Glen Eira Debates

WATCH THE VIDEO FROM ‘THE AGE – DOMAIN’. IT SAYS IT ALL!

http://www.domain.com.au/news/elderly-couple-refuse-to-sell-as-developers-lay-claim-on-mckinnon-culdesac-20151013-gk7kw5/

CLICK TO ENLARGE

The skullduggery that has gone on over Frogmore and the Jewish Care aged care facility is literally scandalous. A permit application is currently waiting to be decided. It proposes to remove 88 of the 92 trees on site. Well, those trees no longer exist!

This says plenty about this council and its attitude to the environment. With no tree register and no will to stop moonscaping of sites, this is the result. We are also confident that council will not seek to impose any fine on Jewish Care for removing trees under the 12 months period stated in the planning scheme. We remind readers that the heritage report nominated 4 trees as having ‘significant’ status and to be given heritage status themselves.

It is quite appalling that this can happen. But since it is Glen Eira council, where profit and vested interests are far more important than environment, no-one should be surprised – merely outraged!

This Nearmap shot is dated 13 September 2015 – three weeks ago. They sure move fast!

The old saying of Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics depicts perfectly the spin department of Glen Eira. Definitions are non-existent and methodologies as to how various figures are derived remains unexplained. The spin doctors simply publish a figure with some neat ambiguous statement and these are purported to represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far from it.

Several recent examples come from a Media Release and a sentence from last week’s Caulfield Leader (and repeated in a story this week)– “the tribunal (ie VCAT) approved 489 dwellings the council initially refused”(Caulfield Leader – page 9). The Media Release stated – “During the 2014-15 financial year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) approved 489 dwellings that Glen Eira City Council had refused” (July 2015). What these quotes and figures don’t reveal is:

• How many of these purported 489 dwellings were the result of council no longer opposing a permit due to the developer submitting an amended application?
• How many of these cases didn’t make it to a full hearing but were ‘mediated’ or were part of a ‘directions hearing’ at which council caved in?
• Thus, is the figure of 489 based simply on ‘initial’ rejection or rejections that stood firm and were taken to VCAT for a full hearing and subsequent decision?

Much more significant, is the question of WHY VCAT granted permits for any of these supposedly refused applications? Over the past few months we have featured several VCAT decisions where the members have highlighted a litany of council stuff-ups and lack of adequate representation at the hearings. Time and again the public record of the decision shows that Council reps show up and are either ill-prepared, often provide spurious arguments, or are basically hamstrung by the Planning Scheme itself. We are in no way suggesting that VCAT is without fault and that the legislation governing this body is adequate. What we are alleging is that Council should start fixing its own house of horrors instead of continually and persistently resorting to the blame game where VCAT is portrayed as the sole villain.

To justify our claims, we’ve taken the time to go through every single published VCAT decision for the past financial year. Council claims 489 dwellings were approved. Our total is 288! (see below). Of these decisions however, we urge residents to carefully consider the comments made by the members and to note:

• Conditions set by council that are contradictory or simply nonsensical
• The lack of protection afforded by the planning scheme itself
• Policies that expired in 2007 and have never been updated
• And far too often, the lack of competence by council itself

All of this however begs the essential question. If council is finding that its claims are repeatedly knocked back by VCAT, then why, oh why, has there not been any attempt to ‘fix up’ the gaping holes in the planning scheme? Why, oh why, will there not be a planning scheme review for 6 or 7 years? And why oh why do our councillors continue to stand idly by and accept this situation?

Here’s the evidence. Hearing dates are provided together with address, proposal, and members’ comments. For ease of reading, we’ve uploaded a pdf version HERE  as well as the png images below –

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Glen Eira has designated Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie as Urban Villages where the majority of new development is supposed to go. All the rest are either Neighbourhood Centres or Local Centres. There are ten Neighbourhood Centres and 23 listed ‘local centres’ in the Planning Scheme. The Phoenix Precinct has its own category as a Priority Development Zone.

According to the Planning Scheme, residential development in Neighbourhood Centres, is meant to adhere to the following:

Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.

AND

Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.

Thus, according to this prescription, multi-unit development is only to go into those areas “IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS”. Then why oh why has so much of these neighbourhood centres been zoned as GRZ1 – ie three storeys?

It is obvious that the zones do not match what is stated in the Planning Scheme, with the result that huge swathes of McKinnon, East Bentleigh, Murrumbeena, Ormond, Caulfield South and others, have been all given the green light for 3 storey multi-unit development.

Local centres are even worse off since these are pockets of land zoned commercial that more often than not, directly abut neighbourhood residential zones. The Planning Scheme states:

Recognise the minor role that local centres will play in providing for housing diversity by encouraging development limited to low density shop top housing

AND

Ensure that residential development (except in Patterson and Gardenvale local centres) does not exceed two storeys in height

Since there is no height restriction on land zoned commercial, this is indeed pie in the sky – as recently proved with a three storey development at 251 Koornang Road (zoned commercial 1). Why such errant nonsense still remains in the planning scheme is beyond us. Nor has Council even attempted to introduce any restrictions on its small shopping strips as Boroondara has had success with. Nor have they introduced any Design & Development Overlays as this comprehensive document from Bayside demonstrates (uploaded here). Council has done nothing except slap Commercial zoning on a handful of businesses without due regard to the fact that many of these ‘local centres’ are surrounded by residential, low rise single dwellings – all zoned Neighbourhood Residential zone.

Once again it is inept planning and a bonus to developers.

So here is a quiz on the zones that readers might like to have a go in responding to. We would bet that councillors and even officers wouldn’t know the answers to most of these queries!

• Which suburb has the largest Commercially zoned area?
• Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ1?
• Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ2?
• Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned RGZ1?
• Does Glen Eira really have 78% zoned NRZ1?
• What percentage of residential land area in Carnegie is geared towards medium and high density development because of its zoning? How does this correlate with the nonsense of 80/20 – ie minimal change versus housing diversity?
• How many streets in Glen Eira have multiple zonings (which was advised against by the C25 Panel Report)? – ie RGZ, GRZ, NRZ, MUZ, C1Z?
• How much ‘infill’ has occurred in Neighbourhood Residential Zones – ie two double storeys per block?
• How many sites in Glen Eira are over 1000 square metres, larger than their neighbours, and according to the planning scheme, capable of accommodating more than two dwellings – regardless of them being in Neighbourhood Residential Zones?
• How many amendments has Council pushed through to rezone land to Mixed Use since the introduction of the zones? How does this compare with other councils? Please remember that Mixed Use has no height limits, no open space requirements, etc.
• How many VCAT decisions that overturn council are largely due to the ‘policies’ contained in the Planning Scheme?

These are the questions we believe that residents need answers to since they go to the heart of sound strategic planning. If this council is so confident that its planning is ‘perfect’, then they need to be able to justify their planning decisions. Thus far, all residents have received are shonky figures, complete failure to fulfill the ‘promises’ of a decade ago, plus execrable statements that consulting with residents would result in worse outcomes. For any council to hold such a view is utterly abhorrent.