GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 16, 2014

A Little History Lesson!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

On the 1^st July 2013 the Minister for Planning gazetted the amendment which gave councils one year to introduce the new residential zones into their municipalities. Prior to this, a draft of the new zones had been released (July 2012) and public submissions were called for. The closing date for these submissions was the 21^st September 2012.

Whilst other councils had countless ‘information sessions’ for residents, plus detailed information up on their websites, Glen Eira had nothing. It was not until the council meeting of September 4^th 2012 that residents had a chance to even see what council’s submission would be like. That left exactly 17 days before submissions closed. It also took several amended motions at this council meeting to even get anything up on council’s website.

Looking back at our report of this evening we remind readers of the following statements by councillors –

TANG: Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’…..No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.

LIPSHUTZ: that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.

Source: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/patronising-paternalistic-pathetic/

A very important part of the resolution from this meeting read:

Council notes that this resolution only has effect insofar as it relates to Council’s submission to the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) , and that Council will consider the details of the transition, to the extent that it is able, once the Minister has determined the new zones.

The implication of this resolution is clear. Council is endorsing the submission, but NOT THE FINAL INTRODUCTION OF THE ZONES. That is to come back to Council, (with a capital ‘C’) – denoting in anyone’s language that a formal Council resolution is required prior to the adoption of the new zones.

This of course did not happen. For all the spin about ‘consultation’ at ‘phase 2’ the zones were introduced in secret and without a single murmur. Council washed its hands of all its obligations to ‘engage’, ‘inform’ and ‘consider’ resident views, firstly in its submission to the draft, and then on its implementation. Here again we have evidence that resolutions do not mean a thing in Glen Eira. They can be ignored, not acted upon, and simply left to rot in the archives.

What makes matters even worse, is that the deplorable spin that accompanied the introduction of the zones included the furphy that Council had already consulted with residents on its 2010 ‘review’ of the Planning Scheme. There was nothing in the outcomes of the ‘review’, and certainly not in anything that council has done since, that were within a bull’s roar of having anything to do with reassessing the minimal change/housing diversity policies. In fact, 4 years down the track and most of the ‘recommendations’ coming from the ‘review’ have still to be actioned. All that has been done is the miniscule expansion of the Significant Character Overlay to a few areas and the introduction of amendment after amendment which rezoned tracts of land making them ‘suitable’ for residential development.

We’ve extracted the relevant ‘recommendations’ passed by Council and highlighted all that have not yet been attended to – and please note the ‘internal’ assessments rather than open, transparent, public consultation! After four years, this is indeed a dismal record and totally demolishes the argument that the review of 2010 had anything to do with what was to come.

It is now 4 years later and we still have not had a Planning Scheme Review! Oh, we forget, these have all been done ‘internally’!

October 31, 2014

What A Helpful Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Last council meeting the agenda was jam packed with application after application – all of them highly contentious and controversial – ie Belsize Avenue, Penang St., Mavho St., Lorranne St., Tucker Road, etc. We commented at the time that this is the typical council strategy. Cram all important decisions onto the one agenda so that debate and decision making is reduced to a measly 5 or 10 minutes each, as well as getting the resulting ‘pain’ from outraged residents over in the one fell swoop!

The agenda for next Wednesday night’s council meeting confirms this deliberate manipulation. There’s nothing that equals last meeting’s controversy. Item after item is so inconsequential that we have to laugh at the obvious ‘light weight’ nature of this agenda compared to what was dished up three weeks ago. There are no planning applications that occur in residential zones; there are no reports that couldn’t have appeared at last meeting given that councillors had requested them as far back as the 23^rd September and the 12^th August. For a council that claims to get councillor requests back at the next meeting this makes a mockery of such claims. Manipulation of the agenda is the name of the game!

There are however a couple of interesting applications for increases in both height and number of dwellings. These are all in areas zoned Commercial and hence there are no height limits. We’ve done a comparison of two of these in order to illustrate how inconsistent and nonsensical the officers’ reports are. Readers should remember that basically, these constitute a single development. Council in its benevolence at the time of decision making granted them 13 public car parking spots in return for an exeloo toilet! The buildings will ultimately be seen as basically fronting Centre Road, so why one should be allowed to be 5 storeys and the other only 4 given that both abut residential areas is anyone’s guess.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that these buildings are literally side by side, then allowing car parking waivers on one and simultaneously arguing that trucks can park on the same street taken up by cars from the other development is quite farcical
Since both are on Centre Road, why should one report single out the opposite side of Centre Road and argue that 4 storeys will dominate, but that 5 storeys won’t? Further the mention of Tucker Road buildings are at least 850 metres away – see screen dump below.
Finally we don’t believe that asking for accuracy and some decent officer reports is demanding too much – especially not when ratepayers are footing the bill for such efforts!

PS: THIS MUST SURELY TAKE THE CAKE!

AND THE BLURB STATES:

Vacant Land with Plans and Permits approved

Planning Permit Now Issued.
13.72m X 13.31m = 182.60m2 approx.
Elevated from the street with entrance from rear laneway.
Possible site for a 2-3 bedroom unit.
Use your imagination to create your new home in this great location.
Minutes to transport, shops, parklands and good schools.
Call for more details.

