Glen Eira Debates

Another VCAT decision (6 storeys, 23 apartments on Neerim Road) has been handed down in favour of the developer. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/33.html)

We highlight some of the member’s comments below.

As a consequence of the amended plans, and confirmation that the ROW is a public highway and therefore able to be used, the Council advised that it was no longer pursuing the refusal grounds relating to overshadowing, bin storage and the use of the ROW.

COMMENT: From this comment it appears that council had no idea when it first rejected the application or drafted its conditions that the Right of Way (ROW) was a ‘public highway’ and hence ‘able to be used’.  What does this say about council’s record keeping, its corporate memory, and its professionalism?

In support of the proposed six-storey height, Mr Sheppard referred to the absence of a Design and Development Overlay or any other guidance from the Planning Scheme as to the building height sought; the existence of other similar developments in the activity centre; the adoption of a podium to integrate with the existing streetscape; and the recessed form of the upper levels.

COMMENT: There is nothing new in this comment since decision after decision has highlighted the lack of ‘guidance’ in council’s planning scheme. The Urban Villages were created via Amendment C11 well over a decade ago.  Yet, this council administration and its councillors have literally sat on their hands and done nothing to address these gaping holes in the planning scheme. Nothing but nothing can excuse returning councillors such as Hyams, Esakoff, Magee  and Delahunty for their role in allowing this to continue and in introducing the residential zones in secret and without fine tuning the planning scheme.

There is no policy or provision within the Planning Scheme which indicates the anticipated or desired building heights in the urban village. The Council has prepared Amendment C147, which proposes the introduction of a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) in the Carnegie Urban Village. The proposed DDO specifies a mandatory maximum four-storey height for development on the review site and neighbouring properties on the south side of Neerim Road. The Council has submitted the Amendment to the Minister for Planning with a request that the Minister prepare, adopt and approve the Amendment in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. At the time of the hearing, no response to the request had been received from the Minister. As it stands, Amendment C147 does not have the status of a seriously entertained planning proposal. There is no certainty that the Minister will agree to the Council’s request or what form the Amendment, if it is approved, may ultimately take. Given this, I am unable to give the Amendment weight in my consideration of this proposal.

COMMENT: Did council finally see the light with its proposed interim height controls, or was this foisted upon them by Richard Wynne? We now have the even greater embarrassment that Wynne has been sitting on these drafts for months presumably because council has again failed to do the necessary strategic work to justify the lines it has drawn on some maps!

While the Council raised concerns regarding the rear profile of the building, it was unable to quantify the setbacks which it considers should be provided in order to achieve what it would consider to be a satisfactory response to the neighbouring residential precinct.

COMMENT: This comment is the most remarkable of all. How can any argument be successful when no justification is provided?

Unlike some other planning schemes which include local policies on Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD), there is nothing in the Planning Scheme which addresses the level of daylight which should be provided to habitable rooms.

COMMENT: Another gaping hole that council has continually argued needs to be addressed by the state government and not councils. Thankfully Stonnington, Bayside, Port Phillip, etc. have not taken this same tack and have thus succeeded in providing greater protection to their neighbourhoods!

The evidence included a survey of on-street car parking spaces within a distance of 250 – 350 metres of the review site. The survey data confirmed that there is ample capacity to accommodate the four visitor cars. Notably this includes the unrestricted kerbside parking in Shepparson Avenue. The Council submitted that consideration should be given to the cumulative effect of parking reductions granted for developments in the activity centre. It was submitted that occupancy surveys such as those contained in the evidence can only reflect existing conditions and do not factor in approved developments which have not been constructed and for which reduced car parking has been allowed. While I understand the Council’s submission, I was not provided with information on the location and nature of all these other proposals, their stage of development and/or details of the nature and extent of any parking reductions. In the absence of this sort of information, I am unable to undertake the form of assessment advocated by the Council. I can only make a decision on the information contained in the application material, the submissions and the evidence. There is nothing to indicate that the on-street parking in the centre is experiencing such demand that a further four spaces cannot be accommodated. This is even more so the case when consideration is given to the likelihood of peak visitor demand occurring outside of the business hours and, therefore, at times when the demand for on-street parking is reduced.

