Councillors of course voted in the latest version of the Urban or ‘Quality Design’ Guidelines at the recent council meeting. See Item 9.5 from the agenda.
But, if you blink you will miss the really important stuff in this item.
One little sentence buried on page 7 of an 8 page report tells the story of this council’s failure to practice full and open disclosure. The sentence we refer to is:
The commercial setback above the podium was reduced from 6 metres to 5 metres, which is in line with a number of submissions received
Really? A ‘number of submissions’? – Obviously not too many because council itself admits:
Between 30 October and 11 December 2017, Council sought community feedback on the draft Quality Design Guidelines. Over this 6 weeks period, 38 submissions were received (20 online and 18 in paper), along with 3 surveys and 14 Facebook comments.
Sadly, these comments have not been published by council. Nor do we have any explanation in this Mullin report as to why it was decided that Glen Eira residents will be better off when there is a reduction in setbacks? It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that with smaller setbacks, the developer can cram in more apartments?
And are we really to believe that even if every single one of these 38 citizens demanded a REDUCTION in setbacks that council was prepared to accede to this demand and completely ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of residents who opposed 8 and 12 and even 4 storeys to begin with?
What is also disconcerting is that the October version of the Quality Design Guidelines has now disappeared from council’s website – making it even harder for residents to compare the ‘before and after changes’. Surely a ‘fact sheet’ that provides a clear cut and honest summary of ALL CHANGES is required and not just the spin and deception that council continually practices.
There are many changes in these documents. We simply highlight a few –
BEFORE
AND FOR SHOP TOP (STANDARD) BEFORE
AND AFTER
There are many, many more points of comparison that readers should be looking out for – and not only in terms of setbacks, but also open space, etc.
This has now passed council. Again without giving residents the opportunity to comment or have any input.
March 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM
Zero is a number too. The diagrams don’t show the ResCode setback envelope, or the shadows cast when the tower/podium form is to the north of existing residential properties. It claims the result will provide high levels of internal amenity, but only for existing and future occupants of adjacent towers. Even that is doubtful for the residents at the lowest levels. The diagrams don’t show the impact on communal open space. Is Council already planning to waive compliance with Standard D7?
March 8, 2018 at 11:24 PM
Looks to me all this is designed with east village in mind, they are surely going to squeeze them in there.
March 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM
Interesting the application of different methods and levels of justification. Evidently a few people provide feedback regarding set backs (but this feedback is not avaiable or transparent) and this gets amended in the favour of development. Conversely many residents provide feedback on excessive development and we get discretionary heights in Elsternwick and Carnegie. These decisions again lack consistency, integrity and ethics and are biased towards one group and as per usual, this group is not the residents.
March 9, 2018 at 2:48 PM
An IBAC investigation would clear the carpetbaggers out of our town hall and would put representative democracy back into the process.