GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

March 23, 2024

Heritage: Bayside Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Bayside council completed a Panel Hearing during February 2024 for its heritage proposed amendment C192.  The report is not yet available. What is significant in this council’s approach to preserving heritage when compared to Glen Eira is the insistence on the ‘value’ of heritage to the entire community.  The Glen Eira approach has simply stated that because council has identified certain areas as suitable for ‘housing growth’ heritage can be overlooked!

Bayside council’s submission to the recent planning panel is fascinating when seen in the light of Glen Eira’s approach.  Our council tells us repeatedly that there could be serious ‘social’ and ‘economic’ drawbacks if certain sites are allowed to remain in the existing heritage overlays. They can therefore be removed. Bayside counters such views with the following extracts from its formal submission. We’ve uploaded several sections from this document.  Please note the differences in approach and what this means for heritage preservation.

 

March 20, 2024

Heritage Versus Development!

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

Despite persistent claims from councillors and this administration that preserving heritage is vitally important, last night’s council meeting provided conclusive proof that in the choice between facilitating development or preserving heritage listed sites, heritage would always lose.  

The issue surfaced with the proposed amendment to the Elsternwick heritage study which is now seeking ministerial approval for advertising. Repeated time and time again throughout the various attachments we find the following (verbatim) paragraph:

Including these sites within a Heritage Overlay would negatively impact on potential future housing growth within locations that Council has resolved to allocate to housing growth. This inconsistency has social and economic implications. When balancing Council’s adopted strategy for housing growth opportunities in these locations with heritage protection, it is considered that in these two instances, housing growth should prevail.

We note that there is no explanation of what these ‘social and economic implications’ are, nor how they are assessed and verified. Surely the preservation of heritage buildings has its own wider,  ‘social’ benefits?

All of this stems back to 2019 when council attempted to have amendment C203 accepted. The Minister or department decided at that time that not all the nominated precincts be included because this would impede development. A department letter to council stated:

“At this stage it is not considered appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay more extensively in Elsternwick given that Council is yet to seek authorisation for a planning scheme amendment to implement the Elsternwick Structure Plan. Doing so could, by default, lead to heritage controls becoming the primary driver for development outcomes within the Elsternwick Activity Centre.

Council’s response? Not a whimper! No public questioning of the legality and common sense in 2019 and not again in 2024. Council meekly accepted the decision and has now enshrined this in the latest amendment attempt. The result is the continued loss of heritage buildings in Glen Eira, and particularly in Elsternwick.

When Amendment C203 finally went to a planning panel, the members were not averse to stating clearly their disapproval of the imposed conditions. We have uploaded two pages from the panel report at the conclusion of this post. Their conclusions questioned the legality and evidence for the exclusion of the nominated precincts. They found that the amendment:

1. Is counter to Planning Practice Notes 1, 58 and 60 and that

2. Development potential is not a valid criterion when considering heritage potential.

3. Development potential is NOT prioritised above any other criteria in the planning provisions

4. No valid justification has been provided for the exclusion of the precincts

5. Contravenes Plan Melbourne where heritage is said to be ‘fundamental’ (Clause 4.4.3) to the state’s cultural identity.

Last night’s officer’s report  confirms what an absolute shambles planning, and particularly heritage has been in Glen Eira. The latest amendment is simply trying to largely rectify the indifference and errors of the past when countless streets containing confirmed heritage overlays were rezoned as Residential Growth Zones (RGA and 4 storeys) when they should not have been! Here’s what the latest heritage report states:

The application of the RGZ in these almost exclusively residential Heritage Overlay areas is contrary to the guidance of PPN91 (Planning Practice Note 91 – Using the Residential Zones), which identifies that there will be difficulty in reconciling the conflicting objectives of substantial housing change (through the application of the RGZ) and the conservation of existing buildings (by applying the Heritage Overlay).

In other words, the introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster for heritage. Many sites in these heritage overlays have now been demolished and replaced with 4 storey apartment blocks as a result. We remind readers that we are yet to see a full and decent review of this zoning!!!!!

