We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Not for the first time do we have to query the accuracy of a council report. We refer to the current agenda item 10.6. This is supposed to be an analysis of housing development in Glen Eira for the period 2021-2024.
Council has provided the following tables:
We have taken the time to go through council’s planning register to see whether these figures actually stand up to scrutiny. To make things as simple as possible, we decided to concentrate on the multi-dwelling applications for the year 2024 since this is the smallest category and thus less time consuming. Council tells us that for this category of dwellings there were only 23 applications decided in 2024 and that the total number of dwellings approved as a result of these applications was a paltry 142 dwellings (highlighted in yellow in the above image).
But council’s own planning register tells a completely different story and its only for this category of dwellings. We haven’t gone through the other categories as yet.
Listed further below are all the multi-unit applications, the number of proposed dwellings, and the dates when permits approving developments were issued. We’ve also sure that we’ve probably missed a few to boot. Several include ‘amended permits’ granted. However, we can only assume that development would not have started prior to the granting of the amendment.
Casting further doubt on council’s analysis is the failure to state the number of dwellings associated with several of these applications – and they are all large developments. For example: Horne Street, 600 North Road (8 Storeys); 144 Hawthorn Road (6 storeys). We make a conservative estimate that we’re looking at least another 100 dwellings just from these few applications.
Our tally comes up with the following numbers:
35 applications decided, (as opposed to councils claim of 23) and
246 dwellings approved (as opposed to council’s claim of 142) (PLUS THE APPROX 100 NOT LISTED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.)
How can there be such a discrepancy between this report and council’s own planning register? Even when we’ve tried to correlate the above figures with the state government’s Planning Activity Website, there is a major difference between council’s numbers and what they are obliged to report to government. We limited our search to the 2024 calendar year as well as only residential development and permits granted in this year. The results show:
Admittedly the above figure of 240 also includes ‘single dwellings’ but these are only a minority and would not alter the discrepancy between council’s claim of only 142 new dwellings constructed.
Is it too much to therefore ask that council’s reports are beyond question? And how come that for the last few years, council’s budgets have all claimed to be based on approximately 1000 new rateable properties for each year? Why do we keep getting such rubbery figures? Is it incompetence, laziness, or merely a mindset to produce data that supports hidden agendas?
Finally please have a read of all the approved permit applications we list below:
Finally there is some commentary from Glen Eira on the state government’s proposed changes to all activity centres – especially the inclusion of expanded areas surrounding these activity centres. Once again, the proposed submission by Glen Eira palls into insignificance compared to the efforts produced by Boroondara and Bayside. These councils have held public forums, Q and A sessions, and prominently featured summaries and information on their websites. Glen Eira has done none of these things.
So now we come to the need for a formal submission by late October. We have read the submissions and copied verbatim some of the comments contained in the various officer reports. Whilst the final submission(s) have as yet to be written, the amount of detail provided by Boroondara compared to Glen Eira is staggering. What’s also insightful is the tone that each council applies. Boroondara sees nothing wrong with clear and unequivocal criticisms. Glen Eira on the other hand resorts to wishy-washy statements that basically mean nothing. Boroondara is also not averse to publishing so called ‘confidential’ documents. Glen Eira does not even mention the fact that they have received such documents!
Once more we have to ask why another council can produce work which informs the community with detailed analysis and Glen Eira can only produce some generic document that adds little to basic understanding of the potential impacts. Does it all boil down to the quality of our planning department? Or is this merely another instance of an administration that fully welcomes the government agenda and to hell with existing residents, liveability, heritage and a million other consequences?
Please read the following quotes carefully and realise how vastly different they read and what this actually means.
GLEN EIRA (16th October agenda)
Generally, not supportive of the “deemed to comply” approach for heights, setbacks and street wall heights which will be applied in the core and catchment areas.
In the core commercial area of Carnegie, the proposed changes are positive for Council and the community, with draft maps proposing to retain the building heights adopted under the Carnegie Structure Plan (proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C237). This is pleasing to see and the result of strong advocacy by Council over 2024 and 2025.
Council has continually requested that DTP provide technical reports/data as part of their activity centre program, plans and draft maps. This will help us understand how the heights were developed, modelled and what was considered.
Council’s experience with the deemed to comply approach in the Moorabbin and Chadstone activity centres, is that Council is limited in its ability to encourage increased development within the catchment areas, where appropriate. This is due to the changes which essentially switch off policy and zone purpose considerations for townhouse development. The intent of the catchments is therefore not being achieved in these existing locations and Council is likely to see a similar result in the Carnegie Cluster unless changes are made to the planning controls.
The heights for Murrumbeena and Hughesdale core areas and for all the catchment areas are a significant change, particularly in the outer core areas. These proposed heights are contrary to the heights adopted in the Glen Eira Housing Strategy and a departure from the community’s expectations
It is unclear on how the catchment areas will integrate with the heritage places and precincts and Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) in these areas, specifically in Carnegie and Murrumbeena. If the BFO and HCTZ are applied these controls will allow taller built forms in potential conflict with neighbourhood character and heritage streetscapes.
