The latest example of Glen Eira’s woeful planning scheme is evident from this latest application for a 19 storey aged care facility in Kooyong Road. The cry goes up that there is a ‘loophole’ in the policy which would allow such a development. Yes, there is. But it is not a ‘loophole’, it is a gaping chasm compared to the policies that other councils have successfully implemented. We provide just one example from Hume City Council – and there are plenty more. Please note the following:
- Glen Eira’s ‘policy’ relies on the 2002 housing policy. Hume’s on their 2007 ‘healthy aging’ policy
- Hume stipulates for nursing homes that there be – One on-site car space per two members of staff and One on-site visitor car space per five residents. Glen Eira is silent on car parking spaces for visitors.
- Retirement villages in Hume are said to require – All dwellings should be provided with a minimum of 2 bedrooms to provide flexibility for residents and room for family visitors. In Glen Eira there is no mention of number of bedrooms.
- Hume requires – A centrally located open space area that occupies at least 10% of the total site area should be provided. Glen Eira’s requirement for ‘open space’ is vague and nebulous and basically waffle – Ensure a small area of secluded private open space, in addition to communal open space, is provided for low care aged persons housing. For medium and high care aged persons housing, communal open space should be provided.
- In Hume, there is emphasis on avoiding main roads. Glen Eira endorses this and the consolidation of large lots – Large allotments on main roads in Minimal Change Areas. Consolidation of sites is not encouraged unless the site abuts a main road.
Thus we have another policy that any developer can literally drive a truck through. And this policy dates from 2007. Yes, there are problems with policies everywhere, but at least other councils have the will and desire to close as many loopholes as they can. Glen Eira does not since this will only place impediments in the path of developers!
We have uploaded both Hume’s and Glen Eira’s policies so that residents may compare!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM
They won’t get 19. This is an ambit claim. They will get 6 or 7 storeys.
October 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM
Can you substantiate this claim of 6 to 7 storeys with evidence.?
The planning scheme is crap and council is crap. There’s big money in aged care, chuck in a retirement village (which is where the loop hole is) and there’s no problem with funding. People will be lined up.
Have a look at East Village (formerly the Virgina Park development), they now include a “retirement village”.
What’s to prevent anyone getting approval to build a 19 storey complex that comprises 2 bedroom selfcontained retirement village units (don’t even have to provide parking) with communal facilities the deciding to market them as a luxury boutique development with gym, pool and garden space.
October 11, 2016 at 2:03 PM
Spot on.
October 11, 2016 at 2:15 PM
Don’t bet on it, the “Policy” does not give VCAT clear guidelines to reject. Public opposition counts for nothing if the “Policy” is loose.
October 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM
Wasn’t our planning scheme drawn up by developers and bureaucrats, I know residents were not consulted, but out memory developers were in on the process.
And our happy littles hunters; Newton, Akhurst and Burke are in no doubt enjoying their retirement perks.
October 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM
It is known as Defined Benefit Super Scheme. They retire on a % of their FAS (final average salary) This is indexed with the CPI and payable until they die. I doubt that Newton or Burke had this scheme but Akhurst would have and worked past 65. He was a long time municipal worker. He would be in clover. Newton was on such a good screw he would have stached plenty into his super fund. The Council (ratepayers) are required to top up the defined benefits scheme to ensure that some ex council staff are kept in luxury. Some cities in USA went into bankruptcy paying out retired workers.
October 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM
The proposal fails to satisfy most if not all of the purposes of NRZ. It fails to satisfy various local policies too. However if it isn’t outright prohibited then according to Council it is appropriate. Ultimately State Government, through the utterly incompetent DELWP, is responsible for many of the loopholes courtesy of the sloppily-drafted boilerplate and lack of guidance provided to decision-makers. The Scheme is woefully inconsistent, so VCAT can justify just about anything, knowing it can’t be held accountable. Council’s lack of interest in providing cohesive land management guidelines remains appalling. Do have to wonder why Council even bothers with VCAT Watch when they refuse to address gaping holes in the Scheme.
October 11, 2016 at 5:07 PM
There are so many things wrong with this planning scheme that it will take years and years to fix it. Councillors since 2004 have sat back and accepted the rubbish that Newton and Akehurst have told them. Esakoff has been in since 2003 and nothing has changed. The others have been in since 2008 apart from Delahunty Sounness and Okotel. None of them have made any decisive contribution to the planning scheme. They have achieved a big fat zero and residents are paying the price for their lack of attention to the most crucial aspect of being a councillor. I am telling everyone I know to make sure that these people are put last on the ballot papers.