November 30, 2017
Glen Eira has improved (slightly) from last year. It has now come in second to Monash for the number of appeals ending up at VCAT. Sadly however, three of our suburbs still rank in the top twenty from the entire state – Bentleigh, East Bentleigh and Carnegie.
November 29, 2017
We continue our analysis of the Urban Design document and remain astounded at the continued lack of accurate information this contains, plus the failure to provide all the necessary data to provide readers with the opportunity to make fair and objective comparisons.
The screen dump provided below is supposed to represent a matrix of ‘comparable’ developments.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
What is not stated in this matrix, or what is completely misleading is the following:
Here is part of the gazetted Development Plan for the Alphington project. Please note carefully the size of the various height proposals and how much is destined for 2-4 storeys!
November 28, 2017
The Urban Design report for the development of Virginia Estate is a remarkable document in several ways. The stated methodology is to analyse developments around the world in order to determine ’best practice’ which can then be applied to Virginia Estate. The trouble with such ‘comparisons’ is that what is presented in the document is either NOT comparable or information is presented that is completely erroneous.
One of the ‘comparisons’ is the Caulfield Village development. Please remember that although the development plan for Precinct 3 (Smith St) is still to make an appearance, the Incorporated Plan has stipulated that:
Given the above, why is the Virginia Estate document portraying this development as only up to 14 storeys and only catering for 1200 dwellings? We certainly don’t believe that the MRC has suddenly become so magnanimous as to have changed their minds an reduced the scale of their vision.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Next for comparison is the Bradmill development. It is similar in size to Virginia Estate (ie 24 hectares) but will contain according to the figures only 1500 dwellings. Of far greater note, as can be seen from the image below, is the amount of open space proposed for the development. In contrast to what is in line for Virginia Estate (ie one park of 2500 square metres and a sprinkling of more dots on the map) Bradmill is close to 4 hectares of open space on a similar sized lot and BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE 6 STOREYS AND NOT 8!
We don’t believe that it is too much to ask that when documents are published years after the facts are known, that they be accurate, detailed, and actually informative!
November 26, 2017
Agenda Item 9.6 – Council’s submission to Smart Planning ‘Reforms’
Smart Planning basically represents the State Government’s further tinkering with VicSmart – the system where permits for various ‘minor’ applications aren’t publicised and approval is granted in 10 days. It also represents the attempt to further deregulate planning and pave the way for less council and resident ‘interference’. Whilst it is true that the current planning system is unwieldy and basically a mess, this doesn’t mean that ‘improvement’ is synonymous with less transparency and more advantages being handed out to the development industry.
The proposals, in broad terms, include –
All of the above basically means that:
So the $64,000 question for residents is – how does Glen Eira Council respond to this ‘discussion paper’? How does council’s submission differ from other councils? Council SUPPORTS either fully or ‘in principle’ every single thing suggested! The pro-development agenda is obvious!
Unlike other council submissions, Glen Eira makes no comment whatsoever on the following important proposed ‘revisions’ – Heritage, zoning, liquor licenses, etc. Here are some responses from various councils. We ask that readers compare what these councils have submitted and what our council has produced!
BRIMBANK
Additional exemptions should not be supported (in Heritage) as the alterations to verandas and pergolas can significantly impact on a heritage precinct.
Unintended consequences – The reformed provisions will potentially change standards zones, including the Activity Centre and Mixed Use Zones where there is currently no equivalent zone. This will not change the intent of the zone, however could impact on Council’s ability to customise land uses in specific areas, as there will be increased ‘as of right’ uses (no permit required) and prohibited uses may be considered as a section 2 use (permit required subject to policy).
Liquor Licences and Gaming – Council has highlighted the opportunity to give local government greater jurisdiction over the assessment of planning permit applications for liquor licences and gaming.
Ensure that the parking overlay continues to allow the collection of cash to enable Council’s to gain some compensation for constructing public car parking and when applicants cannot provide car parking on their sites.. The recent introduction of the residential zones, specifically the Residential Growth Zone, requires further consideration of car parking rates and how they apply to this zone. It is noted that the last ministerial advisory committee examined car parking rates in 2012, prior to the changes to the residential zones.
