GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

February 20, 2016

Does 1 & 1 Equal 2 Here?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments

QUESTIONS

Does this letter from the Minister’s Office contradict what Burke writes in the agenda papers?
What is council’s permit conditions?
What is their policy? Does such a document even exist?
If it does exist, was this ‘policy’ changed (OR IGNORED) to accommodate the events in question?
Would private armed security guards come under Burke’s category of ‘government bodies’?
Will Council publish the permit it granted so that residents can finally know the truth?

PS: Off topic – Caulfield Racecourse. See Sunday Age – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-public-space-that-people-didnt-know-existed-20160220-gmz66o.html

February 17, 2016

Dumb Or Complicit? – #1

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

No one is perfect. Mistakes are made –even repeated sometimes. But, (and this is a huge ‘but’) if nothing is learnt from these mistakes and they are allowed to go on and on, then there is something drastically wrong with the people involved and the organisation.

Glen Eira Council, and especially its councillors, are living proof that the pro-development agenda is all that matters. Why? Because this bunch has consistently repeated and repeated the most catastrophic errors in planning and have done absolutely nothing to either learn from their errors, or to address the real culprit – ie the planning scheme. Instead these 9 councillors have been content to play the ‘populist’ game by repeatedly lopping off one or two storeys, or reducing the number of dog boxes in applications. The result? The developer goes to VCAT and gets what he originally wanted. And the main reason? Because of the abysmal, pathetic, planning scheme that has not been properly reviewed or adequately amended since at least 2003. Even worse is that when decision after decision made by councillors is overturned, they have still done nothing. That in our view is not just stupidity, but blatant incompetence and indifference to residents’ plight.

Why can we say this? Because we have gone through every planning decision made by councillors since they were elected in late 2012. In every single decision where councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the numbers of units, and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Councillor decisions are therefore not worth the paper they are written on and residents need to hold them accountable for not doing their jobs.

This is the first in a series of decisions we will be presenting. The failure of this administration and its 9 councillors needs to be revealed in all its gory detail. For each decision presented below we also quote from the VCAT judgement highlighting the inadequacy of the planning scheme. Please note that cases involving child care/aged care are not included in this ‘review’ nor are those applications which were refused outright.

COUNCILLOR DECISION #1 – 13/11/2012. 1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD, CARNEGIE.

The application was for 12 storeys and 173 units. The officer recommendation was to grant a permit with some conditions. Esakoff and Pilling moved the motion for a permit for 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. On the casting vote of the chairman this motion got up. Lobo was absent. Voting for 8 storeys were – Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams and Delahunty. The developer went to VCAT and got his 12 storeys and 173 dwellings. Here is part of what the judgement stated – The review site is in Precinct 1 ‘ Dandenong Road Precinct’ of the Carnegie Urban Village. There are no specific policies for this Precinct in clause 22.05 as they expired in 2007.

It is common ground that 29% of the proposed dwellings (50 in total) rely on ‘borrowed light’. It is also common ground that these are one-bedroom dwellings of the same design and that all are oriented to the east. It is relevant that the council is not opposed to dwellings with bedrooms reliant on ‘borrowed’ light and only contests the proportion of such dwellings in the building

COUNCILLOR DECISION #2 – 27/11/2012 – 127-131 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.

The application was for 4 storeys and 12 dwellings. Officers recommended a permit. Delahunty & Lipshutz moved to grant this permit. Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz voted in favour of the permit. Lobo was again absent. Amended plans were put in at VCAT and council imposed new conditions. VCAT deleted most of the conditions and stated in part – The planning scheme does not specifically address these detailed urban design matters…

COUNCILLOR DECISION #3 – 5/2/3013 – 483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD,ELSTERNWICK

The application was for 8 storeys and 57 dwellings. Officer recommendation was that a permit be granted. Lipshutz and Sounness moved that a permit be granted for 6 storeys and 45 dwellings. Voting for this motion were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling and Sounness. The developer went to VCAT and there was ‘mediation’ where council accepted 7 storeys. An objector then appealed to VCAT. The member stated in part – In this context I am satisfied that a seventh floor as accepted by Council is sufficiently consistent with the policies of Council for development in this activity centre and does not result in any significant amenity impact associated with the height through overshadowing or overlooking.

