Glen Eira Debates

We’ve previously commented on two separate planning applications – both in mixed use/commercial areas – and how one is recommended for approval and the other one a refusal. We have queried the difference and the rationale behind such decision making. Here is the report from Tuesday night. We ask that readers carefully consider what councillors have said on the following:

• The use of railway car parking as a ‘substitute’ for forcing developers to include adequate car parking within their boundaries!
• Neerim Road will develop more so council has to be cognisant of this. Yet, Hawthorn Road which will also be ‘developed’ somehow escapes the guillotine completely
• Internal amenity is okay for Hawthorn Road, but no mention made of internal amenity for Neerim Road.
• No mention made of how many ‘standards’ the Hawthorn Road application meets in contrast to the Neerim Road one, where countless standards are not met!

Item 9.1 – Neerim Road Application

Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest and left chamber. Okotel moved motion and added that car parks be ‘at grade’ and number of visitor car parks be added. Hyams seconded.

OKOTEL: started off by saying that there had been many applications for Neerim Road and that there would certainly be ‘a changing face for that area’ and that council had to ‘keep that in mind’ when ‘future applications’ came in. Went through the officers’ report – ie objections like car parking, bulk. Said that the conditions imposed ‘addressed’ the objections. Reiterated that there was already a 4 storey and 3 storey nearby. The application included a ‘large setback’ so not to impact on residents. Said that there was some overshadowing but that ‘officers advise’ that ResCode standards are met even though this application doesn’t need ResCode standards because it is for 5 storeys. Because Neerim Road is being ‘more and more developed’ she wanted 11 visitor car parking spots and not the 7 put forward by the developer. Said that visitors will come to the area ‘at different times’ and ‘that road will become busier’ so council has to ensure ‘that there is adequate visitor car parking’ since it ‘will have negative impacts on the street for years to come’. Went through some of the other conditions such as construction and waste management plan.

HYAMS: called this the ‘right place’ for such a building because it is next to a 4 storey building and commercial buildings and near the station. Traffic is ‘bad’ now but will be ‘better soon’ because of the grade separation. So by the time this is built the ‘traffic conditions’ will be ‘greatly improved’. Talked about ‘generous setbacks’ and how he thought that visitor car parking was important and that the 57 car spots weren’t in stackers. Stated that one objector complained about developments where ‘sand’ was going through their houses, but with the construction management plan this would be avoided because they would have to ‘control dust’. Said that the conditions would ensure that this doesn’t ‘overly impact’ on amenity. Said that originally council allowed a three storey building but VCAT gave them four but if that ‘happened today VCAT would not have been able to’ do that. Went on to say that ‘I know that many residents are hearing’ that the ‘new zones are creating more development’ and that ‘this is not true’. ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.

LOBO: said that Carnegie ‘has been overdeveloped’ so it has ‘gone with the wind’. He wasn’t ‘on a journey of publicity’ but to ‘represent the residents’ who have put him in ‘the office’. Said that he was ‘surprised to read that all dwellings are of reasonable size’. Asked who council is caring for – ‘residents, developers, or future residents?’ Said that the zones ‘are supposed to protect 80% of Glen Eira’ and the other 20% are the GRZ, RGZ and commercial and ‘this has caused a rude awakening’ by residents ‘as can be seen’ from ‘recent planning conferences’. Stated that 80% of ‘the effects’ therefore come from ‘20% of the causes’. Referred to the real estate agent quoted in the Leader and that like all real estate agents he would say it’s an ‘advantage’. Residents are ‘awaiting salvation’ ‘whenever’ and if the ‘review of the zones’ takes place. And that ‘is a million dollar question’.