MORNINGTON
MPSC does not support the proposal to expand VicSmart on the basis that it reduces the inclusion of third parties in the planning process.
MPSC do not support the VicSmart assessment pathway in the first instance given its inability to consider and allow third party concerns and review rights
A key concern of the MPSC are the proposals that will make a number of land uses as of right. Such land uses are a common source of amenity and land use conflict. For example, industrial areas are being constantly challenged by an influx of non-industrial land operators being attracted by the cheaper lease opportunities. Frequently planners are required to strike the balance between preserving industrial land for manufacturing and/or warehousing with ‘new age’ commercial land uses such as gyms, dance schools and breweries. Carparking and conflict between operations is a genuine issue that requires careful balancing through a detailed planning permit consideration
Additionally, the reforms seek to enable licensed premises to be ‘as of right’ within commercial zones. There is concern that this could have lasting and direct impact within the townships of the Mornington Peninsula. For example, under the Commercial 1 Zone a restaurant, tavern (aka bar), nightclub and bottle shop are all ‘as of right’ land uses under the zone
STONNINGTON
One example of a potential consequence of being made to fit into the new policy structure is that Council’s substantial investment in structure planning for activity centres could be undermined or even wasted if the hierarchy of centres implied in Stonnington’s current MSS, Local Polices and Incorporated documents is made to align more closely with the hierarchy of centres outlined in Plan Melbourne when translated into the new PPF structure. This could result in Council not being able to achieve all of the currently intended policy outcomes for activity centres in Stonnington.
The introduction of code -based assessment for simple proposals is intended to eliminate much of the subjectivity and delay in decision -making. However, it could also result in some loss of planning control over issues that are important to the municipality and should be assessed against the appropriate planning provisions, e.g. liquor licensing and single dwellings on small lots (i.e. under 300m² or 500m²).
Liquor licensing can contribute to adverse impacts on residential and commercial amenity if not appropriately regulated. Therefore, proposed measures to remove liquor licensing from assessment under the planning scheme (Proposal 3.2 and Proposal 5.1 -Clause 52.27 ‘Licensed premises’) are not supported.
The inclusion of smaller lots standards as part of code assessment is not supported, especially if it could result in the loss of the assessment process against the relevant planning provisions in relation to side and rear setbacks of dwellings and upper -storey additions. This could result in unacceptable visual bulk and detrimental impact on neighbouring private open space.
Finally, we’ve uploaded an article written by Prof Michael Buxton in March this year. Whilst this preceded the publication of VC110 and the release of the current discussion paper, most of the points made remain valid.
November 24, 2017
Quite a few interesting items in the agenda papers for Tuesday night.
Item 9.3 – Visitor Parking for Residential & Mixed Use Developments
No surprises here. The recommendation is to do nothing again and wait until the Integrated Transport Strategy is completed. Part of the ‘let’s do nothing’ justification rests on council’s: acknowledge(ment) that there are planning tools available to Council to manage car parking provision but the implementation of these tools requires a lengthy planning scheme amendment process underpinned by strong strategic justification
As a result of the above the conclusion is:
The planning scheme sets out a basis upon which to assess car parking provision for new developments in Glen Eira. Given the complex pressures the municipality is facing with population growth and the resultant traffic congestion and parking demand, a more sophisticated approach is needed. This will likely involve a move from the current ‘one size fits all’ approach and one which uses a combination of planning policy and parking overlays.
To do so requires a planning scheme amendment, and the requisite strategic justification. The current structure planning program and the upcoming Integrated Transport Strategy will form an important part in the strategic justification that is required. Once this is completed, more detailed preparation of the necessary planning tools can commence.
Our conclusion? At least another 2 years, if not more, before any thought of parking overlay amendments are introduced – and this despite the fact that residents have been screaming about the lack of adequate parking for at least the past decade!
