We congratulate council for producing an agenda that will set a new benchmark for incompetence, plain old bullshit, waffling generalisations, as well as fulfilling the ‘damage control’ agenda given the looming election. We literally could not stop laughing at some of the arrant nonsense produced by so called ‘professionals’.
A caveat! We are not suggesting that the following are worthy of permits. What we are focusing on is the quality, or rather the lack of quality so evident in the officers’ reports.
Item 9.1 – MRC application for the radio (timing) towers –ie the erection of 30+ antennaes and bases on the reserve – with some on crown land. Council officer recommendation is a ‘refusal’. We draw readers’ attention to the following quotes from the Ron Torres report –
It is acknowledged that other buildings and works including construction of a permanent infield electronic screen have been approved in the past. However, these are mostly at the northern end of the Crown Land where the bulk of the Race Course infrastructure is located. It is considered that the number, location and height of the purpose built poles are contrary to the purpose of the Public Park and Recreation Zone which seeks to ‘recognise areas for public recreation and open space’. It is considered the current application represents a ‘tipping point’ where the proposed works represent on over-emphasis of the use of the land as a racecourse. It is considered that the application does not adequately respect the balance of the use of the land as a public park area or the adjoining residential interface.
COMMENT: a 4 storey screen and now an outdoor ‘gourmet cinema’ with booze is NOT the ‘tipping point’, but this application is! And, a 4 storey screen plus a cinema also meets the criteria of a ‘public park’! And naturally a falling down fence along Queen’s Avenue that was supposed to be removed eons ago does wonders for the ‘residential interface’!
The proposed works do not contribute positively to local urban character and sense of place
COMMENT: urban? Really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel on this one! That’s why Telstra towers and others are given permits everywhere – even on top of the town hall! These surely fit in with the ‘urban character’ and ‘open space’ of the municipality!
The works do not ensure the highest possible standards of built form and architecture
COMMENT: please explain! What are the ‘highest’ architectural standards for a radio tower?!!!!!!!!
Seven (7) of the purpose built poles are proposed to be installed along the eastern boundary, having direct views to the residential properties along Queens Avenue.
COMMENT: A road separates the poles and houses plus the poles are not directly on the fence. Hence, if this were an application for a three storey building and 40 units, we guarantee that we wouldn’t have such concerns when a road intervenes between properties. Please note that the poles will have ‘direct views’ – a euphemism perhaps for ‘overlooking’ for the possums/birds?
The proposed works do not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community (in particular; to retain public open space that is free from visual clutter)
COMMENT: what were the ‘aspirations and cultural identity of the community’ when C60 was rubber stamped? When a permit was given for a 4 storey screen on crown land? When an outdoor cinema got the green light? We also assume that council’s penchant for felling countless trees is really to reduce the ‘visual clutter’ within our parklands.
CONCLUSION: It is going to be absolutely fascinating to listen to the inevitable squirming that comes out of the mouths of most councillors on this one, especially when there is such limited ‘planning law’ to rely upon. Will Sounness vote ‘for’ on the basis of his usual stance – ie there are not sufficient ‘tools’ in the planning scheme to reject and it will go to VCAT anyway? Will Hyams and Lipshutz be consistent and vote ‘for’ since they keep claiming they have to apply ‘quasi-judicial’ planning law? Will any of these councillors have the guts to vote for a permit when the officer’s report says ‘no’?
And what of the Torres recommendation in itself? What to make of this refusal? In our view it does not stand a hope in hell of getting tossed out at VCAT – not because of VCAT’s generosity, nor even because of the power of the MRC and its political allies. The bottom line is that the officer’s report is simply woeful and sub-standard (as shown by the above airy-fairy quotes, lack of detailed reference to the planning scheme, etc’). This is not a planning application rejection. It is passing the buck to VCAT as has now become customary for Glen Eira.
++++++++
ITEM 9.2 – planning application for 3 storey, 14 units at 86 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Torres continues the political agenda with a recommendation for refusal. The site is zoned GRZ2. We again urge readers to consider the following:
However, the policy (housing diversity) also seeks that the growth encouraged by the policy is sensitive of the interfaces with existing residential development on adjoining sites and respects the scale of existing residential development on adjoining sites.
The proposal fails to comply with several ResCode standards relating to neighbourhood character, street setbacks, site coverage, side and rear setbacks, north facing windows, design detail and front fences. The non-compliance with these standards is indicative of a design that is not site responsive and is an overdevelopment of the site.
Σ Maximum overall building height of 9.45 metres
Σ Site coverage of 60.9% per cent
Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.
14 Apartments in total (12 x 2 bedroom apartments & 2 x 3 bedroom apartments)
Σ Basement car parking comprising of 28 car spaces in 14 stackers
Σ Reduction of 1 visitor car space
If the proposal is to proceed the street tree would need to be removed and replaced at cost to the permit holder. This is due to the location of the proposed crossover.
Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.
We’ve refrained from commenting on each of the above, except to remind readers that:
- There is no ‘preferred character’ statement for housing diversity in Glen Eira as we’ve shown from countless VCAT decisions. All there is the statement of ‘emerging character’ and in Trugannini Road, the ‘existing streetscape’ is already dominated by 3 storey developments.
- How many applications have exceeded site coverage, front setbacks and other ResCode guidelines, yet still managed to get their permits? Remember Lipshutz and the ‘unimportant’ encroachment of Hawthorn Road setbacks for his ‘how to vote card’ mate?
- Clearly a typo – ie 28 car spaces provided when all that is required is 18! Does anybody bother to proof read such material before it enters the public domain?
