Small McKinnon street sandwiched by large developments
Sam Bidey, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
October 18, 2016 12:00am
PEOPLE living in a small McKinnon street feel they are being overrun by major developments which are changing their neighbourhood character.
Foster St runs parallel to Claire St, where a three-storey 33 apartment block is set to be built, and adjacent to Adelaide St, where a 34 unit, three-storey dwelling has just been approved by Glen Eira City Council.
All but two of the original homes on Claire St have been snapped up by developers who have taken advantage of the new zones which allow a three-storey height limit.
Steve Toth, who has lived in Foster St for 21 years, fought against both the builds that will leave him and his neighbours sandwiched between two major developments.
Mr Toth said he was more understanding about the need for developments than most of his neighbours, but was put off by the size and style of the builds.
“I accept that we are a developing suburb but there has to set backs and it doesn’t have to look so industrial,” Mr Toth said.
“The side facing me (of the Adelaide St development) which is the one I can comment on — looks like the back end of a power station and that’s something we don’t like.”
Mr Toth said the “butt ugly” building proposed from Adelaide St took away from the character of the neighbourhood.
“If you have a look at Adelaide St now you have five of the most unique, nice houses with each one creative and each one different.
“That’s what I find very disappointing — there are five beautiful houses and now we’ll get Lego land in their place.”
Councillors Jamie Hyams and Jim Magee opposed the Adelaide St development at last week’s council meeting.
Cr Hyams said the proposal was “out of touch” with the character of the opposite side of the road and surrounding streets.
He suggested it would be more appropriate if the townhouses were two stories nearest the street with a setback to a third story at the rear of the block.
Mr Magee said the main issue was VCAT would always allow these developments unless the State Government introduced legislation to make them apply the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to their decisions.
COMMENT
We have had a gut full of the hypocrisy, contradictions, and straight out mistruths that this council and in particular Hyams and Magee keep inflicting on residents via their statements. This is an election period and current councillors are definitely panicking – most noticeably in Tucker Ward. The blame VCAT game continues, as does the promulgation of half truths and deceptions.
Shortly after the zones were introduced, Magee on one application in Centre Road Bentleigh, voted for a permit whilst saying – MAGEE: He will support the application because ‘you can support it without liking it’ and ‘developer does have the right’ to go for ‘the maximum’ and ‘the planning scheme allows that’. So that’s the policy and he will ‘support it’.
VCAT has not set the ‘maximum’ – it is council and its zoning of properties in the GRZ or RGZ. Developers go for broke because of the zoning and because VCAT must resort to what the planning scheme says!
As for Hyams, we repeat his statements from before the introduction of the zones and after their introduction. Contradiction and opportunism certainly don’t appear to worry this councillor who, we remind readers, played an integral part in the introduction of the zones in the first place!
Prior to the secret and devious introduction of the new zones, which is repeatedly heralded as Glen Eira’s crowning achievement strictly because of its height limits, Hyams proclaimed the following (dates are from our postings)
HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (from our post of 6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.)
Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement –
Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)
October 18, 2016 at 2:27 PM
You set up a planning scheme that says 3 storeys are ok here and you encourage consolidation of sites and this is what you get. That’s what Magee is saying and he is right. Council decided on its own without any resident feedback that this is what they wanted. Now they’ve got it and they have to carry the flack for their abominable planning and neglect over the years. I just pray that we’ve now seen the last of the likes of Hyams and Magee and the rest of them.
October 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM
If they were actually fair dinkum Hyams and Magee would have done something about the poor Planning Scheme along time ago. Even with the recent opportunity to address the gaps in policy they have done nothing. This type of development can still occur into the future so more crocodile tears and more blame to VCAT. A big celebration if they’re not re-elected as neither deserve to be.
October 18, 2016 at 2:55 PM
The guys are beyond a joke. they just make it up as they go, not a thought for the residents directly impacted by their decisions, chuck them out and let someone else have a go, they couldn’t possibly be any worse.
PS, chuck Lobo as well, he has strung together two coherent words in as many years.
