Agenda Item 9.4: Interim Heights
Council’s agenda features Amendments C147 and C148 which will go to the Minister seeking ‘interim height limits’ for the Bentleigh and Carnegie activity centres. The proposed amendments are for areas zoned commercial and mixed use.
Whilst Council is to be applauded for getting the ball rolling, there are many features of these amendments that are far from satisfactory and which will achieve very little in terms of protecting neighbourhoods. We have uploaded the full report HERE.
The concerns we have are:
- Many of the proposed height limits are ‘discretionary’ – meaning that developers can, and undoubtedly will, apply for much higher buildings.
- The metres nominated are highly questionable – given the residential zones. For example: In both amendments we have such schedules as “14 metres comprising up to 4 storeys”. If developers can now erect 4 storey buildings with a height limit of 13.5m, then surely they can cram 5 storeys into 14 metres. All that has to happen is a lowering of ceiling heights, or the slope of the land. Why hasn’t council stuck to the 10.5 and 13.5 height limit here?
- The amendments also allow a 4 metre extension (ie lift over-runs, antennaes, etc). 4 metres is extraordinary when the zones provide the developer with only a 1.5 metre leeway.
The most grating aspect of these amendments however is the failure to ask residents what they think are the appropriate heights in any of these areas. Now, with a resolution to go to the Minister under ‘fast track’, there will again be the exclusion of the public to provide a viewpoint. Nor is there one scrap of strategic justification provided as to why 7+ storeys is acceptable in Carnegie. Has council really done its necessary homework, or once again sat down at their computer desks and drawn lines on a map? And what of the requirements for setbacks? Why keep accepting ResCode when it has been such a dismal failure? We remind readers that when other councils introduce DDOs (Design and Development Overlays – even interim ones) these features are included. Not in Glen Eira! We suggest that once again this is lazy and poor planning and does not meet the community’s expectations.
Some aspects of these amendments are literally laughable.The Bentleigh one basically regurgitates what the current planning scheme contains – ie Buildings on the North side of Centre Road to be designed and articulated so that they do not overshadow onto the footpath on the southern side of Centre Road at the September equinox at noon. (amendment) and the current planning scheme has – Buildings on the north side of Centre Road are articulated, so shadow is not cast onto the footpath on the south side of Centre Road. We therefore wonder how on earth the potential for a 5 or 6 storey building on the North side of Centre Road will not cast a shadow!
FYI, we’ve summarised the proposals below:
PS: we wish to highlight some other anomalies in these proposed amendments. Here is the map of the zoning in Centre Road.
Please note:
- For the ‘northern’ areas of Centre Road where commercial sits alongside Neighbourhood Residential zones (ie Wheatley Road, Rose St) council has imposed a 4 storey MANDATORY HEIGHT. Thus for this side of the road it was deemed appropriate that the 4 to 5 storeys sit alongside an 8 metre mandatory height limit.
- On the other side of Centre Road (directly opposite) there is a mandatory height limit of 3 + storeys. Why? Admittedly there is a Heritage Overlay for these streets ( ie Sunnyside, Eddy’s Grove, etc) but this still does not excuse in our view why one side of the street should be given a different mandatory height when both abut NRZ homes.
- Things get even more crazy when we consider the proposals for Robert Street – A 4 storey mandatory height limit for commercially zoned land along the southern side of Centre Road between Mavho Street and Robert Street . Two streets up from Mavho, we have another heritage overlay. But these are zoned Residential Growth Zone. Thus, instead of changing the zoning, Council it seems has simply chosen to once again do nothing about the zones and to use these amendments to simply rubber stamp the existing zoning. When one side of Centre Road gets a 3 storey recommendation possibly because of its nearness to a heritage overlay, and up the road for streets that are in a Heritage overlay are assigned 5 storeys, then planning is awry and incompetent.
The bottom line is that council will do nothing that involves changing one single aspect of its atrocious zoning.
August 26, 2016 at 5:26 PM
I attended two of the forums for the planning scheme review and spoke to many of the people there. Not one of them thought that council would go for discretionary height limits. We, stupidly I now realise, assumed that what would come out would be an application for mandatory heights. Fooled again by council! Nor did anyone say anything about 7 and higher storeys for Carnegie – most talked about four or five and to make them mandatory. The post is correct. This is worse than poor planning. It is doing the minimum because that is all that Wynne specified.
