Item 9.3 – Neerim/Belsize Ave, Carnegie – 4 storey 35 dwellings
Hyams moved motion for 4 storey building and 30 dwellings plus increase in visitor car parking and retention of 3 trees. Delahunty seconded.
COMMENT: It took Hyams approximately 7 minutes to read out the motion. With a packed gallery, and usually only about 10 sets of agenda items available, it is impossible for people to fully follow what is going on. We see no reason why council cannot provide hard copy of motions that are so lengthy or, even better, provide an overhead so that residents can follow.
HYAMS: started by saying this is a Residential Growth Zone and on Neerim Road, so ‘four storeys is appropriate’. The proposed height is less than the allowed 13.5 metres but he ‘accepts’ the objectors’ views that ‘it should at least comply with ResCode’. Also ‘front’ is Belsize and not Neerim Road leading to the increases in setbacks along Belsize. Said that with the increased setbacks it ‘is likely’ that there will be even less than 30 dwellings. Went through all the setback requirements, landscaping requirements, screening, etc. On parking, council is asking for visitor car parking that ‘meets ResCode’ since ‘that’s all council can ask’ for. Accepted that this won’t make ‘objectors happy’ but saw it as a ‘reasonable compromise’. They could refuse, it will then go to VCAT, and council hasn’t ‘put conditions down’ and VCAT will give developer ‘what they want’. People ‘might clap in chamber’ but could be ‘worse off’. He’s ‘about achieving the best possible outcome rather than being popular’. Said he has asked officers to look at a ‘residential parking scheme’ and the possibility of moving ‘no parking signs’.
COMMENT: Once again there is fudging of the facts! If council rejects an application and VCAT becomes involved, then council must submit its version of what is ‘acceptable’. This submission in effect does put ‘conditions down’ as Hyams would well know.
DELAHUNTY: thanked residents for letting her into their houses since there were quite a number of ‘sensitive properties’ near the site. Thought it was ‘important that we respond to that’ and the motion ‘finds what is allowable’ and ‘what makes sense’ and that the ‘modifications have done this’. One tree protection condition isn’t relevant anymore since the developer and occupant of the house have come to their own agreement. Said that the motion for this ‘really big block’ sets out what is ‘fair’ for people living in the street. Her sister is trying to buy a house so Delahunty has been to many auctions and it ‘galls’ her that real estate agents ‘aren’t forthcoming’ about the zones before and after. As a financial advisor she can’t talk about certain things but real estate agents can say that it’s a residential zone and therefore ‘the highest form of ownership’ and ‘not telling the full truth about what can happen in these zones’. Said that all governments ‘encourage infill developement’ in areas like Carnegie because it is ‘environmentally responsible to do so’. Hoped that both developer and residents can ‘live with this’ because it’s the ‘right response’.
COMMENT: ‘environmentally responsible to do so’?!!!!!!! No need to say more on this little gem.
ESAKOFF: said that there had been a lot of ‘fiddling around’ on this application and that she had ‘tried very hard to lessen the impact’ especially to 23 Belsize Avenue. Said there was a ‘substantial increase’ in setbacks for the ‘upper level’. Hoped that both applicant and residents would accept the conditions. Didn’t want this to go to VCAT because ‘we’ve seen some really awful results’ whilst ‘also some good ones’. Went through some of the other conditions – ie site coverage, acoustic fences, visitor parking. Said that objectors had been comparing this to a decision in Mavho Street, Bentleigh and that they are similar – ie residential growth zones and ‘having the same issues’. So ‘it’s not a cut and paste’ but looking at the context.
LIPSHUTZ: said it would be easy for councillors to either approve or reject applications. But here a lot of thought has gone into ‘how best to alleviate’ the situation. He ‘wouldn’t like to see this in my street’ but ‘given it’s going to happen we have to try and find a middle way’. Thought the conditions were ‘the right way to go’. Said that anyone listening should realise that they’ve ‘very carefully’ looked at the application and looked at setbacks, etc. and that they haven’t just ‘rubber stamped it and said ‘yes’.
OKOTEL: said that is it ‘essential’ that councillors ‘look at what is appropriate’ and the motion ‘does do that’. Said that by increasing upper setbacks it ‘significantly reduces footprint of this building’ and does ‘achieve a balance’ with neighbours. Went through conditions again like car parking and acoustic measures.
