Item 9.7 – Bent St., Bentleigh – 4 storey 55 dwellings
Sounness moved motion. Magee seconded to accept recommendations.
SOUNNESS: began by saying this is close to the station and that ‘there is parking’ available where the Sunday markets are held. Thought that it was a ‘consistent proposal with what is envisaged’ for the area by the planning scheme.
MAGEE: repeated that this is close to a railway station and a shopping centre and a Residential Growth Zone. ‘this is where 4 storey buildings have been aimed for’.
LOBO: ‘zones are cutting to the bones’ and that ‘we are heading to Calcutta’. Started to quote from the newspaper and Magee interrupted with ‘we are not here to quote from the newspaper’ and that Glen Eira is not like Calcutta. Told Lobo he ‘was finished’.
HYAMS: supported the motion ‘reluctantly’ but it was near the station and height was less than the 13.5 metre limit. Thought that ‘there will come a time when Bent St’ reaches capacity but the officers look at this and they have ‘judged quite rightly that’ capacity hasn’t been reached ‘quite yet’. ResCode parking has been met and ‘you rarely get an application’ that abides by these rules. Said that ‘crossovers will be reinstated’ and thus provide ‘more parking’. Went through some of the other conditions such as 4 metre set backs for landscaping, waste management plan etc.
DELAHUNTY: thought that it was ‘the best of times and the worst of times’ and that the area is a ‘great place to live’. Supported the conditions and set backs because this was ‘important’ in ‘how this appears to the street’. The development is ‘potentially the right outcome in the right place’.
SOUNNESS: thought this was ‘one of the better design buildings’ but ‘while it will be a dominant feature’ it won’t be ‘jarring and clashing to the eyes’. This application ‘ticks most of the boxes’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO CALLED FOR A DIVISION and was the only councillor to vote against.
DURATION OF ‘DEBATE’ – APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Magee must have got his orders to shut Lobo up. Granted Lobo isn’t the greatest orator he still deserves the right to express a point of view.
December 20, 2014 at 3:18 PM
MODERATORS:comment deleted
December 18, 2014 at 1:54 PM
Lobo deserves little, he cannot think and talk at the same time, by the sounds of it.
December 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Good on Lobo for calling for divisions. The way they vote should always be on the record for future reference.
December 18, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Lobo has his good points and bad points (just like all of us).
While I believe he is motivated by a desire to serve (vs. self serve) and should receive credit for publicly accepting his voting for the zones was a flawed decision, I don’t believe his apology totally absolves him from his track record as a Councillor prior to the zone implementation or his lack research on the zonings before he voted for it.
What I do find hard to believe or credit is that in response to incredible residents’ outrage (a loud and crystal clear message) at Councils zone implementation (without even lip service to community consultation) is that Lobo stands alone. All other Councillors, and the Administration, persist in shooting the messenger and repeating mantras that worked in the past.
It really is time for Council (both Administration and Councilors) to recognise that the environment has (beginning about 10 years ago) and is dynamically changing and that the residents are much more aware of what is happening and what options Council has and what it has chosen to disregard.
From the comments on the last few posts put up on this blog, I also suggest that bloggers should also concentrate on the issue rather than picking the easy target.
December 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM
notice that the developer barriers in Kokkaribb road have been removed. Still barriers up in neerim road
Notice that they are putting big steel poles in on the racetrack at the corner of Queens and Neerim. Would this be the fence they are building or something else?
December 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM
As of a few days ago the footpath was still closed, forcing pedestrians onto the roadway. Don’t know what the roadworks were that the “roadworks” sign was warning about, but when developers are involved the public is definitely at risk.
December 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM
For those interested, objections to 64-66 Bent St, McKinnon are due THIS MONDAY 22 December. This one is very odd. It is up the other end of the street, McKinnon end, and zoned GRZ1, not RGZ. However, the application is for a part 3 and PART FOUR storey development of 31 apartments. Why has a 4 storey application in a GRZ zone even got this stage??
December 19, 2014 at 10:06 PM
There’s a few possibilities:
• Description is wrong and hasn’t been corrected after initial plans were developed prior to the new zones.
• By going a bit underground there’s an attempt to squeeze 4 storeys into 10.5m.
• The site is on a sufficient slope that the height limit is 11.5m rather than 10.5m?
• The 4-storey component is for a non-residential use and so not subject to the height limit that applies to dwellings.
• Intention is not to reject the application outright but to grant a permit for something lesser than the developer asked for.
The right thing to do, albeit bloody inconvenient, is to inspect the file at Council, study the plans and supporting documentation, ask the planning officers to explain.
December 19, 2014 at 10:21 PM
Re point 2: the way things are going, I have this image of developers taking things to a whole new level (so to speak) and building 2 stories underground, 3 above, perhaps with a light shaft for “natural light”! Aaaarrgghh!!
December 20, 2014 at 12:10 PM
If you’re VCAT, you’d find “strong policy support” in the Scheme for just that.