2011522262

October 24, 2014

It’s Never The Zones!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

At last council meeting a public question asked how many amended permits have been submitted requesting either an increase in height or number of dwellings and how many were granted since the introduction of the zones. The first part of the question remained unanswered. The second part of the question provided the response of only 4 granted permits.

Either council is suffering badly from amnesia, or its record keeping systems are sub-standard, or perhaps the third possibility is that the responses to public questions are far from accurate, truthful, and precise. Somehow, council simply forgot to note one major application that had been decided at the previous council meeting and neatly sidestepped all those applications in commercial zones – admittedly because the question did not specifically refer to this zone.

The argument consistently put up by council is that the zones have had no impact on the increased intensity of development. Not so we argue. With the introduction of the new zones what is starting to emerge is that developers who have clung onto their land (some for several years) are now taking advantage of the ‘largesse’ provided to them via the new zones and submitting amended applications for either increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. This is even more rampant in the commercial zones where there are no height limits. Below we feature, in addition to the paltry 4 that council nominated, some examples:

150 Tucker Road Bentleigh – Amend Planning Permit GE/PP-21042/2008 by changing the description of what the permit allows/covers to provide an increase of 7 dwellings (from 13 to 20 dwellings) (GRZ1 zone)

259-261 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – A previous application for a 3-storey building comprising 19 dwellings was approved by the Delegated Planning Committee with a reduction in the number of dwellings to 17 on 8 September 2010. Subsequently, on 11 January 2011, following a VCAT hearing about conditions, the Planning Permit was amended to allow up to 18 dwellings. This permit expired on 8 September 2013.

The current proposal for 28 dwellings is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and one additional storey. (RGZ1) (Note: this is technically regarded then as a ‘new permit application’!!!!!

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Construction of a six (6) storey building comprising forty (40) dwellings, one (1) shop and a basement; reduction of the car parking requirement for dwelling visitors to one (1) car space; reduction of the car parking requirement for the shop to zero; and waiving of the loading bay requirement (Application to Amend a Planning Permit) AND –

A planning permit already exists for the site. The original permit was issued on 14 June 2011. It allowed the construction of a 4 storey building comprising 20 dwellings and a shop. This Planning Permit is still valid and will expire on 14 June 2014. The current proposal for 40 dwellings and a shop is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and 2 additional storeys. (C1Z)

467C HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD SOUTH – Amend the current planning permit to allow an additional storey (total of 4 storeys), provision of a lift and internal alterations. The four dwellings approved under the current permit will not increase in number. (c1z)

356-364 Orrong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – Application to amend Planning Permit GE/PP-22648/2010 which allows a five (5) storey mixed-use building comprising a supermarket, dwellings and a basement car park with an increase in the number of dwellings from fiftysix (56) to sixty-seven (67), an increase in the overall building height by 1.9m, the inclusion of five (5) advertising signs and associated changes to the internal layout and external appearance of the building (c1z)

338A Orrong Road, CAULFIELD NORTH – Amended Application – Amend the permit preamble to allow for a four (4) storey building – was a 3 storey – permit granted on 30/4/2014) (c1z)

670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – Amendment to existing permit as follows – An increase to the size of the building to five storeys – Modifications to the first, second and third floors, including an increase in size and internal changes to the layout of the dwellings – The addition of ten (10) apartments – A reduction to the commercial floor area – (C1Z)

October 15, 2014

Hanging Out The Dirty Linen & Who Is Telling Porkies?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments

Hyams moved to accept the Akehurst report on the new zones ‘as printed’. Sounness seconded.

HYAMS: began by quoting the figures on the influx of new people to Victoria and that ‘obviously they need to go somewhere’. Said that the zones were introduced in 2013 and that Glen Eira had its minimal change/housing diversity from 2003 and that was after ‘at least two years of consultation’. ‘The new zones exactly mirror the old zones’ ‘except for one property in North Caulfield’. Claimed that all that is different is that because of the schedules council has ‘increased the protection to any resident who lives in those zones’ (ie Residential Growth, General Residential Zone and Urban Villages). Repeated that the there’s nothing that developers couldn’t do before. Gave example of an old application in Mavho street that council refused but it went to VCAT and got a permit. But what might have got built before ‘now can’t be built’ because of the height restrictions. Also said that even though there’s a height limit that doesn’t mean that everything will be built ‘to that height’. Therefore there are plenty of developments that previously got permits but now they wouldn’t with the new zones and that includes the RGZ and GRZ zones. Went on to say that there are lots of people blaming the zones for all the new applications but that’s not true because ‘Carnegie has had this sort of stuff going on for a while’ and the same holds for Murrumbeena and Elsternwick where an 8 storey building went up. So all this was happening before and even though ‘they have accelerated’ it isn’t ‘because of the new zones’. But it’s only ‘now that they have reached Bentleigh’ and he thought that it was ‘inevitable that they have spread out from the centre’.