Our argument is simple. If something is determined to be worthy of heritage listing then it MUST take precedence over development potential. Council chooses the alternative – development always comes first!

The vote last night was 7 to 2. The opposing councillors were Esakoff and Parasol and NOT because they were against the removal of so many heritage sites, but because they wanted one nominated dwelling removed from being included in the overlay, even though it is surrounded by heritage cited properties! So much for giving a damn about heritage in Glen Eira!!!!!

Here’s the Planning Panel report comments –

 

February 4, 2024

Landsdcaping & The Housing Strategy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Tuesday’s council agenda features the latest version of the Housing Strategy. Readers will remember that there was a huge outcry surrounding the proposal that all GRZ sites would have the mandatory garden requirement removed. On a positive note, this idea has now been abandoned!!!!!

Readers should also remember the persistent claims that council is fully committed to improving landscaping, increasing tree canopy across all of Glen Eira, and implementing the Urban Forest Strategy. The claim then was that with the removal of the mandatory garden requirement this would ensure better landscaping opportunities. So what has council done now to ensure that our tree canopy increases and all principles behind climate change and the growth of the Urban Forest is well on track?

Included below are the pages from the agenda (p144-145) which outline all the new landscaping proposals. The writing in red (and crossed out) shows what is currently in the planning scheme and the green notations are the new recommendations.

Please notice the following:

  • The stated objective on page 144 is to: To strengthen landscape character across Glen Eira. If this is the case, then why are we told that apartments are ‘excluded’!!!!!! Surely apartments, and all GRZ and RGZ areas which would feature apartments are equally part of Glen Eira and deserve some decent landscaping?
  • Gone entirely is the following from the planning scheme: The provision of a minimum of one 8 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of the front boundary. There is also the requirement for canopy trees in rear setbacks as stated with the following: The provision of a minimum of one 6 metre high canopy tree for every 8 metres of rear boundary in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. However, the resulting new schedules to the NRZ and GRZ zoning completely alter the above standards. All that we now get are these miniscule requirements –

FOR SOME SITES ZONED NRZ the schedules state:

Retain or provide canopy cover equivalent to at least 22 per cent of the site area, including at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback with a minimum mature height equal to the height of the roof OR THE EVEN WORSE ‘STANDARD’ OF – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one medium canopy tree within the front setback.

 FOR THE GRZ AND RGZ ZONING ALL WE GET IS – In addition to the requirements of B13, retain or provide at least one canopy tree within the front setback

Please note that NO MENTION IS MADE OF REAR GARDEN REQUIREMENTS!!!!! Furthermore,  given the reduction of both front, and rear setbacks in some of the proposed schedules, the end result can only be a further deterioration of our tree canopy and the sabotage of all council climate change policies.

Instead of using this opportunity to increase permeability in the GRZ, or at least maintain RESCODE street setbacks, council has forgotten all its promises, its policies, and its commitment to genuine climate change strategies. In short, this new version of the Housing Strategy, is nothing more than a return to the future in that single zoning and their schedules cover all GRZ and RGZ zones whilst others in the NRZ have increased site coverage, and a reduction in their current permeability requirements. In short, we are going backwards in order to cram as many new dwellings into Glen Eira as possible, and regardless of whether or not we need this development!

 

January 31, 2024

Why Genuine Consultation Is Dead In Glen Eira!

