No one is perfect. Mistakes are made –even repeated sometimes. But, (and this is a huge ‘but’) if nothing is learnt from these mistakes and they are allowed to go on and on, then there is something drastically wrong with the people involved and the organisation.
Glen Eira Council, and especially its councillors, are living proof that the pro-development agenda is all that matters. Why? Because this bunch has consistently repeated and repeated the most catastrophic errors in planning and have done absolutely nothing to either learn from their errors, or to address the real culprit – ie the planning scheme. Instead these 9 councillors have been content to play the ‘populist’ game by repeatedly lopping off one or two storeys, or reducing the number of dog boxes in applications. The result? The developer goes to VCAT and gets what he originally wanted. And the main reason? Because of the abysmal, pathetic, planning scheme that has not been properly reviewed or adequately amended since at least 2003. Even worse is that when decision after decision made by councillors is overturned, they have still done nothing. That in our view is not just stupidity, but blatant incompetence and indifference to residents’ plight.
Why can we say this? Because we have gone through every planning decision made by councillors since they were elected in late 2012. In every single decision where councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the numbers of units, and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Councillor decisions are therefore not worth the paper they are written on and residents need to hold them accountable for not doing their jobs.
This is the first in a series of decisions we will be presenting. The failure of this administration and its 9 councillors needs to be revealed in all its gory detail. For each decision presented below we also quote from the VCAT judgement highlighting the inadequacy of the planning scheme. Please note that cases involving child care/aged care are not included in this ‘review’ nor are those applications which were refused outright.
COUNCILLOR DECISION #1 – 13/11/2012. 1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD, CARNEGIE.
The application was for 12 storeys and 173 units. The officer recommendation was to grant a permit with some conditions. Esakoff and Pilling moved the motion for a permit for 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. On the casting vote of the chairman this motion got up. Lobo was absent. Voting for 8 storeys were – Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams and Delahunty. The developer went to VCAT and got his 12 storeys and 173 dwellings. Here is part of what the judgement stated – The review site is in Precinct 1 ‘ Dandenong Road Precinct’ of the Carnegie Urban Village. There are no specific policies for this Precinct in clause 22.05 as they expired in 2007.
It is common ground that 29% of the proposed dwellings (50 in total) rely on ‘borrowed light’. It is also common ground that these are one-bedroom dwellings of the same design and that all are oriented to the east. It is relevant that the council is not opposed to dwellings with bedrooms reliant on ‘borrowed’ light and only contests the proportion of such dwellings in the building
COUNCILLOR DECISION #2 – 27/11/2012 – 127-131 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
The application was for 4 storeys and 12 dwellings. Officers recommended a permit. Delahunty & Lipshutz moved to grant this permit. Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz voted in favour of the permit. Lobo was again absent. Amended plans were put in at VCAT and council imposed new conditions. VCAT deleted most of the conditions and stated in part – The planning scheme does not specifically address these detailed urban design matters…
COUNCILLOR DECISION #3 – 5/2/3013 – 483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD,ELSTERNWICK
The application was for 8 storeys and 57 dwellings. Officer recommendation was that a permit be granted. Lipshutz and Sounness moved that a permit be granted for 6 storeys and 45 dwellings. Voting for this motion were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling and Sounness. The developer went to VCAT and there was ‘mediation’ where council accepted 7 storeys. An objector then appealed to VCAT. The member stated in part – In this context I am satisfied that a seventh floor as accepted by Council is sufficiently consistent with the policies of Council for development in this activity centre and does not result in any significant amenity impact associated with the height through overshadowing or overlooking.
COUNCILLOR DECISION #4 – 5/2/2013 – 687-689 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CAULFIELD
Application was for 4 storey and 29 dwellings. Officer recommendation was for a permit with 28 dwellings. Lobo and Delahunty moved to refuse permit. The motion was lost. Pilling and Lipshutz then moved motion for 3 storeys and 25 dwellings. Lipshutz’s argument at the time (since this was the same council meeting as the case above) was and we quote – we’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion to reject. Voting for the 3 storeys were – Lipshutz, Pilling, Magee, Esakoff, Sounness, Hyams. The developer went to VCAT and a permit was granted for 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Part of the judgement stated – There is nothing within the Housing Diversity Areas referring to preferred maximum heights for built form.