Referred to the argument that council should have ‘consulted’ before ‘bringing in the new zones’. But council wanted to ‘achieve the best possible results’ for the municipality , Claimed that in ‘all’ the discussions with the government it was about ‘convincing them not to expand the high density zones’ and even though they might have wanted to make them smaller ‘no government from either side’ would allow this ‘no matter how much we consulted’. Said that ‘I haven’t heard anything from the ALP on the new zones’ so Labor has ‘no interest in challenging or changing those zones’.

Admitted that post zones there was criticism but this came from the ‘development industry’ about how restrictive the new zones were. Quoted various sources. So by ‘getting in early’ council was ‘able to achieve these height limits’ and ‘other councils haven’t been so lucky’ and Kingston has had their 13.5 metre height limits ‘preferred’ and they are ‘not absolute as they are here’. Government now looks like it’s ‘leaning’ towards higher limits so Glen Eira has ‘done very well’. Thought it was important that people understood the zones and not what some people are saying about ‘encouraging sales’.

SOUNNESS: Said that the report is ‘brief’ but identifies that there are opportunities for development but also ‘tools’ to ‘limit inappropriate development’. Sadly they ‘have to allow development to take place somewhere’ like urban villages and close to transport.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to ask Akehurst a question because the report was basically about neighbourhood residential zones and there were plenty of people ‘here’ who are facing applications not in the residential zones. So she wanted Akehurst to explain how those zones came about and what they mean.

AKHURST: admitted that the paper he wrote was basically about the Neighbourhood Residential Zone but that there are other zones. Said that the Mixed Use Zone is common to all councils and is determined by the government as is the Commercial zones. Neither have height limits and the commercial zones have different uses and explained how these changed with the introduction of the zones.

LOBO: said that height limits ‘sounds good’ but that it is ‘an umbilical cord to the residential zones’. Hyams explained ‘nicely’ how the zones had been ‘transcribed’ from the old zones but in the old zones with minimal change and housing diversity ‘councillors had the option of either accepting or refusing’ as they did with 32 Mavho street where council refused and vcat gave the permit. Said that VCAT doesn’t always ‘get it right’. Said that there is ‘certainty’ but that ‘this certainty is for the builders’ and for ‘real estate agents’ both of whom are ‘laughing to the bank’. (applause). Said that residents vote councillors in and that their role is to uphold what it says on the front of every agenda. Read out the blurb about working in the best interests of residents. Said that he recognises that Ministers have been given ‘carte blanche’ about planning but that ‘we should have gone to consultation’ and at ‘least give a chance’ to people. Said that ‘I asked for it’ and that he ‘voted to be part of the team’ when he was ‘deputy mayor’ and he now thinks ‘I have done wrong’ and ‘mea culpa’. Thought that ‘now we have to do something about it’ and for the next government to ‘do something to repair this damage’. (applause)

OKOTEL: ‘acknowledged’ what Hyams said about ‘direct translation’ of what was there before. However her position was that instead of ‘simply adopt policy’ that ‘council should have engaged in community consultation before making a submission to the planning minister’. (applause) This was because the consultation goes back to 2003.

ESAKOFF: point of order that ‘when I asked about consultation’ she was told that it wasn’t 2003 but 2010.

PILLING: said that the review of the Planning Scheme was in 2010. Said there were 2 consultation: one in 2003 and the last in 2010.

OKOTEL: said that she ‘didn’t feel comfortable’ about not consulting but that she notes that the new zones’ do preserve 78% of the municipality’ and that she does support the report and its comments that ‘compared to other councils’ that Glen Eira’s ‘protections’ are far more than these other councils. But she is also ‘sympathetic’ to the remaining 22% of the municipality ‘which don’t have those protections’ and ‘weren’t invited for consultation’. Even though there are the new zones council still has to ‘refer’ to its policies that ‘require us to look at’ things like Neighbourhood Character. Read out part of a VCAT judgement on an application for Prince Edward Avenue where the member rejected it and said that in terms of Neighbourhood Character it didn’t fit the street even though it was zoned for medium density. Okotel then went on to say that even though there are height limits council still needs to consider policy.(applause)

DELAHUNTY: said she was ‘confused’ about what’s going on. Referred to Hyams and his views about Labor. Said that Brian Tee has made a public statement on the zones and so has the current Labor candidate Nick Staikos who was in chamber. Said that there were ‘conflicting views’ ‘around this table tonight’ and that she was ‘confused’. Said that when they ‘discussed going to consultation’ on the zones and ‘bringing them in quickly’ and ‘with some certainty’ she was ‘certainly on the side of some public consultation’ and ‘I thought I was very much alone there but I’ve got some friends tonight’. Said that the information she got was about the consultation of 2010 and that ‘the arguments’ that were put up then ‘won me over’. Said that in 2010 people wanted ‘height limits and they wanted certainty’. So if the community ‘hasn’t changed’, with the new zones she thought that they were giving people what they had asked for. Post the new zones at a public forum held by LARGE she thought it would be a ‘good idea’ for council to have some public meetings to explain the zones and she remembers ‘being friendless at that time too’. So ‘I am very confused about the sentiments’ being expressed tonight. Wants sensible decisions on the applications before council tonight and hoped that the group could do that. ‘We have to be very careful about saying one thing inside and another thing outside’.

