We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
The above graph featuring today’s release of ABS building permits for Local Government Areas still shows Glen Eira leading the way. When the 80 square km of Monash is taken into account, compared to the 38.9 square km that is Glen Eira, then the impact on overall density is obvious. Further compounding the problem is that in Glen Eira permits for single houses only reached 269 whereas Monash had 580 – more than double going into Glen Eira!
Even more astounding is that the total number of permits since the 2011/12 financial year is as follows for the various municipalities –
Glen Eira – 11,049
Bayside – 6,527
Boroondara – 9.905
Kingston – 7,785
Stonnington – 10,176
Port Phillip – 8,144
Monash – 11,072
Thus in just on 7 years, and excluding the number of single houses from the overall total, Glen Eira has had an average of 1,271 net new dwellings granted building permits. This far exceeds the needs of population growth and given what is in the pipe line via East Village, Caulfield Village and council’s desire for 12 storeys in Carnegie and Elsternwick, then developers must indeed be rubbing their hands with glee.
The following images are the result of an FOI application. They depict the overshadowing at the Winter Solstice for Carnegie. What is staggering about these images is:
Residents living in these areas will resemble moles. Building after building will be in total shadow for most of the day in winter
Despite what council promised in the following, it is clearly not so – Protect the future open space at Egan and Woorayl Streets, in accordance with Council’s Open Space Strategy, with no overshadowing for a minimum of 5 hours at the September Equinox (9am to 2pm achieved) and 3 hours at Winter Solstice (11am to 2pm achieved). (Officer’s report – 27/2/2018 – when the structure plan was voted in)
These images have not been made available to residents by council. The FOI application did not yield any shadow diagrams for Elsternwick – yet councillors voted to go ahead with structure planning that is clearly so deficient and so contradictory to what the spin suggests.
We also have to wonder how accurate these diagrams are – ie permits already exist for 12 and 13 storeys in Egan and Woorayl streets. What impact would these buildings have on overshadowing? Why aren’t they included in the diagrams
The images depict 5 and 8 storeys alongside Rosstown. This is NOT what the adopted structure plan included. Hence two possibilities – council has been ‘forced’ to change its plans, or what is depicted here is once again a total work of fiction! Regardless, it is obvious that for the winter months at least, Carnegie residents might as well forget about direct sunlight for most of the day!
Council’s ‘update’ on its planning scheme review action plan includes the following on ‘tree protection’ –
Surely it is incumbent on Council to produce statements that are honest, accurate, and informative. The above is both misleading and ineffectual as an action to protect our trees. Here’s why –
Wynne’s amendment C143 which introduced the ‘garden requirements’ has got absolutely nothing to do with ‘tree protection’ per se. It simply provides a scale that determines how much of the varying site sizes must consist of ‘garden area’. It does not stop moonscaping. It does not stop the removal of any tree prior to an application being lodged.
As for ‘basement’ requirements, there is absolutely nothing in the Better Apartment Guidelines / Amendment VC136 that we can find that specifies the protection of trees. In fact it even foreshadows moonscaping! See below:
Then we have the reference to the Urban Design Guidelines. Again, there is nothing in this document to ensure that trees are NOT REMOVED. What we do have is paragraphs such as – To provide side setbacks, towardsthe rear of the lot, with adequate width to permit canopy trees, creating a garden setting for dwellings.
We repeat. All of the above do NOT protect EXISTING trees. They are all looking ahead and what should happen in terms of landscaping once the existing tree has been removed. Yet council is quite happy to claim that the issue of tree protection has been at least ‘partially addressed’ by these documents. Nothing could be further from the truth!
But there’s more to this entire issue of tree protection which has been around since at least 2003 in Glen Eira– despite consistent data that highlights the priority that residents place on the protection of our trees. Discussion after discussion has been stymied by certain councilors (some of whom are still on council) and who have refused to even entertain the idea of tree protection on private property. As far as we know, council has never provided any data on:
The percentage loss of canopy coverage over the past decade in Glen Eira
How many private trees have been removed prior to a development application
How many permits have been granted for the removal of trees post permit – nor the reasons for such permission (ie 2 recent permits granted in Murrumbeena for tree removal despite what the original conditions of the permit stated)
In short, we know very little about the destruction of these vital assets over the years – and we speculate that council does not know either!
