Another objective of Council is to promote the integrated planning of the city. Integrated planning involves working with the community, residents, traders, service providers and other stakeholders to enhance the quality of Glen Eira’s suburbs and their environmental, economic and social sustainability. Integrated planning involves looking beyond traditional town planning solutions. It is important to encourage people to participate in the development of their city and to develop overall visions and plans for areas. It involves holistically looking at a wide range of issues in the local community including; infrastructure, social planning, economic development, recreation and capital works.
The above quote comes from Council’s Planning Scheme. Given recent history and the manner in which the new residential zones were introduced, we decided to see what other fiction the scheme contained.
Councils are meant to ‘regularly review’ their schemes and this basically means every four years following council elections. The purpose of such reviews is to determine whether the schemes are up-to-date; whether they are aligned with council’s strategic direction, and whether they are in keeping with state provisions.
Glen Eira’s planning scheme has not been genuinely ‘reviewed’ for eons. It is a ‘fossil’ parading as a robust and contemporary document. Featured below are extracts from the scheme. It is frankly incomprehensible how a document of this importance is allowed to exist when so much of what it contains is:
- Decades out of date
- Full of promises that have not been fulfilled, and perhaps were never intended to be actioned.
The document itself is a damning indictment of this Council. Reference documents go as far back as 1996 and have not been touched since; data is obsolete; motherhood statements abound and most importantly, nearly everything that is promised under the guise of ‘further strategic’ actions has simply not been done – especially in terms of protecting trees, parking precinct plans, structure plans, etc. In short, the planning scheme is worthless as a document that provides a clear vision and action plan that residents can have full confidence in.
Here are some of the empty promises quoted verbatim –
There have also been growing resident concerns over loss of trees associated with multiunit development. Despite Council’s efforts to encourage tree retention and adequate landscaping, planting is generally limited and has little consideration for the character of gardens within the street/neighbourhood. The cumulative effects of adjacent, multi-unit development have been a loss of the tree-filled semi-private spaces that contribute towards Glen Eira’s image as a garden suburb.
Minimising the demolition of buildings/site clearing prior to seeking development approval.
COMMENT: No local law on tree protection; no significant tree register after at least a decade of public outcry; and when this issue came up at a council meeting, councillors resolved to do nothing since the planning scheme, it was claimed, provided sufficient protection.
See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/still-going-round-the-mulberry-bush-10-years-on/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/the-non-existent-tree-protection/
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
The Glen Eira Community Plan identifies the corporate direction of Council over a 3 year period (2001-2004). Many of the objectives and strategies identified in the Municipal Strategic Statement have originated from actions identified in the Community Plan.
To ensure integrated neighbourhood planning of Glen Eira’s suburbs.
Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood Character
Identify a preferred future character for housing diversity areas.
Ensure residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems.
Ensure that the community is involved in decision making about their neighbourhood.
Ensure that the traffic impacts are adequately addressed when considering new residential development.
FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK
Developing local structure plans / urban design frameworks to guide development in the neighbourhood centres.
Investigating a vegetation management program which considers appropriate controls and guidelines to ensure vegetation protection.
Developing “suburb” plans for each suburb which integrate land use and development planning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens, street trees and business development.
Developing local area traffic management plans and parking precinct plans to control the effects of parking and traffic intrusion in residential areas.
Investigating mechanisms which require developers to undertake street tree planting.
Ensure that adequate standards are set for on-going maintenance of public space at commercial centres.
Levying development contributions to finance improvements and additions to physical infrastructure including drainage and public open space, where new development is likely to impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure.
Ensuring that impervious surfaces are minimised in areas which are prone to flooding.
Investigating the development of additional development contribution mechanisms based on accepted principles of need, equity, nexus, accountability and timing.
Preparing a Municipal Stormwater Plan incorporating a Drainage Framework Plan.