PILLING: supported Hyams and said that ‘these are the correct analyses’. Reminded councillors that ‘this was a unanimous decision a year ago’. The time ‘was to speak out and vote then’ so ‘trying to rewrite history now is a bit rich’. Repeated that it was ‘a unanimous decision fully supported by every councillor here’. Said that 97% of the municipality is protected except for the commercial zones by height limits and Glen Eira is probably ‘the only council in Victoria to have that’. Said that council had been ‘vilified’ by developers and academics but when ‘you get attacked’ by these people then ‘you’ve got the balance about right’. The zones have ‘restricted development into certain areas’. Thought that over time there would be ‘less intense development in these areas’. Said that in Murrumbeena they were applying for 5 storeys and above but now ‘you can only get four’. Repeated Hyams’ words about taking a while to get to Bentleigh but it was inevitable that it would also ‘happen in those areas as well’. Thought that council had done ‘the right thing by the community’ and that ‘we should stand by that decision’. Said that other councils are struggling and that for many it’s a ‘mess’. Said that they had given protection and that it’s something that council ‘should be proud of’ ‘I certainly am’.

Calls from gallery ‘’There’s no democracy’

HYAMS: their aim was to get ‘the best result’. Said that they could have ‘consulted until the cows come home’ and could ‘have gone to the government with anything’ and they would have knocked it back. If they had gone to consultation they ‘would have taken so long to get around to it’ that ‘other councils’ would have got in before them to show how ‘great they were’. If council had waited then ‘we would have got the deal that Kingston or Bayside’ got with ‘larger residential growth zones’. Even though people mightn’t like it ‘we got you the best deal’ and that was by ‘putting popularity’ aside unlike other councils who tried to be popular. He prefers ‘sticking to our decision’ and ‘acknowledging’ that they did the ‘best we could’. Said that in 2010/2011 there was consultation about the whole planning scheme and the results were that people wanted neighbourhoods protected and this was achieved with the Neighbourhood Character Overlays; height limits ‘which we now have’ and ‘transition zones’ and ‘we now have that as well’ via the ‘schedules to the new zones’.

Said that his ‘memory’ is different to Delahunty because he remembers Okotel also arguing for consultation. He also was persuaded that consultation wouldn’t get them a ‘better deal and might get us a worse deal’. Said that there was a ‘rush of applications’ last ‘July and August’ and the reason for this was that ‘all the developers knew that we were about to put these new zones in’ and they knew that what they could get before the zones they couldn’t get with the new zones. So they ‘rushed their developments in’.

GALLERY : how did they know in July when the zones didn’t come in until August?

HYAMS: referred to Lobo’s comments about options to refuse previously. Said he ‘doesn’t follow that’ because they ‘still have all the options that we previously had’. Picked Lobo up about VCAT ‘answering to the Government’ but VCAT ‘independent from the government’. Said that councillors have to carry out their ‘functions’ and that means ‘applying the planning law’. ‘We did the best we could’ and those people who are criticising the zones are doing it for ‘legal purposes’ or ‘have a lack of understanding of planning law’.

OKOTEL: asked a question about ‘adopting the new zones were not unanimous’ and reiterated that ‘my position has always been that we should have engaged in consultation’ and she was never ‘persuaded otherwise’. Said that looking at the minutes of 13th August the ‘achievements’ about height controls ‘was not carried unanimously’ and said that she can’t find ‘the minutes’ relating to the ‘adoption of the zones other than that’.

PILLING: said he would be ‘happy to get the details’ and that it was an ‘unanimous decision by council’

OKOTEL: said that the decision to ‘ratify them’ was unanimous but that the ‘decision to put them to the Minister without consultation was not unanimous’. ‘I did not vote in favour of that’ and repeated that her position was that there should be consultation. (applause)

PILLING: said he would take her question on notice..

MOTION PUT. ONLY LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

October 14, 2014

Matthew Guy Joins The Three Ring Circus – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning
[16] Comments

Before a packed council chamber of at least 150 people Matthew Guy entered the fray via Twitter following a comment put up during the meeting by the Leader reporter –

What was clearly evident in the farce that took place tonight was the following:

People power does exert enormous pressure on councillors. If enough people get together, get publicity, and have reasonable and logical arguments then the unshakeable faith in the efficacy of the new zones is tossed out the window. So much for consistency and strength of policy.
For those groups who haven’t organised themselves or who haven’t garnered enough support, well, they are history!
Divisions abound within the councillor group highlighted in the most childish fashion by Delahunty’s deliberate speed reading of her request for a report in response to Okotel’s request to have the exact wording since she did not have a copy of the request. Council has indeed descended into Kindergarten Playtime with such antics!
Council is in damage control – ie they even saw the need to place on every single chair prior to the meeting a copy of the pathetic Akehurst version of reality – ie Item 9.1 on the zones

We will go through each of the pseudo arguments on the applications in the days ahead but for now – just the outcomes and the voting:

Mavho Street – Hyams moved and Lobo seconded to reduce to three storeys and 25 dwellings instead of 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Pilling was the only councillor to vote against the motion.

