Glen Eira Debates

If one counts the number of times that various councillors used the phrase ‘better controls’ or ‘better managed growth’ or ‘better planning’  in terms of the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan, one should conclude that the draft is god’s gift to planning acumen and a truly wonderful improvement for residents. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We do currently have interim controls via a Design & Development Overlay in Bentleigh that will not expire until December 31^st, 2024. Whilst Amendment C228 changed the DDO to only include the commercial and mixed use, it begs the question of why the current draft structure plan sees fit to include some residential rezonings in its borders. Surely this flies in the face of Amendment c228? Regardless of this anomaly, the existing DDO still represents a vast improvement on what is currently proposed. It stipulates:

• Mandatory height controls along all of Centre Road
• Lower heights in metres for equivalent number of storeys to what is now proposed
• Far greater setbacks than in the current draft for certain conditions

Here is what the existing DDO consists of:

Readers will see: Nothing above 5 storeys. The current version is up to 8 storeys DISCRETIONARY

To therefore argue that the current draft structure plan will provide ‘better controls’ is beyond belief. Nor is it acceptable to argue that without rear setbacks for commercial sites that are not heritage listed that abutting heritage places will be better protected – as Athanasopolous would like us to believe.

So what has changed in the space of 15 months? Why is council so gung-ho on creating strategies that are far, far worse than what currently exist? What communication has taken place between officers and the department? Were councillors ever present at these meetings, or have they been privy to any of the communications? Why aren’t such communications made public or, at the very least, a report on what has taken place in such meetings?

Even if we accept that population will increase by approx 2000 over the next 15 years, how does this justify the proposed changes? And what guarantee is there that with increased apartments there will be more affordable housing? According to the latest census results, we already have 9+% of dwellings standing vacant across the municipality. Why? Are these properties that are already too expensive? Owned by foreign investors? Land banking until prices rise by developers?

No councillor at Tuesday night’s meeting had the courage to state the bleeding obvious! Zhang went on about how wonderful it was that streets currently zoned as RGZ (4 storeys) would now be reduced to 2 storeys because they are in a heritage overlay. She of course doesn’t mention how many four storey developments already exist in these streets, nor how many sites will be ‘upgraded’ to go from 2 storeys to 3 and 4 storey heights. When these are added up, they far exceed the number of properties that have had a reduction in height! What this also reveals is that the original introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster. No area under a heritage overlay should have been zoned for 4 storeys. And neither should all those properties that lie in the flood plain (SBO overlay) been zoned for three storeys or even included in the borders of the activity centre. . Of course, this was all ignored by the ‘guru’ of planning (Akehurst) and his complicit councillors!

The machinations and inconsistencies of this planning department continue unabated. There are numerous allusions to a ‘transport and assessment’ study and potential resulting actions. This document has not been made available and we doubt that even councillors have been provided with the opportunity to clap eyes on it. So once again, councillors are forced to make decisions without having all the information at their fingertips.  The inconsistency is that for the Elsternwick structure plan, there was an accompanying traffic report. Why the difference? It simply is not good enough that residents will have all the requisite information only when the formal amendment is advertised. This approach entirely invalidates any attempt at genuine consultation. If other councils such as Port Phillip can publish all their documentation at the first stage of consultation, we see no reason why Glen Eira can’t – except of course to keep the plebs (and councillors?) as ignorant as possible until it is too late.

Much has to change in Glen Eira if this council is to live up to its stated charter of full ‘transparency’ and accountability.

PS: To put some historical perspective onto what’s been happening in Bentleigh, we’ve revisited an important VCAT decision (17th October, 2017) which granted a permit for a 7 storey development in Centre Road.

What’s fascinating about this decision, isn’t so much the outcome, but the arguments presented by the Council rep. The application was refused by council and thus ended up at VCAT. We quote verbatim what council had to say to support its refusal –

It was further put that guidelines relating to setbacks, height and amenity create further impetus to provide a more sensitive transition between the review site and the surrounding residential hinterland. Council put that Objective 5.1.2(a) of the Urban Design Guidelines seeks ‘To ensure the activity centre provides a graduated transition between different building scales and uses’. It was further put that it is Council’s view that the emphasis on the transitional role of buildings at the edge of an activity centre is greater in the Urban Design Guidelines.

