PS: Here’s a photo sent in by a resident to show what happens when loading bays are waived. (1) truck parks in ‘no standing zone’ (2) parks next to white line forcing other cars into oncoming traffic (3) no safe ‘sight lines’
An application for a 13 storey, 115 or 117 unit development at 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 14 Rippon Grove, Elsternwick raises innumerable questions about ‘consultation’ within Glen Eira and the quality of officer reports.
The recommendation is for a 12 storey building and the reduction of units to 111. VCAT has already approved a 10 storey development.
Below is a screen dump of the current zoning. What this means is that there is the potential for a 13 storey development sitting alongside 4 storey developments, according to the zoning. Council sees no problem with this – in line with some of its current ‘structure plan’ for Elsternwick! Readers should note that the officer report does NOT include this map, rather it is an aerial shot that reveals nothing about zoning! Deliberate?
The vast majority of the proposed dwellings are 2 bedroom. On page 11 of the officer’s report we find this bullet point:
High density residential development is acceptable at this location; however the building should incorporate a more diverse mix of apartment sizes. The design is overly dominated by two-bedroom dwellings and does not contribute adequately to diversity in the centre.
Then on page 17, ‘compliance’ with the Planning Scheme on housing diversity is listed as – The application consists of a good mix of dwelling sizes’. The point here is that this is supposed to be a response to DWELLING DIVERSITY, and not simply DWELLING SIZE! When the proposal is for 2 one bedroom, 4 three bedroom and 111 two bedroom dwellings for a total of 117, then what ‘diversity’ is achieved? It’s also unclear as to whether we are talking about 115 dwellings or 117 dwellings since this number alternates throughout the report.
On parking we find council is again very generous in what it is willing to waive.
The most disturbing aspect of this report however is the following –
Council is in the process of preparing a Structure Plan for Elsternwick and Quality Design Guidelines that will potentially inform future planning controls such as local policy, zoning and overlay provisions for the area. These are currently undergoing the second of two phases of consultation before going to Council for adoption in early 2018. In these plans, the site is designated within an area that is identified as being suitable for 8-12 storeys in height.
Whilst the Structure Plan is not at a stage that can influence the decision making process for this application, the recommendation to delete one floor will result in a building height in keeping with the expectations for this area. Notwithstanding, based on the existing character and built form outcome in the area, a building at 12 storeys is considered appropriate.
Everything in the above suggests that council has already determined that 12 storey height limit will remain in its structure planning and that for all the guff about ‘consultation’ and listening to the community, this aspect is set in concrete and will not change.
Finally, we repeat that council’s record in lopping off one or two storeys for cases that end up at VCAT is appalling. They have not been successful in even one such instance that we are aware of. Thus get ready for 13 storeys in Elsternwick and others that will be even higher given this precedent!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 16, 2017 at 9:58 AM
At all consultation meetings if you can call them that Council fully agrees that parking and traffic are and will be a major problem in the future. Yet they continue to agree to cut the number in nearly every development. I don’t understand their approach.
December 16, 2017 at 8:42 PM
It’s really hard to fathom why such a blind eye gets turned to parking once again. In this particular development for god sake on street loading facilities. The only thing that make sense to me is there could be a few rotten apple in the planning department ranks and a a few more to back them up at VCAT. We really need the Victorian Anti Corruption Commission to look into Glen Eira’s planning affairs.
December 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM
Becoming a real habit. Get a permit for less then apply again and again to up the number of dwellings and heights knowing council will always okay the new plans.
December 18, 2017 at 9:25 AM
Glen Eira council are well aware that parking is a problem in Glen Eira but they don’t have a logical structured matter of fact approach to car parking. The rules are there but due to the ego of the planning dept. they like to have the final say and they waive the rules when it should be quiet easy; no wonder VCAT have a field day with Glen Eira council, developers are rubbing their hands together.
December 18, 2017 at 6:18 PM
While I welcome seeing in an officer report some attempt at a checklist, the one used for this development is inadequate. It fails to address the Urban Design Guidelines [UDGV] that replace the former Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. The Apartment Standards assessment table mixes and confuses Objectives with Standards. Many of the categories don’t even state whether the proposal meets the Objective, or complies with the Standard, or provides an alternative design solution. A decision to grant a permit CANNOT be said to have considered all that the Scheme says Council MUST consider as a result.
Really really strange [?] that City Futures criticizes the lack of diversity but then doesn’t require or recommend any improvement. Once this decision is made, every subsequent development will demand the same lenient treatment. Why is Madeleine silent on this point? It would help if Council had consistent principles that it applied.
I also don’t support adding conditions to cover situations where the applicant has failed to supply information that is required BEFORE a planning decision is made. Council has a track record of failing to insist on compliance with Planning Permits. Fortunately for the applicant, Council, in defiance of the Planning Scheme, has come to the conclusion that poor amenity isn’t a ground for refusal.
Anybody else noticed how badly the proposal overshadows the footpath on the southern side? It appears officers are now criticizing Council’s decision to introduce height limits, whose strategic justification was to provide solar access to the southern footpath in Bentleigh Activity Centre. It is now very clear that even the Objectives of planning in Victoria are to be ignored.
December 18, 2017 at 10:20 PM
The checklist is new. Why isn’t it used for all the applications in the agenda?
December 19, 2017 at 6:30 PM
The incompetent Andrews Government has quietly introduced its Vacant Residential Land Tax that targets only some residential land in only some municipalities in Melbourne. Possibly. Although the bovver boys at State Revenue Office are issuing notices, the legislation hasn’t been published on the government’s own legislation website. We’ve seen before the consequences of taxation without representation; now it is taxation without legislation.