PS OFF TOPIC – BUT, ‘BELIEVE IT OR NOT’! – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/developer-irate-after-glen-eira-phone-survey-goes-horribly-wrong/story-fngnvli9-1227442664907

PPS: Here’s The Age’s version of the latest events – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/developer-faces-public-relations-disaster-after-misleading-telephone-poll-20150715-gid64n.html

The outcry over inappropriate development is gathering voice and momentum. Residents in all suburbs are now experiencing the results of Glen Eira Council’s lack of timely, competent, and justifiable strategic planning.

Two amendments (C11 and C25) are the cause of what is now happening throughout Glen Eira. The former established what is known as the ‘urban villages’ (ie major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie) and the latter set up the inequitable ‘minimal change’ versus ‘housing diversity’ areas incorporating what are known as ‘neighbourhood centres’. Murrumbeena, Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh East for example are all ‘neighbourhood centres’ and not major activity centres.

Each of the above amendments went off to a Planning Panel. The Panel’s recommendations and comments are worth a revisit since they clearly state what Council was required to do in order to fully justify its proposals. Needless to say, after 14 years since the Planning Panel report on C11 was handed down, absolutely NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. The introduction of the new zones merely reinforced all the already existing inequities and shortcomings without undertaking the required strategic work.

Here are some extracts from the two Panel Reports. The bolded sections are our emphases and pinpoint the tasks that were demanded but which Council has not completed.

Amendment C11 – Setting up the Major Activity Centres

Traffic/parking studies and urban design/built form frameworks are to be undertaken/developed to address traffic/parking issues and to ensure that design outcomes are appropriate.

The Panel recommends that, after approval, Council develop building design guidelines for all three centres

Council believe that “Urban Villages” provide many benefits for the immediate and wider community including:

• More energy efficient housing, environmentally sensitive development, pedestrian activity and social interaction;

• Improved amenity, quality open spaces and more accessible services and facilities;

• More vibrant town centres by increasing population in their catchments and by enhancing their attractiveness through improvements in amenity;

The Panel believes that proper “urban village” planning must address the following issues at the very least:

• Land use planning

• Built form

• Urban design

• Capital works spending based on the strategic allocation of developer contributions, open space contributions or other public funds.

• Car parking

• Traffic analysis

• Community facilities and services

• Public realm and the provision of spaces conducive to the needs of the resident, consumer and visiting population

• Public transport improvements and integration

• Open space connections

• Interfaces and transition with surrounding areas

• Promotion of aspects of the valued cultural attributes of the village such as unique ethnic or activity strengths

Amendment C25 – ‘Minimal Change/Housing Diversity’

The most damning comments in this Panel Report relate to the ‘interim’ nature of the Amendment and the amount of work that Council still had to undertake. What was declared as ‘interim’ morphed into ‘permanent’ and was further ‘cemented’ with the new zones. The ‘neighbourhood centres’ in particular received much comment as did their arbitrary lines on a map.

The Panel concludes that boundary issues are something that are best addressed through detailed assessment of each centre, as indicated in the amendment as future strategic work. The boundaries identified in this amendment should only be seen as interim arrangements until structure planning exercises are undertaken.

The boundaries of the neighbourhood centres identified in this amendment are considered by the panel as interim at best. They will require review as part of detailed assessment of each centre.

The Panel does not agree with the concept that all activity centres categorised as neighbourhood centres in C25 are automatically suited for higher density residential development.

The Ormond Neighbourhood Centre is an example of an activity centre that, while obviously having a strong commercial base and a railway station, may not necessarily have the character or form to make it automatically attractive as a focus for intensified residential development. It is located around a wide, heavily trafficked road (North Road), it is not compact, easy to circulate through or have a distinctive urban form. Furthermore, the uses in this centre are dominated by office uses and the type of specialty shops the (sic) serve a regional rather than a local catchment. There are few shops providing the type of goods (especially food) that would service a purely local population

The Panel considers that rear boundaries should be preferred as boundaries rather than street frontages, to overcome problems where one side of a street is treated differently from the other side of the street.

