We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Under council’s zoning and continued lack of action regarding the majority of our neighbourhood centres, these areas are challenging Bentleigh, Carnegie and even Elsternwick, for the ‘prize’ of high rise apartments. Murrumbeena continues to cop such applications. The most recent is below:
If this application is successful, it will feature an 8 storey building alongside a street zoned for 3 storeys and which still contains many dwellings of single and double storey. The longer council delays in implementing some decent controls for all of our neighbourhood centres, they are clear targets for over-development.
Recent council responses to a variety of public questions have made it clear that permanent planning controls for Bentleigh and Carnegie are expected (probably) in 2024. Elsternwick will be following these amendments – hence we could well be looking at 2025 and perhaps even 2026 for this area. That leaves Glen Huntly which will come after all of these. Is anyone prepared to hazard a guess as to when this Major Activity Centre will be finalised? How about 2026-2028?
Since the Glen Huntly amendment is years down the track, one might well ask why there was the rush to get the draft structure plan ratified now, instead of working all out on the Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie ones? Please remember that unless something is in the planning scheme, via a gazetted (approved) amendment, it has no power to influence council and VCAT decisions.
Even more important than all of the above, is that these structure plans and their respective amendments are being rushed through prior to the creation and finalisation of a Housing Strategy – the work which is meant to be the foundation for all planning and zoning in the municipality. Whilst other council have had housing strategies for well over a decade (and are continually reviewing them), all Glen Eira has is a document that dates back to 2002 and is based on data from 1999!
We’ve also got the additional problem of the Built Form Frameworks for Caulfield North & South and Bentleigh East – all well and truly ‘cemented’ before the housing strategy even sees the light of day. Council maintains that all of its previous work remains ‘relevant’. Not so! Documents created in 2017 are now well and truly outdated as well as being created pre-COVID.
Adding to the mess that is emblematic of council’s planning processes, on the 11th November, we will also have ‘consultation’ on the Planning Scheme rewrite, and the draft amendment for the Open Space levy contribution rate. Again, all before, the development and ratification of a housing strategy. Assessments of neighbourhood character are supposed to be included in such ‘rewrites’. Has, or will, this be done or will we again have areas lumped together without any real municipal wide investigation of current zonings and their schedules. In the age of a ‘climate emergency’ will we still have zones and schedules that only require 20% permeability in GRZ and RGZ zonings when some other councils have up to 40% for these zones? And the most crucial question of all is – given the rate of development in Glen Eira over the past decade, do we still need so many areas zoned for multi-unit development and/or high density development?
In December 2015, Wynne refused council’s request for another time extension on reviewing their planning scheme. They were also ordered to undertake structure planning. By the time we get any permanent controls into our municipality, it will be at least 8 to 9 years since this time. We find it staggering that any strategic planning should take this length of time. Council can keep blaming the State Government all it likes, but other councils have managed to implement their planning scheme rewrites, their structure plans, their increased open space levies, without the ‘problems’ that council claims. Of course, one could be cynical and argue that the longer it takes to introduce anything, then more and more development can take place. Or being kind, we might simply argue, that what we have is the most incompetent, and out of touch, planning department in the state. The tragedy is that millions have literally been wasted and we are still reliant on policies that provide no real protection or community benefit when it comes to planning.
If anyone had any doubts about council’s internal political divide, the election of mayor and deputy mayor fully illustrates how the Labor versus Lib chasm is well and truly operational in Glen Eira.
Magee has been elected by a vote of 5 to 4 as Mayor. Labor together with the support of the Greens voted for Magee, whilst the Libs with the support of the nominal ‘independents’ voted for Cade. The votes in favour of Magee were: Magee, Athanasopolous, Zhang, Zyngier and Pilling. The four voting for Cade were: Parasol, Szmood, Esakoff, Cade.
Sadly, what this means is that we have a Labor Mayor and Deputy Mayor in charge for the next year. Whether or not this means that Glen Eira will continue to back to the hilt the incumbent Labor State government remains to be seen. Sadly, taking state politics out of local government seems a forlorn hope. As we’ve stated numerous times before, local government and its councillors, owes it top priority to its residents and not to some political agenda dictated by political parties.
There are several agenda items for the upcoming Wednesday night council meeting which deserve residents’ close attention. The major focus for two of the items is on heritage, whilst the third item contains comments that apply to planning in general throughout Glen Eira.
