Councillor Performance


The reality of what’s happening to our neighbourhoods is evident in the following data. In the space of just 9 weeks, there have been planning applications for well over 600 dwellings. Given the current zoning and council’s pro-development stance, combined with VCAT’s endorsements, we estimate that probably 95% of these applications will be rubber stamped. We also suspect that councillors don’t have a clue as to most of these applications!

Featured below are just those multi-unit proposals. We ignore the countless double storey attached that is rampant throughout all areas.

1170 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 3 storey – 27 units

15 Belsize Avenue, Carnegie – 4 storey – 52 units

93 Truganini Road, Carnegie – 3 storey – 28 units

98 Truganini Road, Carneig – 4 storey – 29 units

401 Neerim Road, Carnegie – 5 storey – ???? units (Your guess is as good as ours!)

254 Jasper Road, McKinnon – 4 storey – 7 units and shops

45 Ulupna Road, Ormond – 3 storey – 11 units

630 North Road, Ormond – 4 storey – 14 units

482 North Road, Ormond – 4 storey – 23 units

269 Grange Road, Ormond – 3 storey – 13 units

2C walsh Street, Ormond – 3 storey – 12 units

85 Robert Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey – (again, your guess is as good as ours!)

75 Patterson Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 5 units

2 Tovan Akas Avenue, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 8 units

455 South Road, Bentleigh – 6 storey – 10 units

29 Loranne Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 42 units

22 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 41 units

24 Mavho Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey – 28 units

150 Tucker Road – 3 storey – 23 units

188 Tucker Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey – 10 units

PS; TO RUB MORE SALT INTO THE WOUNDS HERE IS THE LATEST APPLICATION BY THE MRC FOR THE RACECOURSE!

Use of land for a place of assembly (Outdoor Cinema)

So, what was supposed to be used for racing has now become another money making venture for the MRC. What was supposed to create no noise, will now be blaring out movies at all times presumably of night and day. What was supposed to be the end of the MRC’s manoeuvring according to some councillors is still well and truly alive. And naturally residents are still being kept in the dark as to what occurred at the VCAT mediation regarding the objection to council’s miniscule conditions on balconies and parking for the C60.  We’ve learnt that the VCAT member has made an order! When will council divulge whether they’ve caved in again or not?

We’ve received a comment from a resident concerning the Penang Street application and think it deserves to be put up as a post for 2 reasons:

  • So that residents may adjudge for themselves the kind of ‘representation’ they get from their elected members
  • The total impotence of these councillors and the continual spin that is perpetrated – ie. continually passing the buck onto vcat, the state government, etc. Utter hogwash we say. It is councillors who accepted the new zones; it is councillors who have the power to alter it and it is councillors in the end who are continually failing their constituency in so many areas.

Here’s the comment.

Well, the mayor came to Penang Street to listen ( I use the term loosely) to residents’ concerns about the development at 2-4 Penang Street. He clearly has not read or has chosen to ignore this decision. Made it very clear that traffic considerations would not be taken into account. Just one in a long list of things he said were not Councils’ concern or responsibility (eg drainage which he admitted has not been upgraded to cope with another 2011 incident). Completely dismissive of any prospect of revisiting or even tweaking the current scheme to provide additional protection for residential amenity. Said at least three times that we should keep “the politicians” (ie state representatives and candidates) out of it, notwithstanding that he simultaneously played the powerless Council card (ie it is all the state government’s planning scheme). I have read some of the material on here and thought it must be an exaggeration. But we got the same routine I have read here about consultation in 2002 and 2010, outcomes could have been worse if had consulted, how council has protected us all from unlimited height, blah, blah. Just as well he has resigned from the Greens, there must be a lot of grassroots members regretting campaigning on his behalf. Riding a push bike to the meeting really isn’t enough. Very disappointed by it all – not that I expected his to agree – but his complete dismissiveness of the concerns of those who put him in power was very disheartening.