Directing housing into existing activity centres will reduce the impacts of significant growth on the environment in growth areas. Living more closely together can open opportunities for the sharing economy, increase local services and reduce the need for travel, and enable more people to live close to public transport
These changes coupled with the other recent changes to housing assessment provisions creates a substantially different planning context for Glen Eira and the community
OFFICER’S REPORT – 13 PAGES
BOROONDARA (6th October minutes)
The draft standards have been circulated on a confidential basis and are not available for public distribution. This approach limits transparency and prevents meaningful community input. For proper consideration, the draft standards should be formally exhibited and open to feedback from the community
The introduction of new and improved standards for developments of 4–6 storeys is needed as it is recognised that larger built forms have the potential to generate greater visual bulk, overshadowing and amenity impacts compared with smaller developments. However, a number of the proposed standards reduce and weaken the existing requirements, particuarly relating to off-site amenity impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking
Through amendments VC243 and VC267 earlier this year, Clause 55 of the planning scheme, which relates to residential development up to 3 storeys, was amended to lower the standards and make them ‘deemed to comply’. This means that where the standard is met, the objective to the standard is automatically met. Developments that comply with the deemed to comply standards in Clause 55 are also exempt from third party appeals (objector reviews of a decision) to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Key changes to Clause 55 and 57 at the time included:
• The minimum street setback requirement reduced from 9 metres to 6 metres.
• The private open space requirement reduced from 40 square metres to 25 square metres at ground level.
• Site coverage requirements have been revised to include a sliding scale dependant on which zone the site is located (60% Neighbourhood Residential
Zone and Township Zone, 65% General Residential Zone and 70% Mixed Use Zone and the newly minted Housing Choice and Transport Zone).
• Overlooking standards no longer apply to bedroom windows.
• Options for two side and rear setback standards.
The submission will highlight the following concerns:
• Front setback changes will increase the dominance of buildings in the streetscape and reduce opportunities for tree planting in the front setback to one small or medium tree.
• 4 to 6 storey proposals are able to access a lesser street setback than 1 to 3 storey proposals. This may have a consequence of encouraging proposals with a greater height in the HCTZ compared to lower scale proposals such as townhouses.
Allowing bedroom windows to have a sole source of daylight to a light-court, instead of an external wall of the building, is considered to be a poor amenity outcome for the future occupants. It is inapt that a bedroom window is proposed to be afforded with the same level of amenity as a non-habitable room window such as a bathroom or laundry. It is considered that bedrooms should be included in Building Separation, which would improve the overall amenity of dwellings. At a minimum, daylight modelling should be required if light-courts are to be relied upon as a bedroom’s only source of daylight access
The draft mid-rise standards suggests that the proposed side and rear setback requirements effectively limits overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties, in a similar way to applying the existing overshadowing standard and protects neighbouring development opportunities. No modelling has been provided to demonstrate whether the outcome will offer less or equal protection and it is suggested that existing protection should not be reduced.
Sustainability considerations will maintain existing standards for permeability and stormwater management as well as energy efficiency. A level of documentation would be required from applicants to demonstrate compliance with cooling loads, but this would be the extent of assessment. With the operation of standards narrowing considerations, there will be a reduction in assessment of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) features in development outcomes compared to what is currently offered with planning applications. This is contrary to the ambition to elevate ESD targets and draft standards fail to recognise the opportunity to embed stronger environmental sustainability measures within mid-rise apartment development which will be raised as a concern in the submission.
However, the draft has been circulated on a confidential basis and is not available for broader distribution (Attachment 1 – confidential). It is unclear why the draft has been circulated on a confidential basis as there is nothing of a confidential nature within the code. The standards are very similar to the standards that have already been introduced to the planning scheme for other residential development types, such as the townhouse and low rise code, so there are no concepts being tested with Councils and stakeholders that are not already publicly available. Even if new concepts are being tested for stakeholder input that are potentially controversial or sensitive, that does not make the material “confidential”.
Officer’s report – 22 pages
BOROONDARA (10TH October)
The ACP’s rushed rollout and extremely compressed timeframes, the absence of evidence supporting the need for urgency, and disregard for proper planning processes – including transparent policy development and authentic consultation – have eroded public trust and accountability in its implementation
Another key methodological flaw to be highlighted is the lack of coordination and integration with other planning investigations that will have significant impact on the development capacity of the identified centres. Most notably the absence of updated flood mapping (not expected until late 2026), no provision of a comprehensive movement and place analysis and framework and no plan for place based and community infrastructure to support growth and deliver high density urban amenity.
General issues, inconsistencies and problematic outcomes include:
• Lack of justification for the density index approach to set the baseline for building heights and catchment distances as well as the methodology on how the density index was applied to centres.
• The lack of evidence (including urban design analysis and built form testing or modelling) to support the building heights across the centres.
• Lack of justification to exceed the 8 to 12-storey maximum set for Centres with a density index of 3.
• Excessive building heights resulting in overshadowing of footpaths in key locations contradicting principles of creating high quality, pedestrian-focussed public realm.
