Glen Eira Debates

On its Have Your Say webpage for the Virginia Estate development, council tells us –

So far this year we have undertaken three rounds of consultation. The feedback we received for round three clearly stated that the community required more detailed information in order to provide feedback. We have listened to this feedback and the VPA has engaged independent expert consultants to provide advice on a number of topics including urban design, parks and open space, traffic, employment and drainage. (Source: http://www.haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/east-village)

According to this blurb, residents should expect:

• Comprehensive and detailed reports. The vast majority of these reports are anything but ‘comprehensive and detailed’. Further, why council couldn’t provide the documents in question on its own site instead of referring residents to the Planning Authority site via a link that requires further searching is open to question.
• That what council writes is unambiguous, accurate and transparent. It isn’t! For example the impression created is that the VPA has engaged (read ‘paid for’) consultants’ reports that are ‘objective’ and ‘independent’. Far from it. The Urban Design report on page 4 states –

MGS Architects Pty. Ltd have been engaged by The Gillon Group, Make Property Group and Abacus Property Group to develop an Urban Design Report to inform the East Village development in Bentleigh East, Victoria. (page 4)

The same is true for Environmental Conditions report –

Senversa Pty Ltd was engaged by MAKE EBRB Dev Nominee Pty Ltd. (MAKE) to prepare a summaryof environmental conditions for the proposed East Village Precinct, Bentleigh East, a 24 hectare parcel of land (with multiple titles) on the corner of East Boundary and North Roads, Bentleigh East (thePrecinct) (page 1)

Reading the Urban Design effort we find that many sections are nothing more than a regurgitation of the original Gillon propaganda, practically verbatim, that came out a few years ago. (By the way, the East Village Gillon site has suddenly disappeared!)

More importantly the VPA website doesn’t include as yet the most contentious documents – ie commercial assessment and social infrastructure. (See: https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/east-village-strategic-site/p/east-village-key-ideas-objectives/). If these appear in December/January, then that means residents will not have had the opportunity to read, much less digest the so-called ‘information’ before this consultation concludes. Hardly an ideal situation!

As a brief overview of what we’ve gleaned thus far, please note:

• Of 400 trees reviewed on the site, only 5 are deemed to be of ‘very high value’ and only another 73 are categorised as ‘high value’. Another 150 are seen to be of ‘medium retention value’. Sadly the gate is left wide open when this evaluation is followed by – “If designing around these trees is not feasible or practical, removal and replacement would be an acceptable compromise”. Bye, bye trees!
• It is now mooted to be at least 2 supermarkets and no mention of size, capacity, etc.
• The so called traffic report only looks at the current state of affairs – not what it will be like with another 3000+ apartments and hundreds upon hundreds of additional cars clogging the roads. Readers should also take note of the photographs that are supposed to represent traffic conditions on North Road and East Boundary Road. We can only suppose that there has been some good Photoshopping, or that these images were snapped in the middle of the night or daybreak!

There is much, much more that could be said – and we will in ensuing posts. We repeat that in our view this is not consultation. Until residents are provided with realistic data that is justified, explained, and open to debate, then we are simply being lead down the garden path to an amendment that will leave little room for change and community input! It will be a mirror image of Caulfield Village – a fait accompli!

Today’s published report by the ANU confirms what many residents already know but which our council, hell bent on facilitating more and more (expensive) development, refuses to acknowledge much less accept. As a further example of what’s happening in Glen Eira, the state government’s Planning Permit Activity report for the single month of October has Glen Eira providing permits for another 248 NET NEW DWELLINGS!

Here is the ABC’s report on the ANU study –

House prices based on undersupply myth, ANU says

By business reporter Michael Janda

Australia does not have a housing shortage, with inner-city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane some of the nation’s most oversupplied regions, according to new research from ANU.

Key points:

• Australia has built 164,000 more dwellings than it needs to cater for a growing population
• Inner-city areas in Australia’s three biggest cities have the greatest oversupply
• Outer suburban areas and central Adelaide had some of the most significant housing shortages

The analysis estimates the nation’s housing oversupply at 164,000, or 32,000 if the significant increase in unoccupied dwellings is excluded.

The study by associate professor Ben Phillips and researcher Cukkoo Joseph from the Australian National University shows that between 2001 and 2017 Australia built more homes than it needed to house the growth in population over that period.

The academics’ findings tally with other recent research showing that Australia has a moderate housing oversupply.

However, this research used a relatively sophisticated methodology that accounted for demographic changes.

Additionally, it accounted for an increase in people residing in “non-private dwellings” — such as student accommodation or nursing homes — that are often excluded from housing supply-demand analyses and tend to exaggerate an apparent housing shortage.

This report has also gone below state-level analysis to regional calculations.

It found that the inner-city area of Sydney had the nation’s largest housing oversupply, at just under 6,000 dwellings.

That was in contrast to areas in the mid and far-west of Sydney, which generally had moderate undersupply, as did Wyong on the Central Coast.

Inner-Brisbane had the nation’s second largest oversupply of around 4,500.

Melbourne CBD and surrounds had the fourth highest oversupply of just under 4,000 excess dwellings.

