GE Open Space


Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)

My question is to the Minister for Planning. Minister, many residents in Elsternwick have expressed concern over the impact of overdevelopment on their local amenity and liveability. The Elsternwick structure plan projects a 20 per cent increase in population and responds to the expectation in your government’s Plan Melbourne  Refresh that will require 22000 residents to be accommodated in Glen Eira in the next 15 years.

The plan, which has been approved by the council, will now go to a planning panel and ultimately you as the minister will be responsible for any changes in the Elsternwick precinct. As the structure plan outlines no measures to cope with this densification and will lead to the loss of established houses in the area, Minister, what is the government doing and what are you doing  to prevent local families losing their homes and to protect the liveability of Elsternwick and the surrounds?

Councillors of course voted in the latest version of the Urban or ‘Quality Design’ Guidelines at the recent council meeting. See Item 9.5 from the agenda.

But, if you blink you will miss the really important stuff in this item.

One little sentence buried on page 7 of an 8 page report tells the story of this council’s failure  to practice full and open disclosure.  The sentence we refer to is:

The commercial setback above the podium was reduced from 6 metres to 5 metres, which is in line with a number of submissions received

Really? A ‘number of submissions’? – Obviously not too many because council itself admits:

Between 30 October and 11 December 2017, Council sought community feedback on the draft Quality Design Guidelines. Over this 6 weeks period, 38 submissions were received (20 online and 18 in paper), along with 3 surveys and 14 Facebook comments.

Sadly, these comments have not been published by council. Nor do we have any explanation in this Mullin report as to why it was decided that Glen Eira residents will be better off when there is a reduction in setbacks? It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that with smaller setbacks, the developer can cram in more apartments?

And are we really to believe that even if every single one of these 38 citizens demanded a REDUCTION in setbacks that council was prepared to accede to this demand and completely ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of residents who opposed 8 and 12 and even 4 storeys to begin with?

What is also disconcerting is that the October version of the Quality Design Guidelines has now disappeared from council’s website – making it even harder for residents to compare the ‘before and after changes’. Surely a ‘fact sheet’ that provides a clear cut and honest summary of ALL CHANGES is required and not just the spin and deception that council continually practices.

There are many changes in these documents. We simply highlight a few –

BEFORE

AFTER

AND FOR SHOP TOP (STANDARD) BEFORE

AND AFTER

There are many, many more points of comparison that readers should be looking out for – and not only in terms of setbacks, but also open space, etc.

This has now passed council. Again without giving residents the opportunity to comment or have any input.

With an election around the corner, it is the opportune time for residents to gain the most leverage. It is also time to bypass council completely and head straight to those who have the ultimate power to make decisions.

We have sent off several versions of this letter (below) to all sides of the political spectrum. It is clear that council cannot be trusted to work in the best interests of its residents. We therefore urge all concerned residents to join us and lobby local and state politicians to ensure that council’s plans for the 12 storey interim controls are thwarted.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Council is gearing up to erect at least 5 multi-level car parks throughout Glen Eira – with the possibility of more. Bentleigh alone is to cop 2 according to the recent response to a public question. Yet, the published draft structure plan only admits to ONE multi level car park. We therefore have the ridiculous situation where a response to a public question can state:

The structure plan proposes to increase the parking throughout the centre by 264 public spaces. To increase the parking numbers Council will need to construct two multi deck car parks. (Page 9 of the minutes) 

Whilst the ‘endorsed’ draft structure plan only focuses on the Horsely Street recommendation: 

Development of a new multi-level car park with provision of retail activity at ground floor. (Page 41 of Structure Plan) 

No mention is made of the possibility of two multi-level car parks! 

 

The table below summarises council’s car parking proposals.

  • How can the Bleazby site suddenly provide an additional 143 spots – unless the intent of course is to erect a multi level car park? Wouldn’t it be lovely if for once council was honest and informed residents clearly and precisely what it had in mind!

Thus we have to ask:

  • Is council deliberately obfuscating and hiding its intentions?
  • How much will all this cost and when will it be completed?
  • How much public land will be flogged off to developers or leased to them?
  • What Parking Precinct amendments will be introduced and will the levy be miniscule?
  • Can you really cram 480 car parking spots into 3 levels or will this end up being more like 5 or 6 levels?

The abysmal record of these councillors continues with the latest VCAT decision on 240-250 McKinnon Road, McKinnon. The application was for 6 storeys, 6 tiny shops and 33 apartments. As per usual, councillors decided to lop off a couple of storeys and a few apartments. The permit they granted was for 4 storeys. Naturally the developer went to VCAT and ensured that council’s record of 100% failure when this occurs was repeated. The developer got his 6 storeys and 33 apartments!

