We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Over the past week or so we have had announcement after announcement regarding the proposed changes to our activity centres. All bereft of strategic justification and lacking essential detail as to eventual heights, open space provision or infrastructure and its appropriate funding. We await the gazetting of other plans.
This tsunami of proposed changes will undoubtedly impact Glen Eira more than other councils and most will be without third party objection rights.
We itemise below each of these proposals –
Moorabbin
The changes to the Moorabbin major activity centre will affect Glen Eira in many ways. The latest version is depicted in the image below. Please note that Glen Eira sites feature north of South Road and north/east of Nepean Highway. The other areas included are within the Kingston and Bayside areas.
A summary of the most important changes are:
Catchment areas increased all the way from South Road to Patterson Road. Highly questionable whether this range is really 800m or simply as the crow flies.
The areas marked light blue are currently zoned as NRZ (ie two storey height limit). They will now be rezoned as suitable for up to three storeys and some four storeys depending on land size.
Most of the green coloured sites now have a three storey height limit which will be increased to six storeys.
Car parking requirements remain unknown
Thus hundreds of Glen Eira sites are impacted.
Railway Stations/Activity Centres
Yesterday’s announcement of another list of activity centres about to be changed forever has Glen Eira featuring prominently. We will now have 5 areas designated for major high density development – Bentleigh, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick, and Caulfield. No other details as to heights, setbacks, parking, infrastructure, etc. has been released, nor most importantly what size their respective ‘catchment areas’ will be. We have no idea as to whether we are looking at 10 or 12 storeys (even though North Road has already been granted the ‘right’ for 10 storeys as this stage).
The only other council to have 5 areas nominated is Stonnington. What’s important to bear in mind is that Glen Eira is only 38.9 square km in size compared to most other councils. We also lack the commercial areas that Stonnington and other councils have – ie we are basically a residential municipality compared with the size of the commercial areas in other councils. (ie Glen Eira has 3.8% of land zoned commercial compared to Stonnington nearing 9%). With the prospect of all these areas suddenly becoming high density, this could mean that close to half of our municipality will now be a developer’s paradise. Glen Huntly currently has, according to profile.id data, a population density of 5,824 persons per square km – the highest in Glen Eira as well as being one of the smallest suburbs. Parts of our drainage system feature pipes that are 100 years old; our roads are often narrow, and congestion is already a major headache.
Equitable distribution of increased population planning does not seem to exist for this government. As long as there are railway stations, then the myth continues to be propagated that this is suitable for high density regardless of the fact that:
People living in one or two bedroom apartments still own cars as we’ve recently illustrated
More dwellings does not mean more affordable housing. When three bedroom apartments can sell for over $3m and two bedroom apartments for $1.4m then affordable housing is truly a myth in most of Glen Eira.
The tsunami of recent media releases by this government appears to mirror the Trump techniques – inundate readers with a deluge so that the ability to clearly focus, question, and assess becomes limited. Secondly resort to spin and more spin that simply makes no sense except to push a political agenda creating the impression that government is actually doing something.
Unless our council is prepared to become far more proactive and critical, as other councils have, then Glen Eira is basically doomed. It will, in our opinion, become the ghettos of either high priced luxury apartments, or our future slums with no real advance on affordable homes or protecting existing residential amenity.
The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:
How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:
A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?
What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.
Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application exceeds the 8 storey limit. Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!
Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!
We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.
We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –
What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.
This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.
Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false
Social media has been busy with the Woolworths’ new plans for Selwyn Street, Elsternwick. As pointed out repeatedly, they have gone directly to the planning minister with a new application that seeks to undermine previous VCAT decisions and restore heights that had been knocked on the head years ago. In other words, if you don’t get what you want, then simply ignore the umpire’s previous decision and have another go via one single individual – the planning minister. Even worse is that such an action effectively sidelines objectors and even council.
This is hypocrisy of the highest level – especially when we consider the Woolworths’ arguments at the second VCAT hearing, which they now clearly have forgotten. At this hearing, their argument was:
The Applicant’s closing submission highlights examples of this and points out a second VCAT hearing should not be about forum shopping and relitigating previously determined matters in the hope of securing a different outcome. The Applicant also highlights that the previous Tribunal comprised experienced legal and planning members and their reasoning was considerable in explaining why particular issues were acceptable.
