PS: Last night’s meeting was largely all about planning and ‘consultation’. It is a continuing shame how incompetent planning is in Glen Eira when we find (finally) an admission that Council with its proposed interim height amendments (ie Amendment C147) was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and a pretense that it was ‘listening’ to the community. It is no wonder that Minister Wynne has refused to gazette these amendments.
We draw readers’ attention to the following paragraph from a VCAT decision where the member granted the applicant a permit for an 8 storey building in Rosstown Road, Carnegie. It shows clearly how – (1) residents have been conned – again, and (2) the quality of council’s planning department, plus (3) why must such information be discovered from third parties and not directly from council itself? Here is what the member stated in his judgement –
Fourthly, I choose to give limited weight to Amendment C147 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme which seeks to apply a Design and Development Overlay to the review site, which will apply a discretionary height limit of six storeys. The proposed height limit is discretionary, so it does not preclude the consideration of a well designed eight storey building on the review site. Further, in response to my specific question, I have been informed by Council that there is no strategic work that underpins or informs the proposed height limit of six storeys. If such strategic work did exist, and had been adopted by Council, it may have provided me with some understanding or basis on which to further consider whether a reduction of height is appropriate for the review site. In the absence of any such strategic work, I am left with what appears to be an abstract proposed discretionary height limit, which I can only presume is based on the aforementioned development at 2 Morton Avenue, and which is not a seriously entertained planning proposal.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/158.html
++++++++++
Here’s a summary of how the voting went at tonight’s council meeting – plus a few ‘highlights’.
Ormond Road Eight Storeys – Council will be supporting 8 storey mandatory height limits
Virginia Estate & Victorian Planning Authority – Council will forge ahead with the ‘partnership’ and hold ‘community consultation’ earlier.
Cr Silver distinguished himself by stating that he does not support social housing in Camden Ward.
Council will not be seeking to amend its local law on meeting procedures until at least 2018/19 when the current sunset clause for the law kicks in. Remarkable we say, given that emasculating the public question component of the local law was done so easily and on the whim of Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff in particular.
Caulfield Racecourse Trustees have signed the resignation paper but there is a hold up since the question of leases is yet to be finalised. We wait with bated breath!
The details of the above will be forthcoming in the next few days.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 7, 2017 at 11:56 PM
Quote of the night goes to Jim Magee
“It’s such a lovely day, I think I’II go and have a hit”
anyone for tennis
February 8, 2017 at 1:21 AM
Funnily enough when many of the councillors were contacted only Cr Magee answered, many others promised to return the call but guess what the new councillor for Cambdens mobile Cr Silver’s directs callers to then drop him an email and this added to the GE Debates comment regrettably that he didn’t see the need for social housing it would seem that this new councillor is only interested in a special agenda for rich people maybe developers.
February 8, 2017 at 7:56 AM
If there were highlights it wasn’t the same meeting I attended. On no planning matter did I hear anybody discuss decision criteria or decision guidelines contained in the planning scheme. The evidence presented re Ormond tower consisted of an appeal to authority that Council had to trust their expert. Community was criticized for not letting Council know what they thought re Virginia Estate. Still no longterm vision for what the municipality will or should look like in the future. Meeting dragged when many councillors went over time, each requiring 3-minute extensions.
February 8, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Plenty of comments up here said that all council did was draw some lines on a map for the amendments and now we know how true this is. The amendments were a stage managed exercise to try and show some response to all the criticisms they got in the planning scheme review. The result is that we are still in limbo and these sorts of developments are going to go up for the next few years at least or until the bottom falls out of the housing market. The developers will continue to have a field day and vcat will continue to give permits because the planning scheme is so terrible and doesn’t have one worthwhile restriction on any kind of development.
February 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM
The Rosstown Rd decision [PS note above] is not surprising given Michael Deidun’s past history in ignoring or rejecting key provisions in our planning scheme. I’ve know him to refuse to consider, quite blatantly, matters that the Act requires he must consider.
It annoys me that a purpose of MUZ, which is after all a residential zone, is to encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of an area, yet VCAT ignores it. Deidun repeatedly refers to “emerging character” in his justification, yet nowhere in the planning scheme does it mention emerging character and forms no part of any decision criteria.
Since the Member raises the topic of “seriously entertained” planning proposals, I’m curious why there isn’t a single mention of the Better Apartments Design Standards that will be gazetted at end of March. Last year’s media release from the Premier points out that it is to stop the dogboxes that VCAT is granting approval for in vast numbers.
Since VCAT has decided that 340+ dwellings per hectare is appropriate [4 times the Department’s threshold for high density development], I hope Council will now demonstrate how the municipality will function when all non-NRZ areas are developed to similar density. Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] doesn’t talk about the problems and constraints of high density development, only medium density. It is a novel interpretation of “equitable access to outlook and sunlight” to decide that you’re entitled to none.
Also studiously avoided is any discussion of the traffic problems due to traffic banking back from Koornang Rd such that vehicles can’t turn from Kokaribb Rd, let alone exit from 60-64 Rosstown Rd. VCAT apparently has rejected the explicit strategy in MSS about ensuring “residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems”. To be fair, Council also ignores its own policies—unless they support the outcomes they want.
February 8, 2017 at 9:13 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/glen-eira-councillor-joel-silver-stuns-chambers-with-objection-to-social-housing-in-billiondollar-caulfield-village-development/news-story/508c4173edca31832aa12d65d2c90a71
February 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM
Wow, Joel (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
February 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM
Cr Silver’s position is untenable. Social housing/affordable housing is State Government policy and appears in the planning scheme in multiple places. Clause 11 Settlement [par of the State Planning Policy Framework] has as an Objective: “to provide a diversity of housing in defined locations that cater for different households and are close to jobs and services”. Strategies include “facilitate the supply of social housing” and “facilitate the supply of affordable housing”.
Clause 16 Housing goes further. In 16.01-5 the Objective is “to deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services”. Strategies include “increase the supply of well-located affordable housing by facilitating a mix of private, affordable and social housing in activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites”. That sure sounds like Caulfield Village.
Priority Development Zone Schedule 2 applies to Caulfield Village. Amongst its Decision Guidelines is “the provision of affordable housing in the form of social housing”. Then there’s the Incorporated Plan. The Plan Objectives include “to provide affordable housing in the form of a social housing program”. There was an entire document devoted to the topic submitted in support of the 2nd Development Plan: caulfield-village-affordable-housing-strategy-by-people-4-places.pdf.
Explicit advice was provided to the Minister for Planning that led to approval for preparation of amendment C60: “Council and MRC should be encouraged to pursue and promote opportunities for affordable housing within the precinct”. The C60 Panel Report further discussing the issue is a public document.
C60 was adopted by Council and is now part of the planning scheme. The process was dodgy and the subcommittee of 4 [Crs Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling] far from diligent, but it did go through the normal Amendment process and the public had opportunities to participate. That includes residents of Caulfield. I argued support should be conditional on it generally complying with ResCode but Council disagreed.
I will acknowledge that the subsequent expansion and changes have undermined the project as originally envisaged and that is something residents quite appropriately should be critical of decision-makers about. It doesn’t comply with relevant ResCode provisions, spills well outside the approved building envelope, almost universally is taller than the indicative number of storeys contained in the Incorporated Plan. The developer secured all these benefits on the basis of the putative public benefit of social housing being part of the project.
It concerns me that Cr Silver is participating in planning decisions without even the vaguest hint of being familiar with the planning system and the planning rules that apply to the site. If he doesn’t like the Planning Scheme as currently written [I certainly don’t!] then he should lobby to change it, but not ignore what is there.