Glen Eira has designated Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie as Urban Villages where the majority of new development is supposed to go. All the rest are either Neighbourhood Centres or Local Centres. There are ten Neighbourhood Centres and 23 listed ‘local centres’ in the Planning Scheme. The Phoenix Precinct has its own category as a Priority Development Zone.
According to the Planning Scheme, residential development in Neighbourhood Centres, is meant to adhere to the following:
Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.
AND
Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.
Thus, according to this prescription, multi-unit development is only to go into those areas “IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS”. Then why oh why has so much of these neighbourhood centres been zoned as GRZ1 – ie three storeys?
It is obvious that the zones do not match what is stated in the Planning Scheme, with the result that huge swathes of McKinnon, East Bentleigh, Murrumbeena, Ormond, Caulfield South and others, have been all given the green light for 3 storey multi-unit development.
Local centres are even worse off since these are pockets of land zoned commercial that more often than not, directly abut neighbourhood residential zones. The Planning Scheme states:
Recognise the minor role that local centres will play in providing for housing diversity by encouraging development limited to low density shop top housing
AND
Ensure that residential development (except in Patterson and Gardenvale local centres) does not exceed two storeys in height
Since there is no height restriction on land zoned commercial, this is indeed pie in the sky – as recently proved with a three storey development at 251 Koornang Road (zoned commercial 1). Why such errant nonsense still remains in the planning scheme is beyond us. Nor has Council even attempted to introduce any restrictions on its small shopping strips as Boroondara has had success with. Nor have they introduced any Design & Development Overlays as this comprehensive document from Bayside demonstrates (uploaded here). Council has done nothing except slap Commercial zoning on a handful of businesses without due regard to the fact that many of these ‘local centres’ are surrounded by residential, low rise single dwellings – all zoned Neighbourhood Residential zone.
Once again it is inept planning and a bonus to developers.
So here is a quiz on the zones that readers might like to have a go in responding to. We would bet that councillors and even officers wouldn’t know the answers to most of these queries!
- Which suburb has the largest Commercially zoned area?
- Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ1?
- Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ2?
- Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned RGZ1?
- Does Glen Eira really have 78% zoned NRZ1?
- What percentage of residential land area in Carnegie is geared towards medium and high density development because of its zoning? How does this correlate with the nonsense of 80/20 – ie minimal change versus housing diversity?
- How many streets in Glen Eira have multiple zonings (which was advised against by the C25 Panel Report)? – ie RGZ, GRZ, NRZ, MUZ, C1Z?
- How much ‘infill’ has occurred in Neighbourhood Residential Zones – ie two double storeys per block?
- How many sites in Glen Eira are over 1000 square metres, larger than their neighbours, and according to the planning scheme, capable of accommodating more than two dwellings – regardless of them being in Neighbourhood Residential Zones?
- How many amendments has Council pushed through to rezone land to Mixed Use since the introduction of the zones? How does this compare with other councils? Please remember that Mixed Use has no height limits, no open space requirements, etc.
- How many VCAT decisions that overturn council are largely due to the ‘policies’ contained in the Planning Scheme?
These are the questions we believe that residents need answers to since they go to the heart of sound strategic planning. If this council is so confident that its planning is ‘perfect’, then they need to be able to justify their planning decisions. Thus far, all residents have received are shonky figures, complete failure to fulfill the ‘promises’ of a decade ago, plus execrable statements that consulting with residents would result in worse outcomes. For any council to hold such a view is utterly abhorrent.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 19, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Both Council and VCAT decisions are arbitrary. Council does not follow its own rules, and introduces amendments or other changes to suit developers. We need clear and enforceable planning schemed.
August 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM
My guess is that Elsternwick or Carnegie has got the biggest commercial zoning because they are the biggest shopping centres. East Bentleigh is the biggest suburb so I’d say that they’ve got the biggest area that’s zoned grz. Is this right?
August 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM
I reckon Bentleigh East has the largest commercial area [C1Z + C2Z]; Ormond has the highest proportion of GRZ1; Caulfield North has the highest proportion of GRZ2; Elsternwick has the highest proportion of RGZ1; the percentage of land zoned NRZ1 in Glen Eira is NOT 78% but is in fact less than 70%; and that 27% of Carnegie’s residential areas are zoned for higher density development if one counts C1Z, since it is now a defacto residential zone albeit without any amenity standards.
