Amendment C25 introduced the housing diversity/minimal change carve up of the municipality. There was consultation and much opposition to the proposed amendment. We present below extracts from the officer’s report (12th August 2002) following the consultation period. Readers should note how much was promised and in the space of 13 years how little has been delivered.
++++++++++
Several residents expressed concerns about the lack of formal notification of the Amendment. They felt it was such an important issue that residents especially in the housing diversity areas should have been individually notified. They were also concerned by inadequate consultation during its development. A few residents and Glen Eira’s Save Our Suburbs representative requested that the exhibition period be extended.
Response
A number of people suggested that those in housing diversity areas should have been individually notified. C25 affects the whole municipality, not just people in the housing diversity areas. It is therefore considered that all residents should be treated equally in terms of notification.
Residents felt that there was a lack of information on how the housing diversity areas and minimal change areas were determined. They also felt that some suburbs have more housing diversity areas identified than others. Some residents suggested that housing diversity areas should be based on the suitability of individual streets rather than large areas.
Submitters expressed strong concerns that despite the stated aim of housing diversity areas to encourage single houses and multi-unit developments, housing diversity areas will not have a diversity of housing as the areas would be targeted by developers and single dwellings would be removed.
Residents were concerned that C25 focussed on the protection of the minimal change areas at the expense of he housing diversity areas. They felt that C25 would lead to the destruction of neighbourhood character and historical values in their area. Multi-unit development would be completely out of character and mean the loss of period and historic houses. Residents identified that many housing diversity areas featured a range of period housing (eg California bungalows, Victorian, Edwrdian) that contribute to the history and character of their area. Some submitters felt that important heritage buildings were not recognised by C25 and could be destroyed.
Response
A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:
- Exceed prevailing building heights
- Dominate the streetscape
- Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
- Result in the loss of landscaped front yards.
Apartment buildings would be be encouraged in these areas however in some locations, depending on the size of lots, orientation and surrounding development, developments such as duplexes and townhouses may be appropriate. Not all lots in the housing diversity areas will be suitable for multi-unit development. It is unrealistic to expect a 100% ‘take up’ rate in housing diversity areas. Some areas because of their existing conditions may experience very little change at all.
Further work is required to recognise the specific opportunities and issues, develop preferred character and issues for each neighbourhood centre. The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme Amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.
In terms of the siting and design controls which would apply to the residential areas in housing diversity areas, ResCode would apply,. Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that Council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reductions in open space, car parking standards etc.
….structure plans and urban design frameowkrs are planned for housing diversity areas. These will be developed in consultation with residents to develop an overall plan for each housing diversity area that ensures that development outcomes are both appropriate and sympathetic to the character of the area.
The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledge that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.
The submitters also felt that the amendment will have substantial effects on character and amenity of housing diversity through the loss of significant trees and vegetation. The submissions felt that the Policy did not provide enough safeguards to prevent the loss of trees and vegetation. It was suggested that a significant tree register should be pursued.
….there are a number of improvements that can be added to the policies relating to housing diversity areas to ensure development better reflects existing character. At present, the policy does not clearly link proposed development to existing character. In the long term it is proposed to develop a preferred character for these areas in consultation with the residents.
Proposed changes –
Adding reference in the Housing Diversity policy (22.05) and Residential Character policy (22.06) ‘Policy basis’ section that makes it clear that a radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. Development should respect the existing character unless a preferred character is specified.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 22, 2015 at 5:06 PM
yes i must noted that a lot of of the best heritage is in the shopping strips and around the rail station a tram route, these were the first area developed, We are losing a lot of neighborhood character where it matters the most.
In the end the developers and their polly mates will want it all, for now they are happy enough to take it piecemeal.
April 22, 2015 at 5:19 PM
Amazing set of quotes and used car sales people are far more honest than this whitehouse. Promise folks the world and then deliver nothing. Newton has done everything to make sure that develoopers get everything they want in Glen Eira. It is disgusting.
April 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM
As should be clear from the above, C25 was introduced fraudulently, and just about every prediction made by opponents of C25 has come true. Worse, Council has subsequently undermined the few limited “protections” it claimed it was providing. The chief architect of the mess has at least retired, but his superincumbent boss remains.
The Planning Scheme that has been imposed on us is riddled with inconsistencies, which a competent review should eliminate, although we don’t know in which decade such a review will take place. The current Council doesn’t support a review and apparently is happy with the outcomes it has achieved.
Looking at the officer comments in hindsight, it was clear from the outset that Council was being dishonest, because Council never put in place the necessary policies, and in the few areas where there was clear policy, knew that VCAT could and would ignore them. And so in Housing Diversity [sic] areas, we see buildings greatly exceeding the prevailing building heights; we have multiunit developments that dominate the streetscape; neighbouring properties are having their amenity adversely affected; and landscaped front yards are disappearing. Council even documents that each of these is occurring in its Minutes.
Being designated “housing diversity”, tragically, means that neither Council nor VCAT believe that ResCode standards should be applied. In this they contradict s55, which clearly states: “A standard should normally be met”. Over and over again, Council has granted permits for developments that fail to comply with ResCode. On the occasions Council insists on compliance, VCAT can be relied upon to order a permit be granted.
