If anyone thought that things couldn’t get any worse as far as planning goes in Glen Eira, then a perusal of the Carnegie Structure Plan proposals put pay to this delusion. Once again there has not been any community consultation on the latest draft. Instead councillors are being asked to pass this item and send off to the minister for advertising approval. Then it will come back for formal amendment submissions. This does not constitute ‘consultation’ given that planning panels are generally in favour of whatever councils propose. Furthermore, writing submissions and then attending hearings takes time, energy and total commitment by residents. Even worse, is that in order to fully comprehend what is being proposed, residents will have to wade through hundreds upon hundreds of pages. Hardly conducive to good ‘consultation’ and full transparency.
What is clear however, is that this latest version is even worse than the abandoned C184. A quick summary follows:
- Heritage along Koornang Road has gone from 4 storey mandatory to 5 storey mandatory
- The discretionary heights of 12 storeys and 43 metres has now gone up to 46 metres
- Onsite car parking provision will be reduced
- Other sites have also gone from 5 to 6 storeys to the south of Neerim Road
There is not a single word that we could find which explains/justifies why there has been this increase in heights – apart from stating that the consultant urban designer thought it was okay. Interestingly, this ‘conclusion’ is proffered but without the publication of any overshadowing documentation, and the admission that in certain areas only the September solstice was considered.
Also gone from the current proposal are such decision guidelines which featured in 2017 and 2018 as –
To preserve and enhance the low scale character of the Koornang Road shopping strip.
Whether proposed buildings on sites that are in the vicinity of a heritage place are respectful of that heritage place.
To ensure an appropriate design response to sensitive interfaces, such as heritage or low-scale residential sites and open space
They are replaced with this hogwash –
responds to the existing heritage fabric in Koornang Road and the heritage significance of the Rosstown Hotel.
We are also concerned that the current DDO which only applies to the commercial and mixed use areas in Carnegie, means that the surrounding residential streets (ie Mimosa) reverts back to its current zoning of 4 storeys, instead of what in 2018 was rezoned as 3 storeys. This applies to other residential areas too. Council is claiming that the zoning will be part of the Housing Strategy, but even this document does not make this clear. Plus, by the time anything is gazetted we could still be looking at another 2 years!
To highlight the newest proposals we have provided screen dumps of what came before and what council now wants for Carnegie and what currently exists.
- The current height proposals –

2. The 2018 version

3. And the latest ddo which only concentrated on the commercial and mixed use zones. This proposed amendment even outdoes the following –

It must be remembered that Amendment C184 was abandoned and that 4 councillors voted again the Housing Strategy. In our view nothing has changed except that the latest proposals represent a further deterioration in all aspects of town planning and concern about over-development and the destruction of this municipality.
August 9, 2022 at 1:06 PM
Wynne must be exceedingly proud of Glen Eira City Council in pushing the envelope even further than he envisaged. McKenzie and Torres are really pushing up the ladder of reward no doubt.
We have had so called expert reports on “capacity” and that there is enough land for the next 30 years to meet population targets. Why then do we need to increase this even further by raising heights, ignoring heritage, sustainability, tree canopy, drainage, and a myriad of other issues. Supposedly supporting business by offering more office space is nothing more than pie in the sky. The majority will be apartments built according to the lowest and cheapest common denominator. Even with social housing council is happy with a paltry 5%.
Carnegie is already an eye-sore. It will become even worse with streets in shadow all year long and traffic chaos the end result.
August 9, 2022 at 1:51 PM
I’m relying on memory here, so some leeway please. Around 2017 Carnegie got heights of 7 and 6 storeys discretionary. A year later this became 8 and 12 storeys mandatory. With c184 everything became discretionary. This latest ballsup keeps the discretionary and raises heights elsewhere. We’ve therefore gone from 7 storeys as “appropriate” to 12+ storeys as the new model. Will someone please explain to me how this can happen without a wimper from council?
August 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM
Hopefully IBAC gets more powers to investigate grey corruption. The proposal is a mess, strategically. Council claims it can’t afford the infrastructure required to support the mess created to date but seeks to make things worse. As for residential amenity, it has payed only lip service, and frequently ignored key “decision guidelines” if they don’t the support the outcome they want. I’d like to see a comprehensive audit to catalog all breaches of standards and instances of planning decisions that result in poor amenity. Currently Council won’t enforce compliance with planning permits. That appears to be the strategic justification for weakening standards. If you have no standards then nothing is non-compliant. I’m critical of past councillors that ignored the consequences of their decisions but the current crop shouldn’t seek to make things worse.
August 9, 2022 at 7:07 PM
Unfortunately your mention of “past councillors” is not yet over. We are still stuck with the likes of Magee, Athanasopolous, and Esakoff who have overseen the various planning changes. The first two are a disgrace in my view. Esakoff has at least voiced some recent concerns. That puts the onus on the new councillors such as Zhang, Szmood, Cyngier, Parasol and Cade. Their role is to support community views. Nothing more or less – even if the government says otherwise. At least residents should know which councillors refuse to be complicit with the planning department’s objectives.
August 9, 2022 at 7:29 PM
I’ve been looking at the two height maps and the changes are mind boggling. Heaps of sites have gone way higher with no justification. If this is happening to Carnegie then god help us with what these bastards are planning for Bentleigh and Elsternwick.
August 9, 2022 at 10:08 PM
Either our councillors are breathtaking bad at their job representing their constituency, or are simply more interested in furthering their own political aspirations… I’d at least like it to be either of those options rather than outright corruption, but nothing would surprise me at this point given the hardcore pro development stance of Glen Eira