Readers will remember the furore over Claire St., McKinnon and how this dead end street of 14 or so houses (zoned GRZ) has been bought out by developers. The first application was for 3 storeys and 34 apartments. Both council and VCAT refused the application. So now we have the new VCAT decision for 3 storeys and 33 apartments. The permit was granted!
The member’s decision should be compulsory reading for every single resident who has any doubt about the impact of the zones and what they mean for their streets and their suburbs. Magee can cry all the crocodile tears he likes at VCAT’s doorstep, but what has he and the other councillors done to review and amend the zones over the past 3 years? The continual lament that VCAT ignores council ‘policy’ is shown up again for the bogus and spurious claim it is. Claire Street and its development is part of council’s ‘local policy’ and thus another street is literally handed over lock, stock and barrel to developers!
Please see the following extracts:
In the Steller Elite decision (ie first application) I analysed the guidance provided by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, which lead me to conclude that the outcome encouraged for the review site is one of increased housing supply that will constitute a marked change to the existing neighbourhood character. I set out below that analysis and rely on it given that no consequential changes have occurred to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the intervening period.
I understand this vision does not agree with the hopes and aspirations of the local community, including those that appeared at this hearing. I was moved by the emotional submissions made by a number of residents that have clearly planned their long term future here in this neighbourhood, and who see this future threatened by the type of development proposed for the review site. While I have been moved by these submissions, I must be guided in my decision making by the content of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. This Planning Scheme has been drafted and adopted following extensive community consultation, thorough analysis by an independent panel of experts, and approval by successive Ministers for Planning. By law, I am required to consider the submissions that I have heard, and assess the plans that are before me, through the prism of guidance contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
In this proceeding, Mr & Mrs Menko lamented that most of the lots in Claire Street have now been purchased by developers, and are likely to be subject to forms of development like the one before me. They resist this level of change, and the likelihood that only two of the original single dwellings will remain. They also raise concerns about how this extent of development can be suitable for a dead-end street, with its only access point to McKinnon Road, and limited on-street car parking supply. They also question the ability of McKinnon Road to accommodate the additional traffic. I understand the frustrations and anger expressed by residents about the rate of change that might occur in Claire Street. However the extent of redevelopment that is likely to occur is a direct realisation of the very clear intent of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, in particular the local policies created by the Glen Eira City Council.
The Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly supports substantial development in Claire Street, McKinnon. This substantial development is not expected to imitate or reflect the style and form of the single dwellings that currently exist in this and other streets. Instead, a policy intent has been clearly been articulated for Claire Street, by the Glen Eira City Council, that encourages more intense and more diverse housing forms. Invariably this means that apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood.
It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street, McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council.
In their submissions in this proceeding, the Council did not challenge my previous analysis of the relevant planning framework, and conceded that there were no consequential changes to the relevant policy framework in the intervening period. As such I find it appropriate to rely on my previous analysis in this proceeding, an analysis that identifies significant policy support for increased housing that represents significant change to the existing neighbourhood character in this locality.
Clearly this is a typology and scale of development that will still contrast to the surrounding single and double storey dwellings. That outcome is an intended result of the application of the clear policies pursued by the Glen Eira City Council for this housing diversity area. It is an outcome that will continue to prevail throughout this housing diversity area, as more and more sites are redeveloped for apartment style development. However I am satisfied that the revised development for the review site now mitigates the offsite impacts of the proposed built form to the streetscape, in a manner that is appropriate and acceptable.
I acknowledge that the proposed development will represent a significant change for the adjoining property owned by Mr and Mrs Menko. However it is an extent of change that is anticipated, and indeed encouraged, by the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. For these reasons I not persuaded that the matters raised in the statement of grounds lodged by Mr and Mrs Menko should influence the proposed outcome for the review site.
The proposed development provides car parking for both residents and visitors at rates that either meet or exceed that required under Clause 52.06 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Therefore as no permit is required to reduce the extent of car parking to be provided on-site, I have no means by which to review whether the extent of car parking provided is reasonable and appropriate, nor to require additional car parking to be provided on-site.
In their statement of grounds, Mr and Mrs Menko again raise concerns in relation to the traffic impact on Claire Street. In the absence of any new analysis of the current and proposed traffic levels within Claire Street, I must give significant weight to the independent assessment that has been undertaken by Council’s traffic engineers, who support the proposed development, including the extent of traffic increase that will occur to Claire Street. I do not doubt that the additional traffic from the development of the review site will increase delays for drivers exiting Claire Street. However that is an inevitable consequence of the deliberate and informed decision made by the Glen Eira City Council to identify Claire Street, McKinnon as a preferred location for this extent of housing change. For these reasons I find that there are no car parking or traffic grounds on which to withhold the grant of a permit.
I find that a number of the components as drafted by Council simply reiterate aspects of the proposal that are already shown on the plans. For example a condition requires the provision of car parking at certain rates when car parking is already provided at those rates, and another condition requires the development to have a specified maximum site coverage, when that site coverage is already achieved. I do not consider that an amended plans condition should be used in such a manner, and so have deleted parts of Condition 1 where I find that the requirements are already achieved.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1401.html
Glen Eira Debates 
August 24, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Strongly reinforces the need to have Councillors that have a genuine and committed approach to deliver on fair and reasonable resident expectations.
August 24, 2016 at 12:48 PM
This much is clear. Councillors have not done a single thing to help residents living in housing diversity. They have supported policy that is discriminatory and is ruining lives. Even when the results of their poor decision making has become evident they have refused to initiate any changes to the planning scheme. For countless streets like Claire it is now too late. Their negligence and refusal to listen to residents can never be condoned or accepted. I vow to do all I can to ensure that every single one of them who stands for re-election is exposed as the charlatans and incompetents they truly are.
