We have literally had a gut full of the dissembling, and mistruths, that emanate from council and its mouthpieces in regards to the residential zones. Here are some prime examples –
- The minutes of 13th August 2013 include the following sentence “Glen Eira has achieved improvements in town planning including:…..provision for increased permeable areas to reduce storm water runoff’. In the first place, the zones DID NOT provide any ‘improvement’ whatsoever. In fact, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE on permeability between the old system and the new. In contrast to this bogus claim, here are some facts about what other councils achieved for their municipalities, and not only in the equivalent areas of ‘minimal change’ but also in GRZ and RGZ zones.
- Greater Dandenong, which was second cab off the rank in introducing the zones, has for its GRZ1 zoning a “Minimum of 30%” in its schedule. In its NRZ1 zone it has a minimum of 40%. And Glen Eira pats itself on the back for MAINTAINING ITS PALTRY 25% AND 20% FOR GRZ AND RGZ ZONES! Whitehorse also has for its GRZ1 zone a permeability of 30% and its GRZ2 zone a permeability requirement of 40%. Even in its GRZ4 zoning there is still the requirement for 30%
- Next we are supposed to be grateful for the wonderful ‘site coverage’ achieved by council. It’s astounding when we consider that Glen Eira has simply opted for what was there before (ie 50% site coverage in minimal change and 60% in housing diversity) whilst other councils have again achieved much, much more. Banyule for example has a maximum site coverage of 40% in its GRZ2 ZONE; Bayside in 4 of its GRZ zones has a 50% site coverage; Whitehorse in its GRZ2 also has 40% site coverage.
- Council proclaims so proudly what it’s achieved in its allocations for private open space. How wonderful that only in minimal change has Glen Eira maintained its 60 square metres of private open space requirements. Residents in GRZ and RGZ have to be satisfied with the pathetic ResCode numbers. But once again, other councils put Glen Eira to shame on this aspect. Greater Dandenong, Maroondah and Manningham all have 80 square metres in their GRZ1 schedules; Monash in its RGZ2 zone has a 75 square metre requirement.
- Landscaping is another area totally neglected by our council. There is not a word about direct requirements for landscaping in any of the schedules. It’s quite amazing how the following councils first of all saw the importance of the environment and secondly managed to get some real substance into their zoning schedules. Banyule in its Low Residential Growth Zone states – “Landscape plans will provide 1 tree for every 400 square metres of site area, including 1 large tree in the front setback.”; Even Greater Dandenong in both its RGZ1 and GRZ1 zones includes – “70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees”; Whitehorse for its RGZ1 has – “Provision of at least one canopy tree with a minimum mature height of 8 metres. Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood’ and for its GRZ2 schedule there is this important inclusion – “Provision of at least two canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 12 metres. At least one of those trees should be in the secluded private open space of the dwelling. The species of canopy trees should be native, preferably indigenous. Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.”
- Glen Eira has achieved a ‘stunning’ 4 metre rear setback – but only for minimal change areas. So, if a two storey building goes up next door and it is 8 metres in height, the setback remains 4 metres. How wonderful! Others again show what can be done – Bayside for example in several of its GRZ schedules includes the following which once added up, the four metre setback that Glen Eira believes is ‘adequate’ is literally blown out of the water – ie “A new building not on or within 200mm of a boundary should be setback 2 metres from the side boundary and 3 metres from the rear boundary, plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 2 metres for every metre of height over 6.9 metres.” Whitehorse for its GRZ2 states this – “Minimum 2 metre setback, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres”. Monash and other councils even have a front setback of 7.5 metres in its RGZ2 and NRZ1 schedules. Glen Eira has ResCode!
We’ve commented previously on the various height limits achieved by other councils in their numerous GRZ and RGZ schedules. (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/what-could-and-should-have-been-done/)
CONCLUSIONS
There was so much that could have been achieved via the schedules and with proper strategic planning. Glen Eira basically did nothing expect rely on archaic data and an amendment that has well and truly seen out its time. This was more than laziness or even the inability to cope with all the new work required. It was basically we believe the total indifference to what might happen to people’s lives – and of course, not wanting to ‘inconvenience’ too many developers. The inequity was there before. It has now simply been reinforced and re-confirmed.
