Last night’s planning conference on the Bentleigh/Carnegie Amendment C184 was illustrative of the divide between developers, their representatives, and residents. Predictably, every single developer not only supported the advertised amendment as it stood, but most wanted even more, such as:
- Higher built form (especially in Bentleigh)
- Diluting of overshadowing/sunlight guidelines
- Discretionary setbacks
- Some even wanted the draft rezoning from 4 to 2/3 storeys to be returned to the ‘original’ 4 storeys.
Residents, on the other hand spoke passionately about the myriad of negative impacts on their lives that this amendment would create, or exacerbate –
- Overshadowing and loss of sunlight all year round
- Lack of open space and adequate infrastructure
- Parking and traffic mayhem
- Lack of acknowledgement of COVID and what this does to outdated population targets
- Heights that will dwarf surrounding properties
- Loss of neighbourhood character
- Lack of fairness and absence of strategic justification
- No planning for environmental/sustainability issues
THE PROCESS
What occurred last night was, in our view, nothing more than another example of a council determined to restrict residents from having any meaningful, public dialogue with councillors and/or planners. It’s also worth pointing out that in one of our recent posts we highlighted how other councils will interact with residents on important structure planning decisions that will go much further than the basic inform’ and ‘consult’ hierarchy of ‘consultation that Glen Eira does. (See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/01/07/consultation-2-2/)
No questions were permitted. The objective was simply to repeat orally the written submissions. Given that this was an amendment, and not a specific planning application, we have to wonder why the format was designated as a ‘planning conference’, especially since council’s stated aim in holding ‘planning conferences’ was the opportunity for ‘negotiation’ and potential consensus between developers and objectors! Last night had no scope for any ‘negotiation’ or consensus.
Readers should also be very aware of the fact that Amendment C184 did NOT undergo any community consultation whatsoever. Council’s original draft which was not cleared for exhibition, also did not undergo community consultation. In both instances, the drafts were included in council agendas and the resolution was passed to send these documents off to the Minister seeking permission to advertise. All residents could do, was to then plough through hundreds of pages of documents, and if they had the time, energy and inclination, they were allowed to submit a formal objection/support to the amendment. Hardly ‘consultation’ – especially when there is not a single word to justify what is proposed such as the hundreds upon hundreds of rezonings, discretionary heights instead of mandatory, removal of mandatory garden requirements, and loss of permeability requirements in NRZ2.
Even more suspect was Magee, who chaired the zoom meeting and his comment to one resident. We’ve uploaded what she said and Magee’s retort below. Make up your own mind as to the appropriateness of Magee’s comments.
For those residents who were unable to attend, we’ve uploaded the entire audio that you may listen to.
February 4, 2021 at 1:11 PM
Developers were out in force. Reckon they might have got special invites?
February 4, 2021 at 6:36 PM
When it comes to Magee, ignorance is total bliss.
February 5, 2021 at 7:45 AM
Come on Jim get wit it.
February 5, 2021 at 8:14 PM
Not a hope, a lap-dog to the end is Big Jim Magee.
February 5, 2021 at 1:25 PM
Quite depressing listening to all these developers. Clearly 12 storeys is not enough for them, nor is the goal of allowing residents to have enough sunlight filtering through to their properties. One resident spoke eloquently about fairness. There is no fairness in this state’s planning system nor in this council. Not a single whimper or protest from them.
February 7, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Got some feedback recently from a developer who lives in GE but doesn’t develop here. He says it’s known that GE is a ‘soft touch’ for developers. They gossip about it. This developer says he often drives around GE and sees developments, and comments that he would never have got away with that plan in the councils where he does work. Interesting feedback.
February 7, 2021 at 1:27 PM
When chairing a meeting, I think the chair should refrain from wading into the discussion in order to focus on the difficult task of managing proceedings. “I’ll tell you why a lot of what you just said is just not true” isn’t respectful. Depending on whether he followed through, it does suggest Cr Magee was listening, but I suspect he was rejecting most of what he heard. It is Council that has failed to justify what it is requesting. Its own document that poses the question “Why is the Amendment necessary?” fails to provide an answer.
February 7, 2021 at 6:30 PM
Telling someone what they’ve said isn’t true implies that they’ve lied. Not a good look Jimbo. Watch you mouth and keep it shut would be the wisest thing you can do.
March 2, 2021 at 11:26 PM
Why would he not answer on the spot at the public meeting? What is he hiding?
April 3, 2021 at 2:54 PM
Hello
I would like to become involved in this process and I’m wondering how I can keep up to date and become involved.
Very unhappy with a lot of the development and I believe the developers need to be brought into line.
Would someone please contact.
Thank you
Stuart Edge,