After some considerable pressure from residents, council has finally released its figures on the proposed zoning changes. We’ve uploaded the relevant document HERE.
The emphases remains on meeting government population growth – without of course any mention of current housing happening within Glen Eira. The enumeration of the hectares devoted to the various zones, both current and proposed, is also proffered without any explanation or clear definition – for example: do these figures include roads?
Council is clearly intent on maintaining the mantra that these changes are basically ‘neutral’ – that is, that the overall totals are ‘equitable’. We beg to differ! Once we’ve gone through all the details more carefully we will provide a commentary. In the meantime, here is council’s ‘summary’ –
Glen Eira Debates 
August 29, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Inconsistency rules. Urban renewal only gets a look in for Elsternwick and not Bentleigh and Carnegie where large areas of council land are to be sold. Agree on definitions.
August 29, 2017 at 11:00 AM
I don’t give a stuff about hectares. I want to know why so many people without being asked ever are going to have 4 stories or more next to them when we don’t need more.
August 29, 2017 at 12:50 PM
Inconsistencies are everywhere, with a lack of supporting evidence. We’ve allegedly gone from 85 years’ supply to 37 years’ in only 4 years. The proposal seem to contradict Council’s official and unofficial policies. Council claims it is avoiding long local streets with apartments then proposes long local streets with apartments. It claims to be protecting established residential areas then proposes height increases of AT LEAST 3 storeys. There is no discussion of amenity, and only token consideration of on-street parking matters. 2018 is an election year. If Wynne and Dimopoulos like the plan then I sure hope they lose the next election. The proposal bears no resemblance to the platforms our councillors stood on either.
August 29, 2017 at 2:03 PM
Four stories in side streets should never have happened and have destroyed many areas. So what does the Council do, transfer these potential dwelling numbers somewhere else to now destroy other areas. It’s a Monty Python skit in real life.
August 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM
I’m assuming that this is supposed to appease residents by giving some figures at last. I’m afraid that it does the reverse. Colin is right in his comments about hectares. That is a totally meaningless measure, particularly when so many of the blocks of land in these areas already have 4 storeys built on them or have been given permits for future buildings. It’s all very well to write that we’ve reduced 10.44 hectares in Bentleigh from 4 storeys to 2 or 3 storeys but then don’t provide the figures that tell us how many hectares are already filled with 4 storeys.
Nothing is stated either about whether some of the new zoning is going to be mandatory or preferred. It is notoriously difficult to get structure plans up with mandatory height limits as council keeps telling us. Unless everything is mandatory, then this isn’t going to work.
One thing more that does not rate a mention is what is about to come with Caulfield Village and Virginia park. If we’re getting another 5000 apartments then I can’t find one single reason why activity centres have to be doubled in size and why hundreds upon hundreds of sites will now be available for higher height limits. No one has bothered to explain all this much less even mention it.
August 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM
Agreed. And why build these things on scarce publicly owned land? And why provide for the same amount of housing stock as current? And why propose for additional retail space when many shop fronts are unoccupied? And why not listen to resident’s major concerns? And why build large buildings on narrow land? And why not have developers contributions? And why not have flood overlays in the Planning Scheme? And why not provide for greater open space? And why not have a growth or infrastructure plan? And why not consider the origin of this process which was resident’s concern re overdevelopment? And why give exemptions on statutory car parking requirements? And why, allow for the destruction of other parts of Glen Eira such as East Bentleigh? I could go on and on and on!!
August 29, 2017 at 5:02 PM
The powers to be; what 6 million people here ASAP, and when we have six, they will raise it to ten, it’s called the growth model. Our three levels of governments are not interested in any of sustainable issues related to this growth. As they want to be able to personally rort for their gain any problems that arise. It will not stop, it will only get more and more. Until climate change, air pollution, noise pollution, poverty and crime make everything almost impossible.
August 29, 2017 at 5:36 PM
And what Council is doing to Glen Eira is the perfect case study.
August 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM
No rhyme or reason in any of this. More places are being given the okay for higher and bigger development than those places supposed to be saved. The real stats on what housing targets are stay secret. You can’t plan anything unless you have these figures in front of you. That means that council knows these figures and we’re not being told or they don’t know and this is shocking planning like its been for years.