PS: We are in error. The site is zoned Commercial so technically ResCode does not apply. However, this still doesn’t obviate the need to assess applications against Section 58 of the Planning Scheme.
Another mammoth agenda (in paper weight) of mumbo-jumbo that would fit exceedingly well into any episode of Utopia. Until officer reports become truthful and provide detailed justifications for all recommendations, then good governance in Glen Eira is well and truly dead. Here is our first example of what can literally only be called devious or incompetent – the rest to follow in the days ahead!
Planning Report
One application is for 4 storeys in Tucker Road, McKinnon. The Tangalakis recommendation is to grant a permit but for 3 storeys instead of the 4. What is totally unforgiveable in this report comes from page 73, where we find this paragraph –
Amenity impacts
There will be overshadowing of the rear open space of the neighbouring property immediately to the south, however State Government requirements remain silent in relation to the overshadowing of neighbouring properties. They makes specific reference to overlooking impacts, but does not provide detailed requirements for overshadowing compliance
Apart from the shoddy grammar and lack of proof reading, this statement is blatantly untrue! ResCode via Planning Practice Note 27 does have very specific criteria for overshadowing as well as overlooking! (see below). Only two conclusions are therefore possible. Either the planner is entirely incompetent and does not know or understand the planning legislation, or this is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way, it is unacceptable.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM
I don’t care if res code applies or not. Planning is stuffed if here they want one storey up from two storeys and then say that twelve or eight storeys is okay near four storeys or less in Bentleigh Carnegie and Elsternwick.
September 2, 2017 at 8:50 AM
https://vpa.vic.gov.au/ceo-update/ have a look about the bit about Caulfield station precinct
September 2, 2017 at 10:11 AM
It says work with “Melbourne Racing Club” the MRC don’t even have a lease if I understand correctly, it should say work with the future “Trust”
Such arrogant incompetence is beyond belief
September 2, 2017 at 9:46 AM
Planning Schemes are wide open to abuse and this is an example. Since it is zoned Commercial, it is exempt from complying with the requirements of ResCode with respect to its neighbours. There are however relevant “decision guidelines” that the responsible authority must consider, for example “the interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas”, “consideration of the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land”, “design of buildings to provide for solar access”. [It is noteworthy that past VCAT decisions are NOT a decision guideline.]
ResCode requirements can be used as a guide for what is acceptable. It could be argued that requiring something lesser is unfair and therefore contrary to the objectives of planning in Victoria. I don’t think it is a good idea to have commercial and residential zones abut, unless the commercial zones have overlays that spell out the minimum amenity standards to apply to residential neighbours. But then I have argued that poor amenity is a ground for refusal of a permit and 8 out of 9 councillors disagree with me. Councillors should not be permitted to vote on planning applications until such time as they are prepared to read and apply their own planning scheme.