GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

February 13, 2015

‘Density’ & The Zones

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

A long but important post – so our apologies!

In the past week, The Age has published several articles on high rise towers in the Melbourne CBD. The articles are based on research done by Leanne Hodyl, the 2014 Churchill Fellow. We’ve uploaded her full report HERE.

Whilst the report focuses primarily on ‘high rise’ towers and the city centre, some of the content applies directly to planning everywhere and especially to what is happening in Glen Eira. Hodyl recommends:

  • Density controls
  • Apartment standards
  • Separation between towers/buildings, and she says –
  • Planning policies should aim to ensure that this growth is managed well; to ensure that the cumulative effect of alldecisions made in the city make the city a better place to be and balance private and public benefit. (page 11)

However, without clear definitions and standards of what constitutes ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high density’ (in fact what ‘density’ even means and how these variable measures should be applied, and in which areas), we are in a state of anything goes.

Glen Eira’s new zones provide enough evidence to show that there has been no consideration whatsoever as to the cumulative impacts of rapid development. Nor has there been any attempt to gauge what is an appropriate ‘balance between private and public benefit’. Instead, lines have simply been drawn on a map consigning vast areas of residential land as booty for developers and speculators.

Below is a list of all the applications that have been submitted in the past 18 months or so, for one single stretch of road – Neerim Road. Some applications are still awaiting approval. Others have been granted permits either by council or VCAT.

We urge readers to carefully note the following:

  • Many of these developments are literally side by side. We assume that over time the ‘gaps’ will be filled in with further 3 and 4 storey applications.
  • Assuming that all of those still awaiting their permits will have them granted, this equals just on 2 hectares of Neerim Road that is going to be developed with 4 and 3 storey boxes and, in Mixed Use/Commercial zones, even higher. We anticipate that at least 40% of these new dwellings will be single bedroom apartments given current trends and the financial rewards.
  • The total of new dwellings designated in just under 2 hectares of land will be around 400+ (366 known, and others unknown since council’s register is incredibly short on detail in many instances)
  • According to Hodyl’s paper, this means that certain sections of Neerim Road, in terms of dwelling DENSITY, will outstrip what is happening in the CBD and even some of the other major international cities.
  • What impact this will have on the public realm has NOT been considered by council. Much less has traffic congestion, lack of public open space, and general amenity – not to mention heritage, neighbourhood character, water tables etc.etc.
  • So when is ‘saturation’ or ‘capacity’ (council’s latest buzz word) finally arrived at? When a few hundred yards of Neerim Road contains 600 dwellings? And how much will residents have to fork out to support drainage infrastructure, traffic management instead of developers providing their fair share via a development contributions levy, or a community levy?

As Hoydl implies, a one size fits all approach to huge swathes of land is nothing more than a recipe for environmental and social disaster on a grand scale.

We urge readers to consider the ‘facts’ about Neerim Road. They are indeed frightening – not only for this thoroughfare, but for all the neighbouring residential streets.

143-147 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly – Construction of a three storey building comprising 32 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)

149-153 Neerim Road & 4 Hinton Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of up to seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 – Amended permit (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)

179 – 181 Neerim Road, CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 19 dwellings and basement car parking. Amended permit (GRZ1)(`1200sqm)

247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 48 dwellings above 2 levels of basement car parking, reduction of statutory requirements for visitor parking and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (RGZ1) (`2100sqm)

253-255 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of four (4) storey building comprising multiple dwellings (RGZ1) (`1150sqm)

257 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building containing seven (7) dwellings and altered access to a Road Zone Category 1(RGZ1) (`630sqm)

259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings, associated car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and Parking Overlay (permit) (RGZ1) (`1170sqm)

276-280 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a five storey building with retail premises at ground floor, up to forty two dwellings and basement car parking, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements and waiver of a loading area (amended permit)(MUZ) (`1050sqm)

15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to forty seven (47) dwellings above two levels of basement car parking (permit)(RGZ1) (`1950sqm)

322-326 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking (RGZ1)(`1350sqm)

328-330 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, the waiver of three visitor parking spaces and alteration of an access way to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`800sqm)

