Another very, very long post. Sorry! However, we believe it is essential for readers to appreciate some of what is going on within this council. In our view there are several possible interpretations:
- Councillors are starting to feel the pressure from residents regarding development, and deciding to play the ‘populist game’. Surely it is not mere coincidence that the number of objections appears to be directly correlated with the final decision? That in itself, should be a clear message to residents.
- The destruction of street after street is now apparent to all and sundry. Plus, with elections not too far away this only adds pressure to be at least ‘seen’ to be doing something.
- Is the ‘doing’ however, consistent, well thought out, and will it result in anything ‘positive’ for residents? These are the central questions!
The following report on the Bent Street application is indeed a clue to answering all of the above. Please note that:
- The existence of flat roofs had no impact whatsoever in October and December 2014, when councillors voted unanimously to allow one major development in Bent Street of 36 dwellings and another one of 55 dwellings where Lobo was the only councillor to vote against this application.Yet this current Bent Street attempt basically foundered on the fact that a ‘flat roof’ is not in keeping with ‘neighbourhood character’.
- In the October decision not one councillor spoke of ‘neighbourhood character’. In fact, Delahunty even claimed that this building would ‘fit in nicely’ with the surrounds. Only Okotel and Delahunty spoke on the item that lasted about 5 minutes!
- What is even more strange is that not one councillor mentioned these earlier decisions and the impact that they will have on ‘neighbourhood character’. Yet the current application is full of hand wringing about ‘neighbourhood character’ that has already been destroyed by these previous decisions!
- Just so that readers know what we are referring to, here are the flat roof plans for both the previous Bent Street decisions.
So, is anything changing for the betterment of residents and their amenity? All of these applications will end up at VCAT we predict and unless the planning scheme is reviewed, modified, and greater protection provided via the schedules, and a ‘preferred character statement’ for housing diversity that is made explicit, then we won’t be holding our breath. It is far too easy to blame state governments. Residents should be asking these councillors exactly what they have done in the past 6 months at least, to ‘reform’ the planning scheme. That is their duty, their obligation, and definitely within their powers. Thus far, they have done bugger all except talk of the need to do something! The time for positive action and not mere words is fast running out!
+++++++++
Sounness moved to accept with some changes – setback for south rear side and site coverage to meet ResCode standards. Seconded by Pilling.
SOUNESS: started off by saying that development in Bent St has been ‘subject to a lot of discussion’. ‘Representations’ had been made to councillors about other developments in the street. Sounness did ‘recognise that this is quite a substantial building’ and that 31 dwellings do represent a ‘significant increase into the streetscape’. Said that the housing diversity policy does ‘speak about’ density and this is one of those sites. Went on to say that given the planning scheme and the ‘regulations’ council doesn’t have the ‘ability’ to say that this application should be ‘reshaped’. He thought that this was a ‘fairly acceptable application’ and the conditions are ‘quite reasonable’. Even though he is ‘uncomfortable’ to ‘go down the path of refusal’ wouldn’t ‘be appropriate’ mainly because of the ‘defense point of view at VCAT’. Claimed that there was some ‘difficulty’ with the way that the planning scheme ‘manifests expectations’ and what ‘neighbourhood character should be’. Wanted ‘further discussion’ with officers and councillors about how to address this. Stated that ‘evolving neighbourhood character’ is different to ‘existing neighbourhood character’ and that should be discussed.
PILLING: thought it fulfilled all the ‘boxes’ since it was one step back from McKinnon Road and close to the station. Also meets the 10.5 metre height limit. Said that it is slightly unusual ‘because of the slope’ so it will be part 3 and part 4 storey. ‘It does fit within our guidelines’ and the zone. It mightn’t be ‘perfect’ but ‘in this area’ which is close to transport and shopping ‘this is where we want development to go’. Thought that refusing the application is ‘going too far. It doesn’t warrant refusal’ since it ‘ticks all the boxes’. This is the ’emerging nature of this area’.
OKOTEL: said that her primary objection was that it ‘isn’t in keeping with neighborhood character’ and would like to see applications that ‘fit in more appropriately’ with the area. Referred to 2 previous VCAT decisions and said that neighbourhood character is also something that VCAT ‘considers to be important’ (one in Prince Edward Avenue and in Carnegie). So if VCAT considers something important then ‘so too should our council’. Policies should be ‘applied strictly’. Ended by saying that considering the ‘neighbourhood character in that street’ council should refuse the application.
ESAKOFF: this is ‘further away’ from the Bentleigh activity centre and it’s in the McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre where there should be ‘slightly lesser density’ than at the ‘other end of Bent St’. Supported the proposed conditions to ‘make right the site coverage’ and the ‘northern light’ but it doesn’t address neighborhood character and ‘we’re looking at a flat roof’ where pitched roofs dominate. ‘There are too many things against this’ to give a permit.
