Glen Eira Debates

We have literally had a gut full of the dissembling, and mistruths, that emanate from council and its mouthpieces in regards to the residential zones. Here are some prime examples –

1. The minutes of 13^th August 2013 include the following sentence “Glen Eira has achieved improvements in town planning including:…..provision for increased permeable areas to reduce storm water runoff’. In the first place, the zones DID NOT provide any ‘improvement’ whatsoever. In fact, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE on permeability between the old system and the new. In contrast to this bogus claim, here are some facts about what other councils achieved for their municipalities, and not only in the equivalent areas of ‘minimal change’ but also in GRZ and RGZ zones.
2. Greater Dandenong, which was second cab off the rank in introducing the zones, has for its GRZ1 zoning a “Minimum of 30%” in its schedule. In its NRZ1 zone it has a minimum of 40%. And Glen Eira pats itself on the back for MAINTAINING ITS PALTRY 25% AND 20% FOR GRZ AND RGZ ZONES! Whitehorse also has for its GRZ1 zone a permeability of 30% and its GRZ2 zone a permeability requirement of 40%. Even in its GRZ4 zoning there is still the requirement for 30%
3. Next we are supposed to be grateful for the wonderful ‘site coverage’ achieved by council. It’s astounding when we consider that Glen Eira has simply opted for what was there before (ie 50% site coverage in minimal change and 60% in housing diversity) whilst other councils have again achieved much, much more. Banyule for example has a maximum site coverage of 40% in its GRZ2 ZONE; Bayside in 4 of its GRZ zones has a 50% site coverage; Whitehorse in its GRZ2 also has 40% site coverage.
4. Council proclaims so proudly what it’s achieved in its allocations for private open space. How wonderful that only in minimal change has Glen Eira maintained its 60 square metres of private open space requirements. Residents in GRZ and RGZ have to be satisfied with the pathetic ResCode numbers. But once again, other councils put Glen Eira to shame on this aspect. Greater Dandenong, Maroondah and Manningham all have 80 square metres in their GRZ1 schedules; Monash in its RGZ2 zone has a 75 square metre requirement.
5. Landscaping is another area totally neglected by our council. There is not a word about direct requirements for landscaping in any of the schedules. It’s quite amazing how the following councils first of all saw the importance of the environment and secondly managed to get some real substance into their zoning schedules. Banyule in its Low Residential Growth Zone states – “Landscape plans will provide 1 tree for every 400 square metres of site area, including 1 large tree in the front setback.”; Even Greater Dandenong in both its RGZ1 and GRZ1 zones includes – “70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees”; Whitehorse for its RGZ1 has – “Provision of at least one canopy tree with a minimum mature height of 8 metres. Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood’ and for its GRZ2 schedule there is this important inclusion – “Provision of at least two canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 12 metres. At least one of those trees should be in the secluded private open space of the dwelling. The species of canopy trees should be native, preferably indigenous. Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.”

• Glen Eira has achieved a ‘stunning’ 4 metre rear setback – but only for minimal change areas. So, if a two storey building goes up next door and it is 8 metres in height, the setback remains 4 metres. How wonderful! Others again show what can be done – Bayside for example in several of its GRZ schedules includes the following which once added up, the four metre setback that Glen Eira believes is ‘adequate’ is literally blown out of the water – ie “A new building not on or within 200mm of a boundary should be setback 2 metres from the side boundary and 3 metres from the rear boundary, plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 2 metres for every metre of height over 6.9 metres.” Whitehorse for its GRZ2 states this – “Minimum 2 metre setback, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres”. Monash and other councils even have a front setback of 7.5 metres in its RGZ2 and NRZ1 schedules. Glen Eira has ResCode!

We’ve commented previously on the various height limits achieved by other councils in their numerous GRZ and RGZ schedules. (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/what-could-and-should-have-been-done/)

CONCLUSIONS

There was so much that could have been achieved via the schedules and with proper strategic planning. Glen Eira basically did nothing expect rely on archaic data and an amendment that has well and truly seen out its time. This was more than laziness or even the inability to cope with all the new work required. It was basically we believe the total indifference to what might happen to people’s lives – and of course, not wanting to ‘inconvenience’ too many developers. The inequity was there before. It has now simply been reinforced and re-confirmed.

