PS: We’ve received the following email from a resident and believe it needs highlighting. We have edited out the address.

Dear gedebates.
Our street, Elliott Ave Carnegie has now lost 8 houses, between Neerim Rd and Jersey Pde (railway end) not including the corner blocks on Neerim Rd to the rampant development.  We were rezoned 2 years ago to RGZ1 and there are only 7 out of 15 remaining. We live at XXXXX Elliott and have found out the three houses next to us, to the north have been sold. We will also be facing 5 houses opposite us, all of which will be 4 stories, in a street of single dwellings. The dramatic increase in traffic, people and loss of our community is devastating after a peaceful and lovely 35 years.
I know this is happening everywhere. We feel helpless and incredibly angry with the council.
where to from here?

We featured Elliott Avenue several months ago – a street that was full of beautiful well kept homes that has now been sacrificed like much of Carnegie. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/

Six McKinnon neighbours sell combined residential development site for $8.88 million

Six home owners at McKinnon in Melbourne’s south-eastern bayside, have reaped a $8.88 million, off-market sale of their residential development site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich brokered the sale of the 3 to 9 Claire Street offering.

Sold at what is believed to be a record $2913 a square metre for the area, six neighbours came together with the common aspiration to create a one-off opportunity by combining their properties to form an attractive development prospect.

“Six home owners have reaped a circa 40% price windfall,” Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich said.

The property, comprising four residential sites totaling 3049 square metres and six individual properties (six owners), is zoned General Residential, has 60 metres frontage to Claire Street, minutes walk to McKinnon Road retail strip and railway station.

Source: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-investment/reits/44120-july-15-comm-prop-six-mckinnon-neighbours-sell-combined-residential-development-site-for-8-88-million.html

COMMENTS

• How many dog boxes will the developers have to build in order to recoup their money and make a profit? 60? 80? 100? All feasible on 3000+ square metres zoned for 3 storeys!
• How much longer will council continue with their bullshit that the zones have nothing to do with this rampant over-development?
• What is ‘capacity’ for a dead end street that contained 10 lots (two of which each contained 2 single storey units) making a total of 14 dwellings in the street not so long ago.
• Since the zones have come in, this has all changed and the population of this street is set to increase by at least 1000%. That’s right – 1000%! Here’s why –

1 Claire St (with land size of just under 800 sq metres has recently been sold). A permit has been granted for 3 double storeys

6-10 Claire St is now heading to VCAT for an adjudication on a three storey development consisting of 36 units and a reduction in visitor car parking. Council refused the permit.

Then there’s 11 Claire St, with a permit for a two storey dwelling and 9 units – achieved after three VCAT visits. The first two refused permits for (a) 4 two storey dwellings in June 2012; (b) 2 storeys with ten units (October 2012) and finally in August 2013 a permit for 2 storey and 9 units. When granting a permit for this last decision the member stated – I am similarly satisfied that the design and scale of the building generally represents an appropriate response to the existing and envisaged character of the area in that the two storey scale ensures the development does not dominate the streetscape. The building includes elements that sympathetically respond to the prevailing architectural typology. These elements include wide eaves, pitched roof forms, good fenestration, basement garaging, and (subject to conditions) reasonable front, side and rear setbacks in order to provide for appropriate landscaping.

So now we’ve gone from two storeys to the blank cheque handed to developers for 3 storeys – all with flat roofs, removal of every single tree and vegetation on site, and setbacks that are a joke! And the total number of dwellings in a street barely 50 metres long has gone from 14 to possibly 130-150 dwellings. Thus hundreds of cars and all having to enter and exit onto McKinnon Road!

This is planning madness for sure and the blame must be laid at the feet of this council. The inconsistencies, the contradictions and the lack of justifiable strategic planning is unforgiveable. And what must never be forgotten is the simple fact that residents were the last to know about the zones. Like mushrooms we were kept in the dark – not worthy of being ‘consulted’, and not worthy of anything except paying rates that have been going up year after year by 6.5% – all needed to pay for increased staff and huge pay rises to the CEO! That’s the culture, the ethos, and the ethics of this administration and its lackey councillors!

Hyams moved to abandon amendment plus ‘affirming’ Amendment C75 (which set up the C1 in the centre and 10 storey heights) and Plan Melbourne. Lobo seconded.

