We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
For years now we have been highlighting the fact that Glen Eira City Council is the only council in the state which continues to fail its residents by not implementing governance rules which allow:
A fair dinkum Notice of Motion. In Glen Eira the Clayton’s Notice of Motion only applies to the removal of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. It does not allow any councillor to present an item for public debate at the next council meeting. Some councillors have argued that a Request for a report is adequate/sufficient and will avoid poor decision making because this involves the receipt of an officer’s report. Well, so does a Notice of Motion!!!!! Furthermore, given this council’s history it can take up to 6 months for this request for a report to materialise!
Dissent from the Chair. Recent times have seen numerous occasions where the Mayor has simply gagged robust debate. The existing governance rules permit the Mayor to be the final arbiter on all decisions relating to the conduct of the meeting. He alone decides. Last council meeting was a perfect example of how contrary to true democratic process this was.
Rescission of resolution. Without such a clause in council’s governance rules, once something is voted in by a majority it stands for all time since there is no capacity to rescind this motion. Of course, in the past, this council has suddenly developed corporate amnesia and ignored its previous resolutions and introduced a completely new and contradictory motion – making a mockery of the very notion of good governance.
We’ve therefore taken the time and trouble to revisit the issue of governance laws, since all councils were mandated to review their meeting procedures with the introduction of the 2020 Local Government Act. Here was the perfect opportunity to change the culture of this council, and to empower councillors to really rule in the best interests of their constituents. This didn’t happen of course.
The following table illustrates perfectly how out of line Glen Eira is when compared to every other council in the state. We were unable to view 3 other councils’ governance rules: one link wasn’t working and 2 others were in the process of reviewing their rules. So please consider this table and how far out of kilter Glen Eira is in terms of true democratic process.
The minutes from Tuesday’s council meeting are now available and once again we have to despair at the inaccuracy of what these minutes contain in relation to the Elsternwick Structure Plan. All we can conclude is that these minutes represent nothing more than incompetency or a deliberate attempt to distort what will become the historical record – and thus save council from both embarrassment and the admission that proper governance was not followed.
With the Penniciuk declaration of a conflict of interest the minutes state: It is recorded that Cr Pennicuik declared a Conflict of Interest and vacated the Chamber at the commencement of item 8.2 at 8:50pm
Penniciuk DID NOT leave the chamber at the ‘commencement’ of the item. She left following Cade’s reading out of the proposed amendment.
Whilst we might haggle over what ‘commencement’ means, council’s governance rules contain no ambiguity . Below are the relevant pages from the governance document.
Please note in the above how they interpret WHEN such a declaration is to be made. Secondly we assume that the item was also discussed at the pre-council records of assembly. We can only assume that no declaration was made then and certainly not at the start of the ensuing council meeting. If there is in fact a genuine ‘conflict of interest’ (which we doubt) then council is in contravention of its own governance requirements! What irks us the most is that unless corrected, these minutes provide the illusion that everything was carried out properly and in accordance with the rules. It wasn’t and thus an accurate set of minutes is vital to preserve the historical record for the future.
Last night’s debate on the Elsternwick structure plan would have made Machiavelli proud in terms of the chicanery that was enacted. This council has reached the nadir of good governance and accountability and obviously has no compunction in employing every dirty trick it can to further its agenda. Here are some of the lowlights of what happened.
Out of the blue a note suddenly materialised and was presented to Magee stating that Pennicuik had a ‘conflict of interest’. Who wrote the note, and when it was written remains undisclosed. Interesting, because when Magee asked for any conflicts of interests at the start of the meeting, there were none. Suddenly we get the Pennicuik one. The consequence of this was that only 8 councillors were permitted to vote and Magee therefore had a second, casting vote. A number of questions arise as a result. If this was a genuine conflict of interest (which we doubt) then why was Pennicuik permitted to vote previously on anything to do with this structure plan? And if it is a genuine conflict of interest, then why don’t the same principles and standards apply to Athanasopolous’ voting when it comes to Carnegie and the business he runs there? Does this mean that any councillor who owns a property in an area cannot be involved in decision making for that area and thus can’t represent his constituents? It is ludicrous that this is the standard that Glen Eira chooses to implement – but only when it suits of course!!!!!