So what really went on in those secret meetings with Guy and his officers? How hard did our wonderful CEO and Mayor fight for their residents when all these other councils got so much more? What kind of deals were made where this council and its inept ‘negotiators’ were seemingly so prepared to sell out thousands of residents. If other councils could have their amendments with far greater protections ratified, then it remains a damning indictment of Glen Eira’s inability (or unwillingness) to do likewise.
PS–
Council can continue to claim all it likes that the zones have not increased development. The facts tell a different story. Here’s one example for 90 Truganini Road, Carnegie
On 1/6/2011 an application went in for the construction of 2 double storey and one single story dwelling (ie 3 dwellings in total). Council granted the permit in 2011. Then followed a VCAT hearing where the member granted a permit for 3 dwellings (August 12th, 2012). What’s fascinating about this judgement is revealed in the following extract. It clearly shows how the current zoning of GRZ for this road has actually worsened the situation for residents. Instead of the 9 metres preferred by ResCode, 10.5 metres is now ‘mandatory’. We quote:
Building Height
- The maximum height of the development is proposed to be 7.25 metres. The site is located in a Special Building Overlay, and is subject to flooding. The proposal was referred by Council to Melbourne Water pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Melbourne Water did not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions. Usually, where a site is subject to flooding, Melbourne Water specifies minimum finished floor levels above which the development must be constructed. However, in this instance, Melbourne Water have indicated that the site is not predisposed to flooding from their drains, and has not required a minimum height of the finished floor levels. As such, the maximum height of the building can be ‘capped’ at 7.25 metres, without further need for increases. I am satisfied that this height is appropriate in this instance for the following reasons:
- The maximum height of the development is far less than the 9 metres referred to under ResCode.
- The development includes reasonable wall heights of 5.5 to 5.7 metres, with the remainder of built form height to enable pitched roofs.
- The development offers good internal amenity for the future residents in that floor to ceiling heights are reasonable at 2.6 metres at ground level and 2.45 metres at first floor.
- The front 2 dwellings are proposed to be constructed to two storeys with the 3rd, rear dwelling (adjacent to secluded private open space) constructed to a single storey scale.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1213.html
But this isn’t the end of the story. The property was sold (with permit) in August 2014 to ‘private treaty’ (http://www.domain.com.au/property/sold/development-site/vic/carnegie/?adid=2011016621
The current owner has now put in a new application (11/11/2014) for, and we quote – “Three storey multi unit dwelling development with basement car park”. Thus, we’ve gone from 3 dwellings to god knows how many because the Planning Register refuses to reveal the exact number, and to a height limit of 10.5 metres at least. There’s also the additional problem of an SBO and the planned underground car park. Land banking par excellence here and council still maintains that the new zones have got absolutely nothing to do with increased density, increased height, increased everything!
November 13, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Newton would have done anything to be first. If this meant selling out for the greater glory so be it. Too bad about the thousands of residents now bearing the brunt of his hubris. With his little lap dog by his side it all went down a treat.
November 13, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Thank you thank you thank you for telling it like it is and showing up the crap that this council thinks it can get away with.
November 13, 2014 at 11:30 PM
The coup over the residents is complete, Newton and Southwich know the community apathy runs at almost at 100% that made it easy enough to pull this swifty, “like stealing candy off a baby” now all they have to do is keep the ship of fools lying in unison, Labor, Libs and The Greens all duped by developeres, small men bathing in their self importance, whilst being plucked like harp strings by the big end of town, sad thing really
Here is a sample of my favs
“we are the best”
we now have the best planning scheme”
“we are lucky to have the best officers, we couldnt have done it without them”
“we got in first, and got the best deal“
“we are victims of our own success”
“the future will show what a great deal we brokered for the residents”
“all other councils are envious of what we have achieved here in Glen Eira”
“no other council will achieve the high standards we did”
“this will put Glen Eira on the map”
“anyone that disagrees with what we achieved, just doesn’t understand planning, or are just trying to making trouble”
Lets watch and see if any of the underling rats on this ship of fools, breaks the ranks and runs for cover
build a slum and they will come
so long as they pay the rent, we wont vent
small is big, and and therefore big is better,
if we have our way, size won’t matter
so long as they pay the rent, we won’t relent
we build boxes, but not for squatters
so pay the rent, pay the rent
November 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM
People can always refuse to sell their land. In fact the developers use the greed of the residents to progress their cause. Three blocks sold in Bentleigh for $5.9million. Happy people. Averaging $1.96 mill.each.