So now we finally have some discussion on a ‘significant tree register’. What council has not explained fully enough to residents via their Clayton’s ‘consulation’ survey is that ‘significant tree registers’ generally feature only a few hundred trees. Nowhere near enough to safeguard thousands of trees from being ripped down by developers. And a lot depends on the criteria actually used to determine whether something is ‘significant’ or not! Council also appears to be satisfied that if and when a tree register materializes it will only feature in its Local Law, and not be a specific item in the Planning Scheme! Simply not good enough. Further, questions abound – will council introduce permit requirements on private land for large trees that are not listed in the register? Will they follow Stonnington’s lead and introduce ‘compliance’ measures on developers for each application?
In the end, every single site in Glen Eira is a potential ‘development site’. As such, what is needed is far more than a few hundred trees placed on some register.
In what purports to be a ‘progress update’ on implementing the recommendations of the Planning Scheme Review, council has published its ‘updated work plan’. No real detail is provided. No costings are provided. No real information is provided as to what any amendments might contain. Basically, residents are again being kept in the dark.
Worse still are innumerable statements that are incorrect, misleading, or nothing more than vague, useless motherhood statements that reveal the absolute minimum. After two years of so-called ‘extensive consultation’, residents should know far more about what council has in mind. The fact that we don’t is testimony to the lack of transparency that is the modus operandi of this council.
Here are some examples which substantiate our claims. The images are taken directly from today’s published agenda (Item 9.5)
Some things to note:
Urban Design Guidelines are just that – guidelines. Generally they enter the planning scheme as a ‘reference document’ and thus are pretty useless in enforcing policy and ensuring that VCAT adheres to them. To therefore claim that ‘neighbourhood character’ will be protected at best, or strengthened via the Urban Design Guidelines is a total furphy. What is required is the inclusion of ‘preferred character statements’ for all housing diversity areas (and not just the current structure plans) into the planning scheme as a separate policy with clear directions for interpretation. This would involve an overall Housing Character Study, which council hasn’t really undertaken since 1996 when the document was produced. The 2011 Planishere review basically looked at certain areas for Neighbourhood Character Overlays. It certainly did not revisit the entire municipality which was required. Further compounding the lack of planning is the fact that Glen Eira has never had a ‘neighbourhood character policy’ and only those sites in minimal change have had anything comprising ‘character statements’. Most of these have been unworkable since they incorporate vast areas into their descriptions (ie Bentleigh, Ormond and McKinnon are lumped together in 5 short bullet points). Other councils have been far more proactive and have such policies enshrined in their planning schemes with substantial ‘preferred character statements’ for their entire municipalities. These councils are – Bayside, Boroondara, Darebin, Frankston, Dandenong, Hobson’s Bay, Knox, Maribyrnong, Maroondah, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra. Many of these documents have been completed in the past few years. We’ve uploaded the Stonnington document as an example of what can be done and which Glen Eira has failed to even commence, much less complete. Available HERE
The Urban Design Guidelines constantly refer to ‘minimal change areas’ (ie NRZ) as containing One or two detached or semi-detached dwellings built on a lot. The height is one or two storeys. Since Wynne’s introduction of his 2017 amendment that removed the 2 dwellings per lot provision, there have been at least 16 applications go to council for multiple dwellings in areas zoned as NRZ. Many of these have already received permits. Yet, there is nothing in the Urban Design Guidelines that acknowledges this fact and its potential ramifications. Not a word is said about the impact of these developments on ‘neighbourhood character’. Nor are residents given any information as to how the schedules to the zoning might change in any ensuing amendment. If the plan is to ‘upgrade’ hundreds of dwellings so that they will go from 2 storeys maximum to 3 or 4, then how does this alter the ‘neighbourhood character’?
And are we still having to wait for at least another 3 years before anything is done? If so, what does this portend for our Neighbourhood Centres? We already have 6 storeys in McKinnon, 10 storeys in Ormond, and 7 storeys in Bentleigh East and Caulfield North. What ‘character’ will council see fit to delineate in these areas?
And of course the crucial question is: how can any valid character statements be made when there hasn’t been a genuine revisiting of the housing strategy since 1996?
Far more honesty is required from council. Two years have come and gone since the planning scheme review and all we’ve had is the imposition of changes that fly in the face of community views and without the opportunity to comment on such changes. Thus far we have still to see any strategic justification, or any inkling of what the schedules to the zones will contain. Residents are being treated like mushrooms – kept ignorant until it is too late and plans are set in concrete. That is governance at its most devious and despicable.
