Council’s heritage overlay policy dates back to 1996. Despite Panel Reports recommending ‘reviews’ of these overlays, nothing approaching a comprehensive and up-to-date review has been embarked upon. Council in its wisdom also decided that many properties found in such overlays could also be zoned as ripe for development under the Residential Growth Zone.
Here is an example of the latest application:
Address: 441-461 Glen Huntly Road, 9 Beavis Street, Elsternwick
Proposal: Demolish the existing building on the land (Heritage Overlay) construct and carry out works associated with the construction of a ten storey building and two buildings of four storeys plus basement, use of the land for the purpose of Accomadation (sic) and shop (Supermarket), a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements of Clause 52.6 and the removal of easement pursuant to Clause 52.02
Glen Eira Debates 
January 26, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Look at the obvious, (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
January 27, 2015 at 8:07 AM
This will help bring Elsternwick into the 21st century. The Coles supermarket does not come up to scratch. After shopping in the Coles in Bay St there is no comparison. Two levels of underground car park. Wonderful.
Elsternwick Coles derives a good part of their business from Elwood. To have this project held up because someone is sentimental about an old building that has served its purpose would be ridiculous. The whole of Elsternwick strip depicts the past. One building will be missed. Unfortunately the short term outlook for the smaller shops may not be so good.
January 27, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Council makes you jump through hoops on heritage if you live in minimal change. This happened to a friend of ours. If you live in housing diversity then you can get away with blue murder.
January 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM
The property owner should be entitled to apply for a Permit, even in an area covered by a Heritage Overlay. However, it should be carefully assessed against the additional criteria that being covered by an Heritage Overly requires. I haven’t seen the plans, but the above description strongly suggests the proposed new building fail to reinforce the cultural heritage significance or maintain architectural integrity and character of the area.
Much of the buildings proposed to be demolished are not in themselves significant or contributory, so the problem lies in the design of the replacements. They just don’t seem to meet the development objectives and broad heritage goals for new development within the heritage area, according to the criteria contained in Council’s own documents.
If Council does grant a permit for the proposal then it should remove the Heritage Overlay from that section of Glen Huntly Rd because there would no longer be sufficient integrity to warrant it.
January 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM
Off-topic: GECC is currently exhibiting Amendment C117 concerning 305 Kooyong Rd. It’s an interesting example of a series of dodgy decisions that undermine the integrity of the Scheme. It also highlights, yet again, that Council’s online planning application register doesn’t comply with Regulations and cannot be relied upon.
The developer of 305 Kooyong Rd successfully obtained a permit for a Medical Centre (dental) in a residential zone and built a two-storey complex with less than statutory parking for the use, and a very poor access arrangement for the intended customers who therefore relied on street parking. Turns out that the upper storey was actually used for an Office, which was and still is prohibited.
Since then, the new residential zones have been introduced, which also changed conditions for granting a permit for a Medical Centre in NRZ. It appears what was sought in 2009 would no longer be permitted, because of its gross floor area and need for a permit due to inadequate carparking and that it wasn’t for an existing building.
Council’s solution is Amendment C117, which overrides the prohibition, continues to waive statutory carparking, and establishes the precedent that it is ok to build offices [a non-residential use, so no height restriction] in NRZ. It justifies this because it is [now] an existing building, and that there is a “net community benefit”. This last argument is particularly weird because it seems to attack the entire strategic basis of Council’s Scheme in applying zones as it has.
January 27, 2015 at 10:33 PM
If the upper floor is being used for something other than what the planning permit allows the Council should do something. Whoever uses the building probably understand that the Council will not do anything. Maybe they are right.
January 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM
Council is doing something: it has prepared an Amendment to exempt this development from the prohibition on Offices in NRZ. What it isn’t doing is maintaining or enhancing the integrity of its Scheme.