Without the land the developers can’t build. No laws will stop development as long as Mr Wong is looking for a place in the sun.
November 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM
Wait and see the reverse role of Magee and Delahunty on residential zones.
Will they turn up on 19 November for public forum on residential zones?
November 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM
They have supported the current changes don’t get your hopes up. They still only get one vote each.
November 14, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Probably they won’t show up. But then why single them out, they are no different to any other Councillor.
Unless Councillors are in total control they all avoid meeting residents in groups greater than 4 (1 on 1 being being the preferred option but sometimes something, like a planning permit application, exposes them to 4 residents at the one time). The reason being that without total control and resident numbers exceeding 4 the possibility of fobbing off pertinent questions declines exponentially.
November 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM
The worst thing that’s come out of council on the zones is the statement that they didn’t have any consultation because they figured it would lead to worse results. How any elected body could even consider saying something like this is incredible. Out of touch maybe but the arrogance is sky high and ten times worse. Glen Eira is the pits and the worst council in the state when it comes to the way it is governed.
November 15, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Consultation would not change anything. You get 30 people coming up with 20 different ideas. Everyone walks away with the feeling that they have sorted out the world in one night. Of course the people that turn up at consultation are pushing their own barrow. The silent majority rely on the staff to come up with proposals.
November 16, 2014 at 4:58 PM
I believe “the people that turn up at consultation” are predominantly civic minded people who have genuine concerns for the greater good of the municipality in which they live. You really have to question why they bother giving of their time and energy. What they can probably be assured of is that they will be labelled and scoffed at behind closed doors at the Town Hall.
November 16, 2014 at 7:09 PM
Aint that a great system!!!!!
November 16, 2014 at 9:03 PM
Spot on.
November 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM
The list of destroyed streets and neighbourhoods is growing by the minute. Auction signs are everywhere in these places because people have decided to get out whilst the going is good and before they are surrounded by countless apartment blocks. That leaves more room for developers and worse results in the long run. Lobo’s claim that Glen Eira is becoming Calcutta might not be exactly right but it sure is heading that way and can only produce slum neighbourhoods since internal amenity, open space, permeability, parking means nothing to the councillors of Glen Eira.
November 14, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Good planning has to be about more than the number of apartments that should go up on a single block of land or multiple blocks of land. The trouble with this council is that there is no analysis that I can see of the cumulative effects of waiving car parks after car parks or how many dwellings even go into the same street and what this means for drainage and other major infrastructure. If you’re doing something on a case by case basis then that’s not planning in my view. It’s more like gambling and hoping that there won’t be any major floods in the next few years. The best excuse is putting it all onto the government as their responsibility and that’s what Glen Eira does about so many things which they could do something about if they really wanted to. I’d rather have some of my rates spent on proper drainage as one example instead of wasting so much money on extending car parks and putting in concrete everywhere. That alone must have cost millions to date.
November 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM
think Southwick needs 4 more years to give the MRC more while pretending to do something for the residents of Caulfield
Josh Burns @joshsburns Nov 12
Beautiful day in #Caulfield but not 1 person at the Caulfield racecourse. @SouthwickMP had 4 years but failed locals pic.twitter.com/kMHTTzUZ1N
0 replies . 0 retweets 0 favourites
David Southwick @SouthwickMP Nov 12
@joshsburns mate everyone’s at work. Glad you had the time to visit the $1.8m upgrade to the racecourse centre under a Napthine government.
0 replies . 2 retweets 3 favourites
Josh Burns @joshsburns Nov 12
@SouthwickMP What have you done to improve disability access? Auditor General didn’t give your mob a such a glowing review
0 replies . 2 retweets 0 favourites
David Southwick @SouthwickMP Nov 12
@joshsburns absolutely agree that more work needs to be done. I look forward to continuing to clean up the mess left by your Labor mob.