October 18, 2016 at 2:57 PM
Surprising Council didn’t rezone the land MUZ to reflect what it really wants for that area. The close proximity of C1Z will inevitably mean further loss of amenity as VCAT has argued that you’re not entitled to protection of your amenity if you live close to commercial zones despite what the Planning Scheme actually says.
How typical that nobody can agree whether the density, height, massing is acceptable or not, since such concepts are not defined. Nor is there neighbourhood character policy, and certainly no neighbourhood character guidelines. I doubt Cr Magee is familiar with Council’s incoherent and inconsistent planning policies to make informed comment.
The “decision guidelines” provide no guidance as always. Landscaping is left unspecified. For once there is actually some dwelling diversity being proposed. Site is poorly served by public open space, unless one uses Cr Hyams’ definition instead of the Open Space Strategy principles.
October 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM
Hyams will say anything to justify his behaviour and that includes lying in council.I wouldn’t trust him as far I could throw him.
October 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM
Oh ducks! Everytime I read this blog the name Maggee and Hyams comes up. These two guys like to hear their voices in the Council meetings, radio, television and of course writing in the papers. Steve Toh would not say what he has said about Maggee and Hyams if he only knew how these two terminators have destroyed our suburbs. Ignorance is bliss. On leaflets for Council elections, Maggee states “Retaining the Character of Tucker Ward and Experience counts” Character and experience counts, cock and bull story. The other father of new residential zones says in the leaflets something like this “If you are not helping the residents why are you on the Council for?” Hyams has helped the residents by not having public consultation before his zones” Has anyone noticed his another slogan Helping Our Community.
What help, what community. I have always found something weird of this stale Councillor. He should leave the Council, take a break, have life and clean the fur on his blue coat.
October 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM
Sad but true, none the less good observations, the things these small men do and say trying to become our leaders. Some times I just have to sit back and laugh …… I will laugh louder if they are in Hyam’s type weasel words unelected.
October 18, 2016 at 6:19 PM
The maximum is allowable. It is the developer’s rights. Sums it up pretty clearly. The zones are there to help developers. Residents don’t count and never did. These guys don’t have the guts to stand up and tell the truth. Weasel words galore. Crocodile tears by the bucket and they still don’t proposed to do anything about McKinnon until maybe 2030!
October 19, 2016 at 9:15 AM
They won’t do anything about McKinnon for ever, it’s gone it’s been handed over to the developers and their network of mates. The few crumbs you will be able to claw back in any review will be insufficient to change anything much. You are trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.
Only a Chinese crackdown on corruption could stop the flow of cash pumping up the housing market. And the rich and powerful on both sides of the pacific do not want that to happen, remember we have Mr Ho a developer and financier keeping tack of the goings ons, and being preferenced first by our local Liberal Party candidates. What do you think that says about any hope of reform?
What’s the latest figure of from China about 18.ooo bureaucrats and their families fleeing the country taking 3o to 4o billion with them.
October 18, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Voters would do well to revisit a couple of our previous posts on these two councillors –
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/vote-the-bastards-out-2-magee/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/vote-the-bastards-out-hyams/
October 19, 2016 at 9:59 AM
For Glen Eira’s resident’s sake please get rid of all Councillors and particularly those who were sacked in 2005. (MODERATORS: sentence deleted) We do not want you to represent us.
October 19, 2016 at 1:13 PM
“Go to hell now” is correct recommmending that we do not re-elect some of the councillors, however, he/she wouldn’t mind me sayin g that very few of the current councillors represent the residents at all!
They mostly favour developers, investors or even in the case of Cr. Ho Ho- future Australian residents who currently live in China!
October 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM
For the latest article on the Warriors demise at GESAC see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/oakleigh-basketball-association-slammed-by-messy-offcourt-chaos/news-story/5e556fc1430a1dbbaa4f4e27ccc34a23
Questions of council need asking if this Leader report is accurate – namely,
1. Why did the warriors receive the initial contract when as far back as 2009 according to the article, there was a $70,000 tax deficit?
2. What necessary oversight was done by Burke and councillors who made this decision?
3. How much money is owed to council?