- What makes this report the most laughable can be found in the list provided below. It illustrates what has been happening in Truganini in recent years. Yet, in the same breath we get the nonsense about ‘visual dominance’ and ‘existing streetscape’. Most of the following were granted car parking waivers! Those applications without any date assigned as still to be decided.
86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car park comprising of up to fourteen (14) dwellings and a reduction of visitor car parking requirements on land affected by the Special Building Overlay
90 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of thirteen (13) dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (Notice of refusal issued – 17/4/2015)
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 Overlay – Amending the endorsed plans to include changes to dwelling layouts, changes to windows and building setbacks and the addition of a front terrace on the second floor level. (amended permit issued – 22/12/2014)
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 permit issued – 25/11/2014)
115 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising six (6) dwellings (amended permit issued – 16/9/2015)
9 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 20 dwellings above basement car park
44 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (planning permit issued – 30/4/2015)
21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-one (41) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (amended permit issued – 23/2/2015)
124 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double-storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amended (planning permit issued – 12/8/2014)
21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-two (42) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (first council refusal – vcat decision to grant permit on 6/6/2014)
Glen Eira Debates 
October 9, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Yup, worth a laugh. Torres has talent -great at doing what he is told and creating the necessary fiction. Pulitzer prize awaits.
October 10, 2015 at 9:50 AM
No mystery here. Decide the outcome first, then scratch around for anything to support the a priori decision. Even better if it’s completely one sided to fool councillors.
October 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Yep, there’s definitely some humdinger comments in the above not only do they represent a complete reversal of Council’s normal pro development attitude (at the expense of the residents) but they are also not substantiated by Council’s planning scheme or policies.
When the above applications go to VCAT, as they all will, after VCAT has reviewed both the applications and the planning scheme/policies, all will be approved by VCAT. It’s the only option available to VCAT when Council’s rejection is not supported by it’s own planning scheme or policies. .
BUT, since next year is an election year, the timing is perfect. A stage management opportunity too good to miss, particularly when Planning will be a huge election issue. Think about it. Resident objectors left with positive feelings for Council. Plus the combination of end of year and VCAT processing times, means that VCAT’s decisions to approve (i.e. reverse Council’s decisions) will be announced next year during the election lead up. Ideal for timing to play the blame VCAT card with examples. Since residents are unlikely to read the VCAT decision that will slam the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (which Councillors are aware of and responsible for but have done nothing to improve) they’ll be home and hosed.
October 10, 2015 at 11:30 AM
As an unfortunate growth zone resident, I fully recognise the bullsh*t that’s included in the above Officer’s Reports as the rationale to reject. If Council rejects these permits, their decisions will reversed when they go to VCAT.
If Councillor’s accept this bull, all my future objections (and I’m sure to have quite a few) will include a referenced quote to these comments. Something along the lines of
“With regards the proposed construction of a 3 storey multi unit building in a prevailing single storey residential area, I object to this development on grounds that, as stated by the Director of Planning in Planning Application no GE/PP-28162/2015 (86 Truganini Road, Carnegie),
. the development is not sensitive of the interfaces with existing residential development on adjoining sites and respects the scale of existing residential development on adjoining sites
. The proposal fails to comply with several ResCode standards relating to neighbourhood character, street setbacks, site coverage, side and rear setbacks, north facing windows, design detail and front fences. The non-compliance with these standards is indicative of a design that is not site responsive and is an overdevelopment of the site”.
Others might want to do the same.
October 10, 2015 at 4:48 PM
Ron ought to must have played pocket billards when writing this. Receiving only 2 objections, from the 439 notices sent, hardly supports defining this application as the “tipping point”.
Given the Council’s past and current dealings with the MRC and Trustees, the suggestion that this is the “tipping point” has to be in contention for the most absurd proposition ever put forward by Council. If Council has finally decided to take a stand this was not a good one to pick.
There are plenty of major issues with the racecourse, with major adverse ramifications to the whole of Glen Eira that Council has chosen to ignore time and time again.
For example
.Where was Council, or should I say the secretive select steering, during the Caulfield Village Planning Process.
. Where was Council when the Caulfield Village Development Plans were discussed and the MRC indicated that residents of the 2000 dwellings would be expected to use Caulfield Park rather than the Racecourse Public Park
. Open Space Strategy – simply refused to discuss the Racecourse Public Park
. Where was Council when the 2011 centre landscaping was proposed (recently described by the AG and Trust Representatives) as unappealing, inadequate and difficult to access.
. What’s Council done, other than publish a draft agreement in 2011 re perimeter fencing.
. Doesn’t Ron remember the arguments put by Council for passing the Big Screen? Nothing to do with it’s location, all to do with “if we pass this MRC will have to open up the centre”. Suckers!!!!
. What about the damming AG’s report?
Picking this one as the “tipping point” is just plain ludicrous. All it will do is provide years of Monty Pythonish mirth for the MRC, State Government and VCAT.
October 11, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Paul Burke as Basil Fawlty, Lobo is Manuel alway getting a smacked to the back of his head
October 11, 2015 at 9:26 PM
he he… Who is Sybil, the maid and other characters.
October 11, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Our temerarious councillors have encouraged the development of a culture in which first staff decide the outcome they want, then use officer reports to persuade Council to support their recommendation. A competent councillor should at least ask whether all relevant information has been provided, including what all the relevant matters that must and/or should be considered are, along with a list of relevant decision criteria. Few officer reports contain this sort of information, so Council repeatedly make ad-hoc decisions that fail to comply with their own Scheme.