·  However, Council put to us that the proposed development is inappropriate at seven storeys because of the limitations imposed on the site due to the adjoining residential hinterland, the provisions of the DDO8 and the height and scale of development on the immediately abutting land.

·  We make the observation that when assessed against broad strategic policies, the site is well located for redevelopment. However, Council put that the proposed development is in conflict with the vision of the DDO8 which establishes a preferred height of 5 storeys.

Council further submitted that the proposed development exceeds the maximum preferred height by 2 storeys and over 5 metres.

fails to perform a transitional function, which will necessarily cause a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1656.html?context=1;query=centre%20road%20bentleigh;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT

COMMENTS: So, in 2017 council was concerned about ‘transition’ – especially to the residential areas. With the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan this has gone out the window, where there is no problem with a potential 5 storey (and more if exceeding the preferred heights) of ‘transition’. How laughable! Furthermore, council’s preferred maximum height of 5 storeys has also gone out the winder by 2 storeys. That’s what ‘discretionary’ heights can produce!

Appropriate transitions remain relevant in all planning. In Glen Eira and with this draft, this no longer appears to be the case.

The following audio is taken from last night’s council meeting where once again the council was split in voting 5 to 4 to send the draft structure plan out for consultation. There were many criticisms of the current draft, plus some fear mongering from certain councillors and the administration. The final vote was – AGAINST: Esakoff, Szmood, Zyngier, Pennicuik. Those who voted FOR were: Cade, Zhang, Athanasopolous, Magee and Parasol. We note that not for the first time, Parasol did not utter a word as to the reasoning behind his vote. He simply put up his hand.

Here is what one resident had to say about the draft and its unbelievable shortcomings:

We will comment more fully on what transpired in discussion on this item in the days ahead.

PS: In the above audio, Torres tried to negate the potential for a ten storey development by referring to the ‘setbacks’. What he doesn’t state is that rear setbacks for commercial dwellings backing on to heritage areas are NOT MANDATORY. They are DISCRETIONARY – and we all know how little control DISCRETIONARY provides!

Our apologies for this incredibly long post, but its importance we believe justifies the length since it goes to the heart of what constitutes full transparency and accountability and council’s unwillingness to be completely up front with its residents.

In keeping with its recent practice of refusing to publish the full feedback on its consultations, council has released its ‘summary’ on the draft Elsternwick Structure Plan. In the report we find little that would convince us that the presented analyses reveals an accurate and complete picture of what respondents wrote. So why is council insisting on mere ‘summaries’ rather than publishing the full data as it has done on numerous previous occasions. Why is council fighting tooth and nail to refuse FOI access on its bogus claims that requested documents are ‘voluminous’ and meeting the application would entail a severe imposition on council resources? The refusal to allow residents to come to their own conclusions as to the feedback can only lead to the perception that there is much to hide.

The summary report listed in the current agenda consists of 25 pages. Within these pages we find the following frequency of terminology used to report on the outcomes. Words such as ‘several’, ‘many’ and ‘some’ in relation to respondent answers are used without any clear indication of what was actually stated or the nuances and variations between respondent comments. The frequency in relation to respondent comments is:

Several – used 8 times

Many – used 21 times

Some – used 18 times

Another telling example of the inadequacy of the report comes from page 4 –

Many respondents supported protection of the centre’s heritage and were often concerned that increased built form would deteriorate the centre’s heritage value and village feel. Some participants considered the general lowering of permitted building heights to be the appropriate response.

What is the numerical difference between ‘many’ and ‘some’?  Does the differentiation between the ‘many’ and ‘some’ indicate that the ‘many’ were not supportive of a decrease in height limits or that this was simply not mentioned? Did any of the responses really affirm or agree that Elsternwick has a ‘village feel’ or is this simply terminology assigned by the authors of the report?  And how should ‘increased built form’ be interpreted anyway? Does it refer to the paltry set backs? The heights? Their discretionary nature instead of mandatory, or their overshadowing potential? Ultimately such statements are meaningless and certainly open to a multitude of interpretations. Without access to the actual comments, there is no way of telling and according credibility and value to the summary report.

