Apparently not all residents fully understand the significance of the officer recommendations for Tuesday night’s vote on the structure plans.
We reiterate: every single major planning issue has been done under Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act, 1987 – thereby excluding residents from the right to have any input, plus practically removing the possibility of major change down the line!
Leopards clearly don’t change their spots, so here we are again – going down the same anti-democratic, anti-community pathway. Here’s the sad history of 20(4) –
- The introduction of the residential zones in August 2013 – in total secrecy, without consultation, and now acknowledged as a complete disaster
- The introduction of the ‘interim height’ amendments for Bentleigh & Carnegie in 2016. Again no consultation.
- Now the recommendation for a resolution that endorses the ‘built form measures’ etc. That means 12 storeys for Elsternwick & Carnegie and rezoning of heaps of other properties and doubling the size of activity centres! – all without an iota of strategic justification!
Only a fool would believe that if Wynne says ‘yes’ to 12 storeys in Carnegie & Elsternwick for these ‘interim controls’ that when council finally gets around to a full amendment (in a further couple of years at best) he is likely to reduce these heights and zonings. Council knows this fully well. Plus they will be able to argue that 12 storeys is now an ‘established’ reality so no point in seeking to reduce height years down the track. This is just another example of sheer bastardry, sleight of hand, and the attempt to camouflage what is really going on. If it wasn’t, then the significance of 20(4) would be clearly explained and justified. It wouldn’t be buried in a wordy, vague, and ultimately reprehensible recommendation!
Glen Eira Debates 
February 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM
So true, it will interesting to hear the positions of our councillors to this. This should make or break their credibility, which maybe a stretching the reality of my comment as Hyams, Esocoff, Magee and Delahunty have proved time on time over the years, when it come to planning they support the officers..
February 26, 2018 at 4:24 PM
Not too many of them would care about credibility. They care about their political mates and developers
February 26, 2018 at 6:29 PM
I have no trust in this council and while the same characters sit there and pour out more crap residents continue to suffer. They sold out to the mrc, they sold out on Virginia park and are now selling out on all the great suburbs that are copping it in the neck.
February 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM
Once they get 12 storeys in it will never change. Nothing that residents have said has been included in these plans. No high rise, no multi storey car parks, no selling off of land for more development and make developers pay. All ignored.
February 26, 2018 at 9:11 PM
sack em all
February 26, 2018 at 9:33 PM
12 storeys they have to be kidding. For crying out loud this is a residential suburb. It’s not meant to be a concrete jungle although it seems some want it that way. Certainly not enough is being done about it. If VCAT is approving this stuff time and time again why aren’t they campaigning for VCAT to be scrapped so that people that you actually get to vote for decide.
February 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM
VCAT is constrained by council’s planning scheme. Whilst far from a wonderful institution, the real question that needs to be asked is why council for the past decade has not addressed the countless issues that allows vcat to grant permits. We remind readers that Glen Eira has no structure plans, no development contribution levies, no parking precinct plans, no tree register, no notice of motion, no record of listening to residents etc. etc. etc. Yet 4 of these councillors have been in charge: Hyams and Esakoff since 2003 (with Hyams less 3 years) Magee since 2008 and Delahunty since 2012 – plenty of time to achieve reform and some decent responsible governance and transparency.
February 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM
ITEM 9.1 STRUCTURE PLAN AND QUALITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
CONTEXT REPORT
“The report states that based on the current planning controls, conservatively, the City of Glen Eira has development sites available to provide a net gain of 25,970 dwellings. Based on the number of dwellings counted in the Census in 2011 and 2016 (an additional 3,545 dwellings over five years, or approximately 709 per annum), this represents about 36 years of supply.
Essentially, the report suggests that Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme, unchanged, would see an additional 26,000 dwellings by 2051 which is 2,000 dwellings short of the 28,000 municipal target.
It is important to note that the case for Structure Plans is not just meeting State Government housing targets, but also responding to community concerns regarding the location of housing growth, as allowed under the current planning scheme”
I thought we had a population target and not a dwelling target, and how true is the above council statement.
February 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM
All of these figures are completely meaningless as far as I can tell for two reasons –
1. How on earth can they say that there is a 2000 dwelling shortfall when they don’t even know how many dwellings are likely to fit into a 12 storey building, or a 6 storey building and whether these will be one or two bedroom or three bedroom. They have no idea of what will happen in the commercial centres and there is therefore not a scrap of credibility to any of the figures they’ve plucked out of their backsides.
2. Trying to forecast what is likely to happen in 2051 when the structure plans are supposed to only go to 2031 is insanity. We are already way ahead of other councils in having over development. They should be putting a halt to all of this and not encouraging it with bogus arguments and figures. Plus has anyone seen any mention of Caulfield Village’s next phase which will bring in another 1000 plus dwellings? Conveniently ignored!
February 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM
Spot on D.Evans, I think we have a very pro development admin now and the majority of councillor have a similar views for their personals political reasons and outcomes.
Carnegie shopping centre and environs is already a ad hock collection of unattractive large buildings with none of them adding much or any amenity to this precinct. Council will need to pull the proverbial rabbit out of its hat to tidy up this mess Newton/Burke administrations left behind. This alone would be a huge challenge without adding more ill thought out maybe’s in to the mix.
February 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM
Did the mayor ever respond to your public letter?
February 27, 2018 at 12:05 PM
Dwelling opportunities numbers are just noise to suggest research has been done. For starters, these numbers don’t acknowledge VC110 which allows for significant changes in the development of NRZ hence they are substantially understated.
This point aside, Council hasn’t done the real work which is on the population projection side including: recent new dwelling approvals, development approval trends, population densities, future open space provision levels and other LGA benchmarking. For example, no evaluation of the 9,000 new dwellings over 15 years figure has been done. This is a huge gap in the premise of all the planning.
I have provided feedback that this analysis must be undertaken on at least 3 occasions as part of the feedback process but unfortunately no action.
I find it very disappointing that Council hasn’t used this process as a genuine opportunity to advocate for residents on the excessive and inappropriate over development of Glen Eira. Would have thought that was central to their role.
February 27, 2018 at 7:24 PM
You’ve pinpointed some of the most important gaps Mr Green. This blog site has also revealed how inaccurate the numbers of new dwellings per lot size are. If I remember correctly the housing report thought that only an additional 0.6 dwellings would fit onto a 700 square metre site in the nrz. We’ve had plenty of examples where this assumption is miles out and developers are going for 4 and even 5 dwellings.
There is much amiss in all the reports published so far. On advocacy, why advocate for something when your goal is to help developers out rather than limit their impact. That is council’s position. The more dwellings the merrier!
February 27, 2018 at 7:45 PM
100% correct – they’ve been caught red handed
February 27, 2018 at 7:21 AM
Council has demonstrated that 12 storeys in the configurations they envisage don’t comply with Apartment Developments standards. Either they’re planning to ignore the standards, or they interpret them so flexibly that they’re meaningless. There isn’t an explanation amongst all the verbage. Diligence would require an explanation before a vote.
February 27, 2018 at 9:06 PM
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/racing/mrc-chairman-symons-stands-firm-as-calls-for-him-to-quit-intensify-20180227-p4z1xp.html
February 27, 2018 at 9:21 PM
The town hall is full of mediocre people.. I suspect Newton left his manifesto to be followed. We need councillors with guts to represent the future.
February 28, 2018 at 3:31 PM
Very Disappointing! Our beautiful suburbs disappearing fast.