Glen Eira Debates

In 2010 Council went through the motions of a ‘review’ on its planning scheme.  The councillors who partook in this ‘review’ and remain on council are: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Lobo. They resolved to pass the ‘action plan’ that is pictured below (from the minutes of August 2010).

We urge readers to note the following:

• Items highlighted in YELLOW have not been completed or even attempted as far as we know
• Time frames (ie the ‘when’ sections) mean absolutely nothing.
• All initiatives to be done ‘internally’ – very few reported on!

Thus, these images stand as a damning indictment of these councillors and administration. A repeat of this sham must not be allowed to happen with the current ‘review’.

What stands out like a sore thumb in the Glen Eira submission is:

• the lack of detail and justification for the various positions – ie of the 72 ‘recommendations’ made by the committee, council does not provide any comment for 44 of these.
• The hypocrisy is literally astounding when we find that for some recommendations (ie inclusion of structure plans, urban design frameworks, etc Council is in agreement! Pity that this ‘agreement’ has not seen any action for the past 14 years!)
• Even more hypocritical is the repetition of this sentence – Boundaries should be based on housing policies and community consultation.
• All in all, council’s submission is another attempt to justify what it has done and to maintain the status quo. Developers should be very pleased with Council’s set of responses!

The ‘evidence’ for these claims is obvious once we compare Council’s stated position with some of its neighbours. Below is Glen Eira versus Bayside. Whilst these two councils do agree on numerous items, their differences are what is most telling.  We focus in this post on the recommendations for the Residential Growth Zone only (RGZ). A quick summary –

Recommendation #20 – Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of the zone.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – The purpose of the RGZ is to enable new housing growth and diversity in locations that offer good access to services, transport and other infrastructure. In developed areas, a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth is required. A four storey development outcome will be appropriate in these circumstances and therefore it is recommended that the current reference remains in the purpose of the zone.

RECOMMENDATION #21 – Amend ResCode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within the RGZ contradict that of ResCode.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – ResCode was not intended to provide direction on apartment typology. It is recommended that the Better Apartments tool be implemented as the new assessment mechanism for apartment’s development of any scale.

RECOMMENDATION #30 – Apply Clause 55 to multi dwellings greater than four storeys.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – ResCode should apply to all forms of multi-dwelling residential development. The lack of prescription in the State Government’s Higher Density Design Guidelines (6 storeys and above) creates uncertainty

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – Rescode was not designed to assess multi storey building typology. A more appropriate tool such as the Better Apartments should apply for multi dwellings greater than four storeys

RECOMMENDATION #41 – Under Clause 32.07-9 Application requirements, delete: For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – Agree subject to ResCode applying to multi-dwelling residential developments of five or more storeys

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – An urban context report and design response are required to ensure that the purpose of the zone, the future vision of the area and any sensitive interfaces are taken into consideration

RECOMMENDATION #42 – Under Clause 32.07-11 Dwelling and residential building, delete: For a development of five or more storeys,excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment or explanation provided)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – In the absence of a more current policy to guide Higher Density Residential Development it is considered that the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential should remain. It is recommended that it be replaced with the Better Apartments policy once it is implemented.

Glen Eira has finally published (without a formal council resolution and after the fact) its submission to the ‘review’ of the residential zones. This post is the first in a series where we will analyse this submission and highlight its incompetency, hypocrisy and once again council’s determination to insist that it got it right in August 2013.

Council’s incompetency and attempt to mislead is clearly shown in the following statement which comes from page 12 of its submission.  (please note that the actual submission is really only a page or two since most of the 19 pages consist of regurgitating previous submissions and then tables from the committee’s recommendations).

Council writes –

Glen Eira will need to provide 800 dwellings (red line in Figure 1) each year to cater for the increase of 12000 households over the next 15 years.

Wrong on all counts!!!  In the first place the figure of 12,000 households does not originate from 2016, as this sentence implies, but from 2011 as calculated by data from both Victoria in Future 2015, and profile.id. Thus what council has done is divide 12,000 by 15 years, instead of the 20 years specified by the government. That brings the average required addition of dwellings to 600 per year and NOT the claimed 800 per year.

Yet Glen Eira has over 2000 net new dwellings going up per year ever since the zones came in thus tripling its required net new dwellings in order to meet population growth. Nowhere in this submission will residents find any statement to this effect – unlike other councils’ submissions. In Glen Eira it is a case of the more the better, but without any thought given to ensuring that residential amenity, open space, infrastructure is capable of meeting this 300% over supply.

We urge all residents to read this council submission (uploaded here) and to ask themselves:

• How can such poor quality be produced time and time again?
• Why are residents deceived time and time again with faulty and incomplete data?
• Why is there no formal resolution by COUNCIL?
• Why can other councils produce pages and pages of well argued submissions, table their documents in council, and seek a formal resolution and this council can’t?

Source: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Strategic-Planning/Planning-scheme-policies-and-strategies#Review-of-the-Glen-Eira-Planning-Scheme-3

PS: the above page has now disappeared entirely from council’s website! Instead of removing the incriminating evidence, surely it would not have been that hard to state – “Apologies, we were wrong”!!!!!!!!!!

This is totally unbelievable. Either it is the most blatant lie ever perpetrated by this council, or it reveals how little credence is given to good governance and adhering to directions issued by the State Government.

If a planning scheme review was in fact undertaken, then Council is obliged according to Planning Practice Note No. 32 (uploaded here) to:

• Consult with the community
• Table a report to a full council
• Forward their review to the Minister

Readers should note that no Record of Assembly minutes contained any reference to a Planning Scheme Review. No documents have been tabled in council. No councillor has uttered a single word about a review.

If, on the other hand, no such review has been undertaken then what is up on council’s website can only be seen as an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. It should also be remembered that in response to a public question dated 8^th April 2015 which asked when Council would be undertaking a full planning scheme review, the response provided was –

“Council will undertake a review of its planning scheme once the State Government has completed its comprehensive review of both the State and local planning policy frameworks. The State Government review will help to guide Council’s future planning scheme review.

Other Councils are also awaiting the completion of the State Government review before undertaking their respective planning scheme reviews.

Council will undertake public consultation of the next planning scheme review in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”

Thus we have two clear possibilities. Either the statement on council’s website is another example of deliberately hoodwinking the public, or a ‘review’ was carried out but without adhering to best practice and most importantly, letting residents know. Either way, this is totally unacceptable.

One item in the current agenda is fascinating in what it might portend for Glen Eira – especially with a new CEO at the helm. We draw readers’ attention to the following –

• Council will NOT BE PROCEEDING with its application for a 1.42% rise above the rate cap.

ITEM 9.14 – RATE CAPPING

Things to note regarding the decision not to proceed with the ‘variation’ to the rate cap:

• A formal council resolution is sought. No formal resolution was sought under Newton to apply for a variation
• Community consultation was sought in January/February 2016 by external consultants (although not ‘advertised’ and certainly not announced by any official council statement)
• Result of this consultation is: It is clear that in the absence of better community information and understanding of Council’s finances, and a shared sense of priority around the use of funds generated through a variation, there is insufficient community support to apply for a variation to the rate cap at this time.

• Figure of $24m shortfall over the ten years of the Strategic Resource Plan if rates capped, necessitating the development of a new Community Plan…..which will seek wide community input on priorities for the next ten years….. This is forecast to be started in 2016 and will be the subject of a further paper to Council.

Why this decision has been made is entirely open to conjecture and only time will tell. We posit the following as some possibilities underpinning this decision:

• The influence of the new CEO?
• Council realising that they may not be successful in their application?
• Strong community opposition on top of all the other problems (ie planning)?
• Laying the ground for service reductions and vastly increased charges?
• The fact that councils had to provide evidence in any submission on how the views of ratepayers and the community have been taken into account in proposing the higher rate cap. In Glen Eira there had been no ‘consultation’ of course. Hence a legal obstacle perhaps?

The positives? If there is to be genuine consultation on a new Community Plan, then it is imperative that residents be provided with full information; that their views not only be listened to, but ultimately acted upon through integration and implementation into any subsequent Council Plan/Resource Strategic Plan.

Needless to say, time will tell whether this represents a real shift in culture or whether it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

• Sick of seeing over-development everywhere?
• Sick of a council that does nothing to ameliorate the damage?
• Sick of never being genuinely ‘consulted’ on anything – especially the zones?
• Sick of the system (and council) favouring developers?
• Sick of feeling helpless?

Well here’s your chance to have your say. The State Government is calling for submissions on the residential zones. Submissions close on the 14th March.

For the purposes of ‘discussion’, the appointed committee has released:

• An overarching report (ie for all of Victoria)
• A regional report (Glen Eira is to be found in the ‘southern region’)
• A ‘list of recommendations’ on the zones

We urge all Glen Eira residents to take this opportunity. The links to the various reports are:

The Overarching Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/291569/Residential-Zones-Overarching-Report.pdf

The Southern Region Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/291392/Residential-Zones-State-of-Play-Southern-Subregion-Report-.pdf

The ‘Recommendations’ – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/291568/List-of-Suggested-Improvements-to-the-Residential-Zones.pdf

Submissions can be mailed or uploaded to – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/current-panels-and-committees/managing-residential-development/managing-residential-development-submission-form

It’s worth pointing out that once more, unlike many other councils, (Moonee Valley, Stonnington, Monash, etc etc) Glen Eira has not tabled its submission, nor has it made it public up to this stage. Thus, no formal resolution by council, and no discussion in chamber, plus no opportunity for residents to ask questions or comment PRIOR to their submission going in. Well, what’s new?