332-334 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising twenty six (26) dwellings above a basement car park; Reduction of the requirement for visitor parking; and Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`1130sqm)

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to thirty (30) dwellings and a basement car park and reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (permit granted for 3 storeys and 27 units)(RGZ1) (`900sqm)

365-367 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement comprising of sixteen (16) dwellings and creation of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1(GRZ2) (`750sqm)

401-407 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a five storey building comprising of shops and dwellings above basement car park, a reduction in standard car parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)(MUZ) (`2030sqm)

Finally, we’ve linked to a South Australian Government Report , which at least attempts to define low, medium and high density. Compare what’s happening in Glen Eira with these figures and how our council still insists that RGZ zones are ‘medium density’!!!!! Pages from Understanding_residential_densities_handbook Pages from Understanding_residential_densities_handbook

 

January 30, 2015

Agenda Items 2015

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

There are several important items up for decision next Tuesday. Here is the first one –

Item 9.1 – Public Acquisition Overlay on 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale

Purchasing land to expand public open space is commendable. In this instance we can only shake our heads in bewilderment at the continual inconsistency and contradictions that are the hallmarks of planning in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • 53 Magnolia Road had a public acquisition overlay. It was removed in January 2008 (process for amendment started in 2007)
  • At the time the following statement was made in support of removing the overlay – Gardenvale Park is a small neighbourhood park. The addition of this small house block (497m2) will not greatly increase the park’s size. Gardenvale Park, as it has been developed, serves the needs of the local community and does not need to be extended in area. (Minutes of 27th November 2007)
  • The decision to proceed was made in camera on the 1st May 2007. The formal resolution read – Crs Robilliard/Lipshutz – That Council – a) Seek authorization from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment to remove the Public Acquisition Overlay from 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale.
  • Now in 2015 we get the story of how deficient in public open space Glen Eira is, and how this amendment fulfills the Open Space Strategy. Forget the fact that Council and residents knew in 1987 and again with the 1998 Open Space Strategy that Gardenvale was lacking in open space. The 1998 Strategy went even further in specifically recommending that Council maintain the overlay on this property.

There were two submissions at the time of the proposed removal. One of the submitters included the following comments –

Procrastination by the Council over more than 10 years has seen the building deteriorate to the extent that the only likely course of action for the current owners or any near future owners would be to demolish the building. It is barely habitable. Whereas, if a decision had been made by Council earlier, the building may have been saved and the streetscape and entrance to the Park left relatively unaffected. The Council has also missed the opportunity to acquire the property at a reasonable cost and thus expand the park.

Now, 8 years later, Council decides that it does need to reimpose the public acquisition overlay. Of course, Council will now have to pay 2015 prices and not 2008 prices. Further, why couldn’t this proposal have been included as part of Amendment C120 (open space levy) as other councils have done given the very short time frame between the two?

House prices in the area are well over $1,000,000. What were they in 1987 and again in 2007?

 

December 28, 2014

The Year In Review

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

Important decisions were made in 2014. Very, very few could be said to have been in line with community views or aspirations.

  • Granting the MRC its wishes with the passing of the Caulfield Village Development plan for at least 2046 dwellings. At the subsequent VCAT appeal council once again caved in and basically watered down the few conditions it had imposed with the permit.
  • Permit after permit has been granted for major developments largely as a result of the introduction of the new zones with no progress whatsoever on parking management plans, environmental sustainable design, or in fact, introducing any amendments that would address the flow on effects of development.
  • Interest rate hikes still way above the CPI with another 6.5% increase – far more than neighbouring councils.
  • Back flips on the Caulfield Park conservatory indicating how little council resolutions mean and how much money is wasted on bogus ‘consultations’.
  • Still no local law that was promised a year and a half ago. All quiet on the western front in terms of: tree register; notice of motion; recording of council meetings.
  • More destruction of open space and trees for car parks – Centenary Park
  • Whilst Stonnington with the second least amount of open space is looking for an open space levy of 8%, Glen Eira with the least amount of open space only sought 5.7%. Council also did a back flip on its much publicised policy that all monies collected would be used for the ACQUISITION and improvement of new open space. Residents can now expect more of the same – ie. funds largely expended on capital works for existing open space and little or no purchase of additional open space.
  • More delays in major capital works and budget blowouts – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – with no explanation of real costs provided to the community.