COUNCILLOR DECISION #4 – 5/2/2013 – 687-689 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CAULFIELD

Application was for 4 storey and 29 dwellings. Officer recommendation was for a permit with 28 dwellings. Lobo and Delahunty moved to refuse permit. The motion was lost. Pilling and Lipshutz then moved motion for 3 storeys and 25 dwellings. Lipshutz’s argument at the time (since this was the same council meeting as the case above) was and we quote – we’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion to reject. Voting for the 3 storeys were – Lipshutz, Pilling, Magee, Esakoff, Sounness, Hyams. The developer went to VCAT and a permit was granted for 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Part of the judgement stated – There is nothing within the Housing Diversity Areas referring to preferred maximum heights for built form.

COMMENT

Residents need to be fully aware that just because a permit is refused, or councillors in their grandstanding decide to lop off a storey or two, that is by no means the end of the matter. Our analysis reveals time and time again how VCAT decisions are made on the basis of what the planning scheme does not contain. We repeat –

No structure plans
No decent Design and Development Overlays
No Urban Design Frameworks worthy of that name
No preferred character statements for housing diversity
No development contributions levy
No review of flood areas
No parking precinct plans

And those responsible for this failure? Councillors – since they have the power to insist on reviews and ordering the pen pushers to come up with amendments that would plug many of the current gaps in the scheme. Instead, they continue to pretend that removing a storey is all they can do! This is either sheer stupidity or complicity!

February 13, 2016

Virginia Estate & ‘Sky Rail’

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

Phase 2 of the ‘consultation’ for the Virginia Estate development has been announced.

Feb – 11 – 2016 9:26 am Community drop in events announced

The owners of the East Village precinct have announced the first round of community drop-in events as part of consultation on the development of a 20 year masterplan for the Bentleigh East industrial area.

Three sessions are open to all residents and interested parties:

Tuesday 23rd February from 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Wednesday 24th February from 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Saturday 27th February 2pm to 4pm

All sessions will be held at 18 North Drive, 236-262 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East.

Read our media release for more information.

+++++++

The Level Crossings authority dates are as follows –

Hughesdale Saturday 13 February, 1:30pm – 4:30pm Hughesdale Community Centre, 160 Poath Road Hughesdale

Murrumbeena Tuesday 16 February, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Murrumbeena Pavilion, 28 Gerald Street Murrumbeena

Carnegie Tuesday 23 February, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Boyd Room, Carnegie Community Centre, 7 Shepparson Avenue Carnegie

Hughesdale Thursday 25 February, 9:00am – 12:00pm Hughesdale Community Centre, 160 Poath Road, Hughesdale

Clayton Saturday 27 February, 9:00am – 12:00pm Clayton Community Centre, 9-1 5 Cooke Street, Clayton

Murrumbeena Thursday 3 March, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Murrumbeena Pavilion, 28 Gerald Street Murrumbeena

Carnegie Saturday 5 March, 9:00am – 12:00pm, Boyd Room, Carnegie Community Centre, 7 Shepparson Avenue Carnegie

++++++++++++++++

A great shame that Council with its multitude of staff devoted to ‘community liaison’ and ‘public relations’ cannot have anything up on its website that informs residents of these important events – unlike other councils of course. All you will find is this, dating from August 2015 – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Level-crossing-removals-in-Glen-Eira

February 12, 2016

Okotel & Hansard

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

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh)—The matter I raise is for the Minister for Public Transport, and the action I seek from the minister is that she produce any documentation she may have that will clarify the position of Glen Eira Council in relation to consultation on the Andrews Labor government’s proposed design to remove all nine level crossings between Caulfield and Dandenong. There have been recent pieces of misinformation being spread by one particular Liberal Party member of the Glen Eira Council. As I said in this place yesterday removing level crossings is the no. 1 priority for the residents in my community. It took the Andrews government and a very active Minister for Public Transport to get on and do this—and the government will be doing it all by 2018.