0 replies . 1 retweet 1 favourite
Cr Mary Delahunty @Mary_Delahunty
.@SouthwickMP Dissolve the Trust and appoint a Committee of Management. You could have done it 4 years ago if you truly cared. @joshsburns
November 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM
Such short memories. It was a bipartisan decision to reject the recommendations of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development and maintain control of the Racecourse Reserve in the hands of the existing kleptocracy.
November 14, 2014 at 8:24 PM
The recent (Sept. 2014) Auditor General’s Report, which slammed both the Trustees and Department for failing to provide oversight and failure to recognise the public park and public recreation ground aspect of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.
While I was disappointed that the AG recommended retaining the Trustees (for some reason he saw an glimmer of improved performance since the 2008 Select Committee Report) I am heartened by the AG’s promise to continue to monitor the Trustees and the Department. I suspect the latest update in the MRC lease negotiations has not provided any assurance that his recommendation to retain rather than dismiss was well founded or even reasonable.
November 14, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Southwick should read Hansard Legislative Council 27/11/2009 – the landscaping in the centre of racecourse was a condition of the landswap imposed by Gavin Jennings. Absolutely nothing to do with either Southwick or Napthine.
November 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Now Jennings is being replaced with a fellow called Delidarkas the MRC will be preparing their tongues for some serious boot licking. Don’t want the new chap causing trouble.
November 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Re the Truganini Road development – this development is in the “curve” area (ie. where Truganini curves and provides a connection been Glen Huntly and Koornang Road).
In the 1990’s when the tram tracks were upgraded and widened, Vic Roads determined that, along the inner curve, property owners vehicular access to or from their property created congestion and safety issues (for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles and trams). Vic Roads therefore laid a concrete foundation in the nature strip and gave residents the right to park on the nature strip (it’s unique in Melbourne).
Fast forward to 2014 and both sides of Truganini Road are now GRZ. Permit applications for three storey developments (comprising 20-30 apartments with basement car parking and no visitor parking) abound. The next street over, Railway Road, is already a notorious rat run and overparked.
Who says Council isn’t on top of all the issues.
November 14, 2014 at 1:57 PM
The reliance of street parking rather than off-street parking is an example of the contradictions in “our” planning scheme. Federal government doesn’t believe in public transport, will only provide funds for roads. State government wants to blow almost its entire transport budget on East-West link. Areas targetted for higher density are starved of infrastructure investment.
Roads are unsafe for cyclists. Pedestrians have to run the gauntlet past substandard basement accessways or halt for several minutes at traffic lights that favour cars being enticed into and through congested “activity centres”. Employment opportunities are discouraged near where people live, forcing longer and longer commute times. And we keep getting the same vacuous promises every 4 years.
Even the justification for the loss of amenity and failure to invest is rubbery. We simply don’t know what future immigration policies will be. With Victoria’s fertility below replenishment rate, the growth projected/predicted/desired [yes, they’re not the same thing but they’re used interchangeably by politicians] must be from future migration. That is determined by Federal Government policy, so why aren’t they funding the infrastructure needed? Sad reality is that it will cost much more money that governments are prepared to invest to maintain or improve amenity.
Another thing I haven’t seen from any politician, despite the constant harping on about how Melbourne must grow, is their target population density for each area. 140 people/ha? 200? 400? Clearly the planning policies we currently have are stupid. They’re not geared to achieving particular densities, or to ensure infrastructure is adequate and funded, or even to meet minimum levels of amenity.
A comment yesterday referred to a report by Rob Adams et al which I have read before. I would dispute some of the points, but not with their list of reasons why every single planning policy has been such a failure in the past. It doesn’t bode well for the future.
November 15, 2014 at 10:34 AM
Kind of impressive what other councils were able to wheedle out of Guy and Newton couldn’t or didn’t bother. No shock and horror on this since environment aka permeability and landscaping and open space has always been on the bottom of priorities. We’re after all still waiting for a community garden, tree register, parking plan, after 14 years. I’d bet that when the zones were discussed that permeability and landscaping didn’t even get a mention. It would have been all about the rubber stamping of the old system and making as much of the housing diversity into four storey third world dwellings as they could and wouldn’t matter one bit if some of these streets were in heritage areas.
November 15, 2014 at 8:00 PM
Watch out down stream in Elwood, when all the chickens come home to roost, in one big mother of a flood, thank you to Glen Eira greed and couldn’t careless attitude.