MAGEE: said that councillors are ‘responsible authority’ and not ‘popular authority’ so they have to assess applications ‘on merit’. When there’s an application like this, near a railway station and with ‘minimal impact on three sides’ then council has to find ‘affordable’ housing for people and ‘we can’t put a gate around’ Glen Eira. ‘It’s incumbent on us as a community to look after the community’. Yes, 57 dwellings ‘is a lot’ but it faces a road that is ‘predominantly a commercial centre’. It’s housing diversity and this is what council ‘has planned’ around railways and shops. The time of 2 storey dwellings ‘is long gone’. Cited Matthew Guy as saying that Victoria’s going through the ‘biggest building boom since the goldrush’ and therefore it’s everywhere. Now it’s happening in Glen Eira but soon in Springvale and other suburbs. This is a fact of life and ‘it is incumbent on council to do it locally, respectfully’. Repeated that council is the ‘responsible authority’ and not merely the ‘popular authority’.

SOUNNESS: said his ‘understanding’ is that it is a ‘suitable zone, suitable plans’ and ‘suitable location’. Didn’t think that there was ‘capacity’ for council to object on ‘strategic planning grounds’. So he supports motion.

HYAMS: asked Akehurst if the new zones now allow people to build what they couldn’t build before

AKEHURST: ‘The short answer is “No”‘

LOBO: ‘I’m not playing politics with the government’ and that if he has anything to say ‘I will say the same’

PILLING: agreed with Hyams and said that the Leader article was ‘not quite right’. Said that ‘the inference is that the new zones mean more development’ but ‘nothing has changed’ and in fact it’s better because ‘we’ve put height limits on’. He also ‘gets information from real estate agents’ and the bit about ‘cashing in’ is not true and ‘it’s all spruiking’ and like Hyams said it’s ‘misinformation’. ‘What’s happening now is more surety’ and this application is ‘in the right place’ and ‘we need to have boundaries’. Claimed that in ‘surrounding councils’ ‘it’s a mess’ in contrast to Glen Eira and he ‘endorses’ the application.

OKOTEL: said that since councillors are also residents that they do ‘take these decisions very seriously’ and do take residents’ concerns ‘into account’. Councillors have to ‘apply planning law’ when deciding on applications. On what Lobo said about Carnegie, she thought Carnegie is ‘fantastic’. Everyone ‘I’ve spoken to’ who lives there ‘loves the suburb’. It is ‘thriving’ and new businesses are moving in and council is going to improve the pool, the library forecourt. Repeated that decisions are based on ‘planning law’.

MOTION PUT & CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST

ITEM 9.2 – HAWTHORN ROAD APPLICATION

Delahunty moved to accept motion as printed. Lipshutz seconded.

DELAHUNTY: it’s for a 6 storey building and shops but ‘unfortunately’ this application had ‘so many grounds’ upon which to reject, that that’s the only alternative. Thought that this was the first time she’d seen a recommendation from officers to reject application rather than conditions. But ‘the issues are so great in this application’. Said that there will be more development here, but with this application the ‘bulk, height’ is unacceptable. Hawthorn Road doesn’t ‘have parking that is associated with a railway station’ where they can waive car parking. Car parking therefore ‘was a massive issue’. The application also ‘fell down’ on buffer zones to residential areas and amenity. Overshadowing was ‘considered acceptable’ but 6 storeys was ‘considered to be too abrupt’ even if the land around this is ‘ultimately developed in accordance with the zoning’. ‘No internal amenity impacts that were of concern’ but there was the concern about a ‘really substantial pipe’ for infrastructure. Height was ‘excessive’ and therefore there would have been too many changes necessary so it was recommended to be refused. Said she would ‘like to see a development that is a lot more responsive to the needs of the area’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that it’s a ‘poor application’ and ‘fails on almost every ground’. Admitted that ‘it’s a big site’ and should be developed but if people go down Hawthorn Road they will see the parking problem which is ‘woeful’. Also thought that 6 storeys was ‘too high’. There aren’t other 6 storeys in the area and ‘that’s not to say there shouldn’t be one’ but this one is ‘totally out of character’. It would be a ‘travesty’ to see a 6 storey building in ‘that shopping centre’ when there isn’t anything approaching this height. Didn’t think that the developer had ‘looked at this whole thing properly’.

SOUNNESS: he was speaking against only on the basis that their reasons for refusing ‘weren’t substantive’. Said that he ‘recognised’ that they didn’t have the conditions for approval and that it was probably going to VCAT. Thought that council ‘does want to facilitate the development of this site’. On drainage and parking he ‘would have loved’ for these issues to have been resolved with the applicant.

MAGEE: said a four storey would have been acceptable but there’s a lot to dislike about the application as it stands. It ‘doesn’t give you a benefit to the amenity’ or ‘help with parking’. So there’s nothing in the plans that give ‘grounds to work with the developer’. There’s no ‘transition’ to shops around. Said he would have ‘been surprised’ if there was anything else but a refusal recommended. Said council has to ‘look at the amenity impact’ and ‘how that translates’ and the ‘protection of that amenity’.

OKOTEL: said that it would have been good to find a ‘happy medium’ where objectors could be satisfied by conditions but if council put on conditions then it would mean a ‘significant redesign’ because ‘it fails on so many counts’ so the ‘only option available is to refuse it’.

DELAHUNTY: briefly summed up.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. PILLING, SOUNNESS AND LOBO VOTED AGAINST

Item 9.2 – 487 Neerim Road – 7 lot subdivision (Esakoff on leave and Magee late to meeting)

Hyams moved motion with amendments requiring 4 metre setbacks to some of the units to the east and that there must be council approval to ‘vary envelopes’ (ie building envelopes) like ‘variations to a restrictive covenant’. Also included that there could be variations to garage placements and this would need a planning permit amendment. Lipshutz seconded.

HYAMS: went through the past history and the VCAT approval for a 3 storey development. Permit has now ‘expired’ and the site is in minimal change (NRZ1) so there can’t be a new application because the new zones only allow ‘two buildings on site’. Hence ‘the sensible response to that’ for large sites is to ‘apply for subdivision’. Hyams then said that the developer would currently be paying a 4.25% open space levy instead of 5.7% ‘which is due of course to our amendment being held up’ by people who are ‘being good friends to the developers’. He hoped that ‘those people know what they are doing’. Went on to say that planning permits are required for ‘the actual buildings’ because of the Special Building and Design Overlays. Objectors thought this was all a ‘bit vague’ but that the ‘clarity will come later’. But the ‘application does come with building envelopes’ and once that is approved then things are set and that’s why he moved the amendment about setbacks. Objectors were worried about the trees but they will be ‘protected’ via a Section 173 agreement which ‘will require a tree management plan’. ‘That will ensure’ that the trees ‘are looked after’. Neighbouring units will be ‘protected’ because of the 4 metre setback. Said that other standards like permeability and site coverage have been met and that there will be 3 visitor car parking spaces and 2 resident spots for each unit. Overlooking ‘will be addressed at the planning permit stage’ and he’s confident that this can be resolved by ‘treating’ the windows. Thought that this was ‘good use of the land to subdivide’ and that it also ‘protected the amenity’ of neighbours.

LIPSHUTZ: said that the developers had ‘extensive discussions’ with officers before the application went in and that’s ‘a good thing because it allows things to progress pretty easily’. Said that setbacks weren’t discussed with officers but now that it’s realised the developer can ‘deal with the setback quite readily’. Said the ‘building envelope is quite important’ because buildings are ‘planned a particular way’ and ultimately ‘council has control over it’ with the next planning application.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams’ comments and his amendment because they do ‘strike a balance’ between protecting the neighbourhood and getting the ‘best outcome for that parcel of land’. Said she ‘completely supports’ this motion.

SOUNNESS: thought this was the most ‘comprehensive’ subdivision he’d seen and was very pleased about the emphases on protecting the trees. Recognised that this does ‘constrain’ how many units can go on but that there are also ‘trade offs’. Hoped that the developer will support the conditions and ensure that the trees are maintained even though it will come at a financial cost.

LOBO: said that ‘initially’ he wasn’t ‘happy’ with the application because 7 units means that it will be ‘too congested’. But with Hyams’ amendment ‘I feel more comfortable’ but ‘yet not sure that I will vote for it’.

PILLING: thought that the amendment goes ‘a fair way’ to addressing resident concerns and does ‘strike the right balance’.