HYAMS: went basically went through the officer’s report outlining the history of the site and what occurred with C75 amendment in 2010. There was ‘maximum of 2000 square metres of retail’ with this amendment so that ‘it would service the people who work there’. Council sent 600 notifications and got 15 submissions – objectors didn’t turn up to the Panel hearing. In 2012 Minister changed zoning and now developer wants to put up to 1250 apartments and 12000 square metres of retail. Said that there are two options before council – to send to a panel or abandon amendment. On officer’s recommendation to go to panel said that this was ‘not an unreasonable recommendation’ because that would mean ‘we do some more investigation’ and the panel would ‘weigh up’ the evidence and make their own recommendations which council is then ‘free to accept or reject’ or modify. It then goes to the Minister. However, he thinks that sending it to a panel ‘would be a waste of everyone’s time and money and effort. ‘ Claimed that this view was only formed ‘late last week’ after he read the objections. In fact, ‘I can’t see myself ever supporting what the applicant is asking for’. Has ‘grave concerns’ about the ‘residential component’ and the impact on traders and ‘allowing this to proceed to the Development Plan Process’. Stated that Gillon ‘proposed’ that the amendment be changed to 1250 apartments but officers’ advice was that this may not have ‘statutary weight’. He thought that even 1250 and 3000 people is ‘still too many for this site by a long way’.

Unlike Caulfield Village this isn’t a ‘transport hub’ with only buses and would ‘increase population’ by 10% in East Bentleigh, plus the retail component could do ‘significant’ harm to local traders and shopping strips. Said council received a ‘peer review’ on the applicant’s retail impact statement and that ‘points out’ that shops ‘on the border of Glen Eira’ were ignored by the applicant’s consultants.

Said that ‘neither’ the residential or retail ‘fit our strategy for this site’ which is for Virginia Estate to ‘continue to be an employment hub’. His ‘concern’ with the Development Plan process was that if the amendment is passed and they make a ‘subsequent decision on the Development Plan’ that is ‘ultimately reviewable by VCAT’ and ‘I absolutely have no faith in VCAT’. He wants ‘something of this significance to remain under Council control’ and not the ‘whims of VCAT’.

On the survey it was ‘not from Council’ and people have two choices – either they believe it is a conspiracy or incompetence and he sees it as incompetence because he doesn’t believe that ‘the applicant actually intended to mislead’ people. But ‘the nature of the questions’ were ‘fairly distasteful’ and ‘designed to produce the desired outcome’. But ‘distasteful as is it’ they ‘don’t make planning decisions to punish’ people and so ‘this hasn’t influenced my decision’.

Wanted to address some comments made at the Planning Conference. Once was from Staikos who ‘said that it is the new planning zones that are causing development’. Said that ‘our new planning zones are not causing development’ since apart from ‘one small patch’ developers can’t build what they could before and there’s only been a ‘rush in development’ between the announcement and the gazetting because developers tried to get their applications in on the old system. Others question why council is ‘only getting 5.7%’ as an open space levy. Said that ‘experts’ determined how council ‘could get the most money’ and they said that a ‘flat rate’ for all areas was better because if they wanted more for sites such as Virginia Estate then ‘we couldn’t have got’ the 5.7% for the rest of Glen Eira. In fact the ‘person who raised that at the conference was responsible for holding up’ the amendment and costing council ‘one million dollars’. So ‘that’s what you call chutzpah’.

Now the applicant can ‘get on’ with developing the park according to Amendment C75 ‘which is in accordance with our strategy’ or they can put in a new amendment together with a planning application and ‘that way we know what we’re getting’.   This was one major cause for worry for residents and councillors because ‘beyond broad parameters’ no-one knows ‘what they’re getting’. So with an amendment and planning application ‘we know what we’re getting and we make the decision’ and ‘not VCAT’.

LOBO: ‘I rise to speak for the people of East Bentleigh’. ‘People elected me to represent them and I will’. Said he won’t support amendment because ‘people do not want’ it. ‘My loyalty is towards the people of East Bentleigh’.

