As part of the ‘community participation’ section of last night’s council meeting there was a question from an Elsternwick resident regarding a recent Age article ( https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/sunlight-fight-city-council-asks-minister-to-stop-park-overshadowing-20180601-p4zixh.html). The article featured Melbourne City council’s concerns about development overshadowing parkland and their letter to the Minister for Planning urging legislation amendments so that the winter solstice period could be extended to 6 hours of sunlight instead of the current 3 hours. The resident basically asked 3 questions – cited verbatim:
- Will council also join Melbourne City Council in demanding updated legislation that preserves our parklands and residential amenity in terms of overshadowing and make public any council actions?
- Has council had any communication with Bayside Council regarding the winter shadowing given the reach of the proposed 12 storey height limits? What is Bayside’s view of the proposed heights?
- If Melbourne City council is concerned about heights above 10 storeys surrounding their open space areas, then would you agree that 12 storeys would be equally detrimental to Elsternwick and its neighbouring councils?
Here is the Ron Torres response.
Please note:
- Torres fails to answer any of the questions!
- Melbourne City Council HAS produced a formal amendment (C278). They are currently awaiting the Minister’s approval for exhibition. All Torres had to do to confirm this was refer to Melbourne’s website – as we have! See: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/melbourne-planning-scheme/planning-scheme-amendments/pages/amendment-c278-sunlight-to-parks.aspx
- “There is an extensive section on shadowing of existing open space” Torres claims. NO THERE ISN’T!!!! The document is 389 pages. The term ‘overshadowing’ does NOT appear once in this tome. What does occur a fabulous THREE (3) times is the following –
Development should not create adverse conditions in open space such as undue shadowing, increased wind effects, intrusion of unwanted light and noise, use of car parking or traffic access for private uses, interference with vegetation and dispersal of weeds, and loss of visibility. (page 91)
Factors that could degrade open space amenity, function and use include excessive built form, creating a sense of enclosure, noise, light spill, traffic movements, car parking demand, wind effects or shadowing……Applicants may be required to supply studies demonstrating whether there will be positive or adverse effects on open space.(page 92)
The open space must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter and at least 5 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on September 22. Where this minimum is not currently met, the development must not create additional shadowing of the open space. (page 92)
What Torres fails to inform the gallery and anyone listening is that the Open Space Strategy is nothing more than a reference document in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. It therefore has no binding power as has been stated time and time again by VCAT. Even Clause 21.13, which is supposed to be council’s local ‘policy’ on open space, does not even mention overshadowing. What we are told is – Ensur(e) siting and design of new development maximises community safety and provides opportunities for surveillance of public open space.
What does all this mean? Council can ‘review’ its open space strategy until the cows come home. It will be meaningless unless firm and clearly stated policies are incorporated into the planning scheme itself. Melbourne City Council’s proposed amendment is how it should be done! (see below).
When residents ask questions, they deserve to have them answered. If officers don’t know the answers, then admit the fact. And since this resident has sent off the questions prior to the meeting why hasn’t any councillor responded accordingly with their view? Why is it utter silence from our elected representatives? In the end, is it really so hard for councillors to say –‘ yes’ we will support Melbourne City Council and write a letter?
What readers must also keep in mind is the failure to act and what this means not only for Elsternwick and Carnegie, but for East Village. Please remember that according to the first draft structure plan, we had 8 storeys surrounding a supposedly central plaza? How great a shadow will such buildings cast and what is council doing about it?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 13, 2018 at 2:59 PM
What’s worse is that the question was provided in advance of the meeting so Torres had time to research. To not make mention of the valid points raised in this post is inexcusable.
June 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM
There’s no way that this council will do anything like Melbourne. That would put a real chink in the works for Glen Huntly reserve, caulfield park, the racecourse, east village, and Carnegie proposed parks.
June 13, 2018 at 7:10 PM
Correct. I can’t see any answers to the questions. Torres reckons they’ve consulted with Bayside’s council and its residents. There’s zero on the website from Bayside people that I can see. If anyone finds this info then please post here.
