Glen Eira Debates

We have for ages bemoaned the fact that in Glen Eira residents are confronted with an uphill battle to fully comprehend what council proposes in its structure planning – unless they are willing to spend hours upon hours in deciphering hundreds of pages of documents. There has never been a simple, single page document which itemises proposed controls and/or changes, that are easily accessed and read. Luckily, not all councils operate on the principle of obfuscation like Glen Eira does!

Here is an example from Monash and involves their structure plan for the Glen Waverley Major Activity Centre. The following images come from https://shape.monash.vic.gov.au/amendment-c167/detailed-changes

Please note:

• The clear summaries for the various types of sites – ie commercial, residential, etc.
• Interestingly, Monash sees fit to assign a 29 metre preferred height for its 8 storey development(s), whilst Glen Eira wants 31 metres!
• Note the increase in private open space requirements. Readers will remember that in Glen Eira, the housing strategy recommends the removal of the mandatory garden requirement in all areas zoned GRZ!
• Lastly, it beggars belief why Monash is allowed to include so many residential properties in their structure planning area and in Glen Eira, the proposed DDO’s for Bentleigh, Carnegie, and Elsternwick only apply to the commercial and mixed use zones for the major part.

We are not commenting on how ‘good’ or ‘bad’, the Monash plan is. All we wish to highlight is the manner in which Monash informs their community in a simple and clear fashion and how it conducts its consultation programs. In Glen Eira we get nothing like this!

We’ve received the following email from a Bentleigh resident. It was sent to councillors, the CEO, and to the Minister.

COMMENT

Not for the first time has Council ignored community feedback, arguing that forums were either ‘information sessions’, and hence don’t ‘qualify’ for official ‘consultation’ events. What bunkum! Readers will remember that:

• Over 100 residents came out on a cold winter’s night to present their views on the Housing Strategy. The resulting reports on that evening revealed that the anger was ‘palpable’, especially when officers attempted to close down the meeting instead of continuing to listen to what residents had to say.
• Way back over 200 people attended another ‘information forum’ on the draft Elsternwick structure plan. Again ignored. Bentleigh structure planning was another instance of down playing feedback.
• The very fact that in the vast majority of council reports outlining community feedback,  there is a failure to include honestly and comprehensively what residents had to say. Legitimate concerns about ‘overdevelopment’ are simply swept under the carpet and barely rate a mention. Council even fights tooth and nail to prevent the verbatim publication of  such feedback when previously this was seen as proper process when strategic planning first began.
• We have now had structure planning endorsed for Glen Huntly, Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Carnegie, and Caulfield accompanied by bogus surveys, ‘information sessions’, and spin. Not once have these surveys been road tested with the community consultation committee, and councillors barely get a look in. Repeatedly, councillors  have been forced to vote without all the relevant documents available to them, or without sufficient time to critically analyse and digest what it is they are being asked to vote on. This planning department and administration has much to answer for!

Structure planning is vitally important to the residents of Glen Eira. Council continually espouses how vital it is to hear back from the community and to engage as many constituents as possible. Yet, their methods of achieving this goal are deliberately circumscribed and inadequate. One would surely think that when submissions are called for Bentleigh & Carnegie these would achieve major prominence in the Glen Eira News. Furthermore, that the actual proposals are listed. Not so. What we get in the latest Glen Eira News is the following – and buried at page 8. It consists of the usual spin – ie ‘land use, heritage’, etc. but without a single word actually describing what is proposed. Definitely deliberate because if residents were told that the drafts contain plans to permit 12 storey discretionary, and that heritage listed places can be 5 and 6 storeys, then there would probably be plenty of submissions forwarded to council. The plan is clear: keep residents as ignorant as possible unless they are prepared to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to decipher the true vision. This is unconscionable and contrasts sharply with other councils’ approaches.

Simply ask yourselves – would any reader of the following image have any real idea of what lies in store?

The following article appeared in the Herald Sun on the 29th August.

Stop Elsternwick Towers launched Red Spot Special campaign in fight against Woolworths

A group of Elsternwick residents are turning back the clock in a long-running battle to stop a supermarket giant building high rise towers.

Lucy Callander

Old photos are the latest weapon in a long-running battle to stop Woolworths building high rise apartment towers in Elsternwick.

A community group fighting the proposal says the images cast doubt over whether the council could “give away” part of the land needed for the development.

The parcel of land in dispute, May Street (west), forms a 500sq m component of Woolworths’ larger development site and is essential for the project to proceed on the old ABC TV site.

On September 7, 2022 VCAT granted planning permission for a mixed use development including a supermarket and apartments at 10-16 Selwyn St. A condition of the planning permission was that work could not begin until Glen Eira Council was satisfied that May St was not a legal road. 

Earlier this year Glen Eira Council accepted evidence provided by Woolworths that the land had not been used as a road since World War II.

However, Stop The Elsternwick Towers said it had received expert legal advice that May Street west was a road that had never been discontinued by the council.

“Legally it belongs to Council on behalf of ratepayers and not Woolworths, who have gated the area and plan to build over it,” the group said.

Group spokesman Max Deacon said photos, including an image from 1968, proved the land was open to the public in the late 60s.

“The new research shows that May Street was set aside for public use from 1889 and that it remained open to the public until a gate was placed at the Selwyn Street end of May Street during the Second World War,” Mr Deacon said.

“Council’s acceptance of Woolworths’ claim suggests nobody used May Street for some 50 years. And that nobody has used it after the Second World War, despite aerial photos showing it open to the public again in 1968. “That simply doesn’t make sense.”

Mr Deacon said the group had sent the information to the council and wanted the decision reviewed.

“At law any transfer of public land from council control to the private sector must undergo a thorough community consultation process,” he said. “This has not occurred. “What is worse, is Council is giving away public land to developers for nothing.” Mr Deacon said the value of the land could be as much as $5m, based on the $55m purchase price of the overall site.

“Development is cheap when the land is free,” he said. “Woolworths must be rubbing their hands with glee.”He said the community wanted the site turned into a public park.

Glen Eira chief executive Rebecca McKenzie refuted the claim the council was giving away public land to a private developer.

“The planning permit requires Woolworths to provide evidence that part of their land is not a public road that should be transferred to Council, which they have done,” she said. “We have received evidence from both Woolworths and Stop the Elsternwick Towers (STET). “We undertook our own due diligence and agreed that it is not a road at law.”

COMMENT

Council’s claims of ‘due diligence’ would carry far greater credibility if the assumed ‘legal advice’ they received was made public.  The same can be said for the Woolworth’s advice.

We acknowledge upfront that each activity centre is unique and different. But, there are surely certain planning principles which must be applied equally to each centre. In this post we focus on what council considers appropriate for sites located in the existing heritage overlays for both Elsternwick and Carnegie and the ensuing proposals for height limits and overshadowing.

Council’s planning for these two structure plans attempts to convince us that preserving and protecting heritage is vital. The planning scheme however, differentiates between ‘significant/contributory’ sites within each heritage overlay. Those sites designated as ‘non-contributory’ may be ‘developed’ whilst those deemed ‘contributory’ will hopefully have mandatory height limits assigned.

The following screen dumps show the existing overlays for both Bentleigh and Elsternwick. We have concentrated on the commercial spine of Glen Huntly Road and Koornang Road.  Both shopping strips have a heritage overlay applied.

Given the above one should suspect that the resulting heights would be identical given the heritage overlays. But they aren’t!  For the Koornang Road strip the proposed structure plan nominates a 5 storey height limit whilst the Elsternwick version includes height limits of 6 storeys (discretionary). The question then becomes: are all sites in Koornang Road deemed ‘contributory’? Here is the evidence that shows at least 11 sites that are designated as ‘non-contributory’.

Why then should Elsternwick’s non contributory sites be given leeway for a 6 storey discretionary height limit and Koornang Road’s non contributory sites be awarded a 5 storey height limit?

What must also be remembered is that Koornang Road runs in a north/south direction whilst Glen Huntly Road runs east/west. For Glen Huntly Road, as well as Centre Road, this means that at the winter solstice, and even the summer equinox at certain times, sunlight will not reach the southern footpaths where people are enjoying their lunches and coffees. We highlight this because the inconsistency between council’s planning is really unbelievable.

Here are screen dumps from both the Carnegie Urban Built Form Framework (page 20) and the Elsternwick one. Please note carefully the boxed sections and the introductory blurbs waxing lyrical about the importance of sunlight.

This raises a myriad of questions:

• Why can a north/south running shopping strip have a 5 storey mandatory height limit and an east/west shopping strip be allowed a 6 storey discretionary height limit?
• Why aren’t ‘non-contributory’ sites treated the same?
• How reliable and accurate are the actual shadow diagrams presented in both cases?
• Why the differences between both given that the Carnegie sunlight exposure reaches to the back footpath section and the Elsternwick one only reaches the front edge of the footpath. Given that both are the work of the same consultancy firm, then why the differences?

What we’ve presented are fair and legitimate questions and go to the heart of decent and consistent strategic planning. Our conclusion can only be that the consultant’s reports are simply there to confirm what has already been decided by this planning department. Again, transparency and accountability simply do not exist!