August 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM
In the ruling, how on earth does the following statement (21) equate with what he writes a few lines above in (19):
[21] It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street, McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council..
This was point [19]:
A hierarchy of preferred locations for more intense development is created in policy, which places residential areas such as Claire Street at the bottom rung of such opportunity areas. Policy also seeks that locations such as this, closer to the fringe of the areas in which additional housing is strongly encouraged, are to be developed at lower densities than the central core of these areas. :
August 24, 2016 at 3:24 PM
Perhaps this response will suffice:
1. Lower density means in relation to commercial/mixed use. With no height limits on either of these, and the zoning of GRZ, that then equates to “lower density”.
2. Council has a plank in its planning scheme re “consolidation” of lots – for all areas including Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The property in Claire is over 2000 square metres. That makes it a prime candidate for intense development.
August 24, 2016 at 3:49 PM
I beg to differ. I read “the fringe of the areas in which additional housing is strongly encouraged” to mean the fringe of the residential area whereas you are reading it as the whole residential area being the fringe. With respect, that’s a large fringe.
My interpretation is also in keeping with the clause “to encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases”
This is the key clause as it is firmly placed within the residential zone policy and states it refers to residential zoned land. The word AS is also key as it clearly refers to a gradual decrease.
There are VCAT decisions supporting both interpretations. I know which I think would stand up best if challenged appropriately.
August 24, 2016 at 6:26 PM
Good points. Trouble is council shoots itself in the foot with
The encouragement of multi-unit development in the
Phoenix Precinct and Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick urban villages as well as the neighbourhood centres will exploit these transport 0pportunities as well as increasing the catchment populations served by each centre. The pursuit of urban village principles in each of
these centres will promote an increased use of these centres by more local and less car-oriented patronage.
AND
It is policy to:
Encourage a mix of dwelling types and layouts.
Recognise that these areas offer opportunities for multi-unit development, but at a lower scale and density than development in the commercial and mixed use areas of neighbourhood centres.
Ensure that the density, mass and scale of residential development is appropriate to that of the neighbourhood centre.
Ensure that residential development is sited and designed so that it does not dominate the streetscape.
Encourage the consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities.
Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.
Ensure that the siting and design of residential development responds positively to its interface with existing residential development in minimal change areas
I interpret the above saying that consolidated lots are good, and the residential area should be of lower density. Well if you can build five storeys and 60 apartments, then 3 storeys and 33 apartments fits the bill very nicely.
If you check out the map there is commercial directly opposite Claire St and to its right as well. It is not on the periphery of anything. The whole shebang is smack in the middle and zoned grz. That’s the bloody problem plus the lousy wording in the planning scheme.
August 24, 2016 at 2:54 PM
No surprise really and of course Council are to blame. Much of it actually reads as if he’s specifically trying to make an example of Council.
But VCAT infuriate me. Personally, I found his initial rejection reasons a little odd and felt he was swayed by public sentiment first time around. It’s worth looking at the initial ruling as the very same member concluded on the previous proposal:
” that a net community benefit will not result from granting a planning permit.”
Now, how has this changed? What is the net community benefit here?
“Apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood” is a worrying comment from someone in his position. Who is encouraging them apart from developers? Council oppose so many that it can’t be seen as encouragement despite the holes in their own planning policy.
A quick word search suggests to me that it is a fact that the word apartment only appears in the planning scheme with regard to the commercial zones. Dwellings and units are the words used for residential areas which seems a clear enough distinction to me. It’s too late now of course but how has this gone unchallenged for three years?
And justifying aspects of it with bull such as “architectural interest”. Seriously? I can just imagine people lining up to admire the building. Is that not just an unjustified personal opinion with no bearing on any legitimate decision process?
August 24, 2016 at 6:59 PM
This is all nit picking. vcat will 99% go for what the zones say. vcat didn’t put in the zones. This lot did. Both are responsible but I blame council for refusing to look at them when they’ve now had so long to see what the damage is.
August 24, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Yes it is an indictment on our council that they have done nothing to amend the planning scheme even in the face of such a huge community backlash. Why do they pretend to care about the concerns of local residents and yet sit back and let VCAT pass these development proposals in the full knowledge that all VCAT can do is follow the guidelines of the planning scheme. Until the planning scheme is amended to allow a more reasonable mix of residential densities, then this will keep on happening time after time. We are currently fighting the proposal on the other side of the street (almost the entire length) to be turned over to apartments. We feel completely disillusioned that once again VCAT will have no choice but to approve this one as well, meaning that the entire street, bar two houses, will be turned into high density development. We are starting to wonder if it worth our time and effort to fight every proposal that crops up in our ‘block’, again and again and again. It is not the McKinnon we bought into with its leafy gardens, cal bungs and and quiet family neighbourhoods …Claire, Bent, Adelaide, Vickery, etc …gone, gone, gone.
August 24, 2016 at 9:08 PM
I agree completely with you. Until the planning scheme is totally revamped and tightened up developers will have their way. The recent report and associated action plan is worthless whilst applications keep coming in and the scheme remains unchanged. All funding and energy should be directed immediately to introducing changes which will halt this overdevelopment. That means reviewing the zones and changing them which as you say is what the community has been demanding since they came in and the effects were there for all to see. Personally I am very glad that elections are only a few months away. That means that I can vote for candidates who are 100% committed to working for residents instead of working for developers.
August 24, 2016 at 9:43 PM
Yup, nos 1-9 Claire. Huge property now. The same thing about to happen I’ll bet. Also the same with another application in Rothschild. Was turned down by council and vcat so they are back with another application and reduced the number of boxes by 1 or 2. Sick system.