So these ‘experienced legal and planning members’ of VCAT, cannot now be ‘trusted’ to endorse Woolworths’ ambitions. They must be sidestepped and appealed to the planning minister in the hope of a fast tracked permit that is all for seeking a ‘different outcome’.
The only conclusions that can be drawn from these events is that our planning system is an entire mess that invariably favours developers. Council itself has been complicit in these events as its lousy planning over the years and unwillingness to take on major developments have shown – ie with the MRC, with the Virginia Estate, and now with Woolworths. It is residents who literally pay the costs of such folly and craven inaction.
Whilst Glen Eira basically sits back and does practically nothing, apart from a very belated media release by the CEO, Bayside City Council has been working flat out to ensure that the community knows what the State Gov is planning for their council. They have:
Held a community forum on December 18th with expert commentators where over 200 residents attended
Published summaries of what is proposed and its impact on their municipality
In contrast, residents of Glen Eira would be hard pressed to locate any specific information on council’s website, and there certainly has been no information sessions/forums held by our council.
One activity centre of concern to Glen Eira is Moorabbin where the west side of South Road is in Glen Eira and the East covers Kingston and south Bayside. Here is what Bayside has said about the proposals for this area and its views on the proposed housing targets –
Our previous post featured car ownership data across all of Glen Eira. The following table has broken down the stats to show what is happening across individual suburbs. The vast majority of these areas are within our major activity centres, or our neighbourhood centres, plus featuring major roads.
(CLICK THE ABOVE TO ENLARGE)
What the data reveals is that assigning a one onsite car parking spot for dwellings that contain either one or two bedrooms is doing nothing to reduce car ownership – which is purportedly the aim. And parking issues are even further exacerbated when we have council or vcat waiving spots. We have not included this variable in the above analysis.
What we can conclude is that:
Over 6,141 cars do not have onsite parking spots – and probably more given car parking waivers. That can only mean that they are parking outside on the street. This number is based on the following calculation – 432 second cars in one bedroom places, plus 70 spots for 3 cars per such dwellings. Added to this we have 4,761 two car households in two bedroom homes, plus 439 three car households. The latter figure means that 2 cars won’t have onsite parking, which makes it another 878 cars likely to park in the street. The total becomes 432+70+4,761+878=6,141!
There are of course certain assumptions made in the above calculation. For example: whether two bedroom places are townhouses with driveways and a one car garage, so that the second and third car might perhaps park in the driveway. However, the number of two bedroom town houses/units is quite small, (just over 5000) so should not over-ride the conclusion that there is a huge shortfall of required onsite parking in our municipality.
For council and VCAT to frequently waive onsite car parking and to even consider further reducing the ratio can only worsen the situation. It also shoots down in flames the argument that people living near transport areas will not own cars. Furthermore, if the major criterion is how people get to work, then this tells us nothing about how people use their cars apart from getting to work – ie. shopping, picking kids up from school, visiting places and friends. It also assumes that public transport is great at all hours of the day. What is indisputable is that the number of cars is increasing based on the past census data and they are outstripping the number of new dwellings. To assume that people living in one bedroom apartments in particular and who live close to transport will not own and use cars, is to ignore the facts.
According to the 2021 census results Glen Eira had 5,357 one bedroom dwellings and 17,588 two bedroom dwellings. We can assume that the vast majority of one bedroom dwellings are within our activity centres and/or around main roads and transport hubs. The question then becomes how many of these one and two bedroom homes own motor cars? How well do all the assumptions regarding car ownership and whether or not residents living close to public transport do not own, nor have a need for cars actually stand up to scrutiny? Do the stats support this state and council thinking?
We have had a closer look at the 2021 census results in the attempt to answer these basic questions. The results clearly indicate that the spin does not match reality. The majority of people who live in one bedroom apartments still own a car and the same is true for those folks who live in two bedroom homes.
Below is a screen dump derived from the ABS which provides tallies of the number of NO CARS and ONE CAR for each dwelling of either one or two bedrooms.