June 13, 2018 at 10:28 PM
Not sure how Torres can respond on behalf of Council what Council thinks. That would require a resolution to that effect. The section 5.5 Torres refers to is ambiguous. It doesn’t make clear whether it is all the open space or only some of the open space that “must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter”. What happens to existing overshadowing? Is it really a “must” when it isn’t even part of the Planning Scheme? That seems to be the point of the questions, that the Scheme is dreadful and Council should be converting its policies into controls. Yeah and the response was really poor.
June 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM
Even if the open space strategy had some real power to control things it would still fail. The first quote relies on “should” and we all know what that means in planning. Another phrase used is “undue shadowing”. Who decides what is undue shadowing and what does it mean – 10%, 20% 30% of an area or maybe even time included.
June 14, 2018 at 10:14 AM
How many times has this bloke come to council meeting and lied his head off.
And how many time have the councillor just sat back listened and then thank him for his lies. “countless times”
What conclusions can the innocent bystanders come too , other than a conspiracy between offices in the planning department and councillors to mislead residents, whilst they rort the system and goodness known what else for their personal gain.
June 14, 2018 at 12:15 PM
Reference documents do not set controls. That is the role of schedules and overlays. Torres knows this very well. If all that is going to happen is another open space strategy with a few motherhood statements in there to sound good, then we can kiss decent open space goodbye.
June 14, 2018 at 3:03 PM
Glen Eira Council favours developers. They have always been seen as a push over. (That is why there are more development in GECC than other places.)
They are good at a couple of things and would meet Olympic standards.
1. Covering up the truth.
2. Convincing Councillors that they are really smart people and the residents are just a bunch of trouble makers.
3. Being unaccountable.
I am sure others could expand on this list.
June 14, 2018 at 3:24 PM
4. gutless with mrc
5. mates rates
6. pinnochios all othem
7 bullies
June 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM
Council has asked us to fight for the retention of the Woorayl St Reserve rather than it become a “future development opportunity”. This is an opportunity for Council to show how it actually calculates overshadowing of open space and how the shadow that will be cast by 14-22 Woorayl compiles with “the open space must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter and at least 5 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on September 22”.
June 17, 2018 at 2:13 PM
The Council has indicated that it wants to minimize the height of proposed developments in certain residential areas by going to VCAT from a position, for example, of knocking back 5 stories and recommending 4, then having this recommendation refused by VCAT.
Melbourne City Council studies have stated that there are no overshadowing effects from 4 storeys or lower. So does the GE Council truly want medium or low-rise development? Or not? Would it not make sense for our GE Councillors to support Melbourne and Moreland City Councils by also writing to Richard Wynne and requesting that the shadowing laws be reviewed with respect to greater mandated access to mid-winter, June 21st light and sunshine – to prevent the mid-winter shadow for 6 hours rather than the 3 hours that is currently cited in GE Council documents? How difficult is it to write a letter? This would also be a token olive branch to the Elsternwick residents that they have heard and understood our concerns regarding the impacts on amenity of the building heights within the Structure Plan.
Taking this position would give some credibility to the Council in their request for residents to help them retain and protect the amenity of the Woorayl St Reserve and other high storey developments adjacent to parks or homes.
While collecting signatures for a petition (asking for the State Government to defer approval GE Structure Plan until the necessary strategic work was undertaken) GE residents readily signed when they verified what heights were under discussion, many residents assumed that the Structure Plans contained only low-rise proposals.
There seems to be no willingness, by Councillors, to publicly debate this issue (shadowing and building heights). Ron Torres spoke for over 6 minutes, reiterated the current position of the Council and offered no explanation as to why a review would not be in residents best interests and so writing a letter to Wynne was not possible.The Councillors had the question before the meeting with time for an informed discussion to take place. Residents best interests seem to be of lesser consequence than high density development on a small number of sites.