I take this time to refer the minister to comments that I have been reported and that have been provided to me from media outlets in my community about a meeting held at the City of Glen Eira between councillors and the Level Crossing Removal Authority. They are sourced from a councillor at the City of Glen Eira, who has suggested amongst other things that rail lines on the ground will stay there for years, councils will have to pay to develop the new parkland and—here is a cracker—councils will get into the business of shopping centre development and the government will be gifting them a whole lot of land to do it. What absolute scaremongering nonsense. Yet more nonsense being peddled and organised directly by those opposite.

I have it on good authority that these comments are from the Liberal Party member of the Glen Eira City Council, Karina Okotel. We may remember Cr Okotel from when she campaigned for my opponent at the last election. We may also remember her as a prospective Liberal Senate candidate for the next federal election, which was mentioned in the media recently. If this is conduct that she thinks is appropriate, God forbid that she gets elected to the national Parliament. You might also know her from the protests in my community recently, despite the fact that we keep hearing that these protests are not political. Not political? The last protest had no less than five Liberal members of Parliament, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I recognise that there are people in my community who have genuine concerns and from day one the Premier made it clear that each affected resident would have their own dedicated case manager. I understand there will be a range of things provided for each resident, but this will be done in a calm and considered way by a caring government, one by one with all residents. What I do not recognise is the scaremongering, misinformation and out-and-out lies spread by those opposite. I have even heard that staff members of those opposite have been out doorknocking my community and staff members of the Leader of the Opposition have been canvassing shoppers in Koornang Road, Carnegie, about their views on sky rail without identifying who they are. I have also heard that members of the Leader of the Opposition’s staff have been doing other activities to coordinate this anti-campaign. I look forward to welcoming the minister to my community again through the duration of this project and I look forward to her clarification on these matters.

RESPONSE

MS ALLEN (Minister)…..Finally, the member for Oakleigh has raised a matter with me. It is quite a concerning matter because it does go to some misinformation that has been produced in his local community for purely political purposes. I know the member for Brighton is shocked. She is shocked at what is going on in the Oakleigh community. The member asked for me to produce documentation that would clarify the position of Glen Eira council.

I am looking to read into the record comments that I have in a letter. I am prepared to make the letter available to the house this evening. I received this morning a letter from the office of the mayor, Cr Neil Pilling, in response to an issue that was raised in the Herald Sun today about some claims about a meeting that was held with the Glen Eira council and the level crossing removal project team on Tuesday evening. Sorry, it was not to me. I should be clear. It was to Kevin Devlin, the CEO of the Level Crossing Removal Authority. I would just like to make that correction: it was to Kevin Devlin. He indicated that the discussion was, and I quote:

robust but productive, and it was helpful to gain a greater insight into not only your plans for further consultation with the community …

He goes on to say, and I quote:

It has come to our attention that one of our councillors has distributed her personal interpretation of matters discussed at the meeting to a wider audience … I would like to emphasise that this communication is neither an official record nor an accurate record of the discussion, nor does it represent the views of the collective council group.

I apologise that this has occurred as it is inconsistent with both the intent of the briefing and the courtesy that council seeks to afford to guest presenters.

As I have said, I appreciate the mayor taking immediate steps to correct the record from his council’s perspective following the reports in the media today. Is it not such a shame that the mayor has had to write a letter apologising on behalf of his council for the actions of a renegade councillor who is choosing to put her own party political interests above the good of the council and the good of the local community? It is incredibly disappointing. I hope for the member that that clarifies the position of the Glen Eira council. I appreciated the opportunity to briefly meet with the CEO and the mayor this afternoon as they were meeting with members in Parliament.

I also just want to mention too that we really look forward to working with the Glen Eira council on both the project and the opportunities that come from removing nine level crossings in the way that it is going to be done, creating those 11 MCGs worth of open space. The Glen Eira council has the least open space of any municipality in Melbourne, so this presents a unique, one-off opportunity not only to get rid of level crossings but to run more train services, to reduce road local community. It is going to be an opportunity. The Andrews Labor government has already said that we look forward to funding new facilities—they will be municipal facilities but new facilities along this corridor—and then providing funding to the councils in the longer term for them to maintain the upkeep of these facilities. That is why we want to work constructively and proactively with councils like Glen Eira and others along this rail corridor as we deliver an incredibly exciting infrastructure project for this community.