LOBO: said again that the ‘zones are cutting to the bones’ and that Belsize is a ‘beautiful street’. He ‘was called by the residents’ and there was also a reporter there. Said that ‘people were anxious’ and that ‘they have spent their life savings’ on their properties. ‘It may not be our fault’ but it’s the government that ‘wants to get as many people as possible’ into these areas. Said large part of Australia ‘is empty’ but if they keep ‘building, building building’ then on infrastructure ‘you and me will have to bear the cost in rates’.
SOUNNESS: wasn’t entirely ‘happy’ with the application but had to look at ‘how we can apply densification’ of the area and thought that the motion would be a ‘defendable position’. Thought that this would go to VCAT and that the ‘arguments can be pretty challenging’ but thought that council’s position could be ‘defended adequately’.
HYAMS: thanked Esakoff for her work on this. Objectors had asked that main driveway be on Neerim Road. Hyams said this would cause a major redesign of the application so couldn’t do that and Vic Roads prefers driveways not to be on main roads like Neerim. Said that emails talked about the new zones and that the ‘only difference’ with the new zones was height limits and it’s the ‘people of Carnegie’ who should know best that the new zones aren’t responsible because there was a lot of development there before. So ‘it’s not the new zones’ and that there’s going to be a population of 7 million and ‘we need to cater for that’. Glen Eira is ‘stuck with its share of infill’ even though some people ‘mightn’t like it’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division and was the only councillor to vote against.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 19, 2014 at 4:15 PM
Generosity could say that Hyams on parking was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. I doubt it when there are about 120 or more people listening and it serves the purpose of spin
December 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM
Council’s Local Law specifies that the motion must be stated, but surely the motion could be to grant a permit with the conditions contained in a separate document distributed prior to or at the Meeting, and that document then be incorporated in the Minutes. The current process is hopeless. Somebody could sneak something in, and the bored councillors, how have all lost focus, wouldn’t notice.
If Cr Hyams believes VicRoads prefers access to be on minor side streets he should identify the source of his information, preferably a State or Local policy. It is clearly ridiculous, as properties on Neerim Rd that are not corners have no choice. The question should really be about what Council’s policy is, and the reasons for it. I can understand VicRoads wanting vehicles to travel at 60+ kmh, but that is inappropriate in an area where pedestrians are being encouraged. The price of higher density should be slower vehicle speeds, which might also encourage use of non-motorised forms of transport such as bicycles.
Just because a development is on Neerim Rd or in RGZ doesn’t make 4 storeys appropriate. That’s why the Planning Scheme is so lengthy. There are many many issues that Council is supposed to consider. The choice of RGZ has no legitimacy, as it was unilaterally imposed by Council, replacing R1Z and 9m height limit. As Cr Hyams has accepted, the development should comply with ResCode. [The Scheme says so too.] Strangely then, his motion didn’t include conditions that required it to comply with ResCode. As it happens 7 councillors decided it shouldn’t comply with ResCode, including Cr Hyams himself.
Whoever prepares the Agenda needs some technical training. It is inappropriate to use jpg format for scans of line diagrams such as development plans, as jpg isn’t designed for and doesn’t cope with the sharp edges. A consequence is illegible text. I appreciate seeing the plans in the Agenda and Minutes, but think that Council should at least ensure they are legible. [Suggestion: scan to colour or grayscale at higher than target resolution; map pixels “close” to white to be white; shrink to target resolution; convert to indexed format with reduced palette and save as PNG before including in the document.] Although they could have been done better, the plans for Item 9.2 used a more appropriate format.
The conditions appear to be contradictory. 52.06 specifies pedestrian sight splays of 2.0m x 2.5m. Condition 1(c) requires a written statement from a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer “demonstrating that the basement layout and vehicle access complies with Clause 52.06”. Yet Condition 1(d) undermines that, requiring “sight triangles” of 1.0m x 1.5m. There is no discussion or rationale provided for this as to why it is acceptable to compromise pedestrian safety. It is also inconsistent with recent Council decisions that specified 2.0m x 2.5m.
I would like to see the traffic modelling that Council’s “Transport Planning Department” [sic] about the impact of traffic generated. The surrounding road network has already been significantly adversely impacted by development. Vehicles wishing to head north have either to do a 270-degree turn by heading south to Neerim initially, or attempt the dangerous, highly congested, and unsignalized right turn from Morton Av into Koornang Rd. I don’t consider it acceptable for vehicles to drive down the wrong side of the road, and nor should Council.
