The 13-15 Hamilton Street, Bentleigh application (4 storey, 27 units and a visitor car parking reduction of 4 spaces) features some of the most incredible officer comments ever printed. Of course, the recommendation is to grant a permit!
We are literally gobsmacked by the following paragraph:
Officers have balanced both the positions of Councils Transport Planning Department and the views of the applicant and consider that, on balance, one visitor car parking space on site is sufficient and would not have an unreasonable impact on the availability of on-street car parking.
Innumerable questions arise from such a ‘conclusion’ –
- Why is the developer’s position given more credence than council’s own traffic department which wanted 3 visitor car parking spots (instead of the required 4)?
- Where is the data that justifies one space for 27 units?
- Who is this planning department really working for – the community or the developer?
As with the Belsize application noted in our previous post, this officer report again fails dismally:
- No breakdown of apartments (ie, 1, 2, or 3 bedrooms)
- No mention of permeability
- Site coverage is 62%
- The side setbacks ‘generally comply’ with ResCode but that’s okay since ‘these minor deviations are considered acceptable’
As for front setbacks we get –
Front setbacks do not comply with the numerical standards in the Planning Scheme, which requires 7.3 metres, based on the average setback of the two adjoining dwellings.The proposed front setbacks are between 4.9 metres and 6.1 metres at ground floor,approximately 6.8 metres at Levels 1 and 2 (with balcony encroachment) and approximately 8.6 metres at Level 3 (with balcony encroachment).
AND THE ‘EXCUSE’ FOR ACCEPTING THIS LACK OF ADEQUATE SETBACKS? –
There is a four storey building under construction at 16-18 Hamilton Street (to the south-east of the site). The approved setbacks of that building are similar to that of the proposal being between 4.3 and 5.5 metres at ground floor, 6.8 metres at Levels 1 and 2 (with balcony encroachment) and 9 metres at Level 3 (with balcony encroachment).
So we now have the situation where one lousy decision means that future decisions are also lousy! Brilliant planning all round!
PS: It’s also clear that the planning department has absolutely no idea of the parking situation in these streets. A trip down Nicholson street at 12.45 this afternoon had cars parked everywhere along Nicholson, Blair, Hamilton, etc. To then present the argument that street parking is available is an utter nonsense.
Since the zones were introduced there has been over 190 new apartments built in these few streets. Here’s a visual image of exactly what’s occurred – how many car spots have been waived we wonder?
Glen Eira Debates 
April 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM
Its absolutely incredible that less than one month ago that many residents in Mitchell Street, Bentleigh (a small distance away from Hamilton Street) sent in a petition to Council about major issues associated with car parking. Whilst this petition was specific to the street, it highlighted the significant car parking issues that exist in the precinct and that will only get worse.
There is nothing compelling Council planners to reduce car parking provision to less than the statutory requirements. So the question is why do they continually do this and the only conclusion in the heading of this post. No wonder there is so much angst between Council and residents.
April 9, 2018 at 4:18 PM
Councillors are encouraging this sort of officer report by ignoring anything that doesn’t suit the outcomes they want. Ok so it doesn’t comply with ResCode. What is the alternative design solution? There isn’t one. What does the Planning Scheme say? “A standard should normally be met”.
There are a bunch of decision guidelines in the Planning Scheme. Surely Council should make decisions having considered all the matters that it must or should consider, and that certainly means the decision guidelines. What guideline does the officer believe a different development in a different location with its own merits to be considered justifies further abuse of the system?
I don’t accept the officer’s excuse for failing to consider the seriously entertained design guidelines that Council has adopted. Council can and should consider them, and it should expect advice from its officers about the degree of compliance with them. Is there a 5m setback at the rear for example? Hard to tell because the plans are illegible—they still haven’t worked out that JPG is an inappropriate format for scanned line drawings.
I have no confidence in our councillors anymore. Very few are prepared to make decisions based on the published decision guidelines. On top of this disgraceful situation we have VCAT abusing its authority trying to pressure Council into granting Permits for noncompliant developments.
April 9, 2018 at 4:21 PM
Lets face it, some people will say anything if they are paid enough
April 9, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Car parking could be fit in if there were say 25 apartments instead of 27. Not something the developer would like because that means less money. We don’t have a council. We have a de facto developer masquerading as a council.
April 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Planning is a rotten system. My vote is to get rid of councils all together. They are a waste of space.
April 10, 2018 at 1:13 PM
Individual planning permits are interesting as far as they go. They don’t tell the whole story and certainly not over a period of time. What I’m getting at is that we need to know what is happening in an entire area. How many parking waivers has been handed out to developments in say Bentleigh local streets over the past two or three years? This information collated for all suburbs would really put the cat amongst the pidgeons I think and show up what is the cumulative impact of council’s generosity to developers.
April 10, 2018 at 1:18 PM
Totally agreed.