Glen Eira Debates

At last council meeting a public question asked how many amended permits have been submitted requesting either an increase in height or number of dwellings and how many were granted since the introduction of the zones. The first part of the question remained unanswered. The second part of the question provided the response of only 4 granted permits.

Either council is suffering badly from amnesia, or its record keeping systems are sub-standard, or perhaps the third possibility is that the responses to public questions are far from accurate, truthful, and precise. Somehow, council simply forgot to note one major application that had been decided at the previous council meeting and neatly sidestepped all those applications in commercial zones – admittedly because the question did not specifically refer to this zone.

The argument consistently put up by council is that the zones have had no impact on the increased intensity of development. Not so we argue. With the introduction of the new zones what is starting to emerge is that developers who have clung onto their land (some for several years) are now taking advantage of the ‘largesse’ provided to them via the new zones and submitting amended applications for either increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. This is even more rampant in the commercial zones where there are no height limits. Below we feature, in addition to the paltry 4 that council nominated, some examples:

150 Tucker Road Bentleigh – Amend Planning Permit GE/PP-21042/2008 by changing the description of what the permit allows/covers to provide an increase of 7 dwellings (from 13 to 20 dwellings) (GRZ1 zone)

259-261 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – A previous application for a 3-storey building comprising 19 dwellings was approved by the Delegated Planning Committee with a reduction in the number of dwellings to 17 on 8 September 2010. Subsequently, on 11 January 2011, following a VCAT hearing about conditions, the Planning Permit was amended to allow up to 18 dwellings. This permit expired on 8 September 2013.

The current proposal for 28 dwellings is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and one additional storey. (RGZ1) (Note: this is technically regarded then as a ‘new permit application’!!!!!

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Construction of a six (6) storey building comprising forty (40) dwellings, one (1) shop and a basement; reduction of the car parking requirement for dwelling visitors to one (1) car space; reduction of the car parking requirement for the shop to zero; and waiving of the loading bay requirement (Application to Amend a Planning Permit) AND –

A planning permit already exists for the site. The original permit was issued on 14 June 2011. It allowed the construction of a 4 storey building comprising 20 dwellings and a shop. This Planning Permit is still valid and will expire on 14 June 2014. The current proposal for 40 dwellings and a shop is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and 2 additional storeys. (C1Z)

467C HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD SOUTH – Amend the current planning permit to allow an additional storey (total of 4 storeys), provision of a lift and internal alterations. The four dwellings approved under the current permit will not increase in number. (c1z)

356-364 Orrong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – Application to amend Planning Permit GE/PP-22648/2010 which allows a five (5) storey mixed-use building comprising a supermarket, dwellings and a basement car park with an increase in the number of dwellings from fiftysix (56) to sixty-seven (67), an increase in the overall building height by 1.9m, the inclusion of five (5) advertising signs and associated changes to the internal layout and external appearance of the building (c1z)

338A Orrong Road, CAULFIELD NORTH – Amended Application – Amend the permit preamble to allow for a four (4) storey building – was a 3 storey – permit granted on 30/4/2014) (c1z)

670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – Amendment to existing permit as follows – An increase to the size of the building to five storeys – Modifications to the first, second and third floors, including an increase in size and internal changes to the layout of the dwellings – The addition of ten (10) apartments – A reduction to the commercial floor area – (C1Z)

Hotham St – 7 storeys 104 dwellings

The Leader Article above referred to the 168 Hotham St. application with 137 objections. There is far more to this application than meets the eye we suspect. Given the magnitude of this proposed development, and its significant location, we believe that residents have the right to know everything that the officer’s report fails to mention, namely:

• This site was the subject of previous applications
• This site became Amendment C54 which rezoned the land to a Mixed Use zone (circa 2007-8)
• A Panel Report was issued
• The site was (and perhaps still is) owned by Adass Israel and their application at the time involved the construction of 8 shops and 23 dwellings in a three storey building.
• At the Planning Panel hearing council officers queried the ‘intensity’ of proposed development and traffic management/car parking facilities that were proposed for a mere 3 storey development.
• The Planning Panel report had plenty to say about height, intensity, etc.
• Port Phillip council had major concerns about Heritage
• Ripponlea had major concerns about parking
• Traffic reports done at the time (2007) stated that Glen Eira Road and Hotham Street had 13,000 and 16,000 cars travelling on these roads daily

Given this history, and the doubts entertained at the time, how on earth can council now turn around and accept a 5 storey building with huge traffic and parking problems– especially when at last council meeting it rejected the Hawthorn Road application for 6 storeys? Where is the consistency? Or have ‘special dispensations’ been handed out to the select few? How many permit extensions has this site received? Or was the permit withdrawn; did it lapse? If either, then why isn’t any of this information found in the planning register? And why, when so many other officer reports include the history of the site is there not one single word about any of this?

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!