Glen Eira is currently experiencing planning mayhem thanks to this council’s failure to enact any meaningful reforms to its planning scheme and the ongoing pro-development ethos. Three recent applications (two still to be decided) exemplify this lack of sound planning.
One application is having a third shot at a multi storey development (8 Egan Street Carnegie). This site has twice attempted a 16 storey tower. Both times it has been knocked back by both council and VCAT. Now there is a new application in for 12 storeys and 108 apartments.Only 4of the proposed apartments will feature three bedrooms. All the rest are single and double bedroom.
What makes this application so unacceptable is that it sits in the Design & Development Overlay for a 7 storey ‘preferred’ maximum height limit introduced via the Carnegie amendment of April 2017. Of course, council has now proposed via its current structure plans, that the area be zoned as suitable for 12 storeys! How five storeys can be added in the space of one year simply beggars belief and makes a mockery of Wynne’s rubber stamping of the original request!
The second application is for the Selwyn Street Woolworths development which proposes not one, but two towers and 180 apartments. One tower will be 10 storeys and the second one 13 storeys. Again, council is quite happy with a 12 storey height limit here according to its structure planning. (PS: CORRECTION – council’s draft structure plan proposes 8 storeys here. Elsternwick is completely vulnerable however since no interim height amendments exist as with Bentleigh & Carnegie.)
A third application has already been granted a permit in a ‘confidential’ cave in at VCAT. This is for 14-22 Woorayl Street, Carnegie that will be 12 storeys and 109 apartments. The proposed council zoning here reflects the Egan Street situation – ie a 7 storey ‘preferred’ maximum a year ago and now ‘elevated’ to 12 storeys!
Thus in 3 applications alone we will have half of the ‘quota’ required per year to meet the projected housing needs for the future – 397 apartments!
Nothing can excuse council’s failure to undertake sound planning and to pursue amendments that meet the community’s aspirations. If 7 storeys was sufficient a year ago, then where is the strategic justification for 12 storeys now?
My adjournment today is to the Minister for Planning, and the action I seek is that the minister immediately defer any decisions on the Glen Eira council structure plan, which will see massive overdevelopment, particularly within the areas of Elsternwick, until such time as residents are properly consulted.
Today I tabled a petition from 1300 residents around the Elsternwick precinct. Many of them live in homes of heritage value. Some of those homes date back to the late 1880s. They are very, very concerned about the overdevelopment that is happening throughout my electorate of Caulfield. This master plan which the Glen Eira council is proposing could certainly see loss of character and amenity and massive overdevelopment, which would see some single –storey homes being completely taken over by large towers in the area.
These residents need to be consulted, and we certainly want to make sure that we do not take up the squeeze that is being left behind from the protection that the Bentleigh residents have had in the overall precinct. We know that there is development need for housing, but Caulfield should not bear the brunt of that. The master plan sees a 20 per cent increase in population and we do not want to squeeze all of that into areas like Elsternwick.
The Liberals’ plan has already been stated. We will reintroduce a two -dwelling limit on neighbourhood residential zones, reduce height limits in neighbourhood residential zones and bring back the 9 –metre discretionary height limit in general residential zones. Certainly this would make a huge difference to many of those residents that I am talking about. But we do not want to see this rushed through. We have got an election in November, and we think that the residents should have the opportunity for proper consultation, not rush things through quickly before the election so people do not have the ability to have proper consultation. We saw the attempted rush through of the Ormond sky tower, and certainly we had to intervene in the upper house with that. We have seen Bethlehem Hospital propose 16 storeys in Kooyong Road. We are seeing massive overdevelopment through Caulfield. Enough is enough, and we are asking the Minister for Planning on this occasion to step in and make sure no decisions are made whatsoever until such time as the issues about excessive height and issues with car parking, traffic and general congestion in our area are fully explored and residents are properly consulted and protected when it comes to living in the great suburbs of Elsternwick, Caulfield and the broader City of Glen Eira.