Parking precinct plans
The City of Glen Eira recognises the special and often conflicting parking needs of its numerous commercial centres. Further strategic work is necessary to develop Parking Precinct Plans to:
Maximise the supply and usage of parking for customers and traders of the centres.
Limit the requirements for car parking for new development, whilst minimising adverse parking and equity consequences of new developments.
Guide Council in the provision of public car parks.
Applying the Public Acquisition Overlay to properties identified by Council as being necessary for the provision of off street car parking in order to reserve land for that purpose and to ensure that changes to the use or development do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.
Preparing Parking Precinct Policies for the following neighbourhood centres:
Alma Village, Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, Bentleigh East, Glen Huntly, Ormond.
Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.
MONITORING AND REVIEW
A review of this planning scheme will be undertaken at least every three years.
++++++++++++
And here are the ‘reference documents’ included in the scheme. Please note the dates.
Housing and Residential Development Strategy, Glen Eira City Council, 2002
Urban Character Study, Anne Cunningham & Anne Keddie, 1996
Urban Village Structure Plans, Glen Eira City Council, 1999
Phoenix Precinct Urban Design Framework, Gerner et al, 1998
Glen Eira Neighbourhood Character Review Final Report (March 2011), Planisphere
Economic Overview, Henshall Hansen & Associates, 1997
Glen Eira Retail/Commercial Strategy, Essential Economics, 1998
City of Glen Eira Business Development Strategy, 1998
Urban Village Structure Plans, Perrott Lyon Mathieson P/L, 1997
Phoenix Precinct Urban Design Framework, Gerner et al, 1998
Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan, Andrew Ward & Associates, 1996
Melbourne Water Drainage Survey, Melbourne Water, 1998
Glen Eira Drainage Strategy, 1998
Glen Eira Furniture Strategy, 1997
Undergrounding Infrastructure Policy, 1997
Glen Eira Traffic Management Strategy, 1995
Revised Warrants for Local Area Traffic Management Measures, 1998
Draft City of Glen Eira Parking Policy, Andrew O’Brien & Associates, 1998
Review of Car Parking Provisions in Victorian Planning Schemes –Final Report. Car Parking Advisory Committee, 1996
Urban Village Structure Plans, Perrott Lyon Mathieson, 1997
November 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Thank you Glen Eira debates for this post. It illustrates the arrogance and disrespect this council, both Administration and councillor a have for residents and their constituents. And how the residential zones are based on no contemporary research, debate, consultation or respect for community
November 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM
A review of the Planning Scheme now only needs to be done every 4 years—or even less frequently if the Minister so decides. I don’t recall seeing anything to suggest Council has reviewed its scheme after the 2012 elections.
Unofficially DPC doesn’t consider the traffic aspects of a proposal. I raised the quoted statements above to the chair of a DPC, and he responded they carried very little weight in Glen Eira.
“Investigating the development of additional development contribution mechanisms based on accepted principles of need, equity, nexus, accountability and timing.” is misleading. It’s not saying we should have development contributions or that there are principles that should be used in applying them. Just that something should be investigated—and then rejected if it’s not what the Administration wants. The Administration didn’t want development contributions, so we no longer have them.
Not mentioned in the post, but there’s the Glen Eira Activity Centres Strategy that has entered its second decade. It should be replaced, since Plan Melbourne abolished “Major Activity Centres” [sic]. Not that ours ever reached the indicative 30000sqm of retail and commercial development. Facts and evidence rarely get in the way of DSE/DPCD/DTPLI or GECC.
November 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM
The planning scheme like everything else this council does is on an ad hoc basis. It makes life very easy for developers and officers. When there isn’t any binding up to date detail then developers can ram a truck through the scheme.
Two years ago at least council got rid of its development contributions. It’s still mentioned in the planning scheme. That’s how bad and lazy Newton and his mob are and there is no oversight whatsoever from councillors.
November 10, 2014 at 1:12 PM
An these morons give him another 5 year contract without advertising an on top of this a massive pay rise. I’d be deducting his pay check every week until he makes up for what he’s cost residents. Get rid of him now.