If we do a simple calculation based on the above data, we can see that:
Only one quarter of residents in single bedroom homes do not own a car (ie 26%)
In two bedroom homes only 12.9%do not own a car
Thus if we have 75% of residents living in single bedroom homes owning cars, and 87% who reside in two bedroom dwellings also owning cars, what does this say about the requirements for adequate onsite parking? What does it say about off street parking becoming impossible for the majority of residents if onsite car parking waivers are the norm as illustrated with the recent Halstead Street application? And let’s not forget that council has already mooted that it intends to REDUCE the requirement for onsite parking in our major activity centres in the very near future.
The constant refrain of recent times is that car parking in Glen Eira is inadequate. Streets are ‘parked out’ and residents often cannot even get out of their own driveways. Yes, it is laudable that alternative modes of transport are being considered (ie bike paths, car share, etc.) but NOTHING can improve the situation when developments are continually allowed to waive the requisite number of onsite car parking spots. Cars are a fact of life in Australia and will remain so. It is indeed time that council acknowledged this and did everything in its power to address the problem instead of adopting policies that are pie in the sky, feel good, motherhood statements (ie 50:50 mode share).
We have repeatedly contrasted how other councils approach dealings with the State Government and how their official communications vastly differ. In Glen Eira the criticisms and dare we say ‘outrage’ is muted and practically non-existent. Nor are residents truly informed as to what is going on behind the scenes.
This post concentrates on the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan released by the State Government in August 2024. Bayside publishes its proposed submission in the current agenda. Glen Eira merely presents a ‘summary’ of what officers will draft (September 3rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain. The submissions are due on the 29th September.
Bayside does not hold back in informing residents as to what occurred. Their officer’s report states:
The VPA and DTP scheduled a meeting with officers from Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston City Councils on Wednesday 21 August, informing that Phase 2 Engagement on a Draft Plan for Moorabbin would likely occur within the coming days, and that the Draft Plan would be released to Council officers and the public at this time. On 22 August, release of the Draft Plan was made via an article in the Age
All we learn from Glen Eira via the September 3rd report is:
The State Government has released the Draft Activity Centre Plans for Moorabbin and Chadstone for comment to both Council and the public on 22 August 2024.
No mention of the indecent haste; no mention of meetings and certainly no mention of the failure to inform council and the community directly. Is this a minor oversight, an unfortunate lapse? Or does it signify Glen Eira’s refusal to even imply major criticisms of the State Government’s processes and autocratic actions?
Here are some other comments made by Bayside in their officer’s report –
Council officers are extremely disappointed in the manner that the VPA and DTP has and continues to engage on this important project. The limited time and information available to provide meaningful feedback has created significant scepticism and lack of trust in the State Government’s ability to appropriately plan or manage such projects. Specifically, the approach provides little confidence and raises significant concern about the State Governments failure to follow its own planning framework and principles of the State Governments own Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the principles for a transparent planning process. Instead, the State Government, VPA and DTP are failing to openly engage with Council or the community, presenting all parties with plans for the Moorabbin Activity Centre without any technical reports, justification for the proposed approach, or any planning provisions.
There are grave concerns that the State Government is operating on the very outskirts of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the process of this program going far beyond what orderly and proper planning seeks to achieve. (Bayside bolding)
The Activity Centres program continues the State Government’s continued erosion of the community and local government participation in the planning process. It is based on the State Governments false narrative that Councils are a critical block in the delivery of housing.
The VPA and DTP have informed Council officers that there will not be an open or transparent review process. The plan will be presented to a Standing Advisory Committee on papers only – considering submissions raised. This approach will remove any peer review or cross examination of experts. The State Government, VPA, and DTP are running a process where there is no accountability or opportunity to question their work (which has not been released to the public).
It is understood that the Activity Centre Program is a pilot program which will be used as a basis to replicate across the metropolitan area. The approach undertaken by the VPA and DTP does not provide Bayside, nor should it provide the remainer of the Local Government Sector across Victoria, with any confidence that a replicated approach could be efficiently or effectively rolled out. The localised issues and needs of communities will be different and the work undertaken has not given due regard to the community expectations.
The VPA and DTP continue to inform Bayside of the program rather than genuinely consult or collaborate which represents a lost opportunity for a collaborative approach which could genuinely achieve improved outcomes. Bayside sees the output to date by the VPA and DTP as not having any real value or improved planning outcome beyond a small uplift in building heights in the most sensitive part of the project area.
