reports is the failure to quantify, explain, and to insist on the adherence to council’s own standards – time and time again.
For these two reports we’ve extracted some sentences and then provided our comments. The extracts do not constitute everything we could have said. Otherwise this post would definitely turn into a major opus of interminable length. So, please read and try not to laugh too loudly!
22 Mavho St, Bentleigh -14 properties notified and 30 objections
A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to full compliance with ResCode and improve the streetscape appearance of the proposal.
COMMENT: what a nebulous airy fairy comment. What does ‘closer to full compliance mean’. If it’s not compliant then why accept it? And how much out of compliance is the final recommendation?
The plans lack sufficient detail to demonstrate that neighbouring properties will be protected from overlooking. A recommended condition requires privacy protection measures to be added to the plans and elevations.
COMMENT: if there is a ‘lack of sufficient detail’ then why assume that screening will solve the problem? Did council bother to check to see if it would?
The recommended increases in basement setbacks (or basement size reduction) can reduce car space numbers, and therefore dwelling numbers or the mix of dwelling sizes. However, the ‘lost’ spaces can be regained by the use of car stackers, or a second basement level, or a combination of the two. That is, the proposed dwelling yield will not necessarily change.
COMMENT – Not only does council worry about the developer losing a few units because he hasn’t supplied enough basement setbacks, but they are even providing him with the ‘answer’ to leapfrog their conditions. What a wonderfully kind council this is! And so blithely to recommend a second underground level of car parking without even considering what this does to neighbouring properties. Sink holes here we come perhaps!
Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied that each dwelling has satisfactory car parking. It accepts the provision of three visitor spaces, acknowledging that parking guidelines suggest five. The removal of a redundant crossing will provide an additional on-street space, and the site has good access to public transport.
COMMENT: another visitor car spot gone. As for on-street car car parking space please note that no statistics, no traffic counts are provided. As for ‘good access’ to public transport – only if you want to park in a two hour zone throughout most of the area, or if for longer then the hike to the station is much longer.
Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the current operation of Mavho Street or the surrounding road network
COMMENT: ‘unlikely’ – does that mean that Council really doesn’t know? That they haven’t done the proper and necessary research? And exactly how is ‘significant adverse impact’ defined? Is there a difference between ‘significant’ and plain, old ordinary ‘adverse impact’? To quote Ms Hansen – PLEASE EXPLAIN ON EVERYTHING! and a few statistics to back up such unsupported statements wouldn’t go astray either!
Create a gentler transition to the rear of the site.
COMMENT: oh, the language is sublime. Straight out of Shakeseare no doubt. Again, what does ‘gentler transition’ really mean? Are we talking 4 storeys down to 2? What’s ‘gentle’ about a 4 storey building sitting alongside single storey dwellings?
AND OF COURSE THERE’S NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT INTERNAL AMENITY, SUNLIGHT, ETC. to be found anywhere in the report.
Application NO.2 – 2-4 Penang St McKinnon – 12 properties notified – 48 objections + petiti0n with 34 signatures
Recent developments of three or more storeys in scale have been constructed on McKinnon Road in close proximity to the subject site.
COMMENT: McKinnon Road is a main street with buses, and a railway station. It is not a quiet residential street consisting of a handful of dwellings. To compare McKinnon Road to Penang St is like comparing Jack the Ripper with Little Orphan Annie!
An emerging new character is evident in the neighbourhood which varies from single to three storeys in scale. It is considered that the proposed development adequately respects the existing and emerging character of the neighbourhood.
COMMENTS: language, language that says absolutely nothing. What does ‘adequate’ mean? More importantly there are no three storey developments in any residential side street close to Penang. How can something ‘respect’ the existing neighbourhood (when there aren’t any 3 storeys) and then in the same breath claim that it ‘respects’ emerging character. What this report doesn’t state is that the emerging character is based on this application – it will set the precedent for what comes after – as is intended no doubt!
The overshadowing of adjoining properties satisfies Res Code requirements. The relevant standards ensure a minimum level of sunlight for adjoining secluded private open space areas.
COMMENT: ‘minimum level of sunlight’. Welcome to the world of the mole!
One dwelling at first floor (Apartment 14) is considered to have poor internal amenity, by virtue of its undersized balcony and south facing orientation. It is recommended that this dwelling be deleted (which will allow for the additional visitor car space within the basement).
COMMENT: Thank god – the ‘problem’ of car parking is solved. But since when is a balcony part of ‘internal amenity’?
Street tree at the front of 4 Penang Street can be removed as it does not meet with current Council Strategy
COMMENT – we simply adore this comment. Trees can be destroyed because they (poor things) don’t happen to fit in with what council decided should only be planted two years ago. Never mind that the tree is in good health, at least 15 years old, provides shade, and aesthetic ‘ambience’ to the street. It has to go because the developer needs a crossover! And council might just make some money out of the deal!