PS: The Planning Scheme MUST be reviewed every 4 years, and within one year of the acceptance of the Council Plan. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010, and the Council Plan was last voted on at the Council Meeting of 10th June 2014. Previously it has been voted on at the 11th June 2013 meeting. Throughout this period, no planning review has been undertaken in the public limelight; no documents tabled as to findings of any such (internal) review, and certainly no public consultation.

The consistent and bogus claim by Council that residents were very well informed as to housing policy (ie minimal change and housing diversity) and that ‘extensive consultation’ took place in 2010 is literally laughable. We’ve uploaded here the euphemistically entitled ‘Discussion Paper’ on the Planning Scheme Review of 2010. Readers need to ask themselves several basic questions:

  • To what extent does this document actually INFORM residents?
  • To what extend does this document whitewash all the central concerns (ie the totally biased representation of Structure Plans)
  • Please note the list of ‘policies’ and it should be borne in mind that many of these ‘policies’ date back to neanderthal times and have not been ‘reviewed’ much less updated!

For the past 5 or 6 years residents have made it abundantly clear that their top priorities and dissatisfaction with council, as stated in the annual Community Satisfaction Surveys, revolve around three basic issues –

  1. Planning
  2. Traffic/parking
  3. Consultation

Without a Notice of Motion, the only way to get something onto the agenda is via a Request for a Report. So, how industrious, relevant, and conscientious have our elected representatives been in making sure that the above 3 issues are addressed and improvements made?

We’ve gone through this year’s listing of all Requests for Reports and find that of the 18 voted upon (with one being rejected) a mere 1 or 2 could in any way be seen as addressing the issues that residents have nominated as their priority. Mind you, this is not to say that we are against social housing, gay rights, etc. We simply cannot believe that councillors see these as the most important issues which continue to confront the municipality. So far this year, we’ve had reports on foxes and other vermin, sister cities overseas, and so forth. Really earth shattering issues! Even when something comes up that could be seen as important (such as minimum sizes for apartments) the officers’ reports invariably recommend a ‘do nothing’ approach and this is blithely accepted by councillors!

Surely it is time that councillors turned their minds to actually serving the community and demanding action on all those things they were elected to achieve instead of either playing politics and bagging Labor or the Libs, or actually doing something that will redress the inequities of the planning system and the chaos that is parking and traffic. When development applications take 5 minutes to decide, and discussion on requests for reports drag on interminably because of cheap point scoring, then there is something drastically wrong.

Below is a list of the reports voted upon – in no particular order. Combined, these surely make for some pathetic reading!

Federal Auditor-General Investigation

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That the Glen Eira City Council file of relevant correspondence regarding the ‘Safer Streets Program’ be forwarded to the Federal Auditor-General Ian McPhee to assist his review.

Crs Okotel/Hyams

That a report is prepared that provides information on how Council supports community groups including information on:

  1. programs that encourage and strengthen existing community groups.
  2. approaches to encourage community groups to respond to emerging community interests and needs.”

Crs Lobo/Okotel

That a report be prepared on what help is available in Glen Eira to support and help those in our community suffering from alcohol and drug addictions.

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That a report be prepared detailing the methods that other Victorian Councils, particularly the Greater Geelong City Council have sought to support and advocate for marriage equality for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) people and how the City of Glen Eira may seek to do the same for the GLBTI people in our community.

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That a report be prepared on the likely effects on Glen Eira of rate rises being capped at the CPI, as the State Opposition has announced it intends to do should it win government.

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on:

(1) The possibility of Council acquiring the vacant land at 846-848 Centre Road, Bentleigh East directly adjacent to the Centre Road Kindergarten.

(2) The potential impact to families in Glen Eira of a change in funding of Kindergarten hours in the recently released Abbott budget.

(3) The projected need for Kindergarten places in Glen Eira in the next 10 years including an estimate of which areas of the municipality this need will fall in.

(4) An assessment of potential expansion sites within the municipality and the potential to forward plan for these expansions.