There are plenty of other statements we could have included. This officer’s report is then followed by a 25 page formal submission. If the Glen Eira submission gets to even 12 pages we will be surprised!
The Bayside submission includes discussion on:
The State Government’s abandonment of its own planning rules and processes
Whether the gov’s draft plan is in accord with the ’purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone to facilitate commercial growth.
The 3rd September Glen Eira report ignores most of the above categories. Not a word is stated in regard to: housing affordability; transport and traffic; Sustainable Design; actions/plans in accordance with the ‘purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone. Whilst the 3rd September report is supposed to be a ‘summary’ only of what will eventuate in the actual submission, its lack of coverage and detail is concerning. Of greatest concern is the overall TONE of the report. Yes, we get verbage such as ‘concern’, a token acknowledgement of the ‘community’ but nothing to match what Bayside sees as vital to full transparency and democratic process.
This isn’t simply an issue of semantics. When we have a State Government that bulldozes through ill thought out planning changes as a political escape clause to camouflage its incompetence and indifference to the housing crisis, then it is incumbent on ALL councils to stand united and to call out such incompetence in the strongest terms. Glen Eira remains the odd man out – refusing to call a spade a spade, and thereby failing in its obligations to the thousands of residents (and future residents) who will be impacted by these spurious ‘reforms’. As we’ve said before – why on earth is Glen Eira taking this course? What is really behind such mealy- mouthed responses?
Last night’s ‘debate’ on the proposed new local law/meeting procedures belongs in the annals of high melodrama. It is also an indictment of councillors who once again failed miserably to support residents by ensuring democracy is alive and well in glen Eira.
What’s Missing
Cade moved the item and introduced several amendments – all technical – but without a single word explaining the necessity for these amendments. Residents would not have a clue what these things meant.
More concerning was that no councillor mentioned the most important aspects of the proposals such as we’ve highlighted in our previous post. Of course ‘best practice’ rated a few mentions!!!!
No one commented on:
Why the banning of notice of motion 6 months out of an election
Why Glen Eira differed so dramatically from what other councils have done
Why notices of motion could not apply to council policies
Why notices of motion required 3 signatories when other councils insist on one, or two signatories
Not one single mention was made of any of these points by any speaker. And we note that most councillors were silent and simply put up their hands at the end to vote these laws in unanimously! Surely when important issues are up for decision, residents have a right to know WHY councillors vote they way they do? Even the councillor Code of Conduct requires this – ie Councillors swear that they will: represent my views truthfully and be prepared to discuss how my views were formed. This did not occur. In the end residents are the losers as councillors meekly towed the party line and handed over full control to our unelected bureaucrats.
The Melodrama
All attention was focused on the clause which would ban placards and posters being brought into council meetings. Two councillors (Karslake and Athanasopolous) voted against the local law, solely it would seem, on this basis. Athansopolous even brought props with him – a walking stick, cakes of soap, handwash, and various bits of makeup that could reside in a woman’s handbag. His claim was that any of these things could be used as projectiles and since the proposed law didn’t cover these items, that concentrating on posters was basically discriminatory and ineffectual.
We take no position on this issue. What we do expect however is that ALL aspects of the proposed laws are given the same attention as this single clause. It wasn’t.
That leaves some questions:
Did all councillors agree with ALL the clauses of the proposed law? If not, then why not comment and provide your views? If they did agree, then again, the reasons should have been forthcoming.
Is the 9 to 7 vote real or simply a camouflage? If a camouflage then what does this say about the internal operations of this council and the pressure that is put on some councillors to keep shtum? And what does it say about the way in which this administration and councillors view and treat their residents?
Last night was indeed a sad day for Glen Eira ratepayers!
The chasm between what council promises via its various policies and what actually happens is on full show with the proposed new governance and meeting procedure laws. (Item 8.3 in current agenda).
For starters, council’s Engagement Strategy tells us that residents will learn and understand how their feedback has influenced the final council decision. Here’s what page 25 of this strategy states:
Increase transparency about what the community feedback was, how it was considered and how it has influenced the decision.