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

Over the past few years more and more residents are feeling aggrieved at the bogus consultation methodologies that this council trots out. Here is a summary of what is wrong with the entire process –

  • Survey questions are designed to elicit the required response. They are either totally irrelevant to the core issue or are simply vague and nothing more than motherhood statements. We are not told who designs these questions but more importantly whether they are first road tested with councillors and the community consultation committee. The latter group remains nothing but a public relations enterprise given that they have no real input into design or decision making of surveys or issues.
  • Public forums are also carefully manipulated and engineered. Half of the time officers present their  (positive) take on an issue and little time is left for resident queries and comments. Secondly the chat function is often turned off so that participants can’t communicate with each other and again recordings of the forums seldom are available to review. The latest forum on the Queen’s Avenue trees is the perfect example with council stating that they can’t release the video because of LXRP ‘requirements’ and conversely the LXRP stating that it is council’s forum and hence up to their discretion.
  • Consultation summaries are anything but accurate representations of what was stated. Often residents have to be satisfied with a sprinkling of what participants said instead of being able to read in full everything that everyone stated. FOI requests are met with sheer nonsense such as releasing all commentary would be an impingement on council resources and take time away from their other business. When the survey responses are anonymous and collected in a single file the excuse of a drain on council resources is sheer bunkum!
  • Often residents find themselves having to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to get to the crux of the matter. Council refuses to provide short summaries of the major issues so that residents can know exactly what is at stake.
  • Meetings with officers are generally a waste of time. They trot out all the positives but neglect any negatives. Furthermore the times set aside for such activities are mostly during the day – hardly suitable for people who work, or have small children.

So how can all this be fixed? Here are some suggestions that we’ve made in the past –

  • Ensure that survey questions are reviewed by both councillors and the community consultation committee before anything goes public. Avoid generalities, closed questions, motherhood statements. Provide a short, succinct summary that addresses all the pros and cons of the matter. For major issues a Discussion paper is vital.
  • Given that council was quite prepared to release all commentary on its consultations several years ago, the current approach on the most contentious issues such as structure planning and the housing strategy, has been to cover up and hide as much of the negative feedback as possible. This has to change. All comments, emails (redacted to protect privacy) must be available.
  • Major consultations remain at the ‘consult’ level. According to the IAP2 we should surely be at the very least at the ‘involve’ level. Councillors have the power to ensure this occurs.
  • Forums either public or Zoom must include the chat facility so that participants can interact. Secondly the full version must be available for those who missed out. The focus should always be on resident feedback and NOT officer reports.
  • Finally, it is imperative that before residents are asked for their views, all information is provided to them. We have had councillors complaining that they don’t get to see some documentation prior to their voting, or that not sufficient time has been provided for them to digest the data. Residents also need to have all the facts before they commit to providing responses.

All of this is important if the community is to have any faith and confidence in this council. Refusing to implement genuine consultation only serves to foster suspicion and shows how the essential priority of transparency is moribund in Glen Eira.

 

January 10, 2024

Why Is Glen Eira So Against Developer Levies?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Over the past few years we have heard time and again that rate-capping and cost shifting by federal and state government has caused uncertainty in Glen Eira’s ability to resource all its services and infrastructure. This has resulted in the closure of our early learning centres and the attempted sell off of aged care.

But how much is this financial ‘stress’ due to Glen Eira’s own grandiose plans and refusal to impose any sort of financial imposte on developers?  In 2016, the planning scheme review noted time and again full resident support for a development contributions levy (DCL) and even a car parking waiver levy.  Glen Eira used to have a DCL but it was allowed to expire in 2010 and has never been reintroduced. Even when the latest structure plans came up for decision the officers’ reports paid short shrift to the idea of introducing such a levy. Over the years we have had statements such as the following:

Incorporating a Development Contributions Plan into the Planning Scheme for Carnegie will not be able to be undertaken as part of Amendment C184 due to the length and complexity of this process and may be worth examining at a later date. (January 2020)

And in the November 2023 planning scheme review (without community consultation!!) we were told that the DCL is: On hold. Pushed back owing to other major strategic planning implementation, such as controls to implement structure plans.

Thus, since 2010 Glen Eira residents have been subsidising developers and there is no indication when this largesse will cease!