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the mechanisms available to Council to improve the provision of affordable and accessible social housing.

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the benefits of whatsoever kind (if any) in establishing and maintain sister city relationships. The report should identify any obligations and costs that may be incurred by the Glen Eira City Council in establishing and maintaining such relationships.

Crs Lobo/Sounness

That a report be prepared on the potential to establish a sister city relationship with a city in mainland China given that in the Indian/Pacific Century Australia sits astride both the Indian and Pacific Oceans and given that China is a major importer of Australian primary products compared to any other countries. (motion lost)

Crs Okotel/Lipshutz

That a report be prepared addressing;

  1. The impact of violence against women upon the community in Glen Eira, and
  2. How Council can improve its responses to addressing violence against women.

Crs Delahunty/Magee

That a report be prepared to council with information on the proposed privatisation of the Alfred Health provided aged care facilities in Caulfield. The report to specifically note the number of public beds currently provided by the state funded facilities and the potential impact on the Council’s aged care facilities of the privatisation.

Crs Sounness/Hyams

That the City of Glen Eira request the Executive of the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) to reverse it’s decision to exclude the Victorian Greens from participating in the Super Forum at the Melbourne Town Hall on 14 August 2014.

Crs Sounness/Okotel

That a report be prepared on the statistics and trends in observed off leash dog walking occurring outside declared dog off leash walking areas.

Crs Okotel/Esakoff

That a report be prepared detailing:

(a) What measures Council takes to address dumped rubbish in “hot spots” within high density areas; and

(b) What measures Council can take to address dumped rubbish more efficiently and effectively in existing and new anticipated hot spot areas including additional costs associated with these measures if any.

Crs Okotel/Magee

That a report be prepared that explores:

(a) Minimum floor space requirements for dwellings in other jurisdictions including internationally and what benefit or detriment is created by these requirements;

(b) How minimum floor space requirements could be beneficial for Glen Eira in the case that such requirements are adopted by the Victorian state; and

(c) How Glen Eira Council could advocate for state-wide minimum floor space requirements such as through a planning amendment.

(d) The report by the City of Melbourne on its Unit developments and liveability as it may apply to the City of Glen Eira.

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That a report be prepared to determine what role if any the Valuer General could play in determining the land valuation for the Crown Land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve currently leased to the Melbourne Racing Club. I request that the report contain any previous information or correspondence received by Council or by individual Councillors if known, from the Valuer General about the subject land. I request that the report advise on the methods to engage the Valuer General, the Trustees, the State Government and the MRC so that further lease negotiations are held in full knowledge of the value of the land. The report be presented to the next Council Meeting.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That a report be prepared on the extent to which vermin, including foxes and Indian Myna birds, are causing problems in Glen Eira and what Council can do to deal with these problems.

Cr Sounness/Okotel

That a request be prepared on the general health of the aboreal environment in Glen Eira to discuss the general health of park trees the possible need for tree irrigation or watering practices and the strategic implications of the long term climate projection made by the Bureau of Meteorology.

The sheer insanity of the GRZ zoning is evident in the screen dump of Murray Road, McKinnon below. The left hand side of the street is deemed as ‘suitable’ for 3 storey developments. The right hand side of the street is zoned as minimal change. Please note carefully the following:

  • Even with single storey dwellings huge shadows are already being cast – and it’s winter! What happens when 3 storey dwellings go up? What amount of overshadowing and loss of sunlight will those poor buggers living on the opposite side of the street experience? And what kind of light can neighbours living on the ground floor of a three storey block expect when GRZ1 zoning provides no protection in terms of adequate side, front and rear setbacks?
  • Note how narrow the street already is, so that 3 cars have difficulty in passing. What kind of landscaping and protection of the environment is possible with 3 storey chicken coops being permitted?
  • Residents need answers as to why such decisions were endorsed by councillors? What questions did they ask? What information were they given? Did they care?
  • Councillors must be held to account for accepting zones that were implemented in secret, were devoid of up-t0-date analysis, and which relegated huge swathes of Glen Eira into third world territory.
  • We repeat once more that other councils saw fit to do their homework (and to consult). For example: Bayside has 8 schedules to the GRZ ZONES; Boroondara has 4; Stonnington has 13; Manningham has 4. All Glen Eira could come up with was 3 – and one of these is exclusively for the rezoned Alma Club land (ie from minimal change to housing diversity and 76 units in a dead end local street!). Such is the woeful governance, transparency and planning that goes on in Glen Eira!