A stated objective of C25 is to assist the vitality and economic basis of Glen Eira’s activity centres. This is an admiral objective but one that the Panel considers will not be addressed simply through residential initiatives. Further, the pursuit of residential initiatives in isolation from other economic, traffic, access and business development initiatives may actually be detrimental to the overall well-being of the centres.

At best C25 provides a holding mechanism until more specific and effective policies are developed for each of the neighbourhood centres individually. This issue is a serious one that must be addressed directly in the development of the Structure Pans for individual centres.

Traffic and parking issues should be addressed in the structure plans Council proposes to develop for its neighbourhood centres. Provided the structure plans take into account, and cater adequately for, increased demand, the impact on local streets need not become a significant issue. The Panel recommends that the structure plans to be prepared by Council for each neighbourhood centre address issues of parking and traffic generated by both residents and shoppers

The other significant issues noted by the Panel are the need for the further work identified by Council to be undertaken as soon as possible. This applies especially to the preparation of a Structure Plan for each neighbourhood centre that reflect both its current and future role as an activity centre and its potential

And then of course there is the Planning Scheme itself – full of broken promises that the following quotes reveal.

Clause 21.04 – Developing local structure plans / urban design frameworks to guide development in the neighbourhood centres

Developing “suburb” plans for each suburb which integrate land use and development planning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens, street trees and business development.

Developing local area traffic management plans and parking precinct plans to control the effects of parking and traffic intrusion in residential areas.

Implementing local area traffic management changes in existing areas in consultation with communities to improve safety and amenity and discourage use by inappropriate traffic.

Investigating mechanisms which require developers to undertake street tree planting.

Investigating the development of additional development contribution mechanisms based on accepted principles of need, equity, nexus, accountability and timing.

Investigating urban design improvements to the public domain surrounding major public transport hubs in consultation with public transport service providers

Preparing Parking Precinct Policies for the following neighbourhood centres:

􀂂 Alma Village, Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, Bentleigh East, Glen Huntly, Ormond.

􀂃 Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Implementing a program of Local Area Traffic Management Plans in order to minimise disruption and increase safety of residential areas.

CONCLUSIONS

• The basis and strategic justification for the introduction of the new residential zones is entirely suspect given that Amendment C25 was clearly seen as an ‘interim’ measure.
• None of the required work has been undertaken by Council
• The new zones fly in the face of many of the recommendations by the Panels
• It is inexcusable that so much of the Planning Scheme is nothing more than words on a page and the promised ‘further strategic work’ is allowed to lie dormant and untouched to the detriment of all residents
• The lack of consultation, review, and action needs to stay firmly in the minds of all residents when they next vote in 2016. Residents have literally been duped, deceived and dudded!

We have repeatedly stated that VCAT is no angel and that its powers are extraordinary. However, this does not excuse council from repeatedly passing the buck as the above media release obviously intends to do. Reform starts at home – with the planning scheme and with the quality of Glen Eira’s representation at VCAT hearings and the substantiated grounds for their refusals.

Below we feature some extracts from recent VCAT hearings. Readers should note the lamentable performances of council at these hearings – ie ill considered conditions that fly in the face of the current planning scheme; statistics that are not corroborated with clear and decisive evidence, etc. etc. If VCAT has in fact granted all these permits then residents should start asking if they are getting value for money in both the council representations at VCAT, and why councillors do nothing to change the Planning Scheme that provides developers with an open invitation to continue their onslaught.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/938.html

6 Prince Edward Avenue, McKinnon – Council originally refused a permit for 2 storey building with 6 apartments. An amended plan was submitted. The site is zoned GRZ1 and land size is 724.6 square metres.

The decision –

In principle, I consider that the zone, the absence of overlays, the consideration of relevant planning policies and the locational attributes all lend support to a more intensive development on the review site. Although residents may prefer medium density developments of not more than two or three double storey townhouses, that intensity of development is inconsistent with the extent of built form expected within a neighbourhood centre and in a housing diversity area.