Other councils thankfully have not been so backwards in getting their priorities right and working to ensure that their residents aren’t subsidising developers to the hilt. The following screen dumps are all from councils which have been successful in introducing a DCL in the past 18 months into their planning scheme as well as a car parking waiver

WHITEHORSE

STONNINGTON

MERRIBEK

MARIBYRNONG

BRIMBANK

The first screen dump is from Whitehorse council. For its Box Hill Activity Centre the levy is $2,100 per residential dwelling. Glen Eira forecasts over 2000 net new dwellings just for Elsternwick alone. Doing the sums, with a DCL comparable to Whitehorse that could bring in over $4,000,000!!!! Add to this all the other major activity and neighbourhood centres alone, then the income could well and truly be hitting the $20M mark.

AND SOME CAR PARKING LEVIES

Over the years Council’s excuse for not (re)introducing a DCL was that the cost involved far outweighed the benefit! Surely this kind of argument would also apply to all of the above councils? Yet they have forged ahead. If the cost was truly prohibitive then surely they would have refrained?

The question remains: if other councils can achieve the gazetting of their DCL’s and car parking levies, then why is Glen Eira so reluctant to introduce something that was promised seven years ago and hasn’t existed for 14 years now?  Instead of continually crying wolf and bemoaning rate capping etc Glen Eira Council needs to look at its own back yard. It can increase its revenue via these levies! It can cut spending by refusing to build taj mahals that are in the vicinity of $85+M and incurring massive  interest repayments for the next decade and more. It can reduce spending on useless ‘consultations’ that are anything but genuine. There is no excuse possible for the failure to rein in costs and to source new revenue funds via these developer levies. Maybe then council might stop trying to flog off all our services such as childcare, aged care, home support, etc.

 

December 30, 2023

What A Year!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

With the close of the year just around the corner, we thought we would take a look back at what occurred throughout 2023 and what this reveals about council and its performance.

February 2023

  • A resolution to spend $75,319,095 (EXCLUDING GST) for the Carnegie Swimming Pool redevelopment. That makes it well over $80M. By the time this is built we could be looking close to $90M. We also have huge borrowings and no disclosures as to the interest rate payable, nor whether these rates are variable or if fixed, for what period. One could also question whether we really need another mini GESAC?

March 2023

  • Not for the first time we have councillors complaining about the lack of information and appropriate time to evaluate officer’s reports before being forced to vote on the items. Please listen again – https://gleneira.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/711_0385.mp3
  • Given the declaration of a Climate Emergency and an Urban Forest Strategy, the adopted 2022/23 budget REDUCED the spending on the planting of new trees to $827,000 when in the 2021/22 budget it was $1,350,000!

April 2023

  • The decision to only publish ‘summary reports’ on community consultations when in the past the complete raw data was available reeks of a cover up – especially when the summary reports are vague with a predominance of such terminology as ‘several’, ‘many’ ‘some’. There is the continued failure to ensure that the actual survey questions are of quality and that they have gone through a proper testing process that involves councillors and the Community Consultation Committee.

May 2023

  • An Elsternwick forum of nearly a 100 residents turning up to voice their views on the draft Elsternwick Structure Plan. Result? No recognition or addressing the issues raised.

July 2023

  • Structure Plans that more often than not scrape through on the casting vote of the chair.

August  2023

  • Governance failures galore when Pennicuik was suddenly forced to declare a conflict of interest on the Elsternwick structure plan which meant that the final decision was again decided on the mayor’s casting vote. Several months later however, Pennicuik could vote on the Elsternwick amendment and nothing had changed since the acceptance of the draft structure plan!!! Amazing!!!
  • Miraculously, Glen Eira does have a Notice of Motion. But this was because of a huge stuff up in the writing of their governance rules and had nothing to do with the intent of the original wording. The aim was to prevent councillors from having items put on the agenda. It will be interesting to watch the upcoming version of the local law to see whether they keep trying to silence councillors in this fashion.