Penang St – Okotel and Esakoff moved to reject granting permit. Vote carried with Pilling and Sounness voting against rejection.

Belsize Ave – Hyams and Esakoff moved motion for four storeys and increased setbacks. Motion carried unanimously

Bent St – Okotel and Delahunty moved to increase setbacks. Motion carried unanimously

Hotham St – Lipshutz moved motion for 5 storeys and 57 units. Seconded by Pilling. Motion defeated. Voting against were: Okotel, Magee, Lobo, Delahunty and Hyams. Okotel then put up motion for 4 storeys adn 54 units but no seconder. Delahunty then put up motion for 4 storeys and back to 67 units. Sounness seconded. Motion passed with Lipshutz, Okotel and Esakoff voting against.

Loranne St – Sounness moved and Pilling seconded for 4 storey and 28 units.Motion passed with Lobo and Okotel voting against.

Throughout the evening there was applause plus abuse on the Hotham St application and of course so much predictable humbug and grandstanding from various councillors. It was indeed a night at the circus!

October 14, 2014

The ‘Zones’ Versus ‘The People’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Hotham St – 7 storeys 104 dwellings

The Leader Article above referred to the 168 Hotham St. application with 137 objections. There is far more to this application than meets the eye we suspect. Given the magnitude of this proposed development, and its significant location, we believe that residents have the right to know everything that the officer’s report fails to mention, namely:

This site was the subject of previous applications
This site became Amendment C54 which rezoned the land to a Mixed Use zone (circa 2007-8)
A Panel Report was issued
The site was (and perhaps still is) owned by Adass Israel and their application at the time involved the construction of 8 shops and 23 dwellings in a three storey building.
At the Planning Panel hearing council officers queried the ‘intensity’ of proposed development and traffic management/car parking facilities that were proposed for a mere 3 storey development.
The Planning Panel report had plenty to say about height, intensity, etc.
Port Phillip council had major concerns about Heritage
Ripponlea had major concerns about parking
Traffic reports done at the time (2007) stated that Glen Eira Road and Hotham Street had 13,000 and 16,000 cars travelling on these roads daily

Given this history, and the doubts entertained at the time, how on earth can council now turn around and accept a 5 storey building with huge traffic and parking problems– especially when at last council meeting it rejected the Hawthorn Road application for 6 storeys? Where is the consistency? Or have ‘special dispensations’ been handed out to the select few? How many permit extensions has this site received? Or was the permit withdrawn; did it lapse? If either, then why isn’t any of this information found in the planning register? And why, when so many other officer reports include the history of the site is there not one single word about any of this?

October 13, 2014

Treating Residents Like Fools – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

The Belsize Ave (4 storey 52 dwellings) Application

The building will be prominent in its existing context (due to the relative scale to neighbouring single storey dwellings) and will be visible from various vantage points. However, the design of the building through its use of alternate materials, breaks in the building length, side/rear setbacks and graduation of the height is considered acceptable.

COMMENT: Please define ‘acceptable’ especially when it is admitted that a 4 storey dwelling next to a single storey will be ‘visible’!

The proposed crossover from Belsize Avenue requires the removal of an existing street tree (Queensland Brush box located in front of 15 Belsize Avenue). Council’s Parks Services Department have consented to the removal of this street tree provided the cost is borne by the developer

Prior to the commencement of the development, a fee of $798 must be paid to the Responsible Authority for the removal and replacement of the existing street tree (Queensland Brush Box located on the nature strip of 15 Belsize Avenue). Removal of the street tree may only be undertaken by the Responsible Authority.

COMMENT: Is the tree healthy? How big? How old? What does it add to the street. Not a word about any of this.

22-26 Bent St Bentleigh – 15 properties notified – 36 objections – Another 4 storey

More intense building forms are emerging in the surrounding areas and this trend is expected to continue. Accordingly a 4 storey development of this nature is considered, in general, an acceptable response to policy, zoning, the site context and emerging neighbourhood character.

COMMENT: translated this means ‘more to come’

The building will be prominent in its existing context (due to the relative scale to neighbouring single storey dwellings) and will be visible from various vantage points.The design of the building generally seeks to reduce these visual impacts through its use of alternate materials, breaks in the building length and graduation of the height between each respective floor.

COMMENT: So currently the building is ‘prominent’ but given the rubber stamping of this street for 4 storeys Council can’t see anything wrong in getting the ball rolling

Balconies consequently reduced and such that they do not intrude into the increased setbacks by more than 2.5m (width).

COMMENT: why have setbacks at all if they can be overhung by 2.5 metres? Or are the setbacks there only to accommodate the developers design so he can squeeze some balconies in and not lose any apartments?

