We acknowledge upfront that each activity centre is unique and different. But, there are surely certain planning principles which must be applied equally to each centre. In this post we focus on what council considers appropriate for sites located in the existing heritage overlays for both Elsternwick and Carnegie and the ensuing proposals for height limits and overshadowing.
Council’s planning for these two structure plans attempts to convince us that preserving and protecting heritage is vital. The planning scheme however, differentiates between ‘significant/contributory’ sites within each heritage overlay. Those sites designated as ‘non-contributory’ may be ‘developed’ whilst those deemed ‘contributory’ will hopefully have mandatory height limits assigned.
The following screen dumps show the existing overlays for both Bentleigh and Elsternwick. We have concentrated on the commercial spine of Glen Huntly Road and Koornang Road. Both shopping strips have a heritage overlay applied.
Given the above one should suspect that the resulting heights would be identical given the heritage overlays. But they aren’t! For the Koornang Road strip the proposed structure plan nominates a 5 storey height limit whilst the Elsternwick version includes height limits of 6 storeys (discretionary). The question then becomes: are all sites in Koornang Road deemed ‘contributory’? Here is the evidence that shows at least 11 sites that are designated as ‘non-contributory’.
Why then should Elsternwick’s non contributory sites be given leeway for a 6 storey discretionary height limit and Koornang Road’s non contributory sites be awarded a 5 storey height limit?
What must also be remembered is that Koornang Road runs in a north/south direction whilst Glen Huntly Road runs east/west. For Glen Huntly Road, as well as Centre Road, this means that at the winter solstice, and even the summer equinox at certain times, sunlight will not reach the southern footpaths where people are enjoying their lunches and coffees. We highlight this because the inconsistency between council’s planning is really unbelievable.
Here are screen dumps from both the Carnegie Urban Built Form Framework (page 20) and the Elsternwick one. Please note carefully the boxed sections and the introductory blurbs waxing lyrical about the importance of sunlight.
This raises a myriad of questions:
- Why can a north/south running shopping strip have a 5 storey mandatory height limit and an east/west shopping strip be allowed a 6 storey discretionary height limit?
- Why aren’t ‘non-contributory’ sites treated the same?
- How reliable and accurate are the actual shadow diagrams presented in both cases?
- Why the differences between both given that the Carnegie sunlight exposure reaches to the back footpath section and the Elsternwick one only reaches the front edge of the footpath. Given that both are the work of the same consultancy firm, then why the differences?
What we’ve presented are fair and legitimate questions and go to the heart of decent and consistent strategic planning. Our conclusion can only be that the consultant’s reports are simply there to confirm what has already been decided by this planning department. Again, transparency and accountability simply do not exist!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 24, 2023 at 11:35 AM
Consultants are hired guns full stop. Watch a recent 4 corners program to see how they all work. They get paid and will do as they’re bid. Otherwise they won’t get any more jobs.
August 24, 2023 at 11:44 AM
Bentleigh’s in the same boat where they’ve even gone for seven storeys discretionary.
August 24, 2023 at 6:34 PM
Maybe three words sum these rorts up – Glen Casey Eira
August 28, 2023 at 9:23 AM
The dominant purpose of areas zoned C1Z and MUZ these days is for housing. It might be nice to have some sunshine for people having coffee or dining on the footpath–not that that is the primary purpose of a footpath–but it is even more important to provide good amenity for residents. As the Planning Scheme states explicitly, it wants buildings oriented to the north for good solar access. On a north-south street, that is difficult if buildings are taller than a few stories given the woefully inadequate setbacks Council wants. The alternative is have zero setbacks and have the only solar access at the street frontage. But then we’ve seen the State Government frown upon borrowed light as a design technique (despite Council and VCAT’s enthusiasm). The Planning Scheme is unfit for purpose, but there is no desire to improve it amongst decision-makers who are almost universally members of the development industry.