22-26 Riddell Parade Elsternwick, has been granted a permit for 11 storeys – no thanks to Council!

Readers should revisit our initial post on the Rocky Camera report (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/another-12-storeys/) where we queried some of the assertions made at the time. Please remember:

  • Council sold part of its car park to ‘facilitate’ this development!
  • Much was made of whether or not the entrance to the proposed car park was ‘legal’ and/or ‘safe’. Doesn’t or didn’t Council know who owned what? What does this tell us about their record-keeping, their corporate memory, or the accuracy and fallibility of officer reports?
  • Elsternwick was omitted from the proposed Amendments C147/8 that covered Bentleigh & Carnegie – though admittedly too late for this application. It is clear that Elsternwick is fair game for developers and we can only wonder what plans Council has for further development – ie ABC studios?

We also wonder why, if so much of the Camera report and the councillors’ refusal was based on demanding safe entry to the basement car park, why these arguments are totally missing in the hearing? Instead, traffic engineering is said to be ‘in agreement’. What happened to all the supposed opposition that council was going to put up on this point? Here are some extracts –

  • At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Pitt tabled a registered Plan of Subdivision (PS7285588C) for Stage 1 that provides for areas of Common Property No. 1 shared by Stage 2 to provide for legal access.
  • Council did not raise any concerns about the proposed access arrangements at the hearing, however the respondents submitted that the reliance on the existing Stanley Street access point would create congestion. Mr Barnard submitted that alternative access for bicycles and pedestrians could be taken from the northern laneway to reduce the pressure on the Stanley Street access point. He produced a plan illustrating how this might occur. The plan showed relocation of the bike storage to car parks and the reorganisation of the waste storage to provide an opportunity for direct access to the laneway.
  • The evidence of Mr Fairlie was that the existing access to Stanley Street was acceptable and that the crossover and surrounding street network could accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development. Council’s traffic engineers agreed, also recommending additional site lines in the laneway and some minor changes to the internal layout.

Source:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1692.html

We point out another couple of VCAT decisions where council’s refusals amounted to a big fat zero given its planning scheme and the zones.

  • 137-139 Murrumbeena Road, MurrumbeenaVCAT granted a permit for 3 storeys and 27 units
  • 12 Anarth St., Bentleigh East – 2 double storeys side by side
  • 90-94 Mimosa Road – 4 storeys, 47 units.