• The inconsistency in applying different building heights to adjoining sites with the same context and interface issues.
• The lack of building heights for identified strategic heights and failure to define how strategic sites were selected.
• Building heights not responding to sensitive interfaces such as low-rise heritage areas (e.g. Manningtree Road, Hawthorn).
• Applying uniform building heights across larger strategic sites where differential heights, setbacks and place-based built form response is required
Inclusion of heritage areas within the catchment. One of the most critical issues to be highlighted in the submission is the inclusion of heritage areas within the residential catchment (e.g. Grace Park Estate, Cranmore Estate and Environs amongst others). Apart from the inappropriate impact this would have on our city’s valued heritage areas, applying the inner catchment to heritage is inconsistent with DTP’s methodology described in the additional technical information and the approach taken in the pilot program. Applying a catchment growth area to any heritage area is inconsistent with the findings and recommendations of the Activity Centre (Pilot program) Standing Advisory Committee.
The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:
How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:
A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?
What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.
Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application exceeds the 8 storey limit. Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!
Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!
We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.
We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –
What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.
This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.
Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false
Social media has been busy with the Woolworths’ new plans for Selwyn Street, Elsternwick. As pointed out repeatedly, they have gone directly to the planning minister with a new application that seeks to undermine previous VCAT decisions and restore heights that had been knocked on the head years ago. In other words, if you don’t get what you want, then simply ignore the umpire’s previous decision and have another go via one single individual – the planning minister. Even worse is that such an action effectively sidelines objectors and even council.
This is hypocrisy of the highest level – especially when we consider the Woolworths’ arguments at the second VCAT hearing, which they now clearly have forgotten. At this hearing, their argument was:
The Applicant’s closing submission highlights examples of this and points out a second VCAT hearing should not be about forum shopping and relitigating previously determined matters in the hope of securing a different outcome. The Applicant also highlights that the previous Tribunal comprised experienced legal and planning members and their reasoning was considerable in explaining why particular issues were acceptable.
So these ‘experienced legal and planning members’ of VCAT, cannot now be ‘trusted’ to endorse Woolworths’ ambitions. They must be sidestepped and appealed to the planning minister in the hope of a fast tracked permit that is all for seeking a ‘different outcome’.
The only conclusions that can be drawn from these events is that our planning system is an entire mess that invariably favours developers. Council itself has been complicit in these events as its lousy planning over the years and unwillingness to take on major developments have shown – ie with the MRC, with the Virginia Estate, and now with Woolworths. It is residents who literally pay the costs of such folly and craven inaction.
Perhaps it is a little bit early to pass complete judgement, but the hope that with this new council, decision making could potentially be free from political party alignments and/or affiliations appeared to be firmly dashed on Tuesday night. The item that illustrated this in spades was the proposed 3 storey development at the corner of Halstead and Hawthorn Road in Caulfield North.
Here are some details of the application:
3 storeys, 26 dwellings of which 12 are single bedroom and 14 double bedroom
The officer report recommended a permit and the waiver of 4 onsite parking spots
The double site is 1300 square metres and just outside the Caulfield North activity centre
The area is zoned GRZ2 and is located along a main road hence no requirement for visitor parking
Prior to the item being debated, Halstead Street residents voiced their strong opposition in the public participation section of the meeting. They emphasised again and again the lack of available street parking given the close proximity to the commercial core in Hawthorn Road which meant that visitors to the shops were often forced to park in surrounding residential streets. The result, according to residents, was that Halstead street was already ‘parked out’ and made it impossible for tradies, emergency vehicles, visitors, carers, etc. to find parking near their destinations. Interestingly, only 7 properties had been notified of the application and yet there were 32 objections.
Karslake moved the motion to accept the recommendation and this was seconded by Zhang. The ‘accepting’ vote went along indisputable ‘party lines’ with Karslake, Zhang and Ragni voting in favour of the permit and Esakoff, Daniel, Szmood, Kennedy and Rimbaldo voting against. The motion was thus defeated 5 to 3. Parasol had previously declared a conflict of interest.
Once the motion to grant a permit was defeated, Esakoff presented an alternate motion that the proposed 26 units be reduced to 22, and thus the allocated parking would not involve any waivers. This was passed 6 to 2 with the opposing councillors being Karslake and Zhang. Ragni decided to vote in favour of the motion this time around.
Whatever the outcome at the presumed future VCAT hearing, the issue here is not really about the merits of the application, but whether or not certain councillors will see their role as backing state government proposals instead of firmly representing their constituents and addressing the ills of our current strategic planning.
We’ve uploaded the comments made by Karslake, Zhang and Esakoff and ask readers to carefully listen to what was said and then decide as to the credibility of the arguments. We will also comment on the officer’s report for this item in our next post.
We have repeatedly contrasted how other councils approach dealings with the State Government and how their official communications vastly differ. In Glen Eira the criticisms and dare we say ‘outrage’ is muted and practically non-existent. Nor are residents truly informed as to what is going on behind the scenes.