Here are some quotes from the decision. We are not endorsing the member’s decision but simply pointing out that whilst council does nothing about its neighbourhood centres they will soon rival the major activity centres in height, density, and poor residential amenity.

There is no specific design or built form policy or control for the McKinnon NAC

  • As I have indicated, there is no development control, either in a mandatory or discretionary form, that applies in this case. I appreciate the aim for a built form response linked to the role of an activity centre in the hierarchy however, it is not appropriate to adopt a blanket position that four storeys is the maximum height for commercial land in the McKinnon NAC because of controls introduced in other places (but not in the McKinnon NAC) and because each site is different and each proposal must be assessed on its own merits.
  • There is no policy basis to support submissions about a single or uniform height limit for all commercial land in the McKinnon NAC.
  1. I also note Mr Carey’s (for applicant) observation that the assessing Council officer did not recommend deletion of the top two storeys. The officer concluded in part that:

While the proposal will undoubtedly be taller and more robust than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of change given the size of the site, the emerging built form in the immediate area and its strategic location

Here is a run down of applications, permits, and amended permits that have all come in, or been decided, since January 2017. Council has refused only a handful. But we are sure they will end up at VCAT and get their permits whilst council sits like Nero fiddling whilst the city burns! The grand total of the following is approaching 400 dwellings.

Bayside, Boroondara, Monash, Maroondah, Stonnington, Melton, Knox, Darebin are just some of the councils who have clearly defined structure plans for their so-called ‘neighbourhood centres’. In Glen Eira, our neighbourhood centres have been left to the wolves! More concerning is that we are yet to receive any indication of:

  • When planning is to be finalised for these centres
  • What ‘controls’ are likely to be introduced? Now that 6 storeys is common, should we expect that council will opt for these height limits?
  • Will the heights be mandatory or ‘preferred’?
  • Why has there been absolute silence on council’s obligation to draft ‘preferred character statements’ for all ‘housing diversity’ areas? Surely this could have been well and truly commenced by now?
  • What impact does all this development in neighbourhood centres have on council’s projected housing needs? – where is this documented, justified, analysed, and communicated?

Our conclusions are that council has already decided on most things. No interim heights for Elsternwick when Bentleigh and Carnegie got the nod is surely an indication that they were preparing for 12 storey height limits in this suburb. Will the same hold true for our neighbourhood centres and the excuse will be that there already are ‘precedents’ set. These precedents are the result of a decade of doing nothing and an agenda that is all for more and more development! The tragedy is that our 5 new councillors have taken up this mantra and joined the Hyams, Esakoff, Magee, Delahunty pro-development faction!

The list!

8 Elm Grove MCKINNON – 3 storey, 6 units

23 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON – 18 x 3 storey

30-32 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON – 3 storey, 17 units

203 McKinnon Road MCKINNON – 3 storey, 2 units

91 McKinnon Road MCKINNON – 3 storey, 10 units

168 McKinnon Road MCKINNON – 3 storey, 23 units

240-250 McKinnon Road MCKINNON – 6 storey, 33 units

134-138 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 units (now going for 22 units)

9 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 8 units

15- 17 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 storey, 16 units

33 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 4 double storeys

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 4 x 3 storeys

40 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 double storeys

12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON – 3 x 3 storeys

16 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON – 3 double storeys

1 – 9 Claire Street MCKINNON – 53 units

6 Claire Street MCKINNON – 32 units

248 Jasper Road MCKINNON – 4 storey, ???? units

283 Jasper Road MCKINNON – 3 double storeys

254 Jasper Road MCKINNON – 4 storey, 7 units

39 Lees Street MCKINNON – 4 double storeys

2 Shanahan Crescent MCKINNON – 3 double storeys

27 Draper Street MCKINNON – 3 double storeys

1-9 Adelaide – 34 x3 storey

2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON – 4 units

219 Tucker Road MCKINNON – 3 storey, 4 units

The following recording features part of the ‘community participation’ segment from last night’s council meeting. Please listen carefully to wonderful address by the resident, the applause for his comments, and in particular the unbelievable claims made by Ron Torres.

 

Torres is part of the ‘old guard’ – a senior member of council having begun his career at Glen Eira in 1996. As Director in charge of Planning & Place, Torres  has been intimately involved with all aspects of planning in Glen Eira for just on 20 years. Yet he claims that a planning scheme review was carried out with full ‘community consultation’ four or four and a half years ago! That, dear readers, is a blatant lie!!!!

