Hotham St – 7 storeys 104 dwellings
The Leader Article above referred to the 168 Hotham St. application with 137 objections. There is far more to this application than meets the eye we suspect. Given the magnitude of this proposed development, and its significant location, we believe that residents have the right to know everything that the officer’s report fails to mention, namely:
- This site was the subject of previous applications
- This site became Amendment C54 which rezoned the land to a Mixed Use zone (circa 2007-8)
- A Panel Report was issued
- The site was (and perhaps still is) owned by Adass Israel and their application at the time involved the construction of 8 shops and 23 dwellings in a three storey building.
- At the Planning Panel hearing council officers queried the ‘intensity’ of proposed development and traffic management/car parking facilities that were proposed for a mere 3 storey development.
- The Planning Panel report had plenty to say about height, intensity, etc.
- Port Phillip council had major concerns about Heritage
- Ripponlea had major concerns about parking
- Traffic reports done at the time (2007) stated that Glen Eira Road and Hotham Street had 13,000 and 16,000 cars travelling on these roads daily
Given this history, and the doubts entertained at the time, how on earth can council now turn around and accept a 5 storey building with huge traffic and parking problems– especially when at last council meeting it rejected the Hawthorn Road application for 6 storeys? Where is the consistency? Or have ‘special dispensations’ been handed out to the select few? How many permit extensions has this site received? Or was the permit withdrawn; did it lapse? If either, then why isn’t any of this information found in the planning register? And why, when so many other officer reports include the history of the site is there not one single word about any of this?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM
just picture Matthew Guy as Premier when you vote this year.
October 14, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Guy simply rubber stamps the Council’s (Officers) proposals on the advice from the senior public servants. Same as Maddern did when he tried to get the Windsor proposal up. I could drive you past the Delahunty stuff that should never have been built. Lots of those.
October 14, 2014 at 6:00 PM
Madden ‘intervened’ in planning applications a quarter of the amount that Guy has thus far. Mind, this is not to exonerate Madden, who in our view was woeful, but the current Minister must surely be at least as woeful if not moreso given the frequency of his ‘interventions’:-)
October 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM
This puts a real dampener on council’s use of public rail car parks instead of forcing developers to provide on site parking. What will Pilling argue now. I think that in all fairness council should from now on be paying the parking fines for all those people who get booked since council is telling everyone to park on these sites.
October 14, 2014 at 12:37 PM
We couldn’t resist the sheer stupidity (and irony) of the following which comes from the officer’s report on the Hotham St. development.
“A total of 19 out of the 104 dwellings are reliant upon borrowed light (18.2%). This is considered to be a reasonable percentage for a development of this size and scale.
Subject to conditions requesting the removal 26 dwellings the revised percentage of dwellings relying on borrowed light would be 24.3% which continues to remain acceptable.”
There is absolutely no shame in INCREASING the percentage of dwellings where residents will have to adapt to no sunlight. Instead of ensuring that the percentage of such dwellings lessens, council has succeeded in INCREASING the percentage. Well done to all!
October 14, 2014 at 1:12 PM
ps – PS: planning is definitely not council’s strong point as evidenced by this comment from another VCAT decision. Council argued for increased permeability but in the same breath argued for the installation of a concrete pedestrian pathway. Here’s what the member said: “The request from Council for a pedestrian path separate from the common driveway for the rear two dwellings is not only an unreasonable request based on the likely extent of pedestrian traffic, but also appears to be directly contradictory to Council’s concerns about the extent of hard paved areas at the front of the site.”
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/1211.html
October 14, 2014 at 3:59 PM
Ya gotta be a real genius to argue for two opposite things at the same time. Great stuff. Intellectual giants the whole rotten bunch.
October 14, 2014 at 2:03 PM
The evidence keeps piling up that officer reports are not worth a cracker. They are biased and tend to ignore most of the important things that go into good planning. But councillors seem to stupid or intimidated to challenge a single thing that is presented from up high by this administration. I deeply and personally resent the power that has been given to these people who are not elected, are extremely well paid, and who, in the end do such a lousy job. Councillors should bear the full brunt of resident disapproval because it is they who have allowed this to happen.
October 14, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Every time I read an officer report recommending granting a permit for something that fails to comply with policies and amenity standards I’m left wondering why officers go to such lengths to trash their own scheme. Ron Torres’ report claims “consideration has been given to key elements of the State Government’s Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development”. But then he ignores Objective 5.4 “To ensure that a good standard of natural lighting and ventilation is provided to internal building spaces” and associated Design Suggestion 5.4.1 “Provide direct light and air to all rooms wherever possible”.
It is a sign of over-development that direct light and air is not being provided to all rooms. Accepting relying on borrowed light or air for 19% or 24% of dwellings means that it is acceptable for 100% of dwellings. I can only conclude that he doesn’t consider residential amenity elements of the Guidelines to be important. Councillors have in the past supported poor amenity outcomes to help developers make more money. Will they be consistent and reject their own decision criteria?
October 14, 2014 at 4:11 PM
This is slightly off topic so I apologise. My daughter has introduced me to Twitter in the past few days which frankly I find abominable. With her help I found the twitter comments of three councillors – Sounness, Magee and Delahunty. Fair enough that these are personal reflections for the most part and an indication of their interests. What amazed me overall was that not one of these councillors had a thing to say on development per se. Two of them – Sounness and Delahunty – had plenty to say on other “council” things like gay rights and open space. I am not opposed to such comments. My point is that if council matters are commented upon then it should be all council matters and planning is high on many people’s agendas at the moment with all these inappropriate developments going on. A word or two about such things would not go astray. Gay rights wouldn’t mind sharing the focus I’m sure with residents feeling like they too are getting the raw end of the stick on planning.
October 14, 2014 at 5:45 PM
They keep mum on planning because they agree with everything Newton and Lipshutz want.