COMMENT: It should not take more than an hour’s work to determine how many car parking spots have been waived in permits granted for this area! This was obviously not done! When council can spend literally millions upon millions on its computer systems (including – from memory – a $4m tender late last year) all such data should be available at the press of a few buttons.

Here is a tiny sample of what has been happening in just one small section of Bentleigh East since the introduction of the zones. The image below includes several applications that council rejected. However given the zoning and developers’ success at VCAT, we have included these as well. Readers should also note that it looks like Larman Street and St Georges is heading in the direction of Bent/Elliott/etc. The following properties have been recently sold –

7 Larman St – 25^th June 2016 – $1,155,000

8 Larman St – 30^th November 2016 – $1,302,500

Also worth bearing in mind is that the Virginia Estate project is just down the road!

A quick count reveals 247 new dwellings in these few streets alone from just 15 developments and 23 original lots of land. That is a ten fold increase to what was there before! All in a ‘neighbourhood centre’ without rail, tram and without any data ever provided as to how well the local infrasture is coping with this rampant development. We have to wonder whether council has any idea as to the cumulative impacts on our drainage systems, parking and traffic, and environment.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

By way of comparison, here is a part of a current application that has gone into council for a 4 storey development in Carnegie. Please note:

• no traffic
• angle of photo makes tree appear as tall as the proposed building. Power lines reveal the ‘truth’ however!
• Does this representation warrant the nomenclature of ‘grossly misleading’ too?????

Despite all prognostications that the so called ‘building boom’ is abating, applications in Glen Eira are continuing to flood in. The list below is a selection of some that have landed on council’s desk within the past few months. We have not included the multitude of 2 double storeys, or in some cases, even an application for 3 double storeys. All of these are still to be decided or even advertised.

We urge readers to carefully note:

• The zoning and area for each application (in parenthesis)
• The failure to disclose the number of proposed apartments for some of the following listings
• The question as to why the two bolded applications are even being considered given that they exceed the zoning requirements (ie Bent St & Hawthorn Road). Are we about to see underground apartments or does the land really slope that much?
• What does this say about council’s planning scheme and its ‘heirarchy’ for development, when the vast majority of these dwellings are in neighbourhood centres and NOT the major activity zones of Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Carnegie?
• The amount of development in General Residential Zone, rather then the commercial/mixed use zoning.
• The size of the land and the proposed number of dwellings. So much for permeability, site coverage, and impact on infrastructure!

17 Arawatta Street CARNEGIE – Construction of a 10 storey apartment building consisting of 42 apartments with 2 level basement parking (MUZ,  ~ 580SQM)

35 -37 Kokaribb Road CARNEGIE – Construction of five (5) three storey attached dwellings and waiver of visitor car parking (RGZ1, 830 sqm)

2 – 4 Blair Street BENTLEIGH – Construction for four (4) storey apartment building comprising of 24 dwellings, car parking and landscaping (RGZ1 – 1491 SQM)

16 – 18 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH – Construct a 4 storey apartment building and reduce the visitor car parking requirement (RGZ1 – 1366sqm)

16 South Avenue BENTLEIGH – Construction of eight (8) three storey townhouses with basement car parking (GRZ1 – 878 sqm)

1032A & 1032 North Road BENTLEIGH EAST – Use and development of the land for ground floor shops and apartment dwellings with a reduction in car parking (C1Z – 540sqm)

26 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA – Construction of five (5) double storey dwellings and a waiver of the statutory visitor parking requirement, on land affected by the Special Building Overlay.(GRZ2 – 650 sqm)

12 – 14 Howe Street MURRUMBEENA – Construction of eleven dwellings (GRZ2 – 1515sqm)

6 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA – 4 double storeys (GRZ1 – 776sqm)

30 – 32 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON – Multi-unit residential development (GRZ1 – 1366sqm)

