The decision for 277-279 Centre Road, Bentleigh has finally been handed down by VCAT. The original application for a 9 storey development was amended by the applicant to 7 storeys. VCAT granted a permit for the 7 storeys.
What is crucial in this decision is the fact that the site sits within the recently gazetted amendment for a 5 storey preferred maximum height – ie under the Design and Development Overlay (DDO8). The amendment was hailed as the ‘solution’ to overdevelopment by council and the Minister – despite residents wanting mandatory height limits for the entire area.
There are several extracts from the decision worth highlighting. They reveal once again council’s inept planning – ie almost nonsensical would be a good description of what constitutes the amendment and its decision guidelines (in bold below). It also points to the current ludicrous plans to allow 8 storeys! Finally, we also find mention of the necessity for a parking precinct plan – something that has been on council’s mind for the last 15 years! They have just never got around to doing anything of course!
The take home message is clear:
- preferred maximum height limits are useless
- council’s planning department is performing well and truly below standard
- these decisions need to be addressed in any structure planning and to ensure that all the countless loopholes are removed
- strategic justification was not in existence for the Carnegie/Bentleigh amendments. We maintain that they are non existent for the current activity centre structure planning as well!
The source for the following extracts is: – http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT//2017/1656.html
It is Council’s submission that the introduction of the DDO8 was to temper expectations and outcomes during the period that the controls apply and clearly seek to limit the nature of the development proposed. What Council does not state however is that the overlay does not impose a mandatory height in ‘Area 3’ such as other ‘Areas’ have. This suggests to us that the controls allow for consideration of heights that do exceed the Preferred Maximum. We therefore look for guidance from the DDO8 in assessing the proposed development.
- If we refer to the decision guidelines of the DDO8 as the relevant ‘test’ to assess if seven storeys, instead of five storeys is appropriate, we make the following findings.
- Council put to us that this site fails to perform a transitional function (within the activity centre) resulting in a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village. We do not agree with this submission. This site is not at the edge of the Urban Village, it may be at the edge of DDO8-3 and DDO8-1. Therefore, we do not agree that it is the role of the site to perform a transitional function. There is currently a five-storey building under construction on the corner of Rose Street which is at the edge of DDO8-1. This is the site that performs a transitional role to the centre and Residential Zones beyond it. The review site is located within the retail hub of the Bentleigh Urban Village and whilst it is not located on the railway station, it is also not located at the edge on Rose Street. We conclude that we do not agree with Council that this site is to serve a transitional function.
There is nothing in the Planning Scheme to require a uniform height in this location. The decision guidelines of DDO8 question whether the proposal is compatible with and respect the character of neighbouring buildings within the same streetscape. We find this a curious guideline. How can a building ‘respect the character of an adjoining single storey neighbouring building when the preferred maximum height is five storeys? Is it to be interpreted that the DDO8 control determines that (in this case) a five storey building adjoining a single storey built form is respectful? It would be nonsensical to assume that a proposed built form even at five storeys would be considered as ‘not respecting a neighbouring building’. This is an example of where strategic work would provide for background as to what and how a guideline such as this is to be interpreted, if indeed, it remained in the overlay. We consider that it has to be the way the proposed built form responds to each interface that is most important, just as the podium base of the building is respectful of the form of built form within the street. This guideline is balanced against others including policies calling for more intense development in activity centres and urban villages.
We conclude that it is reasonable to reduce the car parking requirement and waive the requirement for the 4 residential visitor and 17 commercial spaces. The planning scheme also supports sustainable transport alternatives and the efficient use of car parking. In response to Council’s concerns regarding the future development of the centre and the potential increased car parking pressure, parking in the centre as a whole is a broad issue and one that may warrant strategic planning in the form of a car parking precinct plan.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 13, 2017 at 10:42 AM
What have the local MPs done to cap this rat race? Opposition when in government started the building curse and the present government did nothing.
October 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM
You didnt need to be a fortune teller to know this was going to happen. Now for Carnegie and their 7 storeys that will be 10. An apology from councillors is in order and some quick amendments.