We are sure that readers can add to this list. As for the ‘positives’ and the future, we simply note that the gallery is now full of residents protesting development after development. It has taken a year for the impacts of the new zones to become clear and the result is that more and more residents are finding voice. We believe that this trend will continue, ensuring that councillors will eventually be held to account.

Best wishes to all for 2015!

2015 Happy New Year Strands Line Glow Dark Background

 

December 9, 2014

On The Nose

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

belsize+++++++++

A few points on the following image:

1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?

2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?

crr

 

December 8, 2014

487 Neerim Road – Again, and Again and Again!

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

487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.

Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:

  • Abuts Riley Reserve and should have been bought and added to open space in the municipality. The land was eventually sold for just over $2m about a year ago.
  • Land is over 2000 square metres and includes many significant trees
  • In September 2014 council granted the applicant a ‘building envelope’ (ie the equivalent of a C60 Incorporated Plan which means no third party objection rights!). The land was then subdivided into 7 lots – some the size of 199 metres and only one lot of anywhere near 400 square metres.
  • A Section 173 agreement was put in place to enforce tree protection and to include a ‘tree management plan’.
  • Residents at the time objected that this was all very vague.

Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –

Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Questions galore arise as a consequence:

  • How does a child care centre fit into what was supposed to be 7 double storey dwellings alone?
  • Have the lots been further sold off and residents can expect application after application for something entirely different to what the subdivision and ‘envelope plan’ permitted?
  • What does this say about any ‘agreement’ that is signed off by council?
  • Why was this ‘building envelope’ process even entered into by council instead of a normal planning permit?
  • What of all the other so called ‘conditions’ imposed by council (ie noise reduction, drainage) – will these now also bite the dust?
  • How many childcare centres are needed? – our count is 17 already within a one square km radius

And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!

november 2014 October 2009

 

November 9, 2014

Your Attendance Is Requested

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

IMG

IMG_0001

 

November 2, 2014

Our Great ‘Negotiators’ – Newton, Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling & Esakoff!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

In return for 2046 dwellings (at this stage) which will comprise the Caulfield Village, our great negotiators exacted the paltry sums of 4 and 5 percent as the open space contributions. We estimate that this will provide a return of around $5 to $6 million by the time the money starts rolling in. Similar, long term ‘negotiations’ have taken place over the Moonee Valley Racing Club’s development plans.

Matthew Guy recently gazetted the amendments necessary – declaring the area the equivalent of a Priority Development Zone and, also similar to Caulfield, the creation of an Incorporated Plan approach. An Advisory Committee had been set up to consider the proposals and public hearings were held over ten days. Guy admittedly over-rode many of the committee’s recommendations regarding height and density. However, the following conditions were exacted from the racing club and outstrip by light years what our wonderful negotiating team achieved. We cite directly from the council minutes and remind readers that when queried about the open space within the Caulfield Village development there was no answer forthcoming from our planners and negotiators.

In the end, the Moonee Valley Racing Club were forced to cough up some substantial concessions since council and community worked together. In Glen Eira, residents have to wonder who the negotiating team really worked for? According to the figures below, the Moonee Valley Council can look forward to about $12 million in levies, and countless other millions worth in public facilities. Not so in Glen Eira!

This will allow for the provision of cash and land contributions up to the value of $6,000 per dwelling.

