Item 9.5 of the latest agenda features a four page officer report on what is purportedly on parking facilities and conditions in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). The recommendations are farcical –

That Council:

1. notes this report
2. continues to review parking in Glen Eira’s Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones in conjunction with the actions associated with the Transport Strategy.

What makes these recommendations so unacceptable is:

• We know of no report in the past ten years which has investigated parking (as opposed to traffic management) in these growth areas
• Residents have bemoaned the lack of parking year after year and basically nothing has been done
• We doubt that council even knows how many parking spots are currently available for shoppers, businesses and residents in the housing diversity areas
• We also wonder how many parking spots have been ceded to developers because of crossovers and the waiving of onsite car parking spots. One resident several years ago, calculated that just in East Bentleigh over 300 places had been waived.

And all of this has been happening despite the promises made over ten years ago and included in the planning scheme. For example:

Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Parking precinct plans

The City of Glen Eira recognises the special and often conflicting parking needs of its numerous commercial centres. Further strategic work is necessary to develop Parking Precinct Plans

Preparing Parking Precinct Policies for the following neighbourhood centres:

􀂂 Alma Village, Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, Bentleigh East, Glen Huntly, Ormond.

􀂃 Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Implementing a program of Local Area Traffic Management Plans in order to minimise disruption and increase safety of residential areas.

In Glen Eira, despite these promises there is:

• No cash in lieu. Residents should note that Banyule Council has just had an amendment gazetted which imposes a $17,500 levy on each car parking waiver for its commercial sites.
• No parking precinct plans for any activity centre or neighbourhood centre as promised
• No Local Area Traffic Management Plans exist

So exactly what has this council been doing for the past ten or so years? Apart from outsourcing its Traffic Management Department at great expense, it would appear to have done bugger all!

The current 4 page ‘report’ continues this trend of ‘let’s do nothing but wait’. Basically, the report is nothing more than a rose-coloured summary of the situation. Facts and statistics are non-existent. Instead we get such comments –

Council’s Statutory Planning unit has found that applicants generally provide adequate parking for the dwellings themselves. However, it is common for applicants to request a reduction in the visitor car parking guideline

Similarly, when planning decisions are challenged at VCAT, it is usual for VCAT to uphold the dwelling parking provision, and common for VCAT to reduce the requirement for visitor car parking.

Conveniently missing from the above paragraphs is the additional fact that council’s planning department itself often waives visitor car parking and loading bay requirements – as it has done in the very first application set down for this same council meeting (Item 9.1 – Neerim Road/Elliott Avenue). Even when VCAT is involved, decision after decision shows how little council’s transport department has done to counter the claim of the developer in regard to parking facilities. Here’s just one example –

Council put to me that they accept that the provision of 12 spaces is adequate for the site….The development generates a requirement for 13.2 car spaces in total…..First Angle v  Glen Eira  CC [2016] VCAT 1124 (6 July 2016)

In the end we’re left with nothing more than further promises of action. Not action NOW, but in 18+ months time as evidenced in this paragraph from the report –

Transport Strategy

The recently adopted Transport Strategy Action Plan calls for car parking surveys to be undertaken in the Urban Villages (Activity Centres) and key Neighbourhood Centres in the next eighteen months. These car parking studies will provide Council with more information to enable the impacts of car parking in the RGZ and GRZ1 to be assessed in more detail. Furthermore, the Strategy calls for a review of the feasibility of Car Share arrangements and the development of a Car Share Policy. The scope of the policy could cover both car share for public car spaces, and for private car spaces in a development.

With modern technology nothing should take 18 months for ‘detail’ to be forthcoming. If other councils can get off their backsides with amendments that exact an appropriate cost to developers and implement local traffic management plans, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to undertake the necessary work now is simply another indication of either sheer incompetence or the pro-development ethos that has given us the zones and all its ills!

Item 9.8 – Neighbourhood Character Provisions

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That Council notes this report and considers implementation of Neighbourhood Character Provisions as well as Design and Development Overlays to support existing and expected future residential character, assome of the preferred planning scheme tools to implement the findings of the City of Glen Eira Planning Scheme Review Process.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

SOUNNESS: said he had talked with planners and that ‘it is good to have a review and see how other councils are doing things’. The current process of ‘consulting with the community’ has resulted in a lot of issues being put forward. Council has to decide ‘what weight’ to give to these suggestions. The current officer’s report however will be useful to ‘resource us’ for what will be a useful ‘outcome’.  Said the report shows that ‘different tools achieve different outcomes’ but in ‘different ways’. Council needs to try and be in a ‘defendable position’ on policies. He supports the officer’s recommendations but would like these things as part of the consideration of the planning scheme review.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had had an ‘off the cuff discussion’ on Neighbourhood Character Overlays.  Said that in ‘applying’ these Neighbourhood Character Overlays there are objectors so it is ‘perhaps a little more of a vexed issue’. Said that she thinks more and more people are becoming in favour of them and sees this as ‘our obligation’ to ‘extend’ these through ‘housing areas’ that are ‘post war stock in Glen Eira’ and not just Victorian places. So ‘we are discussing Neighbourhood Character Overlays in the context of our planning scheme review’ but she thinks that we ‘ought to have more conversations about character overlays’ and ‘how to extend them’. Torres ‘tells us’ that these things do ‘carry some genuine weight’. This is ‘what people are asking for’ and will protect the ‘old parts of Glen Eira’.

Sounness declined the opportunity to sum up.

COMMENT

The officer’s report highlights the work done by neighbouring councils. Significantly, the officer report does not include a Glen Eira summary alongside so that a real comparison may be made. Nor does it spell out the various heights and other conditions these councils have implemented through their schedules to the zones – all of which stand in stark contrast to the Glen Eira (lazy) approach of ‘one size fits all’. In fact, no mention of the zones occurs at all in the councillor ‘discussion’.

More concerning is that ‘neighbourhood character’ appears to have morphed into Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) only judging by the comments of these two councillors. Hardly satisfactory – especially since NCOs are tools designed for use in specific areas – generally a street or two – and certainly won’t cover large swathes of Glen Eira. What does cover large swathes of Glen Eira are the abysmal zones – which do not rate a mention from either Sounness or Delahunty and certainly did not feature in the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper nor did it receive the attention it required in the ‘feedback forum’ presenting the draft ‘workplan’.

Even the State Government’s Practice Note highlights the additional tools that councils may use, but which this motion appears to ignore – Different areas do have different characteristics and expectations and the VPP allows councils to set different residential development standards through either the schedule to the residential zones or the application of the NCO to achieve local neighbourhood character objectives. These can influence the nature and extent of development that can occur in order to achieve a desired neighbourhood character outcome for an area.

A further cause for concern is the stated intention of council to wait until release of the data from the August Census before anything in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is truly amended and/or updated. Again, this does not adhere to the published Practice Notes – The objectives for neighbourhood character and the strategies and implementation measures for achieving the neighbourhood character objectives should also be included in the MSS.

We can therefore only conclude that the intent of Council is to do precisely what they have been ordered to do by the Minister and nothing more! The zones remain sacrosanct – despite the outcry, petitions and media coverage from residents dismayed at what is happening to their streets. And, the longer these zones remain untouched our fear is that it will be too late to do anything to halt the destruction. Perhaps this is what it’s all about?

We urge all readers to carefully consider the following report. It illustrates fully:

• The failure of these councillors to address the ‘elephant in the room’ – ie the planning scheme and the abysmal zones. If council is now saying that a four storey development is inappropriate in this location, then why was it zoned as four storey? We also remind readers of the Hyams quote pre zones where he said that mandatory height limits means that developers will build to those height limits!
• The zoning here is not the result of sound planning but the result of someone sitting at a desk and simply drawing a circle around a number of streets that then became the Residential Growth Zone.
• The language used is deliberately misleading – Glen Eira does not have TRANSITION ZONES. It has pathetic ‘transition buffers’ but only for sites zoned GRZ2 and not GRZ1
• Magee’s petty attack on Lobo reveals once more the animosity and dysfunction within this council. Of course Magee shoots himself in the foot by admitting that he also has no clue as to what clause 22.05 says or means!
• Is Delahunty now changing her tune – ie on the rate of change?
• Is Sounness vote really a vote for 4 storeys?
• We also remind readers that VCAT does not legally have any role in council decision making. Its job is to look at the planning scheme that exists. VCAT does this. The fault lies mainly with council
• Finally, we reiterate THAT ON EVERY SINGLE DECISION THAT HAS GONE TO VCAT AND WHERE COUNCIL LOPPED OFF A STOREY, OR REDUCED THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS, THE DEVELOPER WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING WHAT HE WANTS. These councillors have obviously not learnt a single thing in their four years as councillors. They keep stupidly, and nonsensically repeating the same errors over and over again!

Item 9.2 – Vickery Street, Bentleigh.

