Our apologies for this long post. It is however a very important one. Our objective is to inform the community why Amendment C184 represents another cave in by our councillors and why residents should object strongly to the continued erosion of their amenity.
The image presented below represents the zoning changes that Amendment C184 is seeking to introduce. In summary:
- Areas marked as red are supposed to represent a REDUCTION in height of 2 storeys
- Areas marked as yellow/orange are supposed to represent a REDUCTION in height of 1 storey
- Areas marked as green are supposed to represent an INCREASE in height of 1 storey, and
- Areas marked as blue are supposed to represent an INCREASE in height of 2 storeys.
The most important aspect of the above image is the number of INCREASED property zonings. If one were to calculate how many untouched properties had their heights reduced and how many of the green and blue labelled properties had their heights INCREASED, then the increase far outweighs the effective reductions. Even more important is the fact that what will now be zoned as GRZ5 has had the ‘mandatory’ garden requirements removed and that those properties zoned NRZ2 will have an increase in site coverage permitted and a decrease in the permeability requirements currently tagged as belonging to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Whilst it sounds wonderful that Heritage is now reduced from 4 to 2 storeys, and that previously zoned 3 and 4 storeys will also be reduced, we maintain that the horse has well and truly bolted given council’s abject failure to introduce sensible and judicious zoning in 2013. Mavho and Loranne in particular are now gone and no amount of rezoning can remove the 3 and 4 storeys already in existence. The following image reveals exactly what has happened in these two streets whilst council sat on its backside and welcomed such development. Mitchell street, with its Heritage Overlay is also another victim of four storey developments.
Finally, we wish to illustrate our previous allegation that the zoning which was introduced secretly and by stealth in 2013 has been an absolute disaster and is now explicitly acknowledged as a failure. The architects of this zoning are still there – namely, Hyams, Magee, Delahunty and Esakoff. They are part of the problem – not its solution!
The following screen dump taken from one of Council’s exhibited documents makes it absolutely clear how illogical the 2013 zoning was/is. Heritage areas were zoned RGZ (4 storeys) and some were even under a Special Building Overlay. This was done in spite of the fact that the Planning Practice Notes stated clearly that Heritage Areas were to be excluded from Activity Centre borders. Yet the Libs and Guy rubber stamped the ineptitude of Akehurst and his complicit councillors. Residents have been paying the price ever since. And remember, Wynne had to order this council to undertake structure planning. It was not something that our woeful council wanted to do!
CLICK TO ENLARGE
So 5 years down the track we have another abomination to contend with. Gone are mandatory height limits for all areas as was the case in 2018. Not once, in any document produced by this council has there been clear and unassailable evidence that the municipality needs more and more growth to meet its projected housing ‘quota’. What we have been presented with is more scapegoating onto State Government. Opposition, public commentary and fight to oppose more and more development has been deafening by its absence. Conclusion? This council has always been and remains a pro development rather than a residents first council. It is definitely time for a change in October!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 28, 2020 at 2:40 PM
“four storey apartment complexes in this context are inappropriate” we are told. We are also told that there is “conflict” and “inconsistency”. Our genius planners and councillors let this go through. The same happened in Carnegie and Elsternwick and is happening now in all the neighbourhood centres and local centres that don’t have any controls over commercial and mixed use. Many areas in the residential streets are zoned grz. Glen Huntly is still the question mark too. When they eventually get around to doing the residential streets how many of these will become rezoned from 2 and 3 storeys to 4 storeys given that this is now called a “major activity centre”.
I am completely bemused by the decisions this council makes. They can’t even adhere to their own policies. We now have another document called City Plan that wants 8 storeys as the rule of thumb in major activity centres. Council then puts up 10 storeys as appropriate in Glen Huntly. I doubt that even the planners read their own policies and councillors simply don’t care. They do as they are told and forget who they are supposed to represent.
July 28, 2020 at 5:40 PM
Like you, I’m fearful of what’s going to happen elsewhere judging by Bentleigh and Carnegie. Developers already know that Glen Eira is a soft touch and they will get their permits for the thousands of sub standard dog boxes. Council has completely forgotten the people who live here. They are a total disgrace and should be removed. From reports Delahunty at least will be gone. One down and 8 to go I say.
July 28, 2020 at 3:19 PM
While Glen Eira burns, there hasn’t been one word from Council about fighting for residents, totally agree that it has been deafening in its absence.
July 28, 2020 at 7:23 PM
Esakoff has been on council for 17 years. Hyams 14 and Magee and Delahunty since 2008. They have achieved nothing and been largely responsible for the mess we are in now. If we want things to change then these four at least have to be gotten rid of.
July 28, 2020 at 8:24 PM
Totally agree, please help other candidates that are not conservatives, either Liberals or Labor, and in bed with the developers
July 31, 2020 at 4:25 PM
It’s time for a change. Vote for change in Glen Eira. I honestly don’t think there is an point in registering an objection. I’ve spent the last five years trying to get some support from Councilors to limit residential in East Village (Virginia Park) to no avail. They changed their mind at the last minute. look out 3000 apartments plus here we come!
August 19, 2020 at 8:56 AM
Below is an email I have sent to the CEO of Glen Eira Council on this issue (rmckenzie@gleneira.vic.gov.au). I will post a response when received.
