The Ormond Tower Amendment (c170) was finally published today. It is frankly an abomination! Here is a rundown of the lowlights –
- The area is now zoned as a Comprehensive Development Zone with its own schedule
- Parking allocations are minimalist and well below what is required
- Height limits are NOT mandatory
- The Minister retains control over everything – no third party objection rights
- The ‘development plan’ is nothing more than politspeak and in our view hardly qualifies as a decent planning document that residents can have faith in. (Uploaded HERE)
- New clauses introduced into the planning scheme reinforce all of the above nonsense – ie Clause 21.04 now includes – Recognise the opportunity for landmark built form, on strategic redevelopment sites made available through the removal of a level crossing, to establish a new character whilst maintaining neighbourhood amenity
- It should also be noted that the Minister has not released the report upon which his decision is supposedly based!
The following screen dumps summarise the amendment –
PARKING
BUILT FORM, SETBACKS & HEIGHT
What this augurs for Bentleigh & McKinnon is anyone’s guess!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 20, 2017 at 2:54 PM
“neighbourhood amenity” – new phrase I think to substitute for neighbourhood character. 13 storeys of dog boxes should go a long way to maintain this character! Wynne is starting to be worse than Guy
September 20, 2017 at 5:10 PM
Oh well the myth of living near a station and not needing cars continues.
September 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM
what about the clause that relates to not overlooking another property (55.04-5 Overshadowing open space objective) – details below. Because of its higher location, we will lose so much sun in Dalmor Avenue!!!!
To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.
Standard B21
Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.
September 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM
HANSARD – 20/9/2017
Ormond railway station
Mr DAVIS
(Southern Metropolitan)
— My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Planning in the other place
. It relates to Glen Eira planning scheme amendment C170, which has been gazetted today.. This is the planning instrument
by which the minister lays out what will happen on the VicTrack land at Ormond railway station and surrounds
. It applies to the parcels of land at Newham Grove, North Road and Katandra Road, Ormond
. It lays out in parallel with an incorporated document from June 2017 in the Glen Eira planning scheme the North Road, Ormond, comprehensive development plan. What in fact will occur is a 13 -storey tower in precinct A and a 76 –square -metre precinct on North
Road. . Further back there will be eight to nine storeys on precinct B and C respect ively in the sequence bounded by Newham Grove in the west and Katandra Road in the east
.
The process behind amendment C170 has been a travesty, . The minister has retrospectively provided planning cover for the building of the foundation, which I am reliably informed will carry a 20 -storey building and will be constructed as part of the process of building the rail
-under -road model at Ormond — a supported model. . What was not supported by the community in and around Ormond in Glen Eira is the
building of the pad before the community knew and before indeed the council knew and then, finally, the planning approval for a 13 -storey tower and other towers along the corridor
.
I make the point that I am not opposed to sensible, practical, transport -oriented development, and I am not opposed to it where it has proper community input. What I am seeking from the minister — and I note that his standing committee has seen this, but seen this after
the footings and after the announcement of a 13 -storey tower — is that he conduct a review into this process and that he also release as part of that review the full working documents on which he relied for these decisions and the details of what consideration will be made to the constructors for the concession that is being applied for this. . How much has been scooped back? This crossing was paid for by the last government in a budget allocation . The rail –under -road model is supported, but he needs to review this and, as part of this, provide transparency on these matters
September 21, 2017 at 9:01 AM
No third party objection rights, Germany 1939.
September 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM
Quite incredible because this means at least 13 storeys next to 3 storeys that are in a heritage overlay. The same that council is thinking of doing in Carnegie and Elsternwick with their 12 storeys. Should be amusing to watch council having a go about this and not feeling guilty about proposing the same things themselves.
September 21, 2017 at 3:29 PM
Yes, what a good observation there, Magee and Hyam will be saying if your going to have 13 storey in Glen Eira there couldn’t be a better place than above Ormond Station on North Road blah, blah, blah, secretly they will be loving sinking another boot into the residents guts.
September 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM
both the Concillors are bright. What is your problem? They have done well in the past.
September 22, 2017 at 11:26 AM
interesting hansard yesterday on Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Very good speach by Southwick (I know he did nothing whilst in government) asking the question on why the lease had not been negotiated by the government. Collecting 100 k a year instead of 1 million +. The opposition minister of racing said ‘ the reserve will continue to be used primarily for racing’. Most of the other mps spoke about shortage of sporting grounds etc
September 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM
The relevant pages from Hansard are 45 -57 (second part of the ‘reading’ of the bill). Whether or not this Bill will effectively limit the power of the MRC remains to be seen – far too many pollies still see this as primarily a racecourse!
See: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2017/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2017_Daily_21_September_2017.pdf
September 22, 2017 at 5:37 PM
FROM SOUTHWICKS SPEECH
I will declare a special interest in this in that I come from a racing
family. In fact I am very proud to say that my family, being my father and his brother, were the winners of a Caulfield Cup in 1972 with Sobar. It is a very proud moment to have not only a group 1 winner but also a Caulfield Cup winner. I am very proud to say that the one inheritance I got from the family was the actual cup, so that stays with me and is my pride and joy. It is a great memory for me.
September 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM
knowing southwick’s past form, his story and the cup are fake
September 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM
I am no fan but most of his speech was about community access plus receiving commercial rent
September 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM
He may have learnt a lesson after being caught out using a fake credentials, hence his Caulfield Cup may be a fake.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/liberal-mp-david-southwick-defends-false-qualifications-in-official-biography/news-story/438fd6f30ca7e986be4e0bc36413b58d?sv=8ded3882abef7baab0d846991d03a015
September 22, 2017 at 6:23 PM
Another f__king use of S20(4) power of intervention to ride roughshod over proper planning processes. Despite [or perhaps because of] the Amendment being assessed by a committee of members of the development industry, the Schedule fails to specify unambiguously a building envelope. Note that all diagrams are “not to scale” and lack critical dimensions. As a result nobody can tell where each precinct starts and ends. Then there’s the woefully vague “plus 3m setbacks at intervals”. That could mean no further setbacks required because the unspecified interval is chosen to be 100m. Even the language used to determine whether review rights are restored is hopeless. How big a breach is tolerated before something no longer qualifies as “generally consistent”?
September 23, 2017 at 1:23 PM
Southwick’s racing heritage. His parents are photographed with their Cup in rthe 1970s, however, the disappointment my disappointment regardng his speech and all other so called opposition was that they all spoke and sat in complete satisfaction of the bill, however, there are many sections which require ammendment. After obtaining constitutional legal opionion we should approach all Legislative3 Council politicians to make many serious amendments…. one of many being the 65 year lease to the current free-riding (100,00o.00 p.a rent) tenantsw on our land worth $2Billion.