PS: An amended permit is now being sought for this development. Whilst there is a reduction in the number of single bedroom apartments and an increase in two bedroom ones, the vast majority of changes include a REDUCTION IN SETBACKS! Next door to this development is a single storey dwelling, and next door to this, another consolidated site of 3 properties has also been razed to the ground without a single blade of grass remaining.
The photos below depict the ‘before and after’ of the first 3 property sale in Bent Street, Bentleigh. Yet, this council has the gall to claim that its planning scheme is sufficient to protect against moonscaping!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 11, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Looks like Frogmore – well done Council!!!!
October 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM
Technically what Crs Lipshutz, Okotel, Esakoff, Magee and Lobo decided back in March was that no direction should be provided to staff, that a Classified Tree Register should be deferred indefinitely, that Council was happy with the current freedom developers have to “moonscape” their land. Four councillors opposed the motion. That might just have been for public show though.
October 11, 2015 at 1:02 PM
All are twits.
October 11, 2015 at 1:15 PM
They are also a bunch of spineless gits, who are not prepared to accept any responsibility for the planning disasters that we are witnessing in Glen Eira.
October 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM
You’re not wrong. Moonscaping is bad enough in NRZ areas. It is ten times worse in housing diversity. Council’s environmental record is shocking. Trees are collateral damage for them. If it interferes with profit they must go. Gesac pours out more carbon gases than anything else and probably uses more water and power than any other facility. Council let this happen because it was cheaper than insisting on proper sustainability measures. We will be paying the price for this for decades. If all the money spent on pouring more and more concrete into parks was diverted to good sensible planning and environment policies we would not be in the mess we are in now.
October 11, 2015 at 7:54 PM
These would be Liphutz’s developer mates getting what they like, killing everything
October 11, 2015 at 8:25 PM
I accept that not all trees can be seen as “significant” and can be removed. What I cannot accept is that probably 99% of all new developments are entirely denuded of trees and all vegetation. There must be at least one tree on every second or third development site that is worthy of retention surely. Glen Eira doesn’t call itself “green” because its trees are tiny shrubs. Massive and beautiful trees are felled and nothing is done about it. I don’t buy the line that it is my property and I should be able to do whatever I like on my property. There are plenty of rules which stop people doing what they like on their properties. We live in a community and a society and not on an isolated island.
Residents have time and time again said that they value trees everywhere – not only in parks but on private property. These should and must be protected for the future. Council’s role is not to be the handmaiden to developers but to protect the environment and residents. They haven’t only failed to do this but are nothing short of a disgrace. No wonder the growing public perception is that there must be both collusion and corruption to account for what is happening.
October 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM
While it’s not ok, the reality is it’s been moonscaped. Has a planning permit application been lodged?
If an application has been lodged Council should have inspected the site and either given moonscaping approval or identified significant vegetation required to be maintained. As per the pictures, either a permit has not been lodged or no vegetation was deemed significant.
If an application hasn’t been lodged the developer is home and hosed if he/she moonscapes and waits 12 months and 1 day from the date of property acquisition to the lodging of a planning permit application. It’s pretty much in line with how long it takes to prepare, submit and go through the initial argy-bargey with Council process for getting the permit application ready for advertising (i.e open to community consultation). In Glen Eira the result is a developer’s first rule is to remove any or all vegetation (buildings optional) that could even remotely be considered significant before commissioning architectural plans
Highly questionable kudos goes to long term Crs. Lipshutz and Esakoff for getting ningnong Crs. Magee, Lobo and Okotel to agree with them. As for the ningnongs, what the F*CK !!!!!. If you don’t know it why don’t you!!!! If it was a sell out it I’ll lay odds that the end result wasn’t worth it!!!!!!
October 11, 2015 at 10:10 PM
This property was granted a permit by council in December 2014. It was for 4 storeys and 55 units. Sounness and Magee moved the motion to adopt the officer’s recommendations. Lobo was the only councillor to vote against the motion. It was the first multiple lot sale in Bent Street. From memory 3 owners got together and sold for over $5.7 million. In the Ron Torres report there was no mention made of on site trees. Street trees however were mentioned in the conditions – ie Tree Protection Zones.
October 12, 2015 at 7:37 AM
So what’s the point you are making regarding trees and moon scapping!!!
Council granted a permit almost a year ago. The permit allowed for the removal of all existing vegetation on the site. The 3 adjoining lots have been cleared for development. All sanctioned by officialdom.
Quite frankly the only thing of relevance in your above comment and posting is “Street trees however were mentioned in the conditions – ie Tree Protection Zones” and that’s not particularly informative.
October 11, 2015 at 10:02 PM
What a great opportunity to plant a vegie crop for community or charity !!!!
October 12, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Then we need Council to do something about trees being chopped down in our beautiful suburb and continue to approve a concrete jungle. We need trees for shade, fresh air, birds and animals to live in. I so look forward to looking out my window at a concrete wall. That is what is wrong with the present zoning laws. They need to be reviewed to restore a balance. The developers don’t care about this all they care about is making more money. Shame shame,shame
October 12, 2015 at 12:07 PM
http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-investment/leisure/43038-bentleigh-development-sites-savills.html
October 12, 2015 at 3:46 PM
Council is itself a property developer. It doesn’t hesitate to cut down trees if they are inconvenient or do not contribute to Council’s preferred character. Several trees along Gardeners Rd East Bentleigh were sacrificed for carparking and of course haven’t been replaced.
The issues concerning landscaping are poorly dealt with in the Planning Scheme. “Site Coverage” ignores the ubiquitous concrete slab roof spanning a basement carpark these days resulting in inadequate landscaping opportunities. Permeability standard is widely ignored—it is not even discussed in the officer report for 14-18 Bent St—but its purpose is not for landscaping, only to reduce the rate at which water runs off land into our inadequate drainage system. B13 Landscaping standard is purely discretionary, meaning Council can ignore it.
Even when conditions are put on a permit concerning landscaping, it’s usually with weasel words allowing the “responsible authority” to vary the requirement without transparency or accountability. 14-18 Bent St only needs to plant 9 trees in locations to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. They don’t even have to be “advanced canopy trees” [minimum 3 metres tall when planted]. After all, the predominant landscape features of RGZ consists of concrete, and only concrete.
BTW GE/PP-27334/2014/A to amend the Permit for 14-18 Bent St is currently being “advertised”.