Glen Eira Debates

Once again the ineptitude of this planning department and councillors is writ large in another VCAT judgement. Councillors grandstand by refusing applications when the number of objectors is large and then wash their hands of the matter. They can then continue to pretend that nothing is their fault but all blame needs to be sheeted home to VCAT – instead of doing what they are supposed to. That is, ensuring that the Planning Scheme is up to date, and all loopholes are closed off. In other words, reviewing the scheme and introducing appropriate amendments and incorporated documents where necessary.

Nor can the planning department escape public criticism. We’ve already had decision after decision where the VCAT member points out that a policy expired in 2007 and has never been renewed. Yet officers, or well paid ‘consultants’, front up to VCAT and argue on the basis of a non-existent clause! Ratepayers of course fork out tens of thousands in defending cases that have not a hope in hell of getting up due mainly to the outdated and woeful planning scheme.

So here is another example of this total indifference and incompetence from all concerned. It involves Heritage (low on council’s priority list!) where an application came in to demolish and rebuild over two sites. Note that we are not arguing for or against the development but merely pointing out what should have been done eons ago, but hasn’t. Here is some of what the member had to say –

It is noted that the application had planning officer support and heritage officer support, however with a large number of objections from adjoining property owners and others in the wider area, Council refused both applications on a range of identical grounds. These included that there would be unreasonable impact on the heritage precinct if the buildings were demolished and that the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.

The two dwellings are in one building form and I note that neither dwelling was identified as being ‘contributory’ to the area in the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan (1996) prepared by Andrew Ward – architectural historian. I do note however, the dwelling at number 3 Beatty Crescent was identified as ‘contributory’ in the July 2002 Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines. This document has not been incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, despite it being an upgrade of the earlier document and itself now over 10 years old, so I can give it little or no weight other than for general background information.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/365.html

Whilst it may legitimately be argued that the member should have taken into account the 2002 ‘guidelines’, the fact remains that 14 years later Council has not lifted a finger. Nor have they reacted to years and years of VCAT permits by analysing each decision and coming up with solutions that would give residents greater confidence that going to VCAT is not an absolute waste of time and money. Continually blaming VCAT, as is the want of Lipshutz, Hyams and Magee in particular, does not solve anything – especially when Council has not done a single thing to help its cause. Instead all council has done is seek extension after extension so that it does not have to review its planning scheme via a public submission process and with full community consultation.

The lamentable excuse used has been that the State Government is reviewing the zones. Well and good – but this certainly has not stopped other councils from undertaking a full planning scheme review post zones introduction. Here is the list of councils and the respective dates (which are still ongoing for many dated 2015) –

Ballarat (2015)

Bass Coast (2014)

Bayside (2015)

Boroondara (2015)

Campaspe (2014)

Colac (2015)

Darebin (2014)

Frankston (2014)

Grampians (2014)

Hobson’s Bay (2015)

Knox (2015)

Latrobe (2014)

Monash (2015)

Moira (2015)

Moonee valley (2014)

Moreland (2015 via Amendment C152)

Mornington Peninsula (2014)

Mount Alexander (2014)

Pyrenees (2015)

Queenscliff (2014)

Surf Coast (2014)

Swan Hill (2015)

Warnambool (2015)

Whitehorse (2014)

Whittlesea (2013)

Wodonga (2014)

Yarra (2014)

PS: it should be pointed out that the above Beatty Crescent application was refused unanimously by councillors – including that self-proclaimed ‘expert’ on Heritage – Lipshutz. There were also 39 objections to the application!

The image presents the location (in yellow) of an application that was recently decided by VCAT. The developer got his 3 storeys and 21 dwellings. Council had refused the original application and they were still opposing amended plans that the developer submitted. This VCAT decision, like so many others, deserves highlighting because:

• The entire area is zoned General Residential 1 (GRZ1) which means 3 storeys – yet council stupidly & unbelievably argued that only ONE SIDE OF THE STREET IS SUITABLE FOR 3 STOREYS!
• The application met all of the following ‘standards’ – height; permeability; set backs; site coverage
• It was a ‘consolidated’ lot size of over 1400 square metres – ‘encouraged’ by the planning scheme
• Traffic and parking were deemed acceptable by Council
• The ‘consultant’ arguments were diametrically opposed to what the Traffic department has said!

This leads to the central and most important questions:

• Why has council wasted ratepayers’ money in going to VCAT?
• What’s the point of hiring expensive ‘consultants’ (tender in September 2012 was for $90,000 per annum) when they are totally hamstrung by the ineptitude of the planning scheme?
• How much more money has to be wasted before Council stops blaming everyone else and starts doing what it hasn’t done for 14 years – fixing up the planning scheme?

The VCAT member was clearly unimpressed. Here’s some of the judgement –

…the local policy regarding the residential areas of neighbourhood centres expressly encourages the consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities. Thirdly, the maximum height of 10.1m (excluding the lift overrun) of the proposed building is less than the 10.5m maximum building height….

Mr O’Leary (for Council) submitted that the eastern side of Station Avenue principally comprises single and double storey detached dwellings, with some recent two storey contemporary developments. He advised that the Council sees the eastern side of the street as unsuitable for three storey development.

Mr O’Leary correctly highlighted that the purpose of the GRZ includes ‘To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area’. However, the purpose does not refer to respecting the existing character and in this instance there is no neighbourhood character policy or statement of preferred character. The purpose of the GRZ must be read with reference to the policy regarding housing diversity areas.

The Housing Diversity Area Policy is not about respecting the existing neighbourhood character. There is no preferred neighbourhood character nominated for such areas.

I agree with Mr Bromley (for developer) that it is not self-evident that a two storey development would be more appropriate, as suggested by the Council’s Urban Designer. Rather, the general residential zoning, the central location within the neighbourhood centre and the consolidated site suggests that the height should not be restricted to the two storey scale that is allowed in a NRZ.

Furthermore this is not a case where there is any issue of a suitable transition to land in a NRZ. The subject land is central to the neighbourhood centre, close to the commercial heart and not near land in a NRZ.

There is no basis for distinguishing between the eastern and western sides of Station Avenue, at least in terms of the streetscape. They have the same planning controls. As I have already noted, the ‘consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities’ is specifically encouraged for the residential areas of neighbourhood centres.

There is also clear compliance with ResCode Standard B 20 (North-facing windows). To the east, there would be some additional overshadowing in the afternoon, but well within ResCode Standard 21 (Overshadowing open space).

With respect to visual bulk, there are no proposed walls on the boundaries and there is easy compliance with ResCode Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks), especially at the upper level. The rear part of the building is cut into the land, so that the maximum height at the rear is 8.8-9.3m.

Regarding the statutory requirement for car parking, as set out in clause 52.06, the proposal provides the full complement of spaces for residents but only three spaces, instead of four, for visitors. ..In response to referral of the application, the Council’s traffic engineers accepted the reduction of visitor car spaces. However, Mr O’Leary submitted that there should be four spaces, arguing that the area is already under pressure for on-street parking due to various factors, including commuter and employee parking.

The Council’s traffic engineers have not raised any issues about the traffic implications of the proposal. The traffic report accompanying the application concluded that ‘the site traffic and access location is expected to have minimal impact on the function and safety of the surrounding road network’.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/305.html