This post concentrates on the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan released by the State Government in August 2024. Bayside publishes its proposed submission in the current agenda. Glen Eira merely presents a ‘summary’ of what officers will draft (September 3rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain. The submissions are due on the 29th September.
Bayside does not hold back in informing residents as to what occurred. Their officer’s report states:
The VPA and DTP scheduled a meeting with officers from Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston City Councils on Wednesday 21 August, informing that Phase 2 Engagement on a Draft Plan for Moorabbin would likely occur within the coming days, and that the Draft Plan would be released to Council officers and the public at this time. On 22 August, release of the Draft Plan was made via an article in the Age
All we learn from Glen Eira via the September 3rd report is:
The State Government has released the Draft Activity Centre Plans for Moorabbin and Chadstone for comment to both Council and the public on 22 August 2024.
No mention of the indecent haste; no mention of meetings and certainly no mention of the failure to inform council and the community directly. Is this a minor oversight, an unfortunate lapse? Or does it signify Glen Eira’s refusal to even imply major criticisms of the State Government’s processes and autocratic actions?
Here are some other comments made by Bayside in their officer’s report –
Council officers are extremely disappointed in the manner that the VPA and DTP has and continues to engage on this important project. The limited time and information available to provide meaningful feedback has created significant scepticism and lack of trust in the State Government’s ability to appropriately plan or manage such projects. Specifically, the approach provides little confidence and raises significant concern about the State Governments failure to follow its own planning framework and principles of the State Governments own Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the principles for a transparent planning process. Instead, the State Government, VPA and DTP are failing to openly engage with Council or the community, presenting all parties with plans for the Moorabbin Activity Centre without any technical reports, justification for the proposed approach, or any planning provisions.
There are grave concerns that the State Government is operating on the very outskirts of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the process of this program going far beyond what orderly and proper planning seeks to achieve. (Bayside bolding)
The Activity Centres program continues the State Government’s continued erosion of the community and local government participation in the planning process. It is based on the State Governments false narrative that Councils are a critical block in the delivery of housing.
The VPA and DTP have informed Council officers that there will not be an open or transparent review process. The plan will be presented to a Standing Advisory Committee on papers only – considering submissions raised. This approach will remove any peer review or cross examination of experts. The State Government, VPA, and DTP are running a process where there is no accountability or opportunity to question their work (which has not been released to the public).
It is understood that the Activity Centre Program is a pilot program which will be used as a basis to replicate across the metropolitan area. The approach undertaken by the VPA and DTP does not provide Bayside, nor should it provide the remainer of the Local Government Sector across Victoria, with any confidence that a replicated approach could be efficiently or effectively rolled out. The localised issues and needs of communities will be different and the work undertaken has not given due regard to the community expectations.
The VPA and DTP continue to inform Bayside of the program rather than genuinely consult or collaborate which represents a lost opportunity for a collaborative approach which could genuinely achieve improved outcomes. Bayside sees the output to date by the VPA and DTP as not having any real value or improved planning outcome beyond a small uplift in building heights in the most sensitive part of the project area.
There are plenty of other statements we could have included. This officer’s report is then followed by a 25 page formal submission. If the Glen Eira submission gets to even 12 pages we will be surprised!
The Bayside submission includes discussion on:
The State Government’s abandonment of its own planning rules and processes
Whether the gov’s draft plan is in accord with the ’purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone to facilitate commercial growth.
The 3rd September Glen Eira report ignores most of the above categories. Not a word is stated in regard to: housing affordability; transport and traffic; Sustainable Design; actions/plans in accordance with the ‘purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone. Whilst the 3rd September report is supposed to be a ‘summary’ only of what will eventuate in the actual submission, its lack of coverage and detail is concerning. Of greatest concern is the overall TONE of the report. Yes, we get verbage such as ‘concern’, a token acknowledgement of the ‘community’ but nothing to match what Bayside sees as vital to full transparency and democratic process.
This isn’t simply an issue of semantics. When we have a State Government that bulldozes through ill thought out planning changes as a political escape clause to camouflage its incompetence and indifference to the housing crisis, then it is incumbent on ALL councils to stand united and to call out such incompetence in the strongest terms. Glen Eira remains the odd man out – refusing to call a spade a spade, and thereby failing in its obligations to the thousands of residents (and future residents) who will be impacted by these spurious ‘reforms’. As we’ve said before – why on earth is Glen Eira taking this course? What is really behind such mealy- mouthed responses?
Last night’s ‘debate’ on the proposed new local law/meeting procedures belongs in the annals of high melodrama. It is also an indictment of councillors who once again failed miserably to support residents by ensuring democracy is alive and well in glen Eira.
What’s Missing
Cade moved the item and introduced several amendments – all technical – but without a single word explaining the necessity for these amendments. Residents would not have a clue what these things meant.
More concerning was that no councillor mentioned the most important aspects of the proposals such as we’ve highlighted in our previous post. Of course ‘best practice’ rated a few mentions!!!!