September 2023

  • More stuff ups in that the proposed pop-up park in Orrong Crescent was deemed ‘illegal’ since it depended on a road closure which had not been advertised and consultation called for. Ultimately this was abandoned, but how much have all the shenanigans cost?
  • More dubious consultation ‘summaries’ on Bentleigh & Elsternwick that pay scant attention to resident views

October 2023

  • Announcement of the secret meeting that decided on the ‘preliminary’ closure of the early child care centres. Consultation would now follow the decision!!!! Repeated claims about the legitimacy of the decision and the need to abide by the Local Government Act. We could not find anything in this Act which demanded a ‘preliminary’ decision!

December 2023

  • The decision to close the early child care centres for the paltry saving of $500,000 per annum. Plenty of public questions which queried the accuracy of the ‘discussion paper’ and some of the claims made by council.

CONCLUSION

2023 has largely been a disaster for residents. Here’s why –

  • the administration has steam rolled ahead with its agenda of rubber stamping major developments and structure planning that will facilitate more and more high rise – regardless of whether or not these new developments are needed to ensure that council meets the projected population growth.
  • Community views are treated as mere annoyances and basically ignored
  • Lack of transparency in decision making
  • Councillors denied timely access to all fundamental information to inform their decision making
  • No public announcements on whether or not there is progress on increasing tree canopy targets. No statements about cost savings or improved efficiencies.
  • Consultations remain nothing more than exercises in legal requirements with no intention of asking questions that would reveal what residents really think and desire.

Finally, we wish all our readers a healthy and peaceful 2024! Thank you all for your continued support!

 

December 20, 2023

Tweedledum & Tweedledee!

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

Last night’s council meeting confirmed the latest Tweedledum and Tweedledee union between Magee and Cade. As there were only 6 councillors present, Cade exercised her second vote on several important items to ensure that the motions passed.  Zhang was absent as was Athanasopolous – again!

On the May Street issue as to whether this was a ‘road at law’ the vote to note the officer’s report was – Magee, Esakoff, Cade and opposed Zmood and Parasol. Pennicuik abstained. Cade used her casting vote to ensure it got through.

On the Glasshouse relocation at the Caulfield Racecourse Magee moved an amendment that the Queens Road gate be closed from 10pm until 7am instead of being open till 4am every day. Once this was the substantive motion it basically precluded the alternative motion that Szmood foreshadowed. Voting for this amendment were Magee, Cade, Esakoff and opposed Pennicuik, Szmood and Parasol. Cade again used her casting vote to grant the permit.

Thus two major issues got through with plenty of misleading statements by Magee. For example:

  • The MRC has done everything that it was allowed to do! Really? Does this include coming in and removing 42 trees many of them heritage listed, plus buildings, only to be halted by a Heritage Victoria injunction?
  • The May Street issue is over and there’s nothing more that can be done he claimed. Not so! We believe that the ombudsman is now involved. This is just the first step! Both Pennicuik and Szmood stated that they were unsure as to the current status of May St. They implied that the council decision to not recognise May St as a ‘road at law’ lacked all the necessary ‘certainty’.  

In our view, Cade’s performance thus far does not augur well for what may be in store in 2024. Since becoming deputy mayor, and now mayor,  Cade’s performances have seen a 180 degree about face. We remind readers that she voted AGAINST the first Carnegie structure plan as well as the Housing Strategy. One has to query why this sudden turn around and will it continue? Or will she come to truly represent her constituents?

PS: We forgot to mention another item which surely belongs in the world of Monty Python given its nonsensical process. This involved the Hawthorn Road application. Szmood moved an alternate motion that the proposed 4 storey development be reduced to 3 storeys. Supporting this motion were: Pennicuik, Zmood and Esakoff. Opposing the motion were: Parasol, Magee and Cade. Yet, when it came to her casting vote Cade decided to vote FOR THE MOTION!!!! How on earth can you vote AGAINST the alternative and then with your second vote, support it?!!!!!!!!!

 

December 18, 2023

Caulfield Racecourse!

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

When is ‘land management’ nothing but a euphemism for making money – especially when racing and the Melbourne Racing Club is involved? Both ably supported by government and the racecourse trust.