HYAMS: said that ‘our job’ isn’t to agree with everything that objectors bring up but to ‘listen to objectors’ and ‘weigh up for ourselves’. Said he understands about the sloping land and that therefore it isn’t really four storeys and ‘under normal conditions that wouldn’t be considered’. He is concerned about the ‘bulk’ and ‘neighbourhood character’. The 10.5 metre height limit was put in because they anticipated that this would give ‘scope for pitched’ roofs and flat roofs that go the whole length does ‘have an impact on neighbourhood character’. ‘There’s no other building in the area that has a flat roof except in the commercial area’ in McKinnon Road. So it’s completely ‘out of character’. Said that since there is this flat roof council can either ‘accept’ or refuse the application as the ‘only alternative’. Said that there were other problems such as site coverage, overshadowing, and setbacks but these have ‘been dealt with by conditions’ so aren’t ‘fatal’ to the application because conditions have seen to them. But ‘bulk and character are fundamental’ and ‘can’t be dealt with by conditions’. At the planning conference people were talking about the impact of the new zones but this has not got anything to do with the zones and Hyams gave the example of Lee St/Nicholson Streets which was ‘built before the zones’ came in. ‘The new zones have nothing to do with this’ and ‘it could have been built under the old zones’.
LIPSHUTZ: was in favour of the application. Thought that the ‘problems’ had been dealt with ‘by conditions’ and that the ‘only issue’ is about the roof. He ‘doesn’t see that as fatal’. He would be more concerned about setbacks and overshadowing. If one house is flat roofed then he doesn’t ‘see’ this as a problem. Said that the application ‘looks like a very reasonable design’ and not too bulky.
LOBO: said that Bent Street ‘all began’ when a real estate company ‘invited an overseas developer’ to invest and ‘big money’ paid for some houses. Plenty of other offers came in and other builders arrived like ‘ants’ after the sugar. They offered to buy mostly from people ready to go to ‘nursing homes’ and ‘necessity is the mother of virtue’. Said that ‘greed’ is destructive and ‘destroys everything’. The application is another example of ‘being ripped open by developers’. Said that Tommy Bent is probably rolling ‘in his grave’ seeing all this destruction. Said that ‘no consideration’ is given to residents about parking, ‘loss of neighbourhood character’ and infrastructure ‘strain’ and schools. The street is ‘reaching a saturation point’ and he ‘hoped’ that the zones ‘would be looked at’ to care for the community. Labor has promised to review and he hoped that ‘they keep up to their promise’. Said he received an email late the previous night about developers trying to sell two bedroom apartments and thought that as a councillor ‘our loyalty should be to residents’ and if he stands for relection in 2016 he couldn’t do this with a ‘clear conscience’ if he isn’t loyal to residents. He stood for election on the promise to oppose overdevelopment so won’t break his pledge.
SOUNNESS: said the planning conference was ‘heated’ and that there needs to be a ‘conversation’ with community about the zones ‘we have at the moment’. In his view if there is going to be density then ‘you put it near a train station’. Said that the Mckinnon station is on a ‘fairly significant line’ even though if people are heading into the city at peak hour they ‘will be standing’ because of the crush. Said that council’s ‘capacity’ to refuse ‘is limited’ because ‘our zones don’t clearly say this is wrong’ and what they do say is ‘that this is the type of thing we want to have’. Said it’s up to councillors to ‘say what we want’. In this case the application is ‘good enough’ so he will support it. He had listened to objectors but thought that there wasn’t the capacity to refuse especially if it went to VCAT.
MOTION PUT AND LOST: voting against – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Lobo, Delahunty. VOTING FOR: Sounness, Lipshutz, Pilling, Magee
Hyams moved motion to refuse permit on grounds of inconsistency with planning scheme; ‘excessive bulk’, neighbourhood character, setbacks, etc. Esakoff seconded.
HYAMS: said there are ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ elements with town planning. With the objective elements then the application with the conditions meets height limits, parking requirements but ‘where it falls down to me’ is on the subjective parts. Councillors have to look at the ‘subjective elements as well’ to do their ‘role’. Not a question of ‘right decision or wrong decision’ but for him ‘this does not meet neighbourhood character’ for the area. Referred to Bent as being the main property developer of his time.
ESAKOFF: said that she had already stated her objections to the application.