No one commented on:
Why the banning of notice of motion 6 months out of an election
Why Glen Eira differed so dramatically from what other councils have done
Why notices of motion could not apply to council policies
Why notices of motion required 3 signatories when other councils insist on one, or two signatories
Not one single mention was made of any of these points by any speaker. And we note that most councillors were silent and simply put up their hands at the end to vote these laws in unanimously! Surely when important issues are up for decision, residents have a right to know WHY councillors vote they way they do? Even the councillor Code of Conduct requires this – ie Councillors swear that they will: represent my views truthfully and be prepared to discuss how my views were formed. This did not occur. In the end residents are the losers as councillors meekly towed the party line and handed over full control to our unelected bureaucrats.
The Melodrama
All attention was focused on the clause which would ban placards and posters being brought into council meetings. Two councillors (Karslake and Athanasopolous) voted against the local law, solely it would seem, on this basis. Athansopolous even brought props with him – a walking stick, cakes of soap, handwash, and various bits of makeup that could reside in a woman’s handbag. His claim was that any of these things could be used as projectiles and since the proposed law didn’t cover these items, that concentrating on posters was basically discriminatory and ineffectual.
We take no position on this issue. What we do expect however is that ALL aspects of the proposed laws are given the same attention as this single clause. It wasn’t.
That leaves some questions:
Did all councillors agree with ALL the clauses of the proposed law? If not, then why not comment and provide your views? If they did agree, then again, the reasons should have been forthcoming.
Is the 9 to 7 vote real or simply a camouflage? If a camouflage then what does this say about the internal operations of this council and the pressure that is put on some councillors to keep shtum? And what does it say about the way in which this administration and councillors view and treat their residents?
Last night was indeed a sad day for Glen Eira ratepayers!
The chasm between what council promises via its various policies and what actually happens is on full show with the proposed new governance and meeting procedure laws. (Item 8.3 in current agenda).
For starters, council’s Engagement Strategy tells us that residents will learn and understand how their feedback has influenced the final council decision. Here’s what page 25 of this strategy states:
Increase transparency about what the community feedback was, how it was considered and how it has influenced the decision.
Regularly publish on Council’s website what it was we wanted to know (we asked), what we heard from the community (you said), and how the feedback was used to influence Council’s decisions (we did).
The community will be able to see how their feedback has or has not influenced Council’s decisions.
Sounds great! In reality however nothing could be further from the truth. For item 8.3 of the agenda, there is not one word which explains why the views of residents were either ignored or, if genuinely considered, were rejected for inclusion in the final draft documents.
Adding further insult to injury, we have this comment in the officer’s report –
The full engagement summary report is provided as Attachment 4.
We have searched back over the past agenda items and this is the first time we have found the so called ‘engagement summary’. Adding to the confusion, it was only on the July 9th council meeting that resident responses were published. This was NOT labelled as the ‘engagement summary report’. So why has it taken until now for this ‘summary’ report to be put into the public domain? And as for the report itself it again falls well below what residents should expect in terms of objective and comprehensive reporting on resident feedback.
Item 8.3 continually refers to council following ‘best practice’. This term is mentioned 5 times in this item. On perusing the July 9th comments, one submission highlights what ‘best practice’ actually means by quoting from 6 of our surrounding councils and how they handle the notice of motion issue – Bayside, Monash, Boroondara, Kingston, Port Phillip and Stonnington. Why the final Glen Eira draft on this issue differs from ALL of these other councils is not explained or even mentioned. Residents have absolutely no idea as to why their recommendations and comments were ignored or ultimately incorporated. This practice does not adhere to the above quotes from council’s own engagement strategy!!!!!!!
Here is just one example of a resident’s views which did not eventuate in the final proposed draft. Again, no explanation as to why not!
While it may be helpful for those watching a meeting for officers to give the background to a report, if officers give the reasons for the recommendation, they are effectively debating the motion. This is not the role of officers. It should be left to the councillor moving the motion and the other councillors who support it to do this. As well as officers intruding into the role of councillors, it would also put those councillors who disagree with the recommendation, as is the absolute right of any councillor, in the awkward position of having to publicly disagree with the officer who has just spoken. This could also cause ill will on both sides, and is therefore detrimental for cohesion between officers and councillors.
Contrary to this recommendation, council proposes instead:
Before an Officer Report is considered by Council and any motion moved in relation to such report,the Chief Executive Officer may, at the invitation of the Chair, introduce the report by setting out in not more than 2 minutes: 30.1.1 its background; or 30.1.2 the reasons for any recommendation which appears.
Even more baffling and unexplained is council’s new ‘arrangements’ for a notice of motion –
Questions abound:
Why restrict notices of motion to more than 6 months out from an election? No other council we know of has done this!
Why when certain councillors have voiced public opposition to the need of 3 signatories, is this still in place?
6 ‘business days’ in effect means at least 9 days prior to a council meeting
Unclear if the officer report would be tabled at the designated council meeting or would this drag out for months until the report was written and tabled?
Why can’t a notice of motion have anything to do with council policies?
Basically, what all of the above ‘conditions’ establish is the previous iteration of the mooted local law – an officer report that would take an eternity to eventuate. Given that the purpose of a notice of motion is the ability for councillors to get something onto the agenda, especially if it is urgent, this is simply another attempt to limit the input and autonomy of councillors.
