The Belsize Ave (4 storey 52 dwellings) Application
The building will be prominent in its existing context (due to the relative scale to neighbouring single storey dwellings) and will be visible from various vantage points. However, the design of the building through its use of alternate materials, breaks in the building length, side/rear setbacks and graduation of the height is considered acceptable.
COMMENT: Please define ‘acceptable’ especially when it is admitted that a 4 storey dwelling next to a single storey will be ‘visible’!
The proposed crossover from Belsize Avenue requires the removal of an existing street tree (Queensland Brush box located in front of 15 Belsize Avenue). Council’s Parks Services Department have consented to the removal of this street tree provided the cost is borne by the developer
Prior to the commencement of the development, a fee of $798 must be paid to the Responsible Authority for the removal and replacement of the existing street tree (Queensland Brush Box located on the nature strip of 15 Belsize Avenue). Removal of the street tree may only be undertaken by the Responsible Authority.
COMMENT: Is the tree healthy? How big? How old? What does it add to the street. Not a word about any of this.
22-26 Bent St Bentleigh – 15 properties notified – 36 objections – Another 4 storey
More intense building forms are emerging in the surrounding areas and this trend is expected to continue. Accordingly a 4 storey development of this nature is considered, in general, an acceptable response to policy, zoning, the site context and emerging neighbourhood character.
COMMENT: translated this means ‘more to come’
The building will be prominent in its existing context (due to the relative scale to neighbouring single storey dwellings) and will be visible from various vantage points.The design of the building generally seeks to reduce these visual impacts through its use of alternate materials, breaks in the building length and graduation of the height between each respective floor.
COMMENT: So currently the building is ‘prominent’ but given the rubber stamping of this street for 4 storeys Council can’t see anything wrong in getting the ball rolling
Balconies consequently reduced and such that they do not intrude into the increased setbacks by more than 2.5m (width).
COMMENT: why have setbacks at all if they can be overhung by 2.5 metres? Or are the setbacks there only to accommodate the developers design so he can squeeze some balconies in and not lose any apartments?
The amenity impacts to the private open space at the rear of 3/23 Vickery Street may experience overshadowing from 2pm onwards. The building should be redesigned so that this area remains unaffected by shadows up to 2pm.
COMMENT: This one we simply adore. Overshadowing ‘may’ occur but they are not sure. To compensate the poor resident at 3/23 Vickery St should have sunlight only up to 2pm. Never mind the hours of overshadowing post 2pm.
Loranne St -19 properties notified – 28 objections – another 4 storey
It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 4 storeys in height represents a change to this neighbourhood. However, in considering the merits of the proposed height, a number of contextual factors must be considered:
Σ The character of the wider area in general is undergoing change and will continue to do so, in accordance with State and Local Policy.
Σ Surrounding properties are within the Urban Village and may be subject to future redevelopment in line with policy and zoning.
Σ The design has been carefully sited with generous (in excess of 14m) setbacks from the street and will be appropriate to the scale and character of the area and the emerging character
COMMENT: oh dear – no problems here about setting a precedent – unlike the arguments that went with last meeting’s Hawthorn Road application. 14 metres set back sounds amazing until one realises this is referring to the 4 th storey level and not anywhere else. Pity this wasn’t made absolutely clear! Readers should also note that this is the ONLY application that has been accorded the privilege of having a distinct subheading – Neighbourhood Character. We presume that the other applications to not have any ‘neighbourhood character’ or simply aren’t worthy of this consideration since they have already been allowed to go to the dogs.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 13, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Officers work from templates judging by some of these reports. It takes them a few minutes and they just click on the one that sounds the best, even if they have used that paragraph five minutes before for a completely different development. That means that they have already made up their minds about everything and then just have to find the right slogans that fit in. Every sentence is deliberately vague and unspecified so it could mean anything which gets them off the hook. Nothing is looked at on an individual basis only whether it can be 3 or 4 or 20 storeys according to the lousy zone. I would bet that 90 percent of these places aren’t even visited. They might sit at their desks and study the computer instead of getting out there and really seeing what a street or a neighbourhood is like.
They don’t double check the developer’s plans when they should and they don’t do the proper stuff on traffic, parking, and overshadowing. That’s been shown up by the Penang people and they are amateurs. It’s a pretty dismal state of affairs when a bunch of moms and dads have done the work that these planning experts that are paid very nicely thank you should have done.
October 13, 2014 at 8:02 PM
Dont worry he is looking after our interests not the MRC
http://mrc.racing.com/videos/2014-10-13/2014-crown-golden-ale-caulfield-cup-tour—david-southwick-mp
October 13, 2014 at 8:08 PM
It just keeps getting worse and while I can understand Councillors being loathe to read this crap perhaps they should consider that they are the ones to make change happen.
Oh and by the way, while can understand their not reading this crap I can’t forgive them. They signed on for the job and 10 mins reading versus someone having for stories behind the back fence forever is not a big ask.
October 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Planning is, and has always been, a mess in Glen Eira. There isn’t a consistent set of principles that Council uses when assessing applications for planning permits. The reports to Council [when the decision is being made by Council] are invariably substandard, failing to mention key policies, ignoring non-compliances, relying on vague and unsubstantiated claims. It is just incredible the number of times that officers, and VCAT for that matter, rely on “emerging character” when it doesn’t appear in the Planning Scheme and isn’t part of the decision criteria. Anybody who uses “emerging character” as a substitute for what GEPS actually says should be removed from any role connected to “Town Planning”. There wouldn’t be too many officers or councillors left.