GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

June 27, 2018

Planning Mayhem

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

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 4 of 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?

 

June 22, 2018

Hansard & Elsternwick

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

Elsternwick structure plan

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)

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.

 

June 13, 2018

The Art Of Half Truths & Weasel Words!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?

Here is the Ron Torres response.

Please note:

  1. Torres fails to answer any of the questions!
  2. Melbourne City Council HAS produced a formal amendment (C278). They are currently awaiting the Minister’s approval for exhibition. All Torres had to do to confirm this was refer to Melbourne’s website – as we have! See: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/melbourne-planning-scheme/planning-scheme-amendments/pages/amendment-c278-sunlight-to-parks.aspx 
  1. “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?

 

 

June 8, 2018

Open Space ‘Favours’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Month after month the constant refrain from council in regard to its open space levy is –

All multi-unit developers pay a uniform 5.7 per cent of the value of the land (or give Council 5.7 per cent of the area of the land).

Apparently this is NOT the case as revealed in the minutes of the Audit Committee. We quote:

Clearly, not ‘ALL MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPERS’ pay their fair share, or in fact may pay anything at all! Questions thus abound:

  • Why aren’t all levies collected?
  • On what grounds were levies waived?
  • Who made these decisions and were they empowered to do so?
  • How many thousands (if not tens of thousands) has council lost since the introduction of the 5.7% levy?
  • How many developers did not pay and who were they?
  • Does the open space fund really have $11m in the kitty as claimed or is this more ‘creative accounting’?
 

June 6, 2018

The Latest Stats

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

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.

We’ve uploaded the latest ABS figures HERE

 

May 26, 2018

Another Nail In The Coffin?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[10] Comments 

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.

 

May 23, 2018

Movement At The (Caulfield) Station

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[14] Comments 

The VPA (and Council) has finally released its version of Stage 1 of ‘community consultation’ on the Caulfield Station structure planning with this neat little blurb and a ‘survey’. (See: https://vpa.vic.gov.au/caulfield-station-precinct-vision-survey/

It would seem that the norm now for government and council is to fall back on meaningless jargon (ie ‘Vision’) and surveys that are highly questionable. Our view is that surveys are fine – but only AFTER residents know exactly what they are dealing with. What are the parameters that have been set? What is the proposed land use? Before any ‘survey’ results can be truly meaningful then residents need to know exactly what are the options? We fear that this process will simply mirror what has already happened with Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick – albeit on a much grander scale!

Here’s part of the ‘survey’. We ask readers to consider its merit.

PS – FROM TODAY’S HANSARD

Caulfield electorate

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)

(12:00)

My question is for the Minister for Planning. I raise an issue on behalf of 1300 local petition signatories who are outraged by the Elsternwick rezoning master plan, which will increase the local population by over 20 per cent with no consideration of the impacts on amenity, infrastructure and traffic congestion. Residents are also confused at the seemingly different rules for different electorates whereby the areas of Bentleigh and Carnegie are benefiting from interim height controls as low as four to five storeys whereas sections of  Elsternwick have no current height limits and could face up to 20 –storey apartments complexes.

The current Elsternwick rezoning plan is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the local area. Can the minister provide an answer to concerned Elsternwick residents as to why are there are these inconsistencies whereby one electorate, the marginal seat of Bentleigh, is being benefited in comparison with another electorate, my electorate of Caulfield?

 

May 18, 2018

More Wynne Concessions To Developers!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

If anyone needs further proof of what an unmitigated disaster planning is in Victoria the events of the past week prove this in spades. Wynne has certainly outdone himself this time in gazetting Amendment C143 on the 15th May, without any consultation, without any forewarning, and handing more and more advantage to developers and complicit councils which we label Glen Eira as.

Amendment C143 has basically diluted the much vaunted ‘garden requirement’ – especially for areas zoned as General Residential (GRZ). When this amendment was introduced in March 2017, garden areas were mandatory and proclaimed that dwellings in both NRZ and GRZ had to set aside, 25%, 30% and 35% of the site depending on their respective size. Each garden area was supposed to be at ground level, not to include any ‘covered’ areas, and there was no scope for councils to ignore this. On the 15th May all this changed. What we have now is depicted in the following image taken from the amendment

Please note the following:

  • Councils now have the option to include in their schedules an ‘exclusion’. That means that if they so desire then the garden requirement need not apply to any proposed development. Further, if the site is designated as ‘medium density’ then it may also be excluded. We note that according to council’s draft structure plans and the Urban Design guidelines Garden townhouses and Urban townhouses are defined as ‘medium density’ and given the ridiculous label of 2 to 3 storeys. That can only mean that all these areas will be rezoned to GRZ and hence may be excluded from the requirement to provide any ‘garden area’.
  • Land under the eaves is now to be included in any garden area calculation.
  • Garden areas now do not need to be at ground level – they can be calculated via balcony size and whatever is under a balcony that projects out from the building is also included in the garden area calculation.
  • Sheds of up to 10 square metres can now also be included in the required calculation. If the site happens to be 420 square metres, then 25% should be ‘garden area’. That means 105 square metres. Thus if a shed is built, it can occupy 10% of the previously designated garden area.
  • Pergolas are now also acceptable – even if they have louvred shutters that at various time could form an ‘enclosed’ area. And who will supervise that these louvres remain open all the time?
  • The most interesting aspect is again the possibility that everything included in an approved structure plan can also be excluded from having a mandatory garden area. In Glen Eira where we estimate 90% of the municipality will become ‘activity centres’ according to council’s published ‘study area’ borders, that could mean that only a small proportion of land will be required to meet the garden area clause.

