At last council meeting a public question asked how many amended permits have been submitted requesting either an increase in height or number of dwellings and how many were granted since the introduction of the zones. The first part of the question remained unanswered. The second part of the question provided the response of only 4 granted permits.
Either council is suffering badly from amnesia, or its record keeping systems are sub-standard, or perhaps the third possibility is that the responses to public questions are far from accurate, truthful, and precise. Somehow, council simply forgot to note one major application that had been decided at the previous council meeting and neatly sidestepped all those applications in commercial zones – admittedly because the question did not specifically refer to this zone.
The argument consistently put up by council is that the zones have had no impact on the increased intensity of development. Not so we argue. With the introduction of the new zones what is starting to emerge is that developers who have clung onto their land (some for several years) are now taking advantage of the ‘largesse’ provided to them via the new zones and submitting amended applications for either increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. This is even more rampant in the commercial zones where there are no height limits. Below we feature, in addition to the paltry 4 that council nominated, some examples:
150 Tucker Road Bentleigh – Amend Planning Permit GE/PP-21042/2008 by changing the description of what the permit allows/covers to provide an increase of 7 dwellings (from 13 to 20 dwellings) (GRZ1 zone)
259-261 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – A previous application for a 3-storey building comprising 19 dwellings was approved by the Delegated Planning Committee with a reduction in the number of dwellings to 17 on 8 September 2010. Subsequently, on 11 January 2011, following a VCAT hearing about conditions, the Planning Permit was amended to allow up to 18 dwellings. This permit expired on 8 September 2013.
The current proposal for 28 dwellings is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and one additional storey. (RGZ1) (Note: this is technically regarded then as a ‘new permit application’!!!!!
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Construction of a six (6) storey building comprising forty (40) dwellings, one (1) shop and a basement; reduction of the car parking requirement for dwelling visitors to one (1) car space; reduction of the car parking requirement for the shop to zero; and waiving of the loading bay requirement (Application to Amend a Planning Permit) AND –
A planning permit already exists for the site. The original permit was issued on 14 June 2011. It allowed the construction of a 4 storey building comprising 20 dwellings and a shop. This Planning Permit is still valid and will expire on 14 June 2014. The current proposal for 40 dwellings and a shop is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and 2 additional storeys. (C1Z)
467C HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD SOUTH – Amend the current planning permit to allow an additional storey (total of 4 storeys), provision of a lift and internal alterations. The four dwellings approved under the current permit will not increase in number. (c1z)
356-364 Orrong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – Application to amend Planning Permit GE/PP-22648/2010 which allows a five (5) storey mixed-use building comprising a supermarket, dwellings and a basement car park with an increase in the number of dwellings from fiftysix (56) to sixty-seven (67), an increase in the overall building height by 1.9m, the inclusion of five (5) advertising signs and associated changes to the internal layout and external appearance of the building (c1z)
338A Orrong Road, CAULFIELD NORTH – Amended Application – Amend the permit preamble to allow for a four (4) storey building – was a 3 storey – permit granted on 30/4/2014) (c1z)
670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – Amendment to existing permit as follows – An increase to the size of the building to five storeys – Modifications to the first, second and third floors, including an increase in size and internal changes to the layout of the dwellings – The addition of ten (10) apartments – A reduction to the commercial floor area – (C1Z)
October 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM
The residents of Laurel Street, Bentleigh East had our meeting with the Council yesterday regarding the proposed development at 14 Laurel Street for a 3 storey, 10 dwelling apartment block. The developer’s representative (who happened to have work for Glen Eira Council in the past) relied strongly on the 5 Heather Street development (the approval of the permit is currently under opposition).
When we thought we’d lost, the DPC recommended the development to be redesigned into a 2 storey, 8 dwelling structure with a peaked roof to better conform with the street landscape. The Council advised that the developer’s design may be better suited in 10-15 years time and that the structure is not suitable for the street at this time.
While we didn’t succeed in stopping the development, most of us saw it as a small victory. Nevertheless, we have to wait to see if the case goes to VCAT.
October 24, 2014 at 2:46 PM
Dear Anonymous,
if you have any documentation to the above we would appreciate it if you could please forward the info via our email address – gedates@gmail.com
We also find the above a complete acknowledgement of:
1. the absurdity of the zones, and
2. how wrong council got it.
October 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM
We’ve received nothing in writing as yet (as it was only yesterday) but if/when we do, I’ll forward it on.
October 25, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Comments like that and nothing in writing – you’re toast pal!!!
October 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM
I’d really watch out for the comment that “the developer’s design may be better suited in 10-15 years time and that the structure is not suitable for the street at this time” as it is said for appeasement purposes only.
The fact is that when it comes to the growth zones the planning scheme (and Council’s VCAT representation) is always that Council recognises that what exists now will change and prefers to let the character of an area evolve.
I suggest you get back to whoever made that statement and ask them to put it in writing.
October 24, 2014 at 1:45 PM
Just like the spike in planning permit applications in Bentleigh, Bentleigh East, McKinnon and Ormond is not attributable to the zone implementation, nothing can be built now that couldn’t be built before.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
October 24, 2014 at 4:16 PM
Tricky Dickie would be proud of these tactics. Get a permit a century ago. Land bank and now with the reformed zones go for it. If the permit is expired all the better because it can be regarded as a new permit and the time line starts again. You could count on one hand I suppose all the amended permits that council has knocked back. Glen Eira is heaven.
October 26, 2014 at 6:15 PM
I doubt Council knows much about applications for amended permits as its record-keeping is in such poor shape. Or maybe it is just the online planning application register that is so poor and Council keeps the prescribed information within the bowels of White Hall. Section 17 of Planning and Environment Regulations 2005 lists the prescribed information, most of which the online register fails to provide.
I also notice the online system hasn’t been updated to reflect that the Information Privacy Act 2000 has been revoked. It seems strange that Council would rely on the revoked Act to suppress information when they have a statutory obligation to collect that information and make it available free of charge for public inspection. Perhaps the governance regime applying to councils is just so weak that nobody other than residents cares.
The permit granted for 2 Morton Avenue must surely have been extended at least once if it is still current, as normally it expires if construction doesn’t start within 2 years of the permit being granted, and it didn’t start within 2 years.
Developers are allowed [even encouraged] to apply for as many permits as they like. Given that the land at 2 Morton Av is zoned C1Z then there is no need to consider the ill-defined “preferred character” for the area. No height limit, no amenity standards, just the way Council likes it. It is however within 30m of a residential zone [RGZ] so the normal exemptions for C1Z from notice and decision requirements and review rights won’t apply.
It is another bizarre aspect of Victoria’s “Planning System” that what is now a defacto residential zone isn’t treated as one.