The amenity impacts to the private open space at the rear of 3/23 Vickery Street may experience overshadowing from 2pm onwards. The building should be redesigned so that this area remains unaffected by shadows up to 2pm.

COMMENT: This one we simply adore. Overshadowing ‘may’ occur but they are not sure. To compensate the poor resident at 3/23 Vickery St should have sunlight only up to 2pm. Never mind the hours of overshadowing post 2pm.

Loranne St -19 properties notified – 28 objections – another 4 storey

It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 4 storeys in height represents a change to this neighbourhood. However, in considering the merits of the proposed height, a number of contextual factors must be considered:

Σ The character of the wider area in general is undergoing change and will continue to do so, in accordance with State and Local Policy.

Σ Surrounding properties are within the Urban Village and may be subject to future redevelopment in line with policy and zoning.

Σ The design has been carefully sited with generous (in excess of 14m) setbacks from the street and will be appropriate to the scale and character of the area and the emerging character

COMMENT: oh dear – no problems here about setting a precedent – unlike the arguments that went with last meeting’s Hawthorn Road application. 14 metres set back sounds amazing until one realises this is referring to the 4 th storey level and not anywhere else. Pity this wasn’t made absolutely clear! Readers should also note that this is the ONLY application that has been accorded the privilege of having a distinct subheading – Neighbourhood Character. We presume that the other applications to not have any ‘neighbourhood character’ or simply aren’t worthy of this consideration since they have already been allowed to go to the dogs.

October 11, 2014

Will The Bullshit Ever Stop?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

The latest and crudest example of Council’s desperation and public relations gone mad is the pathetic exercise that comes in Item 9.1 of the current agenda. It is Akehurst’s puerile attempt to gild the lily and to justify the new residential zones. We have to say that this must go down in the annals of Glen Eira City Council as its most ineffectual and lamentable effort – and we also suspect that Akehurst must in his heart of hearts feel the same. Poor man. Council is obviously feeling the heat from a growing chorus of outraged residents and this is the corporate response – propaganda, and mistruths at the drop of a hat!

The stated purpose is quite grandiose – To inform the Council of changes which may increase building height and density in other municipalities but which will not apply in Glen Eira. Please note the careful equivocation here. Nothing is certain, things ‘may’ change in other councils. The premise is set – Glen Eira is above and beyond the best council; untouchable because of its wonderful residential zones. Of course, the only point that is made is HEIGHT and the assumed resulting density. But more on this later.

Akehurst is quite correct when he writes – Authority to re-zone land rests with the State Minister for Planning. No Council has the power to zone or rezone any land. It’s just a great pity that Akehurst didn’t go on to say that it is Councils who do the planning and designing and analysis of their municipalities and then go on to figure out where zones should be. That is then put to the minister and department for approval. He also neglects to say that the role of council is to advocate strongly on behalf of residents. Hard to advocate we say when residents haven’t been asked and the zones as they currently stand are based on figures and projections from the 1990s. At least Akehurst had the sense not to cite ‘consultation’ from 2010 which was the previous excuse. Now it is strictly 2003. Yes, the zones are based on “consultation” that took place in the dark ages.

There’s also the usual sleight of hand with this next sentence – The Minister announced that he would rezone land into the three new residential zones by way of Ministerial Amendments. No, that is not what he said and in no way does it present the full picture of that time. In fact Guy’s Media Release of 5^th March 2013 contained this statement – “Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.” http://premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/6183-reformed-residential-zones-bringing-new-certainty-to-melbournes-neighbourhoods.html

Casting further doubt on Akehurst’s claims is the Governments Advisory Note 50 dating from July 2013. Of relevance here is this quotation from page 3 for those councils who feel that their policies are ‘ready to go’ – as Glen Eira claims – ie the ‘neutral translation’ line. It states categorically –

A council can begin preparing an amendment to implement the new residential zones. This may include a request to the Minister for Planning to prepare the amendment and use his powers under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to exempt himself from the requirements of giving notice depending on the earlier consultation informing the housing and development strategy and its implementation

http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/229871/AN50-Reformed-residential-zones-July-2013.pdf

So we’ve again got the ‘may’ word. As for the ‘earlier consultation’ bit, we wonder if it ever entered the Minister’s head that such consultation might also apply to data originating in the last century. We doubt it! The import however is that the onus is again on council to REQUEST the minister to act, whereas the Akehurst claim would like everyone to believe that it was the minister acting unilaterally and without any input or consultation from council. What this page 3 also makes very clear is that council had various options it could have taken. It did nothing except operate in secrecy and in deliberately misleading its residents when asked specific public questions.

Akehurst then rambles on about council’s letter and how adamant it was in maintaining the current status quo of minimal change and housing diversity. Height again rears its ugly head but no mention is made of all the other ‘protections’ that could have been afforded via the respective schedules and which countless other councils have taken up.

