God help us if this is the quality of planning application reports by officers! We are referring to an application for 4 storeys and 49 units at 90-94 Mimosa Road, Carnegie. The area is zoned Residential Growth Zone, and a permit has already been granted by VCAT for 4 storeys and 50 units at 110-114 Mimosa Road – just a few doors down the same road. Of course, this is not even mentioned in the Camera report!
The recommendation is to refuse the permit. We wonder whether the correlation between refusals and the number of objections has again reared its ugly head (ie 56 objections). Please note, we are not disagreeing with the recommendation to refuse, but are merely pointing out how Rocky Camera is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with any valid reason to refuse the permit given council’s current planning scheme. In our opinion, the officer’s report is not only sub-standard, but hasn’t got a hope in hell of convincing VCAT.
Then of course, there is the argument that if council didn’t want ‘consolidation’ of lots, or 4 storey developments along Mimosa Road, then why did they zone this as a Residential Growth Zone? Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now, is far too late. If instead of simply drawing a circle on a map, council had done its work properly at the time of introducing the zones, we wouldn’t be having the farce that is now standard practice for council. Nor would we be having to cough up tens of thousands of dollars for officers and consultants to go to VCAT on wild goose chases and at ratepayers’ expense. This is literally money thrown down the drain.
Here’s why:
Camera writes – Policy encourages that the highest residential densities be located in Urban Villages, particularly for sites in closest proximity to a commercial activity Centre. The case is different here noting the subject site is located on the outer edge of the Residential Growth Zone with lower intensity zones located to the south and west.
COMMENT: decision after VCAT decision has already commented on the fact that proximity to the centre of an urban village is not an argument, and that if anything it is the GRZ2 zones which are to be taken as the ‘transition buffers’.
This illustrates that the subject site in a more sensitive ‘transitional’ location on the ‘fringe’ of the Residential Growth Zone, with lower density residential zones to the south and west.
COMMENT: When VCAT considers that a 2 storey differential is not enough to refuse a permit, then the difference between RGZ (4 storeys) and GRZ (3 storeys) will not carry any weight whatsoever. Readers should also remember how many developments that directly abutt Neighbourhood Residential zones (ie 2 storeys) have been granted permits by council alone.
Whilst policy also supports a degree of change in this area, the proposal is not site responsive nor is it contextually appropriate having regard to the disparity in scale and massing between the 4 storey building and prevailing single storey development pattern on the west side of Mimosa Road (and beyond).
COMMENT – Again a totally ludicrous argument when back yards in countless streets are the ‘buffer’ between RGZ and the other zones. Or, streets become the buffers between the various zones – ie one side of Garden Avenue Glen Huntly is zoned for 3 storeys (GRZ1) and the opposite side is 2 storeys (NRZ). One section of Balaclava Road is also zoned RGZ and across the road it is NRZ. The same applies for Kambrook Road and Newington Road; Blackwood St in Carnegie as well – or Rowan Street in Elsternwick. There are countless examples of this throughout the municipality. Does this mean that Camera’s argument applies to all? Or is it only that the decision has been made to refuse this application and something has to be coughed up in the attempt to justify the pre-determined decision?
The building will be highly prominent and further exacerbated when viewed at street level and from the wider area due to the site’s overall area (as a result of the consolidation of three lots). As such the development will unreasonably detract from the character and residential amenity of this transitional location (between zones).
COMMENT: All of a sudden ‘residential amenity’ is a concern, when the schedules to the zones do not provide any consideration of ‘amenity’ in the RGZ areas. And doesn’t the planning scheme after all actively ‘encourage’ the consolidation of lots?
Whilst redevelopment of the site at a higher density (than what currently exists) is not opposed, it is considered the proposal fails to adequately respect the neighbourhood character due to excessive mass, bulk and scale of the building (thereby resulting in unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the streetscape and adjoining properties).
COMMENT: how can one speak of ‘neighbourhood character’ when ‘change’ is the purpose and there is no ‘preferred character statement’ whatsoever in the planning scheme for housing diversity. As pointed out numerous times in VCAT decisions.
