A new application for a 16 storey mixed use development has come in for Egan Street, Carnegie. This is the second time the developer is asking for this height. The first application was refused by council in December 2014 and VCAT affirmed Council’s decision in October 2015. What should be noted about this VCAT refusal is that 16 storeys was considered acceptable by VCAT given Council’s planning scheme (ie – ‘As I have indicated in this decision, there are many aspects of the proposal that I do support, including its overall height.’) What stymied this first application was ‘internal amenity’ (apartments without natural light, some of miniscule size – 41 square metres, and whether or not there would be ‘equitable’ opportunities for potential development for buildings alongside this project. It should also be noted that this site is listed as being in Precinct 1 of the Carnegie Urban Village. Tough luck that this feature of the planning scheme lapsed in 2007!!!!!! The following paragraph from the decision sums it up nicely –
Whilst the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks encourages the development of higher density housing on this site, the planning scheme does not contain specific design guidance usually provided within planning schemes for locations such as the Carnegie Urban Village. A Design and Development Overlay has not been applied to the site, and there is no guidance as to the expected height of buildings within Precinct 1.
This is clearly another example of council sitting on its hands until it is too late. Yes, there is now a planning scheme review. However, the chances of amendments being introduced in time to limit height and design and then being applied retrospectively is zero in our view. Then there is of course, the other option of the developer going immediately to VCAT if council does not come up with a decision in the required 60 days.
The take-home message from all of this is that unless the current planning scheme review achieves major reform and that includes much, much more than simply slapping on a height limit for commercial sites, then inappropriate development will continue.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM
December 2014 gave them plenty of time to figure out what they should do. Tragic that Wynne didn’t act sooner and Guy didn’t give a stuff.
June 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Only 16 in Rosstown
Pilling will be disappointed it wasn’t 20
Esacoff couldn’t care less
Kelvin Ho will be on the phone to Hong Kong rustling up some investors
June 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM
I think it will be very hard to put in height limits under 8 floors when there already are 12 and soon 16 and the same goes for other places like Elsternwick and Bentleigh.
June 1, 2016 at 7:52 PM
interesting. which one does he see as the problem?
Cr Michael Lipshutz @mlipshutz May 27
Comments about investigation into Glen Eira Council are overblown. One Cr is a problem but all are working well. No bullying as reported.
0 retweets 0 likes
June 2, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Copper calling the kettle black methinks plus what happened to confidentiality and the no comment approach by everyone else?
June 2, 2016 at 6:29 AM
MODERATORS: comment deleted
June 2, 2016 at 9:04 AM
The previous VCAT decision for this site rejected 16 storeys, although there were some elements of the proposal that the Member apparently liked. Granting a permit for 16 storeys though is effectively deciding that it is sustainable to grant 16 storeys everywhere in that precinct. Given the problems with traffic management currently, which the Member reluctantly acknowledged, we shouldn’t be pumping another few thousand Vehicles Per Day through Egan And Woorayll Streets.
From a strategic point of view, towers are unnecessary. We already have “85 years’ supply” without them. A major problem with residential towers in that location is that they add negligible jobs relative to the number of people living in them. This is completely contrary to Local and State policy. We see the resulting problem daily. Crowded roads, over-crowded public transport.
Even the proximity of a train station isn’t sufficient. Most jobs in Melbourne are not in the CBD. If proximity to public transport was all that mattered, most of Glen Eira would be zoned at least GRZ because it has a network of bus routes criss-crossing it.
Although Council has let the Scheme decay into irrelevance, there is still relevant policy for Precinct 1, such as the “Urban Village Structure Plan 1999”. Both VCAT and Council ignore it yet it remains a reference document.
BTW I hope all who attended Planning Scheme Review sessions did provide feedback about appropriate scale of our activity centres. I suggested 18m height limit, but also said that it should be further constrained by the size of residential properties located in close proximity. For me “close proximity” means within X metres of the property boundary where X is the proposed height. It is unsatisfactory that tall buildings in C1Z have no residential amenity standards and effectively can ignore N1Z neighbours.
The worst thing about the Planning Scheme is that it is all “performance-based”, leaving it open to abuse. There really are no decision guidelines. VCAT [and Council] have the freedom to interpret any clause however they want because it is so unclear, and most of it is purely discretionary anyway.
June 2, 2016 at 9:28 PM
You are describing the “Akhurst Legacy”