Regularly publish on Council’s website what it was we wanted to know (we asked), what we heard from the community (you said), and how the feedback was used to influence Council’s decisions (we did).
The community will be able to see how their feedback has or has not influenced Council’s decisions.
Sounds great! In reality however nothing could be further from the truth. For item 8.3 of the agenda, there is not one word which explains why the views of residents were either ignored or, if genuinely considered, were rejected for inclusion in the final draft documents.
Adding further insult to injury, we have this comment in the officer’s report –
The full engagement summary report is provided as Attachment 4.
We have searched back over the past agenda items and this is the first time we have found the so called ‘engagement summary’. Adding to the confusion, it was only on the July 9th council meeting that resident responses were published. This was NOT labelled as the ‘engagement summary report’. So why has it taken until now for this ‘summary’ report to be put into the public domain? And as for the report itself it again falls well below what residents should expect in terms of objective and comprehensive reporting on resident feedback.
Item 8.3 continually refers to council following ‘best practice’. This term is mentioned 5 times in this item. On perusing the July 9th comments, one submission highlights what ‘best practice’ actually means by quoting from 6 of our surrounding councils and how they handle the notice of motion issue – Bayside, Monash, Boroondara, Kingston, Port Phillip and Stonnington. Why the final Glen Eira draft on this issue differs from ALL of these other councils is not explained or even mentioned. Residents have absolutely no idea as to why their recommendations and comments were ignored or ultimately incorporated. This practice does not adhere to the above quotes from council’s own engagement strategy!!!!!!!
Here is just one example of a resident’s views which did not eventuate in the final proposed draft. Again, no explanation as to why not!
While it may be helpful for those watching a meeting for officers to give the background to a report, if officers give the reasons for the recommendation, they are effectively debating the motion. This is not the role of officers. It should be left to the councillor moving the motion and the other councillors who support it to do this. As well as officers intruding into the role of councillors, it would also put those councillors who disagree with the recommendation, as is the absolute right of any councillor, in the awkward position of having to publicly disagree with the officer who has just spoken. This could also cause ill will on both sides, and is therefore detrimental for cohesion between officers and councillors.
Contrary to this recommendation, council proposes instead:
Before an Officer Report is considered by Council and any motion moved in relation to such report,the Chief Executive Officer may, at the invitation of the Chair, introduce the report by setting out in not more than 2 minutes: 30.1.1 its background; or 30.1.2 the reasons for any recommendation which appears.
Even more baffling and unexplained is council’s new ‘arrangements’ for a notice of motion –
Questions abound:
Why restrict notices of motion to more than 6 months out from an election? No other council we know of has done this!
Why when certain councillors have voiced public opposition to the need of 3 signatories, is this still in place?
6 ‘business days’ in effect means at least 9 days prior to a council meeting
Unclear if the officer report would be tabled at the designated council meeting or would this drag out for months until the report was written and tabled?
Why can’t a notice of motion have anything to do with council policies?
Basically, what all of the above ‘conditions’ establish is the previous iteration of the mooted local law – an officer report that would take an eternity to eventuate. Given that the purpose of a notice of motion is the ability for councillors to get something onto the agenda, especially if it is urgent, this is simply another attempt to limit the input and autonomy of councillors.
By way of contrast, please see the following from Bayside and Boroondara and the ‘restrictions’ they place on their councillors via the notice of motion issue.
There are countless other examples where the final drafts fall well short of ensuring that governance in Glen Eira meets the full standards adopted by other councils. Unless processes are spelt out fully then all remains in the hands of this administration and/or is left to the poorly defined discretion of the Mayor.
It would appear that once again residents have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As a local law that in all probability will remain untouched for the next 10 years, it binds the upcoming future councils to a set of processes that are anything but explicit, democratic, and transparent. It seems that this administration is determined to keep full control in their hands and to sideline as much as legally possible both councillors and residents!
After two months of total silence on the proposed state government housing targets, council has produced its formal submission on the matter. Readers should remember that Glen Eira has been told that its target will be 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 – that is a doubling of the current housing numbers.