Landscape Assessment Officer
Σ It appears that there are trees to be removed at the rear of 4 Penang Street
Σ Advanced tree requirements in post construction landscape
COMMENT: ‘it appears’ – don’t they even know?!!!! What trees? Are they healthy, large, ‘significant’? The best is that ‘advanced tree requirements’ only get a look in after the fact. Surely this is Monty Python at their absolute best?
The applicant commented that they would check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams and ensure there are no other errors on the plans. Council’s Town Planning Department also commented they would check the shadow diagrams to ensure their accuracy.
COMMENT: so it’s been ‘checked’. What are the outcomes? Do they ALL comply? Could the poor paying public please be let in on the little secret with some facts, some figures, some real information?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 10, 2014 at 9:56 PM
I have to agree with every comment made. This council is worse than a joke it is a disgrace. It exists only to help out developers.
October 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM
big developments tiny notifications and plenty of objections. Bloody typical.
October 11, 2014 at 8:10 AM
It’s truly mind boggling to think that Councillors get such reports and base decisions, that have major impacts on the lives of those they represent, on such substandard rubbish.
Along the planning process there are steps or stages where items can be checked, accessed and amended. To illustrate: prior to lodging plans, the applicant contacts Council to obtain the development guideline/rules applicable to the site. They then draw up the plans and lodge the application. Council officers review the plans and decide whether they are compliant or not – if not, there are discussions with the applicant re required changes and amended plans are re-assessed. Once Council Officers decide the plans are compliant the development is advertised and residents given the opportunity to comment. Those comments, in conjunction with the plans, are then assessed by planning officers and a report (as per above) prepared together with a recommendation. The average planning permit approval process takes about 3-4 months).
Quite frankly I am absolutely gobsmacked that at the end of this entire process the Officers Report (Mavho St) includes the statement that – “A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to full compliance with ResCode”.
Firstly, In terms of setbacks (which effectively reduce internal space) 1.5m is a significant area. Setbacks have a significant impact on a units selling price and it is well known that applicants always push the envelope on setbacks. So why wasn’t this significant change (ResCode is basic stuff) made when the Planning Officer initially assessed the plans. If was determined to make it a condition (to minimise the applicant’s costs)
. on whose authority was that decision made and
. why wasn’t it made known to residents at the time of advertising the application.
Secondly, even with the 1.5m setback increase, the plans are still not compliant they are just closer to full compliance. Is the difference between between compliance and full compliance like being half pregnant vs pregnant?. The Planning Officers job is to assess an application for compliance, that they are determining the level of acceptable vs. non-acceptable non-compliance points to how inadequate the planning process is in Glen Eira.
October 11, 2014 at 9:20 AM
The fish rots from the head.
October 11, 2014 at 11:46 AM
Please, if you haven’t already, sign the petition and spread the word seeking a review of zones and community consultation: http://geresidents.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/petition-request-for-zone-implementation-review/
With state elections looming, and local election selection and campaigning not really that far away, we need to keep the pressure on councillors and state government that enough is enough. They rely on residents being worn down over time to continue with their ‘tin ear’ policies amd processes.
And if you are impacted by one of the developments up for a vote next week, please hit the phones and email and lobby councillors to vote against these developments. They need to be reminded of the strength of community (ie voter and ratepayer) feeling here.
October 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Planning is a total mess in Glen Eira. These extracts are mostly subjective statements that are made to fit all the boxes after the boxes have been set up. That is not planning. It’s not evaluation. It is straight out a priori rubbish. Having an agenda that is filled to the brim is not good planning either. That’s not an accident as others have said. It is deliberate and conniving on the part of Newton. Planning conferences for some of these were held weeks ago and could have appeared on the last meeting agenda. The reports wouldn’t have taken much time to do judging by the quality of what’s there. It’s all templated anyway with much repetition of the standard bullshit. A few minutes of cut and paste and there’s the report all set to go. Judging by this standard and the countless meetings no doubt with the developer beforehand I’d be hard pressed to say that more than an hour went into each one of these reports. T
October 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM
Re Penang Street report, it is worth noting that, aside from other deficiencies, there is at least one absolute stand-out error. A lot was said at the planning conference by and on behalf of the residents at the Claremont Terrace aged care facility (which is on the south boundary of the proposed development), and the adverse impact the development will have on them, in terms of amenity, safety, overlooking / overshadowing, etc.
The only mention made of Claremont Terrace in the report is a description of the site. Thing is, that description is just plain wrong. It is described in the report as 3-storey. Whilst this is true of the McKinnon Rd side, relevantly, the building on the south side adjoining the proposed development is 2-storey. Not only that, but the second storey is set back from the first. So the proposed development is a clear ‘stepping up’ in size, mass and height from Claremont Terrace, which the report fails to acknowledge.
The report then goes on to only discuss amenity impacts on the east boundary, and not on the south. Claremont Terrace is not mentioned again, or the impact on residents.
It seems the rest of the planning officer’s analysis / recommendation is largely based on this basic factual error. Councillors ought to be thinking long and hard about what weight to give to the planning department’s recommendations.
October 14, 2014 at 12:00 AM
F
Funnily enough usully the trees growing healthily in the “wrong place” re disesed anyway!!1111111