As we stated in our previous post, the lack of detailed analyses by those councillors who endorsed the housing strategy is simply mind boggling. Not one of them mentioned or analysed any of the following:
- Land capacity out to 2036 estimates that the municipality has scope (available land) for 50,000 net new dwellings. Housing projections state that all we need are approximately 13,000.
- They simply accepted the assumption that more dwellings means greater affordability.
- Removing the mandatory garden requirement will be ‘compensated’ by the landscape requirements – which of course aren’t specified in any document. All that we have is waffle and generalisations.
- How increasing site coverage in the NRZ will ‘fit in’ with the climate emergency, urban forest strategy, etc.
By way of contrast, the best summation on the evening came from Esakoff. We have uploaded her statements and urge all residents to listen and consider what this means.
To further illustrate what is in store, here is part of the Housing Framework Plan. We’ve chosen the GRZ areas in East Bentleigh. All the streets presented in the darker orange now find themselves in the Substantial Change Area 2. This means: no mandatory garden requirement; tree canopy retention only where ‘practical’; reduction of rear setbacks and potentially lessening of onsite parking requirements. In other words, cramming more and more into these sites.

Finally, Athanasopolous cited the changes as only impacting a ‘small’ amount of properties. A public question asked on Tuesday night provided the answers as to the number of sites that will be affected by these proposals. In the GRZ Substantial Change Area 1 the answer provided was 7,624! The sites impacted in NRZ were said to be 3,075. That’s a grand total of 10,699 that will be severely impacted by the proposed changes. Glen Eira currently has 65,000 residential properties, but far less sites – since many are multi-storey containing many apartments. This is also true for the current dwelling proportion in GRZ but at a lower scale than the commercial areas. Even accepting this, we still estimate that roughly 15 to 20% of Glen Eira residents will face potential developments without the necessary strategic justification. Furthermore, if we assume that only 10% of these 10,000+ sites will increase their net dwellings by one (ie from 2 dwellings to 3 dwellings) that equates to another net 1000 plus dwellings. This is of course a very conservative estimate since the prognostications for ‘take up’ far exceed 10% and the likelihood of only a one net dwelling increase is again highly conservative. These proposed changes alone could deliver thousands upon thousands of net new dwellings with absolutely no guarantee that they will be cheaper, will assist in increasing our tree canopy, or assist in fighting climate change.
These figures also need to be seen in the context of what else is planned for Glen Eira. We should add in another 3000 at least for East Village, another 4000 under the Caulfield Station structure plan as stated in the Charter housing analysis. None of these account for what else might be in the pipeline throughout Glen Eira.
The pro-development agenda of these 5 councillors and this administration is continuing to destroy this municipality!
February 24, 2022 at 2:02 PM
Wow listening to Esakoff I got the impression that she actually cared about overdevelopment. When in a past life all these councillors just seemed to be voting for development. Once again the lot we have all voted in still want to fill this place with housing and people.
February 24, 2022 at 3:22 PM
Maybe she’s finally seen the light. Pity the others haven’t.
February 24, 2022 at 2:36 PM
Very interesting that the housing strategy got a six week consultation period. Caulfield structure plan didn’t. Oh they mouthed the words but somehow forgot to move the motion. Let’s get this rammed through as quickly as possible is my guess. Can’t stop the mrc from their profit making ventures can they?
February 24, 2022 at 9:40 PM
How do we stop these future plans ??
February 25, 2022 at 3:44 PM
I suggest screaming loud and clear. Write to councillors and make plenty of comments when we get to consultation.
February 24, 2022 at 8:44 PM
I totally reject the statement that I am pro-development. My voting record shows otherwise. I would ask that the statement be changed immediately.
I clearly stated that while I am not supportive of all the details we need to trust the community engagement process to rectify any shortcomings. The very vocal advocates of a Housing Strategy have for a long time correctly stated that without a Housing Strategy we cannot go forward. So here is an opportunity to do just that!
Cr Esakoff’s recent conversion to an Environmentalist is most welcome – but we should not forget that she voted against declaring a Climate Emergency in 2020.
AS to the claim that “Land capacity out to 2036 estimates that the municipality has scope (available land) for 50,000 net new dwellings” residents must understand that this includes commercial zones and major activity centres (under State control) where the height of buildings is basically unlimited and the vast number of single storey homes in the preserved (80%) of Glen Eira NRZ ‘s that are currently single storey but could be two storeys! The detail is important.
February 25, 2022 at 9:58 AM
A few corrections are important here:
1. Your commentary/debate on the housing strategy did not include anything about your lack of support for some of the details of the strategy. Whilst you are to be commended for your advocacy on the importance of community consultation, that is all you spoke of.
2. Esakoff did vote in favour of the climate emergency. See minutes from 5th May 2020. It was an unanimous decision.
3. Councils certainly have the right to nominate heights in their activity centres and commercial areas. It is untrue that in these areas the heights of buildings are ‘unlimited’ and ‘under State control’. Whilst the final decision rests with government, there are countless examples of other councils achieving mandatory heights in their activity centres as well as nominating discretionary heights that are well and truly below what Glen Eira is contemplating – especially for the Caulfield Structure Plan.
4. Finally, if the housing strategy is what is required in order for the council to “go forward” then this contradicts what has been happening over the past year – that is: endorsement of Glen Huntly structure plan; endorsement of the Built Form Frameworks, etc prior to the publication and endorsement of any housing strategy. The cart being put before the horse it would seem.
February 25, 2022 at 5:37 PM
Once again details and facts are important. The actual motion was split into THREE parts. Cr Esakoff ABSTAINED (which is counted as a negative vote) on the motion to declare a Climate Emergency. The UNANIMOUS vote was only in relation to parts 1 and 2.
February 25, 2022 at 6:12 PM
Yes, that correct, Cr. E. is a climate change denier along with her Liberal Party mates.
February 25, 2022 at 12:24 PM
Cr. Z. is correct on one thing Cr Esakoff’s recent conversion to an Environmentalist is most welcome. It won’t last as she is a true die hard coal loving Lib. GE is in deep-do-doo’s in 2022 because of here 16 year plus run on councils, clearing trees, filling our open space with buildings and her voting through massive development projects. One week saying this, and next week totally contradicting her statements from the week before. She’s a chop and change walking disaster.