What each of these items has in common can be summarised as follows:
A history of neglect and dereliction of duty by council on heritage for well over 15 years. Given that we have had, and still have certain councillors with extended time on council, the blame for such inaction must fall upon them.
Scant concern for existing heritage overlays and the resolve to initiate controls via planning scheme amendments to ensure greater protection for these sites and precincts.
In Glen Eira, development potential usurps heritage protection. In fact, this applies equally to the State Government and VCAT.
With the third agenda item (ie submission on the Gov’s Land Use Frameworks) we have the explicit and unequivocal admission that the introduction of the residential zones in 2013 were abysmally implemented. Even worse, is the admission that what council is now proposing is in fact contrary to what the approved structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick propose.
We will go through the above and elaborate in order.
HERITAGE AMENDMENT C214glen
Included in the Panel Report for this proposed amendment, we find data collated by the Heritage Council’s review for all municipalities in the state. These are produced below. Please note:
How badly Glen Eira compares with other inner metropolitan councils
How little has been achieved over the years on heritage, despite the fact that in the 2016 Planning Scheme Review, residents were promised a complete review of the ENTIRE municipality. This has now morphed into individual precincts and suburbs. The promise of 2016 has not been done, which leaves hundreds of properties at the mercy of developers.
The Panel Report, and the officer’s report makes it absolutely clear that the issue of whether or not a site is suitable for heritage protection has nothing whatsoever to do with:
Objections
Financial costs
State of building, or
Potential development
This therefore raises innumerable questions as to why council did not utter a single word when the Minister refused to incorporate several heritage precincts in Elsternwick that were evaluated by Heritage experts as being worthy of inclusion into the proposed heritage overlays. The published excuse was that there was no current ‘development pressure’. Council has also used this ‘excuse’ when considering applying for interim heritage overlays. The above Planning Panel report invalidates these excuses and also brings into question why the Minister, in refusing to include these heritage precincts, has in fact acted against his own Planning Practice Notes!
NEERIM ROAD, MURRUMBEENA APPLICATION
This is an application for 7 storeys, and 88 student apartments, and on a site which has recently gained a heritage overlay. There were 115 objections. Previously the site was earmarked for a 9 storey building, which was refused by council. At the subsequent VCAT hearing, the developer reduced the application to 7 storeys. VCAT also refused the granting of a permit, largely on heritage grounds and insufficient setbacks. This latest application argues that the previous VCAT directions have now been attended to via the new plans.
Whilst this latest application receives the nod for a permit, we find the reasons for this view to once again show how pro development this planning department is. The report completely ignores to mention the following:
Less than half of the proposed dwellings are more than 20 square metres! Some are in the range of 16, 17, and 18 square metres in size. Readers might remember the furore created by the City of Melbourne’s report that student apartments should have a minimum size of at least 50 square metres in order to be truly ‘liveable’. The Minister had his chance to implement minimum size guidelines with his ‘Better Apartments’ guidelines, but failed to do so. Glen Eira’s submission to this endeavour stated: While setting minimum apartment sizes is encouraged in principle, this should be considered against the impact it may have on construction costs and consequently, housing affordability. If a correlation genuinely exists between the two, setting an apartment standard may not be ideal.
Whilst both City Futures and Heritage stated that the height was still a concern, the report concluded: While Council’s Heritage Advisor does not consider that the proposal has gone far enough to address the specific heritage elements in this centre, it is considered on balance that the proposal has suitably addressed the requirements of the Heritage Overlay, has moderated the bulk and form to a sufficient degree which was a key issue in the VCAT decision for the 2019 Student Housing Proposal and provides for the retention and restoration of the façade of the original building.
It is clear that when it comes to heritage, this council prefers development. We have already seen the granting of a permit for 12 storeys of student accommodation in Derby Road, Caulfield East on a heritage site, and the demolition of several other heritage properties throughout Glen Eira.