State and local policy, the zone and the absence of overlays together with a location accessible to a range of services and facilities supports increased dwelling density and housing diversity on the review site. Anticipation of change to neighbourhood character is acknowledged in local policy for this area by its inclusion in a ‘housing diversity area’ where there is no preferred neighbourhood character identified.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/959.html

At the hearing there was some dispute over the proposed site coverage. The plans indicate 50%, though Mr Clarke for the Applicant acknowledges that this does not include the roofed areas to the two alfresco areas, which he offers to have removed by permit condition. The Council’s delegate report refers to a 54% site coverage, including the roof alfresco areas. However at the hearing Mr Henderson for the Council alleged the site coverage is 58%, although I was not provided with any detail of the calculations used to arrive at this figure.

• In its submissions the Council placed great reliance on the proposed site coverage, and how this varied from the site coverage found on the surrounding properties. Mr Henderson even submitted a cadastral plan where he had calculated the site coverage of surrounding and nearby properties. With respect, I consider that this analysis misses an important point. The review site is proposed to be subject to a medium density development. While the site falls within a Minimal Change Area and is covered by a Neighbourhood Residential Zone, medium density development of two dwellings on a lot is possible, and one might say encouraged by the broader urban consolidation policies found at a State level.
• In is inevitable that any proposal for medium density development will invoke some differences compared to a single detached dwelling. One of those changes in an increase in site coverage, which must increase as a result of having two dwellings on a comparable site to surrounding single dwellings. It is not relevant for a party to identify that the site coverage of proposed medium density housing is not in the range of site coverage found on surrounding single dwelling sites, and then present this as some form of evidence that the proposal stands in contrast on neighbourhood character terms. Such a submission demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of what is meant by ‘respect for neighbourhood character’ and the extent to which two dwelling developments should integrate into Minimal Change Areas. For these reasons I am not persuaded by the Council’s submissions on this matter.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/992.html

It is relevant that in applying the policy, the condition in dispute, as proposed by the Council, allows the upper floor level of both dwellings to extend well past the rear of the single storey dwellings on the two adjoining properties. However, in imposing the condition, the Council has come to the view that the setback should be increased by about 1.8 metres. How the Council came up with this figure is unclear and somewhat vague. From the submissions presented, the setback required by the condition is not based on any standard. The requirement is not based on any specific policy requirement. Nor are the increased setbacks required to achieve the improvement of amenity of neighbouring properties with respect to matters such as daylight or shadows. At best, the additional setback required by the Council seems arbitrary.

Here is another example of what is happening to our suburbs. Truganini Road, similar to Bent Street has multiple zonings ranging from Residential Growth, General Residential and Neighbourhood Residential. Whilst this is admittedly a Road Zone, with a tramline along certain sections, the amount of development is entirely inappropriate for the location. It would also appear that the right hand at council has no idea what the left hand is doing. For example: several years ago residents living along the road were granted a ‘parking dispensation’ – namely that because of the trams, they were granted permission to park on their nature strips as a safety measure. Since then, many have received fines and this has necessitated them going down to council, producing the official letter and having the fine removed.

Now with the rampant development along the road and the continual waiving of car parking the issue of trams, pedestrians and cars all mixing and trying to get out of their driveways is a real safety issue. Needless to say, council has yet to address this issue.

Once again the online planning register is devoid of sufficient detail to accurately ascertain the number of dwellings that will be erected on this road. The item for 86 Truganini simply states ‘construction of two or more dwellings’. Given this is zoned GRZ2 we are not very optimistic that this means 2 dwellings – especially when there is the demand for a reduction in car parking.

Thus, our conservative total for Truganini is at least 141 new dwellings post zones.

TRUGANINI ROAD

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 20 dwellings (RGZ1)

21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 41 dwellings, (AMENDED) (RGZ1)

44 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storey (PERMIT) (NRZ1)

54 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storey attached (NRZ1)

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06) (GRZ2)

90 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 13 dwellings (REFUSAL) (GRZ2)

93-97 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings with a basement car park and reduction of the dwelling (visitor) car parking requirement on land affected by the Special Building (AMENDED) (GRZ2)

98-100 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a 3-4 storey building comprising 28 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (AMENDED) (GRZ2)

115 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 6 dwellings (AMENDED) (GRZ2)

124 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double-storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amended (GRZ2)