The submission does highlight what most other councils have complained about – ie.lack of detail; lack of strategic justification; lack of funding for essential infrastructure; importance of open space and the failure to consult with councils and community. But, unlike other councils’ submissions which are currently available, Glen Eira in both tone and content baulks at truly trying to protect the municipality. Here’s some of what other councils had to say in their submissions.
Stonnington
The Council’s attempts to engage in meaningful consultation with the State Government to ensure that the needs of the local community are met have been largely ignored.
On behalf of its local community, Council challenges the State Government to do better in future developments, in areas such as:
• High quality design of buildings, landscaping and public realm
• On-site provision of wraparound services to support community wellbeing
• the significant impacts to existing public facilities on which current and future residents will rely (for instance overshadowing of open space and recreation facilities)
• sufficient provision of useable, activated and safe open space and on-site amenity relative to the increase in population
• Embed decision-making processes that respond to site context, elevate sustainable design and value the voice of all stakeholders; increasing rigour through efficient and transparent planning approval processes, and at its core, the delivery of long term sustainable housing and services that are fit-for-purpose and support residents to thrive in the community.
Bayside
Council has grave concerns about the draft housing target for Bayside. The target of 31,000 additional homes has the potential to irrevocably change Bayside’s character and undermine the strategic planning framework that has been put in place tomanage and facilitate growth, whilst maintaining the liveability and character of themunicipality.
Council is concerned about the preparation, and release, of housing targets which vastly contradict current planning with no engagement with Councils, community or industry bodies. Furthermore, releasing these targets directly to the media without engagement or warning to industry bodies further fuels unnecessary concern in the community
Frankston
While Metropolitan and Major Activity Centres are locations identified for change and growth, the right balance must be struck to ensure that strategic planning for these centres ensures the right outcomes. It is important that development, open space and streets have access to sunlight, that built form is responsive to its environment, streets are of a human scale and that these centres remain liveable – the very essence of Melbourne, ‘the world’s most liveable city’.
Hobson’s Bay
The current Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and its zones and overlays for the municipality, based on the Housing Capacity assessment from 2019, has a significantly lower capacity than the State’s June 2024 draft Housing Targets and at present, the Housing Targets cannot be accommodated in Hobsons Bay
The best that Glen Eira can come up with is – The submission argues that the housing targets of 65,000 additional new dwellings for Glen Eira should be revised down to 55,000 to reflect the capacity identified in Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy 2022. The Housing Strategy was underpinned by detailed neighbourhood character assessments and a housing capacity and demand analysis as well as extensive community consultation.
No real mention in the Glen Eira submission of: neighbourhood character, sunlight, or flooding risk (council’s overlays date back to 2005!!!!). Again, readers should remember that the Housing Strategy was voted in by the skin of its teeth and as far as consultation goes this was nothing but a sham when over 110 people attended a meeting at the town hall and voiced various objections. This did not even rate a mention in the summary report. Council also refused to release the community surveys. All we got was a bogus ‘summary report’.
Whilst council might not agree with 65,000 new dwellings, they are happy with 55,000 arguing that this is based on the ‘capacity’ analysis which accompanied the Housing Strategy. Several points need to be borne in mind here:
The capacity analysis was completed in 2021. How many sites have now been developed in the last three years which reduce the figure of 55,000?
What is totally ignored and unstated in the council submission is that the capacity analyses that landed on the figure of 55,000 was Scenario 3 which mooted the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for all 7000+ properties zoned GRZ. The subsequent amendment decided against this move. Hence, there is less land available for development and certainly less than the cited 55,000.
When the analysis was done, not all of the subsequent heritage listed properties were done, dusted, and gazetted. Several amendments are still waiting to be gazetted. Again, this removes the ability to increase units per site and is again ignored in the latest council document.
To settle on a figure of 55,000 as suitable and appropriate is literally mind boggling and strategically impossible to justify given all the above.
To base planning completely on a fictional housing capacity figure as the state government insists upon is untenable. If this were the case, then in all probability most councils could have capacity for 100,000 new dwellings. It would be easy to achieve by simply allowing towers of 20 to 30 storeys in all activity centres and ignoring the environment, heritage, required infrastructure, and the contentious issue of ‘neighbourhood character’. Even a ‘reduction’ to 55,000 as council has done would spell disaster for many of our suburbs.