PILLING: ‘acknowledged’ Hyams’ points but that to refuse the application because of the roof was ‘going too far’. Claimed that there were ‘a lot of merits’ with this development . Referred to Lobo’s statements and that councillors ‘are here’ to ‘make sound planning decisions’ and whilst they ‘acknowledge’ residents’ concerns they also have to look at the ‘processes’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she hadn’t spoken previously because she was ‘undecided’ on how to vote and wanted to hear what others had to say first. Even though she often agrees with Sounness this time was prepared to err on the side of caution about neighbourhood character. This is ‘one of those areas where you wish for a different tool’ but the roof doesn’t fit into neighbourhood character. Said that it’s a ‘weird balance’ between ’emerging neighbourhood character and existing neighbourhood character’ and councillors need to ‘understand what our role is’ on this. Said the application shouldn’t ‘mirror’ the shops on McKinnon Road, but the houses in Bent Street. Said that it would be ‘fantastic’ to see applications coming in that are ‘sympathetic to neighbourhood character’. This is right for people to live and is ‘close to a train station’ but you ‘can’t have it all your own way’ and it needs to be ‘sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character’. So because of the ‘contemporary architectural style’ she will ‘err on the side’ of caution.
SOUNNESS: said that the motions grounds of refusal have about three clauses that speak ‘to the debate’ on neighbourhood character and didn’t think that these are ‘well worded’ . Said that it’s like the councillors saying ‘we don’t like’ what has been put up. It is then ‘a mediation story’. If the motion is successful he hoped that the developer would ‘substantially redesign’ the building. Hoped for a ‘successful outcome with the minimum of risk’.
LOBO: said that ‘it is nice to see the softening of the heart’ and hoped that this could be ‘helped further by the present government’. Answering Pilling Lobo said that ‘we’re not planners but representatives of the residents’ and even if officers ‘recommend something’ that doesn’t ‘mean we have to agree’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division.
Voting for the motion to refuse – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Delahunty, Lobo
Voting against the motion – Pilling, Sounness, Magee, Lipshutz
Glen Eira Debates 
February 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM
Thank you. A fabulous post showing up the shallowness of argument and naturally the inconsistencies that are in every application. If councillors are finding the kitchen getting a bit too hot then they should get out or start doing what they were elected to do. Giving permits to hundreds of dwellings in one street and then raving on about how important neighborhood character is I find mind blowing and stupid. That’s the quality of this group.
February 26, 2015 at 12:05 PM
Once again, I am disappointed by the negativity of this post and this site overall. How about starting off on a positive note, congratulating those residents who opposed this application on chalking up a win, or at a minimum, saying Council don’t often get things right, but this time they did.
As with Penang St, I almost sense a fit of pique here that Council actually knocked back an application! Yes, it is inconsistent with previous decisions at the other end of Bent St, but isn’t that what we all want??!!! Would you have preferred that their decision was consistent with those earlier decisions and the development was given the green light?! It is very disappointing that it is too late for those earlier developments (unless they have gone to VCAT), and yes absolutely Council (and State government) should be doing more, but how about talking up the positives for a change and encouraging your readers to continue to organise themselves and oppose inappropriate developments because, sometimes, it can actually does make a difference?
Many of the objectors here are the same objectors against the Penang St, and Prince Edward Ave, both of which were also knocked back by Council. Whether it is the way they organise themselves and rally their neighbours, or the substance of their objections, or the manner in which they lobby councillors, something is clearly having a positive impact. That’s not to be critical of how others in Bent and Mahvo Streets (and elsewhere) have conducted their campaigns, but what this and other decisions show is that it really is worthwhile rallying support and keeping the pressure up. Certainly, in GRZ at least, the outcome at Council level is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Of course there is a political aspect, but so what? Last time I checked, government = politics. If anything, this is all the more reason to keep up the pressure. Look at the state election, Elizabeth Miller paid the price for ignoring / not responding to residents’ concerns over planning and transport issues (among other things). And the pressure is now on Nick Staikos to deliver on his promises in a timely manner. Those councillors vying for state or federal pre-selection in the future (thinking here of Delahunty and Okotel in particular), or re-election at Council level, will be acutely conscious of that. But they are human, and like most of us, I expect their natural inclination is to shut out or become defensive in the face of a constant barrage of attack and insults. Lobbying and negotiation 101.
Yes, there is a reasonable prospect that this application, like Penang St, will wind up at VCAT. Once again, though, your negative assessment of prospects there does nothing but discourage people from participating in that process. Here’s the thing: if Council had approved the development, then residents would have to taken the application to VCAT and been fighting both Council and the developer, and borne the costs of doing so. This way, Council must defend its decision at VCAT, and residents can opt to be parties to that proceeding and continue voicing their concerns at little or no cost. So winning at Council level does make a huge difference.