If and when this latest application goes to VCAT, we are not optimistic as to the final decision. Why? Because the arguments presented at the previous VCAT hearing remain. Of course, these comments made by the member were not included in the council officer’s report. We quote from this earlier decision:
Unfortunately, there is no structure plan for this activity centre to assist us in considering the built form outcomes for this site. Council has adopted a new City Plan (February 2020). The plan sets out a 4-storey preferred height for those parts of the activity centre to be included within the Heritage Overlay and a 5-storey height for land facing Melbourne Street. The City Plan shows four levels for the front part of 430 Neerim Road and five levels to the rear. The Tribunal in 348-354 Hawthorn Road Pty Ltd Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2020] VCAT 1211 accepted that the City Plan may be the council’s current broad thinking about activity centres in general, but we give it no weight as a tool to assess building height, relative to the urban design tests of the planning scheme as set by both the State and local policy frameworks. While we agree with these comments, we consider that there is an expectation of development within this activity centre of up to five storeys, noting that there are developments of this scale already present in the activity centre
The council submission acknowledges that the local policies do not prescribe particular heights or densities for the neighbourhood centre and that density, mass and scale of residential development needs to be assessed according to the location, physical size, scale and character of the neighbourhood centre.
there is nothing in the planning scheme to indicate that a uniform height is sought for buildings in this centre, or any other neighbourhood centre.
COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO GOV – LAND USE FRAMEWORKS
Whilst this submission is a vast improvement on previous council efforts, given that there are overt criticisms made of the policy, plus the call for more specific explanation and verified data, the overall response includes several paragraphs that should be noted by residents. The following is in response to the State Gov’s proposal that neighbourhood activity centres be required to accommodate medium to high density development along a range of 800 metres.
Direction 5 – Prioritise housing growth in areas with access to jobs, services andgood public transport
This Direction refers to opportunities for new medium and higher density housing to beconsidered within an 800 metre walkable catchment of activity centres. This is notsupported. Many of Glen Eira activity centres are linear and relate better to a 400 metrewalkable distance at the most. A radial measurement is not appropriate and opportunitiesfor new housing should be considered at the local level, through structure plans, where thecommunity is involved.
What we have here is the complete disavowel of the residential zones that were introduced in 2013. They were ‘radial’ in countless residential streets. All council did was draw a circle on a map with a radius of 400m. Most of our activity centres and their respective zoning still has not altered, meaning that countless residential streets currently have at least 2 and often 3 different zones. 8 years later we are being told that this is ‘inappropriate’.
Worse still is the admission that a 400 metre ‘walkable distance’ is the best option. If so, then why do our current interim structure plans work on the principle of 800m? Does this mean that the structure plans for Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie will be consigned to the dustbin of history – as they should? How much money has this cost thus far and to what effect?
All of the above illustrates fully what an absolute mess planning is in Glen Eira. Heritage is ‘expendable’ when it competes with development; structure planning for all of our neighbourhood centres remains in the ‘never-never’ and contrition from the likes of Hyams, Magee, Athanasopolous, Delahunty, Lipshutz, and Esakoff, and Pilling, for allowing such incompetence for years and years, is not forthcoming. Our hope is that with a new crop of councillors, perhaps residents can finally achieve the sort of council that does act in the best interests of its community.
Council has produced a survey seeking community input on its proposed multi-storey car parks in Bentleigh & Elsternwick. Whilst this latest effort is a vast improvement on recent surveys, there remain a few glaring problems. (see: https://www.haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/glen-eira-multideck-car-parks)
There is now much background information on the entire process and council receiving a promise of $20M under the Commonwealth Government’s Urban Congestion Fund. The claim is that the car parks will therefore be fully funded by this grant. Readers will remember some councillors’ recent media comments regarding the ‘tainted’ nature of this funding given the alleged political rorts that accompanied the handing out of the grants. That aside, residents are now invited to proffer their views on whether or not these car parks should proceed.
In order to fully understand the issues, the problems, and the potential benefits, council has this time included a lengthy blurb as a ‘starter’. Unless residents bother to read the accompanying reports in full, we have to conclude that they will not have a clear idea of all the information required in order to come up with some reasoned decision.
For example, what residents are not told up front is that the consultant’s report noted:
For every 3 extra car parking spots created, there will only be one more use of public transport. We are told that for the Elsternwick site (a)ll 78 car parking spaces at the site would be retained. It is estimated that an increase of 82-122 spaces can be achieved, for a total of 160-200 car parking spaces at this site. With 82 extra car spots, this would then lead to an increase of 27 public transport trips. With 122 spots, there would be 41 extra trips. Applying the same formula to Bentleigh, would create either 52 or 69 trips. Hardly earth shattering for the expenditure of $20M!