November 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM
The quotes show a litany of failure. Whether by design or as a result of indifference is hard to say. The only certainty is that residents are being short changed and that no policy, guidelines, or vision published by council is worth a cracker.
November 10, 2014 at 7:32 PM
This should cause some major amusement (and bemusement):
Below is a public question that was asked on the 10th April 2006. The ‘answer’ was of course never published in the minutes. The question highlights the contradictory nature of the planning scheme and the lack of any rational justification for much of the current zoning.
“From: Ms J Mooney
Subject: Glen Eira Planning Policies.
“In reference to Local Planning Policies – Clause 22.05 page 11 of 16. Point 7
Residential (north) states that ‘increased residential development be encouraged in Chestnut & Blackwood Streets’. How can this be allowed when both streets are in ‘Minimal Change Areas’ and also listed as ‘Significant Character Areas’ in the current Glen Eira Planning Scheme?”
The question was taken on notice for a response.
The cited sentence still exists in the current planning scheme and the zoning for Chestnut and Blackwood is NRZ. So how does ‘increased residential development’ fit into the designation of minimal change – and to ‘encourage’ such development would also go against the grain of what council would like residents to believe – ie limiting development.
To reiterate – the planning scheme is a mess. It is contradicting itself left, right, and centre; is out of date and ‘fossilised’ and reveals once again the incompetency of this planning department.
November 11, 2014 at 9:04 AM
I’m bemused but certainly not amused that the planning scheme is such a mess. Responsibility for the mess lies with Council, albeit they have been assisted by successive Ministers against Planning, and in terms of actual outcomes, VCAT.
November 10, 2014 at 9:26 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/melbourne-city-council-to-ask-matthew-guy-to-reverse-decision-on-collins-street-site-20141110-11jxb9.html
November 11, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Cr Mayne’s comments highlight a serious deficiency in the Planning and Environment Act, which is the lack of transparency around decision-making. All decision-makers [Minister, VCAT, Councils] have considerable freedom in the decisions they make, and only in very limited circumstances are any of them obliged to reveal reasons for decisions. The Act should be improved to reduce scope for corruption. Banning donations from property developers might also help [as in NSW].
November 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM
jim mcgee electer mayor. Delahunty Deputy. How on earth did that happen?
What affect does this have on Caulfield Racecourse? Maybe the gang a pissed off with the MRC?
November 11, 2014 at 11:35 PM
WHY OH WHY POLITICIANS LIE
“The Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) has been directly translated from the Minimal Change Areas and covers 78% of Glen Eira” is the current mantra from our Local and State politicians. A similar mantra was created in 2002 as shown below:
“Glen Eira’s housing diversity areas can meet the majority of its City’s demand for the next 20 years. The remainder of the demand will be met in the minimal change [housing] areas in the form of single dwellings and dual occupancies. Through this combined and balanced approach the City can meet its housing needs but also protect neighbourhood character of 80 per cent of its City.”