By way of contrast, please see the following from Bayside and Boroondara and the ‘restrictions’ they place on their councillors via the notice of motion issue.
There are countless other examples where the final drafts fall well short of ensuring that governance in Glen Eira meets the full standards adopted by other councils. Unless processes are spelt out fully then all remains in the hands of this administration and/or is left to the poorly defined discretion of the Mayor.
It would appear that once again residents have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As a local law that in all probability will remain untouched for the next 10 years, it binds the upcoming future councils to a set of processes that are anything but explicit, democratic, and transparent. It seems that this administration is determined to keep full control in their hands and to sideline as much as legally possible both councillors and residents!
After two months of total silence on the proposed state government housing targets, council has produced its formal submission on the matter. Readers should remember that Glen Eira has been told that its target will be 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 – that is a doubling of the current housing numbers.
The submission does highlight what most other councils have complained about – ie.lack of detail; lack of strategic justification; lack of funding for essential infrastructure; importance of open space and the failure to consult with councils and community. But, unlike other councils’ submissions which are currently available, Glen Eira in both tone and content baulks at truly trying to protect the municipality. Here’s some of what other councils had to say in their submissions.
Stonnington
The Council’s attempts to engage in meaningful consultation with the State Government to ensure that the needs of the local community are met have been largely ignored.
On behalf of its local community, Council challenges the State Government to do better in future developments, in areas such as:
• High quality design of buildings, landscaping and public realm
• On-site provision of wraparound services to support community wellbeing
• the significant impacts to existing public facilities on which current and future residents will rely (for instance overshadowing of open space and recreation facilities)
• sufficient provision of useable, activated and safe open space and on-site amenity relative to the increase in population
• Embed decision-making processes that respond to site context, elevate sustainable design and value the voice of all stakeholders; increasing rigour through efficient and transparent planning approval processes, and at its core, the delivery of long term sustainable housing and services that are fit-for-purpose and support residents to thrive in the community.
Bayside
Council has grave concerns about the draft housing target for Bayside. The target of 31,000 additional homes has the potential to irrevocably change Bayside’s character and undermine the strategic planning framework that has been put in place tomanage and facilitate growth, whilst maintaining the liveability and character of themunicipality.
Council is concerned about the preparation, and release, of housing targets which vastly contradict current planning with no engagement with Councils, community or industry bodies. Furthermore, releasing these targets directly to the media without engagement or warning to industry bodies further fuels unnecessary concern in the community
Frankston
While Metropolitan and Major Activity Centres are locations identified for change and growth, the right balance must be struck to ensure that strategic planning for these centres ensures the right outcomes. It is important that development, open space and streets have access to sunlight, that built form is responsive to its environment, streets are of a human scale and that these centres remain liveable – the very essence of Melbourne, ‘the world’s most liveable city’.
Hobson’s Bay
The current Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and its zones and overlays for the municipality, based on the Housing Capacity assessment from 2019, has a significantly lower capacity than the State’s June 2024 draft Housing Targets and at present, the Housing Targets cannot be accommodated in Hobsons Bay
The best that Glen Eira can come up with is – The submission argues that the housing targets of 65,000 additional new dwellings for Glen Eira should be revised down to 55,000 to reflect the capacity identified in Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy 2022. The Housing Strategy was underpinned by detailed neighbourhood character assessments and a housing capacity and demand analysis as well as extensive community consultation.
No real mention in the Glen Eira submission of: neighbourhood character, sunlight, or flooding risk (council’s overlays date back to 2005!!!!). Again, readers should remember that the Housing Strategy was voted in by the skin of its teeth and as far as consultation goes this was nothing but a sham when over 110 people attended a meeting at the town hall and voiced various objections. This did not even rate a mention in the summary report. Council also refused to release the community surveys. All we got was a bogus ‘summary report’.
Whilst council might not agree with 65,000 new dwellings, they are happy with 55,000 arguing that this is based on the ‘capacity’ analysis which accompanied the Housing Strategy. Several points need to be borne in mind here:
The capacity analysis was completed in 2021. How many sites have now been developed in the last three years which reduce the figure of 55,000?
What is totally ignored and unstated in the council submission is that the capacity analyses that landed on the figure of 55,000 was Scenario 3 which mooted the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for all 7000+ properties zoned GRZ. The subsequent amendment decided against this move. Hence, there is less land available for development and certainly less than the cited 55,000.
When the analysis was done, not all of the subsequent heritage listed properties were done, dusted, and gazetted. Several amendments are still waiting to be gazetted. Again, this removes the ability to increase units per site and is again ignored in the latest council document.
To settle on a figure of 55,000 as suitable and appropriate is literally mind boggling and strategically impossible to justify given all the above.
To base planning completely on a fictional housing capacity figure as the state government insists upon is untenable. If this were the case, then in all probability most councils could have capacity for 100,000 new dwellings. It would be easy to achieve by simply allowing towers of 20 to 30 storeys in all activity centres and ignoring the environment, heritage, required infrastructure, and the contentious issue of ‘neighbourhood character’. Even a ‘reduction’ to 55,000 as council has done would spell disaster for many of our suburbs.