Item 9.5 – 282 Centre Road, Bentleigh
This involves an application to extend liquor hours to 10pm Tuesdays & Wednesdays and until 1am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. There were 17 objections highlighting noise, parking, impact on residential amenity, etc. Council’s ‘solution’ was –
It is also proposed to include a new condition that advises patrons to respect the neighbours and minimise noise when leaving the premises.
We question first of all the legality of such a ‘condition’ and secondly even if legal, how effective it would be? Is this ‘condition’ merely there to placate objectors?
Item 9.8 – Harleston Park Basketball Court
We’ve now expended further ratepayer funds on a second consultation on the proposed basketball court in Harleston Park. Again no surprises in that the recommendation is basically to ignore the majority of respondents and to go ahead with installing the court. So much for ‘community consultation’!!!!!!!
Item 9.10 – Access to Ripponlea Gardens
A good outcome in that Glen Eira residents will now have free access to the Ripponlea Gardens area. It will however cost council $250,000 per annum over the next 3 years. We do not bemoan this funding. What should however be acknowledged is the fact that:
Finally a few minor points worthy of consideration:
November 22, 2017
On its Have Your Say webpage for the Virginia Estate development, council tells us –
So far this year we have undertaken three rounds of consultation. The feedback we received for round three clearly stated that the community required more detailed information in order to provide feedback. We have listened to this feedback and the VPA has engaged independent expert consultants to provide advice on a number of topics including urban design, parks and open space, traffic, employment and drainage. (Source: http://www.haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/east-village)
According to this blurb, residents should expect:
MGS Architects Pty. Ltd have been engaged by The Gillon Group, Make Property Group and Abacus Property Group to develop an Urban Design Report to inform the East Village development in Bentleigh East, Victoria. (page 4)
The same is true for Environmental Conditions report –
Senversa Pty Ltd was engaged by MAKE EBRB Dev Nominee Pty Ltd. (MAKE) to prepare a summaryof environmental conditions for the proposed East Village Precinct, Bentleigh East, a 24 hectare parcel of land (with multiple titles) on the corner of East Boundary and North Roads, Bentleigh East (thePrecinct) (page 1)
Reading the Urban Design effort we find that many sections are nothing more than a regurgitation of the original Gillon propaganda, practically verbatim, that came out a few years ago. (By the way, the East Village Gillon site has suddenly disappeared!)
More importantly the VPA website doesn’t include as yet the most contentious documents – ie commercial assessment and social infrastructure. (See: https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/east-village-strategic-site/p/east-village-key-ideas-objectives/). If these appear in December/January, then that means residents will not have had the opportunity to read, much less digest the so-called ‘information’ before this consultation concludes. Hardly an ideal situation!
As a brief overview of what we’ve gleaned thus far, please note:
There is much, much more that could be said – and we will in ensuing posts. We repeat that in our view this is not consultation. Until residents are provided with realistic data that is justified, explained, and open to debate, then we are simply being lead down the garden path to an amendment that will leave little room for change and community input! It will be a mirror image of Caulfield Village – a fait accompli!
November 21, 2017
Council has finally published what is supposed to be the latest version of a draft structure plan for Virginia Estate. It is anything but a comprehensive and detailed set of proposals. At the time of writing no other documentation has been forthcoming – ie no traffic report, no economic analysis of impact of surrounding businesses, no urban design guidelines, no indication of setbacks, nothing on environmental sustainability and drainage. In short, another exercise in pretty pictures (all of which fail to present one image of an 8 storey building!) and grandiose, unproven statements that ultimately boil down to spin and more spin.
All that we are told is that the prospect is for another 3000 dwellings. Since this will ultimately become a ‘development plan’ akin to what happened at Caulfield Village, we won’t hold our breaths that the final figure will remain at 3000. Remember that the MRC started out with 1100 dwellings. It is, after 2 approved development plans for the first two precincts now standing at about 2063 dwellings in total. What precinct 3 will come up with is yet to be seen. We do not see why this project will be any different!
Some changes are apparent from the July version, namely – East Boundary Road developments go from 4 storey to potentially 6 storeys; the area of 8 storey development is slightly decreased.
