Here is a table from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recording the number of building permits granted in each municipality for the 2015/16 financial year and up to the end of April, 2017.
These figures prove conclusively that Glen Eira is the most overdeveloped municipality in the South East. As we’ve mentioned several times, Port Phillip is a very special case – ie parts zoned as Capital City status, plus a huge Commercial area (9.5%) in comparison to Glen Eira (3.1%). These figures come from the State of Play reports for the committee which reviewed the residential zones – MRDAC (Ministerial Residential Development Advisory Committee).
The figures raise countless questions that we’ve previously reported on. For instance:
- Why, when Glen Eira is basically doubling and tripling its projected required dwelling figures to meet population growth, is there a strong possibility that council will expand the borders of its activity centres and include more sites into its GRZ or even RGZ zoning?
- Why isn’t council screaming loud and clear about Wynne’s VC110 amendment when countless other councils are? Remember that the mandatory 2 dwellings per lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is now gone and we are already seeing applications coming in for multiple dwellings in this zone? Plus the fact that the General Residential Zone will now not be seen as the area for ‘incremental’ growth, but is the target for major development? That especially hurts neighbourhood centres like Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh East, etc where large swathes are zoned as General Residential.
- Why isn’t council addressing the most basic of questions – what is ‘capacity’?
- Why isn’t council uttering a single word about ‘density’? Our calculations indicate that at the estimated population for 2016 of 148,000 people, that the municipality’s density (ie number of people per square km for land zoned as ‘residential’) will climb from approximately 3,800 per sqk to over 4,400 per sqk. How sustainable is this? How much will it cost to upgrade basic amenities such as drainage, open space, etc. And who will pay for it – developers or residents?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 22, 2017 at 10:50 AM
Only the start. The heart is being ripped out of suburbs and it will get worse. Seven or eight storeys will be common everywhere whilst council fiddles around and colludes with government and developers.
June 22, 2017 at 12:49 PM
The residents will pay, both the new and the exsisting
will will pay with
Loss of amenity through overcrowding in, Libraries,Parks,Pools,Schools, Kindergartens, Childcare centres, Sporting clubs and oval
Increasingly traffic congestion and road accidents.
Overcrowded public transport (State Government solution is to start removing seat from trains & have standing room only)
Air quality decline due to more vehicles and slower transit speeds
Dumped Rubbish (already a problem council has failed to make ground on)
Wear and tear on vegetation in parks. Leading to more concrete in our open space.
Loss of parking in streets and just about every other place.
Crime increase through numbers, (not a reflection or judgment on the quality of new residents)
Loss of tree cover and therefore loss natural environment & loss of a passive mechanism to help control air quality and temperature control
Decrease in permeability adding to flash flooding events, whether in local streets or in the downstream City of Port Phillip
Increase in mental illness through social dislocation and poor environmental amenity factors.
Increase in noise levels through increasing density levels
Increase in temperature through the heat island effect
Increase in hospitalisation and death through prolonged heat events
Poor IT bandwidth though over allocation of the poor existing bandwidth
Increase in energy use to heat and cool overexposed multi storey dwellings to the sun
I could go on and on and on …………………
The question is, are the bureaucrats of Glen Eira even remotely aware of these looming problems, many which are impacting in our streets now.
Or is it the Old “she’ll be right mate” attitude
We need a real Sustainable Living Strategy right now, that interlocks with our planning scheme. and not a weak Sustainable Strategy that gets ticked off as being done, then thrown behind the filing cabinet because it may raise issues that run counter to free range overdevelopment.
June 22, 2017 at 2:28 PM
The Labor and Greens Councillors are to be blamed. Liberals are mastermind.
June 22, 2017 at 2:30 PM
Where is our superman Magee – did he not say in public ‘Tough luck the residents will have to live with the developments?
June 22, 2017 at 2:52 PM
The planning scheme uses the word “sustainable” in the sense of “marginally less unsustainable”. As we’ve seen, Council has walked away from most of its promises made over the last 2 decades. It will no longer protect the amenity of its established residential areas. It has collaborated with State Government to amend the scheme repeatedly in ways that increase development opportunity while excluding the affected community from discussion.