WHAT DOES THE SUBMISSION SAY?
On some of the most important issues Glen Eira sticks to the current pro-development ideology. Here are some of them –
Social/Affordable housing
Instead of fully supporting the introduction of a MANDATORY aspect to the provision of social/affordable housing, Glen Eira instead argues:
….Council cautions against introducing a system that makes all new housing more expensive to subsidise affordable housing and one that potentially makes it even more difficult to build new housing in a climate where land and construction costs are already very expensive.
In other words, nothing should be mandatory. Compare this approach to some of the other councils’ submissions –
Frankston – An easier, mandatory affordable housing mechanism must be considered as part of the Plan for Victoria, prioritising locations that are close to services, jobs and transport and in locations where there is a cluster of key workers, such as a health and education precinct.
Moonee Valley – argues for Mandatory planning controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions to deliver social and affordable housing at scale.
Mandatory controls versus the current ‘performance based’ process
It would appear that for Glen Eira mandatory controls should be severely limited. Again, this flies in the face of what other councils have put forward. In terms of deciding planning applications, Glen Eira comes down firmly on the side of ‘let’s have flexibility’ and let planning officers decide rather than adhering to mandatory/ prescriptive standards. Here’s how this is argued:
Council’s urban planners do an excellent job in negotiating improved outcomes on developments, and while some of what they do could be codified, their work sees better outcomes than if much of what they do were to be codified.
In other words, ‘we don’t want mandatory standards’ where it might impact on developers!!!!! Is this why these officers are incapable of ensuring more than a 5% social housing component, or a paltry 150 such dwellings in a yield of 3000+ for the Virginia Estate project? Why can other councils ‘negotiate’ up to 20% for a social housing component?
Data Presented in the Glen Eira Submission
Featured prominently in the Glen Eira document are several tables including the number of permits granted, as well as dwellings completed in various years. We take issue with what is presented and ask: is the divergence from publically available data deliberate? Where are the explanations for how this data has been compiled and accounted for?
Here are two tables where the figures are so skewed it is truly remarkable.
The first table is supposed to tell us how many developments of 10 or more dwellings were either completed, underway, or not yet started between 2018-2023. There is no breakdown of year to year. We have resorted to the state government’s Urban Design Development program which is based on data presented by council. This site presents what has been completed, or under construction, or ‘firm’ (ie with a permit) for various years. See: https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/udpmap/
We have concentrated solely on the results for 2022. According the map share data, the ‘completion’ rate is well above council’s claim of only 16 for a 5 year period. We have only bothered to look at some of the areas and our totals are well and truly above what council claims. Here is a shortened list for 2022 alone. We did not bother to go through other years ‘completion’ rates! If for simply one single year there have been at least 14 completed projects, then how on earth can council claim THAT FOR A 5 YEAR PERIOD THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 16?
1.111 Normanby Road, Caulfield North – 283 dwellings
45-47 Kangaroo Road, Murrumbeena – 15 dwellings
The second council table is also open to query.
This is supposed to tell us how many permits were granted for 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. dwellings. We are told that for the year 2023, only ONE permit was granted for 5 dwellings. Then why does council’s own planning register reveal that there have been at least 3 such permits granted. Here are the addresses and the dates permits were granted – all according to the online planning register –
All of this brings us to the central question: If we can’t trust council data, then how on earth can we trust their decision making? Or is all data simply geared to producing one single desired result? Who is accountable for this?
This has been an extremely long post for which we beg indulgence from our readers. However, it does go to the heart of what we believe is wrong in Glen Eira. Namely:
A refusal to take a far more critical and public stand against government policy as countless other councils continue to do
The continued publication of data that is both suspect and misleading and proffered as absolute ‘fact’
The continued preference to leave ‘control’ basically in the hands of officers, rather than see the introduction of essential mandatory standards
The failure to introduce any processes that can benefit the community – ie developer contribution levies, as well as opting for more than 5% for a social housing component in all major projects
Until residents can have absolute trust in this administration, or in councillors that are truly fulfilling their roles of oversight, questioning, and listening to the community, we will continue along this same path that ignores all that the community has stated again and again is fundamental to its ‘liveability’.
At last week’s council meeting councillors unanimously resolved to seek ministerial approval to advertise the Caulfield Major Activity Centre amendment. To refresh our memory here is some of the history surrounding this issue:
The final structure plan was decided in September 2022 and scraped through on the casting vote of Magee – as has happened with several other major structure plans. Those voting against the plan were Esakoff, Zyngier, Pennicuik and Szmood. Concerns included the proposed heights, the activity centre zoning, parking, etc. The final resolution accepted: one 20 storey height and other precincts ranging up to 12 storeys. All heights were discretionary with none cited as mandatory.
8 storey preferred height above heritage in Derby Road
The accompanying background document from the first version of the structure plan by Charter, Keck and Kramer stated that the various precincts would house 8700 new residents and that the vast majority of new dwellings would consist of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.