The development has a Planning Scheme car parking requirement of 62 car spaces (53 resident spaces and 9 visitor spaces). A total of 58 car spaces are proposed on-site (53 allocated to the residential dwellings and 5 to the visitors). This results in a shortfall of 4 visitor spaces. Council’s Transport Planning Department does not oppose the proposed shortfall of 4 visitor car spaces for the development
COMMENT: and the final insult to injury is that council itself does not insist on the requisite number of visitor car parking spaces.
The flood gates have now opened on Mimosa Road – as they have in every street that is zoned RGZ and GRZ. Council can continue to blame VCAT but in our view the fault basically lies with a planning scheme and a planning department that has failed dismally to undertake proper strategic planning. What residents are now faced with is council’s ‘damage control’ tactics. It is very, very easy to refuse application after application and continue to blame VCAT. As for the quality of the Camera report – in our view it is not only sub-standard, but not worth the paper it is written on. There is not one single ‘fact’ – ie what is the percentage of overshadowing? what is site coverage? Compared to the depth and comprehensiveness of other council’s reports on planning applications, Glen Eira should literally hang its head in shame!
Glen Eira Debates 
May 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM
VCAT can do what it likes except where prohibited, and even there it has been known to ignore its governing legislation. However, I notice that according to the plans, the proposal doesn’t comply with all residential amenity standards. It also fails one or more decision guidelines in Schedule 1 to clause 32.07. Refusing it a permit will allow more time for potential changes to be made to the planning scheme, either as a result of the Planning Scheme Review or recommendations from MRDAC.
There isn’t actually strong support for the proposal if one carefully reads the Municipal Strategic Statement. The fact that neither Council nor VCAT have read the MSS is why we’re on track to have 23000 more people than projected for 2021. Screwing up that badly means we don’t have the infrastructure required or the funding to close the gap.
May 13, 2016 at 9:55 PM
88 Mimosa has been sold. Will be next to go for high density development.
May 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM
A friend lives in St Georges East Bentleigh. A three storey got a permit now there’s another application for another three storey in this small street next to him. One goes and the vultures move in and the zones hold out welcome signs saying come and make some money and stuff residents. They will sell up and get out. What a fantastic council developers have got themselves.
May 13, 2016 at 11:15 PM
Zones determine everything. 6 properties will now be 99. Council sure is raking it in on rates. Could be $50000 instead of a measly $6500. That was the plan from the start.
May 14, 2016 at 10:19 AM
Council are just using this extra rate income to hire more bureaucrats to expedite more development,
I see no new open space purchases in areas with little or no open space, the parks we have are look worse than ever, tree replace is low or not happening at all.
Our streets are lined with piles of discarded junk. the traffic is getting to a level of being hopeless.
Or councillors are so conservative and spineless they have no gumption, other than to side with the bureaucrats against the residents.
The problems caused by this quick over development are not being dealt with, and there seems to be no planning intelligence to even admit these changes are causing problems and remedies should be sought .
Pilling’s answer if you don’t like it, sell-up and move, he is just a mouthpiece for the big end of town aping and implementing their corporate plan to cause chaos and disruption and alienation onto residents.
Welcome to the new world order of corporate governance, faceless money men with Panamanian bank accounts and grovelling bureaucrats and coucillors with no sense of community ethics, only their personal ambitions to the money machine that pays their wages. Residents are their enemy the machine is their friend.
And whom does it benefit?
Think before you vote
May 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM
Yet another of Jamie “R. Sole” Hyams’s zone implementation catch phrases gets flushed. It’s now time to question the so called “transition” impact of the zonings. You know, it’s the one that relates to the scaling down of intensive development in the centre of the an activity centre (no height limits) as it approaches the so called “protected Neighbourhood Residential Zone” (2 story height limit).
Here, the transition zone is a quiet residential street that is now destined to become a rat run. Currently both sides of Mimosa Road are predominantly restored timber Edwardians (some with sympathetic 2nd story extensions). Council’s future vision is for the western side to remain pretty much as is while the other becomes 4 story cubic modern. Only Municipal wide set backs are applicable and there’s not one DDO or NCO in sight.