murray

We urge all residents to have a very close look at the zoning map presented below.

mckinnon zones

It illustrates completely the utter incompetence, indifference, and shoddy planning processes that exemplify this administration and its councillors – the latter who are supposed to set policy, oversee strategic direction and most importantly, represent their constituents when they make decisions. Instead, residents are now paying the price for such shoddy planning and the egos that were so determined to be first cab off the rank when it came to introducing the new zones – without consultation we repeat!

The map focuses on the McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre. We would like residents to ponder the following and then ask the creators of this scheme, and especially the Mayor of the time (Hyams) who was party to the secret ‘negotiations’, to justify and answer the following:

  • The total inconsistency. If promimity to railway stations is the stated criteria, then why are some streets (ie Hawthorn Grove) zoned minimal change when they are one street away from rail, and other streets that are up to four blocks away are zoned GRZ?
  • If the argument is that there is a nearby park, then surely it would have made more sense that medium/higher density dwellings go into areas that are served by open space given the planning scheme’s failure to cater for open space requirements in the GRZ and RGZ schedules and council’s appalling record in acquiring open space?
  • How was this zoning drawn up? Is it concentric, rectangular, or more of a pin the tail on the donkey exercise? Did any officer, or councillor ever walk along these streets and get a ‘feel’ for the neighbourhood? Why can one side of a very, very narrow street (Murrary Road) be designated as minimal change and the opposite side of the street deemed to be general residential zone?
  • Why should the 12th house in a street be earmarked as suitable for 3 storey development and the 13th house be plonked into neighbourhood residential zone?
  • Why can other councils undertake exhaustive reviews of their Housing Strategies PRIOR to introducing their zones and Glen Eira hasn’t touched theirs since 2000?
  • How can Hyams and others keep repeating the inane mantra that there was no consultation because the outcomes would have been worse! This argument alone is the most damning indictment of all councillors and the administration. Not only does it reek of arrogance but displays a total disdain for all aspects of democratic process and transparency.

Liberal MP accused of breaking party ranks over ‘inappropriate’ development

Date:September 8, 2014 – 12:15AM

Henrietta Cook

MP Elizabeth Miller says she is merely supporting her local constituents. Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones

A Liberal MP has been accused of breaking party ranks after she opposed a proposed development that sits within new state government residential zones.

Bentleigh MP Elizabeth Miller wrote to Glen Eira City Council on behalf of residents last month to raise concerns about a three-storey block of units planned for a quiet residential street in McKinnon.

She labelled the proposed 24-unit development on Penang Street  “inappropriate”, saying it would “drastically alter the streetscape” and its height was a concern.

“It will also drastically change the local demographic and cause a shift away from a family-friendly area to apartment-style living,” she said in her planning objection,

“I urge you to consider protecting this family-friendly neighbourhood.”

Glen Eira was the first municipality to implement the new residential zones, which the government says are designed to create clarity about where development should take place and which areas are protected.

About 30 local residents have lodged objections, including some at a nearby retirement village who fear it will exacerbate traffic congestion and make it harder to get around the neighbourhood.

Ms Miller said last August that the changes would protect residents’ backyards and would be “welcomed by the many families who’ve spoken to me about protecting local streetscapes”.

Former premier Ted Baillieu’s mother-in-law Joan Jubb, who has a billboard spruiking Labor candidate for Bentleigh Nick Staikos in her front yard, lives on the same street as the proposed development and fears it will destroy local amenity and create traffic issues.