COMMENT
Residents need to be fully aware that just because a permit is refused, or councillors in their grandstanding decide to lop off a storey or two, that is by no means the end of the matter. Our analysis reveals time and time again how VCAT decisions are made on the basis of what the planning scheme does not contain. We repeat –
- No structure plans
- No decent Design and Development Overlays
- No Urban Design Frameworks worthy of that name
- No preferred character statements for housing diversity
- No development contributions levy
- No review of flood areas
- No parking precinct plans
And those responsible for this failure? Councillors – since they have the power to insist on reviews and ordering the pen pushers to come up with amendments that would plug many of the current gaps in the scheme. Instead, they continue to pretend that removing a storey is all they can do! This is either sheer stupidity or complicity!
Glen Eira Debates 
February 18, 2016 at 7:31 AM
In short Glen Eira stinks. The Councillors who play heavy politics on the cost of residents need to be dumped. The liberal party’s chances to form a government in Vic will not have any opportunity unless their members in Council are forced to step down or better still resign. Man O Man, Women O Women.
February 18, 2016 at 8:40 AM
It is complicit on the part of the Administration who is pursuing their own development (without considering any cumulative flow on impacts) agenda and gross negligence on the part of Councillors who have consistently failed to provide oversight and lack any detailed knowledge of good planning principles. Their, easier to listen to the distorted views and reports of the Administration than it is to listen to residents or actually read VCAT grounds for decisions approach, is a bloody disgrace.
In terms of lopping off a story or 2, it beggars belief that not one Councillor has ever got up and said something along the lines of
“Hang on, back this truck up!!!! Prior to this application coming to Council, it has gone through preliminary negotiations (ie planning scheme fundamentals, eg. heights, building footprint, established) with the Planning Department and subsequent detailed analysis of the detailed plans to ensure compliance with all aspects of the Planning Scheme. Conditions, by their nature, relate to ancillary aspects of the development and should not apply to something as fundamental as height or building footprint which should be clearly defined in the Planning Scheme. Therefore, why has this 9 storey application been presented when it’s clearly inappropriate for the area and set’s a ground breaking precedent. What’s missing from the Planning Scheme and/or the Planning Department’s assessment”
February 18, 2016 at 10:20 AM
Two hot potato political issues have emerged now in Glen Eira, RGZ and SkyRail. Both of them will continue to shape the elections in Glen Eira. RGZ generates a lot of unhappy people near high-rise developments, but they did not establish an angry, passionate groundswell movement like NO SKYRAIL. Unless they do they may not achieve the changes on the Council.
The SkyRail issue is different. Clearly there is a lot of noise from the NO SKYRAIL group, who are supported by Liberal Party. On the other side there is the determination of the Andrews governmenty to squeezde as much as possible from the elevated train idea. Here is some more on SkyRail (http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/news/new-training-and-jobs-partnership-with-chisholm-institute ). The Andrews government is going to train and retrain people to get more of elevated trains to be implemented in Melbourne and Victoria. Of particular importance is the removal of Glen Huntly level crossings (http://www.danielbowen.com/), It seems inevitable that SKyRail is likely to be implemented between Ormond and Caulfield to get rid of the Glen Huntly Rd and Neerim Rd crossings. I can only applaud such a move, since it will invigorate the shopping strip, beautify the area, increase useful public space and be cheaper.
There is also a move by those that support SkyRail and oppose useless train trenches solution to get a petition to the government
Sensible debate – not politcal spin
Feb 17, 2016 — Supporters – thank you! I started this petition to give some airtime to the flaws of train trenches, which are the most probable alternative to “skyrail”. With your help, we are achieving this goal. By supporting this petition, you have helped to get people talking about level crossing removals; about what you want or don’t want in your suburb; about what works and what doesn’t work for your… read more on
https://www.change.org/p/no-more-train-trenches/
February 18, 2016 at 6:49 PM
I’m not sure what the point of sensible debate would be. And who would the debate be between? I don’t see how the Government proposes to squeeze all that it wishes to fit into a 20m wide corridor while complying with residential amenity standards. It might be that it has no intention of complying. It might intend to compulsorily acquire land from hundreds of properties to widen the corridor. We don’t know. Perhaps the government doesn’t know and that’s why there are so few details.
