Glen Eira Debates

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Adding insult to injury, the final decision on Penang Street has now been brought down. The earlier VCAT order required the developer to submit amended plans for his three storey and 24 units proposal. This has now been done. The result is a reduction of two units (site in above image should now be read as 22 dwellings).

What is very disturbing in this final judgement is the position taken by council and Melbourne Water on potential flooding risks. We quote from the judgement –

The Potential for Overland Flow

8. In light of the residents’ submissions about water flowing through this site in 2011, we expressed concern in our Interim Order as to whether the basement may be impacted by flooding and whether the ground floor apartments and associated paved courtyards may be subject to overland flow from the south. So, our Interim Order required the amended plans to be considered by Melbourne Water and the Council’s drainage engineering section.
9. The Council’s Infrastructure Assets Manager has approved a flood level report that states there is no flood level or flood velocity applicable to this site. The report also states that the site “is not subject to flooding from the local Council drainage system based on flood level that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year.”
10. Council’s Engineering Assets Department and Melbourne Water both advise that flooding is expected in the Penang Street road reserve directly adjacent to this site. The Council states the basement ramp should be designed to avoid flooding. Melbourne Water advises the road reserve flood level is 30.56m AHD (Australian Height Datum) and the northeast corner of the site has a surveyed surface level of 30.46m AHD, so the basement is vulnerable to flooding. Melbourne Water has requested a permit condition that the entry/exit driveway to the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 30.86m AHD, i.e. 300mm above the applicable flood level. The amended plans incorporate this apex. Melbourne Water also points out that finished floor levels of the ground floor of the building are higher than its minimum requirement of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
11. None of the other parties have made any further submissions about this.
12. Whilst we are cognisant of the residents’ submissions and photographs tendered about the overland flow, the view of the Council is that this site is not affected by a probable 1% in any one year occurrence of flooding from the local Council drainage system; and the view of Melbourne Water is the northeast corner of the site is below the applicable flood level for the Penang Street road reserve. The amended design addresses the potential for flooding of the basement in a manner that is acceptable to Melbourne Water. For these reasons, we are now satisfied that the implications associated with the potential for overland flow have been fully considered by the relevant authorities. In absence of any further submissions or evidence regarding the flooding potential of this site, we must give weight to the views of the relevant authorities. As such, there is insufficient reason to refuse this proposal on the basis of this issue.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1772.html

Ed Booth’s appeal for ‘actions not words’ is lost on Magee and his fellow non-representatives of the community. Instead there is the usual spin, mistruths, and pure bunkum. Perhaps if neighbourhood character was so important to Magee and this council, we may have had ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ statements in the planning scheme for housing diversity. They don’t exist, which results in the following images for Vickery Street, Bentleigh. A four storey monster containing 47 dog boxes is set to replace Californian bungalows. Yes indeed, Council really cares about neighbourhood character, and how street after street is being destroyed!

Whilst not as bad (yet) as Carnegie, East Bentleigh isn’t too far behind in terms of over development and transforming the suburb completely. Readers need to bear in mind several important facts –

• East Bentleigh is not a Major Activity Centre – it is designated as a Neighbourhood Centre
• It is not within cooee of adequate public transport
• Virginia Estate redevelopment is probably just around the corner adding thousands of new dwellings
• East Bentleigh, despite the fact that it is NOT a major activity centre, has one of the highest land masses zoned as ‘commercial’ – meaning no height limits, and no other protections for the neighbourhood such as Design & Development Overlays, Parking Precinct Plans, Structure Plans, Urban Design Frameworks, etc.
• It also has the largest area zoned RDZ – meaning 3 storeys

Below are two images that should be viewed in conjunction and that attempt to capture some of what is happening since the secret introduction of the zones without any community consultation. We have not included all that is occurring – ie applications galore for other streets such as Browns Road, Elizabeth St, and of course East Boundary Road itself and the streets coming off this road to the East. Like all planning in Glen Eira, everything has been handed over to the market and the market (and therefore Council) does not care one iota for residential amenity. That philosophy represents negligence of the highest order.

CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE

and the continuation to the North

PS: congratulations to the residents of Claire St, McKinnon. VCAT has refused a permit for the three storey development. We have uploaded the judgement HERE. Readers should take careful note of the member’s comments. The development was refused primarily because of developer greed and not thanks to council’s planning scheme restrictions. We also have to speculate as to the role that massive tv, radio, and press coverage had on this outcome. Perhaps a lesson for all residents? The problem of inept zoning and schedules still remains!

Mr Booth’s comments are surely warranted when we analyse what has been happening in Glen Eira. There has been a remarkable drop off in the number of applications that come up for Council decision. The reason isn’t less applications, but the fact that Council is now refusing outright via manager or through the Delegated Planning Committee process, application after application. Why? So that council can continue with its nonsense such as blaming VCAT for everything instead of doing what it is paid to do – implement a planning scheme that is worthy of that name.

We have commented numerous times here on the ridiculous decisions made by council planners. Either the application is refused, or conditions imposed that have no hope of getting up because they are not supported by the planning scheme. The latest example is a VCAT decision for 130 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena. It is zoned GRZ1; is within the Neighbourhood Centre; is less than the 10.5 metre height maximum, and proposes 16 dwellings on a 880 square metre block.  Council refused the application and VCAT granted a permit. What residents need to appreciate is:

• according to the planning scheme there was no logical reason to reject this application
• the imposed conditions are not supported or even part of the planning scheme
• Result? More ratepayers money thrown down the drain so that council can pretend it is doing its job properly!

Please consider the VCAT member’s comments carefully and then decide who is the real culprit – VCAT or Council? Mr Booth’s comments of ‘hiding behind VCAT’ are indeed appropriate!

Council says that local policy requires a transition in height and scale from the commercial centre to the edge of the housing diversity area. It says a three storey building on a site near the outer edge of the activity centre does not respect the transition that is sought. Consistent with the Tribunal’s findings in Pitard Knowles Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC, I am not persuaded by this proposition. The preference for a transition in scale is one of many strategies in clause 22.07 and it has no more or less weight than the others. It must be applied contextually. There is no guidance in clause 22.07 as to where a transition applies. Is it halfway between the core and the outer boundary, or two thirds or another distance from the centre? Is it to be defined by streets? What is required in transition in height, and from what? Does the transition also apply to front setbacks, width of facades, landscaping, fencing and streetscape rhythm. The general policy is unhelpful in this matter, and Council has not prepared urban design frameworks or Overlays that might have provided greater guidance.

The little guidance on the matter of transition is provided by the distinction between the schedules to the GRZ. Schedule 2 to the GRZ is a transitional area because the maximum height in the GRZ is lower than the GRZ1. It is notable that the GRZ2 applies only to lots that directly adjoin land in the NRZ, and it applies to land of one lot in depth. Council has effectively defined the area where a transition in height and massing might be expected to be only the lots at the outer edge of the GRZ1 area.

ON SETBACKS TO UPPER LEVELS

Secondly there is no policy basis, urban design framework or DDO that requires a recessed second level, and the building would be lower than the maximum height allowable under the schedule to the zone. Requiring a setback would be arbitrary and it does not respond to any clear built form or policy directive or amenity consideration

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1729.html