9 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON – Construction of a three storey building comprising four dwellings (GRZ1 – 710sqm)

134-138 McKinnon Road MCKINNON – Construction of an apartment building comprising twenty-one (21) dwellings and a reduction in car parking (GRZ1 – 1157sqm)

2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON – Construction of 4 double storey dwellings (GRZ2 – 657sqm)

9 Station Avenue MCKINNON – Development of eight(8) dwellings and buildings/works in a special building overlay (GRZ1 – 880 sqm)

219 Tucker Road MCKINNON – Construction of 5-storey apartment building (7 units) with basement car parking (C1Z – 225 sqm)

532 North Road ORMOND – Mixed use development, reduction in visitor car parking requirement  (MUZ – 229 sqm)

296 Grange Road ORMOND – Construction of a three storey building with basement level, request for reduction of car parking requirements and alteration of an access to a Road Zone, Category 1 (GRZ1 – 901 sqm)

22 Cadby Avenue ORMOND – Construction of four (4) three storey attached dwellings above basement car park (GRZ1 – 713 sqm)

12 Wheeler Street ORMOND – Construction of four (4) three storey dwellings and two (2) double storey dwellings (total six dwellings) on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (GRZ1 – 764 sqm)

19 Wheeler Street ORMOND – Construction of eight (8) two storey dwellings with associated basement car parking and roof terraces for two (2) of the dwellings (GRZ1 – 706 sqm)

6 Wheeler Street ORMOND – Construction of three three-storey dwellings (GRZ1 – 778 sqm)

245 Grange Road ORMOND – Construction of three (3) three storey and four (4) double storey attached dwellings (total 7 dwellings) on land adjacent to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (GRZ1 – 868 sqm)

813-815 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – Construction of a five storey building comprising shop and nine (9) dwellings, reduction in car parking requirements for visitors and the shop and waiver of loading bay requirements (C1Z – 625 sqm)

777 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – Construction of multi-residential and shops (C1Z – 327 sqm)

270 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD – Construction of a three storey building comprising 9 dwellings and altering access to a Road Zone Category 1 (GRZ2 – 798 sqm)

102 & 102A Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH – Development of eight (8) dwellings and alterations to a road in a road zone category 1(GRZ2 – 993 sqm)

10 Princes Street CAULFIELD NORTH – Construction of residential building comprising of sixteen (16) dwellings (GRZ2 – 1215sqm)

14 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH – o construct a four storey building comprising 21 dwellings, reduce the car parking requirement and create or alter access to a Road Zone Category One.(GRZ2 – 866 sqm)

1046 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH – Construct eight (8) dwellings on a lot within a general residential zone, pursuant to clause 32.08-4 (GRZ2 – 466 sqm)

17-19 Bent Street CAULFIELD SOUTH – Construction of 14 dwellings within two double-storey buildings and waiver of the visitor car parking requirement (NRZ1 – 1087 sqm)

1 – 3 Horne Street ELSTERNWICK – The use and development of the land for dwellings, reduction in the car parking requirements of clause 52.06 and a waiver of the loading requirements of clause 52.07 (C1Z – 630 sqm)

17 Ross Street ELSTERNWICK VIC 318 – Construction of 2 three-storey attached dwellings (RGZ1 – 305 sqm)

As a follow up to our last post, here is a screen dump from just one council that has done its homework and managed to impose an infrastructure levy on developers. Please note that the amount stated is for each dwelling constructed. Glen Eira dropped its levy in 2011! Thus residents have been subsidising developers 100%.

Commentary and photos on yesterday’s flooding is receiving huge coverage in both the dailies and on social media. Not for the first time have large areas in Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh and Caulfield found themselves under water. Our concern is whether council has learnt its lessons from 2011 which was also supposed to be a 1 in a 100 years event.

Here is some food for thought –

• Development upon development must be impacting on the capacity of the drainage system – especially when the amount of impermeable surfacing, the increase in crossovers, and the removal of vegetation means that water now runs off into the drains instead of being absorbed into the ground.
• Council’s budget on drainage has remained the same for years on end (ie $3m). Thus, given rising costs, this equates to a reduction in real expenditure.
• It is amazing that both Bayside and Port Phillip have been able to introduce an amendment based on work with Melbourne Water that provides up-to-date analysis of potential areas under threat of flooding and imposes an SBO on these areas. Glen Eira in contrast keeps telling its residents that Melbourne Water has put any such work on hold. We find this incredible and unbelievable since the Elster Creek flows from Glen Eira directly into Port Phillip and the Elwood Canal. Why these councils have been able to successfully work with Melbourne Water and Glen Eira hasn’t (or won’t) is the real question here.
• These other councils have also introduced amendments that INCREASE the developer levy designed to pay for infrastructure. Glen Eira REMOVED ITS LEVY in June 2011 – thus presenting the developer with another ‘present’ and forcing residents to subsidise new developments. Please see our previous post on this – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/floods-and-drains-failure-and-cover-ups-continue/

If we are correct, and greater permeability and less site coverage is a contributing factor in reducing flood risks, then Glen Eira has not learnt a thing. We remind readers that:

• The carving up of the municipality into ‘minimal change’ and ‘housing diversity’ occurred in 2004. At this time minimal change areas were to have a 50% site coverage and 25% permeable surfaces. Housing diversity on the other hand was to have 60% site coverage and 20% permeability requirements. The introduction of the new zones could have made huge improvements here. They did not – in contrast to the following councils –
• Banyule for its General Residential Zone 2 has a site coverage of 40% (Glen Eira – 60%)
• Bayside for its Mixed Use zone has a site coverage – 50% (Glen Eira – 60%) and for its General Residential Zone a site coverage of 50% (Glen Eira 60%)
• Brimbank for its Neighbourhood Residential Zone has a PERMEABILITY requirements of 30% & SITE COVERAGE  of 50% (Glen Eira has permeability requirement of 25%)
• Darebin for its General Residential Zone has a site coverage of 50% (Glen Eira 60%)
• Whitehorse – for its General Residential Zone has a site coverage – 50% and permeability of 30%. Its General Residential zone (GRZ2) has a 40% site coverage and 40% permeability requirement, whilst its & GRZ3 has a 50% site coverage and 30% permeability Finally, in Whitehorse, residents living in the Neighbourhood Residential zones have a site coverage of 40% AND a permeability requirements of 40%. In NRZ5 the permeability schedule is 30%. Once again, the real question is – why these other councils have been able to achieve so much more protection for residents and Glen Eira has done nothing since 2004 when the opportunity was there via the introduction of the zones?

Finally, we highlight Hyams comment made on the Glen Eira Residents’ Action Group Facebook page. Another exercise in spin and half-truths!

The flooding issues were in many places across Melbourne today, but we should still be trying to resolve them in our area. We spend around $3 million a year on improving our drainage. However, the main issue is that the Melbourne Water pipes lack the necessary capacity to carry all the water when there is heavy rain like today. The water from our council pipes hits the overflow in the Melbourne Water pipes and backs up so no more can get into our drains. In the floods in February 2011, the back up had so much force that concrete drain lids were lifted off. We have been strongly advocating to Melbourne Water since then for them to increase drainage capacity, and will continue to do so. It would therefore be useful, as Joel said, if you could forward to us any photos or footage you have of flooding in your street, and please also state the name of the street. As far as planning and development goes, if we were to simply refuse every application due to lack of infrastructure, VCAT would just overturn our decisions, and we would probably hear from the government. When the planning zones were implemented in 2013, we varied the ResCode requirements so that, in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones that cover nearly 80% of Glen Eira, the maximum site coverage was reduced from 60% to 50%, and the required permeable surface was increased from 20% to 25%. In the General Residential Zones and Residential Growth Zones, it remained at ResCode standards. As part of our Planning Scheme Review, we are looking at a levy so that developers contribute to the cost of infrastructure, and I’d also like to have another look at site coverage and permeability, so again, it would be useful to have evidence and details of flooding.