Another mammoth agenda of 731 pages. Lowlights are:
- All planning applications result in a recommendation for permit
- Nothing to be done in relation to extending existing Neighbourhood Character Overlays
Here’s a quick summary:
APPLICATIONS
- 47 ALMOND ST CAULFIELD SOUTH – 3 storey, 6 dwellings
- 20 BENT STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 7 dwellings
- 37 EUMERALLA ROAD CAULFIELD SOUTH – 2 double storeys
- 653-655 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD CAULFIELD – 5 storey, 15 dwellings
- 79-87 HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH – 7 storey, 33 dwellings
- 33-35 NICHOLSON STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 22 dwellings
Grand total? = 85 dwellings
The Glen Huntly Road and the Hawthorn Road applications are in our Neighbourhood Centres (Activity Centres) with no controls whatsoever. Thus these so called ‘lower order’ activity centres are now reaching heights in excess of our Major Activity Centre of Bentleigh!
The 7 storey application in Hawthorn Road is the most contentious. As council notes, it will sit immediately alongside another 7 storey development approved by VCAT. Council had originally refused this neighbouring development and its stated reasons were:
The proposal is inconsistent with the intent and objectives of clause 22.07 (Housing Diversity policy) as:the density, mass and scale of the development is not appropriate to the scale, character and physical size of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre
Less than 2 years later, with no change to the planning controls, council now states (in several places) that this latest proposal is –
suitable for an intensive form of development that would complement the well-established mixed-use role of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre
The 7 storey building height is considered to be compatible with the neighbourhood where there is an emerging change in character that includes 5, 6 and 7 storey mixed-use buildings fronting Hawthorn Road
There is no height limit in the Commercial 1 Zone that forms the core of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre. However, the 5-7 storey heights of the recently-approved buildings are considered to be appropriate given the built form and planning policy contexts of the area.
When the VCAT member handed down his decision on the neighbouring 7 storey application, he stated:
We are not persuaded that the building would be unduly tall in this centre because: There is no specific guidance in the scheme in a schedule to the zone, a DDO or a policy regarding the preferred height.
At 144 Hawthorn Road there is a 6 storey development that council had suggested should only be 4 storeys. The VCAT member merely reiterated what has become the constant refrain –
There is nothing in the Planning Scheme to indicate that a uniform height is sought for buildings within this centre. Indeed, as noted during the course of the hearing, the land within the activity centre is not affected by any overlays that regulate built form outcomes, such as a Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay
This above decision was handed down in 2015!!!! Thus for over 4 years this council has done absolutely nothing to ensure that our neighbourhood centres are adequately protected. And residents are still waiting for some guidance on what is to be done with the remaining neighbourhood centres and when!!!!!
The most laughable comment in the current officer’s report reads –
There are currently no maximum mandatory or discretionary height limits for this area. It is acknowledged that strategic planning work will be done by Council for this activity centre in the future and it is considered that the 7 storey height of the proposal will not prejudice the orderly planning of the area.
There are countless other issues as well – for example:
- A 3 metre rear laneway that will be the entrance and exits for both 7 storey building car parks. The ‘solution’ is to use some of the ‘rear setbacks’ of the buildingS as a passing lane. Planning at its absolute best!
Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the proposal would significantly increase the volume of traffic using the laneway. An estimated additional 35 peak hour vehicle trips will need to be accommodated in the laneway. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the additional peak hour vehicle trips generated by the 3 developments at 67, 79 and 97 Hawthorn Road will be 4 times current volumes (i.e. 65 vehicles/hour with >50% attributable to the proposal).
Given that the laneway currently carries an average of approximately 15 vehicles in each of the morning and afternoon peak hours, it is anticipated that the total future traffic volume would be in the order of 80 vehicle movements/hour which is relatively high but will be manageable provided that suitable passing areas are provided along the laneway.
It is noted that there will be additional opportunities for additional passing areas for future developments at the southern end of the laneway.
We can only assume that residents will now have to back up a considerable distance into these ‘passing areas’ so that 2 cars can get by.
The message is clear. Council has no intention of doing anything about its lower order activity centres until it is well and truly too late. As we’ve previously stated, we already have:
10 storeys in Ormond
6 storeys in McKinnon & East Bentleigh
a potential 9 storeys in Caulfield South
6 storeys in Murrumbeena, etc. etc.
When for years VCAT has been handing down decisions in these areas that state again and again that no planning controls exist, council has done nothing except sit back and gloat or blame VCAT.
Our summary of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay will feature in a coming post.
February 22, 2019 at 2:23 PM
Once they get around to it we will have 8 stories preferred everywhere. That means 10 or more.
February 22, 2019 at 6:14 PM
From past history I would say that “orderly planning” and Glen Eira Council is an oxymoron. I agree completely with the post’s viewpoint that council is very content to do nothing until all options are gone and any urban design or DDO will simply endorse what is already built. Councillors may pretend to be outraged by some of these heights but they know full well that their refusals are meaningless because the developer will head off to VCAT and that constant “refrain” from the various members of no structure plans, no DDO’s, no character statements will inevitably mean that a permit is granted in at least 90% of cases. This council is not only incompetent. It is deliberately negligent.
February 22, 2019 at 7:03 PM
It is so disappointing that we have ALP councillors and Liberal councillors and half of them have sat on the council for many years; these people are not stupid; but neither of the major parties (who at this stage have real power)have the public conviction to go on record and state “WE WILL HAVE MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMITS”. Its what the public want but neither side will show leadership, as they only want to get elected. Eventually the public will react; albeit some time down the track, but it will be to the benefit of minority parties and then the major parties will no longer have control….wakey wakey
February 22, 2019 at 8:50 PM
If any of these wannabees Councillors of ours want to progress their careers in these two main party’s ( and we’ve seen a lot of that ) or get one of the lucrative jobs from their mates in office, they must kowtow to the developers, it’s they say who hold the purse string and say who progresses or who dies.
Keating beautifully visualized and described this as the conga line of suck-holes, although this latest conga line routine has the twist inserted into the finish and it’s the residents get screwed.
February 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM
Latest Agenda is 261MB in size, inflated by poorly rendered images. Technically they could do a better job.
On height front, today’s “lower order activity centres” are tomorrow’s major activity centres. There isn’t much of a difference in the range of services to be offered in the future. The much bigger issue is the lack of standards for amenity, which is why height gets used as a proxy. Once you leave other people’s secluded private open space and habitable room windows in permanent shade and declare that acceptable, there is little strategic justification left for resisting arbitrary heights.
Council officers are continuing to use the “emerging character’ argument despite the only place where it is a relevant decision guideline being a pocket of PUZ2 land in Derby Road Heritage Precinct.
Back when Council secretly argued for changing purposes, standards, decision guidelines and outcomes for residential properties without consulting the public, there were previously a lot of properties zoned R1Z where Council was supposed to encourage development that respects neighborhood character. Council worked around that by getting the Minister to rezone a bunch of properties to RGZ. Not very ethical.