Making matters worse is that VCAT has finally started hearing cases post the introduction of Amendment C110. In two recent decisions, labeled as ‘red dot’, one respective member had this to say:

The Tribunal’s finding regarding the MGAR (minimum garden area requirement) is that the areas underneath the eaves and extended roofline of the proposal are excluded from the calculation of the ‘garden area’ because they are not ‘uncovered outdoor areas’; and because they are ‘roofed areas’ within the ordinary meaning of those terms.  (Source: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2018/646.html)

Both decisions came to the same conclusion on MGAR. But not a week later, Wynne gazetted his Amendment C143 which contradicted these decisions! Where does that leave us? What are the legal ramifications? How much further will Wynne go to accommodate developers and reduce residential amenity for communities? And the $64 question?– which way will council jump? Will they introduce some nifty clause into their amendments which remove the need for garden areas in the GRZ? Will they continue to plough on in their unjustified endeavours to expand activity centres and facilitate more and more development – in the face of huge community opposition? How many more attempts to bypass the community via applying under section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act will we have to endure? When will this group of 9 councillors have the guts to stand up and say ‘enough is enough’?

 

May 16, 2018

The Developer’s Best Friend – Council’s Planning Department!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

To what extent is council’s planning department in cahoots with developers? A recent application renders this question very, very relevant. The application is for an 8 storey student accommodation building  in Dudley Street, Caulfield East. The proposal is to house 104 students, a shop at ground level and a car parking waiver of 31 spaces. The application is currently being advertised.

All well and good – perhaps. Except that:

  • The site is zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – ie a MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMIT OF 9 METRES OR 2 STOREYS
  • The site is NOT PART of the Phoenix precinct which is (partly) geared towards accommodating student housing.

Yet, this application is now being advertised. Why? Why hasn’t it been refused outright given the above? Secondly, why when the developer admits to ‘pre-application’ meetings with the planning department has council allowed this application to reach this stage of advertising instead of refusing it outright under delegation? Doesn’t the planning department know its own zoning or its own planning scheme?

Regardless of whether Dudley street should have been rezoned eons ago given that there is now 5 storey buildings in this street, the fact remains that it hasn’t been rezoned. So what conclusions can we draw from this? It is clear that council and the VPA intends to expand the Phoenix Precinct. That residents of the area can expect more and more high rise development. This however does not excuse the planning department’s failure to enforce the current planning scheme or to insist that the ‘errors’ contained in the application are removed. For instance: we are repeatedly told that the site is in ‘housing diversity’ area. It is NOT. We are also repeatedly told that the site is part of the Phoenix precinct. It is NOT. Time and again council’s officer reports tell us that it is the current planning scheme that matters and that council’s draft structure plans therefore play no part in the decision making since they are not approved parts of the planning scheme. Surely the same should apply to this application? The fact that it hasn’t, that the developer has been allowed to get away with blue murder, raises fundamental questions about governance, ‘favouritism’, the sheer competence of the planning department and of course, council’s hidden agendas!

We’ve uploaded the current zoning (below)  that clearly shows the NRZ status of the land –

It will be fascinating to see the officer’s report (if we get one) and the rationalising that will undoubtedly attempt to excuse the inexcusable. What is at stake here is the community’s faith in the integrity and objectivity of planning in Glen Eira.

 

May 15, 2018

Plenty Of Questions But No Answers!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

The two tables presented below are from the latest ABS building approvals. (uploaded HERE) The first table features the total number of building permits granted per year for the past 6 years and 9 months – ie until March 2018. Glen Eira is still ahead of the pack in unit development, plus the fact that Stonnington is a special example – ie three times the commercial zoning that Glen Eira has, whilst Port Phillip is in a league of its own with over 15% of its land mass designated as ‘capital city zone’ plus its large quotient of commercial zoning plus tourism. Monash is double the size of Glen Eira and has double the number of houses built compared to Glen Eira. Boroondara is also well ahead of Glen Eira in the number of houses versus apartments erected in that municipality.

So, once you add in the following, then the ‘damage’ done to Glen Eira is evident:

  • Small size of municipality
  • Least amount of open space
  • High population density and increasing
  • Dwellings per hectare
  • Lack of any traffic plans
  • No developer contributions for drainage, community infrastructure, parking waivers
  • Small commercial zoning which means development is occurring in local streets (approx 3% compared to Stonnington’s 8%)
  • Money squandered on open space ‘improvements’ instead of the purchase of more and more open space
  • No local environmental or water policy in the planning scheme
  • No local policy regarding tree protection in the planning scheme – and a mooted ‘significant tree register’ which will probably total only about 150 trees. This won’t go far enough by a long shot to halt the rampant moonscaping that has been plaguing Glen Eira for decades.
  • Most importantly, these figures make a mockery of council’s prognostications. Our supposed 13000 net new dwellings by 2031 will be here within the next few years – especially with a mooted 4500 net new dwellings for East Village and precinct 3 for Caulfield Village. Thus, why are hundreds upon hundreds of properties being rezoned? Why are activity centres being doubled in size? And why oh why does council refuse to address and answer these fundamental questions?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »