Glen Eira Debates

Featured below is what has been happening in McKinnon over the past 12 months. We have included several applications that council refused on the assumption that the developer will head to VCAT and instead of demanding 32 units for example, he will ask for 30 units. Given the current planning scheme, history tells us that a second bite at the cherry will be successful.

Please note:

• The map DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL PERMITS GRANTED SINCE THE ZONES WERE INTRODUCED – ie multi-development in Penang for example, or the current amendment for the corner of Wheatley and McKinnon Road. Nor have we included all of the countless 2 double storey developments in these side streets. We have only concentrated on the past 12 month decision making by council and/or VCAT.
• We estimate that during this time well over 300 new units will be on the cards – some already built, or in the process of being built. According to the planning scheme, Glen Eira requires only 600 net new dwellings per year to meet population growth. Thus a handful of streets in McKinnon alone have achieved 50% of the stated target for the entire Glen Eira municipality!

Residents should start asking the following questions and demanding concrete and honest answers from their councillors:

1. What drainage upgrades have occurred in this area since the zones came in?
2. When will council complete its structure planning for McKinnon and the other neighbourhood centres? Are residents expected to wait 10 to 15 years for this to occur according to the published schedule?
3. Why is the current consultation on the ‘shopping strips’ emphasising the commercial strips, instead of first informing and then asking direct questions on development, traffic, open space, etc? What role did the consultation committee have in ‘devising’ this current consultation?
4. How many one bedroom apartments have been built in Glen Eira over the past 3.5 years and how many 3 and 4 bedroom apartments?
5. How many car parking waivers have been granted to all of the developments shown in the map below – and throughout all of Glen Eira itself?
6. Why is council steadfastly refusing to review the zones themselves – especially since development is occurring far more in local residential streets zoned General Residential and Residential Growth rather than those areas zoned commercial and mixed use?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

From feedback received thus far it appears that resident concerns over the ‘partnership’ between Council, developer and the Victorian Planning Authority, are either not being understood by some councillors, or these concerns are seen as unnecessarily ‘alarmist’.

When the largest ever development is about to occur in Glen Eira, we maintain that community input, from the very start is essential – and not when a draft structure plan has already been devised and to all intents and purposes, probably set in concrete. Any ‘visioning’ must include residents from the start and their involvement must be ongoing throughout the entire project.

In the current agenda papers, one officer report notes the large development at the old Amcor site. Yarra City Council is one model that should be employed for the Virginia Estate development. Yarra had no problem in establishing a ‘reference’ committee right from the start that included 6 community reps. Yarra had no problem in holding regular meetings where residents through their representatives could bring up issues. This is not rocket science. It is the basis of an inclusive council that sees its residents as partners. If the current mantra of council is to be believed then the establishment of such a group is essential!

Here’s the Yarra Council blurb for this committee –

We’ve also uploaded HERE, the relevant Terms of Reference for the committee.

There are 3 agenda items down for decision this coming Tuesday which should set alarm bells ringing for residents. In this first post we concentrate on Item 9.3 – Council’s ‘position’ on the Ormond Railway development site.

What is absolutely staggering about this report and its recommendation is that councillors ENDORSE A MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMIT OF 8 STOREYS!

This is staggering for the simple reason that it exceeds the proposed heights of 7 storeys in Carnegie and 5 storeys in Bentleigh that were nominated in the proposed Amendments for these activity centres. Thus we now have the ludicrous situation where a so called ‘neighbourhood centre’ with less shopping areas and surrounded by residential development is okay for 8 storeys and Carnegie and Bentleigh are deemed suitable for lesser height. Unbelievable shonky planning !

What makes matters even worse is that this recommendation by the ‘experts’ is not even in the public domain. Hence we have the situation where residents are denied access to the rationale which would support a recommendation of 8 storeys. So much for transparency and accountability!

Further, we are told in the officer report  that: In order to form the strongest position possible, City Futures (ie Council) have sought an evidence-based approach to inform Council’s position for a preferred maximum building height. And what is this ‘evidence based’ data on? According to the report it consists of the following –

• Status of centre
• Precedents
• Typology
• Street wall ratio
• Solar Access
• Key View lines
• Transition
• Connectivity

We posit that none of the above is ‘evidence’ for an 8 storey apartment block. It might as well be 10 or 12 storeys! Nothing here would suggest that the following important issues have been considered – open space, infrastructure, parking/traffic, development in the area, retail business study, etc. etc. If this is the basis upon which such major decisions are being made, then God help us!

Even worse, is that once again there has not been a single round of ‘consultation’ between residents and council on how high anything should be in the municipality! The rhetoric is all about ‘consultation’. Pity that words never seem to match actions and decisions!