Clearly, the obvious opportunity of zoning the area between Mimosa and Toolambool Roads as a transition zone (i.e. 3 story GRZ zoning) has been ignored. The GRZ zoning with increased setbacks and apppropriate application of DDO’s and NCO’s would be more in line with residents developmental vision than that which Council’s flawed zone implementation has created.
I agree that as Planning Scheme now stands, the Rock’s arguments are unsupported and have a snowball in hells chance of succeeding at VCAT.
May 14, 2016 at 8:36 AM
Look fellow readers, your locked into the unsustainable growth model being handed down from the big end of town, local planning authorities and VCAT are just following orders on high.
The plan is build as much cheap housing as possible, rent them to desperate working visa holders and under cut the basic wages and our human rights, to bring us into line with China, Philippines, Indonesia etc.
If you think fiddling at the edges of this corporate slave of a council is going to solve any problems, think again.
The train wreck of climate change, grid-lock, water shortage and a whole host of problems tumbling down the line due to unsustainable development are coming your way, with compliments from the bankers and financiers, that are slowly and quickly turning your world into a user-pays banks own everything regime.
If you want control of your lives and your country get out there and look at sustainable living alternatives. Vote out the conservatives that are feeding off the system.
The Rocky Camera’s of this world are just workers handcuffed to the rail of a sinking ship.
May 14, 2016 at 9:32 AM
Take a look at the full map, not the one Rocky has truncated to avoid showing the absurdity of zoning that occurs where Mimosa Road intersects with Neerim Road.
May 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM
Council’s zoning has never been “reality checked”, nor has the Housing Diversity policy. There is a mysterious document called Housing and Residential Development Strategy that Council and the Minister refer to but have never read. You will only find parts of it published: the critical “evidence”, Part C, is missing.
When Amendment C25 was bulldozed through, the officer report claimed that the methodology for determining the boundaries was outlined in Background Paper 7 of the Strategy. “As a starting point a 200 metre distance (easy walking distance) from commercially zoned properties in the centre…was used.” It then lists 16 criteria that it wishes us to believe were used to determine the final boundaries. There was of course no evidence to support the final decisions, certainly no transparency or accountability.
One thing that can be said about our Council is that it has never shown any sign of embarrassment about contradicting itself when making all its ad hoc decisions.
May 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM
Very depressing. We need residents to stand for Council because the Councillors we have don’t give a rats about our quality of life.
May 14, 2016 at 3:27 PM
The danger is in residents standing for council with no idea of what the solutions will be. If elected they will just go over to support the corporate paradigm and hiding-out behind the Town Hall edifice.
Pilling is a good example of a Green found lacking depth and commitment to any reform or forging any new direction.
It’s easier to be a conservative coward than a explorer of the new world.
Here is the solution we are being sold day in and day out now
“jobs and growth” “jobs and growth” “jobs and growth”
“jobs and growth” will be your salvation
Do you believe this?
Turnbull and his Libs are betting the majority will
Almost no one has any clear vision or commitment to an alternative other than selling the farm to the Chinese developers
What people need is a discussion on what’s is sustainable and what isn’t.
22 degrees with a north wind in May, It maybe already too late to turn the SS Jobs and Growth around, see you on the rocks
Then who will we blame?
Rocky Camera?
Come on get some perspective
May 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM
What is the new CEO doing? Has she any clue of Planning and the chaos taking place? Which shire is she coming from?
By now she should know the priorities of the residents. Not a good sign.
May 16, 2016 at 7:55 AM
The Councillors do not care to these rantings on GE Debates and are continuing to disregard the community always without consultation and work towards the sole interest of the political parties thet belong to. Unless residents call the local government inspectors and or Ombudsman, they will continue to serve their personal interests and the political party they belong to. They are laughing that they can do whatever they want and they know best what is good for residents. The 4 rotten apples are the cause of this Council’s failure two out of which were thrown out in 2005 and silly residents voted them back.