October 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Apology, what for?
October 13, 2017 at 5:52 PM
An apology for saying nothing about unsustainable development would be a good start.
October 13, 2017 at 11:35 PM
For direspect and disregard of resident’s views
October 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM
They think that residents are dumb. Why?
October 13, 2017 at 10:26 PM
An apology is due on many fronts
1. For believing their own propaganda that the interim height amendment will do the job and sticking to preferred heights instead of mandatory
2. For not reading their own planning scheme about overshadowing the southern side of Centre Road which would happen with even 5 storeys
3. For misleading propaganda time and time again and never listening to residents
4. For publishing straight out lies like this bit from the current annual report page 9 -“Our request for interim building height controls on commercially zoned land in the Bentleigh and Carnegie shopping strips was approved by Minister for Planning Hon. Richard Wynne. These height controls are binding on all planning permit applicants and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The approval of the interim height controls now enables Council and the community to create a shared vision for Bentleigh without the threat of inappropriately tall buildings being approved by VCAT.” Reckon they could have said that they’re not all mandatory. Must have slipped their minds.
October 13, 2017 at 11:33 PM
For representing developers and not residents
October 13, 2017 at 11:33 PM
For long term incompetence in the planning space
October 13, 2017 at 11:36 PM
For politicking and waiting residents time with objections process
October 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM
For waisting residents funds due to VCAT appeals due to a weak planning Scheme
October 13, 2017 at 12:25 PM
This should be sent to each councillor and then each and everyone of them should have to “PLEASE EXPLAIN” at the next council meeting. It is simply not good enough, what are our current councillors doing?…..nothing it would seem!
October 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM
Seen the agenda for Tuesday meeting – quite a few please explains.
Seeking extension of interim height limits for a year
October 13, 2017 at 4:14 PM
A few please explain items on next Tuesday council meeting.
Recommending asking Minister for an extension of the current interim height controls to end of 2018
October 13, 2017 at 7:21 PM
The bolded extract proves what a bunch of numbskulls work in planning and how little proper oversight is provided by councillors. The same goes for the department and the Minister’s office for not picking up these contradictions. The problem is that Glen Eira is always working behind the eight ball. They let planning die under Newton and Akehurst and now are busting a gut to get everything done asap. No one reads the fine print or thinks about what is put into amendments. It’s just someone’s bright idea so let’s rush it through as quick;y as we can and pretend that it’s going to solve all our problems.
I’ve also yet to see a single word anywhere that explains how the figures of 5, 4 and even 8 storeys now come into the picture. Nothing is based on strategic justification – except maybe the fact that there are already 7 storeys opposite. That doesn’t cut the mustard though and is another indictment of the past decade and councillors like Delahunty, Magee, Esakoff and Hyams who have been there for yonks and done bugger all except let developers have a field day and do everything in their power to exclude residents.
Now we’re going to have to wait until late 2019 for any decent structure plans. I can see the carnage from here. Go for it developers. Make hay whilst the sun shines.There’s nothing to stop you.
October 13, 2017 at 10:51 PM
Presumably they opted for discretionary rather than mandatory so when they suggested at a later date, for example, 6-8 storeys in Bentleigh it wasn’t quite so insulting to the intelligence of residents.
October 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
Published decision is deeply troubling. Obviously VCAT is giving the community the two-fingered salute, choosing to reject preferred height limits and clear design guidelines in preference to maximizing developer profit. The Decision doesn’t state what overshadowing of the southern footpath will occur with its 7-storey height. Time for Member Tracey Bilston-McGillen to retire—it’s hardly the first time she’s screwed up. Don’t agree with having to present to her back while she stares out a window either.
Council and developer misinterpreted the planning scheme. The exemption in 32.04-6 is from having to meet the requirements of Clause 58 [Apartment Developments]; they “must” still consider the decision guidelines, including the objectives, standards, and decision guidelines of Clause 58. However since Council has the view that poor amenity isn’t a ground for refusal, they can’t believe in amenity standards either. In that sense they were arguing against themselves at VCAT.