When you were consulted, what values did you nominate for Standards B6, B8, B9, B13, B17, B18, B28 and B32 in NRZ, GRZ, RGZ? If open space is important to you, what use do you think should be made of the 54ha currently tied up by the MRC in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and what fraction of $1.6B would it cost to implement? How much of the land that is to remain PUZ should be devoted to carparking or “future development opportunity”? What elevated rail systems around the world epitomize the design standards you believe the government is proposing?
February 19, 2016 at 9:26 AM
i wonder what happened to the John Patrick landscaping design?
February 18, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Back to Skyrail with this latest from the Leader – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/traders-say-answers-needed-on-proposed-skyrail-plans/news-story/57be78fe9df2846c46f821e2674261a4
For those residents living in a Heritage Overlay, and inexplicably zoned Residential Growth to boot, then there’s this comment from a recent VCAT decision which again shows up the woeful planning scheme and how little protection it gives to residents – “It is noteworthy that the Council does not provide specific direction in the Scheme, or in the reference documents of the Scheme, as to the desired form, materials or appearance of alterations and additions to dwellings affected by this overlay.”
February 18, 2016 at 4:43 PM
The Leader erroneously describes 10m as “two storeys”—they’ve taken lessons from the MRC apparently. The plan is to run 3 storeys, not 2, above street level for several kilometres.
February 18, 2016 at 11:02 AM
One of the issues is the current proposal is Hughesdale station is going to moved from the City of Monash (Oakleigh)into the City of Glen Eira (Murrumbeena), what is councils view on this?
February 18, 2016 at 11:49 AM
I have lost count of the number of times it has been reported here that councillors have lamented what is not in the planning scheme. I remember reading that Sounness complains about the lack of tools. Okotel has been worried about the splurge in development along Neerim Road and that council has to look at infrastructure and traffic management. Esakoff is worried about heights and wants roof top gardens. I can’t remember what else others have said. It all boils down in the end that they will say what they think people want to hear and then not do a single thing about it. You don’t have to be a genuis to see what is happening as a result of the zones and how definite action is needed. The action has been needed for the past ten years at least.
February 18, 2016 at 6:31 PM
The Local Government Act Review process is now at a stage where Submissions have been published and Forum are being conducted to further inform and consult with communities and residents.(http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/issues-and-reform-ideas). If any reader, particularly from Glen Eira, has made a Submission then it would be useful to share your thoughts with others on Glen Eira Debates.
I also draw your attention to the Aberdeen Agenda: Commonwealth principles on good practice for local democracy and good governances (http://www.clgf.org.uk/aberdeen-agenda/ ), which will become part of Victoria’s LG Act. I note that GE Debates concerns and complaints are with Glen Eira Council not being anywhere close to such Principles. It is being run on the basis of Autocratic Democracy. You can only voice your support or displeasure by voting once every 4 years. In between those times the Council and administration can do whatever they like, within the loose framework of the existing LG Act, although in Glen Eira they are ignoring even that as Reprobate keeps reminding us.
The Aberdeen Agenda to be adopted will change that to a Participatory Democracy model. Your involvement in changes to Local Government Act Review can ensure that it may actually happen. If you do involve yourself with this process share your thoughts with us here.
February 19, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Rule one of the convention will never get up. The State will never give constitutional recognition the Local Government. Councils are a function of the State. Moreland Council would want to succeed from the State if liberal Government came to power. Councils given constitutional power would cause State Governments a lot of problems.
February 19, 2016 at 11:14 AM
The Victorian Government already recognises Local Government as the third tier of Government Other State also do that. The Federal Government is likely to recognise the reality if all States will recognise Local Government as the third tier. At issue is how to implement this recognition, what are the functions for each level and their interaction and/or co-operation.