The contributions are to comprise the following:

  • A public open space contribution in the form of a single park equivalent to 5,000 square metres, and additional open spaces up to 2,000 square metres.
  • A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of 2 full sized AFL/Cricket playing fields, including lights and car parking.
  • A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of a 500 square metre sporting pavilion.
  • Delivery/upgrade on-site or off-site for physical and community infrastructure,having regard to the demand generated by the anticipated additional populationwithin the precinct, including:
  • Contribution towards or provision of public art on the site.
  • Financial contributions equivalent to 30% of the construction cost of a Multi-Purpose Community Facility on-site (based on a 500 square metre facility)

Source: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Governance/Council%20meetings/2014/28%20October%20Ord%202014/Agenda%20%20Ordinary%20Council%20Meeting%20to%20be%20held%2028%20October%202014.pdf

 

October 14, 2014

Matthew Guy Joins The Three Ring Circus – #1

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

Before a packed council chamber of at least 150 people Matthew Guy entered the fray via Twitter following a comment put up during the meeting by the Leader reporter –

twitterWhat was clearly evident in the farce that took place tonight was the following:

  • People power does exert enormous pressure on councillors. If enough people get together, get publicity, and have reasonable and logical arguments then the unshakeable faith in the efficacy of the new zones is tossed out the window. So much for consistency and strength of policy.
  • For those groups who haven’t organised themselves or who haven’t garnered enough support, well, they are history!
  • Divisions abound within the councillor group highlighted in the most childish fashion by Delahunty’s deliberate speed reading of her request for a report in response to Okotel’s request to have the exact wording since she did not have a copy of the request. Council has indeed descended into Kindergarten Playtime with such antics!
  • Council is in damage control – ie they even saw the need to place on every single chair prior to the meeting a copy of the pathetic Akehurst version of reality – ie Item 9.1 on the zones

We will go through each of the pseudo arguments on the applications in the days ahead but for now – just the outcomes and the voting:

Mavho Street – Hyams moved and Lobo seconded to reduce to three storeys and 25 dwellings instead of 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Pilling was the only councillor to vote against the motion.

Penang St – Okotel and Esakoff moved to reject granting permit. Vote carried with Pilling and Sounness voting against rejection.

Belsize Ave – Hyams and Esakoff moved motion for four storeys and increased setbacks. Motion carried unanimously

Bent St – Okotel and Delahunty moved to increase setbacks. Motion carried unanimously

Hotham St – Lipshutz moved motion for 5 storeys and 57 units. Seconded by Pilling. Motion defeated. Voting against were: Okotel, Magee, Lobo, Delahunty and Hyams. Okotel then put up motion for 4 storeys adn 54 units but no seconder. Delahunty then put up motion for 4 storeys and back to 67 units.  Sounness seconded. Motion passed with Lipshutz, Okotel and Esakoff voting against.

Loranne St – Sounness moved and Pilling seconded for 4 storey and 28 units.Motion passed with Lobo and Okotel voting against.

Throughout the evening there was applause plus abuse on the Hotham St application and of course so much predictable humbug and grandstanding from various councillors. It was indeed a night at the circus!

 

October 5, 2014

The Cave-In Kings!

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

The bastardry, skulduggery, and pattern of capitulation which has dogged the entire Caulfield Village fiasco, is now complete. Council has once again caved in completely to the MRC/Developer judging by the VCAT order resulting from the August ‘mediation’. (full document uploaded here).

We remind readers that in May this year the Development Plan was rubber stamped by the majority of councillors. Attempting to simply save face, Lipshutz and Sounness put forward an amendment which was meant to ‘rectify’ the problems such as ‘fixing’ the vast number of miniscule balconies, and car parking issues. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/defending-the-indefensible/).

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise – the developer got practically everything he wanted! The two most important conditions (balconies and car parking) were practically tossed out the window and many other conditions eroded away in favour of the developer. All that council appears to have gained is to force the developer to provide more detailed information on soil depths so that the promised ‘garden of Eden’ will have enough soil to actually survive a year or two!

Which leads us to some pretty important questions:

  • Why didn’t council insist that this goes to a full hearing and not mediation if they were so adamant that their conditions were vital?
  • How much did this mediation cost ratepayers since we would bet that council employed barristers, planning ‘experts’ etc.?

We also must congratulate all those ‘backroom boys’ for their years of plotting, since this development is now exclusively OUT OF THE HANDS OF COUNCILLORS. Everything is now up to the ‘satisfaction’ of the ‘responsible authority’ – ie officers (exclusively). Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff have done their work and handed the MRC their biggest prize ever to the detriment of every single resident living in Glen Eira.

