CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Adding insult to injury, the final decision on Penang Street has now been brought down. The earlier VCAT order required the developer to submit amended plans for his three storey and 24 units proposal. This has now been done. The result is a reduction of two units (site in above image should now be read as 22 dwellings).
What is very disturbing in this final judgement is the position taken by council and Melbourne Water on potential flooding risks. We quote from the judgement –
The Potential for Overland Flow
- In light of the residents’ submissions about water flowing through this site in 2011, we expressed concern in our Interim Order as to whether the basement may be impacted by flooding and whether the ground floor apartments and associated paved courtyards may be subject to overland flow from the south. So, our Interim Order required the amended plans to be considered by Melbourne Water and the Council’s drainage engineering section.
- The Council’s Infrastructure Assets Manager has approved a flood level report that states there is no flood level or flood velocity applicable to this site. The report also states that the site “is not subject to flooding from the local Council drainage system based on flood level that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year.”
- Council’s Engineering Assets Department and Melbourne Water both advise that flooding is expected in the Penang Street road reserve directly adjacent to this site. The Council states the basement ramp should be designed to avoid flooding. Melbourne Water advises the road reserve flood level is 30.56m AHD (Australian Height Datum) and the northeast corner of the site has a surveyed surface level of 30.46m AHD, so the basement is vulnerable to flooding. Melbourne Water has requested a permit condition that the entry/exit driveway to the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 30.86m AHD, i.e. 300mm above the applicable flood level. The amended plans incorporate this apex. Melbourne Water also points out that finished floor levels of the ground floor of the building are higher than its minimum requirement of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
- None of the other parties have made any further submissions about this.
- Whilst we are cognisant of the residents’ submissions and photographs tendered about the overland flow, the view of the Council is that this site is not affected by a probable 1% in any one year occurrence of flooding from the local Council drainage system; and the view of Melbourne Water is the northeast corner of the site is below the applicable flood level for the Penang Street road reserve. The amended design addresses the potential for flooding of the basement in a manner that is acceptable to Melbourne Water. For these reasons, we are now satisfied that the implications associated with the potential for overland flow have been fully considered by the relevant authorities. In absence of any further submissions or evidence regarding the flooding potential of this site, we must give weight to the views of the relevant authorities. As such, there is insufficient reason to refuse this proposal on the basis of this issue.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1772.html
Glen Eira Debates 
November 19, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Pilling says residents love the planning scheme, and less car parking spaces in new development is ok, because we have lots of empty streets to park in
November 19, 2015 at 7:39 PM
Pilling is a Pillock – he doesn’t have a clue and the above clearly shows how out of touch he is.
November 19, 2015 at 10:13 AM
The map is truly frightening and it only shows a few McKinnon streets. The same is happening I would say all through Mckinnon. More frightening is council. They have dug their heels in as being the great planners of the century, when all the evidence shows how little thought and effort has gone into ensuring that developments don’t ruin what was a beautiful suburb.
November 19, 2015 at 11:01 AM
The chickens are coming home to roost and the apathetic residents of McKinnon are getting what they deserve, Hyam has been voted in, election after election with the same old false promises, and personal actions of “I will totally do you in, every opportunity I get”
Honestly what do they expect
November 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM
You should do your homework. Penang St and indeed all of McKinnon north of McKinnon Rd is in Rosstown Ward, not Tucker Ward, so Hyams election (whatever one may think of him) has nothing to do with those most impacted by these zones.
That said, I am very happy to point the finger at our Rosstown “representatives”, especially Pilling who was rude and patronising in his dealings with McKinnon residents in his first outing as Mayor. (We have not forgotten him standing in Penang St and talking about his vision for 3 storey apartment blocks back to back through the whole zone).
Also, McKinnon residents have not been apathetic. Indeed, Penang St had one of the highest number of objections for years in Glen Eira, as well as gathering hundreds of petition signatures, and running an active community site through Facebook. Many objectors took an active part in the VCAT appeal. Many residents have been very active opposing other applications.
Have we been quieter lately? Well, yes. Because, sadly, despite active campaigning and plenty of “off the record” discussions with certain councillors promising imminent changes to the planning scheme following the state election, absolutely nothing has changed in the past 18 months. With Pilling taking the reins again, we are guaranteed no changes will be made. He and Souness were the only ones that voted for Penang St at council level. Have we given up? No, but we sure are feeling pretty battle-fatigued.
