Glen Eira Debates

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.

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!

We report on one planning application from last night’s council meeting. Two others will follow. We ask readers to carefully consider the contradictions from all three sets of arguments; the repeated attempts at gagging free speech, and the basic mistruths that have been uttered time and again.

ITEM 9.4 – TUCKER ROAD

Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded by Pilling.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had discussions on this and ‘went over it in great detail’. Application is to amend earlier permit and increase dwellings from 13 to 20. The Bentleigh area is a ‘very popular place to be’. ‘It’s a wonderful place to live’ and those living there are ‘very lucky’. ‘More people want to live there’. Councillors have taken into account objectors’ views but the permit should still ‘be issued’. A 2009 VCAT hearing allowed the 13 dwellings, so there’s ‘been some history’ and subsequently the land has been subdivided and now the application wants to extend the dwellings on the rest of the site. Meets height, mass under GRZ schedule. Parking and traffic is ‘within an acceptable limit‘. Amenity also ‘complies with ResCode standards’.

PILLING: there have been other 5 and 6 storey application in Murrumbeena and this is on a main road and is ‘quite acceptable‘. Development is ‘in the right area’.

HYAMS: councillors have a responsibility to the planning law and not necessarily to ‘what residents would like us to do’ even thought ‘this might be the easy thing to do’. ‘We need to apply planning law’. Said that ‘most of us’ take this ‘very seriously’. He ‘would like’ to refuse but the planning grounds don’t give the option of refusing – especially since the ‘permit that’s already there’. Whilst Tucker Road ‘isn’t a main road’ it is ‘certainly not a side street’. Height is within limits, and setback from front is better than permit granted. Side setbacks ‘aren’t as good as they were but still within acceptable parameter’. Conditions have increased setbacks and by removing study wall that makes it 3 bedroom and therefore more parking spots to be provided. Overshadowing will be the ‘same as current permit’. Regurgitated rest of officers report about waste management plan. etc.

LOBO: referred to Lipshutz saying on the Heritage Amendment (9.3) that ‘officers don’t get it right all the time’.

LIPSHUTZ jumped up with a point of order. ‘I did not say that’. (NOTE: LIPSHUTZ DID SAY THIS!). Claimed that he was ‘misrepresented’ by Lobo.

PILLING asked Lobo to retract comment. Lobo said ‘okay’.

LOBO: Asked why council says that ‘the new residential zones were established to maintain certainty for all?’ Said that ‘experience’ has shown him that ‘developers have more advantage’ than residents and that ‘residents are the downtrodden people in all this decision making’. Said that apart from the minimal change areas, the ‘flood gates have opened up’ and those ‘waiting in anticipation of these new zones have now come out of the woodwork’ and ‘anticipate’ increase and putting in their applications.

HYAMS: sprang up with a point of order saying that the Local Law requires ‘honesty’ in that Lobo is saying that the new zones are letting developments that previously weren’t and ‘we’ve said time and time again that that is not the case’.

PILLING: ‘I agree with’ Hyams and ‘what you are saying is incorrect’.

LOBO: said that he is ‘free for my opinion’.

PILLING: ‘you need to make factual statements’ if you’re speaking on behalf of council. Said that Lobo can ask the ‘director to clarify’ if he wants’.

LOBO: answered that he couldn’t ‘clarify because we have not gone to public consultation’. And ‘because it is a law, I have to agree with this’. Said that ‘internally, Cr Okotel and I did not agree’.

PILLING: told Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

HYAMS: another point of order that what Lobo was saying about disagreeing with council on the need for consultation that ‘that’s not true either’.

LOBO: ‘it is true. Ask Cr Okotel’.

PILLING: told Lobo that he had already ‘corrected’ him on the information and that he should talk to the application.

LOBO: said that Hyams is ‘interpreting all the time’.

PILLING: again tried to stop Lobo while Lobo kept interrupting and saying that people should be allowed to talk.

HYAMS: said that Lobo is accusing him of ‘racism’.

LOBO: ‘I didn’t say that. I speak 5 languages’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

LOBO: said there is overshadowing. Residents also said that privacy, devaluation of property is no concern to the ‘three tiers of government’. ResCode is ‘simply a joke’ in terms of parking. Said that Guy’s powers were ‘extraordinary’.

PILLING: interrupted again asking that he stick to the application.

LOBO: said that his comments ‘were true’

PILLING: didn’t want discussion on ‘political stance’ but wanted discussion on the application. Lobo kept interrupting and Pilling said that he would tell him to stop unless he spoke about the application. Lobo claimed that Pilling was ‘pre-empting’ what he was about to say. Pilling disagreed.

LOBO: said he had a call from a resident who on talk back radio asked why the zones ‘had been introduced’ and that guy had said ‘it is the fault of the Glen Eira City Council’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to stick to the application.

LOBO: claimed that all this can be ‘dirty, selfish’

LIPSHUTZ: another point of order and asked Pilling to tell Lobo to ‘sit down’

Lobo then needed a time extension. The motion was put and seconded by Delahunty. On the vote only Sounness and Delahunty voted for time extension. Motion was lost and Pilling told Lobo to sit down.

MAGEE: said that this application only ‘survives’ because it’s on Tucker road which is more than a residential street. The ‘impact before and after’ is ‘minimal’. Shouldn’t condemn developers for wanting to ‘maximise return’ because they also ‘maximise opportunities for families’. Tucker is the ‘entry point’ into Glen Eira because it is ‘most affordable’. ‘If we are to save the small suburban streets’ then this kind of application has to be ‘accommodated’. Although ‘not ideal’ it in the end ‘does comply’. On the ‘positive side’ it gives ‘opportunity’ for families to move ‘into the greatest suburb in Australia’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo had talked about overshadowing and he wanted Akehurst to say whether the overshadowing was ‘worse’ than the current permit.

AKEHURST: said that with the conditions imposed the overshadowing is ‘no greater’ than what the permit allowed.

SOUNNESS: found the application was ‘consistent with good, orderly planning’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors should be reassured that the conditions council has imposed ‘protect them from no greater harm’ than the original permit. Said that ‘people have to live somewhere’ and that we ‘can’t prejudge what type of people might move in’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

We are becoming increasingly concerned over what, to all intents and purposes, appears to be the social divide that is occurring within the municipality. Whilst Bentleigh, Carnegie, and other areas are allowed to go to the dogs, certain areas appear to have the ‘protected species’ assigned to them – many being in Camden Ward!

The latest agenda features 2 applications that would seem to endorse this view. One is for a 5 storey building of 3 shops and 57 dwelllings in Neerim Road, Carnegie. It is zoned Mixed Use (ie no height limits) and located in the Murrumbeena Neighbourhood Centre. Officers recommended a permit and the waiving of 4 visitor car parking spots.

The second application is Hawthorn Road, North Caulfield. It is zoned Commercial (again no height limits) and is seeking a permit for 6 storeys, shops and 40 dwellings. Both applications are surrounded by other Commercial zones and the General Residential Zone. Yet, officers decided to reject this second application outright and to pass the Neerim Road one.

It should also be borne in mind that council’s approach is often to chop off one floor and a handful of apartments and hence grant approval. This hasn’t been done for the Hawthorn Road application. So whilst the application seems to meet all the planning scheme requirements in terms of zoning, height, and even ‘mass’ it doesn’t get the nod. Instead we find some remarkable statements that are applied to one site, which didn’t enter council’s consciousness on applications in other areas. For example: council now appears worried about setting a precedent! They are also concerned about drainage, when countless applications are passed in Carnegie resulting in basement car park flooding – and this is when this report contains an engineering recommendation that the developer pay for extra drainage. No such additions have appeared in the countless officer reports for these other areas!

Thus we have to ask:

• Are parts of Glen Eira being allowed to become part of the ‘great unwashed’?
• Is Camden Ward being accorded ‘privileges’ that other areas aren’t? If so, why?

Finally, we’ve uploaded the two zoning maps for these applications and ask residents to ponder the ‘differences’ which results in one application being granted a permit and the other one a rejection by planners. We also wish to state that we are NOT endorsing either application. We make no comment on the quality of the proposed plans. We are simply concentrating on the officer comments and the resulting recommendations.

If you happen to live in a street that is now zoned as Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone, then you might consider doing what countless Glen Eira residents have already started doing – getting the hell out of the municipality before the area really goes to the dogs and making some money in the process. We now know of 6 instances where owners are getting together and selling their properties as one lot. This trend will no doubt continue – especially when people start realising that their streets and their neighbourhoods are about to be over-run with inappropriate development thanks to Council’s welcome arms approach to development and their unwillingness to undertake current and proper strategic planning.

A perfect example of the insanity of this planning scheme can be seen by what is happening in Penang St. McKinnon which has now inconceivably been given the green light for 3 storey developments. Two properties at 2 and 4 Penang St were bought by the same developer and there is now an application for a 3 storey, 24 apartment, and of course, a reduction in visitor car parking. The combined land equals roughly 1360 square metres. However, that’s not the end of the stor(e)y.

Penang is a quiet residential street consisting of only 9 dwellings and several which front Jasper Road. Many of these nine dwellings are single storeys and the double storeys add their own character to the street as the photos below will show. We cannot see any rhyme or reason why such as street has been placed in this zone, in contrast to say Wattle Avenue which has been left as minimal change, yet consists of several scruffy looking blocks of flats and units. As one commentator on this site has asked – no one from council could possibly be living in Wattle Avenue could they? In terms of another 24 apartments and growth in the surrounding streets, then Penang is the perfect setting for the latest rat run as drivers try to avoid the lights at the corner of Jasper and Mckinnon. Needless to say, there is no parking plan overlay for this Neighbourhood Centre!

To make matters worse, the houses at 2 and 4 Penang St. are ‘classical’ and with their demolition this will now create the precedent for more triple storeys in the street and surrounding areas. Here’s what will be lost and replaced with box like dwellings no doubt – the slums of the future!

Some of the other houses in the street look like this!

We remind readers that Council has:

• Introduced these zones in secret & without consultation
• Council has never stated what is the optimum population for Glen Eira
• No Housing Strategy review has been done since the late 1990’s
• A one size fits all approach based on antiquated data is unacceptable.

We urge all readers to inform themselves of what zoning they fall under and to protest and protest at whatever application comes in that they believe will threaten their amenity, lifestyle and environment. Remember, amendments may be made, but they can also be tossed out – especially with a new set of councillors who actually give a damn about what’s happening to neighbourhoods all through the municipality!