August 19, 2015 at 4:31 PM
Another interesting suburb no included in the survey is Caulfield East despite being a piddling little area that’s divided by train tracks it contains the whole of the Phoenix Precinct. Just think about it
. Caulfield Village (2000 dwellings and up to 22 storeys),
. Monash University (currently 10,000 effective full time students to be raised to 25,000 effective full time students) and
. Dudley Street (zoned NRZ1 but allowed to consist of 5 storey buildings to assist with alleged Malaysian money laundering).
August 19, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Areas 1, 2A, 2B of Phoenix Precinct are actually in Caulfield North, not Caulfield East, but certainly the majority of Phoenix Precinct is in Caulfield East. Dudley/Gibson St is an example of what can happen when developers have the freedom to donate to political parties.
August 20, 2015 at 1:27 PM
Spot on re Malaysian laundering. That will be news in a few years when the election rolls show up the owners.
August 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Can I add a question to the survey?
* How many residents are aware of, or have seen and read, either the Neighbourhood Character Overlay or Statement of Character that is applicable to the area surrounding your residence?
Tip 1: Despite Council constantly referring to Statements of Character they don’t exist for the growth zones. Council prefers to let the character emerge.
Tip 2: If you are in an NRZ zone and have one or the other you’re one of the lucky few.
August 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Good post and discussion. The current Government is conducting a review of the 25 year old Local Government Act. Here is a link to find out more http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/local-government-act-review . I think it would be useful to have an input into that. Any takers?
Here is something to think about, from wikipedia “The concept of urban villages was formally born in Britain in the late 1980s with the establishment of the Urban Villages Group (UVG).[1] Following pressure from the UVG, the concept was prioritized in British national planning policy between 1997 and 1999.” It has been introduced into Victoria by the State Government’s “Urban Village Project” report (August 1996), essentially a Liberal Government agenda using the UK conservative Government approach. Glen Eira conservative appointed administration and Liberal Party elected Council adopted this approach quickly. When you look at the detailed UK guidelines (http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/by-design-urban-design-in-the-planning-system.pdf ) there is not much difference between Urban Village guides and Activity Centres guides of Melbourne 2030. Both provide for Council initiated and Developer initiated planning of sites or areas. And both require follow-up planning for implementation of Council initiated plans. So why Glen eira has stopped doing that after 1999?
There was a lot of criticism of Urban Villagers approach in Britain, particularly in regards to community consultation as long and not conducive to professional planning and development. So how does that affected Glen Eira. In 1999 Mr Paul Burke was recruited to Glen Eira. Here is his short bio: “Paul began his working life in the Australian Army before moving into the federal public service where he worked for the Attorney-General’s Department and Federal Parliament.
He has worked for one of the United Kingdom’s largest county councils providing services such as police and fire services, schools, social services, justice, planning and economic development. He also worked closely with the UK’s national government and the European Parliament and Commission.
He joined Council in July 1999 and was appointed Director Community Relations in September 2001.”
Paul would know all about Urban Villagers, its weaknesses and the weaknesses of Melbourne 2030 Activity Centres structure planning approach. So, my guess is that the management has decided to do only Developer initiated planning with the Council providing flexible guidelines and oversight. It’s cheaper, has less community involvement on the part of the Council and most importantly, it follows the neo-liberal policy of privatisation of government services into the local government function, something that the 1990s Kennett Government pushed for. From residents perspective, the irony is that Mr Burke became and still is the Director of Community Relations.
The Labor Government sacked Glen Eira Council in 2005 hoping that it would improve governance and change the composition of the Council to be more pro-labor. However, what happened was that we have elected 6 Liberal Party members with 3 lawyers to the boot. As the new Councillors got to know the Council executive they must have found a kindred spirit with the same worldview. The governance of the Council has improved thanks to Cr Lippshutz knowledge and influence. Planning on Council owned land is done by the Council. The rest is done using Planning Applications by developers. The community participation is done on the basis of stakeholder importance. So residents and ratepayer involvement and participation is done by the book but no more.
Interestingly, we have been electing 3 Liberal Party lawyers every time since 2005. I think Glen Eira is unique in that regard also.
August 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM
The “review” is not off to a promising start. The Advisory Committee has no representation from the general community. It is stacked with councillors, ex-councillors, and ex-CEOs. Hard to see Nicholas Reece being able to counter their collective weight.