Nor do the various blurbs mention the consultant’s findings that increased local road congestion is also a possibility, especially for Elsternwick.
THE SURVEY
Since the survey’s objective is to determine whether or not residents are in favour of proceeding with the building of these car parks, one would have thought that this aspect would have and should have been the focus. Council admits that its related ‘congestion busting’ ambitions are dependent on further and different grants from government and hence some way down the track. The $20M is ear marked for ‘commuter’ transport primarily and council’s own terminology repeatedly refers to ‘commuters’. Given this emphases, then surely some questions relating to current public transport and car use was essential.
What’s wrong with some simple questions along the lines of:
Do you drive to work outside of Glen Eira?
Do you drive to work in Glen Eira?
How many times a week do you use public transport (pre-covid)
Post-covid, will this frequency increase?
Do you find car parking is sufficient in Elsternwick/Bentleigh?
Where do you work?
Do you drive to shop in Bentleigh/Elsternwick?
If you drive to shop do you think you would use these multi-storey car parks? Why?
Do you think you would use these multi-storey car parks at night?
What would make you feel confident about using these car parks at night?
As a trader, how many of your staff (including you) drive to work?
How many staff use public transport?
Would you be prepared to pay for car parking?
There are undoubtedly plenty more questions along these lines which would provide a clear picture of residents’ needs and their views. Instead we get the following as part of the survey which concentrates on ‘congestion reduction initiatives’ – many of which council has absolutely no control over!
What other types of congestion reducing initiatives should Council seek further federal government funding for under the Urban Congestion Fund? Select all that apply.
On-call shuttle buses to take commuters to train stations
Repair of footpaths
Optimise traffic-light management
Use CCTV to monitor road conditions
Enforcement of existing road traffic laws
Improve perceptions of buses
Extend residents’ parking zones
Charge for workplace parking
Improve cycling infrastructure (e.g. protected cycleways, safe cycling zones around schools, etc.)
Improve bus services
Develop and refine park-and-ride
Existing rail network
Light rail
Strategic Road Network resilience
None of the above
Other (please specify)
Even more ridiculous in the above list is the inclusion of jargon that we guess is totally nonsensical to the majority of residents – unless they happen to be traffic engineers. What on earth are we to make of: Strategic Road Network resilience? Or even Existing rail network? Nor does council inform us that road repairs have very little to do with ‘walkability’ or increased public transport use!
Council has also not provided any information as to what might happen if, for example, Elsternwick responses are in favour of the multi-storey car park and Bentleigh respondents are opposed. Does all the funding fall away, or will the government simply halve the grant and allow one to proceed? Surely this possibility would have already been discussed with the funders?
We are guilty of continually criticising this council’s consultation methodology and in particular their sub-standard surveys. Our solution(s) to these problems are simple:
All surveys MUST undergo a comprehensive ‘test run’ with councillors, community engagement committee members, and residents before they are put into the public domain.
Background information that is succinct, accurate and provides all the relevant data must accompany all surveys.
Those responsible for the creation of surveys be named and accessible to the public for continued feedback on their performance.
Reports on surveys be consistent in detailing all responses, number of respondents and publishing all comments. This does not happen with Community Voice!
Until we have such protocols, then residents have every right to be critical of council’s consultations and the adopted methodologies and purported outcomes.
Asking residents to proffer an opinion without any accompanying relevant data is NOT consultation. It is another example of the ‘top-down’ approach where decisions are likely to be imposed on a community that has not been given the information which would ensure informed decision making.
Here is what should be provided before people can make constructive and valid responses:
Traffic volumes over the past 3 years for all streets nominated
Accidents reported for the past 3 years that itemise: (1) number involving pedestrians; (2) number involving cyclists and how many of these result in deaths or ‘serious injury’?
Number of cyclists per day along these streets over the past 3 years
What local/national evidence is there that reducing speed limits ensures greater pedestrian safety?
What local/national evidence is there that reducing speed limits doesn’t increase congestion in other streets?
What local/national evidence is there that reducing speed limits leads to an increased use of bicycling?
What local/national evidence is there that reducing speed limits leads to an increased use of public transport?
What evidence supports reducing speeds by 10km/per hour or 20km/per hour?
What local/national evidence is there that reducing speed limits changes the frequency of car use?