To add insult to injury, Council, VCAT, and the State Government, expect us to subsidise developer profits by paying for the infrastructure the influx of thousands of people require. The Council Plan admits this growth, in combination with GESAC, is the reason why rates have risen so fast.
April 23, 2015 at 9:22 AM
Very true. All predictions by residents have now happened and council has not done a single thing to try and improve the situation.
April 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM
I hope that councillors read these extracts and shudder because they support an administration that obviously does not give a hoot about what is happening to Glen Eira and its people. I don’t expect miracles from the likes of Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling. There is some hope that a few of the others might have a conscience.
April 22, 2015 at 7:20 PM
These extracts serve as a damning indictment of Newton and the bevy of councillors over the years. Residents were appeased with promises at the best and lies at the worst. It all depends on how people chose to interpret what hasn’t been done. If the intention was to fulfill these promises 13 years is plenty of time to get some amendments up and through. Personally, I think that it was all too hard and wouldn’t suit the development lobby so all the promises were ignored with the hope that people would forget or never even bother to read the fine detail of what was being planned.
April 22, 2015 at 8:35 PM
“Fine detail” has never been a virtue in Glen Eira. The objective has always been to limit access to information as much as possible. Where legislation demands publication it becomes a job for the spin doctors with the goal of camouflaging as much as they possibly can. No wonder the public relations arm of Glen Eira is so overstaffed and has a budget of multi-millions.
April 22, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Below are a list of all ‘metropolitan’ councils and their gazetted and existing structure plans. Most of these are post 2013 and the introduction of the new zones. Hence, the new zones HAVE NOT BEEN A DISINCENTIVE to plan and protect neighbourhoods as well as possible. Many other amendments are still in the pipeline, awaiting panel reports, or government gazetting.
Glen Eira Council has stubbornly and steadfastly refused to implement any structure plans. Their argument has been that these are not ‘mandatory’ but mere ‘policy’. Given that practically every other council in the state has seen the efficacy of structure planning, we can only speculate as to the motives behind Glen Eira’s refusal. Your views on this are welcome!
Here’s what other councils have achieved. Please note – we’ve omitted those structure plans which have been in place prior to 2008.
Banyule – C93 – Ivanhoe Structure Plan -22/1/2015
Bayside – Sandringham, Bay Street, Church St., structure plans
Boroondara – Balwyn structure plan; Kew Junction structure plan
Cardinia – Cardinia road structure plan; officer structure plan; Beaconsfield structure plan
Casey – Fountain Gate/Naree Warren precinct structure plan; Cranbourne West Precinct structure plan; Cranbourne North structure plan; Clyde North precinct structure plan; Thompsons Road precinct structure plan; Clyde Creed Precinct structure plan; Berwick waterways precinct structure plan;
Darebin – Preston central structure plan; Northcote structure plan;
Greater Dandenong – Springvale Activity Centre structure plan;
Greater Geelong – Leopold structure plan; Lara structure plan; Barwon Heads structure plan; Point Lonsdale structure plan; Drysdale-Clifton Springs structure plan; North East industrial precinct structure plan;
Hume – Greenvale North structure plan; Craigieburn precinct structure plan; Greenvale West structure plan; Greenvale Central precinct structure plan; Lockerbie precinct structure plan; Merrifield West precinct structure plan;
Kingston – Mordialloc structure plan; Highett Structure plan; Cheltenham Structure Plan; Mentone Activity Centre structure plan;
Knox – Bayswater Major Activity Centre structure plan; Boronia Structure plan; Ferntree Gully Village structure plan;
Manningham – The Pines Activity Centre structure plan;
Maribyrnong – Highpoint structure plan;
Maroondah – Croydon town centre structure plan;
Melbourne – Arden-Macauley Structure plan; City North structure plan;
Melton – Taylors Hill west precinct structure plan; Toolern precinct structure plan; Rockbank North precinct structure plan; Diggers rest precinct structure plan;
Monash – Brandon Park major activity centre structure plan; Oakleigh Major Activity Centre structure plan;
Moonee Valley – Keilor, North Essendon, Airport West structure plans; Keilor Road Activity Centre Structure plan; Racecourse Road Major Activity Centre structure plan; Union road major activity centre structure plan
Moreland – Central Coburg structure plan; Brunswick structure plan;
Port Phillip – South Melbourne Central structure plan; Carlisle St Major Activity Centre structure plan; Bay Street Activity Centre structure plan
Stonnington – Forrest Hill precinct structure plan; Chapel Revision Structure Plan;
Whitehorse – Mitcham Neighbourhood Centre structure plan; Box Hill activity centre structure plan; Nunawading/Magamile structure plan;
Yarra – Smith Street structure plan;
April 23, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Quite a list. Strange that all these councils see fit to bring in structure plans and Glen Eira poo-poohs it. If they were useless no council would bother going down this road. No cogent reasons have been supplied by council for their opposition to structure plans. I don’t buy the line about policy versus mandatory clauses – more likely we can’t be stuffed doing the necessary work and the cost involved. Tough luck for residents.