August 19, 2015 at 9:36 PM
The ‘Ministerial Statement’ on local government was delivered in Parliament today. Copy is available from – http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/309410/Ministerial-Statement-on-Local-Government-DELWP-1c-Ministerial-Statement_1g.pdf
Here is a superb example of politspeak. We welcome any ‘translations’ of this weasel phrase –
“Council governance characterised by greater integrity” (page 12)
As for putting the cart before the horse, here’s another perfect example –
“Action 2: Improve council governance
The Government will present to parliament legislation to improve governance while the review of the Act is underway” (page 7)
August 19, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Re: Height limit comments in the article. Maximum height permissible in a zone is clearly not the same as automatic entitlement to build to that height anywhere in the zone and does not indicate the whole zone is suitable for that height. However, VCAT appear unable to make this distinction.
Similarly, meeting a standard (e.g. the height limit) in the res code does not automatically mean the objective of the res code has been met. Objectives, standards and decision guidelines must all be considered.
A VCAT tribunal states “Whilst there may remain some question as to whether the three dot points under the ‘operation’ heading in clause 55 should be read sequentially or collectively, having considered the structure of clause 55 and the content of clause 55 objectives, they need to be taken as a whole and read collectively in order to achieve the purpose of clause 55. The decision guidelines therefore need to be considered in all cases irrespective of whether the standard is met.”
Has anyone had any experience of successfully using this ruling at VCAT?
August 19, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Some good points here. Vcat doesn’t see the difference and neither does council. If they did, then huge areas wouldn’t be rubber stamped with the same zoning. There would be differentiation and there would be more than one zone for nrz. We could have got nrz1, nrz2, nrz3 and so on and all with different height maximums. It was far easier to lump everything together and not perform the essential ground work.
On your second point about standards, my understanding is that standards and objectives are two different concepts and both vcat and council keep saying that the standards don’t all have to be met if the objective is met. This gives them leeway to let a development through even if it doesn’t meet even half of the rescode numbers. Besides, the schedules could have replaced rescode in most zones if necessary. Council opted for the minimalist and easiest path with the best outcomes for developers. In my wildest dreams I can’t see this council opting for anything that would encroach too drastically on developments.
August 19, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Just because there’s no specified differentiation within zones doesn’t mean that differentiation cannot be implied as per the Planning Scheme quotes you highlighted.
Surely the only reasonable interpretation of “maximum height” is a maximum height that MAY be allowed. i.e. not automatically allowed. If this wasn’t the case then there would be no decision guidelines in Clause 55.03.02.
re: standards and objectives. My point is the other way around. That an objective isn’t necessarily met just because the standard is.
August 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Right – too bad that objectives always outweigh standards by both council and vcat
August 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM
Hansard (yesterday)
Caulfield electorate
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—(Question 425) My question is to the Minister for Planning. The previous government reformed residential planning zones by working with local councils to provide clarity of residential growth and protection from overdevelopment. As a result, the municipality of Glen Eira, which covers the majority of my electorate of Caulfield, is 78 per cent neighbourhood residential ‘no-go’ zone, where only two-storey developments are allowed. I understand it is the government’s intention to review these planning rules and residential zones, and I ask if the minister will guarantee that the ‘no-go’ zone in Glen Eira, which protects 80 per cent of the municipality from overdevelopment, will remain.
August 20, 2015 at 11:28 AM
David contradicts himself, claiming both 78% and 80% for NRZ in Glen Eira. Neither is correct. He was informed of this egregious error at the Planning Forum held in Glen Eira on 27 July 2015. There isn’t any excuse for repeating the misinformation in Parliament, especially since the data is publicly available [provided you have the necessary expertise]. Currently NRZ is 69.58% of the municipality, being approximately 26.92 sq.km out of 38.69 sq.km. If he is asking the government not to change the status quo, then he is asking for the percentage to remain below 70%.
A more relevant question would be about the years of supply each municipality has, and why it is considered appropriate to have 85+ years available. Even the 85 years is rubbery since VCAT has in recent years further weakened the already weak amenity standards in the Planning Scheme by ignoring them. VCAT has gone further and argued it is *necessary* to ignore the standards, presumably because it doesn’t consider 85 years enough, although it has provided no evidence to justify its stance.
Neither Liberal nor Labor nor our metropolitan “planning” authority VCAT has shown any interest in the distribution of open space and its importance to community well-being. Council doesn’t have a plan to provide sufficient open space to support the density of development the Triumvirate wishes to impose upon us, and is already actively encouraging sporting clubs to turn away prospective members.