Ms Jubb blames the proposed development on the new zones, which allow a maximum building height of three storeys or 10.5 metres in her street.

“The planning zones have allowed people to develop such a monstrosity,” she said.

Robyn Morgan, who lives next door to the proposed units, is spearheading a community campaign against the development, which, if approved, will demolish two single-storey weatherboard houses from the 1920s.

She said Ms Miller’s objection contradicted the Liberal Party’s own policy.

“It’s inappropriate for a small residential street. If we allows this sort of development to go ahead, it will destroy local neighbourhoods. We will lose all our afternoon sun,” Ms Morgan said.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new zones were “taking a wrecking ball” to suburbs. He said Ms Miller had broken party ranks by criticising a development that had been put forward in compliance with the new zones. “Denis Napthine should take the advice of his own MPs, who are breaking ranks to end this destruction.”

Ms Miller denied she had defied the party line. She said she had been overwhelmed with residents opposed to the development and had simply taken up their concerns with the council.

“I believe residents’ concerns are warranted, so I have written to council. It’s an inappropriate development for the area,” she said.

She said she was happy with the new residential zones.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the new zones had given residents greater protection against inappropriate developments. He said under the previous system, the area had no mandatory height limits. “You could put a 50-storey building in the previous zone.”

Mr Guy said Ms Miller was being a good local member by lodging the objection and the new zones were working well.

Readers might remember a planning application dating from 2011, where the developer applied for a permit for two buildings consisting of 80+ units, both 4 storey, and naturally reductions in car parking. Council bent over backwards to ‘assist’ in that they ceded part of their car park and were supposedly reimbursed with a public toilet worth about $300,000. Now, three years on, the developer wants more! We’ve also uploaded another application that give us a glimpse of the concrete canyons that are being created.

centre1

centre2

Below we feature some extracts from a very recent VCAT decision on an application for a 3 storey and 10 dwelling development in McKinnon. The area is zoned as General Residential Zone (GRZ1). Whilst council did refuse the application, the member still has quite a bit to say about the zones in general and council’s failure to even consider traffic!

Needless to say, such a decision has major ramifications for every other development in GRZ and RGZ and gives plenty of hope to residents – if they do their homework properly and if they are prepared to fight inappropriate developments.

Here are some quotes and the full judgement is uploaded HERE

1           This hearing has again highlighted the very different expectations about the future of our neighbourhoods and where we live. Different expectations about what we want for ourselves, for our families and our neighbours, and for our community.

2           On the one hand, I have heard from residents who, whilst accepting that some evolutionary change will occur in Prince Edward Avenue and nearby streets, do not accept the physical change which is likely to occur because of the controls and policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

3           As I observed at the hearing, the absence of demolition controls, the zoning of the land as GRZ1 rather than Neighbourhood Residential, the proximity to train station and shops, and the encouragement given to more intensive development in a Neighbourhood Centre, will eventually lead to a very different character for this area

4          I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme

5           Open space is provided by way of relatively small balconies of at least eight square metres in area.

6           However I make the point that more intensive development does not necessarily mean that individual lots along Prince Edward Avenue will be capable of accommodating three storey apartment style buildings containing ten dwellings. It may be, for example, that individual lots are unable to comfortably accommodate such development and that lot consolidation will provide a means whereby such buildings can be comfortably accommodated in this area. It is certainly the case that policy at Clause 22.07-3 encourages lot consolidation to promote development opportunities.

7           Whilst I agree that the building is inside the 10.5 metre mandatory height limit in GRZ1, providing a three storey building on a relatively narrow site results in a building that dominates its surroundings. This is contrary to policy for these areas which is seeking to ensure that residential development is sited and designed so that it does not dominate the streetscape and that it be of a lower scale and density to that in the mixed use and commercial areas.