We have already witnessed the removal of scores of trees, the destruction of heritage sites, and now the latest application for the re-location of the Glasshouse to be immediately opposite residential properties.  We’re also facing the probable relocation of the Melbourne footy club to set up their training at the reserve. All this can only mean the further exclusion of the public on many more days plus the potential for more buildings and decreasing access and open space for residents.

It’s literally a crying shame that instead of trees and lawn areas upon entrance to the reserve we now have a tall, ugly, concrete wall. See the following photos –

Council should be screaming from the top of their lungs. All we get is a grovelling media release –

Statement on Melbourne FC’s Caulfield Racecourse Reserve feasibility study

Glen Eira has the least amount of open space per person in metropolitan Melbourne.

We always look to support creative opportunities to enhance sport and recreation in our community, with our recreation facilities hosting many local clubs including football, netball and soccer.

We recognise a move by Melbourne Football Club to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has the potential to increase and accelerate investment in sporting infrastructure in the area.

However, we also know that investment from elite sporting clubs has been known to reduce community access in other locations.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is Crown land in the heart of the Caulfield Activity Centre. It has long been identified as a missed opportunity for broad community use.

Any investment by Melbourne FC would need to be balanced with continued access to the Reserve by the broader community, including local sporting clubs, other levels of football, and protected areas for local plants and biodiversity.

We look forward to working with Sport and Recreation Victoria and the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust to ensure that community use and environmental outcomes feature prominently in the future of the Reserve and are given due consideration in Melbourne Football Club’s feasibility study. 

Cr Anne-Marie Cade
Mayor

Worth remembering is that council decided to pay around $300,000 to the trust so that they might have a ‘seat at the table’!!!!! Money certainly NOT WELL SPENT judging on outcomes thus far. Perhaps council should demand a refund?!!!!!!!!!

 

December 5, 2023

Victoria In Future 2023!

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

In September 2023 the state government released its latest version of Victoria In Future (VIF). Promoted as a yearly document, this one only took four and a quarter years to materialise! Councils are directed to base their strategic planning on this document. What is interesting about this latest prognostication is that instead of Glen Eira’s projected 188,000 in the 2019 version, the 2023 version projects the number of residents in 2036 to reach 174,000. In terms of dwellings required this has now changed from 78,500 to 79,090. Thus VIF 2023 projects that between 2021-2036 Glen Eira will require 12,850 net new dwellings to meet population growth needs.

The latest VIF data can be accessed via https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/data-and-insights/victoria-in-future

Glen Eira however continues to base all its strategic planning on facilitating far more than 13,000 net new dwellings by 2036 as evidenced in its latest structure plans, the housing strategy and Amendment C220. If our projected population has dropped by 14,000, together with a decline in required housing, then why are we still going full bore for more and more development?

If we look at our major planning documents (ie structure plans and priority development zones) and what these documents forecast, the true picture reveals itself. Background papers for these plans forecast the following  (conservative) numbers of net new dwellings over the next 15 years –

Glen Huntly -410

East village – 3000+

Caulfield village/Caulfield Staion – 3,500+

Bentleigh – 2388

Elsternwick – 2000+

Carnegie – 2,500+

TOTAL: 13,798

It should also be remembered that both Caulfield and East Village are only ‘preliminary’ figures. In both cases they can well and truly exceed these forecasts as the permit for East Village has already enshrined!  Thus if we simply focus on the above we already surpass the proposed target, without even counting development that is occurring in our eleven neighbourhood centres, and residential areas. Yet council is not satisfied, and with the housing strategy recommendations ALL of Glen Eira will be turned into a developer’s paradise.

Please note that our Housing Strategy and Amendment C220 forecasts the rezoning of over 10,000 sites and this includes the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for ALL sites zoned General Residential zone, and the creation of a new zone NRZ2 which will increase the permissible site coverage and reduce current permeability requirements. All engineered to allow more and more development on single sites.