So what has changed to have the four previously opposing councillors now voting unanimously for the draft proposals? Nothing we believe has really changed and the proposed schedule to the new Activity Centre zone falls far short of dealing with the concerns of both residents and the four councillors previously named.
If we examine the schedule closely we find:
A paltry 5% for every 20 dwellings to be social/affordable housing. When you are anticipating around 4000+ net new dwelling that makes it only 200 of these residences. Pathetic – especially when we are told time and again how lacking in social/affordable housing this municipality is.
No mention of overshadowing and sunlight requirements for open space and/or surrounding properties.
Reduction in car parking requirements
No consideration of the impact on existing and proposed new open space with the substantial mooted increase in population.
Review rights ONLY if the nominated heights and/or setbacks are exceeded in upcoming proposals. Even this is not across the board but only for specific precincts. It basically means that the proposed heights are now a given. Furthermore development plans only have to be advertised ‘for public comment’ and council is required to consider them rather than allow formal objections.
The schedule repeatedly mentions ‘diversity’ of dwellings, yet we know that the forecast is for over 90% to be single and 2 bedroom high rise apartments.
No mandatory height limit or setback requirements
As with everything this council does we have the magical get out of jail phrase of ‘where appropriate’ added to the objectives for decent landscaping and parking.The sentence which best sums up this nonsense is: To encourage the retention and enhancement of existing mature vegetation where appropriate.
Once again we find the phrase ‘generally in accordance’ with any future development plan. As we’ve seen with Caulfield Village this isn’t worth the paper it’s written on given that the Incorporated Plan nominated 1100 net new dwellings. Once finished Caulfield Village will exceed 2000! It is carte blanche once again for the MRC when we find the following sentence included in the schedule – Where there is an inconsistency between a provision of this schedule and the development plan, the provisions of the development plan prevail.
Activity Centre Zones (ACZ)
This is the first ACZ zone to be introduced into Glen Eira. It is therefore important to understand and compare what other councils have achieved with similar zoning. Below we feature the gazetted (ie approved) schedules that other councils have achieved in the past 20 months. We quote verbatim from the various schedules and simply ask – why don’t these conditions also apply in Glen Eira?
BANYULE – amendment C162 November 2022
Overshadowing and Pedestrian Amenity
Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the defined Solar Access Area shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3. Generally, buildings should not overshadow the footpath on the south side of this part of the Main Street between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.
Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the Town Square as shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3 between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.
DAREBIN – Amendment C182 – August 2023
The agreement must provide for an Affordable Housing Contribution defined as:
1. The transfer of land that has the demonstrated capacity to support the development of 10 per cent of the site’s total residential yield as affordable housing dwellings, to a registered housing agency at nil consideration for the Agency to develop and rent and/or sell completed dwellings to eligible households. An average 65 square metres /unit is proposed to be used to calculate the amount of land to be provided; or 2. 6 per cent of dwellings provided at 30 per cent discount to a registered housing agency;
Street wall height requirements
Street wall heights must not exceed the maximum measurements specified in clause 5.0 of this schedule
Overshadowing requirements for public open space
Development must not overshadow:
– more than 50 per cent of the primary public open space within the precinct between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.
– Any part of the Preston City Oval (playing surface and surrounding open spaces) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.
– Areas of the public open space north of the Preston City Oval playing surface to the southern edge of the inner footpath and south side of Cramer Street (including the barbeque/picnic area in the north-eastern corner) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June
Moonee Valley – Amendment c207 – January 2022
Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on September 22 to open spaces and streets identified with a spring equinox solar control on relevant precinct maps. The spring equinox solar controls apply to the length of the southern footpath on Holmes Road, Puckle Street and Alexandra Avenue, measured from the property boundary to the existing kerb. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.
Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on June 21 to open spaces identified with a winter solstice solar control on relevant precinct maps. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.
A permit cannot be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in Table 1.
Table 1 – Mandatory building heights
Sub-Precinct
Mandatory maximum building height (excluding basement)
9A
20 metres
9C
11 metres
9E
14 metres
9H
32 metres
Geelong – Amendment C431 – March 2023
Table 8. Mandatory overshadowing requirements for existing and proposed public open space and the proposed Geelong Station Forecourt.
Austin Park
Johnstone Park
Customs Park
Transvaal Square
Steampacket Gardens
No additional overshadowing. 10am-3pm 22 June
Proposed open space
Proposed Geelong Station Forecourt
No additional overshadowing beyond a shadow that would be cast by a wall on a boundary of not more than 8 metres. 10am-3pm 22 June
Conclusion
So we now wait for the formal consent to advertise this draft. It will head off to a planning panel where the chances of residents’ concerns being addressed and ameliorated will be minimal. That is what invariably happens once structure plans scrape through by the skin of their teeth and councillors permit sub-standard planning to end up at planning panels. This whole exercise is merely another example of how little Glen Eira council is prepared to say ‘no’ to anything associated with the Melbourne Racing Club.
Glen Eira Debates 