HYAMS: said that Magee also ‘expressed’ support for increased setbacks.

MOTION PUT AND VOTED FOR UNANIMOUSLY

Item 9.2 of the current agenda features an application for a 7 lot subdivision on land that is over 3,000 square metres. This property was up for sale just on a year ago and provided council with the perfect opportunity to add to the open space next to Riley Reserve. Of course, this was not even considered. Now there is this application to subdivide the land into seven lots on proposed lot sizes of – Lot 1 is 304 square metres in size, whilst, proposed Lots 2-7 (inclusive) range in size from 199 square metres to 238 square metres in size. The area is in Minimal Change/Residential 1 Zone. Readers should remember that Council’s proposed C115 Amendment for larger size blocks has not been given the green light for exhibition 9 months down the track. Even this application for subdivision dates back to March!

In a wonderful sleight of hand exercise, the officer’s report would have residents believe that The policy (ie the planning scheme) also recognised ‘larger sites’ being those lots greater than 2,000 square metres.

No it doesn’t! ‘larger sites’ are NOT DEFINED in the planning scheme. They never were. In fact, any size block that is ‘larger’ than its neighbours or the ‘conventional’ size can have more than 2 dwellings built on the land in minimal change. If we take ‘conventional’ to mean 500 square metres, then hundreds upon hundreds of properties fit into this category. Here’s what the planning scheme actually states:

Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone have been met. Circumstances where more than two dwellings may be achieved could include any of the following:

 Where the site is in an area characterised by larger than conventional lots.

 Where the site is significantly larger than the majority of properties immediately abutting the title boundary and the properties directly opposite.

 Where the prevailing development in the street and neighbouring streets is predominantly characterised by multi-unit development.

 Ensure that the existing neighbourhood character and subdivision pattern are maintained by discouraging the consolidation of sites.

 Recognise that key pre-existing development sites over 2000m2, including transitional sites (eg sites once used for industry or other redundant uses) and existing residential sites, may be rezoned and developed in minimal change areas:

 With a higher development yield than would normally apply in minimal change areas.

 Incorporating a range of multi-unit developments.

 Ensuring that any multi-unit residential development is consistent with the prevailing streetscape scale, especially along the perimeter of sites.

What makes the above even more ludicrous and unforgiveable is that the PLANNING SCHEME CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Another example of the complete ineptitude and incompetence of both the planning at local level as well as the the department. Why? Because at Section 22.08 -3.1 it states:

Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone have been met.

Hence what we have here is a total schemozzle and as we’ve indicated in a previous post, developers are quite legally entitled to argue that if they own a large lot in a minimal change area that the GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE standards apply rather than the MINIMAL CHANGE AREA standards. Whose heads should roll for this gross incompetence? How on earth can something as significant as this get through unchecked? How many staff are in planning? Why are we paying exorbitant costs for what must be seen as sheer incompetence?

PS: we are in error with the above by inadvertently looking at an older version of the Planning Scheme dating from 2013. However, this still does not invalidate our view that by designating the standards for larger lot sizes as General Residential Zone, instead of those that applied to Minimal Change, the community is far worse off and the ‘translation’ has been far from ‘neutral’. It also does Council no credit when this change was picked up weeks after the new zones were gazetted!

There’s also another item that was decided last council meeting and features in the Records of Assembly. The ‘reconstruction’ of Fosberry and St Aubins Avenue at at cost of $908,000. We have to wonder whether all of this ‘reconstruction’ (ie drainage) is merely another subsidy going to developers. Recently a large development received VCAT approval under the ‘transitional provisions” for two buildings of double storeys and 22 dwellings. The land is 3934 square metres.

Another opportunity for council to purchase land in an area bereft of open space. Once again, no purchase. And once again major ‘reconstruction’ of areas surrounding large development sites. The hive of such activity around Caulfield Village, and now St Aubins may be coincidental. We leave that up to readers to decide – but there appears to be a definite pattern. Considering that Glen Eira has dumped its development contributions levy, what a wonderful present this is for developers when ratepayers are forking out the money for their drainage!