Below is a summary that we’ve drawn up. On the left hand side is what the resolution of May 2014 stipulated. On the right hand side is what has now changed according to the VCAT order. These are all verbatim. Please read carefully and then ask yourselves whether or not you believe that Glen Eira is indeed the ‘cave in Kings’ of the State!!!

There’s undoubtedly a lot more buried in the technical detail of this order, so we welcome your views on what we’ve left out.

mrc

 

 

October 1, 2014

Bentleigh – Very Definitely Gone!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 
Bentleigh garden supplies land sells for $4 million, developer plans multi-level retail and apartment complex
  • Troels Sommerville
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
  • October 01, 2014 1:41PM
Kevin Broadbent of Broadbent Garden Supplies, recently moved his 70-year-old, three gener

Kevin Broadbent of Broadbent Garden Supplies, recently moved his 70-year-old, three generation Bentleigh business, and the land has just sold for over $4 million. Picture: Derrick den Hollander

A Bentleigh garden supplies centre has sold for just over $4 million, cracking the $4000 per square metre mark for the first time in the suburb.

Frank Ruffo, director of Hodges Bentleigh, which managed the sale, said auction of the generations old business, Broadbents Garden Supplies, attracted 22 bids, with 14 bidders vying for the prime piece of real estate on the day.

He said the international developer who bought the property for about $4600 per square meter, has plans to turn the 324 Centre Rd site into a multi-level retail and apartment complex.

Mr Ruffo said his agency knew the prime spot would garner interest, but the final price surprised even them.

“We had aspirations around $3 million and something, we just didn’t think the extra something would be an extra million and ten thousand dollars” Mr Ruffo said.

He said the 14 bidders on auction day were all developers, which was indicative of the “seachange” happening in Glen Eira.

New planning zones and changing demographics have made Bentleigh a “highly sought after suburb where developers were keen to get a foothold,” he said.

Recently another developer, Launch Corporation, also bought up seven neighbouring properties on the corner of East Boundary Rd and Centre Rd for just over $6.5 million.

On the 3,415sq m site they plan to invest somewhere between $60-$70 million to build a mixed-use development of about 100 apartments and five retail outlets.

“There are a lot of developers inquiring about finding land in the area, and it’s a trend that’s growing,” Mr Ruffo said.

“Over the next 10 years, we’re going to see a dramatic change in Bentleigh.

“When you walk down Centre Rd, instead of seeing the traditional two-storey Art Deco buildings, you’ll start to see four or five storey buildings in their place.”

For the record, Broadbents is still operating, having moved to South Rd, Moorabbin.

COMMENT

  • Forget 4 or 5 storeys. The land is zoned Commercial and in order to fit in 100 apartments chances are the building will be more in the order of 7 or 8 storeys.
  • Where are the cars from 100 units going to park? How many will be single bedroom chicken coops? Broadbents is close to Aldi, and other popular shops – not to mention Mavho and Loranne Streets that are now seeing applications for 4 storeys and heaps of units.
  • Where is Council’s parking precinct plans promised over a decade ago but yet to materialise?
  • Will resident rates be paying for all the extra drainage infrastructure required rather than the developer?
  • When will councillors start grappling with the planning problems they have so successfully unleashed? – when everyone currently living in Bentleigh, McKinnon, Carnegie sells out to more and more developers so that Bentleigh can officially turn into the next decade’s slums? This like everything else (environmental sustainable design, size of apartments) is never council’s problem but always a state problem!
  • And what of open space (both private and public). Oh yes, we mustn’t forget the Centre Road rotunda that was also the subject of ‘community consultation’ over three years ago and not a whisper since. But Bentleigh is not Elsternwick, is it?

PS: Just to highlight the insanity, if not straight out incompetence of the new zones, the planning map below is worthy of consideration. If the Broadbent site does reach 8 storeys, then what ‘protection’ is provided for those residents living directly behind in a neighbourhood residential zone (Campbell Street) or even those residents living the other side in Mavho? Allowing NRZ to directly abut commercial is not strategic planning – it is lousy planning in spades!

broadbents

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »