Councillor Performance


ve

mckz

Tonight was the first of the 5 ‘community forums’ on the Planning Scheme review. About 30 residents showed up. Magee introduced the evening and then departed due to a prior engagement. He reiterated that Glen Eira has about 1300 people moving into the municipality each year and that they need to live somewhere. VCAT was still his main villain! His ten minute introduction was followed by another ten minute introduction by a ‘facilitator’ hired by council.

Residents were seated at tables with a council planner assigned to each table and a scribe given the task of recording people’s responses to the set questions from the discussion paper. At the conclusion of ten minutes for each theme, the elected scribe reported back to the entire gathering.

The following proposals were repeated several times and from most of the groups:

  • The need for structure planning
  • The need for tree protection
  • The need for parking precinct plans
  • The need for preferred character statements
  • The need to curb overdevelopment
  • The need for a full heritage review
  • The need for policies with more ‘bite’
  • The need for greater environmental considerations in terms of building design and vegetation
  • The need to protect local shopping strips
  • The need to review the zones and schedules
  • The need for height limits overall
  • The need for developers to pay for parking waivers and infrastructure

Sadly, the opportunity to ask questions and receive responses that the entire audience could hear, was not provided. It was clear that the focus was to be on the set questions from the discussion paper, rather than an open and free discussion. When one resident towards the end interrupted the facilitator as she was summing up and asked why no forum was scheduled for Bentleigh, the response was that council could not find a venue! We should also point out, that if council was really determined to engage with the community, then surely 6pm is not the ideal time! And finally, we ask, is it sheer coincidence that the forum scheduled for Carnegie, is to be held so late in the piece (25th May), with only 6 days left before submissions close?

PS: this is why the above recommendations are crucial

Untitled

Activity Centres & Structure Plans

State governments of all persuasions have encouraged and endorsed councils’ implementation of structure plans. Here’s why:

Structure plans provide the foundation for activity centres change by defining the preferred direction of future growth and articulating how this change will be managed.

Structure plans will guide the major changes to land use, built form and public spaces that together can achieve economic, social and environmental objectives for the centre. To encourage development within centres, government policy encourages local governments to review the purpose and function of individual centres and to revise local planning policies through a program of structure planning for each of their activity centres. (Source: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/urban-design-and-development/Activity-Centres/structureplanning)

Stonnington goes further –

A structure plan is a planning tool that sets out a vision for the future development of a place. It establishes a planning and management framework to guide development and land-use change and aims to achieve environmental, social and economic objectives.

A structure plan takes into account all of the issues affecting an area, including its buildings and spaces, land uses, activities and transport. An essential aspect of the structure planning process is feedback from the community on how the area should evolve. An important phase of the structure planning process requires consultation with the community, local residents, traders and the development industry to determine the best outcome for the centre. Each structure plan will require consultation. (Source: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/Vision/Strategic-Planning/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Frameworks/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Design-Frameworks)

Glen Eira does not have structure plans whilst every other council in the metropolitan area does. Residents have never been provided with an adequate explanation as to why not. Yet we find this paragraph in the current discussion paper on Theme 2 – Urban Design in Activity Centres –

Guidance for development in these areas can include local policies, structure plans, urban design frameworks, zones, and overlay controls. Currently, Glen Eira utilises a combination of zoning and local policies to outline the preferred planning outcomes for its activity centres.High-rise development in commercial zones has recently been raised as a concern as prescriptive height limits do not apply at present.

Readers should also note that:

  • Urban design frameworks do not exist.
  • Design and Development overlays of note do not exist
  • The only ‘overlays’ in activity centres are student parking, and some for flooding and heritage. Yet, in their wisdom, council still decided that some heritage areas should be included in Residential Growth Zones (ie in Bentleigh).

As far as ‘preferred planning outcomes’ goes, all that the planning scheme contains for its major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, are ill-defined, nebulous and contradictory statements. For example – readers should ask themselves what the following means, when no definitions, or precise criteria  are provided.

BENTLEIGH

  • Where opportunities exist, a range of housing types be promoted at increased densities.
  • Where opportunities exist, medium density housing be encouraged in the residential areas surrounding the centre.
  • The managed change of the neighbourhood character of these areas be encouraged.

CARNEGIE

  • Encourage higher-density residential development.
  • Increased density residential developments be encouraged.
  • The managed change of the neighbourhood character be encouraged.