The quote is from the draft Housing_and_Residential_Development_Strategy still available on line. The statement is wrong in so many ways. Let’s enumerate them:
1. The statement is clearly about housing areas. The minimal change housing areas have never been at an 80% level. The misleading map and calculation includes all Glen Eira’s road network (465km), but conveniently excludes all VicRoads road network (51km in white). Can you imagine residing on your local road, planting a vegie patch on the nature strip or cutting a tree branch from the footpath? All roads, kerbs, nature strips and footpaths are for public use and not a residential zone;
2. Glen Eira local road network is 465km long and is about your average house property frontage wide. It makes up for at least 25 % of City’s land area. So, in 2002 the Minimal Change Housing Area was less than 55% of the City;
3. Not taken into account are laneways, as these are not recorded. But you try to use them for residential purposes and you will soon be fined. Glen Eira sells those frequently. The laneways are public use areas and should not be included in residential zone calculations. This further decreases the NRZ (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) area size;
4. By now, the minimal change areas is suggested to be 78% of the City as Virginia Park was excluded (Height_Controls_New_Zones_Guide_for_Community 2013). There were many other successful rezoning applications since 2002 e.g. Bentleigh, Caulfield. As well, unique sites multi dwelling developments in minimal change areas were substantial from 2006 to 2012 (~ 800 dwellings). Such sites are still shown as NRZ (see cnr Hudson St/Booran Rd 3 storey mansion). The area size of NRZ is further decreased;
5. The existing zone boundaries are not set in concrete. Developers can always ask for rezoning, particularly if several properties are combined to become unique sites within the current definition (e.g. recently sold Bentleigh, Glen Huntly sites) further decreasing the NRZ;
6. The City has 27 Local Activity Centres, all shown as part of NRZ. A number of such Centres have developed 3 storey buildings (e.g. Caulfield South, Bentleigh East) and should be classified as General Residential Zone. This again further decreases the actual NRZ;
7. The City has also many sites with non-residential uses in residential areas. These public use and amenities like kindergartens, schools, hospitals, churches etc are needed in the City, but are not residences. They create traffic congestion and should not be counted towards NRZ protection;
8. The amazing assertion that “residentially zoned land comprises 95% of Glen Eira’s area” does not coincide with facts. The other 5% is assigned to 3% commercial zone and 2% industrial zone. No allowance is made for any of the white areas of the map (Amendment C110). The 54ha Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, all parks, Caulfield and Monash Hospitals do not have areas allocated to it or simply do not belong to Glen Eira City!
THE NRZ AREA IN DWELLINGS WHERE PEOPLE RESIDE IS BELOW 40% OF CITY AREA AND GOING DOWN
Let’s consider the implication of the new zones with a growing population and traffic.
9. “The housing diversity area is to meet majority of Glen Eira’s demand for housing i.e. population growth until 2021”. The predicted increase of population was from 126k in 2001 to 130k by 2021, a mere 3% in 20 years. The population has reached 137k by 2011, a whopping 8.9% increase from 2001. The population increase and housing needs has exceeded all forecasts at the time by a substantial amount. The population by 2021 is to be 150 k (forecast.id.com.au/glen-eira) nearly 20% increases from 2001;
10. Plan Melbourne, successor to Melbourne2030 expanded Melbourne growth to 7.7 million by 2050. As part of this Plan the population of Glen Eira by 2031 will be 163k, 20% more from 2011;
11. The neighbourhood character is changing substantially already, just ask your neighbours. Will your neighbourhood character, your suburb be protected with a further 26,000 population increase from 2011?;
12. The population increase means more cars on the roads, more parking spaces required on streets, in shopping strips and railway stations. Is your neighbourhood ready for it?
13. More population requires more kindergartens, schools, parks, sport grounds, and other amenities. Traffic will be increased within Glen Eira City and to other parts of Melbourne. The size of roads is not gong to change; only the traffic will increase. Will your suburb be protected from it?
14. Some population increases (http://forecast.id.com.au/glen-eira) are:
Caulfield North/East 29%; Elsternwick 17%; Carnegie 11.3%; Bentleigh East 9.8%; Caulfield 7.8%; Bentleigh 6.6%; Caulfield South 6.5%; St Kilda East 6.3%; Murrumbeena 5.9%. What it will actually be depends on developers and the non-targeted approach (liaise fair) by the Council. It seems residents have no influence;
15. Glen Eira Council knows and understands those issues (see Plan Melbourne Council Comments), but insists that 78% of the City is and will be protected!
Why bureaucrats make misleading presentations!
AND WHY OH WHY POLITICIANS LIE?
Save Our Suburbs, stir like hell and demand that State and Local politicians and Officers tell it how it is and ensure that the zoning system reflects the reality on the ground and can be understood by an ordinary citizen.