There are probably plenty more questions that could be included in the above. What is important is that until this council acknowledges its woeful consultation processes, residents will react negatively most of the time.
Decisions must be based on evidence, accuracy and information that makes the issue(s) clear and comprehensible for residents. This rarely happens in Glen Eira!
Presented below are two pages from the approved Amendment C230 which extends (again) the expiry date for the interim controls for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick until the end of December 2021. From memory, this extension is at least the third and will certainly not be the last before the final structure plans and accompanying DDOs become ‘permanent’.
The blurb that is supposed to ‘justify’ the extension is inaccurate, and full of nothing more than spin and more spin and so far removed from reality that it is laughable. We have highlighted those sentences that readers should pay careful attention to and ask themselves – how true is this?
We are told that the interim amendments:
…….protect the low scale shopping strip and contributes to the garden setting of the three centres. Thus, we now have the ridiculous statement that a ‘low scale shopping strip’ is commensurate with 5 storeys in Bentleigh, and parts of Carnegie, whilst Elsternwick has no mandatory height limits in these areas. Topping it all off, we have designated heritage shopping areas in 2 of these centres surrounded by buildings between 8 and 12 storeys. As for the ‘garden setting’ in each centre, all we know is that council is still thinking about the potential sell offs for private development and now for social/affordable housing. Plus, if the ‘garden setting’ was, and is, so important, then why did Wynne and Council agree to remove the mandatory garden requirement for its newly suggested GRZ5 zone when Amendment C184 was made public?
We are also told that council has embarked on a two year program that is supported by substantial operational resources. Really? Which resources? How much extra funding has been directed to planning? How many extra strategic planners has council hired in the last 18 months? How much money has council expended in the rental of the property in Dandenong Road and couldn’t this money have been used far better?
Nor do we accept for one moment that the planning framework…..is consistent with the council’s and community’s expectations…. All one needs to do is check out all the consultation documents to find that the vast majority of residents were NOT in agreement with 12 storeys, or even 6 storeys for so much of the municipality. Council simply did not listen, nor protest loudly and clearly when Wynne imposed more conditions. The only ‘certainty’ that is guaranteed goes to developers who continue to receive an open arms welcome into Glen Eira.
There is repeated mention of ‘neighbourhood character’ in these pages. What is not mentioned is that council still has no:
Housing strategy
Preferred character statements for ‘housing diversity’
An updated and current MSS (Municipal Strategic Statement). As it stands we are still using data form 1996!
The absence of a complete and current ‘neighbourhood character’ review
No review of the schedules to the various zones
We also find mention of public projects and how the extension will assist in delivering these projects. Is that why we have a ten year wait before anything starts on the proposed Elsternwick Community Centre according to the latest budget, and why other projects have either been put on the back burner, or relegated to years and years down the track? Readers will undoubtedly find plenty more in these two pages that are unfounded.
There is so much that is still to be done PRIOR to the introduction of any permanent controls. Surely it is time that council ‘reviewed’ its time frames and provided residents with this knowledge as well as explanations why after 6 years we are basically still at square one?
Below we feature some of the public questions which were submitted for the last council meeting. As per usual, residents received ‘responses’ rather than ‘answers’.
QUESTION: Council recently abandoned the Bentleigh and Carnegie structure plan due to thelack of a housing strategy and yet on tonight’s meeting agenda is the Glen Huntlystructure plan (item 8.4). Should not Council wait to vote on Glen Huntly structureplan until after the completion of the housing strategy?
RESPONSE: The development of a Housing Strategy before the adoption of this structure plan is not necessary for this centre. While Glen Huntly will provide for additional housing,the structure plan is primarily focussed on the commercial core. This is quitedifferent to Council’s other structure plans in Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwickwhich also include large residential areas.
As a Major Activity Centre, there is an expectation that this centre will change inalignment with State Government Policy. The structure plan seeks to get on the frontfoot and manage the height and form of buildings that we expect following theremoval of the level crossings
The preparation of the draft Housing Strategy will give appropriate consideration tothe role of Glen Huntly as part of its development.