ELSTERNWICK

  • A multi-storey car park may be developed within the existing Coles supermarket car parking area if sympathetically designed to complement the surrounding built form.
  • All developments provide adequate off street parking to protect the amenity of the residents.
  • New developments provide an appropriate interface to adjacent valued community assets such as the churches
  • This precinct be encouraged as an area for higher density development at heights compatible with adjacent buildings.

The height of residential developments be determined by:

  •  Site context, including the scale and character of surrounding development.
  • Site characteristics, including area, dimensions, orientation and topography.
  • Existing development on the site, including height, bulk and site coverage.

Returning to the discussion paper, we find the most extraordinary sentence:

This (structure plans) can offer certainty for residents and developers alike but takes time to implement due to the complexity of research required.

Should we interpret this as an admission that because something is ‘complex’ that it is beyond the capability of council administration?  And if it does ‘take time’, then council has had 17 years to get its act together and produce some decent planning.

Here are some questions that residents should consider asking their representatives:

  • Is council contemplating introducing height limits on commercial areas only in the major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie? Will council introduce height limits on commercial sites in its Neighbourhood Centres such as Bentleigh East, McKinnon, Ormond, Murrumbeena, Caulfield North, Glen Huntly, etc?
  • Why has council refused to introduce structure planning and will they begin this process now?
  • Why are heritage areas zoned as Residential Growth zones in Bentleigh, when the government’s practice notes clearly state that such areas should be excluded from the RGZ?

PREFERRED CHARACTER STATEMENTS

Part of any planning scheme review is the imperative to locate any gaps or deficiencies in the scheme and to plug such holes. Councils generally approach this task by diligently analysing VCAT decisions and determining the grounds that VCAT stated in rejecting council positions. The next step is to return to the planning scheme and determine how it can be bolstered to ensure that the grounds available to VCAT are closed off or at the very least, made far more difficult to ignore.

Needless to say, there is nothing in the current Discussion Paper which provides even a hint as to what the ‘problems’ might be. Yet, decision after decision makes it absolutely clear – the failure of council to provide any statement as to ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ in housing diversity (ie GRZ, RGZ) and totally inadequate ‘policy’ in minimal change (NRZ) areas – where ‘waffle’ replaces fine grained statements.

Yes, we repeat! Even large areas within the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are in the same boat as residents living in GRZ or RGZ zones.

Here are two recent VCAT decisions for developments in the so called ‘protected’ areas of Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Some areas have council’s version of ‘preferred character statements’ which amount to nothing more than waffly, motherhood pronouncements, whilst other areas in the NRZ do NOT HAVE even this pretence of such a statement.

The Council’s concern also relies on a misplaced emphasis on preferred character rather than existing (or prevailing) character. It is correct that the minimal change area policy has a specific objective relating to preferred character. However, there is no formal statement of preferred character in or under the scheme for the relevant character precinct in which the land is located. The objective relating to preferred character is to ‘encourage development that is responsive to its site and context, integrates with and enhances the prevailing neighbourhood character. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/306.html

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not include a preferred neighbourhood character statement for this area, and the Clause 22.08 local policy broadly encourages dual occupancy developments in this location in a side-by-side layout, provided that they respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/870.html

Thus, further question that residents should consider asking their elected representatives are:

·       What gaps in the Planning Scheme has VCAT identified through its decisions? Will council address each and every one of these gaps?

·       Will council introduce preferred character statements for all of Glen Eira that are detailed, specific, and work to ensure that neighbourhood character is protected? If not, why not?

Theme 1 of council’s Discussion Paper focuses on the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). This is supposed to outline the ‘vision’ and the policies that will enable the achievement of this ‘vision’. Much of the MSS is ridiculously out of date. A total rewrite is required especially when figures from the 1996 Census are sprinkled throughout this section, or the so-called Community Plan of 2001-2004 provides the basis for planning.

Of greater concern however are the Objectives and the Strategies which are supposed to implement these objectives. There is a total disconnect between what council purportedly aspires to, and how local policies can achieve such objectives. In many cases there are no policies that are in any shape or form available to support the stated aims.

Here is a limited list of objectives taken verbatim from the MSS.

Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character.

Question: how can ‘high quality urban design’ be ‘facilitated’ when there are no urban design frameworks?

Identify a preferred future character for housing diversity areas.

Question: how many more VCAT permits will council allow before it ensures that housing diversity areas do have preferred character statements and thus closes off this loophole so well exploited by developers?

Encourage the retention of existing vegetation, in particular vegetation and trees which contribute to the City’s tree canopy.

Question: how can council achieve this objective without a tree protection policy?

Ensure residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems.

Question: When will council introduce decent Parking Precinct Plans and stop agreeing to car parking waivers?

Ensure that where new development places an increased burden on infrastructure it contributes to the upgrading of infrastructure

Question: How can this objective be met when council has removed its development contributions levy from the planning scheme?

It is all very well to have grandiose statements in the MSS. It is another matter entirely to ensure that there are policies within the planning scheme that will have the legal weight to bring these aims to fruition. As we’ve stated, in Glen Eira, there is not only a lack of policy, but a total disconnect between aims, objectives, and strategy. Thus, the answer to council’s question –‘Are there additional policies that should be included in the Planning Scheme’ – is a resounding ‘yes’!

2

Untitled

The opening few pages of council’s Discussion Paper on the Planning Scheme Review correctly state that:

  • There has been a dramatic increase in the number of ‘mid to high rise’ apartment blocks built in middle ring suburbs such as Glen Eira
  • That population growth in Glen Eira is anticipated to require 12,000 new ‘households’ up to and including 2031. This figure is calculated from 2011 according to Vic Future 2015 and not 2016 as implied. That means that Glen Eira needs an average of 600 net new dwellings per year to meet its ‘quota’.

What the Discussion Paper DOES NOT REVEAL and is essential for a complete understanding of what is happening in Glen Eira due to the Planning Scheme and the zoning, is –

  • that building approvals are approaching 2000 new dwellings per year. Hence a 300+% increase on what is deemed as necessary to meet demand.
  • Building approvals of course, do not take into account the number of planning permits granted and these figures have also gone through the roof since the introduction of the zones. Even if only 50% of these planning permits are acted upon and construction completed by 2031, we estimate the number of net new dwellings per year to be in the vicinity of 2,500 new dwellings given current trends.
  • Council does not reveal that since the introduction of the zones close to 5000 planning approvals for net new dwellings have been granted. Thus, apart from the 300% increase per year, Glen Eira will meet its nominal ‘quota’ not in 2031 but more likely in 2020 at this rate!

Council provides no figures that enable comparisons with other neighbouring councils. Residents have no idea as to building activity in these other municipalities. No comparisons are provided on number of new houses built compared to number of apartment blocks; no comparisons in terms of ‘density’ and what this ‘building boom’ does to overall density and impacts on open space. This is significant since Glen Eira with its meagre 38+ square kilometres has one of the highest population densities in the state. The only council with a higher population density is Port Phillip – but this council is unique in terms of its Capital Zone Status, its ‘inner ring’ categorisation, the Docklands, etc., and its large tourist and commercial centres.

The table presented below is worth considering in our view. It reveals how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours in the Southern Region and elsewhere in terms of building approvals for the six months from July 2015 to December 2015. The stats come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in early 2016.

COUNCIL DENSITY PER SQK SIZE – SQK BUILDING APPROVALS FOR HOUSES BUILDING APPROVALS FOR UNITS TOTAL NEW DWELLINGS
GLEN EIRA 3385 38.7 198 741 942
BAYSIDE 2680 36.0 199 160 375
CARDINIA 57.92 1280.6 812 74 888
CASEY 615.72 409.9 1867 161 2041
FRANKSTON 1032 131.0 163 93 259
DANDENONG 1627 36.26 289 220 514
KINGSTON 1479.4 91.0 206 217 425
MORNINGTON 200.09 518.23 483 252 738
MORELAND 2887 51.0 240 858 1120
DAREBIN 2719 53.0 167 820 995
GEELONG 177.64 1247 1105 111 1222
HUME 332.5 504.0 1133 239 1372
MARIBYRNONG 2458 31.2 99 1339 1441
MELTON 536 527.3 894 153 1047
PORT PHILLIP 4871 20.62 27 1176 1217
WHITEHORSE 2365 64.0 296 1050 1348

 

In Glen Eira, the relationship between single house replacements and multi unit development is around 1:74. That means that for every single new house built, there are 74 apartments built. With just under 39 square km, and no open space to speak of density, infrastructure, traffic, will inevitably be impacted upon.

So what does the Discussion Paper propose, or even ask, in response to these trends? What can the Planning Scheme do to halt the further erosion of residential amenity? If we are to go on the questions proposed it would seem that very little can be done. We do not agree and feature some preliminary questions below that residents might like to consider asking at the forums. We welcome any other suggestions that readers would like to proffer.

  • Will council be introducing any Environmental Sustainability or Water Sensitive Urban Design policies into its planning scheme as Bayside, Yarra, Stonnington, Whitehorse and other councils have done? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing Parking Precinct Overlays into its RGZ and GRZ zoned areas to manage traffic in its centres? If not, why not? Will Council be creating the long promised Parking Precinct Plan for its activity centres? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing any tree protection measures into its Planning Scheme in order to halt moonscaping as other councils have done? If not, why not?

Given recent events, we thought it would be illuminating to revisit one of our earlier posts (June 19th, 2013) so that residents may gauge for themselves how much credibility to assign to anything our councillors say, and especially Hyams. Here is an article from the Leader of that date. The comments for that post are also worth re-reading since time has proven them to be very prescient.

permit

VCAT has granted a permit for the Centre Road development. It will be 8 storeys and 33 dwellings, plus car parking waivers. The original application was for 9 storeys and 40+ dwellings, but amended plans were submitted following the compulsory conference. PS: correction. Here is the link to the full VCAT decision – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/538.html

These extracts from the decision once again point out the deficiencies in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. As per usual, any talk of introducing height limits for commercial allotments is far too little and far too late. The horse has bolted! Council had a decade and more to act. It has steadfastly refused to do a single thing! This is now the result!

Some quotes

The acceptability of the height of this proposal is influenced by the planning scheme’s policy framework as it applies to this locality.

The policy identifies three urban villages in the municipality (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) and no distinction is drawn between them in terms of the role and scale of each centre.

Significantly, there are no height controls applying to the Bentleigh urban village, or to any of the other urban villages.

The policy framework outlined above provides a strong level of support for a building on this site that is higher than the prevailing one and storey scale of development in the centre.  The achievement of the Council’s urban village and housing diversity objectives will almost inevitably involve the introduction of buildings into the urban village that have a greater height than the buildings that currently comprise the Bentleigh centre.

In the absence of more detailed built form controls or guidelines than those currently in the planning scheme, our finding that higher buildings can be contemplated where the Commercial 1 Zone abuts the RGZ, does not greatly assist us in forming a view about the acceptability of an eight storey building on a site that has an abuttal to the GRZ and the NRZ. 

In these precincts, developments of three to four storeys are emerging on consolidated sites in both the RGZ and the GRZ.  That analysis demonstrates that the urban village designation and the associated policies are having a profound impact in changing the built from character of the Bentleigh centre in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of those policies

We commented during the course of the hearing that Clause 55 does not apply to the consideration of a building of 5 or more storeys. Consequently, reliance on Standard B17 is limited to its use as a guide only.  In this case compliance with B17 up to level 3 (including the width of the lane) is of some assistance because it is these levels that will have the greatest visual bulk impacts on the immediate neighbours.  Above level 3, the additional setback is significant.  Having regard to the nature of the interfaces we have described previously, and having regard to the strategic context of the review site, we are satisfied that the interface treatment is acceptable.

We acknowledge that the building will be viewed from the wider residential hinterland to the south.  The visibility of the building is not however an impact that is beyond the reasonable expectations that emanate from the Council’s designation of this locality as an urban village and a housing diversity area.

Readers will remember the saga of Claire Street, McKinnon and Magee’s crocodile tears of woe on the steps of VCAT. The street featured again at Tuesday night’s meeting with Magee jumping on the same old  bandwagon  – everything is VCAT’s fault rather than council policy, planning and zoning.

The only reason that the VCAT member knocked back the first Stellar application for three storeys and thirty plus units was that the developer was exceedingly greedy. No decent setbacks, and internal amenity suitable for a mole – ie subterranean apartments! Another application has now gone in for 33 units and will end up at VCAT again.

But things have now got even worse. There is another application in by the same company Steller, for 1-9 Claire Street that will see: ‘six, three storey townhouse and two three storey apartment (44 dwellings)”. Stellar has basically bought out the entire street and the sole remaining resident has decided that enough is enough and has put his property (4 Claire St) up for sale.

We have no doubt that both Stellar applications will be passed by VCAT. Not because they ‘ignore’ council policy, but because it IS COUNCIL POLICY TO ENCOURAGE 3 STOREY DEVELOPMENT ON CONSOLIDATED LOTS and the zoning is GRZ. When the VCAT member rejected the first application for 6-10 Claire St., he made it absolutely clear in his judgement that zoning and lack of preferred character statements make Claire St.(and much of McKinnon) a candidate for this kind of rampant (over)development. It is Council policy. Please note the number of times the phrase ‘policy’ or ‘planning scheme’ feature in the extracts from this judgement (below).

Magee and the other councillors can continue with their nonsense and the spurious blame game, but residents need to appreciate the truth. Any Planning Scheme Review that fails to address zoning and the limitations of the schedules is not a review – it is a whitewash!

The judgement below says it all in our view.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1762.html

These local policies strongly support the development of apartment style buildings in Claire Street , McKinnon, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by the Glen Eira  City Council. It allows policies to also be implemented that reduce the ability for any meaningful level of medium density housing to be developed in the majority of other residential areas within the municipality. In other words, the Council has chosen to allow significant change in limited neighbourhoods, so as to preserve to a strong level the existing character of most of its other neighbourhoods.

While this individual proposal fails to address some important design matters, it is inevitable, in applying the local policies drafted by the Glen Eira City Council, that Claire Street, McKinnon will be subject to significant levels of change in the short to medium term.

Although townhouse developments of two and three double storey dwellings have started to appear in this area, the restrictions now in place over most of the municipality will act to focus more intensive development into areas such as this in McKinnon. It may not mean the whole street is filled with three storey apartment buildings but it almost certainly means that the existing single dwellings on a lot will be gradually replaced. It may take twenty or thirty years but, based on submissions and statements of grounds, I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

In this proceeding, Mr & Mrs Menko lamented that most of the lots in Claire Street have now been purchased by developers, and are likely to be subject to forms of development like the one before me. They resist this level of change, and the likelihood that only two of the original single dwellings will remain. They also raise concerns about how this extent of development can be suitable for a dead-end street, with its only access point to McKinnon Road, and limited on-street car parking supply. They also question the ability of McKinnon Road to accommodate the additional traffic. I understand the frustrations and anger expressed by residents about the rate of change that might occur in Claire Street . However the extent of redevelopment that is likely to occur is a direct realisation of the very clear intent of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, in particular the local policies created by the Glen Eira City Council.

  That is, this form of development and rate of change, is consistent with the planning scheme that I am charged to apply. Further, it is not my role to review, on an ad-hoc basis, the suitability of this dead-end street to accommodate this level of change, nor the ability of McKinnon as a whole to accommodate additional population and traffic. The Glen Eira City Council has had the opportunity to carefully consider such matters, over an extended period of time, and has identified Claire Street  McKinnon as an appropriate location for the placement of a housing diversity area, to take the additional housing demands of the municipality.

  The Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly supports substantial development in Claire Street  McKinnon. This substantial development is not expected to imitate or reflect the style and form of the single dwellings that currently exist in this and other streets. Instead, a policy intent has been clearly been articulated for Claire Street  by the Glen Eira City Council, that encourages more intense and more diverse housing forms. Invariably this means that apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood.

It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street , McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council.

the apartment building is excavated below natural ground level to the rear boundary, such that the ground floor level will be around 1.3 metres below natural ground level, and the ceiling height of the ground floor apartments will be roughly matching the standard fence height on the boundary.

The residents urged upon me that a more appropriate development will consist of two storeys in scale. I agree with their submissions that the two storey apartment building at 13 Claire Street represents a more successful integration into the surrounding context. Further, for the reasons set out above I agree that this proposed three storey building is too big and bulky, with inappropriate setbacks, for the review site. However I have not been persuaded that the site is unsuitable for a three storey apartment building per se. Given the extent of policy support for a significant level of additional housing in this location, and the vast size of this consolidated site, I am not willing to conclude that it is not possible for a well designed three storey apartment building to be found to be an appropriate built form response to this context

Mr & Mrs Menko also raises a concern with the potential increase in traffic in Claire Street  and their difficulties in accessing McKinnon Road. I acknowledge that this proposed development, if approved, would have increased such traffic levels, and the delays currently experienced in turning onto McKinnon Street. However the traffic impacts of the proposal were considered by Council’s traffic engineers, and in their independent and expert opinion, the surrounding road network can accommodate the expected increase in traffic.

The policy framework of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly articulates a future for Claire Street  McKinnon that anticipates significant change and more substantial housing developments. The Glen Eira City Council has adopted such a vision as a means of protecting much of its other residential areas from even a moderate amount of medium density housing. That is the policy framework that has been adopted and applied to this municipality for over 11 years, and is the vision that I must have regard to and implement in my decision making task.

« Previous PageNext Page »