WHAT DOES THE SUBMISSION SAY?
On some of the most important issues Glen Eira sticks to the current pro-development ideology. Here are some of them –
Social/Affordable housing
Instead of fully supporting the introduction of a MANDATORY aspect to the provision of social/affordable housing, Glen Eira instead argues:
….Council cautions against introducing a system that makes all new housing more expensive to subsidise affordable housing and one that potentially makes it even more difficult to build new housing in a climate where land and construction costs are already very expensive.
In other words, nothing should be mandatory. Compare this approach to some of the other councils’ submissions –
Frankston – An easier, mandatory affordable housing mechanism must be considered as part of the Plan for Victoria, prioritising locations that are close to services, jobs and transport and in locations where there is a cluster of key workers, such as a health and education precinct.
Moonee Valley – argues for Mandatory planning controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions to deliver social and affordable housing at scale.
Mandatory controls versus the current ‘performance based’ process
It would appear that for Glen Eira mandatory controls should be severely limited. Again, this flies in the face of what other councils have put forward. In terms of deciding planning applications, Glen Eira comes down firmly on the side of ‘let’s have flexibility’ and let planning officers decide rather than adhering to mandatory/ prescriptive standards. Here’s how this is argued:
Council’s urban planners do an excellent job in negotiating improved outcomes on developments, and while some of what they do could be codified, their work sees better outcomes than if much of what they do were to be codified.
In other words, ‘we don’t want mandatory standards’ where it might impact on developers!!!!! Is this why these officers are incapable of ensuring more than a 5% social housing component, or a paltry 150 such dwellings in a yield of 3000+ for the Virginia Estate project? Why can other councils ‘negotiate’ up to 20% for a social housing component?
Data Presented in the Glen Eira Submission
Featured prominently in the Glen Eira document are several tables including the number of permits granted, as well as dwellings completed in various years. We take issue with what is presented and ask: is the divergence from publically available data deliberate? Where are the explanations for how this data has been compiled and accounted for?
Here are two tables where the figures are so skewed it is truly remarkable.
The first table is supposed to tell us how many developments of 10 or more dwellings were either completed, underway, or not yet started between 2018-2023. There is no breakdown of year to year. We have resorted to the state government’s Urban Design Development program which is based on data presented by council. This site presents what has been completed, or under construction, or ‘firm’ (ie with a permit) for various years. See: https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/udpmap/
We have concentrated solely on the results for 2022. According the map share data, the ‘completion’ rate is well above council’s claim of only 16 for a 5 year period. We have only bothered to look at some of the areas and our totals are well and truly above what council claims. Here is a shortened list for 2022 alone. We did not bother to go through other years ‘completion’ rates! If for simply one single year there have been at least 14 completed projects, then how on earth can council claim THAT FOR A 5 YEAR PERIOD THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 16?
1.111 Normanby Road, Caulfield North – 283 dwellings
45-47 Kangaroo Road, Murrumbeena – 15 dwellings
The second council table is also open to query.
This is supposed to tell us how many permits were granted for 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. dwellings. We are told that for the year 2023, only ONE permit was granted for 5 dwellings. Then why does council’s own planning register reveal that there have been at least 3 such permits granted. Here are the addresses and the dates permits were granted – all according to the online planning register –
All of this brings us to the central question: If we can’t trust council data, then how on earth can we trust their decision making? Or is all data simply geared to producing one single desired result? Who is accountable for this?
This has been an extremely long post for which we beg indulgence from our readers. However, it does go to the heart of what we believe is wrong in Glen Eira. Namely:
A refusal to take a far more critical and public stand against government policy as countless other councils continue to do
The continued publication of data that is both suspect and misleading and proffered as absolute ‘fact’
The continued preference to leave ‘control’ basically in the hands of officers, rather than see the introduction of essential mandatory standards
The failure to introduce any processes that can benefit the community – ie developer contribution levies, as well as opting for more than 5% for a social housing component in all major projects
Until residents can have absolute trust in this administration, or in councillors that are truly fulfilling their roles of oversight, questioning, and listening to the community, we will continue along this same path that ignores all that the community has stated again and again is fundamental to its ‘liveability’.
Glen Eira Debates 