Outside the inner-urban areas, where oversupply was mainly driven by the nation’s record high-rise apartment boom, the other main areas of oversupply were in regional areas, particularly those exposed to the resources sector where the mining downturn has caused populations to shrink.

While these mining areas had generally witnessed large property price falls, Mr Phillips said some of the other oversupplied areas had actually experienced strong price growth.

“We haven’t found a particularly strong relationship between the balance of supply and demand and house price growth,” he told the ABC.

“We did find a very small correlation, but it was less than 10 per cent, so what that tells us is that there is perhaps some impact from housing supply but, by and large, what’s driving house prices in Australia, particularly in our capital cities, is a whole range of other factors.”

Housing boom story ‘falls over’ in light of oversupply

The significance of this finding is that increasing housing supply by itself is unlikely to put significant downward pressure on prices.

Given that increasing supply has been the almost exclusive housing affordability focus of the current Federal Government and most of its state counterparts, Dr Phillips said it is no surprise that affordability has not improved.

“What this research shows is that that’s not necessarily going to be as helpful as what many would hope,” he said.

“Perhaps what it actually means is that we should be focussing our attention more on the demand side of the equation.”

Mr Phillips said that means looking at whether interest rates have been too low for too long, and also reviewing “generous” tax breaks for property investors, such as negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount.

There’s been an important assumption that’s been made – not just by the Reserve Bank but also by government in general – and that is that to a certain extent low interest rates are justified in Australia, and the impact on house prices is justified, because we’ve got a so-called housing shortage,” he said.

“That supports house prices growing, it suggests there are fundamentals that are driving house price markets, so it’s not necessarily loose monetary policy that’s driving that.

“But, if our findings are correct in that actually we’ve got a housing surplus, then that argument does actually fall down somewhat.

“It is concerning that without the housing shortage you don’t actually have a lot of basis for the house price growth.”

Although, Mr Phillips also pointed out that Australia’s housing surplus was much smaller than markets such as Ireland and Spain that experienced dramatic home price collapses during the global financial crisis.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-20/house-price-growth-based-on-undersupply-myth-anu/9167688

The Davis motion to revoke the Ormond Tower Amendment was passed in the upper house today. The vote was 21 for and 16 against. The Greens voted with the Liberals.

We’ve uploaded the document HERE. Please turn to page 7 to start reading – that is, if you have the stomach for the political games on display here from all sides!

By way of summary here is a list of points –

1. All seemed to believe that council’s position on eight storeys had community support – that council had in fact ‘consulted’ with its residents!
2. Hypocrisy all round – as pointed out from both sides of the political fence
3. Asher Judah’s previous role on the Property Council highlighted by Labor
4. Nick Staikos’ silence and no such developments proposed for Bentleigh & McKinnon seen by the Libs as protecting a marginal seat. (Seems that Council is doing the govt’s dirty work on this one via their draft structure plans!)
5. The total inconsistency of the Greens – on the one hand arguing that 13 storeys is too high for a Neighbourhood Centre and this would be even higher than what exists in the Urban Villages, but then arguing that 8 storeys is fine!

The level of debate that exists in our parliaments and council chambers is frankly appalling. The only winners are lawyers and the development industry. Certainly not communities!

Whilst there are undoubtedly some improvements to version 2 of the Bentleigh Structure Plan, it is still a long way off from meeting residents’ expectations and previous feedback. Council is now conducting another ‘survey’. How valid any results gleaned from this latest ‘consultation’ is definitely open to question, especially when only half the story is revealed to residents.

Here’s the first part of the ‘consultation’ and residents are then asked to rate council’s proposed actions based on these select statements:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Council has finally released version 2 of its draft structure plans – together with a bevy of other documents. The result is that residents are literally drowning in paper – much of it repetitious, uninformative, and still failing to present information that justifies what is proposed.

In summary, here is a breakdown of what was published together. The total number would apply to all of Glen Eira and not just the individual activity centres. If a resident wanted to glean what was proposed for the entire municipality then they would be facing the herculean task of reading all the documents.

Residents can make up their own minds as to why documents which carry dates of July couldn’t have been made public earlier but had to be consigned to this single inundation. We certainly doubt that many residents would have the time, energy, or even willingness to plough through so many pages. As for councillors themselves – our bet is that none of them would bother either! That perhaps is the plan anyway?

Bentleigh Concept Plan consultation responses – 85 pages

Draft Bentleigh Structure Plan – 67 pages

Bentleigh Draft Activity Centre Structure Plan – Background Report –  93 pages

Bentleigh Transport Analysis & forecasting – 61 pages

Analysis of Housing Consumption & Opportunities – 103 pages

Peer Review – Urban Design Guidelines etc. – 77 pages

Planisphere Urban Design Guidelines – 50 pages

Community Benefits Discussion Paper – 19 pages

Assessment of Economic Impacts – 58 pages

Planning Strategy Impacts on Housing Opportunity – 35 pages (no links on Bentleigh site)

TOTAL = 648 pages!!!!!!

CARNEGIE

Draft structure plan – 65 pages

Background report – 94 pages

ELSTERNWICK

Draft Structure Plan – 71 pages

Background Report – 100 pages

TOTAL 978 PAGES