February 8, 2016

Liberals, Labor & Council: Shame On Them All

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

The issue of ‘Skyrail’ has become major news in the past 36 hours culminating in protest meetings and petitions to parliament. All accompanied by major TV, newspaper and radio focus. Many comments are also going up on our website. Hence, this post is basically a few reflections on the processes involved by all players to this stage – Liberal, Labor and Council. Please note that we are not advocating for any specific pro or con position on ‘skyrail’ – there is so much that is unknown that at this stage at least, it is impossible to form a cogent and valid viewpoint – unless one is gullible enough to swallow hook line and sinker the multi-million dollar public relations videos and flyers. What is undeniably clear is:

The failure to inform the community
The failure to consult with the community prior to such major decisions being made
The reprehensible game of politics where the Liberal Party is so very quick to seize the opportunity to oppose the project whilst when in government they also had ‘secret’ plans to sell off land to developers and produce ten storey apartment blocks in the south-east. Why weren’t residents consulted here? – See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-plan-for-railway-hubs-20140503-37p6f.html
Next there’s Council with Hyams and Okotel (Liberals) taking full advantage of yesterday’s public protest meeting. Where was Delahunty, Magee, Lobo (nominally Labor) – especially since the mantra is that councillors are not representing political parties but the local community? Where were the Labor pollies?
Where is Council right now with its pathetic Draft Action Plan on Transport – that is already behind schedule and most of the ‘actions’ not due to happen for at least another 2 years? Council has not raised a finger to allay resident concerns about high rise developments alongside stations, or the further loss of public open space, or sought in any shape or form to protect native vegetation or 600 year old trees. No public statements, no media releases on council position on these things. Now rumour has it that Kitmont St and the Riley Park area could be devastated by construction yet there is only one Vegetation Overlay in the entire planning scheme and no Significant Tree Register.

Each and every one of these players deserves to be condemned for their secrecy, their short sightedness, their indifference to community concerns, and the awful political games they all play at the expense of local residents and proper governance. In the end the only possible conclusion is how poorly we are governed overall and how powerful certain vested interests are.

PS: If anyone has any doubts as to our councillors being “community representatives” or political party disciples, then the minutes from 8th April 2015 should resolve all doubt. Item 9.10 of that meeting included ‘debate’ on the timing of grade separation. A motion was put and then Sounness and Delahunty moved the following amendment –

Amend section (a) to read; (a) Thanking her for her letter and commending
her and the Andrews Government on the recent announcement regarding the
Cranbourne Packenham line upgrade which will mean a great deal to our
residents.

The vote on the above was:

FOR : Sounness, Delahunty, Lobo, Magee, Pilling

AGAINST: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel

Need we say any more?

January 22, 2016

Virginia Estate: #2

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

Here is part of the blurb that the developers for the Virginia Estate have published.

Source: http://www.eastvillagemasterplan.com.au/future-needs/

Population Growth and Make-up

Melbourne’s estimated population of 4.5 million in 2015 is projected to reach 5.3 million by 2025 and almost 6 million by 2031.
At this growth rate Glen Eira will not be able to accommodate its share of Melbourne’s projected population growth in the next 15 years.
Of the established local government areas in metropolitan Melbourne, Glen Eira has the highest proportion of its residential areas covered by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) – the zone that gives the greatest protection to existing residential character and densities.
The 84% coverage of Glen Eira’s residential areas by the NRZ will be a major factor in slowing population growth levels, limiting housing diversity and choice.
Bentleigh East has no appropriately zoned land for higher density housing other than the possible redevelopment of small areas of business land in the Centre Road shopping area.
Based on the latest State Government ‘Victoria in Future’ population projections (2015), there is a projected need for an additional 7,500 dwellings in Glen Eira over the 15 year period from 2016 – 2031 of which 68% will be either ‘couples without children’ or ‘lone person’ households.