Four weeks ago it sought an expansion of retail shops into surrounding residential areas because it decided its commercial zones weren’t big enough. If you add 2 jobs per 12 dwellings [the rate Cr Athanasopoulos argued for] the entire municipality will need to be rezoned commercial and still not have enough employment. No surprises then that they are considering rezoning lots of properties, probably to MUZ, which despite being a residential zone, is now regarded as commercial by Cr Hyams and 7 other councillors and not to be afforded the amenity residents reasonably expect.
Meanwhile the boofs at Federal level decided to reduce wages of poorly-paid retail workers so they won’t be able to afford to live in these new apartments above shops. They’ll get better solar access if they live elsewhere too.
June 22, 2017 at 3:58 PM
The numbers are scarey and what has been said here is that they don’t include Caulfield and what’s going to happen to Virginia park. That could easily be another 4000 or even 5000. Half of these will be in ruins in 20 years and most will probably be single or double bedroom apartments. Not suitable for families. How many will be owner occupier will also have an effect on the kind of community that is created. Development for development’s sake is insane economic and social policy and council is aiding and abetting this at every turn.
I can’t express enough how disappointed I am in the new councillors. What I want to see is them starting to use their brains and do what they promised to do at election time. The old mob have been a lost cause for years.
June 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM
New councillor enthusiasm evaporates very quickly, when they realize the position could entails actually doing some thinking and work. The bureaucrats load them up with meetings and trivia. The councillors quickly learn it’s easier to just to say yes, and vote as the bureaucrats recommend. Working harder doesn’t get you more money. Take your wage for doing as little as possible quickly becomes the attractive option.
Just look and listen at Hyams, Magee and Esacoff trot out the same tired old rhetoric time and time over; as the perennial problems continue to compound before their very eyes.
When money talks, good or fresh ideas become irrelevant or second grade to the problems and self-interest on hand.
June 22, 2017 at 4:24 PM
New Councillors?? they are unable to understand head or tail of what is going on in the Council. Disappointed is a mild word. They would not know the difference between the head or tail of a horse. It is our fault for being fooled with empty promises.
June 22, 2017 at 6:30 PM
What we’re getting now is planning on the run. No long term vision from anyone including Andrews. Council happy to play along. They know they’ve got 20 years of no planning to catch up on so will go with the flow, get some money in, and bob’s your uncle. Too bad about residents. They will just have to suck it up and keep paying rising rates. Disgraceful.
June 22, 2017 at 8:07 PM
Only a small amount of residents really care, 99.9% do not care enough to raise a voice or lift a finger about any issue at all. Others only seem to care when a development happens next door or in their street, then they get angry, mouth off, and disappear again.
When apathy prevails, disorder rules.
June 23, 2017 at 9:34 AM
The ABS numbers do not tell the full story I’m guessing because there would still be plenty of permits waiting to be granted plus permits that have already been passed but haven’t as yet got their building permits. Many developers sit on their permits for years before they start building. This suggests that the numbers could be much much larger.
June 23, 2017 at 9:52 AM
Who will pay? Residents who have always subsidised development. They got a lousy 4% and 5% for acres of land for the Caulfied village when everyone else for such huge developments is getting around 8% or even more. Worse is that they already said they are willing to take 5.7% for Virginia and I think it’s about 20 hectares. Not on. You want thousands of buildings then pay for it and don’t slug residents to support your profits.
June 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM
To date 24 hectares however watch this space!!!
June 23, 2017 at 1:51 PM
What is the show off Mayor doing? Posing for pics?
June 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM
Rate-of-change is not something that Planning Schemes explicitly address. There are some weasel words about not unreasonably exceeding capacity, but Council can’t be trusted to assess things according to the Scheme, and VCAT can always gazump Council if ever Council actually did apply its Scheme.
The Scheme currently probably allows for at least 130000 more dwellings in Glen Eira, maybe even more if overshadowing and other amenity standards are ignored. Under the current rules, every property could seek a Planning Permit to redevelop to the maximum extent permitted, and there’d be no statutory basis for refusing any of them.
There’d be no housing diversity as a result, but Council has argued it neither wants nor needs diversity. There’d be an even greater excess of people than available jobs too, and THAT may be the biggest social crisis we face over coming decades.
June 26, 2017 at 12:42 PM
All councillors new and old need to get informed and stand up. Isn’t that why we voted for them? Aren’t they meant to be representing us ( the residents) otherwise why do we have councils. It’s not working.