August 26, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Nothing in the agenda fills me with confidence that Wynne will even pass this. My guess is that he will introduce the discretionary heights everywhere and council will not be applauding in the background. Up front they will blame Wynne. Another scapegoat to deflect criticism from them. If I had my way they would all be dismissed on the grounds of complete negligence
August 26, 2016 at 6:13 PM
Unbelievable balls up. Lazy buggers don’t give a stuff. Developers are rubbing their hands with glee.
August 26, 2016 at 8:00 PM
no, rubbing their wallets with joy
August 27, 2016 at 8:00 AM
Unbelieveable!!! They are absolutely incapable of actually listening.
Residents attended the planning sessions in good faith thinking that at last Council was going to so something (even if it was ordered by the Minister). Because of Council’s zone imposition residents have become extremely knowledgeable about planning, they showed great understanding, they put forward great ideas and clearly expressed their expectations.
THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE CRAP THAT IS NOW EMANATING FROM COUNCIL.
Residents want mandatory height limits. Proposing “discretionary” height limits is an absolute waste ratepayers money as, aside from window dressing for the elections, they serve no purpose. Discretionary = Unenforceable.
7 stories in Carnegie has been plucked from the air by Council. Incidentally Council recently refused a permit application for 7 stories for the Dutch Club because it was too high, even though there’s already 7 stories next to the Library.
August 27, 2016 at 9:34 AM
Heights have been plucked from the air as you say and applications will keep getting higher and higher unless they are mandatory. We’re already seeing permits given for 5 storeys and then a year later the developer comes back and gets 6 storeys. The same will happen here. I can’t for the life of me find a reason why Elsternwick has been left out of all of this. It is getting worse and worse with 12 storeys. They should be trying to limit this area too. Unless they want it to keep growing and have plans already in and don’t want to hurt any developer.
August 27, 2016 at 11:12 AM
No favours for Carnegie. 6 levels preferred will end up 8 or 10 storeys next door to 4 storeys.
August 27, 2016 at 11:32 AM
That is an interesting point Peter Jenkins. These proposed interim measures are to calm dowm the residents and thereafter do as the Council believes. If Rome was not built in a day, how can Glen Eira concrete jungle pigeon box municipality be brought back to what it was once leafy suburbs before the residential zones. What can Richard Wynn undo that Hyams/Matthew Guy have done to our suburbs pushing developments down residents’throats. A prescription from Dr Hyams to the patients without talking to them is nothing but performing euthanasia on our beloved suburbs, houses heritage buildings etc to support the businesses
who in turn wholeheartedly support the party they belong to.
August 27, 2016 at 11:47 AM
I smell some scunks under the tables. Does anyone else?
August 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Pilling would sell his grandmother for a few buck, selling out the residents no problem
Has anyone seen him riding his bicycle around lately, or are the developer chauffeuring him around in a courtesy car
August 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM
Any one interested in standing for Council in Rosstown?
Rosstown is wide open, as long as your name isn’t Esakoff, Pilling or Ho, you’ll get elected.
If you can spell the word “planning” you already know more than the above encumbrances
August 27, 2016 at 2:36 PM
Projections in Rosstown:
Pilling encouraged high developments in Carnegie. He sold the residents with his deciding vote and shuts his residents in approving limitless storeys and whatever his masters want.
Esakoff has moved to Caulfield because she
August 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM
Have a look at the blurb for Jamie on Council’s website – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Councillors/Tucker-Ward
According to this “Cr Hyams believes it is vital to remember that Council is there to serve the community”. Combining his name and “serve the community” in one sentence should be a punishable offence.
August 27, 2016 at 4:05 PM
yeh he’s is serving the community, that is the community of developer and his Lib mates in the big end of town type community.
Jamie’s a man of double speak, and is prone to angry outbursts to anyone MODERATORS: phrase deleted) just ask Lobo if this is true or false.
August 27, 2016 at 6:47 PM
Are the developrs members of liberal party, Labor or even Green party (who have changed their policy from green to concrete). Are all developers from overseas?
August 28, 2016 at 8:26 AM
no, no, pilling, no
I you already knew all these answers, Jamie
August 28, 2016 at 3:54 PM
Lobo is a mystery highly regarded by residents in Tucker Ward and beyond.
After Staikos, Lobo is the only Councillor to stand up for residents and many have heard him saying that the residents are the Masters and the Councillors are the servants. Is this true?
August 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM
Thanks Oscar. Great contribution as always.
August 28, 2016 at 8:46 PM
Words can be misleading and all pollies tell porkies to cover their treachery
So I say, do not listen to what anyone says on either side of the fence
Just look and see how they vote
This action of voting tells you everything you need to know