COMMENT

There are several unsubstantiated claims in the above which need to be seriously challenged. For example:

On what basis is the statement made that Glen Eira ‘will not be able to accommodate its share’ of population growth when the total number of new net dwellings in the municipality has risen by at least 350% for the past 3 years in a row? The planning scheme claims an average of 600 new dwellings per year is required. In 2014/15 Glen Eira had over 2000 net new dwellings. In the first quarter of 2015/16 (July to September) the figure, according to Planning Permit Victoria was 559 net new dwellings. For the second quarter this number rose to 634 net new dwellings. Thus, at least another 2200 new dwellings in a year if this rate continues. We also mustn’t forget that Newton and Hyams promised Guy an 80+ year supply of land and an 89 year supply if the comnmercial zoning is taken into account. Thus the ability to ‘accommodate’ new dwellings is well and truly there without the grand vision of potentially thousands more at Virginia Estate!

Given that ‘residential’ remains undefined, we seriously query the statement that Glen Eira from all its neighbours has the highest percentage of land zoned as Neighbourhood Residential. Bayside for example claims over 80% of its land is zoned NRZ whilst Glen Eira only claims 78%. Even this figure is a myth – NRZ constitutes just under 70% of the municipality and if the number of LARGE sized lots which can legally have many more than 2 dwellings are taken into account, then Professor Michael Buxton estimates that the Neighbourhood Residential Zones in Glen Eira amount to a paltry 55% of the municipality.

The most unbelievable claim however is that Bentleigh East has only ‘small areas of business land’ available for ‘higher density’ development. Not true! Bentleigh East has more land zoned as Commercial 1 than Elsternwick or Carnegie – both of which are supposed to be Major Activity Centres and Bentleigh East is a Neighbourhood Centre. Only Bentleigh (a Major Activity Centre) has more land zoned as commercial than Bentleigh East. The figures (in square metres) are:

Bentleigh East – 136,551

Bentleigh – 149, 768

Carnegie – 134, 415

Elsternwick – 125,628

Gillon et al are correct however in stating that the latest government population projections (ie Victoria in Future) state that there will be a need for another 7500 dwellings from 2016 to 2031. This figure will be well and truly met within the next 4 years at the current rate of over 2000 net new dwellings per year. And, please remember that this doesn’t include the additional 1500+ dwellings for the Caulfield Village Project that will be coming up pretty soon. In short, Glen Eira will well and truly have fulfilled its fair share of ‘accommodating’ population growth by 2020 – much less by 2031! Of course, no one dares say what figure equates with this ‘share’, nor what ‘capacity’ is and how much all of the necessary infrastructure upgrades will cost and whether or not any of this over-development is sustainable!

Gillon et al also claim that ‘couples without children’ and ‘lone households’ represent 68% of the required 7500 new dwellings. Not so! The Victoria in Future figures which they rely upon (see below) forecast that there will be 16,810 ‘couple only’ households, and 19,690 ‘one-person’ households in 2031. That makes a grand total of 36,500 households. The overall projection for 2031 is 67,295 households. Hence, the percentage is not 68% as claimed, but rather 54.23% on these figures.

We make these points not because we want to indulge in nit-picking, but when information is put before residents so that they can have an ‘informed’ say, then it is incumbent on the distributors of that information to ensure that it is accurate, honest, and not designed to obfuscate at best and mislead at worst.

January 11, 2016

Ormond In 2015

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

What Council doesn’t want us to know:

Ormond has an area of 2.05 square km. Of this –

2.94% is zoned Commercial (no height limits)
37.33% is zoned GRZ1/2 (three storey)
0.49% is zoned MUZ (no height limit)

TOTAL = 40.76% of the suburb is handed over to developers

Please remember that once public parks, and other utility sites are removed from the overall acreage – since they will not be built upon (in the forseeable future) – then this percentage leaps even higher. Thus Ormond, which represents only 5% of the area of the entire municipality is designated to carry an inequitable proportion of new developments.