Finally, until council releases all of the necessary documentation, this is anything but a genuine community consultation. People can only comment once they have been provided with the necessary information. This effort fails dismally on this important step!
We’ve uploaded the full document HERE AND PRESENT BELOW THE DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED HEIGHTS.
November 20, 2017
Today’s published report by the ANU confirms what many residents already know but which our council, hell bent on facilitating more and more (expensive) development, refuses to acknowledge much less accept. As a further example of what’s happening in Glen Eira, the state government’s Planning Permit Activity report for the single month of October has Glen Eira providing permits for another 248 NET NEW DWELLINGS!
Here is the ABC’s report on the ANU study –
By business reporter Michael Janda
Australia does not have a housing shortage, with inner-city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane some of the nation’s most oversupplied regions, according to new research from ANU.
Key points:
The analysis estimates the nation’s housing oversupply at 164,000, or 32,000 if the significant increase in unoccupied dwellings is excluded.
The study by associate professor Ben Phillips and researcher Cukkoo Joseph from the Australian National University shows that between 2001 and 2017 Australia built more homes than it needed to house the growth in population over that period.
The academics’ findings tally with other recent research showing that Australia has a moderate housing oversupply.
However, this research used a relatively sophisticated methodology that accounted for demographic changes.
Additionally, it accounted for an increase in people residing in “non-private dwellings” — such as student accommodation or nursing homes — that are often excluded from housing supply-demand analyses and tend to exaggerate an apparent housing shortage.
This report has also gone below state-level analysis to regional calculations.
It found that the inner-city area of Sydney had the nation’s largest housing oversupply, at just under 6,000 dwellings.
That was in contrast to areas in the mid and far-west of Sydney, which generally had moderate undersupply, as did Wyong on the Central Coast.
Inner-Brisbane had the nation’s second largest oversupply of around 4,500.
Melbourne CBD and surrounds had the fourth highest oversupply of just under 4,000 excess dwellings.
Outside the inner-urban areas, where oversupply was mainly driven by the nation’s record high-rise apartment boom, the other main areas of oversupply were in regional areas, particularly those exposed to the resources sector where the mining downturn has caused populations to shrink.
While these mining areas had generally witnessed large property price falls, Mr Phillips said some of the other oversupplied areas had actually experienced strong price growth.
“We haven’t found a particularly strong relationship between the balance of supply and demand and house price growth,” he told the ABC.
“We did find a very small correlation, but it was less than 10 per cent, so what that tells us is that there is perhaps some impact from housing supply but, by and large, what’s driving house prices in Australia, particularly in our capital cities, is a whole range of other factors.”
Housing boom story ‘falls over’ in light of oversupply
The significance of this finding is that increasing housing supply by itself is unlikely to put significant downward pressure on prices.
Given that increasing supply has been the almost exclusive housing affordability focus of the current Federal Government and most of its state counterparts, Dr Phillips said it is no surprise that affordability has not improved.
“What this research shows is that that’s not necessarily going to be as helpful as what many would hope,” he said.
“Perhaps what it actually means is that we should be focussing our attention more on the demand side of the equation.”
Mr Phillips said that means looking at whether interest rates have been too low for too long, and also reviewing “generous” tax breaks for property investors, such as negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount.
There’s been an important assumption that’s been made – not just by the Reserve Bank but also by government in general – and that is that to a certain extent low interest rates are justified in Australia, and the impact on house prices is justified, because we’ve got a so-called housing shortage,” he said.
“That supports house prices growing, it suggests there are fundamentals that are driving house price markets, so it’s not necessarily loose monetary policy that’s driving that.
“But, if our findings are correct in that actually we’ve got a housing surplus, then that argument does actually fall down somewhat.
“It is concerning that without the housing shortage you don’t actually have a lot of basis for the house price growth.”
Although, Mr Phillips also pointed out that Australia’s housing surplus was much smaller than markets such as Ireland and Spain that experienced dramatic home price collapses during the global financial crisis.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-20/house-price-growth-based-on-undersupply-myth-anu/9167688
November 15, 2017
The Davis motion to revoke the Ormond Tower Amendment was passed in the upper house today. The vote was 21 for and 16 against. The Greens voted with the Liberals.