The last Planning Scheme review took place in 2010 and council repeatedly asked for extensions so that they would not have to fulfill their legal obligations and review the scheme every four years as required. They were granted these exemptions until Wynne put his foot down and refused the final request. Council in fact did everything it could to delay the inevitable!

More to the point, as recently as August 2016, council’s own report on the 2016 Planning Scheme Review, show Torres’ comments to be dead wrong. There can be no excuse for such incompetence at best, or as we believe, the attempt to deceive and mislead!

Here are the relevant extracts from the minutes of 9th August 2016 – less than 2 years ago!

How much faith should residents therefore have in these so-called ‘professionals’ and ‘experts’ when pronouncement after pronouncement is designed to deceive we believe, and at best, to pretend that good process and proper governance is inherent in everything this council does!

Tonight’s council meeting represents nothing less than a complete betrayal of resident views. Each structure plan was voted in with arguments that are disingenuous and basically incompetent.

The central issue of officers employing Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act and thereby bypassing the community was voted in with Delahunty’s motion that this apply only to Commercial zones, Mixed Use Zones, and tellingly, to all residential areas where the existing interim control is more restrictive than what is proposed in the new versions of the structure plans. In other words, Urban Renewal areas in Carnegie and Elsternwick will now be rezoned to 12 storeys and the Mixed Use zones in Elsternwick will get their 6 or 8 storeys. All without the opportunity for the community to formally object. Good luck we say in removing these ‘interim’ heights when the full amendment goes out for consultation!

It is really laughable that Delahunty admitted that the recently released shadow drawings for Elsternwick were ‘rudimentary’ and is now calling for more detailed shadow analysis and traffic analysis. Yet, these 9 individuals pass these structure plans BEFORE this research is put before them and the public. Surely this information is vital to informed and sound decision making. Not after! (Silver was the only councillor to vote against the Elsternwick plans – but he voted for the other two).

We are also dismayed at the repetition of all those old irrelevant and erroneous shibboleths that have been trotted out for years and years – ie

  • Magee and Sztrajt blaming VCAT when a decade of a planning scheme that had more holes in it than a swiss cheese was, and is, the problem
  • The setting up of false dichotomies again and again – ie Glen Eira can’t say no to development or structure planning. No one that we know of has argued against development or against structure planning. Residents have been opposed to inappropriate development and for a decade have desired a structure plan that achieves at least a modicum of residential protection. It is council that has refused to even entertain the idea of a structure plan until ordered to undertake the work by Wynne!
  • Appalling arguments of ‘we can’t say 4 storeys because VCAT and the Minister will not give us this, so let’s go for 12’!!!! We simply ask – on what basis was 12 storeys plucked out of thin air? How many units is a 12 storey building likely to house and what does this do to dwelling projections? What of communal open space and doesn’t council’s Urban Design Guidelines therefore not meet recent legislation on this issue if there happens to be more than 40 units? Where is this factored in? Or has it been conveniently forgotten?

To put it bluntly, we are having a hard time in deciding whether these 9 councillors are merely incompetent, ignorant, or mere mouth pieces of Torres, Mullen, McKenzie and developers who have undoubtedly already come knocking. Also worth pointing out that Torres claimed that 4 and a half years ago there was a planning scheme review with community consultation. There wasn’t. Council claimed that it had undertaken an ‘internal review’ and of course nothing changed. In fact the last review really occurred in 2010 and if council had their way would not have happened in 2016. They had applied for several extensions which was finally refused by Wynne and he ordered them to undertake the 2016 review. Torres should be reprimanded (again) for providing both incorrect and misleading information!

We urge all residents to listen to the recordings of this meeting and to carefully consider what was said, by whom, and to remember this when it comes time to vote!

Apparently not all residents fully understand the significance of the officer recommendations for Tuesday night’s vote on the structure plans.

We reiterate: every single major planning issue has been done under Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act, 1987 – thereby excluding residents from the right to have any input, plus practically removing the possibility of major change down the line!

Leopards clearly don’t change their spots, so here we are again – going down the same anti-democratic, anti-community pathway. Here’s the sad history of 20(4) –

  • The introduction of the residential zones in August 2013 – in total secrecy, without consultation, and now acknowledged as a complete disaster
  • The introduction of the ‘interim height’ amendments for Bentleigh & Carnegie in 2016. Again no consultation.
  • Now the recommendation for a resolution that endorses the ‘built form measures’ etc. That means 12 storeys for Elsternwick & Carnegie and rezoning of heaps of other properties and doubling the size of activity centres! – all without an iota of strategic justification!