COMMENT(S) –
The response given is literally baffling for several reasons:
When buildings of 5, 6, and 8 storeys are proposed, then upper floors will inevitably consist of apartments. To therefore argue that this structure plan is only concentrating on the commercial sector and hence a housing strategy is unnecessary flies in the face of all common sense. How many apartments these sites can contain is surely an essential consideration in meeting the forecast population growth and the accompanying housing needs for Glen Huntly. Remember, the population growth according to council’s own published data is a mere 1000 over a 15 year period from 2021 to 2036. That’s the role of a housing strategy. To determine need for each activity centre, and the entire municipality, and then to apportion this requisite growth across the entire municipality. To pre-empt such analysis is not planning. It is simply assigning huge sectors of Glen Eira to unsustainable overdevelopment.
QUESTION 2
QUESTION: Following extensive resident feedback and inaction from Council, in 2015 the Minister for Planning compelled Council to undertake a Planning Scheme Review with a focus on controls for activity centres. In 2019 as part of the Planning Scheme Amendment C184, Council Officers belatedly highlighted the need for a Housing Strategy advising that the C184 amendment was not underpinned by an adopted municipal-wide plan. While Council failed to progress a Housing Strategy in 2019, it subsequently aborted Amendment C184 in 2021 in the absence of a clear strategic justification including a Housing Strategy. Based on advice from Officer’s, the Structure Plan controls for Bentleigh is now scheduled to be completed in 2024, some nine years after the Minister’s direction which is appalling.
Given this long history, why then have Council Officers recommended the adoption of aStructure Plan for Glen Huntly without a Housing Strategy?
Given that the response to this question consists primarily of a verbatim repetition to the first question, we have only included the opening two paragraphs of the response.
RESPONSE:It is noted that there are some inaccuracies and selective representation of facts in your opening preamble. Despite this, the answer to your question regarding the adoption for a Structure Plan in advance of the completion of the Housing Strategy is as follows :
Council began preparation of the Glen Huntly Structure Plan in mid 2019 in response to the announcement of the Government’s intention to progress level crossing removals in the area. The level crossing removals are expected to bring about a renewed focus and opportunity for change in Glen Huntly once complete. The preparation of a structure plan would assist guiding the height and form of future development, recognising its role as a Major Activity Centre, as designated by the State Government.
COMMENT: If council does not agree with the comments made by the resident, then why not provide a full rebuff of those comments? How about explaining, itemising, and justifying the claim that there are ‘inaccuracies’ contained in the question? As far as we know, the resident was 100% correct in his claims!
More importantly, we now have to consider the entire argument as to why a housing strategy is not required prior to the adoption of the structure plan because, it is claimed, the focus is primarily on the commercial areas. Then why, did the council officer state in his report of the 16th March, 2021 (when Amendment C184 was abandoned/rejected) the following:
A housing strategy would also enable Council to introduce more tailored built form controlsfor its commercial and mixed use zones within activity centres, based on a betterunderstanding of where and how growth will occur across the rest of the municipality
The housing strategy would provide Council with a municipal-wide framework for density, based on demographic and character analysis and inform all of Council’s strategic planning activities.(Page 116 of the agenda)
Doesn’t the above contradict what Council is currently stating? And doesn’t it illustrate perfectly the role of a housing strategy that needs to be completed before the adoption of structure planning? Council can’t have it both ways. Consistency, and dare we say, complete transparency, has never been this council’s strong point!
We have been alerted by a reader as to the following imminent development in Egan Street, Carnegie.
Whilst we have no problem with the need for more affordable and social housing throughout Victoria, we do have major issues with what seemingly is being proposed here.
Our reasons are:
The current interim Design and Development Overlay (DDO9) for this precinct has an 8 storey height limit.
The site has a permit for 8 storeys, so presumably this site has been sold on by the owner. Previous VCAT applications for this site featured applications for a 16 storey student block. This was rejected by both council and VCAT.
Car parking according to council’s planning scheme is deficient for both the apartments and retail sectors.
Of greatest concern is the fact that under Wynne’s Amendments and the Big House guidelines, third party review rights are removed. There will supposedly be ‘consultation’, with council and the community once the plans are released. The option however, of going to VCAT is removed.
Here’s what the legislation includes:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Government policy is rightly pushing for more social housing after decades and decades of neglect. This however should not be assumed as a carte blanche for either government or council to IMPOSE upon neighbourhoods 10 storey (or higher) apartment blocks without the possibility of review.