We also have to take issue with the manner that the so called topics are presented and their accompanying tables purporting to reveal the ensuing ‘themes’.  The survey questions focused on topics predetermined by council such as: vision and objectives; heritage; traffic; etc. Accompanying each topic, respondents had the choice of downloading what one can only assume to be information that would provide greater understanding of the topic. We repeat some of the comments we made in an earlier post (See: https://gleneira.blog/2022/11/04/elsternwick-another-shonky-consultation/) –

• The draft structure plan proposes to allow up to 6 storeys for heritage listed sites along Glen Huntly Road. Not once is this mentioned throughout the document that is supposed to provide respondents with information on this important aspect of the structure plan.
• Jargon predominates. What on earth does ‘rich materiality’ mean and how would respondents interpret this?
• Why aren’t we told that the heritage listed church is likely to be surrounded by 12 storey towers? And yet, given the above, we are still meant to believe that council  takes great care to ensure the heritage fabric of Elsternwick is protected

As for the accompanying table on the vision and objective question we find this:

The above table reveals absolutely nothing about the views for or against – ie how many were opposed to the proposed building heights and how many were arguing for increased building heights or perhaps that the proposed heights were appropriate? Simply providing the number of times something was mentioned does nothing to convey what the community thought and how this was expressed in the feedback.

The value of any survey is 100% dependent on the quality of the questions asked. Are the questions open-ended and objective, or written with a specific end in mind? Are they free of ambiguity? Are they mere motherhood statements that would be hard to disagree with? Are respondents provided with enough specific detail to respond meaningfully, or do they have to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to glean what is really proposed? How many respondents have actually bothered to do this if details are buried and does this potential lack of knowledge invalidate their answers? Council’s approach has always been to proffer questions that are nothing more than feel good statements, or rhetorical flourishes that no-one would or could disagree with. For example: the significance of heritage and the need for protection.  Yes, residents would agree with the importance of protecting heritage, but does this then lead to the ‘support’ of what is proposed – especially when the mechanisms for achieving this aim are so vague and ill defined.

How many of these surveys are road tested prior to being inflicted on the community? Were there focus groups prior? Were their responses analysed? Did councillors have any say in the creation of these questions? What about the Community Consultation Committee? And who actually drafted the questions?  

And how well has council advertised its surveys and their significance and ramifications? What follow up has council undertaken to analyse what could be considered as poor response rates? Did council really attempt to engender a huge response or the reverse – ie downplay the significance of the consultation? For the Elsternwick Structure Plan we are told that there were articles in the Glen Eira News informing residents of the consultation. The claim is that information was present in the November and December editions. The first screen dump is what appeared in the November issue followed by the December insert that came in on page 9.

The above calls for participation leave a lot to be desired. Instead of ‘facts’ such as: proposed heights; rezoning of some properties; onsite car parking reductions and of course open space/environmental proposals, there is nothing in this first article that would provide residents with a clear vision of what the proposals entail. Nor does the December version elaborate on anything further. And is it sheer coincidence that the inserted photograph only features 2 storeys along Glen Huntly Road, instead of the monsters that are already in existence? Jargon, generalities, and platitudes epitomise the article instead of the transmission of real information. And when will council refrain from such nonsense as calling Elsternwick a ‘village’ when we already have 13 storey buildings going up!!!!

There are countless errors (falsehoods/deceptions?) in much of what council has presented in the accompanying ‘information’ sheets. For example the following image from the Buildings document showing the montage of what a 5 storey height might look like. Even if we accept the accuracy of this image (which we believe is highly suspect) it does not explain why council chose NOT TO DEPICT the opposite side of the street that has a 6 storey discretionary height limit as well as the neighbouring properties further up along this side of Glen Huntly Road that are also under heritage overlays.