Other claims made by Akehurst are also very very suspect. Of course nothing is council’s fault – the Alma Club rezoning had nothing to do with them. They didn’t even know about it. Factually Akehurst is dead wrong here too. In claiming that the Alma Club was the only ‘change’ is incorrect. Tovan Akas was rezoned. Large sites were now under the standards of General Residential Zones and not the previous minimal change zones. They also put their heads together to concoct the wonderful escape loop of subdivision prior to applications in order to subvert the very policy of two dwellings per lot in Neighourhnood Residential Zone. Of course, none of this gets a mention.

The most incredible porkies in the entire document come towards the end of the Akehurst effort. If the wording of the ‘purpose’ is changed, then why should Glen Eira be exempt? Akehurst then makes the following extraordinary statement –

Glen Eira is understood to be the only Council which has this mandatory height limit.

What utter nonsense! Here are some examples of other councils having height limits in their RGZ that are lower or equal to Glen Eira’s –

LATROBE COUNCIL – RGZ2 – HEIGHT LIMIT OF 9 METRES (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/latrobe/ordinance/32_07s02_latr.pdf)

STONNINGTON – RGZ2 – 13.5 metres – (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/stonnington/ordinance/32_07s02_ston.pdf)

It should also be pointed out that there are quite a few councils that don’t even have RGZ in their planning schemes. Instead, they have relied on numerous General Residential Zoning schedules to implement their finely grained schemes. As we’ve noted before, Stonnington and Bayside have plenty of GRZ schedules that include some that have a 9 metre height limit. Further, even for Greater Dandenong which was the second council to have their zones ratified their attempts to limit the damage is evident in their schedule to the RGZ. Note all that they have included in comparison to Glen Eira’s cave in. Greater Dandenong was able to achieve a site coverage of 70%. Glen Eira has 80%. Greater Dandenong has standards on landscaping, fences etc. Glen Eira is silent on all of this.

The most outrageous statement of all comes in the final recommendation – That Council notes that the maximum height limits achieved last year are providing greater protection to Glen Eira than in other municipalities.

Height is only a fraction of what could be seen as constituting ‘protection’. Of far greater importance is:

Where the RGZ zones are placed – are they only along main shopping strips or main roads which people could live with, or do they engulf entire quiet residential streets that are now being destroyed – such as Mavho, Penang, Loranne, Bent, Glen Orme and hundreds of others?
If 52 units can be crammed onto one site, then ‘density’ is not exclusively dependent on height, but on size of dwellings, permeability and site coverage, landscaping requirements, etc. All of these considerations do not rate a mention in Council’s view of planning and do not feature in the zoning for RGZ and neither do they feature in the GRZ zones.

The more Council insists on issuing such misleading and deceptive public relations exercises the more residents should start thinking that this is not the sort of council that is serving its populace as it should. When trust is lost, when public pronouncements can’t be believed, when self aggrandisement and continual cover ups occur, then there is definitely something rotten at the heart. Right now it is reeking to high heaven!

October 10, 2014

Treating Residents Like Fools!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Below is our analysis of the first two planning applications and the officers’ reports. We have for ages lamented the quality of such reports, their lack of detail, lack of cogent reasoning and overall lack of consistency from application to application. For example: one application might rate a mention of ‘internal amenity’, another might skip this altogether. But the overriding characteristic of all the reports is the failure to quantify, explain, and to insist on the adherence to council’s own standards – time and time again.

For these two reports we’ve extracted some sentences and then provided our comments. The extracts do not constitute everything we could have said. Otherwise this post would definitely turn into a major opus of interminable length. So, please read and try not to laugh too loudly!

22 Mavho St, Bentleigh -14 properties notified and 30 objections

A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to full compliance with ResCode and improve the streetscape appearance of the proposal.

COMMENT: what a nebulous airy fairy comment. What does ‘closer to full compliance mean’. If it’s not compliant then why accept it? And how much out of compliance is the final recommendation?

The plans lack sufficient detail to demonstrate that neighbouring properties will be protected from overlooking. A recommended condition requires privacy protection measures to be added to the plans and elevations.

COMMENT: if there is a ‘lack of sufficient detail’ then why assume that screening will solve the problem? Did council bother to check to see if it would?

The recommended increases in basement setbacks (or basement size reduction) can reduce car space numbers, and therefore dwelling numbers or the mix of dwelling sizes. However, the ‘lost’ spaces can be regained by the use of car stackers, or a second basement level, or a combination of the two. That is, the proposed dwelling yield will not necessarily change.

COMMENT – Not only does council worry about the developer losing a few units because he hasn’t supplied enough basement setbacks, but they are even providing him with the ‘answer’ to leapfrog their conditions. What a wonderfully kind council this is! And so blithely to recommend a second underground level of car parking without even considering what this does to neighbouring properties. Sink holes here we come perhaps!

Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied that each dwelling has satisfactory car parking. It accepts the provision of three visitor spaces, acknowledging that parking guidelines suggest five. The removal of a redundant crossing will provide an additional on-street space, and the site has good access to public transport.

COMMENT: another visitor car spot gone. As for on-street car car parking space please note that no statistics, no traffic counts are provided. As for ‘good access’ to public transport – only if you want to park in a two hour zone throughout most of the area, or if for longer then the hike to the station is much longer.

Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the current operation of Mavho Street or the surrounding road network

COMMENT: ‘unlikely’ – does that mean that Council really doesn’t know? That they haven’t done the proper and necessary research? And exactly how is ‘significant adverse impact’ defined? Is there a difference between ‘significant’ and plain, old ordinary ‘adverse impact’? To quote Ms Hansen – PLEASE EXPLAIN ON EVERYTHING! and a few statistics to back up such unsupported statements wouldn’t go astray either!

Create a gentler transition to the rear of the site.

COMMENT: oh, the language is sublime. Straight out of Shakeseare no doubt. Again, what does ‘gentler transition’ really mean? Are we talking 4 storeys down to 2? What’s ‘gentle’ about a 4 storey building sitting alongside single storey dwellings?

AND OF COURSE THERE’S NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT INTERNAL AMENITY, SUNLIGHT, ETC. to be found anywhere in the report.

Application NO.2 – 2-4 Penang St McKinnon – 12 properties notified – 48 objections + petiti0n with 34 signatures

Recent developments of three or more storeys in scale have been constructed on McKinnon Road in close proximity to the subject site.

COMMENT: McKinnon Road is a main street with buses, and a railway station. It is not a quiet residential street consisting of a handful of dwellings. To compare McKinnon Road to Penang St is like comparing Jack the Ripper with Little Orphan Annie!

An emerging new character is evident in the neighbourhood which varies from single to three storeys in scale. It is considered that the proposed development adequately respects the existing and emerging character of the neighbourhood.

COMMENTS: language, language that says absolutely nothing. What does ‘adequate’ mean? More importantly there are no three storey developments in any residential side street close to Penang. How can something ‘respect’ the existing neighbourhood (when there aren’t any 3 storeys) and then in the same breath claim that it ‘respects’ emerging character. What this report doesn’t state is that the emerging character is based on this application – it will set the precedent for what comes after – as is intended no doubt!

The overshadowing of adjoining properties satisfies Res Code requirements. The relevant standards ensure a minimum level of sunlight for adjoining secluded private open space areas.

COMMENT: ‘minimum level of sunlight’. Welcome to the world of the mole!

One dwelling at first floor (Apartment 14) is considered to have poor internal amenity, by virtue of its undersized balcony and south facing orientation. It is recommended that this dwelling be deleted (which will allow for the additional visitor car space within the basement).

COMMENT: Thank god – the ‘problem’ of car parking is solved. But since when is a balcony part of ‘internal amenity’?

Street tree at the front of 4 Penang Street can be removed as it does not meet with current Council Strategy

COMMENT – we simply adore this comment. Trees can be destroyed because they (poor things) don’t happen to fit in with what council decided should only be planted two years ago. Never mind that the tree is in good health, at least 15 years old, provides shade, and aesthetic ‘ambience’ to the street. It has to go because the developer needs a crossover! And council might just make some money out of the deal!

Landscape Assessment Officer

Σ It appears that there are trees to be removed at the rear of 4 Penang Street

Σ Advanced tree requirements in post construction landscape

COMMENT: ‘it appears’ – don’t they even know?!!!! What trees? Are they healthy, large, ‘significant’? The best is that ‘advanced tree requirements’ only get a look in after the fact. Surely this is Monty Python at their absolute best?

The applicant commented that they would check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams and ensure there are no other errors on the plans. Council’s Town Planning Department also commented they would check the shadow diagrams to ensure their accuracy.

COMMENT: so it’s been ‘checked’. What are the outcomes? Do they ALL comply? Could the poor paying public please be let in on the little secret with some facts, some figures, some real information?

October 10, 2014

Stuff-Ups, Spin and Rampant Over Development

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is, as we anticipated, another example of the ineptitude of this council; its hard working spin department determined to convince residents of the superiority of Glen Eira compared to every other council in the state, and finally the continuing approval of developments that fly in the face of sound planning principles and community views. In short, (and we will elaborate fully in the next few days) what this overloaded agenda proposes is:

Granting permits for 261 new dwellings plus another 11 for an amended permit that seeks to increase the number of dwellings by 11
Waiving of both resident and visitor car parking
Another admission of lousy planning with council seeking permission to advertise Amendment C121. This now seeks to REZONE PROPERTIES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE and to introduce HEIGHT LIMITS for mixed use zones. Why council did not bother to achieve such outcomes BEFORE the zones were introduced is the critical question. Our view is that residents should expect more and more stuff ups to become clearer in the weeks and months ahead when council attempts to ‘remedy’ some of its most glaring errors. Again this shows what kind of overall vision and strategic planning went on when the zones were introduced.
Of far greater interest is the question of what council will now do in the face of the current petition going around that asks council to review its zones (with community consultation) and to finally get things right. The probable ‘answer’ that this can’t be done is disproved by the above. Given this proposed Amendment any refusal to undergo genuine ‘review’ can only be seen as a total rejection of community.
Finally, Tuesday night’s meeting will show residents to what extent councillors represent the community and to what extent they are mere puppets of an administration hell bent on more and more inappropriate overdevelopment.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates