If one counts the number of times that various councillors used the phrase ‘better controls’ or ‘better managed growth’ or ‘better planning’ in terms of the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan, one should conclude that the draft is god’s gift to planning acumen and a truly wonderful improvement for residents. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We do currently have interim controls via a Design & Development Overlay in Bentleigh that will not expire until December 31st, 2024. Whilst Amendment C228 changed the DDO to only include the commercial and mixed use, it begs the question of why the current draft structure plan sees fit to include some residential rezonings in its borders. Surely this flies in the face of Amendment c228? Regardless of this anomaly, the existing DDO still represents a vast improvement on what is currently proposed. It stipulates:
- Mandatory height controls along all of Centre Road
- Lower heights in metres for equivalent number of storeys to what is now proposed
- Far greater setbacks than in the current draft for certain conditions
Here is what the existing DDO consists of:
Readers will see: Nothing above 5 storeys. The current version is up to 8 storeys DISCRETIONARY
To therefore argue that the current draft structure plan will provide ‘better controls’ is beyond belief. Nor is it acceptable to argue that without rear setbacks for commercial sites that are not heritage listed that abutting heritage places will be better protected – as Athanasopolous would like us to believe.
So what has changed in the space of 15 months? Why is council so gung-ho on creating strategies that are far, far worse than what currently exist? What communication has taken place between officers and the department? Were councillors ever present at these meetings, or have they been privy to any of the communications? Why aren’t such communications made public or, at the very least, a report on what has taken place in such meetings?
Even if we accept that population will increase by approx 2000 over the next 15 years, how does this justify the proposed changes? And what guarantee is there that with increased apartments there will be more affordable housing? According to the latest census results, we already have 9+% of dwellings standing vacant across the municipality. Why? Are these properties that are already too expensive? Owned by foreign investors? Land banking until prices rise by developers?
No councillor at Tuesday night’s meeting had the courage to state the bleeding obvious! Zhang went on about how wonderful it was that streets currently zoned as RGZ (4 storeys) would now be reduced to 2 storeys because they are in a heritage overlay. She of course doesn’t mention how many four storey developments already exist in these streets, nor how many sites will be ‘upgraded’ to go from 2 storeys to 3 and 4 storey heights. When these are added up, they far exceed the number of properties that have had a reduction in height! What this also reveals is that the original introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster. No area under a heritage overlay should have been zoned for 4 storeys. And neither should all those properties that lie in the flood plain (SBO overlay) been zoned for three storeys or even included in the borders of the activity centre. . Of course, this was all ignored by the ‘guru’ of planning (Akehurst) and his complicit councillors!
The machinations and inconsistencies of this planning department continue unabated. There are numerous allusions to a ‘transport and assessment’ study and potential resulting actions. This document has not been made available and we doubt that even councillors have been provided with the opportunity to clap eyes on it. So once again, councillors are forced to make decisions without having all the information at their fingertips. The inconsistency is that for the Elsternwick structure plan, there was an accompanying traffic report. Why the difference? It simply is not good enough that residents will have all the requisite information only when the formal amendment is advertised. This approach entirely invalidates any attempt at genuine consultation. If other councils such as Port Phillip can publish all their documentation at the first stage of consultation, we see no reason why Glen Eira can’t – except of course to keep the plebs (and councillors?) as ignorant as possible until it is too late.
Much has to change in Glen Eira if this council is to live up to its stated charter of full ‘transparency’ and accountability.
PS: To put some historical perspective onto what’s been happening in Bentleigh, we’ve revisited an important VCAT decision (17th October, 2017) which granted a permit for a 7 storey development in Centre Road.
What’s fascinating about this decision, isn’t so much the outcome, but the arguments presented by the Council rep. The application was refused by council and thus ended up at VCAT. We quote verbatim what council had to say to support its refusal –
It was further put that guidelines relating to setbacks, height and amenity create further impetus to provide a more sensitive transition between the review site and the surrounding residential hinterland. Council put that Objective 5.1.2(a) of the Urban Design Guidelines seeks ‘To ensure the activity centre provides a graduated transition between different building scales and uses’. It was further put that it is Council’s view that the emphasis on the transitional role of buildings at the edge of an activity centre is greater in the Urban Design Guidelines.
· However, Council put to us that the proposed development is inappropriate at seven storeys because of the limitations imposed on the site due to the adjoining residential hinterland, the provisions of the DDO8 and the height and scale of development on the immediately abutting land.
· We make the observation that when assessed against broad strategic policies, the site is well located for redevelopment. However, Council put that the proposed development is in conflict with the vision of the DDO8 which establishes a preferred height of 5 storeys.
Council further submitted that the proposed development exceeds the maximum preferred height by 2 storeys and over 5 metres.
fails to perform a transitional function, which will necessarily cause a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village.
COMMENTS: So, in 2017 council was concerned about ‘transition’ – especially to the residential areas. With the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan this has gone out the window, where there is no problem with a potential 5 storey (and more if exceeding the preferred heights) of ‘transition’. How laughable! Furthermore, council’s preferred maximum height of 5 storeys has also gone out the winder by 2 storeys. That’s what ‘discretionary’ heights can produce!
Appropriate transitions remain relevant in all planning. In Glen Eira and with this draft, this no longer appears to be the case.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 13, 2023 at 11:12 PM
Good points raise here. The traffic is becoming very chaotic around Centre Road, Bentleigh. It’s not a wonder to me why the traffic report hasn’t been done, or if there is one, not tabled.
For example, Wheatley road for a fair part of each day functions as one lane only with two way traffic. This relies on driver cooperation to keep the flow happening and safe. This works until it fails, and I’ve seen some mighty ugly squabbles when that necessitated cooperation breaks down, as it is bound too from time to time.
What undermines my confidence in Glen Eira’s planning wisdom or the lack of it, is they seem to be willfully blind to the challengers higher population density levels create for the community. The only thinking they seem to think will suffice is to paint murals on control boxes and nearby walls.
It may be for the betterment of the greater community and themselves if the Planners had to prove to the Sustainably Dept. their structure plans are environmentally and socially sustainable.
July 14, 2023 at 2:55 PM
It is a continuation of the approach used for Carnegie, in which Council refused to answer questions about the “strategic planning” that they believed justifying encouraging the development industry not to comply with residential amenity standards. On the one hand they make the claim they HAVE to do it because the State Government has demanded it, on the other they haven’t produced any evidence. One of the more controversial elements of the alleged plan is the use of “maximum preferred heights”, which simply spells out to developers that should ask for at least that height. That’s clear from reading Practice Note 60. It is so painful listening to councillors spouting whatever they believe we will believe. I’d prefer actual evidence. Now that we can see the actual motion, it is clear that Cade et al expect no substantive changes to be made to the plan. That means, as per PN60, they believe the heights can be even higher without resulting in unacceptable built form outcomes. Time for them to come clean about what built forms outcomes are unacceptable to them. We know they think overshadowing of habitable room windows and communal open space is acceptable.