The vast majority of Glen Eira residents live in our neighbourhood centres. Yet it is these very centres which have no protection against overdevelopment in the commercial and mixed use areas. Making matters even worse, it is these areas which are now being exploited since the major activity centres are basically already built out and land is far more expensive. So, if any reader should happen to live in Ormond, McKinnon, East Bentleigh, South Caulfield, North Caulfield, Patterson, Alma ‘village’, Caulfield, Gardenvale etc. then they had better get used to having high rise dominate their landscapes.
Thus far we already have either applications or permits granted for the following:
- Multiple 7 s in Caulfield North
- Multiple 7 storeys and 9 storeys in Caulfield South
- Six and the potential for 10 storeys in Ormond
- 6 storeys in McKinnon
- 7 storeys in Bentleigh East
- 9 storeys in Gardenvale
- 12 storeys in Caulfield East heritage zone
Our neighbouring councils such as Bayside, Kingston, and even Boroondara have nothing of this for their neighbourhood centres. Our council however sees fit to delay and delay so that by the time anything of value is produced it is far too late to put a stop to such development. If these suburbs already contain 7, 8, or 9 storey buildings it becomes impossible to then argue that the height limit should be 3 or 4 storeys.
Making matters even worse is that residents have been lead up the garden path again by our councillors and administrators. The 2016 Planning Scheme Review consultation produced results which were unequivocal and which this administration acknowledged at the meeting in the auditorium. Our notes from this meeting included the following comments:
MCKENZIE: because we can’t do everything at once we want you to tell us where you think the relative priorities are….the order we should be tackling some of this’
TORRES: ‘key messages’ and ‘themes’…today we believe there is a strong need to develop structure plans for our activity centres…..’there is a growing call from the community in this environment to better manage development in our activity centres….. It’s not one size fits all….not every shopping centres is the same.….strong representation from residents from the Bentleigh area….there are calls for height limits in our other shopping centres…., SO WE BELIEVE THAT STRUCTURE PLANS CAN DELIVER THAT SHARED VISION
SMITH: structure plans mentioned at every workshop; 3 structure plans in the municipality within the next 5 years; we envisage that these will continue throughout our activity centres after that initial 5 years …….; preferred character statements will allow us to set out (what we want) for a precinct…..decvelopment controbutions scheme…..’a lot of that work has already been done’
FACILITATOR: opportunity to prioritise urban villages and your neighbourhood centres
Structure planning for ALL ACTIVITY CENTRES was the message that came through loud and clear. That is no longer the case and hasn’t been since the 2018 Planning Scheme Review work plan. Instead of structure planning, our neighbourhood centres and local centres will only have ‘guidelines’ and possibly ‘urban design frameworks’.
At last council meeting a public question was asked about these neighbourhood centres and how work will be progressed. The language council used in response confirms once again what their intentions are. What is unacceptable of course is that this council refuses to come out in an open and transparent fashion and tell its ratepayers that THERE WILL NOT BE STRUCTURE PLANS for these areas. Instead it becomes a game of semantics, obfuscation, and deliberate deceit. Here’s the question and response.
What is even more disconcerting about council’s intentions is that:
- Guidelines and/or urban design frameworks, or even Neighbourhood Centres Policies are NOT mandatory
- These documents are generally viewed as ‘Reference documents’ at best and hence have very little statutory weight in any decision making by both council and VCAT
- The starting date is 2021 for Caulfield South. Add on another couple of years before anything materialises and the suburb could well and truly be gone. How long for the other suburbs is the $64 question – perhaps never?
- The ‘one size fits all’ that was decried by officers in 2016 is now firmly in place with the so called objectives of the city plan.
CONCLUSION
What we therefore have is a council determined to ignore public feedback and to allow our neighbourhood centres to become quasi major activity centres. Even worse is that this council refuses to be up front and commit to a clear statement that is truthful, accurate, and details exactly what is intended!
May 22, 2020 at 4:37 PM
Agreed. Aim is to defer until too late.
May 22, 2020 at 7:19 PM
Take a drive northwards along Hawthorn rd. That’s the future if we keep this council. Can’t help lying through their back teeth.
May 23, 2020 at 10:25 AM
Same goes for Centre road in east Bentleigh.
May 22, 2020 at 8:32 PM
With immigration at a standstill, the developers may get a bit of a shock in 6 to 12 months time, when they struggle to sell them.
May 23, 2020 at 11:31 AM
Thought builders always argued that it’s cheaper for them to build higher than lower as a way to get their money back. There will be a downturn but if there aren’t any regulations to stop them they will be back in a few years. Council doesn’t care as long as they keep building and building even if it takes longer.
May 22, 2020 at 8:41 PM
I thought McKenzie had a bit of integrity, instead she ends up being Newton in drag.
