Glen Eira Debates

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!

There are 3 significant planning applications in for decision tonight. Each is for multi-unit development and each has been recommended for approval. The details in brief are –

1. Four storey, 33 dwellings, 2 retail, 2 offices and reduction in carparking and waiver of loading bays
2. Part six and seven storey, 39 dwellings, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and waiver of loading bays
3. Two storey child care centre for 118 children in a minimal change area.

Council’s recent trend of NOT DISCLOSING how many proposed units will be one bedroom should be deplored, especially when residents are continually fed the rubbish about creating ‘diversity’ in the municipality. What is even more deplorable is the continuation of officer reports that are entirely bereft of sufficient detail, though replete with waffle, repetition, generalities, and plain old humbug. ‘Clerical errors’ still manage to creep in – ie Council has labelled one zone as operating under Schedule 1 whereas it is in fact designated as Schedule 2. It would be wonderful if planners actually knew their own planning scheme or at least double checked what went out!

Here are some of the most memorable lines from the various officer reports –

Guidelines suggest 6 car spaces for the proposed shops. Four are proposed. Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the reduction of car parking for the shops, given that two spaces have been provided for each tenancy. Given the size of the shops, this will cater for the likely staff demand.

All habitable rooms will have access to daylight either directly through windows facing the front, side and rear boundaries or light courts which will provide an acceptable level of internal amenity.

Here’s a quote from the second application which is for the 6/7 storey building –

Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.

By way of comparison, the following quote is from the first application (ie 4 storeys). Please note the repetition with no explanation of why one design is deemed to be ‘high standard’ and the other application is only of ‘relatively high standard’ –

Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a relatively high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.

There are further gems as well! We especially love the logic that since there already are 3 and 4 storeys in another municipality, that a six and seven storey building is therefore acceptable!

In light of the emerging built form in this centre (up to 5 storeys has been approved to the south at 77-79 Poath Road), and opposite in the City of Monash (3-4 storeys) the scale of the building is considered suitable.

State Government guidelines suggest seven (7) on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the on-site visitor car space provision. On balance, this is considered reasonable in this instance given: Visitor parking is most common after normal business hours…

There are countless other examples we could have provided, but we believe these will suffice in order for residents to come to some conclusions as to the quality and transparency of planning application reports.

Item 9.8 – Minimum floor space requirements

This item is in response to a Request for a Report from the previous council meeting. On par with so many other potential initiatives, Glen Eira’s response is to sit on its hands and do bugger all. Everything is always someone else’s problem to solve! Below is what was asked and the underlined sections are what we believe has not been satisfactorily responded to in the officer’s report.

Minimum floor space requirements for dwellings in other jurisdictions including internationally and what benefit or detriment is created by these requirements;

How minimum floor space requirements could be beneficial for Glen Eira in the case that such requirements are adopted by the Victorian state; and

How Glen Eira Council could advocate for state-wide minimum floor space requirements such as through a planning amendment.

The report by the City of Melbourne on its Unit developments and liveability as it may apply to the City of Glen Eira.

The report starts off with a full page of philosophical waffle that works to deflect attention from the questions asked and instead resorts to the usual ruse of how good the current planning system is in that setbacks and height limits do the job of helping to determine the size of apartments and even internal amenity. Setbacks and height limits (if they are applied that is) only determine overall site coverage. They don’t determine how many units the developer can cram into the resulting available space.

More waffle and unsubstantiated opinion then follows – It is likely that if a minimum dwelling size is dictated, it would tend to become the default size and counter productive to dwelling diversity.

Really! Then the City of Melbourne’s research must all be nonsense for them to claim the exact opposite — The predominance of high-cost, one and two bedroom, small and inadaptable apartments is driving the establishment of a homogenous population in regards to household income, age and employment of our residents (City of Melbourne, 2013b). (page 41).

The truth of the matter is that Glen Eira already has a defacto ‘default’ size of one and two bedroom dwellings that contribute nothing to housing diversity. If council was truly concerned about ‘liveability’ and ‘diversity’ then it would publish figures on: how many 1 bedroom apartments have been built in the past 3 years? How many two bedroom apartments have been built in the past 3 years? What is the average size of these apartments? On this point, we note that the Caulfield Village development of 442 units (8 of which are town houses) contains over 200 units of less than 60 square metres in size with quite a few well under 50 square metres! Yet, there was not one single word in any of council’s documentation about this issue and not one word issued from any councillor. Total silence about access to sunlight, access to public open space, and ‘internal amenity’. Size was a taboo subject altogether. When asked at the planning conference, residents were told that these aspects would be ‘investigated’ and put into officer recommendations. We challenge anyone to find a single sentence in the resulting report that focuses on these questions, and therefore ‘social amenity’ and ‘liveability’!

We then find another gem in the officer’s report – It is considered that it is difficult to argue that town planning is best placed and therefore should intervene in dwelling size to a greater extent than it currently does. Why is it ‘difficult’ to argue when countless cities worldwide are doing exactly this? Moreland City Council in fact has introduced a draft Amendment (uploaded here) which attempts to set specific standards for size, environmental design, open space, etc. Strange isn’t it that the officer’s report just happens to overlook this important fact? The reason of course is that council intends to do absolutely nothing that might impinge on development and rate revenue. So without any shame we’re back to the old chestnut of ‘leave it to government’!

And let’s also forget all those essentials of ‘liveability’ that the Melbourne City Council defines quite clearly – The size of an apartment is often fundamental to achieving good levels of amenity. New homes must have enough space for basic daily activities, be able to accommodate standard sized furniture, have storage space for everyday items and be adaptable and flexible in their layout to allow for different lifestyles and users. (page 36)

The most hypocritical statement in this entire report comes with reference to ResCode and the assertion that the ‘standards’ set by this protocol ‘must be met’. We ask residents to consider how many planning applications come before council and do NOT ADHERE to the standards are granted permits. Time and again officer reports are stacked with such comments as no ‘unreasonable impact’ and so on. Council can’t have it both ways. Either the standards should be applied wholeheartedly, or they are not worth the paper they are written on.

We would also like to point out a recent disturbing trend in officer reports on planning applications. Not too long ago the reports would very clearly ennumerate the NUMBERS of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units proposed. That is now gone and readers are left to decipher from the car parking standards what is what – an impossible task since both one and two bedrooms are required to have the same number of car spaces allotted. Please make up your own minds if such omissions are deliberate or simply an ‘oversight’!

Finally, we have uploaded the two relevant City of Melbourne’s documents (here & here) and urge readers to compare what is stated in these documents as opposed to council’s once again ‘do nothing’ report. And just for the record, readers may also find the following extracts from the Melbourne efforts very enlightening –

The trend in the City of Melbourne, however, is for increasingly small apartments with 40 per cent having less than 50 m2 of floor space, the minimum size for one bedroom apartments in Sydney, Adelaide and London. Consumer research in London (Bartlett K et al, 2002) shows that space is high on the list of priorities of the increasing number of one-person households and that criticism about lack of space is expressed by all groups of home buyers with singles just as vociferous as families. (page 36)

Evidence on attracting and retaining families in inner urban, mixed income communities (Silverman E. et al, 2005) reviewed several London case studies and found that these communities work best when the homes are designed with families in mind, with adequate storage, ample kitchens, family bathrooms and access to outdoor space where possible. (page 36)

Fundamental to a resident’s quality of life is the size and layout of an apartment. No amount of sensitive or innovative design can compensate for apartments that are too small to meet the basic living requirements of the household. (page 48)

And from the discussion paper –

The evidence suggests that letting the market create diversity is unrealistic and that it is impossible to predict or fully anticipate market tendencies, particularly as the housing market is now operating within a global context. (p.51)

In Victoria, apartments are primarily designed to meet the national Building Code of Australia (BCA) standards which is driving a minimum compliance approach. It is understood that the BCA standards were not prepared with consideration for the type of higher density development currently being constructed and are therefore met too easily. The case study analysis concluded that a lack of clear planning policy outcomes together with current BCA requirements is resulting in poor apartment quality in Melbourne. (p.70)