A long but important post – so our apologies!
In the past week, The Age has published several articles on high rise towers in the Melbourne CBD. The articles are based on research done by Leanne Hodyl, the 2014 Churchill Fellow. We’ve uploaded her full report HERE.
Whilst the report focuses primarily on ‘high rise’ towers and the city centre, some of the content applies directly to planning everywhere and especially to what is happening in Glen Eira. Hodyl recommends:
- Density controls
- Apartment standards
- Separation between towers/buildings, and she says –
- Planning policies should aim to ensure that this growth is managed well; to ensure that the cumulative effect of alldecisions made in the city make the city a better place to be and balance private and public benefit. (page 11)
However, without clear definitions and standards of what constitutes ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high density’ (in fact what ‘density’ even means and how these variable measures should be applied, and in which areas), we are in a state of anything goes.
Glen Eira’s new zones provide enough evidence to show that there has been no consideration whatsoever as to the cumulative impacts of rapid development. Nor has there been any attempt to gauge what is an appropriate ‘balance between private and public benefit’. Instead, lines have simply been drawn on a map consigning vast areas of residential land as booty for developers and speculators.
Below is a list of all the applications that have been submitted in the past 18 months or so, for one single stretch of road – Neerim Road. Some applications are still awaiting approval. Others have been granted permits either by council or VCAT.
We urge readers to carefully note the following:
- Many of these developments are literally side by side. We assume that over time the ‘gaps’ will be filled in with further 3 and 4 storey applications.
- Assuming that all of those still awaiting their permits will have them granted, this equals just on 2 hectares of Neerim Road that is going to be developed with 4 and 3 storey boxes and, in Mixed Use/Commercial zones, even higher. We anticipate that at least 40% of these new dwellings will be single bedroom apartments given current trends and the financial rewards.
- The total of new dwellings designated in just under 2 hectares of land will be around 400+ (366 known, and others unknown since council’s register is incredibly short on detail in many instances)
- According to Hodyl’s paper, this means that certain sections of Neerim Road, in terms of dwelling DENSITY, will outstrip what is happening in the CBD and even some of the other major international cities.
- What impact this will have on the public realm has NOT been considered by council. Much less has traffic congestion, lack of public open space, and general amenity – not to mention heritage, neighbourhood character, water tables etc.etc.
- So when is ‘saturation’ or ‘capacity’ (council’s latest buzz word) finally arrived at? When a few hundred yards of Neerim Road contains 600 dwellings? And how much will residents have to fork out to support drainage infrastructure, traffic management instead of developers providing their fair share via a development contributions levy, or a community levy?
As Hoydl implies, a one size fits all approach to huge swathes of land is nothing more than a recipe for environmental and social disaster on a grand scale.
We urge readers to consider the ‘facts’ about Neerim Road. They are indeed frightening – not only for this thoroughfare, but for all the neighbouring residential streets.
143-147 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly – Construction of a three storey building comprising 32 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)
149-153 Neerim Road & 4 Hinton Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of up to seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 – Amended permit (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)
179 – 181 Neerim Road, CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 19 dwellings and basement car parking. Amended permit (GRZ1)(`1200sqm)
247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 48 dwellings above 2 levels of basement car parking, reduction of statutory requirements for visitor parking and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (RGZ1) (`2100sqm)
253-255 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of four (4) storey building comprising multiple dwellings (RGZ1) (`1150sqm)
257 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building containing seven (7) dwellings and altered access to a Road Zone Category 1(RGZ1) (`630sqm)
259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings, associated car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and Parking Overlay (permit) (RGZ1) (`1170sqm)
276-280 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a five storey building with retail premises at ground floor, up to forty two dwellings and basement car parking, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements and waiver of a loading area (amended permit)(MUZ) (`1050sqm)
15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to forty seven (47) dwellings above two levels of basement car parking (permit)(RGZ1) (`1950sqm)
322-326 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking (RGZ1)(`1350sqm)
328-330 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, the waiver of three visitor parking spaces and alteration of an access way to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`800sqm)
332-334 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising twenty six (26) dwellings above a basement car park; Reduction of the requirement for visitor parking; and Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`1130sqm)
339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to thirty (30) dwellings and a basement car park and reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (permit granted for 3 storeys and 27 units)(RGZ1) (`900sqm)
365-367 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement comprising of sixteen (16) dwellings and creation of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1(GRZ2) (`750sqm)
401-407 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a five storey building comprising of shops and dwellings above basement car park, a reduction in standard car parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)(MUZ) (`2030sqm)
Finally, we’ve linked to a South Australian Government Report , which at least attempts to define low, medium and high density. Compare what’s happening in Glen Eira with these figures and how our council still insists that RGZ zones are ‘medium density’!!!!! 
Glen Eira Debates 
February 14, 2015 at 10:17 AM
Thank you for putting up the Hodyl study. There’s lots there to mull over and to disagree with too. I haven’t seen one scrap of convincing evidence that high rise living is conducive to a healthy lifestyle or to families. Aside from this, Hodyl has got one sentence that jumped out at me
Height is a relative concept. Within a suburb of
single-storey detached dwellings, a six-storey apartment
building will often be considered as a ‘high-rise’.
I would think that a four storey building surrounded by single storeys should be considered high rise too. Then when you can get 48 dwellings onto the equivalent of 3 or 4 house blocks it’s highrise plus high density plus loss of what many people would think of as privacy, peace and quiet and all the other things that are a given – open space, light, traffic, ventilation, trees.
February 14, 2015 at 10:45 AM
A very good posting touching on sustainable living issues, this is the discussion we have to have, my experience has shown that the bureaucrats and our disappointing slow witted councillors have no interest in leading or even starting this discussion.
Its interesting that the new open space strategy taking us through to 2026 was going to supposedly address future open space needs as well as address our present open space shortfalls.
The outcome was that by 2026 we will have less public open space( as well as less private open space) than we presently have today.
If this is the kind of bureaucratic hoax that is going to pass as sustainable planning/living, god help us all.
February 14, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Does high rise development really deliver affordable housing, or just greater profits to developers. I think if we looked at sustainability as a core responsibility, the equation wouldn’t stack-up. This right wing ideological view that markets will decide, just lets governments and bureaucrats off the hook of having to broker sustainable living with the community and the wants of the developers. Of course we need a level playing field to start from, and whilst political party’s are will to accept funding from developers we won’t have this. Out of memory The Greens were the only party at the last election saying no donations from developers.
February 15, 2015 at 9:28 AM
The inappropriate cheap rubbish that is being built in Glen Eira is all being put there by smallish builders. No Mirvac stuff around here. These (MODERATORS: word deleted) give nothing to either the Liberal or Labor parties. They don’t have to. They big developers give to both parties.
February 15, 2015 at 9:22 AM
The poorly designed flats particularly in Carnegie are aimed at the Chinese buyers. In China they buy a shell. No shower, toilet, kitchen sink etc. It is up to the new owner to do the final fit out. Pretty good all this free stuff up front.
Anything with 20 minutes from either Monash campus will sell. The uni does the marketing. No Monash no cheap flats. It amounts to student accommodation. Thye couldn’t sell this stuff in Bayside so they don’t build it there.
February 15, 2015 at 4:43 PM
i didn’t know that, that’s interesting, so you can move in, and still be stuck with the noise and inconvenience of others finishing off their units
February 15, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Yes. There are windows but no internal doors. Plumbing pipes poke out of the walls and electrical cables are waiting to be hooked up. In Melbourne there are plenty of municipalities having good quality high density home units being built. The junk going up in Neerim Rd is like nothing else. Lots of good high rise in Camberwell, Malvern and Prahran. Carnegie is all student housing as is Caulfield East. Going to be very interesting to watch the stuff in the MRC carpark coming out of the ground. It was proposed as high quality housing. What’s the bet that it will be junk housing as is most of the high density that is currently being built in Glen Eira. It will speak for itself. If they start trucking in concrete slabs it will say it all. Pre-cast concrete equals junk. I don’t think the council can stop this happening.
February 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Housing density has never been defined in Victoria, and there isn’t even a mechanism for managing the consequences of increasing density. At every level the policies and decisions being made are incongruent. At the hands of Council and Planning Panels and VCAT, there are no longer any amenity standards. These are merely “guidelines” that aren’t taken seriously. If Council specifies a minimum of 8sqm for a balcony in its Planning Scheme, VCAT says, without evidence, that it is too much and decides 6sqm is “appropriate”.
We’ve seen the moonscaping, leaving little to soften the lines of the boxes-on-boxes architeture that is considered “contemporary”. The dwellings themselves [and number of dwelling is the only thing that decision-makers value] are shrinking, and appropriate for fewer and fewer members of the community. They are frequently sited far away from public open space. They remain formidably expensive for new entrants to the property market. And on top of all this successive State Governments claim they can’t afford to invest in public transport to the level needed to encourage people to use it in preference to cars.
Everywhere you look, decision-makers speak with forked tongues. Nobody knows what Melbourne’s population will be in 20 or 30 years. Projections have been made, but look at all the assumptions they incorporate. The primary one is the level of immigration, which is a Federal policy and could be dialled up or down arbitrarily. The fertility of Victorian women of child-bearing age is now 1.8, so the projected population increase must be due to external factors. This artificial demand creation program keeps pushing up prices.
One thing that has annoyed me about Neerim Rd is that it is uncomfortably narrow when cars are parked on both sides, which is particularly common now. It is a dangerous place to ride a bike, and the 60 kmh speed limit is inappropriately high. VicRoads of course represents the car lobby and sees its mission as helping drivers travel fast while keeping death and mutilation down to politically acceptable levels. We need a change of attitude to speed in areas targetted for higher density, one where the safety of pedestrians and cyclists carry more weight and motorised vehicles are restricted to 40kmh [or lower–its not uncommon to use 30kmh in built-up areas in Scandanavia, and it’s accompanied by a strong sense of social reponsibility to adhere to the limits].
February 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM
A news story/report said the Chinese airlines are going to have the seating capacity to bring 36.000 people a week into Australia in a few years time.
I foolishly did ride my bike up Neerim Rd between Koornang and Murrumbeena Rds a few weeks ago, I was narrow missing by a erratic truck. I thought never again, the road width is to narrow to accommodate parked cars, bicycles and large vehicles. It’s just a matter of time till some poor bugger gets seriously whacked or turned into strawberry jam.
February 15, 2015 at 9:27 PM
The developers in Glen Eira saw the same news report. They go from Tulla to the MRC carpark where they can pick a flat off the plan.
February 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Social responsibility. Try explaining this to a mother dropping her children off at school. She will naturally be driving a 4WD. This because she thinks it is safer for her family. Her responsibility does not extend past her family. Social responsibility is not in her vocabulary. Getting her to slow down to 30 kph. In your dreams.
February 15, 2015 at 10:45 PM
You are likely correct, but you can always try, and when her kids get Hepatitis A from consuming prepacked polluted food, maybe some deeper thinking will happen
February 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM
off topic but have the methane levels from the Neerim Road stables ever been tested? The stench from there is getting worse everyday. I have heard Methane is 80 times worse for the environment than Carbon Dioxide plus the long term health affects on the local population need to be taken into account.
February 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Methane is a greenhouse gas, yes—captures heat much more efficiently than carbon dioxide. It was the gas at the heart of the Brooklands Green debacle in Cranbourne. Because VCAT can’t be sued [although they were negligent in ordering a permit to be granted against expert advice], it was the City of Casey that ended up getting sued instead.
February 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM
If readers are interested in the issue of pollution at the racecourse, then we suggest they consult the council minutes of the 24th November 2009 – Item 8.13.
The Request for a Report which instigated this item called for a report on how and if council’s Local Law could “protect the environment from the impact of horses stabled” at the racecourse. Storm water pollution as a result of horse excrement was not meant to be the exclusive focus of the report but to be “included”. Of course, this was all that the report commented upon. Other pollutants did not get a mention.
The resolution called for Council to be “kept informed” of progress by the EPA and the MRC. As far as we know –
1. This issue has never been mentioned again
2. No report has ever been tabled at any subsequent meeting
3. Methane, drainage, and everything else concerned with the management of horses and the environment has entered into the cone of silence. And, not one councillor, has brought this into the light of public scrutiny ever again!
Perhaps council could consider the issuing of gasmarks to local residents in the area?
February 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Glen Eira community Association made this submission concerning the dangers of methane
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vcec.vic.gov.au%2Ffiles%2Fb0a94bf9-2ca0-4121-938f-a38f00a52d92%2FDR100-Glen-Eira-Community-Associations-Inc.pdf&ei=NzXhVJemBcyB8gWgtILICg&usg=AFQjCNEb5MYy9DgKkW3KaRF99anqti5zbQ&sig2=do-CSrtqvaS8m_LG0t6bUA&bvm=bv.85970519,d.dGc&cad=rja
February 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Neerim Rd is a notoriously dangerous stretch of road for those of us familiar with it. Various unnatural acts are encouraged by the shoddy traffic management. For example the banning of a right-turn out of Neerim into Shepparson south-bound means that drivers proceed to the next intersection [Belsize] and attempt a U-turn. Both Belsize and Shepparson have been the scene for multiple accidents. VicRoads implicitly admits the problems, “preferring” developments to have their subterranean carparks accessed via side-streets rather than Neerim Rd itself.
All the new developments Council is targetting for the area will need to find a way to an arterial or link road eventually, so if it isn’t Neerim then it’ll have to be the unsignalised Morton Av/Koornang Rd intersection, another notorious traffic hotspot, exacerabated by years of VCAT and Council inattention to traffic management generally.