Hyams moved motion to lop off one storey to three levels instead of four and to reduce the number of apartments to 27. Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS:  started by saying that council has got a ‘policy’ about height needing to be at the centre of activity zones and that this application is ‘right on the edge’ and is ‘next to the transition zone’. So ‘it is right on the edge of this Residential Growth Zone’.  He therefore ‘believes that 3 storeys is more appropriate’ than four.  Said that he attended the planning conference where residents ‘raised’ concerns and he ‘shares those concerns’ and the motion is the result.  Residents were worried about overshadowing so 3 storeys takes care of this. Residents concern about ‘density’ is also catered for by removing  ‘a quarter of the apartments’ (ie from 36 down to 27). There are also conditions about site coverage and set backs. The conditions also want the number of 3 bedroom units increased so there will be ‘greater diversity’.  Said that residents and councillors agree that 1 car park per 2 bedroom unit probably isn’t enough but that is what ‘ResCode’ sets out and ‘that’s all that we can require’.  Residents also were worried about traffic, but the Australian Standards set the number of cars travelling  and what the various streets can ‘handle’ and ‘that’s what our officers are bound by’.  Thought that the motion represents a ‘reasonable compromise’.

MAGEE: said that the first thing done is to consider whether the application complies ‘with ResCode’ and the planning scheme.  Said that this ‘does meet those basic guidelines’. For councillors they ask ‘is this the best use of this land?’ and ‘does this improve the amenity or detract from it’. He thinks it ‘detracts’.  ‘We can sit up here and refuse it because we don’t like it’ but that would be ‘stupid’ since they know that it ‘already complies’ with ResCode and the planning scheme which was ‘put together with great community consultation with our residents’ who together with ‘council decided what can be built in what streets’.  Said this is ‘right on the edge. It is that transition zone’. Admitted that this will overlook people as a four storey building. Went on with ‘we as a responsible authority have to decide’ whether to reject the application and ‘send it off to VCAT who are then going to apply ResCode’ and maybe ‘come up with the same conclusion that the officers did’. What councillors want to do is ‘give something to the developer that is still pleasing, that is still profitable’ so they may not go to VCAT. Admitted there are problems with parking and amenity and Vickery Street is ‘right at the extreme where we start changing into the neighbourhood residential zone’. Said that this is ‘a difficult one’ but to ‘simply refuse’ is ‘the wrong way to go’ – it is the ‘weak way to go’ and they still ‘have to be the responsible authority’. ‘We can’t just stand here and want to become popular’.  It’s not ‘about being popular ,it’s about doing the right thing’. They have to ‘suit the developer’ as well as residents and probably only a two storey development will suit ‘anyone living around it’. He wouldn’t like to go into ‘my back yard’ and look up at a four storey building. Thought that Hyams motion was a ‘much better outcome’ than proposed.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Hyams and said that when council makes a decision it stands as a ‘quasi tribunal’ and that they have to ‘look at planning law’ and not ‘just what we feel should happen’. If they do only what ‘residents want’ then VCAT will ‘say we have no credibility’. Council has to consider  planning law and ‘issues that residents have raised’.  Said that residents had ‘raised important issues’ like overshadowing and neighbourhood character. He can ‘reject’ the application but that doesn’t ‘achieve anything’ because it will go to VCAT and ‘VCAT will overrule us’. Claimed that they ‘had looked’ at setbacks, overlooking, etc. Said he wouldn’t like a building like this ‘next to me but development is going to happen’ so ‘my job as councillor’ is to ‘ensure’ the ‘least impact’ on residents. The imposed conditions ensure ‘lower mass’, etc. The problem of ‘high rise’ is through all of Melbourne so ‘if you knock off one floor’ that ‘also reduced the number of cars’ in our congested streets.

SOUNNESS: said he had spoken to neighbouring residents and thanked them for ‘inviting’ him into their houses. Thought that reducing the application by one level is a ‘good compromise’ if it goes to VCAT. Thought it was ‘strange’ that they always ‘talk’ as if VCAT ‘were in the room’ but VCAT isn’t in the room so ‘we don’t have that opportunity’ to talk with them. But ‘VCAT is the hidden partner to our discussion’. Said he ‘recognised’ that residents will be impacted and that the planning scheme ‘is written’ and because of the zones, ‘there will be some form of development that will impact’ on people. Said he would support the ‘proposal as written’ but sees that there probably won’t be ‘support around the table’ for anything other than Hyams motion.

LOBO: said that councillors are there to ‘represent the residents’ and not governments or others. Said that the application isn’t in line with ‘clause 22.05’ of the planning scheme, and is ‘inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood’ in terms of ‘mass and scale’, and doesn’t meet the requirements of Clause 55.02 and other bits from this clause. Said that even at 3 storeys, or 4 storeys, the ‘height of the building will be oppressive and overwhelming’ and impact on residents in Godfrey Street that it backs onto. Said that ‘aesthetics’ would change and noise level from residents living in the units increase plus looking into backyards and backyards are ‘the dream’ of Australians where they have barbecues , a ‘beer and watch the cricket or footy’. Thought that the government and council were ‘wrong’ in letting the ‘residential zones go ahead’ and ‘after seeing the tears rolling on people’s’ faces he now knows ‘they have lost their biggest asset’ – ‘their castle’. (At this point Lobo asked for the extension of two minutes to his time. All councillors except Lipshutz – who did not put up his hand – voted on extending time.) Went on to say that the proposed development will ‘destroy the character of Godfrey St’ plus their privacy. Thought that they should refuse the application like they did with 14-18 Vickery but that ‘ultimately’ was given a permit by VCAT. If the permit for 3 or even 2 storeys is given then ‘residents will be left to sing or hum – ‘there goes my only possession’.

MAGEE: asked Lobo a question in that he said the proposal ‘doesn’t accord with Clause 22.05’ and said ‘I’m not actually familiar with that’ so ‘could Cr Lobo tell us what that might be’?

LOBO: asked to ‘direct’ the question to Torres

Pilling sought to do this but MAGEE interrupted saying –

MAGEE: since Lobo said ‘he disapproved of this development’ because it doesn’t meet the objectives of 22.05 so ‘he must obviously know what that is so I’d like to hear from him what that clause is’.  Pilling then asked Lobo to ‘respond to that question’.

LOBO: said that he relies on the ‘recommendations of Ron Torres’ and that he ‘nor any of the councillors are technically aware of things’ so ‘I have to depend on him’.

PILLING then said ‘I might ask the question’.

TORRES: explained that clause 22.05 refers to ‘council’s Urban Village Policy’.

MAGEE: asked Lobo whether he ‘understands all of those clauses, do you?’

LOBO: ‘I don’t think it is your business, thank you’.

MAGEE: ‘I’ll take that as a ‘no’”

DELAHUNTY: said that she is ‘familiar’ with the policy and has been wondering ‘how to cast my vote’ by listening to everyone. She has been to the site and doesn’t ‘think that we are managing the rate of change’ in these streets and that ‘town planning is about managing that rate of change’. Referred to Lobo ‘mentioning’ some of the clauses ‘where we think this application might fall down’. Although ‘I can see very strong grounds for refusal’ she is concerned about VCAT as ‘that extra person in the room’. However, several months ago they ‘kept hammering VCAT’ for not ‘applying our policy’ and ‘we’re second guessing what they are going to do’. So it’s now ‘come to a point where I’ve got to be consistent in my arguments or I can’t expect them to be consistent as well’. Even though Hyams has done a ‘good job in providing balance, it still falls down’. Since it does ‘fall down’ on ‘so many’ areas then a refusal is necessary. Thought that ‘it is unusual to see so much tinkering’ by ‘tiny degrees’ from council and ‘not a straight out refusal’. It’s on the edge of other zones so they need to think carefully about these situations. Claimed to ‘still be in two minds’.

PILLING: thought all councillor comments were good. Said this was ‘on the cusp’ of the growth zone ‘is an issue’ and asked Hyams if he would ‘like to address those concerns’. Thought that 4 storeys is too much and that ‘I would tend to support the alternative’ since this answers residents and is more ‘realistic’.

HYAMS:   said that ‘there are some things’ in the planning scheme that are ‘cut and dried and mandatory’ and others that are ‘more subjective’ like neighbourhood character. So even though 4 storeys is mandatory they can ‘reasonably say’ that here ‘it should be 3 storeys’. Agreed with the ‘non compliance’ with ResCode that Lobo spoke about but his motion now ‘resolves those issues’.  Thought it was a ‘seductive argument’ to say that ‘we’re here to represent the residents’  and ‘so we should do what the residents say’ but ‘we need to take our responsibilities seriously’ and that means ‘to apply the planning law’. Lobo’s concern about privacy is handled by the condition of ‘screening’ so ‘you should not be able to see into those backyards’ even though the ‘people in those backyards will be able to see the building’. Thought his motion was the ‘best outcome’ and residents wouldn’t thank them if they refuse and then VCAT says that ‘council is being unreasonable’. ‘What we should be doing is to go to VCAT with a reasonable position’. So three storeys is fulfilling both the responsibility to residents and as a council. Lobo’s comments on the zones need a reply. Claimed that the zones were ‘a direct transition from our previous zones’ and the Urban Villages before are now Residential Growth Zones. Before there were no height limits and now ‘we have mandatory height limits’ and that they are the ‘only council in Victoria that has mandatory height limits across all of its residential zones’. Claimed that council also has its ‘transition zones’ and that these didn’t come out of Neighbourhood residential areas but out of ‘where the Urban Villages were’. If these weren’t there, they would all now be ‘4 storey maximum’. Said that every council has a ‘reponsibility’ to ‘cater for population growth’ and that ‘council has done the best’ it could ‘under those circumstances’.

MOTION PUT – VOTE WAS FOUR AGAINST FOUR (ESAKOFF ABSENT)

VOTING FOR MOTION: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST MOTION: SOUNNESS, HO, LOBO, DELAHUNTY

PILLING USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF MOTION.