Every effort was made by Magee to silence Cr Zyngier on numerous occasions, especially when he queried the accuracy of the data that the officers had provided to consultants and which all had a significant impact on the consultants’ ensuing recommendations.
Torres continues to mislead this council and it can only be deliberate. For example: when discussing the difficulty of enshrining winter solstice standards into the planning scheme, Torres also referred to council’s reliance on ResCode. What he does not say cannot be seen as an oversight since he knows full well that ResCode DOES NOT APPLY to buildings that are above 5 storeys. The issue here is 6 storey and higher buildings on Glen Huntly Road. ResCode is entirely irrelevant!!!!!
The gallery was told several times that there were several alternate amendment motions. Why it was the Cade amendment that was heard first (and thus was voted in on Magee’s casting vote, instead of the Zyngier proposal) raises further questions of manipulation to achieve the desired outcome. There was literally not even a nano-second, or pause for breath, between Magee asking for a motion and then immediately calling on Cade! Pre-arranged? You bet!!!!!There is no way that this could be seen as anything other than backroom orchestration designed to prevent the Zyngier proposed amendment!
At one point Zyngier attempted to prevent the removal of Pennicuik, by proposing a ‘friendly amendment’. He suggested that 509 Glen Huntly Road be removed from the Cade amendment, which was the property causing the alleged conflict of interest. We note that 509 is: (1) a block of apartments; (2) it is not listed as a ‘significant’ heritage building and is very unlikely to be demolished and have a six storey dwelling erected in its place because of the sheer number of apartments and presumably individual owners.
Here is what it looks like:
Magee ruled that this was NOT a ‘friendly amendment’ since it is an ‘alternate’ recommendation! Further, he ruled that both the mover and seconder did not accept this – YET THEY WERE NEVER DIRECTLY ASKED WHETHER THEY WOULD ACCEPT THIS as is the normal custom. He simply made the decision to discount Zyngier’s attempt with the lamest of excuses! Furthermore council’s own governance rules state the following in regard to ‘friendly motions’ –
Clause 38(2): A friendly revision of a Motion may propose to alter a Motion by leaving out, inserting or adding words which complement the Motion.
The aim of last night’s meeting was to achieve by hook or by crook the ratification of the Cade amendment. It was designed to prevent council taking a position on protecting sunlight to the southern side of Glen Huntly Road because this would further limit the heights of development on the northern side. For all the rhetoric of giving a damn about heritage, and the ‘village feel’ of Elsternwick, the Cade amendment revealed how little council cares about these issues. 12 storeys still remains, and that’s supposed to be in line with the ‘village’ atmosphere. And we are supposed to take comfort in the fact that a 6 metre setback will now be sufficient to avoid additional overshadowing when no documentation/evidence has been supplied to justify this claim.
Residents need to hold such manoeuvring and councillors to account. We have a mayor whose only function appears to be to steam roll through anything that the planning department puts in front of him. It is indeed a very sad day for Glen Eira residents because this sets the precedent for Bentleigh, for Carnegie, and for every activity centre in the municipality.
Please listen very, very carefully to the following audio of the ‘debate’ and note Magee’s actions and words throughout this item.
Council has released its revised structure plan for Elsternwick.
Here is what is now envisaged. Please note carefully the proposed heights (remembering that many are discretionary) and ask yourselves why the height in metres has increased dramatically from the current interim Design & Development overlay.
As expected, what we now have is nothing more than some minor tinkering from what was initially proposed. Despite the majority of community feedback opposed to the suggested (discretionary) heights, the need for sunlight on southern footpaths at the winter solstice, and the lack of sufficient open space, Council has seen fit to ignore all of these concerns. We still have:
No change to suggested building heights along Glen Huntly Road
No protection of southern footpaths at the winter solstice
Instead, council has simply changed some of the upper level setbacks for (some) heritage sites from 5 metres to 6 metres. Of course, we are not provided with any specifics or ‘evidence’ as to how this change will impact on overshadowing – especially to the southern side of Glen Huntly Road. We are supposed to take council at its word!