It is flawed logic to claim the impact of every development is insignificant, when the cumulative impact is far from insignificant. Council would be more credible if it established standards for road congestion eg probability distributions for queue lengths and queue times at intersections, and then demonstrated how predicted increased traffic still meets those amenity standards.
The repeated mentions of VCAT are annoying. VCAT is not part of the decision criteria that Council is supposed to be considering. VCAT badly needs to be reformed. We’ll never know why people voted the way they did in State elections, but at least 2 Governments in a row have been voted out of office after single terms when their handling of the Planning portfolio has been inept.
December 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Well, Akehurst has gone – photos of his farewell on Twitter. Any news on replacement? Let’s hope it is someone with a fresh approach that will modernise and improve processes and procedures, and embrace a more consultative approach
December 20, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Our guess is that Ron Torres will be the new chief of “City Development”.
December 20, 2014 at 5:23 PM
Will it be tested in the market is the key question? If not it’s an utter disgrace and yet another example of the manner in which this council operates outside reasonable business practices.
And yet another example of a group of councillors who are either asleep at the wheel or derelict in their duties. Or both.
December 20, 2014 at 5:32 PM
An advertisement was placed in The Age
December 20, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Ta! But what I meant was through independent management/recruitment consultants. I frankly don’t trust any internal assessment/ appointment.
December 19, 2014 at 10:45 PM
I’m getting pretty hot under the collar when I read how the English language is used and abused by these people. I can’t see anything that’s “fair” for the folk living in Belsize and the term “footprint” has got nothing to do with upper floor setbacks. The dictionary of construction defines “footprint” as “Area of building where it meets the ground; usually the area of the slab or grade”. What’s on the ground is the footprint and that’s it. Not what Okotel would like it to be understood as. Even with setbacks on the 3 and 4 storeys you still get huge shadows they just aren’t as wide.
December 19, 2014 at 11:27 PM
I was critical of this blog before as it criticises all decisions made by the Council regardless whether they are correct or not. I do not see any decisions in regards to the development sites in Bent St, Tucker Rd, Elliott Ave or Belsize Av as wrong since they all neatly fall into the current Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
The latest version of the GEPS is available on line dated 17 December 2014. It is extensive, detailed and comprehensive document of 914 pages. Anyone that wants to object to an application needs to be aware of this document. This document essentially is fifteen years in the making with initial policies and studies dating back from 1996 to 1999. The fundamental Housing and Development framework was established in 2002, confirmed by the Activity Centres Strategy of 2005 and written into law by the 2006 GEPS. The outcry of what was developed should have been done between 2002 and 2005. There were many consultations then but not that many participants. So, now we have the results of those arrangements. The latest modifications of New Zones are an implementation of State Government changes with fixed height limits that many residents in particular from this blog wanted. Of course that has exacerbated the situation for residents as it allowed builders and architects to plan and implement things much quicker, because the rules are more fixed, less likely to be interpreted by VCAT.
There is another reason for the increased volume of development that has nothing to do with Council or Councillors. I can best illustrate that with an example of sale of a property 27 Belsize Ave. which is zoned RGZ (see GEPS online maps) and sold for over $1 million for a weatherboard. In general, property values in this area have increased by 50% in 7 years, which is more than cumulative CPI increase. So developers and their architects will try and get back as much as possible from their investments. You cannot blame Council, developers or owners for cashing in.
Does that mean that I am uncritical of what the Council is doing? Far from it, since our GEPS is minutia process driven, but as Reprobate keeps asking what is the ‘eventual outcome’? This has been a bore of contention on this blog as well. And the eventual outcome is likely to be as Lobo says overdevelopment and overpopulation on a scale that no one has anticipated and is definitely unwarranted. Here are some examples taking from 2002 document reckonings. Those reckonings are still being peddled in the current GEPS:
• Population to grow from 120,000 to about 140,000 by 2020 – well exceeded by now;
• The growth to be sustained primarily by multi-unit development and small number of major developments (more than 10 dwellings), hence such a large area of 20% allocated for development;
• Commercial centres to have primarily shop top apartments up to 3 storeys, C1Z has no limits to height;
• We have now every property in RGZ, MUZ or C1Z and even GRZ (up to 3 storeys) a potential for major developments well exceeding 10 dwellings per site with or without shops;
• Estimate for new dwellings to be built per year 600. 2013/14 building approvals is over 1200;
• Estimated built dwellings by 2020 was to be 10,864, well exceeded by now with the next few years alone likely to provide that number again (over 1,500/year);
Now a couple of points to consider from the current GEPS. There are 2 maps that bug me since they are removed from reality and mislead the reader. Firstly, the map on page 268 shows the Minimal Change Area policy that “applies to all residential development … on land in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone”.
