This is a ‘public service announcement’! We are pretty confident that most residents would not have the foggiest as to the zoning of their area – unless they have already been impacted. Much credit for this must go to council in that its maps are illegible and not all streets named. Hence, we thought it worthwhile to pinpoint some of the streets that have now pretty much been given carte blanche for three and four storey developments. If anyone has any doubt that this is the case, then there’s this summation from a VCAT member recently – The two schedules to the zones (GRZ) have similar provisions. Both provide for a building height up to 10.5m and include reference to a lift overrun. This would appear to indicate that apartment style buildings might be acceptable in these areas. (Malina vs Glen Eira – 7th October 2015)
Glen Eira Debates 
November 2, 2015 at 2:43 PM
A large number of these streets have 3 or more zones or have one side of the street zoned GRZ while the other is NRZ. Clearly not much thought went into what zones was appropriate where.
November 2, 2015 at 2:50 PM
Exactly! and it’s worth noting that the government’s guidelines included the recommendation to avoid such zoning!
November 2, 2015 at 9:04 PM
Carnegie is the worst hit with all these streets geared towards medium and high density. Bentleigh which is larger and like Carnegie has a train station has less streets put into this category. Elsternwick isn’t listed but I would bet that it has less than either Bentleigh or Carnegie even if it is smaller in size. The zoning does not make any logical sense. Carnegie has been sent to the wall.
November 2, 2015 at 11:28 PM
8 storey development being built in Riddell Parade Elsternwick as we speak. On the north side of a public park that is now going to be in permanent shade. Thanks VCAT.
November 3, 2015 at 8:52 AM
A better catch-cry would be ‘thanks Council’ for a planning scheme that reads like a sieve designed to assist development. Perhaps you should revisit the actual VCAT judgement and focus on the following –
The review site and commercially used land to the north is in the Commercial 1 Zone, yet much of this Urban Village’s commercial areas are subject to a Heritage Overlay where new development must not adversely affect the significance of this heritage place. Relevantly, the review site and neighbouring commercial properties are not subject to this, or any other, overlays.
• he absence of a Design and Development Overlay specifying a preferred maximum height for new development on the review site influences our interpretation of the site’s policy setting. It implies that a development’s height is only limited by the specific combination of the policy and physical context of this, or any other, site in this Major Activity Centre that is not encumbered by such an Overlay.
• We found it relevant that numerous other 7 to 10 storey buildings have been approved in this Major Activity Centre, with many of these buildings having direct abuttals to low scale residential development. These buildings all display a different character to what currently exists and indicate that buildings of a comparable height to what is proposed have been considered acceptable in this centre
• We do not accept the concept that only the western end of Glen Huntly Road can accommodate taller buildings, as it is not reflected in State or local policy nor is reflected on the ground. The local policy does not distinguish between the eastern and western sides of the railway line nor does it call for ‘gateway’ buildings along Glen Huntly Road.
• Rather, it separates the centre into precincts where particular development outcomes are anticipated. We note that the zone boundaries make an intentional deviation to include this site. It anticipates larger scale buildings at heights compatible with adjacent buildings in the precinct containing the review site and identifies Stanley Street as a ‘point of transition from larger scale to the north’ to ‘lower scale to the south’. We find this explicitly encourages larger scale development on the review site, despite it lacking a frontage to Glen Huntly Road and despite it being on the east side of the railway line.
Overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza
65. We do not accept that the public amenity impact of overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza caused by this building is reason to reduce its height. The building will cast shadow on the southern corner of the Plaza, yet this shadow will recede before 10am at the equinox. We find this is a marginal and acceptable impact.
66. We acknowledge that local policy discourages such overshadowing yet find this must be balanced against other policy considerations that promote larger scale development on the review site. We also acknowledge Mr Brazilec’s observation that greater shadow will fall on the Plaza at times other than the equinox, yet remain of the view that the shadow is acceptable, as it will fall on a relatively small section of the Plaza even in mid-winter.
November 3, 2015 at 6:37 AM
Bentliegh and Carnegie are taking a bigger hit that Elsternick because lot sizes are bigger, land is cheaper, streets wider (although not by much) and they are without many overlays, particularly heritage.
Council knew all ot this way back when they implemented the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity Areas and they have been sitting back twiddling their thumbs ever since. They could have done something, they still can do something, but they won’t
November 3, 2015 at 6:53 PM
Absolutely right, but they have not been passive about their town planning strategy. They have actively and consistently argued that there is no need to have urban and town planning design strategies such a structure plans, as the free market will sort out where and what developments will take place. For example, some arguments have been put forward for developments to take place in shopping strips with shop top apartments, and that Glen Huntly Rd should be developed along the way Chappel St or Glenferrie Rd. However, no actual implementation plans have been done. Again, it was assumed that free market will naturally do that. Well, now after over 10 years of free market approach, we see where the developments are taking place. They are hardly, in shop top apartments or along Glen Huntly Rd. With Liberal State government in power, the free market approach of Glen Eira was adopted for the whole of Melbourne. If we continue with this approach we will have much more developments in those streets described as well as those next to them, since the Neighbourhood Character will change in time.
November 3, 2015 at 9:59 PM
If you think Labor Government will make it all nice then you are dreaming.
November 4, 2015 at 7:24 AM
Exactly Anon’s point Council has done nothing and is determined to continue to do nothing.
May I also point out to you that the free markets ability to sort things out is the very reason why town planning was created
November 4, 2015 at 10:50 AM
I do not think one way or another way, but at least the Labor Government is making right noises as far as Community Consultation. A little evidence of that is, Dorothy Ave was to be closed to cars, but now the rail gradient for North Rd level crossing removal was redesigned (after community consultation) not to close Dorothy Ave to cars. More importantly, the Council has to ask for rezoning and do a redesign of their planning scheme together with the wishes of the community. Other CounciIs are doing just that. I cannot see that happening in GECC while the current crop of Liberal members are still there. The only way out is to increase Labor or independent members on the Council. I do know that Liberal Party will be fighting very hard to ensure GECC stays as a Liberal stronghold. They are already preparing for the next Council election.