Glen Eira zoning scheme has homeowners up in arms
- November 23, 2014
Anger is mounting over the Glen Eira Council’s planning scheme with homeowners worried about the future of the suburb. Picture: Chris Eastman
GLEN Eira residents angry at the pace and density of residential development in their streets are demanding the council review the planning scheme.
Residents used a planning forum in Bentleigh to slam the city’s reformed residential zones and council’s lack of community consultation.
They now want councillors to review and amend the planning scheme.
To amend the residential zones the council must approach Victoria’s planning minister.
The four councillors who attended the forum, among them new mayor Jim Magee, were told the State Government and Glen Eira Council’s claims the zones would offer a new era of protection were a farce for those in the higher density General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone.
Others in the protected Neighbourhood Residential Zone said they were still adversely affected by three and four-storey developments just doors away.
“Why has Glen Eira Council identified areas even 1km away from transport corridors for this increased density?’’ a resident asked.
A Bentleigh resident of more than 30 years and traffic engineer said: “I can’t see streets coping with traffic and parking levels’’.
Concerns were raised for packed schools and others accused the council of siding with developers.
Cr Magee argued height limits were brought in to protect the city from inappropriate development and was heckled when he said the zones were not to blame for the pace of development in areas such as Carnegie, McKinnon and Bentleigh.
And last week Baysiders blasted their council’s management of residential growth at a special meeting.
About 120 people packed the Brighton chambers to voice concern over residential growth zones. The meeting was held to discuss a recent State Government about-face on zoning of parts of Highett, Cheltenham, Hampton East and Brighton East.
The Liberals have said they would now not demand the council include quiet residential streets such as Major St in Highett as areas for intense development. Labor plans to rejig the whole zoning system if they win power next week.
Kingston council has yet to adopt the new zones.
The Glen Eira Residents Association is petitioning the council for change at geresidents.wordpress.com
Glen Eira Debates 
November 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Somebody once asked a public question about what each councillor’s definition of “inappropriate development” was, and councillors refused to answer. If they don’t know what it is, they cannot rationally argue that imposing a height limit of 8m on less than 70% of the municipality does much to prevent it.
On the public transport front, Council is hopelessly confused. That’s why you have homes less than 200m from a railway station in NRZ and homes more than 800m from a station in RGZ. PTV publishes a map showing public transport in Glen Eira. Nobody is more than 1km from public transport. If the argument is about proximity to public transport then maybe 80% of the municipality should be RGZ [clearly not a vote-winner].
But that’s not the reason why RGZ has been used in Glen Eira. It’s simply because some peon in the Minister’s office insisted on it and the Minister agreed. GECC then meekly complied.
And we don’t have height limits in MUZ [Council’s decisions when to use it are utterly perplexing!] or “commercial” zones such as C1Z, regardless of whether they abut NRZ, GRZ, RGZ. C1Z is now a defacto residential zone, just one that has no standards and a range of exemptions over matters that cause loss of amenity for existing residents.
The scheme that our councillors keep defending is poor. Most decisions are wide-open to “discretion”, meaning corruption can flourish. Behind every inconsistency could be something more sinister.
On the issue of reviewing planning schemes though, people need to be clear about the changes they want made. Maybe a few decades in the future we will again have an opportunity to influence the scheme that current councillors have willingly and wilfully imposed on us through secret decisions made away from public gaze.
November 23, 2014 at 12:42 PM
the lack of transparency = corruption
November 23, 2014 at 5:13 PM
Flexibility and discretion was and is Newton’s and Team Newton modus operandi since Newton became CEO and particularly after he won the battle with Councillors in 2005. But that is not the only reason for problems in Glen Eira or Melbourne. Tim Colebatch has summarised the situation well “Melbourne has added more than 1 million people in 15 years. It had 3.4 million people when the century began; within months, it will pass 4.5 million. No city in Australia has ever added so many people, so quickly.
Since 2000, the city’s population has grown by almost a third, but its infrastructure has not kept pace. Voters can see it on the roads, where cars move like snails in peak hour traffic; in the crowded trains, trams and buses; in the emergency wards of hospitals, even in some schoolyards.” And added “Government programs work only when they target money well – and both sides keep failing the tests of good governance. (/www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/victorias-economy-ignore-the-pain-talk-up-the-gain-20141117-11o24i.html#ixzz3JrsEm6SS).
I’d say that Libs should be voted out if only because they plan to increase Melbourne’s population to 7.7 million, totally unsustainable. It’s not difficult to manage a budget. Any accountant can do it. To get an economy going to reduce the nearly 10% unemployment and 20% underemployment (partly a result of increased immigration) is much more difficult. The same comment applies to Labor, who should be chucked after 4 years if they do not improve Victoria’s and particularly Melbourne’s position.
I envy Bayside people, who are fortunate to have Councillors able to drive the administration and not the other way around. Planning must be done on long term basis with residents not just developers in mind. In Glen Eira until Newton and Team Newton are replaced we will continue the flexible and discretionary approach to planning.
If Labor is elected next Saturday, there is a small hope that Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme may be improved. But I am not holding my breath. Even less chance for changes in Glen Eira if Liberals are re-elected.
