Last night’s council meeting illustrated once again how this council is very good at attempting to justify the unjustifiable. This was especially evident on the ‘discussion’ for the Carnegie Structure Plan. It was voted through 7 to 2 with the only objectors being Esakoff and Cade.
What was most disheartening was that both Greens (Zyngier and Pennicuik) who have repeatedly commented on the importance of ‘sustainability’, trees, climate change, the urban forest strategy and in this case overshadowing, could claim that they have seen the report and are ‘satisfied’ that both sides of Koornang Road will not be impacted by the increase of height from 4 to 5 storeys. They maintained that sunlight to these streets are assured. This most important report was not included in the agenda, so we cannot comment on its validity. The Built Form Frameworks, were also unavailable. So all we have to go on is what the actual Design and Development Overlay (DDO) states in terms of protecting sunlight to Koornang Road. This is presented below:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
To be clear as to what is proposed in the above DDO, one needs to understand the difference between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. The winter solstice is ‘measured’ at June 22 and the equinox at September 22nd. The DDO makes it clear that ensuring sunlight reaches the footpaths along Koornang Road will only be assessed according to the spring data AND NOT THE WINTER data. Furthermore, the fact that the word ‘at’ is used is completely contrary to what most planning schemes state. Usually there is a time span included –ie from 10am to 3pm. In this instance, are we to assume that if there is a fraction of sunlight AT 10am, then all is well for the Western side of Koornang Road, and if it happens to be 2pm then the eastern side this is also okay? What about the intervening time spread? How much sunlight is hitting the western side at say 12pm? Or the eastern side at 1pm? How much of the entire street remains in shadow for times other than 10am or 12pm? The very fact that the DDO has been written in this fashion is cause for concern. No councillor of course even mentioned this – nor the impacts on other increased height limits throughout the centre.
The only councillor willing to speak fully about her reservations was Esakoff and to a lesser extent Cade. We present her comments in full below:
The ongoing UNCRITICAL acceptance by most councillors of vital strategic planning documents is unacceptable. They are charged with oversight. They are supposed to represent their constituents and not some allegiance to political parties. It is councillors who are charged with making decisions in the best interests of the community.Thus far this election term, they have been dismal failures for the most part. Instead they are mere rubber stamps for a bureaucracy that is not held to account and is not elected by residents. When will we have councillors with the balls to challenge incompetent reports, biased analyses, and anti-community decision making?
Glen Eira Debates 
August 10, 2022 at 4:25 PM
A fabulous post and I agree completely with the final paragraph. I also thank cr Esakoff for saying what she believes and I’m sure that she is at least one councillor who has read the entire reports. Don’t think I can say the same for others.
August 10, 2022 at 4:30 PM
I listened to the “discussion”, noted the usual rhetorical tricks eg hypothetical syllogisms. They failed to note that the State Government defines the entire suburb of Carnegie to be a major activity centre. They ignored all the residential properties in the area they were considering, repeated the mistake of describing them as commercial when they’re not. Councillors expressed their concerns for Koornang Rd and for traders but completely ignored the amenity impacts on residents. They referred multiple times to secret information that they haven’t shared with the public. Once again we had a reference to undocumented statements coming from unknown sources from within state government bureaucracy threatening us with even worse if we don’t capitulate to their undocumented demands. There are an infinite number of possibilities for coping with an increase in population if, as several councillors argued, unsustainability is considered desirable. We were presented with just one possibility, one that ensures poor amenity and the likelihood of endless battles at VCAT. While privately some councillors may have concerns, 7 of them did endorse the proposal in preference to all others.
August 11, 2022 at 9:10 AM
Heritage is heritage one would presume regardless of where it is. Glen Huntly structure plan, which is also a major activity centre, can have 4 storeys for heritage and Carnegie gets the prize of 5 storeys. Go figure!