There is an extraordinary officer’s report for a planning application at tonight’s council meeting. The application is for Kambrook Road, Caulfield North. It proposes a 5 storey and 61 unit development. The problem with this, is that the site is zoned as Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) – ie a mandatory 4 storey height limit!
So what does our wonderful council do? Simple – the Camera report recommends that a storey be lopped off to bring the development down to 4 storeys with a height of 14.5 metres due to the slope of the land.
A multitude of questions arise from this –
- Since the application was ‘illegal’ to begin with, why wasn’t this rejected outright at the start when the application first landed on council’s desk in December 2016 – and we are sure in the countless earlier pre-application meetings with the developer?
- Why is council doing the developer’s job? – ie instead of forcing the developer to come up with an entirely new application, it is council, and council’s officers’ time that are doing the work of the developer. That of course means that ratepayers are again subsidising developers
- No mention is made of the number of apartments that council is now willing to grant a permit for. The Camera report is silent on the repercussions of deleting one storey.
- The use of the word ‘generally’ occurs 7 times in this officer report. In other words, planning scheme conditions are not FULLY met, but only ‘generally’ met. We have to again ask why on earth have standards and guidelines when they can be so easily overlooked?
- The final important question is – how far will council go to accommodate developers?
Glen Eira Debates 
May 23, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Someones good mate
May 23, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Yes, I’m sure this little favour was done for “mates rates” over a meal in a pub or cafe, with a bit of the old under the table handshake.
Glen Eira’s out of hours planning system works very well for some people.
May 23, 2017 at 2:29 PM
Heard a rumour that the development in Hawthorn rd where the bank was can’t get an occupancy permit because it is higher than the planning permit allowed. Where were council officers when the scaffolding went up?
May 23, 2017 at 5:19 PM
There has been far too much of making huge changes to plans at Council level rather than outright rejection when a proposal becomes an overdevelopment. Granting a Permit for something you haven’t seen plans for is inappropriate behaviour. Certainly don’t agree with Council subsidizing developers to the extent they currently do. I’ve been making a point recently of regularly registering complaints with the Service Desk over builders/developers failing to comply with Council’s By-Laws and Permit conditions. Something funny is happening at Council though. I’ve been variously told they:
• don’t have the resources
• expected me to take the matter up with the miscreant myself
• don’t know what permits have been issued
• don’t know what conditions are on those permits
• don’t know what permits are required
• don’t know what enforcement action, if any, has been taken
• will call me back and then fail to
• are unaware of relevant council policies
• are new to the job and have to discuss with their supervisor
• believe permits that must be displayed publicly as a condition but aren’t nevertheless are unable to be made public because of “privacy”
• wish not to be held accountable for any decisions made ostensibly under delegated authority
• think state government instrumentalities are exempt from compliance even when operating outside their project area
May 23, 2017 at 6:28 PM
Laughable. Least they could do is get their stories straight.
May 23, 2017 at 10:31 PM
Sad, but know doubt true
May 23, 2017 at 7:05 PM
Not sure how these things work. What are the options for Councillors. Is it possible to propose a motion to reject the report and to reject the proposal outright?
May 23, 2017 at 11:02 PM
Planning applications can be rejected by council(lors) and under delegated authority. Alternatively, a permit may be granted with conditions, or accepted in toto by either council or delegates.
May 24, 2017 at 9:54 AM
More celebrations for the developers at the expense of the residents. How can CEO can let this go through to the Council?
May 24, 2017 at 12:09 PM
At least we now know how. Proposal was to go slightly subterranean, thereby able to squeeze 5 storeys into 14.5m. Being 5 storeys it also changes the decision guidelines that it is to be assessed against, being those of s58 Apartment Dwellings. Since Council has now stated that poor amenity is not a reason to refuse, they won’t have strong ground if it goes to VCAT given they knocked off one storey. After all, nowhere does it say 5 storeys are prohibited and it is not Bentleigh.