So what really went on in those secret meetings with Guy and his officers? How hard did our wonderful CEO and Mayor fight for their residents when all these other councils got so much more? What kind of deals were made where this council and its inept ‘negotiators’ were seemingly so prepared to sell out thousands of residents. If other councils could have their amendments with far greater protections ratified, then it remains a damning indictment of Glen Eira’s inability (or unwillingness) to do likewise.

PS–

Council can continue to claim all it likes that the zones have not increased development. The facts tell a different story. Here’s one example for 90 Truganini Road, Carnegie

On 1/6/2011 an application went in for the construction of 2 double storey and one single story dwelling (ie 3 dwellings in total). Council granted the permit in 2011. Then followed a VCAT hearing where the member granted a permit for 3 dwellings (August 12^th, 2012). What’s fascinating about this judgement is revealed in the following extract. It clearly shows how the current zoning of GRZ for this road has actually worsened the situation for residents. Instead of the 9 metres preferred by ResCode, 10.5 metres is now ‘mandatory’. We quote:

Building Height

1. The maximum height of the development is proposed to be 7.25 metres. The site is located in a Special Building Overlay, and is subject to flooding. The proposal was referred by Council to Melbourne Water pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Melbourne Water did not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions. Usually, where a site is subject to flooding, Melbourne Water specifies minimum finished floor levels above which the development must be constructed. However, in this instance, Melbourne Water have indicated that the site is not predisposed to flooding from their drains, and has not required a minimum height of the finished floor levels. As such, the maximum height of the building can be ‘capped’ at 7.25 metres, without further need for increases. I am satisfied that this height is appropriate in this instance for the following reasons:

• The maximum height of the development is far less than the 9 metres referred to under ResCode.
• The development includes reasonable wall heights of 5.5 to 5.7 metres, with the remainder of built form height to enable pitched roofs.
• The development offers good internal amenity for the future residents in that floor to ceiling heights are reasonable at 2.6 metres at ground level and 2.45 metres at first floor.
• The front 2 dwellings are proposed to be constructed to two storeys with the 3^rd, rear dwelling (adjacent to secluded private open space) constructed to a single storey scale.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1213.html

But this isn’t the end of the story. The property was sold (with permit) in August 2014 to ‘private treaty’ (http://www.domain.com.au/property/sold/development-site/vic/carnegie/?adid=2011016621

The current owner has now put in a new application (11/11/2014) for, and we quote – “Three storey multi unit dwelling development with basement car park”. Thus, we’ve gone from 3 dwellings to god knows how many because the Planning Register refuses to reveal the exact number, and to a height limit of 10.5 metres at least. There’s also the additional problem of an SBO and the planned underground car park. Land banking par excellence here and council still maintains that the new zones have got absolutely nothing to do with increased density, increased height, increased everything!

Bayside Council given green light to stop new high-rises

We feature two related items in this post that totally explode the Council propaganda and mistruths about the residential zones. Firstly, (over)development is very much a direct result of the zones and secondly Burke’s claims are shown as sheer bunkum via a resident’s analysis that came through as a comment and which we’ve repeated here.

WHY OH WHY POLITICIANS LIE

“The Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) has been directly translated from the Minimal Change Areas and covers 78% of Glen Eira” is the current mantra from our Local and State politicians. A similar mantra was created in 2002 as shown below:

“Glen Eira’s housing diversity areas can meet the majority of its City’s demand for the next 20 years. The remainder of the demand will be met in the minimal change [housing] areas in the form of single dwellings and dual occupancies. Through this combined and balanced approach the City can meet its housing needs but also protect neighbourhood character of 80 per cent of its City.”