As part of the ‘community participation’ section of last night’s council meeting there was a question from an Elsternwick resident regarding a recent Age article ( https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/sunlight-fight-city-council-asks-minister-to-stop-park-overshadowing-20180601-p4zixh.html). The article featured Melbourne City council’s concerns about development overshadowing parkland and their letter to the Minister for Planning urging legislation amendments so that the winter solstice period could be extended to 6 hours of sunlight instead of the current 3 hours. The resident basically asked 3 questions – cited verbatim:
Will council also join Melbourne City Council in demanding updated legislation that preserves our parklands and residential amenity in terms of overshadowing and make public any council actions?
Has council had any communication with Bayside Council regarding the winter shadowing given the reach of the proposed 12 storey height limits? What is Bayside’s view of the proposed heights?
If Melbourne City council is concerned about heights above 10 storeys surrounding their open space areas, then would you agree that 12 storeys would be equally detrimental to Elsternwick and its neighbouring councils?
“There is an extensive section on shadowing of existing open space” Torres claims. NO THERE ISN’T!!!! The document is 389 pages. The term ‘overshadowing’ does NOT appear once in this tome. What does occur a fabulous THREE (3) times is the following –
Development should not create adverse conditions in open space such as undue shadowing, increased wind effects, intrusion of unwanted light and noise, use of car parking or traffic access for private uses, interference with vegetation and dispersal of weeds, and loss of visibility. (page 91)
Factors that could degrade open space amenity, function and use include excessive built form, creating a sense of enclosure, noise, light spill, traffic movements, car parking demand, wind effects or shadowing……Applicants may be required to supply studies demonstrating whether there will be positive or adverse effects on open space.(page 92)
The open space must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter and at least 5 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on September 22. Where this minimum is not currently met, the development must not create additional shadowing of the open space. (page 92)
What Torres fails to inform the gallery and anyone listening is that the Open Space Strategy is nothing more than a reference document in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. It therefore has no binding power as has been stated time and time again by VCAT. Even Clause 21.13, which is supposed to be council’s local ‘policy’ on open space, does not even mention overshadowing. What we are told is – Ensur(e) siting and design of new development maximises community safety and provides opportunities for surveillance of public open space.
What does all this mean? Council can ‘review’ its open space strategy until the cows come home. It will be meaningless unless firm and clearly stated policies are incorporated into the planning scheme itself. Melbourne City Council’s proposed amendment is how it should be done! (see below).
When residents ask questions, they deserve to have them answered. If officers don’t know the answers, then admit the fact. And since this resident has sent off the questions prior to the meeting why hasn’t any councillor responded accordingly with their view? Why is it utter silence from our elected representatives? In the end, is it really so hard for councillors to say –‘ yes’ we will support Melbourne City Council and write a letter?
What readers must also keep in mind is the failure to act and what this means not only for Elsternwick and Carnegie, but for East Village. Please remember that according to the first draft structure plan, we had 8 storeys surrounding a supposedly central plaza? How great a shadow will such buildings cast and what is council doing about it?
For all the talk of a down turn in the construction industry, Glen Eira is well and truly maintaining its record rate of development. The table below is compiled from today’s ABS released figures on building approvals for the current financial year – up to and including May. That means 11 months worth of approvals. Again we note:
Glen Eira leading the pack
Victoria in Future predictions well and truly outstripped – ie 13,000 by 2031. At this rate, this figure will be reached by 2020/21
None of these figures take into account the additional 4,500 (‘preliminary’ numbers) set for Caulfield Village and Virginia Estate
There is absolutely no strategic justification for council’s current plans to double the size of activity centres and to impose 12 storey height limits, plus rezoning hundreds upon hundreds of sites that will be earmarked for higher height limits.
A new application has come in for Loranne Street, Bentleigh which signals another nail in the coffin for council’s structure plans. According to the proposed new zoning, the East side of Loranne will be reduced to a 2 storey height limit. The application is for 4 storeys in line with the current zoning of Residential Growth Zone and whilst the number of apartments is not revealed, we assume that this will be anywhere from 25 upwards. Given the current zoning the chances of the developer getting his 4 storeys is pretty good
What this means is that council’s calculations on housing numbers are basically works of fiction. Council has previously simply provided figures on how many sites will be ‘downgraded’ to lower heights and how many ‘upgraded’ to greater heights, with no accounting for how many of these former sites already contain dwellings that are at the maximum heights (and densities) introduced in 2013. And this will continue for at least another year, and even longer for our neighbourhood centres which are bereft of any decent controls and with no time lines set for the introduction of anything to ameliorate the continuing damage.
Glen Eira Debates 