Yes, some originally proposed heights have been reduced – ie Horne Street from 12 storeys down to 8 storeys (discretionary). But they back onto Ross Street which is a tiny, narrow street consisting primarily of single storey homes. As with Bentleigh, council sees nothing wrong with having towers abutting single storey properties. This isn’t planning. It is literally a ‘f-ck you’ to residents!
The officer’s report makes the above sentiment absolutely clear when we are told the following:
The report outlines the revisions to the final structure plan in response to community comments, however there are components of the draft plan which remain unchanged. The consultation outcomes identified that proposed building heights were of concern for some but whilst making wholesale changes to building heights may seem popular, these cannot be justified or pursued based on community preference.
COMMENT: The question isn’t solely about ‘community preference’ but sound and valid strategic planning. Why and how can a 12 storey building be justified when the projected population growth is only 1400 residents by 2036. We’re told that population per dwelling will drop to 2.3 individuals in 2036. Even if we’re looking at 3 individuals per dwelling, or for that matter only 1 individual per dwelling, that means that we have a range of 460 to 1400 net new dwellings that are required over a period of 15 years. Council of course claims that they have to look beyond the 2036 date – the inference being that once adopted this structure plan will not be touched again for at least 20 years. That is council’s history and modus operandi! Whilst we’re promised a ‘review’ every four years, the results of this ‘review’ will only be to communicate what was been done in the intervening period we strongly suspect. We also have to laugh at council’s ‘implementation’ timelines. We find that ‘immediate’ means 1 to 5 years; ‘medium’ means 5 to 10 years and ‘long term’ blows out to over 10 years! Thus a Development Contributions Levy on developers could be 5 years down the track after it was ‘promised’ in 2016. Or, affordable housing, open space, and community uses might not happen for 10 years. But in the meantime of course, development will steam roll ahead!!!!!
The other amazing comment from the officer’s report is:
We are pursuing winter shadow protection for existing and potential future public open spaces including Elsternwick Plaza. However, winter shadow controls cannot be pursued for the southern footpath as many forms of redevelopment would be severely limited. This is contrary to the role of a MAC to accommodate future growth. For these areas, the equinox shadow is the standard to apply.
COMMENT: What the above makes absolutely clear is that anything that is likely to put a constraint upon development will not be pursued. Thus heritage and sunlight is expendable when it comes to the potential of facilitating more development. What is not stated is that ‘future growth’ can be accommodated according to what is required as shown above, and not what will benefit developers. Interestingly the Bentleigh traffic report provided figures on the net number of new dwellings anticipated by their draft structure plan which showed that over 2000 net new dwellings could be squeezed into Bentleigh. We do not remember seeing any such figure for Elsternwick. So if Elsternwick is proposing 12 storeys and Bentleigh 8, then we can only assume that Elsternwick is trying to ensure more than 2000 net new dwellings – regardless of whether we actually need this number in the ensuing 15 years!
CONCLUSION
Planning in Glen Eira continues to be driven by the development industry and by an administration that does not care one iota for its community and residential amenity. We have had consultations after consultations that are meaningless, ignored, and consultant reports that do nothing more than attempt to confirm decisions already made. Plus we have certain councillors who simply do not appear to care, or have the integrity to challenge such poor planning. Which leaves us with the question that if council is now claiming to have made changes in response to community input, and gone out again to so called ‘experts’, then why couldn’t these revised views and expensive ‘expert’ reviews been done initially? Or is it more of the same? – the pretending that we have listened to the community but in the end, done very little to ameliorate our concerns?
Presented below are the comments made by Esakoff and Zyngier on the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan at the last council meeting. Unlike the majority of those who spoke in favour of the draft, at least in these comments the ‘problems’ are clearly identified instead of resorting to generalities and spin.
