In just over a week (February 3rd), council will be holding their Planning Conference via Zoom for the advertised Bentleigh & Carnegie amendment – C184. Readers will remember that this amendment flies in the face of repeated community feedback, and is even worse than the current interim amendment.
To jog people’s memory, here is a summary:
- Mandatory heights for many sites will now be discretionary in both Bentleigh & Carnegie
- Hundreds of properties are now ‘upgraded’ to allow higher built form when they are currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential (ie 2 storeys)
- There is a new zone (GRZ5) which covers hundreds of new sites but has had the mandatory garden requirement removed.
- Sites now re-zoned NRZ2 revert back to the 2004 C25 amendment so that permeability requirement is now 20% instead of 25%. This again equates to hundreds of properties.
- Another newly created zone in Carnegie is to have 90% site coverage and a staggering 5% permeability.
Council will undoubtedly argue that:
- It is not their fault but the Minister’s/Department’s insistence
- They have protected heritage by rezoning sites/streets from 4 storeys to 2 storeys. This of course does not take into account how many permits have already been granted in these streets for 4 storeys! Now does the reduction of height for some streets, equal the number of sites that have been earmarked for higher development. The reduction of heights in heritage areas is simply an unapologetic admission as to how incompetent the 2013 secret introduction of the Residential Zones were!
Even more galling than any of the above is the refusal of this council to stand up for residents. There has been no public statement opposing these ‘mandated’ changes. No public criticism of government. No publication of documents to reveal the rationale behind these changes. No justification whatsoever based on projected population figures and associated housing needs – especially now in our COVID era. Basically, we’ve had a council that has simply kow-towed to whatever has been suggested that would allow more and more development.
So now we will be having a so called ‘planning conference’ when the horse has already bolted. Council’s options are severely limited. They can abandon the amendment, but the argument will be that the interim amendment will expire and there will be no protection. (Of course, we do not know whether council has even applied for an extension!) Given this won’t happen, they can send the proposals off to a planning panel and we all know how planning panels invariably assist developers. Since there were plenty of objections, the latter is the most likely and legally required result.
The entire process of structure planning in Glen Eira has been nothing short of farcical. So on February 3rd, we urge all objectors, and those interested to sign up for the Zoom meeting and tell our new council exactly why this state of affairs is unacceptable. It may not change much, but at least our new councillors, will get to hear what residents have to say, and maybe, just maybe, listen and act on our suggestions.
To sign up for the zoom meeting, simply email: CityFutures@gleneira.vic.gov.au
January 25, 2021 at 12:14 PM
Five years and counting for permanent structure plans anywhere. Would love to know how much money has gone into all this stuff and what benefits have come out of it. Glen Huntly is back to the drawing board and now there was an ad for another consultant a week or so back for Caulfield Station. More money when this was supposed to be done together with the big boys at vpa. Ad said they were to do background studies too. Why hasn’t this been done already. My guess is that they make it up as they go along and are looking for excuses to say that 25 storeys is okay here. 25 will sit nicely alongside the village.
January 25, 2021 at 1:26 PM
Already signed up for what it’s worth. Watch out East Bentleigh residents this will coming to our area soon.
January 25, 2021 at 2:23 PM
You can add in all of Glen Eira especially Caulfield north and south and Elsternwick. Next there’s Ormond, McKinnon, Moorabbin, and so on. Dog boxes everywhere.
January 25, 2021 at 3:18 PM
I was shocked that Council chose to use as its justification for some of the changes that it would increase the value and development yield of land the State Government had acquired through its coercive “Voluntary Purchase Scheme”, simply because the State Government had asked. In my view that is corrupt behaviour.
When Council adopted its structure plans, and spoke ad nauseum for 3 hours without explaining anything, I pointed out they had failed to relate how their changes could possibly be considered to implement the objectives of planning in Victoria. Eighteen months later and after much additional weakening of amenity standards, we still don’t know. Why is increasing development yield more important than fairness? If the abysmally weak Apartment Development standards and discretionary amenity standards for RGZ are acceptable, why aren’t they being applied universally across the municipality?
When the Planning Conference is held, I really don’t want to hear from Council officers unless it is to provide the evidence that shows who demanded what in the current incarnation of C184 and what the rationale for each change is. It is our councillors who should be transparent and accountable for THEIR C184 but who offloaded their responsibility to unrepresentative officers to negotiate in secret with no public record-keeping.
January 25, 2021 at 6:22 PM
Beautifully said. The only explanation ever offered by our councillors has been to deflect all the blame onto Wynne. Even Wynne though through his department must have some “evidence” to support their objectives. This has been kept out of the public eye. I doubt it even exists.
January 27, 2021 at 10:45 PM
APPLICATION CONCERNING: 430-434 Neerim Road, MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 VCAT
(Today)
16 Unfortunately, there is no structure plan for this activity centre to assist us
in considering the built form outcomes for this site.
Same old story with our bureaucrats
VCAT
January 28, 2021 at 9:28 AM
The planning permit was refused.