February 19, 2016 at 1:57 PM
Federal and State Governments do recognise Local Governments as a function. They do not recognize them in them in the Constitution. Huge difference. All activities of Councils are subject to the LGA and hence the Victorian Parliament. No State or Federal Government would be so stupid to give Constitutional powers to what, in some cases is a roomful of dopes fighting each other. They would be using ratepayers money litigating against the Government that created them
February 19, 2016 at 5:40 PM
The Constitution of Victoria is contained in the Constitution Act 1975. It devotes Part IIA to local government. It is explicitly recognised as a tier of government in s.74A(1). In s.74A(2) it makes a series of claims about local government: that it is consituted by democratically elected councillors as the governing body [really stretching the truth]; that it is accountable and responsible for its decisions and actions [hah!]; and responsible for ensuring good governance [evidence??].
February 19, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Carnegie Resident (Feb 18, 6.49pm) makes good points that should be made loud and clear to the Government and be part of the debate. As for the 20m wide corridor you mention, I have actually gone out and measured the present rail width together with the adjoining streets in Glen Huntly (Royal Ave and Dorothy St), which adds up to 80m. That is very significant as the elevated rail connects the presently separated land areas. Interestingly, the present rail line also separates the communities, who hardly talk to one another. I’ve lived in the area for decades and have first hand experience of this happening. I believe that removing the rail line barrier would also improve adjacent communities interaction.
There is also the issue of Glen Huntly station, which in my view should be shifted to the north side of Glenhuntly Rd. This would enable the west, south and east sides of the shopping strip to develop much better. Interestingly, that a similar proposal was made over 10 years ago. We are still waiting. Hopefully, if the SkyRail technique is used for the wholw of Victoria, which many believe costs less than other techniques, that suggests to me that quicker elimination of level crossings can take place. I can’t wait for the Glen Huntly crossings to be removed.
Having said that I think that each part of rail line section needs to be looked at individually. So, Hughesdale may have different problem solutions to Murrumbeena or Carnegie. That is why an input should be made to the Have Your Say site http://your.levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/?_ga=1.10420213.1912752408.1455620666 .
February 19, 2016 at 6:45 PM
Indeed there are parts of the rail corridor on the Frankston line that have roads on either side and hence in planning terms is considered not to have a sensitive interface in those parts.
Past EE Gunn Reserve [itself a remant of the former Rosstown railway, along with Dorothy Av underline bridge] heading south, the corridor narrows to 18m and has a sensitive residential interface. I’m not surprised that LXRA chose the design that they did for that segment.
I’ve seen several posts and letters in the media urging us all to have a look at Vancouver, so I did. Whether Glenhuntly station stays where it is or relocates north, here’s an example of what Vancouver has chosen to do with a similar space:
February 20, 2016 at 9:35 PM
I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say by showing me this skyscraper. Vancouver SkyTrain system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver) consists of 68.7km with 47 stations and on 3 different line including connection to its metro system. If a SkyTrain in Melbourne would go near CBD e.g 12 Yarra St (street view) you would see a similar picture. This has very little to do with Hughesdale, Murrumbeena or Glen huntly. Some buildings in Carnrgie are 6 storey. In fact SkyRail if built first would probably prevent such high storey buildings to be constructed nearby.
February 27, 2016 at 9:51 AM
Lazy proponents of Skyrail have said “look at Vancouver” [or Paris or Berlin]. I looked. The development above is over 20km from Vancouver CBD. Glen Huntly is only 11km from Melbourne CBD. My comment was perfectly clear. It shows what Vancouver chose to do. We can emulate Vancouver or do something different. I take it you are arguing we should do something different. Fine.
No More Train Trenches argued for shifting the station so the whole area could “develop much better”, whatever that means. I’m pointing out that large sites without sensitive residential interfaces and no height limits are natural targets for substantial development. The bigger the development, the more “vibrant” and “reinvigorated” the area apparently.
February 27, 2016 at 11:18 AM
You DO realise the photo is of a SkyTrain station don’t you?
February 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM
I can probably add to the list after attending VCAT next week. So stupid when we could get in control of the situation!