So far as the Penang St decision is concerned. The highlighted parts show that residents didn’t file any further submissions regarding flooding. That’s true and that’s because it was self-evident at the hearing, and from the interim decision, that the permit was going to be granted. In the face of both GECC and Melbourne Water’s submissions, it was never going to be worth the time and expense (or stress) of trying to find an expert witness to say anything different, because that is the only person VCAT would have taken any notice of.
Besides, VCAT was only interested in the flooding impact on the proposed property, not surrounding properties. Frankly, if GECC and Melbourne Water are wrong and the basement and ground floor apartments do flood due to water running down from Graham Ave (which is what residents expect given their personal observations in 2011), serve the investors who will buy these crappy apartments off the plan right.
In fairness to VCAT, the hearing officers at least took more notice of a number of residents’ concerns (including flooding, setbacks, etc) than our esteemed council officers did. They were happy to just waive the application through as originally presented without blinking.
I just hope that the whole process has cost the developer a bucketload of money. With the loss of 2 apartments, incurring the costs of the VCAT appeal (including barrister’s fees, experts, re-drawn plans, planner’s fees), it must be around $800,000+. With a bit of luck, with changes to investment loans, and a cooling economy, their profit margin will have diminished significantly.
November 19, 2015 at 12:08 PM
McKinnon is notorious for flooding issues as is Carnegie. Yet, Council maintains that its mooted amendment C70 on Special Building Overlays (ie flooding protection) is ‘on hold’. No reasons have been provided for this delay. All council has stated is that it has spent millions and Melbourne Water only around $14,000 on drainage. Again, residents need substantiated answers to the following questions –
1. If Melbourne Water can work so collaboratively with Bayside and Port Phillip over the past 18 months and succeed in drawing up new SBO’s and amendments that take account of current flood conditions, then why hasn’t this happened in Glen Eira?
2. What drainage upgrades has council undertaken since the major floods of 2011? Where were these located? And how many of them were specifically designed to address known flooding issues and NOT helping out developers? (ie millions were spent around the Caulfield Village site, that in our view was to facilitate the massive proposed increase in development for this project)
3. Council can claim that “local drainage” is not a problem in Penang st. However, conflating Melbourne Water Drains and Council Drains, is totally meaningless. Both interact and impact on surrounding homes.
4. The arguments put forward by both authorities are atrocious. The development site safe from flooding, but the land slopes, so neighbouring properties will be affected. An appalling state of affairs all round!
November 19, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Well, here’s hoping that the south-west corner of the development catches the bulk of overland flow. Certainly, in 2011, the water flowed from that direction, i.e. down Graham Ave and into Penang St, and also between existing 2 and 4 Penang st (the development site) and Claremont Terrace. Evidence was submitted to that effect at the hearing, including images. During questioning, even the developer’s landscaping expert said that the south-west corner of the development, which will be below street level, would be a “bathtub” in a deluge. However, none of that got much of a mention in the interim decision, and indeed, the hearing officers seemed to have doubts about residents’ own experience and observations.
November 19, 2015 at 1:43 PM
I would agree with on Pilling he sold out the Greens, and has voted with 100% with Libs ever since. The man has turned out to be as worthless (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
November 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM
You mention “battle fatigue”. That is what council relies on continually. They turn a deaf ear to residents and hope that in time the anger and the negative publicity will dissipate. What they cannot control is residents’ memory and social media such as this site. The election will not help the residents of Penang Street, but it will help countless others when these councillors receive the comeuppance non votes they deserve.
November 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Sure it cost the developer bucket loads, but not as much a you think because it’s all tax deductible as being the cost of the permit.
Thanks, just another little something our esrtwhile Councillors don’t think about.
November 20, 2015 at 6:45 AM
Developers do not pay tax. It is all deductions and losses.
November 19, 2015 at 1:02 PM
This cannot be allowed to go on. The longer council waits to introduce any amendments will make it impossible to change a thing. No minister in his right mind would agree to rezoning streets to neighbourhood residential when they are already inundated with three and four storey multi unit developments. If this is council’s plan, to delay until everything is gone, then the only words I can think of to describe them are despicable and incompetent. I have no faith in anything this council or its councillors say, and definitely no faith in the planning department or their objectives.
