We urge all readers to carefully consider the significance of the following screen dump. It comes from the consultant’s report that accompanies Melbourne City Council’s attempt to ensure that ALL of its parks receive the appropriate amount of sunlight during the winter months. Melbourne has now formulated Amendment C278 in order to achieve this. (Uploaded HERE)
The image depicts the overshadowing resulting from a 20 metre (6 storey) building. Glen Eira in its wisdom proposes buildings to a height of 43 metres, with a 4 metre ‘exemption’ for masts, etc. Even if a building is of a lower height as envisaged for East Village, (ie 8 storeys) the fact that public open space will be surrounded by 8 storeys on all sides, is great cause for concern. If a 6 storey building has the potential to throw a shadow of between 90 and 111 metres in winter, what percentage of the proposed ‘public plazas’ will be in the dark for most of the day? What does this also mean for council’s structure planning such as in Elsternwick which will have new open spaces surrounded by 12 storeys? And Caulfield Village plus Monash’s Fusion Plan that will reach at least 22 storeys surrounding its public space reserves?
The very fact that several council meetings ago, there was no commitment forthcoming to support Melbourne City Council in its endeavours reveals much about the mindset that dominates in Glen Eira. Thus far they even seem incapable of providing shadow diagrams able to stand up to full scrutiny.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 11, 2018 at 7:53 PM
Problems galore. Bentleigh new open space surrounded by 5 storeys according to structure plan. Carnegie’s plans even worse. 6 to 8 storeys all round and up to 12 in parts of Egan. Elsternwick is the pits. 12 storeys abound. How about council saving squillions on useless planning staff and consultants and just handing everything over to the developers. That way at least we would all know what they stand for.
July 11, 2018 at 8:16 PM
The extent and duration of winter shadowing is particularly pertinent as we have more high rise development in Melbourne. Shadowing law should be reviewed before more tall buildings are planned, now is the time to call for a review. Other councils (Moreland, Port Philip, Melbourne) see the degree of winter shadowing as an important consideration on adjacent public land – what about adjacent homes? Melbourne City Council’s report said that overshadowing from 4 storey buildings was minimal – Would 4 storey buildings rather than higher buildings within Glen Eira’s Structure Plans be a livable solution for residents currently faced with much higher builds? Given the current rate of new apartment builds in Glen Eira, there is plenty of room to move on this and still meet the expected population growth for Glen Eira. Is anyone listening?
July 11, 2018 at 11:55 PM
GEC planners and councillors will be happy for residents to be deprived of the opportunity to build up Vitamin D into their bodies. This is also called the “sunshine Vitamin” and this is important for good health and well being in moderation. Sunlight cannot be absorbed through window glass and is important for preventing and curing mental illness, assisting muscular development, protection against inflammation, multiple sclerosis prevention, eyesight problem development (children in high-rise in Singapore are developing sight problems) , brain development, lowering blood pressure, dementia and osteoporosis.
HOW CAN ANYONE HAVE A HEALTHY LIFE WITHOUT IT??????
July 12, 2018 at 9:12 AM
Very Good points, of course they could place rooftop garden on these buildings, and help the quality of life for the people living in these new buildings, but this is never going to happen with the poor quality of our councillors and staff. As usual it’s tough luck for the overshadowed residents.
July 17, 2018 at 9:24 PM
It is extraordinary that even where Council has opposed tall buildings that fail to comply with council policies and amenity standards, it undermines itself by granting permit extensions, all without transparency or accountability. Council’s structure plans didn’t claim to deliver acceptable amenity, and once amenity was a non-goal, they felt there wasn’t a need for shadow diagrams to be published either.