We’ve uploaded the document HERE. Please turn to page 7 to start reading – that is, if you have the stomach for the political games on display here from all sides!
By way of summary here is a list of points –
The level of debate that exists in our parliaments and council chambers is frankly appalling. The only winners are lawyers and the development industry. Certainly not communities!
November 14, 2017
Property Council attacks opposition for seeking to block controversial Ormond tower
The Property Council of Australia has accused the state opposition of manufacturing investment uncertainty for politician gain, as the party seeks to block a controversial 13-storey tower planned for the top of Ormond train station.
The Andrews government has approved plans for Ormond’s first high-rise – a 233-apartment tower above the station on North Road – that is set to dwarf surrounding buildings.
It was opposed by local residents and Glen Eira Council, which pushed for an eight-storey structure, but was approved by a planning panel in March for 13 storeys and supported by Planning Minister Richard Wynne who outlined proposed changes to the Glen Eira planning gazetted last month.
But the project could now hit yet another roadblock as the opposition moves to disallow the proposed amendment in the upper house on Wednesday.
If the opposition is successful, this would take the project back to the drawing board, potentially unravelling an extensive planning process.
The opposition would need the support of the Greens or the full crossbench to halt the development.
The Greens are yet to form a position, while Vote 1 Local Jobs James Purcell and Australian Conservatives’ Rachel Carling-Jenkins said they were undecided.
The Sex Party’s Fiona Patten also said she was undecided, but was open to hearing the opposition’s arguments in Parliament. The two Shooter, Fishers and Farmers MPs did not respond to calls.
Opposition public transport spokesman David Davis said he was not opposed to “sensible value capture”, but described the tower in the low-rise area as “inappropriate planning”.
“The opposition is deeply concerned with the government’s approach to its massive and inappropriate tower in the local Ormond shopping centre,” said Mr Davis.
“The opposition supports sensible transport orientated development but does not support riding roughshod over local communities as occurred in Ormond.”
The Coalition has also flagged another revocation motion of the controversial Markham Estate – 1.4 hectares of prime Ashburton land the Andrews government wants to develop for both private and public housing.
Both of these motions have been slammed by executive director of Property Council Australia’s Victorian branch Sally Capp, who accused the opposition of creating planning uncertainty to benefit their own political purposes.
She urged other parliamentarians to reject Mr Davis’ proposals.
“This is not a political game,” she said.
“We are disappointed, concerned and frustrated. One of the main things that really drives affordability and supply of housing is planning certainty and these motions against Ormond Station and Markham Estate … will throw everything up in the air.
She said the project was a “poster child” for urban property development, “at a time when we absolutely have to address more housing supply in the middle ring”.
“Urban density in places that are close to jobs, public transport and other services will bring jobs into the area in terms of building, construction; it will bring new opportunities for the local community in terms of the sort of amenity it is going to offer.”
Mr Davis’ moves come despite Opposition Leader Matthew Guy approving thousands of apartments in Melbourne’s CBD when he was planning minister – including in what he claimed was first 100-storey building in the southern hemisphere – earning him the moniker “My Skyscraper”.
In 2014, he approved a 31-storey tower in South Yarra, despite Stonnington Council’s preferred heigh limit of 13 storeys.
Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan said said Mr Davis was a “loose cannon” who was “threatening jobs and investor confidence”.
“The Liberals spent four years selling Melbourne’s skyline to the highest bidder, and now they want to play petty politics with a vital project that delivers safer streets, more trains and new homes,” she said.
Glen Eira mayor Mary Delahunty said the council engaged experts to decide on the appropriate type of building for the area, and while she believed it would still be too high, the community now wanted certainty.
“It would be disappointing if we see this drag on any longer, and still have the same outcome. It is being used as a political football and that’s not fair to the residents, they need to know what’s going on in their neighbourhood,” she said.
The development will have street-level retail, and office and apartments above the station that was revamped under the government’s signature $6.9 billion level crossing removal project.
Glen Eira Debates 