Please consider the lists provided below which highlight the various amendments that neighbouring councils have initiated in the past 2 years – since the zones came in – in contrast to what Glen Eira has produced.
BAYSIDE
Amendments c112-115 – introducing mandatory height limits into activity centres (ie includes commercial as well)
Amendment – c121 – extending their Water Sensitive Urban Design policy
Amendment C139 – Development contributions levy
Amendment C140 – Bayside Housing Strategy of 2014 & subdivision size of land
And plenty of new heritage overlays on various properties and areas
BOROONDARA
Amendment C108 – permanent Design & Development Overlays in many areas
C109 – extends interim height controls for Neighbourhood Centres (ie includes commercial)
C139 – more structure plans and design and development overlays
C149-C152 – more heritage overlays
C152 – Maling Road ‘building form guidelines’
C229 – amends council’s LPPF (local planning policy framework)
STONNINGTON
C153 – design and development overlay
C154 – Chadstone expansion includes Incorporated plan for the land
C155 – development overlay for heights along Yarra
C168 – 2 new Neighbourhood Character overlays and development overlays
C172 – Chapel Revision Structure Plan
C175 – updates Municipal Strategic Statement plus new neighbourhood character policy
C177 – environmental sustainability design
C180 – public acquisition overlay
C181-184 – various heritage overlays
C185 – 2 new Neighbourhood character overlays, design and development overlays and their integration with zoning for GRZ sites
C186 – open space levies where 4 suburbs are paying 8% – South Yarra, Windsor, Prahran, etc
Many new heritage overlays here.
C212 – Malvern Road Neighbourhood Structure Plan
C217 – more significant character overlays
C220 – extension of structure planning controls for Windsor, Prahran, South Yarra
GLEN EIRA
C100 – Rezones Industrial 3 To Mixed Use Zone (Neerim/Emily St)
C102 – Revises Non Residential Uses In Residential Zones Policy
C107 – Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 2) To Moodie St., Caulfield East
C113 – Heritage Overlay On Some Sites In Caulfield North
C120 – Open Space Levy Of 5.7%
C121 – North Road Sites From Commercial 2 To Mixed Use Zone
C123 – Updated Child Care Policy
C130 – Environmental Audit Overlay In Glen Huntly
C135 – Public Acquisition Overlay On Magnolia Road
C139 – Rezone Glen Eira Rd/Hotham St Corner From Commercial 2 To Mixed Use Zone
C140 – Public Acquisition Overlay On Mimosa Road/Mile End Road
AND THE ATTEMPTED VIRGINIA ESTATE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD YIELD 4,600 DWELLINGS!
COMMENT
- Rezoning to MUZ or Commercial means more residential high rise
- Magnolia Road public acquisition overlay was gazetted in August. Three months down the track and the property still hasn’t been purchased for open space. There was a public acquisition on this property for years, then removed in 2008, and then re-imposed. Superb planning and now we fear that council simply does not have the money to purchase anything.
- ‘reviews’ of child care policy and non-residential uses, simply changes the playing field – now making it easier for such developments to encroach into Neighbourhood Residential Zones.
- Planning Panels have recommended a total review of Heritage. The current policy dates back to 1996. Another museum piece!
Conclusion? Whilst other councils have been busy shoring up their defences against over-development, and rejecting Planning Panel decisions and pushing ahead for Ministerial approval of their amendments, Glen Eira continues in the same old fashion – tinkering and avoiding anything that might constitute an obstacle to development.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 8, 2015 at 4:54 PM
Each time Council has its decision overturned by VCAT you’d expect Council would be calling for a report about what changes could and should be made to the Planning Scheme. Instead, we just get hand-wringing. Not good enough. The rezoning of some C2Z land to MUZ is an interesting decision and a change from past Council policy, where they preferred C1Z [no amenity standards] over MUZ. Extraordinarily, they have defined “inappropriate development” to mean it is prohibited; anything else is in contrast “appropriate”. Yup, they’re that reckless.
November 8, 2015 at 8:32 PM
Tactic these days is to refuse applications. This provides plenty of good info about the planning scheme weaknesses which has and will continue to be ignored. Can’t have council admitting that there are bloopers in the planning scheme. Much easier to refuse, then blame vcat.
November 8, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Interesting decisions. It was argued that C2Z is used to ensure greater commercial use of those properties for higher employment opportunities. Changing it to MUZ gives other opportunities. It may well be better. However, unless there is a clear purpose for such changes in the City developments, then it seems they are proposals to satisfy individual developers plans or ideas. This is NOT the way Council town planning, urban design, amenity standards can be maintained or achieved. The current Planning Scheme seems to be irrelevant to developers plans, residents wishes and clearly makes no coherent sense.
November 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Correct. Rezoning amendments are the brain child of property owners and developers. Council gets developers to do the work. Lazy planning all round.
November 10, 2015 at 2:33 AM
To this day, “Urban Village Structure Plan” [1999] is a Reference Document in the Scheme but hasn’t been implemented. The Scheme contradicts it. Planning decisions don’t match the Scheme. And yet Council has the temerity to say that this putrid mess has been created through extensive consultation. They couldn’t even get the boundaries of precincts to match between Scheme and Plan.
Even back in 1999 Council noted that “extreme traffic congestion is experienced on Koornang Rd between the highway and the railway line”. Their policy further said of “Precinct 2” in Carnegie: “residential accomodation is not encouraged in this precinct as the benefits of employment provided by industry outweigh further expansion of residential areas”. So we get 12-storey residential developments there instead. Council hasn’t even maintained its Scheme, hence this area morphed into “Precinct 1” where higher-density residential development is encouraged [with “higher-density” never defined], but the explicit policies covering the precinct in the Scheme expired back in September 2007 [“only” 8 years ago].
No councillor or council officer or VCAT Member has ever quoted or even considered policies such as “Residential development takes account of established traffic characteristics of the area and does not add to identified traffic conflicts”. The message from Council has always been that NOTHING should be allowed to constrain development, and that all policies and objectives and standards are purely discretionary, able to be ignored whenever convenient.
November 10, 2015 at 8:43 AM
I would have to completely agree with your statement on the traffic officer reports, no amount of traffic is ever too much, no local characteristic is ever seen as a danger, no pedestrian hazard is ever identified or eliminated. Traffic management in Glen Eira is a voodoo science at the best. We are now filling the subterranean car parks in a lot of developments with car stackers to meet the parking requirements in GE, I have my doubts that these stackers get used, it would good if one of our 9 lazy councillors got off their bums and asked for a report of the effectiveness of these car stackers