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 31st, 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.
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.
In August last year Cade voted against the Carnegie structure plan. She has also voted against the housing strategy but was absent for the determinative vote. On East Village she voted in favour of mandatory heights. So what has now changed? Why are we suddenly seeing a trend in Cade’s voting that largely supports the admin’s and planning department’s agenda of high rise and more and more development in our activity centres?
Cade’s voting patterns since being elected deputy mayor are very interesting. Together with Athanasopolous and Magee she voted AGAINST the refusal of a permit for an application in Grafton Street Elsternwick. Other interesting voting patterns include:
Cade moved the motion for the Bentleigh Structure Plan
She voted against reducing the height of one section in the Caulfield South Activity Centre
Admittedly she has voted against various permit applications (ie Bentleigh RSL in Huntley Road) but on all the recent major strategic planning strategies, she has been an ardent supporter – which contrasts strongly with her previous position(s) on these matters. So we have to ask: Could this possibly have anything to do with her election as deputy mayor and earning the princely sum of $59,659 PLUS 9.5% p.a for a grand total of just under $66,000? Or has she undergone some religious ‘conversion’? If so, then she needs to explain this.
Cade’s motion of support for the draft on Tuesday night, was staggering in its deception, the obvious pre-arranged Dorothy Dix questioning of Torres, and failure to disclose the full picture in so many instances – ie the sins of omission! Nor can it be seen as a genuine councillor contribution to the debate when much of Cade’s version of events mirrored precisely what appeared in the July edition of the Glen Eira News – basically, ‘don’t blame us, it’s all the government’s fault’! This has now become council’s escape clause for their repeated failures and refusal to (1) listen to the community and (2) adhere to sound strategic planning principles that actually enhance and preserve what residents see as vital aspects of residential amenity.
Here is what Cade stated. Please listen carefully.
“The Victorian government sets the agenda………”. True, but there is still plenty of scope within planning scheme for councils to create their own strategies. Approximately 25% of all planning schemes allow councils scope to introduce what they see as necessary for their communities. That’s why heaps of other councils have had structure plans for at least the past 15 years. That’s why other councils have implemented both ESD and WSUD (environment & water) in their planning schemes. Here in Glen Eira we are still waiting for a community infrastructure levy on developers, a car parking levy, or a WSUD policy – despite all being promised in 2016. In short, there is plenty that councils can do if they have the will. Whether or not a council’s proposed strategies will be approved by the Minister down the line is irrelevant at this early stage of structure planning. The focus should be on implementing sound strategic planning in line with community aspirations and which provides overall ‘community benefit’. There is no ‘community benefit’ in having potentially ten storey buildings overlooking single storey homes in a heritage overlay. Nor is there community benefit in flogging off council owned land for potential ‘mixed use’ development or for social housing. If council was really serious about social housing then it would not have endorsed a policy which seeks a meagre 5% of dwellings as social housing. It would have included a percentage of at least 10=20%! All of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and everything to do with this administration and its lackey, pro-development councillors!
Cade’s question to Torres repeats past practice on the Carnegie/Bentleigh structure plans of several years ago. What happens if the draft isn’t passed Cade asks? Torres’ response once again resorts to straight out fear-mongering when he says: ‘If tonight’s recommendation did not get supported, our structure planning process for Bentleigh would not proceed’!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Why can’t improvements be made, or does council believe everything it sets out is perfect? There is nothing that stops a council from revisiting its drafts (as has happened previously) and ensuring that it is as sound and strategically justified as possible. Furthermore, the issue is not about abandoning the draft. Those councillors who voted against it simply wanted improvement and implied that this was not up to scratch. Given that council still has 18 months to get it right, the suggestion that everything will lapse or be abandoned is outrageous. Nor is it a valid argument to say that the community wants structure plans for ‘better controls’ and so council is providing structure plans. This of course ignores the central question as to whether the final plans do in fact offer ‘better controls’.