It shows indeed an area approaching 80%, which excludes only GRZ areas and all Activity Centres. This however is NOT an NRZ area at all as implied. It includes within it all public realm areas like roads (council and VicRoads), footpath, laneways, parks, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, swimming pools, GESAC, Caulfield Racecourse etc. Have a look at the GEPS online maps and choose any address then you’ll see all the zone designations around that address (all of them are described in GEPS). Roads and footpaths alone constitute over 1,000 hectares. Since the total Glen Eira area is 3,867 hectares that makes the roads area 26% of Glen Eira. So assuming that Minimal Change Area as depicted is 80% then the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is well under 55% of Glen Eira. The point is that public realm is a primary responsibility of the Council and needs to be properly planned for together with residents and ratepayers. With a growing population the public realm should also grow appropriately. However, with residential dwellings exploding there is less area for public realm areas degrading the liveability of Glen Eira. I cannot remember a time when the Council talked about public realm in overall sense. We have consultations on sporting grounds and on selected parks, but we don’t have a view on what we need when we reach population of 180,000 or perhaps over 200,000? What is the eventual outcome?
The other map is on page 271, which shows the current Neighbourhood Character Areas. Somehow the impression is given that this is protected and will remain so. When I look at the Caulfield South area between Bambra Rd and railway line it describes the area as “Interwar Garden Suburban Base with modern overbuilding”. Just a leisurely walk around this area will tell you that the modern overbuilding is the norm and the interwar garden suburban base are rapidly disappearing; particularly the garden part is being replaced with concrete paths. Whenever the map indicates a modern overbuilding I suspect the suburb is largely modern. The real question is who they are fooling about Glen Eira being a garden suburban area. No wonder Beck Builders of Caulfield Village are promoting themselves as garden area. More importantly, again what will happen to the garden suburban base when we have 180,000 or more people? What is the eventual outcome?
I have outlined some of the major problems, but I am sure there are more to be found by analysing in detail the new GEPS. Clearly, overdevelopment and overpopulation are key difficulties that we face. Can anyone do anything about that? Not without changing the current GEPS. I think that if we could adopt the slower growth suggestion from the 2002 document then we could start resolving other issues as well. There are 2 possibilities. One is to get rid of the GRZ zones so as to enlarge the NRZ zone. The second possibility is to get rid off RGZ and replace it with GRZ (3 storeys).
I cannot see that the current councillors can do any of that, because essentially the areas they live in are NRZ, so NIMBY applies. The only way to change that is to bring new Councillors from the areas that are suffering. Need to have many, many candidates to support one another and get a campaign going. Otherwise we are all ‘pissing’ in the wind.
December 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM
the trouble is that the new councillors candidates will promise to take on the over development issues, only to do a 100% turn around once the chance of becoming mayor, and that sweet, sweet 90.000 grand get waved under their noses, only Lobo that now realises he will never become mayor, has started to stand up against the developers
December 20, 2014 at 10:03 AM
The decisions re Tucker Rd, Elliot Av, Bent St, Belsize Av, are political. Council admitted it didn’t assess them according to all the matters that they “must consider”. They didn’t take into account all the matters where the proposals failed to comply with the Standards in Clause 55. They have comprehensively failed to consider the longterm cumulative impacts. Nor have they secured the funding needed for infrastructure to support the densification.
The Planning Scheme is currently 914 pages, but that is the tip of the iceberg. There are all the “incorporated documents” to be considered as well. Try locating the recent addition of “Cranbourne Pakenham Rail Corridor Incorporated Document September 2014”. Not on DTPLI site or PTV’s project page or Council’s website. At least the Liberal party advertising for the project has been removed post-election.