November 19, 2015 at 2:01 PM
I expect that is precisely Council’s plan. Sure there may be some conciliatory noises closer to election time, but that will be about it. Re Pilling, well, actually I would say he is worse than the Libs. He has voted on more than one occasion for developments where the Libs haven’t.
November 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Not just Pilling. All of them are pro development. Lobo has voted against developments on a regular basis but he is pretty useless and keeps blaming the state government instead of looking in his own back yard of councillors and pathetic administrators. Newton’s getting out whilst the going is good and before the shit really hits the fan and all his stuff ups become crystal clear to everyone. Good riddance and 10 years in the job too long.
November 19, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Cause there will be conciliatory noises near election time. Council is already refusing applications that fit within the planning scheme and the end result will be the dramatic increase in the number of Council decisions VCAT overturns. Whacko what a great election platform.
The blame VCAT game in going to be played big time during the elections. The scene is already being set.
And when Councillors begin playing this game, rather than taking a look at the planning scheme to see what needs to be done on behalf of residents, it says heaps about what they consider is important and exactly how if re-elected they intend to proceed.
Having just had a recent discussion with a Tucker Councillor, when you get a chance ask them what they are doing about the mess they have created. I guarantee you the conversation with go as follows
Resident: What are you doing about the excessive amount of development that the is currently occurring in Glen Eira. Other Councils are achieving significant breakthroughs why not Glen Eira
Cr.: We are trying but the Minister won’t approve our proposed changes.
Resident: Can you give an example of the changes and the reason the Minister wouldn’t approve it.
Cr.: He just won’t and the reasons vary
At this point I gave up in disgust, clearly if Magee (then Mayor) couldn’t even provide even one example of a suggested change and the reason for Ministerial denial there just wasn’t any point in continuing.
November 20, 2015 at 8:03 AM
I’m one of the many who are objecting to the 9 stories in Bentleigh. Our core group had a meeting with Planning Minister Richard Wynn and his advice to residents was to get Council to undertake structure planning.
Of course, Wynn was fully aware that residents have little say in Glen Eira and that this would be a major uphill, probably fruitless, battle.
Anyways, after doing some research, I’m gobsmacked. Had Council undertaken structure planning (when it was recommended in 2002 by an Independent Planning Panel assessing Council’s Housing Diversity/Minimal Change Policy), Council would have been able to implement a raft of planning scheme amendements (eg. Design and Development Overlay and Neighbourhood Character), which would have defined height limits and the character requirements for each of various centres and villages in Glen Eira prior to the Zone Implementation. It would also have been able to incrementally undertake other steps that would have mitigated the impact of today’s onslaught eg. traffic and parking management, open space acquisition, drainage provision.
For the past 13 years Council hasn’t done the basic legwork and that, combined with the Zone Implementation (much like Guy’s widely criticised hasty zoning in Fisherman’s Bend) explains what it happening today. And it’s pretty clear from Councillor’s comments and inactivity that Council intends to continue to do nothing.
November 24, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Begs the question….why doesn’t the state government amend the Local Government Act to make it mandatory for Councils to undertake regular strategic reviews and community consultation? How convenient for both levels of government here: council blame the state planning laws and VCAT; the state government blames local council for not implementing policies.
What all this points to is how ridiculously over-governed we are: three tiers of government who all pass the buck from one to another on important issues, all the while racking in taxes and charges to pay for duplicated bureaucracy. State government remains responsible for the bulk of infrastructure that is meant to support all these new residents: transport, schools, council, roads, hospitals, etc.
It’s a farce, therefore, for Wynne to wipe his hands of responsibility for GECC’s planning scheme, and not to be more proactive in pushing council to undertake the reviews it should so that zoning and state infrastructure and services are considered holistically.
PS I see we also have here another example of Magee’s private discussions. I would love to know from either Nick Staikos or Wynne what, if any, proposed changes have been put forward by GECC.
November 24, 2015 at 10:08 AM
We agree with you entirely. Council applied (by god knows whom, without a formal council resolution, and without proper delegated authority, in 2014) (before the election) for an extension on the legal requirement to review the planning scheme. Post election and the demise of Guy, they applied again. This time for 2 years. Wynne granted them one year – expiring, we presume June 2016. We do not know whether this date means that council WILL START reviewing (and “consulting”). If so, before anything happens it could be another 12 to 18 months down the track. Given that “consultation” on the dubiously called ‘review’ of 2010 began in 2009 – that could mean that the planning scheme including the important MSS which belongs in the dust-bin, will not have been revisited for 8 years – double the time the legislation says it must. This is not simple incompetence or negligence – it is a gift to the development industry at the expense of residents and reveals the collusion of government at all levels. Worse still, it reveals the lack of governance within Glen Eira and the lack of integrity by our elected representatives who have no problems in kissing plenty of arse!