For all council’s talk about the need for social housing, their actions belie their rhetoric. When the opportunities surfaced to extract significant social housing components in major developments Glen Eira council fell by the wayside and settled for the bare minimum. The latest Caulfield Village permit for 437 apartments contained only 21 such dwellings designated as ‘affordable housing’ – that’s a percentage of 4.8% and the reduced rent is only set for 10 years! We also have the debacle that is Virginia Estate where from at least 3000 apartments, social/affordable housing managed to eke out a miserable 5%! Other councils are now attempting at least 20% for their major developments.
Nor are we provided with any warning as to what council will offer up to the government. How much of council land will be sold off for social housing? Will residents be informed well in advance? How many of these apartments will end up in private developer’s hands – ie a ‘private/public’ partnership?
In the end, we see this as the start of a process that denies residents a say in the future of their neighbourhoods.
The agenda for next THURSDAY’S council meeting is now out and features Version 3 of the Glen Huntly Structure Plan. Readers will remember that the first draft went out for consultation in mid 2020 where council wanted 10, 8 and 6 storeys for many sectors. Following consultation, the 10 storey site at the supermarket was reduced to 8, with several other reductions. This was rejected by councillors in September 2020 with the arguments that 8 storeys in the second smallest suburb in Glen Eira, and with the densest population was a step too far. So now we have version 3, which to be blunt, is another pathetic planning document that is without strategic justification, without due consideration to residents’ views, and which will deny residents any say in what is approved.
The newly proposed changes are literally miniscule – a few nominated heritage properties to the west, and some in the commercial eastern side. Basically, this new version remains very much the same document as before – heights, to the greatest extent, remain the same as do setbacks. Thus, if councillors saw fit to reject this earlier draft, we see no reason as to why this ‘newer’ version should gain their approval!
The following paragraphs go through the proposed plan and highlight what we believe is so erroneous and constitutes poor planning.
What can be gleaned from the officer’s report and the draft structure plan itself:
This structure plan will be adopted BEFORE a Housing Strategy is completed and any permanent controls will only see the light of day AFTER the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick structure plans have been done. Given that Elsternwick is stated as blowing out to 2023, that means that the Glen Huntly structure plan will have no statutory weight (ie.being included in the Planning Scheme) for years to come. This represents nothing more than another example of putting the cart before the horse!
There is currently no Heritage Overlay that exists for the proposed sites. This again, means that there is nothing available to stop a developer coming in and demolishing what council now believes is heritage worthy. Given the long process for having amendments included in the planning scheme, again we are looking at least another 2 years if not more, before any constraints are placed on developers – we quote: No changes to heritage overlays are proposed at this time. They will be pursued as part of a Planning Scheme Amendment at a later date
What is implied throughout this report is that the surrounding residential areas of Glen Huntly will be looked at down the track and this will cover the ‘study area’ for potential rezonings. As a Major Activity Centre, this will invariably mean that many sites now zoned GRZ (3 storeys) have the potential to be increased to RGZ (four storeys), plus the fact that the size of the activity centre will undoubtedly expand. We see no other way to interpret the following: again, we quote from the structure plan itself (page 17) – a review of the boundary of the activity centre as required AND page 26 – the whole activity centre study area is considered a potential housing opportunity area. Council will undertake a housing strategy to determine the scope for residential change across our city. This will include assessment of residential land within the study area of the Glen Huntly major activity centre.
OVERSHADOWING/SUNLIGHT
Glen Huntly is a Major Activity Centre (MAC) in the same way that Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie are. The only difference is that it is far smaller (roughly 1 square km) but far, far denser (ie 63 people per hectare, compared to Bentleigh’s 38.92, Carnegie’s 54.51 and Elsternwick’s 44.73. But far more worse is that currently, Glen Huntly has 35% of its land mass zoned as appropriate for 3 storey dwellings. Many of these immediately abut the commercial and mixed use zones that the structure plan is considering. Given this proximity to increased heights of 8 and 6 storeys in some sections, we are completely flabbergasted as to why the proposed overshadowing requirements are different to what was thought appropriate for Bentleigh and Carnegie via the rejected Amendment C184.
Bentleigh and Carnegie were privileged to have overshadowing requirements that were form 10am to 3pm on September 21 AND 11am to 2pm for various precincts on June 22st – ie the winter solstice. Poor old Glen Huntly does not get anything for the winter solstice and only from 10am to 2pm for the September calculation. The officer’s report tells us – The shadow analysis was prepared for the September equinox from 10AM to 2PM. We also get these ridiculous statements from the officer’s report (page 138 of the agenda) –
The southern footpath of Glenhuntly Road in the Central Retail Precinct is not inshadow from 11AM to 2PM on the spring equinox.