May 23, 2020 at 8:55 AM
Leopard doesn’t change its spots.
May 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM
Council is very adept at resorting to jargon that sounds wonderful but means nothing and is so open ended that unless residents understand completely the implications of this jargon, they will go away satisfied. Creating policies and frameworks sounds terrific unless it is also stated that these things aren’t a patch on structure plans and their mandatory height provisions. As far as I can tell, council has never stated the obvious. They hope that residents will be lulled into a false sense of security and believe that our councillors give a stuff.
May 23, 2020 at 3:09 PM
Millions in the kitty and they’ve done bugger all for four years.
May 23, 2020 at 3:22 PM
I’ve lived in East Bentleigh for 18 years and what’s happening now is unbelievable. Construction that goes on for years on end makes it impossible to move anywhere. Centre and East Boundary roads are ridiculous to try and cross and once they start on East Village and another three thousand apartments and shops you might as well forget these roads. It’s not a nice place to live anymore where you knew all your neighbours and everyone cared about their places. Half are rented and the rubbish on streets is everywhere. Council has ruined the suburb and my rates keep going up and up.
May 24, 2020 at 8:05 AM
From the IBAC investigation of Casey Council we’ve learnt just how corrupt the entire planning system is. It is much deeper than simply paying councillors for favorable decisions. The hearings also highlighted the role of development industry donations to the major political parties.
We can see the role money plays with the government insisting on “discretionary” height limits, meaning no height limits, under the rubric of a “performance-based” system. There is no need for any decision-maker to be accountable or transparent when making decisions. If a development fails to comply with standards–and they usually do fail to comply with one or more of them–if that failure is addressed at all, it is with something unsatisfactorily vague, such as “considered reasonable”.
I have a couple of quibbles with the analysis above though. The “Major Activity Centres” haven’t been built-out. Their boundaries aren’t even defined, other than as a list of suburbs in government policy documents. Depending on which faction of the development industry you talk to, it could refer to the significant commercial areas to be found in those suburbs, or it could refer to the established residential areas surrounding those commercial areas.
Terms such as “over-development” are themselves vague. To me it means that a development fails to provide a reasonable standard of amenity for its future residents AND for the residents surrounding it. It isn’t a question of height per se but the relationship between its height and its neighbours. The State Government introduced its Apartment Development standards to address some of the worse excesses of the development industry but they were so weak as to be accepted by the industry. We’ve since seen Council refuse to assess apartment developments against them, weak as they are.
The one protection we have is that we can vote incumbents out. That doesn’t sort out the role of VCAT, ministerial departments and council officers though. Until such time as decision makers deliver on the objectives of planning in Victoria (fair, orderly, pleasant, efficient, safe, affordable, while protecting resources, conserving buildings of cultural value, protecting assets yada yada) we have to keep applying pressure to remove them.
May 24, 2020 at 1:36 PM
There certainly has been more than a whiff of dirty doings in Glen Eira planning department and other depts. for many years now. IBAC isn’t going to look, because it may get back to VCAT and then ministers.
Oh my god we may lose faith in the unexplainable government decisions alway flying in the face of public consultation processes and finding.
May 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM
Are people blind? Look what added population can do for an area, just see the growth and vibrancy in Carnegie, Koornang rd shopping strip was dead, but now is a busy hub of restaurants and food outlets. Just about all junk and rubbish stores gone, very few empty stores, unlike most other strip centres.
Wake up people, development is not all bad.
Get with the future
May 24, 2020 at 7:36 PM
What future are you suggesting we should wake up in, the future with unsustainable traffic, bad air pollution, and noise, overcrowded schools, public transport that so stressed you can’t not get on them or have any type of social distance whatsoever, rubbish strewn streets, and lack of open space ….. This future is here now ……. I think you could be a developers mate or someone that profits off the rental market and just wants more.
May 26, 2020 at 5:17 PM
A comment from “Michael” is fairly typical of the pro-development faction. Abusive of anybody who doesn’t agree with him, states his opinions as facts without evidence, ignores any and all problems, attempts to belittle anybody who isn’t as enthusiastic as he is about the future being imposed on us by people who barely represent us. Carnegie hasn’t been dead in the decades I’ve known it, just lost a lot of services when they couldn’t compete with food outlets. What is happening is unsustainable, and fails to deliver on most of the objectives of planning in Victoria.
May 26, 2020 at 9:50 PM
He’s probably just a kid with little life experience.
May 29, 2020 at 7:14 PM
What is the 12 stories in Caulfield East? Is it the Caulfield Village – next stage?
May 30, 2020 at 9:12 AM
Derby Road. From memory nos. 11-13 including the demolition of no.13. Council granted permit for 12 storeys.