11 Malane Street ORMOND – dwellings at rear

35 Thompson Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

291 Grange Road and 4 Walsh Street ORMOND – 3 storey, 23 dwellings

280 Grange Road ORMOND – 3 double storeys

2 Olympia Court ORMOND – 2 double storeys

10 Tyrone Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

70 Ulupna Road ORMOND – 6 double storeys

17 Wicklow Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND – 6 three storeys & one double storey

29 Katandra Road ORMOND – additional level plus 9 new dwellings

11 Thompson Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

720 North Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys

25 Wicklow Street ORMOND – double storey at front, single storey at rear

13 & 15 Murray Road ORMOND – 3 new dwellings (permit)

9 Malua Street ORMOND – single storey at rear

15 Wild Cherry Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

265 Grange Road ORMOND – 11 dwellings (amended permit issued)

11 Bewdley Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

198 Booran Road ORMOND – single storey at rear (refusal)

289 Grange Road ORMOND – 3 storey, 17 dwellings (amended permit issued)

532 North Road ORMOND – 5 storey, 10 dwellings (refusal)

600-604 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 34 dwellings (permit)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND – 7 double storeys (permit)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND – 2 double storey and 3 three storey (permit)

534-538 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 20 dwellings (amended permit issued)

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND – 3 storey, 12 dwellings

23 Collins Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

235 Grange Road ORMOND – 2 storey, 6 dwellings (permit)

630-632 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 14 dwellings (permit)

17 Bewdley Street ORMOND – double storey at rear (refusal)

6 Florence Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

1 Florence Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

9 Bewdley Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

4 Ulupna Road ORMOND – 4 dwellings (amended permit issued)

25 Wicklow Street ORMOND – double storey at front & single storey at rear (refusal)

722 North Road & 62 Draper Street ORMOND – double storey at rear (permit)

30-30A Holloway Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

15 Wild Cherry Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

January 8, 2016

Council Inaction Equals Incompetence!

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

Here is a list of the latest planning applications for Carnegie. The longer that nothing is done this destruction of Carnegie and other suburbs will continue.

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a six-storey mixed use building comprising sixty-one (61) dwellings and three shops, reduction in the associated car parking requirements, waiver of loading bay requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of an 8 storey mixed use building containing 40 retirement living apartments and a food and drink premises.

1032 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a nine-storey residential hotel (comprising 49 lodging rooms), waiver of loading bay associated with a food and drink premises and a reduction in the associated car parking requirements

116-118 Grange Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – To construct a three storey building comprising 31 dwellings over a basement carpark, reduction of visitor car parking and to alter access to a Road Zone Category One

14-22 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – and for the 12 storeys, 134 apartments, there is now an amendment applied for.

January 7, 2016

Glen Huntly

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

Some background on this suburb is necessary. Glen Huntly is the second smallest suburb in the municipality coming in at 0.89 square km. Only Gardenvale is smaller at 0.25 sq km.

The planning history of Glen Huntly and how council has handled this area is abysmal. According to the State Government this is designated as a Major Activity Centre. Council regards it as a ‘neighbourhood centre’. Thus, when applications have gone into VCAT, the judgements have always been that State legislation over-rides council views and thus the developer has been granted his permits for far more intense development. What makes this situation even worse is that the State Government granted Council $45,000 to undertake the necessary work to produce a structure plan. Council returned that money and refused to implement any structure planning or anything else that could mitigate the ongoing development in Glen Huntly. So Glen Huntly is now stuck in the ‘never-never land’ of being technically a Major Activity Centre, with no Urban Design Frameworks, no parking precinct plans and no real vision as to the future of this suburb and its shopping strip. Retailers have time and again lobbied for improvements – to little avail. But development continues unimpeded – thanks to the zones.

What is even more questionable is the way the zones have been applied. The breakdown is:

31% of this suburb is zoned as GRZ1 and GRZ2 – ie available for 3 storey development

5.39% of the suburb is zoned Commercial 1 – no height limits

0.72% is zoned – Mixed Use Development (MUZ) – no height limits

Add in the Road Zone Category which also welcomes 3 storeys along major roads and close to half of Glen Huntly is ripe for the picking and far greater development. Glen Huntly does admittedly already have large numbers of units. These are products of the 50’s and onwards and will be demolished and new ones built of far greater density and even height.

Yes, there is plenty of public transport, and an incredibly busy rail crossing. But without proper planning that actually addresses the social, environmental and economic aspects of growth, Glen Huntly will continue along the path of unsustainable development.

One perfect example of this in just one small area, is shown below. These are applications that have been decided since the zones and most have been granted permits. Those ‘refused’ by council will undoubtedly end up at VCAT.