VCAT has granted a permit for a 7 storey building (43 units and shops) at 67-77 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North. The original application was for 8 storeys but an amended permit was put in. Here are the ‘lowlights’ of the decision.
We give little weight to the recently approved planning scheme amendments that limit the heights of development in parts of Bentleigh and Carnegie urban villages. They are not applicable to this site or activity centre. We understand these amendments impose height controls for a limited time until an urban design framework is completed that provides a coherent and reasoned basis for height and other development controls.
We are not persuaded that the building would be unduly tall in this centre because:
- There is no specific guidance in the scheme in a schedule to the zone, a DDO or a policy regarding the preferred height.
- There are buildings of six, five and four storeys in the centre, hence this building with its recessed top storey will not appear to be out of scale with the emerging built form.
- There is good prospect that the adjoining sites to the north and south will also be developed for buildings of similar height, hence in time it would be one of a cluster of tall buildings rather than an anomaly.
- Lot sizes in the centre, behind the shops that front Hawthorn Road are generally large and capable of accommodating taller buildings
Glen Eira Debates 
June 21, 2017 at 11:32 AM
This decision, and Council’s decision re 1A Kokaribb Rd, shows how corrupted the planning system has become. Each decision compounds the problems that the previous decision created. Tall buildings cast big shadows. Several tall buildings side-by-side cast a huge shadow. You can’t comply with amenity standards when in permanent shade.
The new Apartment Development standards specify amongst other things at least 50% or 125 square metres [whichever is the lesser] of the primary communal outdoor open space should receive a minimum of two hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. You’re supposed to orient your communal open space to the north. You’re supposed to ensure solar access to new habitable room windows.
Depending on where you are, you’re supposed to respect or respond to current or future character [NOT “emerging built form”]. Then there’s the general requirement to ensure areas can develop with an equitable access to outlook and sunlight. Fair enough too, since Council claims it wishes to protect established residential areas [which should include streets at the back of commercial zones eg Kokaribb Rd which is mostly MUZ and RGZ].
The fact is there’s a LONG list of decision guidelines that a decision-maker MUST consider. The Planning Scheme. State Planning Policy Framework. Local Planning Policy Framework. Municipal Strategic Statement. Objectives of planning in Victoria. Zone purpose and requirements. Overlay requirements. Other provisions. Section 55. Section 58 [Apartment Developments]. Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
What is actually happening is most of this is being ignored on ideological whim. “Tall buildings good”. A VCAT decision is resulting in a 6-storey sheer wall from an 8-storey development. It’s not existing character, it’s not preferred character [other than by Council and VCAT], and it has rendered impossible the ability to deliver reasonable amenity to those overshadowed.
But you wouldn’t know from reading officer reports or listening to Council claptrap. They simple didn’t consider most of the decision guidelines. Cr Hyams went so far as to deny there are decision guidelines about providing reasonable amenity. “Poor amenity is not a reason to refuse”.
I defy anybody to design a 6-storey building while complying with the new Apartment Design standards to sit immediately to the south of 1A Kokaribb Rd.
June 21, 2017 at 2:21 PM
You can argue that the planning scheme actually theoretically gives Council carte blanche to take into account anything they like in terms of neighbour’s amenity, not even just those covered by Standards in Clause 55 etc.
The “whether opportunities exist to avoid a building being visually obtrusive” is also an open ended invitation for Council to put forward alternatives. There’s not a single building proposal which doesn’t have potential alternative designs.
e.g. This is in the schedule for the GRZ;
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under clause 32.08,in addition to those specified in clause 32.08 and elsewhere in the scheme:
Whether a loss of amenity would result in varying the requirements of part 2.0 of this schedule.
The amenity impact on surrounding land uses.
Whether opportunities exist to avoid a building being visually obtrusive through the use of alternative building designs, particularly for developments with overall building heights in excess of 10.5 metres.
Whether subdivision will result in development which is not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
The layout and appearance of areas set aside for car parking, access and egress, loadingand unloading and the location of any proposed off street car parking.
June 21, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Look, VCAT cannot be trusted as a honest broker, goodness knows; what passes under the table to this lot of untouchables. But being able to use Glen Eira’s purposeful loopholes to make their job and cover-up plausible is a crying shame and inexcusable.
However the whole damn lot maybe just one big charade on both sides to reap backhanders into certain pockets.
Self interest make better sense than anything other scenario I can think of.
Next time expect 7 or 8 storeys in this area as the stakes will be higher and the wheels have been lubricated.
I was reminded by 4 Corners last week, the crooked bureaucrats in Queensland “cleared out by the Fitzgerald enquiry” called their little empire of self interest “The Joke” and isn’t this what we have in in Glen Eira right now.
June 21, 2017 at 3:12 PM
There it is in black and white. Nothing is there to save anything outside Bentleigh and Carnegie and even these are open to challenge because of the discretionary heights. This council has a lot to answer for.
June 21, 2017 at 3:34 PM
Words fail me!
June 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM
The Planning And Environment Act is explicit: “The responsible authority may decide to refuse to grant a permit on any ground it thinks fit”. Amenity features in the Decision Guidelines. Poor amenity is valid ground for refusal. Council would only know that if it did as the Act states it must and assessed applications against the Decision Guidelines.
Wonder if any of our councillors or members of Council’s planning staff know how high the sun rises on 21 June or 22 September. [That’s another hint about what is broken with the system.]
June 21, 2017 at 6:12 PM
I doubt our councillors have any idea about the planning scheme and what it means
June 21, 2017 at 9:31 PM
Our lack of public open space, which is running at a 90% plus deficiency on the Melb metro average, would be enough of an amenity reason to say we shouldn’t go on unsustainably increasing our population density.
Council after council meeting we hear that our sporting clubs cannot support the number of residents wishing to join their clubs.
And all the bureaucrats can think of doing is building bigger and bigger pavilions and converting more a more of our green passive open space into carparking for these biggers pavilions. Without some fairly radical change in attitude the 84% of residents that do not participate in active or organised club sport will be walking around in carparks for their recreation.
Glen Eira need a real Sustainable Living Plan that tackles the important issues that residents are facing, and stops counting the street trees as a hallmark of their success year after year.