_______
Dear Ms McKenzie
I am writing about Planning Scheme Amendment C184 Glen Eira – Bentleigh Activity Centre (“Proposed Amendment”).
I am owner of XXXX Road, Bentleigh. If the Proposed Amendment is implemented, all of the properties that neighbour mine, which are currently one to two stories, will suddenly be eligible for the building of developments of up to 4 stories.
Many other residents of Bentleigh (and, of course, Carnegie) are facing the same situation.
I’m so surprised and disappointed that this is being proposed.
Over recent years I’ve witnessed the many documents and social media posts published by Glen Eira Council, in which the Council continually professes to be examining responsible and appropriate ways to improve the lives and amenities of residents. The Council’s website refers to you, personally, as a person who is passionate about creating “liveable communities” with people who have “pride of place” (https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/about-council/our-organisation/meet-our-chief-executive-officer).
Yet if you asked anyone in Bentleigh whether they think changes in the nature of the Proposed Amendment would achieve those stated aims, I would sincerely doubt anyone would believe so. Certainly not after witnessing the impacts of developments in a location such as Bent Street (Bentleigh) in recent years, such as the jamming of the street with cars (creating an effective ‘one way’ street situation), and the shadowing and loss of privacy at adjoining properties. I will leave out comments on the impact of the suburb’s “character” (despite my concerns about this), as I know this can be subjective. The other factors referenced are plainly more objectively measurable – and there can be no doubt seriously adverse impacts have occurred.
Of course, what those developments and the Proposed Amendments create is financial opportunities for the Council. No-one begrudges the Council the opportunity to chose its financial targets and boost its budgets, but to do so for its own sake at the expense of the residents the Council is supposed to support and service, is just so disappointing.
I note the Council has been separately consulting in recent periods about building a multi-story carpark off Centre Road – for purposes that include, amongst other things, freeing up some of the other carpark space for other purposes. If it is considered that this is necessary, why not use some of that space that would become available for multi-story residences? If the changes are about accommodating more people in the Council areas, utilising ‘empty space’ is surely a better option?
Perhaps most distressing of all, we have had numerous car accidents in the past 2 years at the corner of XXXX and XXX, with high volumes of traffic turning quickly into or from the busy roads – resulting in cars crashing through front fences and gardens. One can only imagine how this would exponentially increase as a result of the Proposed Amendments. Surely it can be recognised that this is a major health and safety issue? If mass developments are permitted in this area, and there are more accidents following traffic increases, will the Council accept some responsibility?
Ms McKenzie, I have young children who are learning about local government in their local Bentleigh school, and when I explain to them what is being proposed despite the impacts on residents and the risks, they can’t reconcile it with the messages they see on your website about developing “the best possible health, safety and lifestyle for the City” and having an emphasis on “community wellbeing” (https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/about-council/our-organisation/our-guiding-values).
In this context, can you please explain to me how, specifically (not in generalities), areas like mine were chosen for these proposed planning amendments? Do any Council members live in properties that are now proposed, under the Proposed Amendment, to be allowed to be surrounded by 4 store developments? Would you like this to be applicable to your property? Do you really believe there is no other solution to whatever issues this is proposed to solve – or is the message to residents of “sorry, you’re the unlucky ones – but think of the money!” really what is intended to be communicated to residents? Are the salaries of senior Council staff linked to financial metrics that effectively incentivise accommodating mass developments like this, directly or indirectly (such as by being tied to overall financial performance)?
I know this is a proposal only, and that ‘consultation’ is occurring. I will of course make a submission. But I did want to reach out to you directly as I feel these issues are exactly what a CEO who doubtless embodies the values of the organisation should be weighing in on. I would be very grateful for your personal response.
Finally, can I ask you to – just for a moment – imagine if you were in my position. Imagine how powerless and let down you would feel by the process (being one of apparent inevitability, given what has occurred in recent years despite residents’ objections) playing out around you. I love Bentleigh dearly, but the steps to removing so much of what it is that attracted people like me to the area appears to have been set in motion. I’ll fight it every step of the way, but I really hope that is not necessary and the Council lived up to its professed values. Is reclassifying large swathes of residential area for the development of enormous buildings towering over existing homes, shadowing them and boxing them in, all in the apparent primary name of dollars, consistent with those values? If so, how? Or is the main value that is being applied one of “Growth at all costs”?
I have no doubt you are a caring and logical person who has excelled in their profession. I note you are also a Board Director at Zoos Victoria – a wonderful organisation. I am quite sure in your role relating to the zoo the approach you advocate for is not ‘fit more and more enclosures into the existing space, so we can house more exhibits/animals for the people to pay to see!’.. Rather, I imagine the focus of an organisation like the zoo is largely to improve the existing amenities and look to accommodate development and new exhibits only where it does not unfairly compromise existing enclosures. I wonder at how to reconcile the apparent approaches in Glen Eira to those in this other organisation you are part of overseeing.
I’d be very grateful for your written reply, including responses to the questions posed, so I can share this with my neighbours – who are equally concerned, and in many cases quite elderly and thus feeling even more powerless and reliant on your living up to the Council’s professed values. Like me, they see this as a moment where we’ll truly get a chance to see your and the Council’s real values in action. We look forward to seeing the professed values upheld in this regard, and thank you in advance with this expectation. I also appreciate you taking the time to read this letter.
Kind regards,