PILLING: said he chaired the planning conference which was a ‘good meeting’. Wanted to thank the community for their input. Said he supports the motion for 2 ‘chief’ reasons – lack of public transport and it’s not like the Caulfield Village which has a major transport rail line. Other reasons was ‘concern’ from the traders’ associations. The amendment isn’t ‘suitable and doesn’t fit our strategy’. Agreed with Hyams on the new zones that ‘you can’t get something now that you couldn’t before’ and that ‘you could probably get less now’. Plus ‘drawing a long bow’ then all parties at federal level are responsible because they ‘encourage population growth’. ‘Our job is to manage that population growth and set standards’. There’s been a lot of ‘criticism’ of council. Most ‘constructive’ but some ‘over the top’ and that’s like ‘criticising an umpire before the decision is made’. ‘Overall’ he ‘welcomes the community’s input’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in ‘making my mind up’ she is concentrating on ‘three particular areas’ – strategic reasons, planning reasons and community input. If she lets this go to a planning panel then didn’t think that she would be ‘upholding’ the premises of ‘local government’ – ie ‘listen to the community’ and then apply the strategic and planning ideas. Said mainly to the ‘applicant’ that when ‘you seek community consultation’ this must be done with ‘integrity’ and is ‘about a two way conversation’ and not just about ‘telling the community what you are about to do’. So it’s listening, ‘taking on board’ what people say and then ‘making some changes along the way’. Conceded that there ‘had been some belated attempts to do so’ and she commended the applicant on that. SAid that the Municipal Strategic Statement from the planning scheme identifies this as moving from industrial to a ‘really important employment node’. Said that ‘I don’t see any strategic reason’ why this objective should ‘go’. On planning grounds, if there is to be the upholding of this site as an employment zone then ‘commercial 2 is the best way to do this’. So, ‘I don’t find that there are planning reasons to move this forward’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he suggested at one point that a panel would be the ‘best way to go’ so that residents could go and make submissions and it would come back and ‘we could look at it’. But he then ‘thought’ about it and decided that even if it went to a panel “I couldn’t support it, so why go to a panel in the first place?’ Repeated that ‘we intended this to be an employment hub’ and won’t be ‘under this proposal’. ‘I don’t think you can trust what the developer has said’. Hyams said incompetence, he suggests ‘conspiracy and they’ve been ‘deceptive’. Said there’s been ‘bandied around’ 4000 and 1250 units but ‘I don’t know what’s going to happen and I don’t trust them’. But ‘that’s not the reason’ why he is voting as he is. This ‘isn’t C60’ and isn’t CaulfieldStation and it will ‘kill business in this whole area’. Said he wanted to see the area ‘developed’ and for it ‘to go forward’. ‘Not something that is forced on the community’.

SOUNNESS: Said he was sure that the applicants don’t consider the issue as ‘dead’ and there will ‘have to be a discussion and the presentation of something new’. For people in the gallery there ‘will be more discussion in the future’ on ‘how is this going to be the best thing for Glen Eira’ and how ‘to meet the needs and expectations of residents’. He expects the applicant will now ‘have a chat’ with the community and officers. Suggested that ‘you maintain an eye out’ and ‘stay aware’ of any developments and ‘be part of the conversation’. It’s the ‘applicant’s land’ but ‘your city’ and the job of council is to ‘mediate’ between the two to achieve the best outcome. Said there are gaps in the planning scheme and that’s made him ‘uncomfortable’.

ESAKOFF: said that this has a ‘long history’ and she remembers her childhood when it was W.D & H. Wills. Glad that there has been such a great response from the community because it’s been a ‘terrific exercise in community consultation’. The amendment ‘doesn’t meet council’s strategic planning’ or council’s ‘sustainable transport’ strategy that seeks higher density in transport hubs. This isn’t one of those transport hubs. Admitted that council ‘tried hard’ to get the bus to go down East Boundary for GESAC but ‘to no avail’ and if council ‘can’t get it’ she didn’t know how the developer could.

OKOTEL: thanked both applicant and residents for the ‘amount’ of ‘information that was provided’ because ‘this was critical in our decision making’ and ‘helped us raise questions with the officers’ . Agreed with others and mainly about the impact of ‘density’ and what this means for residents in the area in terms of ‘traffic and infrastructure’. Even though she wasn’t a councillor when C75 came in, she thought this was a ‘better fit for the area’ than leaving it as ‘industrial’. However, ‘changing the zoning would lead to over-development’ and therefore can’t see ‘any reason why’ the amendment should go to a panel.

MAGEE: said that in his 7 years on council ‘nothing has scared me more’ than this. He lives in East Bentleigh and the weight of the decision meant many ‘sleepless nights’. Accepted that the ‘developer’ is trying to ‘maximise the return on his investment’ but the ‘cost is our community’. East Bentleigh was the most liveable city but not if this goes through. ‘Something will be built on this site’ but if it’s about ‘land’ then every inch is important in Glen Eira. Said that council has to ‘maximise’ open space ‘where we can’ but ‘more importantly we have to maximise the amenity’. We know that there will be ‘change’ because there are 1000 residents each year who ‘want to come and live with us’. SAid the developer has to think whether it’s all about ‘maximising’ profit or also giving residents ‘something that benefits them’. Amendment C75 is not ‘in place’ and thought that ‘we will be back here in 18 months time’. Ultimately ‘it’s about maximising the best use of the land’ and he doesn’t ‘want this change’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)