February 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Thank you for your comments and views. Two things need pointing out:
1. The post does in fact reveal that residents via their lobbying and formal objections do make a difference – Penang Street, Regent Street, and plenty of others are clear evidence of this.
2. When application after application has a permit granted which does not meet even the basic ResCode standards, then “consistency” does become an issue. Residents have every right to expect that council adheres to the so-called standards contained in the planning scheme on every occasion and not merely when it suits!
3. It is certainly questionable whether council is in fact doing residents a ‘favour’ when it imposes setbacks that far exceed anything that is in the planning scheme. To our mind, this is an open invitation for VCAT to reject the imposed conditions.
4. We reiterate – residents are doing a fantastic job in expressing their objections. But unless there are firm moves afoot by councillors to address what many see as the inequalities, and the ‘one size fits all’ approach of the planning scheme, then very little will be achieved even on an individual basis.
5. Lobbying should also be directed at state politicians and their first task is to reform VCAT itself. We agree entirely on this.
6. We also repeat our query. It is now 18 months since the new zones came in without consultation. Can anyone point to one instance where the effects of these zones have been the catalyst for some amendment to the planning scheme, or even an attempt to hold some public forums so that residents can put forward their views on what should happen?
February 26, 2015 at 4:03 PM
I’m in a growth zone. Letter box is stuffed full of flyers for developments near me and miles away. Real estate agents get in on the act to saying they will be visiting the street next week and have got a ready buyer. We will not sell. If neighbours do and the purchaser wants to put up 4 stories and 40 dwellings then I do not want to have to rely on getting 50 or more people to put in a protest so we can get a fair deal. The regulations should be sound enough so that everyone is judged according to what the rules say. It is not fair that two places can have flat roofs and get a permit and another one is refused on the grounds that it has got a flat roof. Something is very wrong and has to be fixed by councillors.
February 26, 2015 at 8:31 PM
Delahunty will never succeed in state elections.
February 26, 2015 at 10:07 PM
She may be like her namesake who lived in Elsternwick and held the seat of Northcote. The ALP find seats for women well away from where they live. Delahunty would be an real outside chance to be gifted a seat. Love to see her try and knock off Southwick. She would get a good towelling.
February 26, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Council needs to do a much better job of relating its decisions to the “decision guidelines” contained in its planning scheme than it is doing—I really doubt the flat roof argument will carry any weight at VCAT, despite one of the purposes of GRZ being “to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area”. Council hasn’t implemented clear “neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines”.
As the Scheme makes explicitly clear, the ResCode amenity standards in s.55 contain the requirements to meet the Objectives, and that the standards should be met. It does however allow an “alternative design solution” to be considered. Simply failing to comply with a standard isn’t in itself an alternative design solution. Council has been reckless in granting permits for so many non-compliant multi-unit developments. If it thinks the standards are too tough then it should change them, via the normal Amendment process so that councillors can be compelled to defend their lesser standards and provide their reasons.
Some councillors may actually believe that the proposed conditions would mean the development complies with the standards. Since the relevant evidence wasn’t provided [where were the shadow diagrams for example?], they just took it on trust when an officer claimed compliance. As it stands, we don’t know how many hours of sunlight the property to the east would get between 9am and 3pm on 22 September, assuming the development complies with the proposed conditions. Blocking off the sun from a habitable room window likewise isn’t “minor”.
Cr Delahunty appears to need to be reminded that the views of VCATs aren’t part of any decision guideline anywhere in the Scheme. VCAT’s job is to make the same decision using the same criteria that appears in the Scheme. VCAT at times reaches different conclusions from the same evidence because a) it isn’t accountable b) it has the freedom to attach zero weight to anything that doesn’t support the decision it wants to make.
Cr Hyams is wrong to be so dismissive about the role the new zones play. Here we see an 11.5m height limit where previously it was 10m. The situation is even more diabolical for renovated edwardian homes and californian bungalows in RGZ. There isn’t even a need to consider neighbourhood character because that has been removed as a planning Objective for RGZ. Just one more reason to be critical of Council for urging the previous Minister against Planning to introduce C110 without going through the normal Amendment process.
February 26, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Congratulations once again to Cr Lobbo for calling for a division so the rats are exposed.
February 27, 2015 at 8:08 AM
In the interests of transparency of decision-making in local government, Melbourne City Council proposed a motion at MAV [25 Oct 2013] calling for, amongst other things, a “publicly accessible audio archive of council meetings” and “In the event of council decisions which are not unanimous, the council minutes should record how individual councillors voted on a particular item, without the need for a division being called”. The Motion failed to get the necessary support from councils such as GECC.