Here is another example of what is happening to our suburbs. Truganini Road, similar to Bent Street has multiple zonings ranging from Residential Growth, General Residential and Neighbourhood Residential. Whilst this is admittedly a Road Zone, with a tramline along certain sections, the amount of development is entirely inappropriate for the location. It would also appear that the right hand at council has no idea what the left hand is doing. For example: several years ago residents living along the road were granted a ‘parking dispensation’ – namely that because of the trams, they were granted permission to park on their nature strips as a safety measure. Since then, many have received fines and this has necessitated them going down to council, producing the official letter and having the fine removed.
Now with the rampant development along the road and the continual waiving of car parking the issue of trams, pedestrians and cars all mixing and trying to get out of their driveways is a real safety issue. Needless to say, council has yet to address this issue.
Once again the online planning register is devoid of sufficient detail to accurately ascertain the number of dwellings that will be erected on this road. The item for 86 Truganini simply states ‘construction of two or more dwellings’. Given this is zoned GRZ2 we are not very optimistic that this means 2 dwellings – especially when there is the demand for a reduction in car parking.
Thus, our conservative total for Truganini is at least 141 new dwellings post zones.
TRUGANINI ROAD
9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 20 dwellings (RGZ1)
21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 41 dwellings, (AMENDED) (RGZ1)
44 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storey (PERMIT) (NRZ1)
54 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storey attached (NRZ1)
86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06) (GRZ2)
90 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 13 dwellings (REFUSAL) (GRZ2)
93-97 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings with a basement car park and reduction of the dwelling (visitor) car parking requirement on land affected by the Special Building (AMENDED) (GRZ2)
98-100 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a 3-4 storey building comprising 28 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (AMENDED) (GRZ2)
115 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 6 dwellings (AMENDED) (GRZ2)
124 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double-storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amended (GRZ2)
Glen Eira Debates 
July 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM
Truganini Rd what a mess. Rampant development with no changes to infrastructure, traffic ,parking or ambience of the area. When is common sense going to prevail.
July 13, 2015 at 6:04 PM
We invite readers to forward us the names of any streets that they believe have been inappropriately (over)developed. We will continue this analysis of Glen Eira street by street.
Simply email us (gedebates@gmail.com) or put up your own comment(s).
thanks!
July 13, 2015 at 6:53 PM
the school will have to be renamed Truganni Road as there will be so many people living in the Road that is how big the zone will be!
July 13, 2015 at 8:54 PM
Parking is just one of many issues that GECC has ignored. Note that “Draft City of Glen Eira Parking Policy, Andrew O’Brien & Associates, 1998” is listed as a reference document&mdashwhat the hell is Council doing relying on a 17-year-old draft document??. Council hasn’t done and refuses to do the “further strategic work” the planning scheme implausibly claims GECC will do.
It doesn’t take much effort to find other Council policies that it ignores, for example “ensure future development is appropriate to the constraints of infrastructure and vehicular traffic movement (including parking)”. Nor does Council [and its proxy, VCAT] require “the provision of adequate car parking to satisfy demand”.
Council’s planning scheme has been poorly maintained throughout the duration of the Newton regime. It desperately needs to be reviewed, it should have been reviewed over a year ago, and the Ministerial excuses why GECC haven’t been required to review it are pretty weak.