75 per cent of private open space is in sunlight for 5 hours on the spring equinox.
What happens to the southern footpath at 3pm? 4pm? How much is in shadow? What impact will this have on residents sitting drinking their coffees on the footpath? And what on earth does 75% of private open space mean? Which open space? Have consultants surveyed and done shadow diagrams for all of the ‘private open space’ in Glen Huntly? And if we take this statement at face value,does it mean that 25% of ‘private open space’ is in shadow and for how long?
PODIUM HEIGHTS & SETBACKS
When it comes to these two components of planning, Glen Huntly again comes off a second best compared to the proposed Bentleigh & Carnegie structure plans envisaged by Amendment C184. For large swathes of land in Bentleigh/Carnegie their street podium heights were designated as 2 and 3 storey. In Glen Huntly, it is somehow fitting that these podium heights can be up to 15 metres (4 storeys) in 2 large precincts. And this is when the current sites along Glen Huntly road are predominantly 2 storeys in height! Why? Readers should peruse page 24 of the draft to see the full details.
The same applies to setbacks. Compared to the far greater setbacks imposed in Bentleigh & Carnegie, Glen Huntly is supposed to be content with a majority of 4 metre setback opposed to the standard 5 metres in these other MACS. The higher the building, then Glen Huntly is again worse off! Why?
HERITAGE
As we’ve stated, council has belatedly undertaken some heritage inspections of sites and come up with proposals for heritage inclusion. Yet even on this level, there is some major discrepancy between what Glen Huntly is afforded and what is stated for Bentleigh & Carnegie. The officer’s report tells us – When the Built Form Framework was prepared, shopfronts along the Central Retail Precinct were treated as “character” areas. As such, no changes are proposed to the height limits or setbacks of the Central Retail Precinct as a result of the heritage assessment.
So we have the ludicrous situation where various sites in the Eastern Retail section designated as heritage – commercial/Mixed Use precinct – will be allowed to have 5 storeys (discretionary) and those in Bentleigh and Carnegie were seen as suitable for only 4 storeys.
Even worse, is that we again have council policy such as the City Plan, and which is referred to in the draft structure plan, that is totally ignored. The City Plan speaks of ‘shop top (heritage) as being suitable for 4 storeys. But this goes out the window with this plan for Glen Huntly!
HOUSING NEED
Council keeps repeating its mantra of the need for 18000 net new dwellings by 2036 throughout Glen Eira. When the population stats for Glen Huntly itself are produced we find:
Even if we accept these projections (which of course take no account of COVID), we find that in a 20 year period, the population growth in Glen Huntly will increase by a mere 1000. Plus in the period from 2021 to 2036 the increase will be 500 over a 15 year duration. Thus, if these projections are correct and only another 500 people will come to Glen Huntly, why do we need 8 storey and 6 storey buildings, that together are suggested by consultants to result in the addition of 410 net new dwellings. That is on a 50% uptake, so feasibly, the uptake could be even more if the housing market improves. Over various census results, the number of people per dwelling has averaged at 2 and a bit. This is forecast to continue by the ABS. So, 2 people per dwelling with a 500 increase in population should only require at best 250 net new dwellings!!!
Finally a comment or two on the ‘aesthetics’ of the document itself, and these comments pertain to much of what is produced by council.
The actual size of the full structure plan is 73 pages. Of these 73 pages we have 39% that are nothing more than either full page pretty pictures, or sketches that reveal absolutely nothing. For example: not one of these sketches present realistic images of an 8 storey building!
Jargon, generalisations, vague assertions, and platitudes reign supreme. Perhaps someone can inform us what this actually means? – Encourage pedestrian permeability (page 18). Will we now be aiming for ‘porous people’?!!!!!
Much of what is in this draft document is evasive and scant explanation and justification is provided to residents. In a democracy, where transparency and accountability are crucial, Glen Eira Council continues to fail dismally.
We urge all readers to write and ring councillors and inform them why the process, the lack of further consultation, and the outcomes if approved are not in the community’s best interest and as happened in September 2020, this draft plan should again be relegated to the dust bin of history!
Glen Eira Debates 