Despite all this, council has been forced to reveal that on a ratio of close to 2:1 residents were opposed to most of what the draft structure plan envisioned. What happens now should be of utmost concern to all residents, especially in Elsternwick and Bentleigh. Will councillors insist that this draft goes back to the drawing board? Or will we merely have a minor tinkering around the edges and it is voted through? When something is so strongly opposed then the only solution should be that councillors listen and act in accordance with community sentiment!

We continue to be appalled at the manner in which this council conducts its business and its total disregard for residents and their views. The latest example comes in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting and involves the Inkerman Road ‘Safe cycling corridor’.

Some preliminary observations:

• The item consists of 510 pages out of a 1309 page agenda
• The agenda was published around 10am on Friday morning – literally 4 days before the council decision (and this includes a weekend) – hardly enough time to read, digest, analyse, and comment by residents. Some of the associated documents date from August 2022 whilst one is from April 2022. Why couldn’t these have been published earlier so that residents can get their heads around them? When were councillors themselves provided with access to these documents?
• From a very brief scan of the associated documents, nothing is definitive and recommendation after recommendation includes the need for further research once the project is given the go ahead – despite the plethora of caveat after caveat stating how difficult it is to provide real data and projections for increased cycling numbers, etc.  Nor do we know how much all of these consultant reports cost!

What is the most staggering aspect of this item is the following recommendation:

That Council:

1. Adopts Option 2 (Attachment 3) as the preferred corridor design for the purpose of community consultation, once the following pre-conditions have been met:

a) Funding to deliver the project is confirmed through Council’s future budget allocation process.

b) The City of Port Phillip resolves to proceed to wider community engagement on its section of Inkerman Road / Street.

2. No further design work and/or community consultation is to commence until pre-condition a) and b) have been met.

3. Informs community and stakeholders of Council’s resolution.

COMMENT

• Why on earth would you commit council to an estimated expenditure of $14M+ before you undertake further (and hopefully genuine) community consultation on the actual options provided?
• If voted in, then what impact on other projects does the $14M have? What would be abandoned or delayed – especially if no state or federal funding was received?

WHAT WE ARE TOLD

• Option 2 is preferred even though it means that only 47% of current car parking will be retained. How many car parking spots will thus be lost?
• Currently the estimated average daily cycle numbers for the Glen Eira sections equals 163 cyclists. The claim is that the increase in cyclists would fall ‘somewhere’ between 84% – 207%. Hell of a range forecast upon which to spend $14+M!!!!!!! and we’re even told that estimating cycling demand is exceptionally difficult
• In terms of cycling instead of using the car the result is likely to be only about 6-8%!

Even if the number of cyclists along this stretch of road increased to 800 per day, that is still an expenditure of $17,500 per cyclist!!!! Nor is there any guarantee that this is money well spent in terms of overall safety – ie

The Independent Safety Review found that for both design Option 1 and 2, due to the bi-directional bicycle lane, there are expected risks for cyclists given the high number of intersecting driveway crossovers on the south side of Inkerman Road, largely applicable to westbound cyclists as departing vehicles may not expect a cyclist to arrive from this direction.

To address this the design includes the provision of bicycle line markings and surface treatments at the crossovers which serves to advise the presence of bicycle lanes. With the report concluding, “nonetheless, the prevailing issue is the unexpected arrival of a bicycle in the eastbound direction. As a primarily residential area, it is anticipated long-term residents will quickly adapt to the proposed design, and the risk associated with this item will reduce over time”.

On a wing and a prayer the above quote, rather than any assurance that in the early stages cyclists and motorists will be ‘safer’!!!!!

CONCLUSION

Glen Eira City Council is clearly addicted to grandiose projects that cost the earth and will look good on certain CVs. Whether or not the projects represent real value for money, or even achieve the desired outcomes is seemingly immaterial. All that matters is that agendas are rammed through and virtue signalling becomes the modus operandi for all council decisions.

Finally, we very much doubt that this important item is listed at the end of the obscenely long agenda by accident. What that means is that there will probably be very little time for ‘robust’ debate/discussion!!!!!