When other councils are trying their hardest to stop their municipalities becoming congested and environmentally unsustainable areas, Glen Eira is doing everything it can to achieve the opposite. Here as some example quotes from these councils’ Housing Strategies. Compare these with the Glen Eira vision and what is proposed:

Boroondara

The BHS (Boroondara Housing Strategy) recognises that the need for housing diversity should also be considered in conjunction with the capacity and functions of key infrastructure, such as roads, sewerage, drainage, public services and public transport. If these services cannot sustain additional population in particular locations, it would be unsustainable to increase densities in these locations until the necessary infrastructure can support the change. (page 2 of the Housing Strategy)

COMMENT:  In the Glen Eira documentation, there has been no assessment that we are aware of which provides any analysis of existing infrastructure and future need. No costings have been provided; no time-lines have been provided, and no evidence to support the sustainability of 13000+ net new dwellings.

Bayside

The Review also found that Bayside’s growth locations have sufficient housing capacity to meet anticipated population increases over the next 15 years to 2036 as required by State planning policy. (page 3)

….the overarching spatial approach outlined in the Housing Strategy, 2012 and in this update to the Housing Strategy, is delivering increased housing in Bayside in locations that are well served by public transport, shops and services. This is the most sustainable approach to delivering increased housing density and is in line with State Government planning policy. Should further housing capacity be required in the future, a future review of the Housing Strategy can consider other locations that may be suitable for increased housing density in addition to those already identified in the Housing Strategy. This approach allows Council to direct and manage growth in the short to medium term. (page 6)

Retain the existing residential zoning in Bayside. This clearly implements the Housing Strategy’s vision and spatial approach to managing housing growth in Bayside

COMMENT: Bayside sees no need to change zoning given the growth in its major activity centres. Glen Eira on the other hand intends to ensure that 10,000 sites will be rezoned when our major activity centres alone can meet projected growth.

YARRA

As shown by the assessment of the Yarra’s activity centres to accommodate future housing growth, Yarra can rely on existing capacity and does not need to make significant changes to rezone other land at this time to provide additional housing supply. If housing delivery trends continue to be strong in Yarra, within the next 5 to 10 years it will be important to identify key precincts to undertake further strategic planning to identify long term housing land availability. (page 67)

COMMENT: Yarra takes a similar approach to Bayside. Capacity is sufficient and if there is a need for more dwellings then this can be addressed at the time. In Glen Eira, policies/zonings once introduced stay there forever. The residential zones introduced secretly  in 2013 have not had a thorough review, and certainly no public consultation. No attempt has been made in 12 years to address shortfalls in permeability and site coverage requirements when countless other councils have up to 40% permeability requirements for their General Residential Zone areas. And yet, we are supposed to have an Urban Forest Strategy and a concern about sustainable development.

CONCLUSION

With the latest projections provided by VIF 2023, council must review its strategic planning and assure residents that development at all costs is no longer necessary nor sustainable in our municipality.

 

December 2, 2023

More Sleight Of Hand?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Not for the first time do we have council handing over full control of planning to the Minister and the Department. We ask readers to carefully compare and consider the following screen dumps. They involve adopted amendments and the resolution to send the amendment to the Minister seeking approval for advertising and formal submissions.

The Whitehorse resolution contains no mention of the Minister or the Department as does the Glen Eira one. One may quibble as to the interpretation of ‘intent’ but giving the Minister the right to change whatever he likes can still fit into ‘intent’ given that this basically means to produce documentation for land use.

Here are a couple of other resolutions from Boroondara and Stonnington. Again, note the absence of mention of Minister and/or department.

So why has Glen Eira resorted to the inclusion of this phrasing when other councils haven’t?  The repercussions can be immense as proven previously with the increased heights for Carnegie and Elsternwick through the interim DDO’s. It also means that residents will not have any future say – it will be fait accompli. Instead of ensuring that what was decided upon remains, this clause simply allows more changes without community input.

 

Next Page »