The quote is from the draft Housing_and_Residential_Development_Strategy still available on line. The statement is wrong in so many ways. Let’s enumerate them:
1. The statement is clearly about housing areas. The minimal change housing areas have never been at an 80% level. The misleading map and calculation includes all Glen Eira’s road network (465km), but conveniently excludes all VicRoads road network (51km in white). Can you imagine residing on your local road, planting a vegie patch on the nature strip or cutting a tree branch from the footpath? All roads, kerbs, nature strips and footpaths are for public use and not a residential zone;

2. Glen Eira local road network is 465km long and is about your average house property frontage wide. It makes up for at least 25 % of City’s land area. So, in 2002 the Minimal Change Housing Area was less than 55% of the City;

3. Not taken into account are laneways, as these are not recorded. But you try to use them for residential purposes and you will soon be fined. Glen Eira sells those frequently. The laneways are public use areas and should not be included in residential zone calculations. This further decreases the NRZ (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) area size;
4. By now, the minimal change areas is suggested to be 78% of the City as Virginia Park was excluded (Height_Controls_New_Zones_Guide_for_Community 2013). There were many other successful rezoning applications since 2002 e.g. Bentleigh, Caulfield. As well, unique sites multi dwelling developments in minimal change areas were substantial from 2006 to 2012 (~ 800 dwellings). Such sites are still shown as NRZ (see cnr Hudson St/Booran Rd 3 storey mansion). The area size of NRZ is further decreased;

5. The existing zone boundaries are not set in concrete. Developers can always ask for rezoning, particularly if several properties are combined to become unique sites within the current definition (e.g. recently sold Bentleigh, Glen Huntly sites) further decreasing the NRZ;

6. The City has 27 Local Activity Centres, all shown as part of NRZ. A number of such Centres have developed 3 storey buildings (e.g. Caulfield South, Bentleigh East) and should be classified as General residential Zone. This again further decreases the actual NRZ;

7. The City has also many sites with non-residential uses in residential areas. These public use and amenities like kindergartens, schools, hospitals, churches etc are needed in the City, but are not residences. They create traffic congestion and should not be counted towards NRZ protection;

8. The amazing assertion that “residentially zoned land comprises 95% of Glen Eira’s area” does not coincide with facts. The other 5% is assigned to 3% commercial zone and 2% industrial zone. No allowance is made for any of the white areas of the map (Amendment C110). The 54ha Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, all parks, Caulfield and Monash Hospitals do not have areas allocated to it or simply do not belong to Glen Eira City!

THE NRZ AREA IN DWELLINGS WHERE PEOPLE RESIDE IS BELOW 40% OF CITY AREA AND GOING DOWN

Let’s consider the implication of the new zones with a growing population and traffic.

9. “The housing diversity area is to meet majority of Glen Eira’s demand for housing i.e. population growth until 2021”. The predicted increase of population was from 126k in 2001 to 130k by 2021, a mere 3% in 20 years. The population has reached 137k by 2011, a whopping 8.9% increase from 2001. The population increase and housing needs has exceeded all forecasts at the time by a substantial amount. The population by 2021 is to be 150 k (forecast.id.com.au/glen-eira) nearly 20% increases from 2001;

10. Plan Melbourne, successor to Melbourne2030 expanded Melbourne growth to 7.7 million by 2050. As part of this Plan the population of Glen Eira by 2031 will be 163k, 20% more from 2011;
11. The neighbourhood character is changing substantially already, just ask your neighbours. Will your neighbourhood character, your suburb be protected with a further 26,000 population increase from 2011?;
12. The population increase means more cars on the roads, more parking spaces required on streets, in shopping strips and railway stations. Is your neighbourhood ready for it?

13. More population requires more kindergartens, schools, parks, sport grounds, and other amenities. Traffic will be increased within Glen Eira City and to other parts of Melbourne. The size of roads is not gong to change; only the traffic will increase. Will your suburb be protected from it?

14. Some population increases (http://forecast.id.com.au/glen-eira) are:
Caulfield North/East 29%; Elsternwick 17%; Carnegie 11.3%; Bentleigh East 9.8%; Caulfield 7.8%; Bentleigh 6.6%; Caulfield South 6.5%; St Kilda East 6.3%; Murrumbeena 5.9%. What it will actually be depends on developers and the non-targeted approach (liaise fair) by the Council. It seems residents have no influence;

15. Glen Eira Council knows and understands those issues (see Plan Melbourne Council Comments), but insists that 78% of the City is and will be protected!

Why bureaucrats make misleading presentations!

AND WHY OH WHY POLITICIANS LIE?

Save Our Suburbs, stir like hell and demand that State and Local politicians and Officers tell it how it is and ensure that the zoning system reflects the reality on the ground and can be understood by an ordinary citizen.