November 19, 2015 at 10:59 PM
The developers and there political stooge mates will take you street by street, till they have it all, the wealthy want to own everything and rent it all back to you. Your housing your heath care even your very movement can be rented directly or via privatisation. All this will be sooner rather than later in the hands of the rich and powerful.
The top 85 richest people on this planet now own more than the poorest 50% of the worlds population. Rent slaves forever is the corporate paradigm. They can and will keep flying in people by the plane load to rent nice new shiny rooms being built. There are millions of people on the move worldwide, most looking for that western dream with most having little or no understanding on how it was built or their responsibility to community. That understanding takes a generation or two.
Democracy, or the lack of it, is a theme on this site, although never discussed in detail or meaning. What tattered democratic remains we claim today, are the worthy concessions hard won by working people after the two big world wars of last century. These freedoms are fading fast in this increasingly corporate world, just like the two generations of men and woman who new what freedom meant and modestly extracted them. In the main they were not greedy people, they just wanted a fair go.
We are now in deep doo-doos because we gave-up our freedoms for money and money isn’t wealth. The scramble along with the weather is heating up, installing air conditioning or 12 new councillors at the town hall will not solve any of our problems.
November 19, 2015 at 2:24 PM
Today’s Victorian Gazette included the following important amendments from various urban councils. All Glen Eira can do is produce some glossy “guidelines” that are basically worthless since nothing is in the planning scheme. Heaven for developers!
The amendment inserts Schedule 1 into the Significant Tree Study, containing 133 additional trees identified as significant trees – Boroondara
introduces a new Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.05 (Environmentally Sustainable Development); – Banyule (approved)
introduces a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Development; – Moreland (approved)
inserts Clause 22.13 – Environmentally Sustainable Development into the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to introduce a policy requirement that new development achieves best practice in environmentally sustainable development; and amends Clause 21.03-1 Environmentally Sustainable Land Use and Development of the Municipal Strategic Statement to include reference to the new policy as a means of implementing local strategy. – Port Phillip (approved)
introduces a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development; – Stonnington (approved)
introduces a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.10 Environmentally Sustainable Development; and – Whitehorse (approved)
introduces a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.17 Environmentally Sustainable Development; – Yarra (approved)
November 19, 2015 at 8:27 PM
My oh my – everyone else is getting on with the business of sound government and Newton and his merry band of no hopers sit back and twiddle their thumbs.
BTW – merely a guess. Melbourne Water would expect councils to work with them and to pay some of the cost. It goes against the grain in Glen Eira to pay for anything that they don’t have to – even if it means improving things for residents. I would also wager that they don’t have the spare cash they claim to.
November 20, 2015 at 7:53 AM
As an extension of this discussion, a nine storey development is proposed for a commercial zone at 322 Centre Road, Bentleigh (near Mahvo Street). This will be a precedent case for future commercial zone developments on Centre Road, McKinnon Road and Brewer Road (designated as urban villages!!). There is a Council Planning Conference at 6.30pm on MONDAY 23rd NOVEMBER at the Glen Eira Council Auditorium to discuss this development. Good attendance is expected, please attend to support. As no height restrictions exist for commercial zone developments, anything could happen if this proceeds. PLEASE ATTEND AND PROMOTE TO OTHERS.
November 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Game plan – Council reduces the devo from 9 to 6 -VCAT approves for 9 or more in the absence of agreed plan. First Council in Victoria to prepare foolish zones as it helped other councils to learn the mess of GE and did well for their residents.
November 20, 2015 at 9:22 AM
Remember the may was one of the four councillors who voted with great enthusiasm in support of the C60… with no traffic studies, not one metre of open space for about 10,000 residents and shoppers who will live in/visit the area daily. Coulcil even made profit sellling several lanes and reserves which could have been areas for relaxation for these poor residents and shoppers. These motions of sale of land were also supported enthusiastically by him even though he was a green at the time. This mayor who is spruiking interest in maintaining amenity has a bad track record.