November 24, 2014 at 12:12 AM
Labor will not change a thing for the better, they will only change things to suit their developer mates, and the residents will get shafted again
Entrenched 2 party systems are not really a system at all, it a group of professionals, handballing government back and forth between themselves, whilst making sure they receive the maximum benefits the public purse can offer to the largest number of pollies possible
All the parasitic over paid sycophants like council CEO’s, VCAT members and thousands’ of others all have a stake holding in the disenfranchisement of the masses, and the perpetuation of the taxing system at the 3 levels of government
Third party’s muck up this cosy little arrangement, that why professional politicians so vehemently hate thirds party’s
If you really want meaningful change give your first preference vote to a third party and your second preference to your Lib or Lab party. This action will cut the turf from under the feet of these jobs for a lifetime on the tax payers purse politicians
November 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM
Wholeheartedly agree. My contrarian approach is to vote Independent first, followed by significant minor part e.g. Democrats or Greens, then opposition major party with governing party last. Keep the bastards honest and democracy alive and kicking. At least if the government is forced to argue their case we may know what and why they are deciding on.
The difficulty is Upper House in Victoria with 48 candidates presenting themselves. Voting above the line does not give you the opportunity for your own preferences. Below the line voting you have to be able to count to 50, and know all the different parties. It’s a bit of a mess. It would have been much better to have an optional preferential system to the exhaustive preferential system we have now.
November 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM
And how is that going to help anything? Vote for a fringe-dweller party and your preferences will inevitably flow to one of Labor or Liberal anyway (or simply not count at all once one or other of Miller or Staikos get over 50%). Might not like the voting system, but that’s how it works.
Simple reality is, one or other of Liberal or Labor will win on Saturday. If it is Liberal, it is abundantly clear that nothing will change on the planning front and, in fact, Council will feel emboldened to approve even more inappropriate developments on the grounds they have a proxy ‘mandate’ via state elections. Labor are at least promising to conduct a review, and amend VCAT rules to take into account community objections. Will they deliver? Who knows, maybe yes, maybe not. But if its a choice between not having a hope in Hades of any change (Liberal) and a glimmer of hope (Labor), then I know which way I will be voting. In a marginal seat like this, it is simply not worthwhile (and frankly counter-productive) to be ‘protest’ voting. Too much is at stake.
In any event, as far as I am concerned, Elizabeth Miller did her dash when she filed an objection against the Penang St development, but since The Age article that followed (and the tongue-lashing she received from Matthew Guy no doubt) she has gone to ground. She has refused to involve herself further, and not responded to residents’ emails, phone calls, etc. Sick to death of seeing her ‘selfies’ at every sporting club in the electorate, yet she simply refuses to engage on the issues that really matter to residents and voters.
As for Matthew Guy, well his blatant cronyism in planning decisions (e.g. The Age article below and plenty of similar articles) is shameful. Reason enough for him to get booted out.
PS For those who have been following, we received notice today that the developer has appealed Council’s decision re Penang St to VCAT. Not surprised really, but has firmed up my voting intentions. A change of government may or may not help us fight that application, but if not, a change of government is all we can realistically do to put pressure on stopping the next application, or the one after that….
November 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM
yes very funny Staikos was due to appear at a certain sports club last week and Miller gate crashed it so he didn’t even get to speak. She is ruthless!
November 24, 2014 at 6:29 PM
Penang is the first of many that will be heading to vcat. The blame for this does not exclusively lie with the Libs or with the Labs. I put most of the blame on council and its cronyism, sycophants, and gutless councillors. Get rid of Newton and the entire place will be different. Whoever wins on Saturday the target must be getting rid of the current incumbent councillors.
November 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM
More on ‘some more equal than others’ –
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/melbourne-council-gets-new-planning-protections-from-matthew-guy–but-only-in-areas-held-by-liberal-mp-20141123-11s8l4.html
November 24, 2014 at 10:26 PM
In addition to Matthew Guy, I’d also like to see Robert Clark booted. As Attorney-General he is responsible for VCAT, which includes its Planning and Environment List. In May 2013 he misled the public over the size of the VCAT fee hikes he approved, which were up to 1800%. The unmistakeable message was that he didn’t want developers to be required to comply with their planning permits. The only justification he offered for the magnitude of S114 application fees was that these matters are predominantly handled by council [although not in Glen Eira!], and indicated it wasn’t expected many people would use S114. The Government has since confirmed the significant drop in usage of VCAT for planning matters after the hike.
November 24, 2014 at 10:31 PM
And what might be added to your comment Reprobate is that Glen Eira council pats itself on the back and claims that the reduction in VCAT appeals is due to their wonderful planning scheme and has got nothing whatsoever to do with the increased fees for objectors. When council when council grants about 95% of all applications this makes it even more difficult for objectors since they may be liable for the developers costs under the new regulations/law.
November 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM
The hike in objector fees at VCAT was due to an overwhelming abuse of the system by objectors lodging appeals when they had no valid grounds or possibility of success. This wasted time and money for all parties including ratepayers who’s rates were used to defend these vexatious appeals. That’s what happens – people abuse the system and then it gets changed for everyone.