The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:
How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:
- A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
- How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?
What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.
Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application exceeds the 8 storey limit. Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!
Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!
We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.
We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –
What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.
This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.
Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false
February 26, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Remember this Council supported Woolworths 9 storeys application at the last VCAT hearing, leaving residents to fight against Woolworths and the Council.
They now say they support the residents.
Should never have come to this.
February 26, 2025 at 1:49 PM
I listened last night and it was nauseating at times. The planning department were fantastic. Experts and they had worked their butts off etc. etc. etc. If they are such experts then why does this council’s planning department give in nearly every single time to developers?
February 26, 2025 at 2:19 PM
2 possibililties. Karslake believes officers are wonderful full stop and won’t vote against anything they say or she’s so bound to the labor gov that daren’t vote against any major development. Sad sad sad.
February 26, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Good riddance. McKenzie has done nothing about decent planning in Glen Eira. If the culture comes from the top then she has achieved very little except giving the likes of Torres and others full rein to completely ruin our suburbs.
February 28, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Hopefully she leave earlier that the August date reported in the GE News. There is no point having her hanging around any longer.
February 26, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Has anyone “Read” the sustainability report.
Underground Carpark Ventilation scored 0% (i.e. an underground car park not fully ventilated as in an above ground open air car park) for supermarket parking – that includes families (very young and old) coming and going … constant slow-moving cars attempting to exit into Selwyn Street and an aggregation of CO2 levels.
Winter sunlight scored 0% – where 70% of dwellings do not receive 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3 pm in winter. Daylight Access for Residential Apartments – 80% of living areas achieve a daylight factor greater than 1% (one percent!) and 94% of bedrooms achieve a daylight factor greater than 0.5%. (Less than one percent!)
Performance by Category – “Energy” (page 2 of 46) is noted as a Fail. Why? it appears most other matters are measured on the NCC2022, but Energy has been measured on the lesser standard of NCC2019. Future generations will live, and pay for energy for these apartments – and the development is not designed to meet the most recent standards of the National Construction Code? Why?
Management (Pg 10 of 46) Has an EDS Professional been engaged to provide sustainability advice and schematic design to construction? NO?
A 70,000 ltr tank is planned, but it is not connected to provide water for irrigation area to water the gardens? Why?
Energy profiles (Page 23 of 46) Heating Systems Efficiency = 1.5 STARS (2019 MEPS). Why so poor?
Cooling System Efficiency = 2 Stars (2019 MEPS). Why so poor?
The list goes on … and our kids will buy these units and spend 30 years paying them off, when the units are not intended to be built to the current National Construction Code 2022?
PS – Effective natural Ventilation – 66% (Page 38 of 45) QUOTE: “89 out of 148 apartments meets the BESS effective natural ventilation requirement”. What about the 56 Apartments that done meet the requirement? Pity the purchasers? And they “take” a 66% pass mark? Why?
And there is more – who checks this stuff as developers build for the future to deliver homes to the next generation?
February 26, 2025 at 5:41 PM
And not one single comment in the officer’s report relating to all you’ve presented above!!! These are our so called ‘expert planners’. Far more convenient of course to ignore such factors and simply recommend a permit!!!!
February 26, 2025 at 9:00 PM
The planning system is notoriously corrupt and unfit for purpose. Few standards are mandatory, and as we’ve seen here, most deficiencies in a proposal are ignored–anything to help a wealthy developer increase their profit. At least objectors can go back to VCAT and tell them that our Council thinks VCAT got it wrong when they required design deficiencies be addressed. Prior to the last election I encountered Cr Karslake on the street while she was campaigning and I outlined several deficiencies in both State and Council planning. She kept defending the Andrews/Allan government, didn’t see the need for the State government to comply with its own processes and standards for planning, wasn’t concerned about the impact on existing residents. And as we saw last year, she is quite prepared to waive compliance with standards if it helps a developer squeeze in a few more units.
February 26, 2025 at 9:43 PM
The passed resolution last night asked the minister to send the application off to the special standing committee for assessment and decision which would go back to the minister for final decision. We’ve already endured this farce with the 7 Selwyn Street application where they got a 9 storey development that is the equivalent in height of 14 storeys. It was a waste of time and money. This committee is nothing more than a front for government and developers – much like the Victorian Planning Authority.
I’m so pissed off with this council dithering and refusing to act. The cultural centre has been at a standstill for at least 5 years. There was nothing stopping council from enacting its proposals of traffic management, erecting bollards, etc which would have really put a clamp on Woolworths. Instead they will now consider doing something after the development is completed. If that’s not giving the developer everything he wants then I don’t know what is. Vcat made it crystal clear that the design of the cultural centre including traffic was completely in the hands of council. They should have acted immediately and we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.
February 28, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Whose surprised Karslake is a traitor to the residents. She’s mediocre Labor Party all the way.
March 2, 2025 at 4:00 AM
Why not stop shopping at all the duopolies. They are not interested in the citizens of Elsternwick or anywhere else. Currently some of these chains are failing to pick up eggs and allowing them to rot while Aussies starve. Generally they treat primary producers very unjustly. Why not support the local green grocer instead?
The Woolworths’s major shareholders are US giants companies of Black Rock and the current boss Brad Banducci comes from Boston. He took home over $8m in wages last year, What will he take home to US when he stands down? Woolworths showed disdain our celebration of Australia Day.
I stopped buying there when they
March 2, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Minor correction: the current CEO of Woolworths is Amanda Bardwell. And from 2024-02-21: “Wednesday’s announcement that Brad Banducci will resign as chief executive of Woolworths was undoubtedly triggered by his disastrous walkout from a Four Corners interview – a failure in public relations 101.”