Only a fool would believe that if Wynne says ‘yes’ to 12 storeys in Carnegie & Elsternwick for these ‘interim controls’ that when council finally gets around to a full amendment (in a further couple of years at best) he is likely to reduce these heights and zonings.  Council knows this fully well. Plus they will be able to argue that 12 storeys is now an ‘established’ reality so no point in seeking to reduce height years down the track. This is just another example of sheer bastardry, sleight of hand, and the attempt to camouflage what is really going on. If it wasn’t, then the significance of 20(4) would be clearly explained and justified. It wouldn’t be buried in a wordy, vague, and ultimately reprehensible recommendation!

In what can only be seen as damage control, council has released its more ‘sophisticated’ analysis of overshadowing for the designated Urban Renewal areas. However, this new piece of information only contains data on Elsternwick and NOT CARNEGIE – where we remind readers, 12 storeys is also in the offing.

We’ve uploaded the document HERE

We leave it up to readers to decide whether or not much faith can be placed in these shadow drawings!

We also alert residents to the following:

In the officer’s report for both Elsternwick & Carnegie it is stated that:

protect the future open space 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);

Yet the newly released document states:

To ensure no overshadowing of residential areas between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox (22nd of September).

We ask:

Which is it? 2pm or 3pm? And what potential difference does one hour make in terms of overshadowing?

Further, the peer review (dated October 2017 ) has this to say on overshadowing in Urban Renewal areas. The verbage for Elsternwick is similar.

CLICK TO ENLARGE THESE TABLES

And there’s also this concluding statement:

Overshadowing impacts to Woorayl Street Park would likely to substantially decrease the overall height and development yield of sites between Woorayl Street and Arawatta Street (to 5-6 storeys) if June 22 shadows are adopted in Guidelines, while September 22 shadows are more easily reconciled with the maximum height (with community benefits) as shown in Figure 20. This model has assumed an adoption of September 22 shadow

Thus we have a situation where council is now pretending to have listened to resident concerns by producing a document that purports to show the latest ‘analysis’ when this was already mooted 4 months ago! More to the point the decision to implement September 22nd rules and ignore the June rules isn’t to benefit residents but developers so they can cram in even higher heights!

This latest public relations exercise by council simply reinforces the fact that agendas and decisions have been well and truly made and that residents have always been the last to know about anything! The entire ‘consultation’ process has been a sham!

Council has released its structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick. No sign of Virginia Estate. There is also the abysmal Urban Design Guidelines – replete again with pretty pictures and nothing beyond ResCode or what already exists for the NRZ.

However, residents need to be very, very concerned about one of the recommendations in particular. It is repeated verbatim for each of the structure plans. In case some readers don’t grasp the significance of what follows we want to make it absolutely clear –

  • Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act means NO OBJECTOR RIGHTS, NO INPUT BY THE COMMUNITY. Council simply sends off its proposals to the Minister and he then rubber stamps or doesn’t rubber stamp. If this is voted through, then we don’t even get to see the documentation!
  • It is simply unconscionable that this council is recommending that controls be put into place (regardless of whether they are ‘interim’ or not) without any consultation and without providing residents the opportunity to object and go to a planning panel.

Then as if to provide the illusion that this council is totally committed to community consultation we find this recommendation from the Urban Design document.

Once something is gazetted (as with the first recommendation) the chances of it changing are Buckley’s. If council is so committed to listening to their residents then there is no reason to apply under Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act. This is just more of the same dirty tactics that has become endemic in Glen Eira City Council. We also doubt that any councillor will have the guts to knock back these recommendations!

Whilst we have literally only scanned the hundreds and hundreds of pages released today, we urge residents to carefully consider the following:

  • No mandatory height limits proposed
  • Council considers it okay for 8 to 12 storeys abutting public open space
  • No real changes from ResCode – when council has the right to change the schedules
  • Not one iota of quantifiable data and justification for 12 storeys, nor for doubling the sizes of activity centres
  • Persisting with high rise car parks that cost a fortune but with no figures or budgets provided
  • No inkling of which neighbourhood centres are next in line!

We could go on and on, and will in the next few posts. But this is another example of rule by unelected bureaucrats and has nothing to do with community views and aspirations.!!!!

« Previous PageNext Page »