8           Lot consolidation will generally allow for higher and larger buildings because of the ability to achieve various ResCode standards, such as those for side and rear setbacks, over the whole site rather than trying to achieve the same setbacks for individual buildings developed on each separate site. Consolidation therefore makes for a much more efficient use of land and allows for intensification of built form without the adverse impacts that can arise from trying to achieve a similar level of intensification on a smaller lot.

9           In making these comments I acknowledge that there are newly constructed double storey dwellings in Prince Edward Avenue which have minimal landscaping and appear visually dominating. Aside from the fact that individual dwellings do not require a planning permit, they are not buildings which I would use to demonstrate acceptable built form. It is incongruous that, in most cases, individual dwellings do not undergo the same assessment against neighbourhood character and other policies as do developments comprising two or more dwellings, and that these individual dwellings can undermine the character of an area to a greater extent than medium density developments.

10        The request to reduce visitor car parking by two spaces and adverse impacts on the local street network did not form part of Council’s grounds for refusing the application. However these were issues of concern to residents.

11        Although the site is very close to the train station, as discussed at the hearing, I am concerned that far little attention is being given to the cumulative effect of allowing reductions or waivers in the provision of on-site carparking in suburban areas such as McKinnon. Whilst the radial rail network might be convenient for workers travelling to and from the city, the train network is less convenient for non-radial trips. It is less convenient to rely on bus services, particularly at weekends and evenings, when I am consistently advised by traffic witnesses that most visitation occurs. If that is correct then there should be even less justification for allowing a reduction in on-site visitor parking.

12        Given this is a street and an area earmarked for more intensive development, then a threshold will be reached where on-street parking will reach saturation point. Although I accept that might be some way off, I nevertheless consider it inequitable that this development does not provide for all its parking needs within the basement. Moreover, as I observed during the hearing, the encouragement being given by the State Government to train travel has not been, for the most part, matched by the provision of sufficient additional parking facilities at train stations. The result is an expanding level of commuter parking in nearby residential streets, which inevitably compounds parking congestion. I accept that the commuter parking is not such an issue in the evenings and weekends but the lack of parking is symptomatic of a failure to address parking needs in a holistic manner.

13        I also agree with Mr Fairlie that if existing parking and traffic arrangements are unsatisfactory to residents then they need to approach Council to see if improvements can be achieved.

If you happen to live in a street that is now zoned as Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone, then you might consider doing what countless Glen Eira residents have already started doing – getting the hell out of the municipality before the area really goes to the dogs and making some money in the process. We now know of 6 instances where owners are getting together and selling their properties as one lot. This trend will no doubt continue – especially when people start realising that their streets and their neighbourhoods are about to be over-run with inappropriate development thanks to Council’s welcome arms approach to development and their unwillingness to undertake current and proper strategic planning.

A perfect example of the insanity of this planning scheme can be seen by what is happening in Penang St. McKinnon which has now inconceivably been given the green light for 3 storey developments. Two properties at 2 and 4 Penang St were bought by the same developer and there is now an application for a 3 storey, 24 apartment, and of course, a reduction in visitor car parking. The combined land equals roughly 1360 square metres. However, that’s not the end of the stor(e)y.

Penang is a quiet residential street consisting of only 9 dwellings and several which front Jasper Road. Many of these nine dwellings are single storeys and the double storeys add their own character to the street as the photos below will show. We cannot see any rhyme or reason why such as street has been placed in this zone, in contrast to say Wattle Avenue which has been left as minimal change, yet consists of several scruffy looking blocks of flats and units. As one commentator on this site has asked – no one from council could possibly be living in Wattle Avenue could they? In terms of another 24 apartments and growth in the surrounding streets, then Penang is the perfect setting for the latest rat run as drivers try to avoid the lights at the corner of Jasper and Mckinnon. Needless to say, there is no parking plan overlay for this Neighbourhood Centre!

To make matters worse, the houses at 2 and 4 Penang St. are ‘classical’ and with their demolition this will now create the precedent for more triple storeys in the street and surrounding areas. Here’s what will be lost and replaced with box like dwellings no doubt – the slums of the future!

P1000317

P1000319

Some of the other houses in the street look like this!

P1000320

P1000314

P1000312

P1000316

We remind readers that Council has:

  • Introduced these zones in secret & without consultation
  • Council has never stated what is the optimum population for Glen Eira
  • No Housing Strategy review has been done since the late 1990’s
  • A one size fits all approach based on antiquated data is unacceptable.

We urge all readers to inform themselves of what zoning they fall under and to protest and protest at whatever application comes in that they believe will threaten their amenity, lifestyle and environment. Remember, amendments may be made, but they can also be tossed out – especially with a new set of councillors who actually give a damn about what’s happening to neighbourhoods all through the municipality!

Item 9.2 – 487 Neerim Road – 7 lot subdivision (Esakoff on leave and Magee late to meeting)

Hyams moved motion with amendments requiring 4 metre setbacks to some of the units to the east and that there must be council approval to ‘vary envelopes’ (ie building envelopes) like ‘variations to a restrictive covenant’. Also included that there could be variations to garage placements and this would need a planning permit amendment. Lipshutz seconded.

HYAMS: went through the past history and the VCAT approval for a 3 storey development. Permit has now ‘expired’ and the site is in minimal change (NRZ1) so there can’t be a new application because the new zones only allow ‘two buildings on site’. Hence ‘the sensible response to that’ for large sites is to ‘apply for subdivision’. Hyams then said that the developer would currently be paying a 4.25% open space levy instead of 5.7% ‘which is due of course to our amendment being held up’ by people who are ‘being good friends to the developers’. He hoped that ‘those people know what they are doing’. Went on to say that planning permits are required for ‘the actual buildings’ because of the Special Building and Design Overlays. Objectors thought this was all a ‘bit vague’ but that the ‘clarity will come later’. But the ‘application does come with building envelopes’ and once that is approved then things are set and that’s why he moved the amendment about setbacks. Objectors were worried about the trees but they will be ‘protected’ via a Section 173 agreement which ‘will require a tree management plan’. ‘That will ensure’ that the trees ‘are looked after’. Neighbouring units will be ‘protected’ because of the 4 metre setback. Said that other standards like permeability and site coverage have been met and that there will be 3 visitor car parking spaces and 2 resident spots for each unit. Overlooking ‘will be addressed at the planning permit stage’ and he’s confident that this can be resolved by ‘treating’ the windows. Thought that this was ‘good use of the land to subdivide’ and that it also ‘protected the amenity’ of neighbours.

LIPSHUTZ: said that the developers had ‘extensive discussions’ with officers before the application went in and that’s ‘a good thing because it allows things to progress pretty easily’. Said that setbacks weren’t discussed with officers but now that it’s realised the developer can ‘deal with the setback quite readily’. Said the ‘building envelope is quite important’ because buildings are ‘planned a particular way’ and ultimately ‘council has control over it’ with the next planning application.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams’ comments and his amendment because they do ‘strike a balance’ between protecting the neighbourhood and getting the ‘best outcome for that parcel of land’. Said she ‘completely supports’ this motion.

SOUNNESS: thought this was the most ‘comprehensive’ subdivision he’d seen and was very pleased about the emphases on protecting the trees. Recognised that this does ‘constrain’ how many units can go on but that there are also ‘trade offs’. Hoped that the developer will support the conditions and ensure that the trees are maintained even though it will come at a financial cost.

LOBO: said that ‘initially’ he wasn’t ‘happy’ with the application because 7 units means that it will be ‘too congested’. But with Hyams’ amendment ‘I feel more comfortable’ but ‘yet not sure that I will vote for it’.

PILLING: thought that the amendment goes ‘a fair way’ to addressing resident concerns and does ‘strike the right balance’.

HYAMS: said that Magee also ‘expressed’ support for increased setbacks.

MOTION PUT AND VOTED FOR UNANIMOUSLY

« Previous PageNext Page »