Torres then goes even further with the statement that if the motion fails, then the Minister could ‘quite possibly remove those (interim) controls’ from Bentleigh. Fear mongering at its best!!!!! And without a shred to evidence to support this claim. We know of no other instance in planning history where a minister has removed existing interim DDO’s in their entirety prior to the date nominated.
Cade then goes on to a supposed explanation as to why the draft hasn’t included the recommendations of the government’s Urban Design Guidelines. She says that the guidelines are a ‘background document’ and therefore aren’t in the planning scheme – so presumably council can ignore them is the implication. What is not stated is that STRUCTURE PLANS are also considered as background documents and are NOT IN PLANNING SCHEMES either!!!!!!! What does get into planning schemes are the amendments which introduce the Design & Development Overlays. In Glen Eira all of the most important strategic plans are ‘background documents’ –ie East Village structure plan; City PLan, Activity Centre plans; Urban Design Guidelines, etc.
Finally, Cade states that ‘I am not going to talk about building heights and setbacks’ or ‘parking’ because ‘I am sure my fellow councillors will address’ these issues. Really? How on earth can you move a motion to support a structure plan without even mentioning the most important aspects of it, and the most contentious? If you support something, then the onus should be on providing evidence as to why potentially 10 storey developments are appropriate, or why a 5 metre setback (discretionary) is okay when other councils have managed 6 metre setbacks in their major activity centres? But we guess it is easy to ignore the contentious issues and to simple promulgate more propaganda about everything being in the state’s control!
Cade’s conclusion is equally bizarre when she claims to want to hear from other councillors not only on what they like or dislike about the plan, but what they would ‘propose’ as an ‘alternative’. This is completely out of order since the possibility of an ‘alternative’ motion has already been rejected by Magee. Councillors are debating the motion as it stands and NOT what might be a feasible ‘alternative’.
Cade’s sudden ‘conversion’ is a concern. She is also doing the community a major disservice by simply regurgitating officer reports and presumably being complicit in staged Dorothy Dix questioning of officers only to provide them with the opportunity to further the set agenda. We remind her and our readers that stage managed debates are the antithesis of ‘robust’ discussion and serving the community with original thinking!
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!
The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting includes our first look at the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan. The recommendation is to put this document out for public consultation for a period of 6 weeks. We know little about the nature of this consultation, except that it will include: a range of in-person and online opportunities for the community to provide comments, feedback and ask questions. In other words, we anticipate another mock consultation that only achieves the ‘consult’ range rather than the ‘involve’ stage recommended in the IAPP2 ladder for public participation.
Far more depressing are the actual recommendations contained in this draft. A short summary follows:
Discretionary heights of up to 8 storeys along Centre Road for non heritage buildings – which means developments could be even higher.
Only heritage buildings to have a mandatory 5 storey height limit (17.8 Metres) along Centre road
A discretionary 7 storey height directly abutting a two storey heritage overlay along Campbell and other streets
The real possibility of a reduction in onsite care parking requirements
No mandatory rear site setbacks for developments abutting residential/heritage
Discretionary front setbacks for non heritage properties
Potential sell-off of council owned land for mixed use development that might include social housing. Please remember that council’s policy as it stands only asks for a 5% component for large developments. Other councils have asked for as much as 20%!
Winter solstice considerations only to be taken into account at a measurement of 3.9 metres from the site boundary in side/local streets. How many of these streets have footpaths that are a bare 2.5 metres in width?
Here’s a run down of the proposed heights. CLICK TO ENLARGE THE IMAGE
Readers should note the following:
Only those hatched sites (ie with///////markings are heritage listed). Thus all other sites earmarked as 5 storeys could potentially be much higher.
The number of residential properties that are currently in NRZ that will have a discretionary 7 or 8 storey building backing onto them – ie Wheatley Road, Campbell street, Smith Street, etc. Clearly a difference of 5 or 6 storeys does not matter to our council planners!
Finally, what’s not shown in the above map are the proposed future rezonings of the residential hinterland.
We urge all readers to carefully consider the published documents and to partake in the upcoming consultation.
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!
Glen Eira Debates 