GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

October 11, 2013

News Flash: Amendment C112

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

The secrecy, lack of information dissemination, and complete stuff ups continue unabated in Glen Eira City Council. We have learnt that there is now a new, gazetted amendment (c112) for the schedules to the new residential zones. Of course, there is nothing on council’s website and the department’s website gives no information as of Friday 11th October. However, the amendment was gazetted on October 3rd and came into operation on that day.

We do know that once again it is the Minister who is the ‘responsible authority’ and that the amendment is only ‘transitional’ – whatever that might mean! Yet it raises questions galore:

  • Why should there be another amendment just 9 days after the gazetting of Amendment c110? What stuff ups have there been – both on the part of council and the department and Minister? But, being generous, perhaps these new schedules represent a modicum of ‘improvement’? Is so, then why wasn’t this thought of before the zones were rushed through with such indecent haste?
  • When was council thinking of telling the public anything? or given recent history, was this a forlorn hope to begin with?
  • What does this whole continuing saga tell us about planning in Glen Eira? When will adhoc, piecemeal strategic planning be weeded out? When will professional competence be a top priority?
  • Since this is now labelled amendment c112, there are many more surprises in store for residents given the gap between c101 and c112.

Here is the gazetted announcement. Make of it what you will!

Planning and Environment Act 1987

GLEN EIRA PLANNING SCHEME

Notice of Approval of Amendment

Amendment C112

The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C112 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.

The Amendment introduces transitional provisions to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the General Residential Zone and Schedule 1 to the Residential Growth Zone.

A copy of the Amendment can be inspected, free of charge, at the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure website at http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection and free of charge, during office hours, at the offices of the City of Glen Eira, Corner Glen Eira Road and Hawthorn Road, Caulfield.

JOHN PHILLIPSDirectorPlanning and Building SystemsDepartment of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

PS: The mystery is solved! After much hunting and detective work we’ve located the text of the illusive Amendment. It does not ‘improve’ one single thing except to state that if a developer applies for an extension to his permit then the current schedules do not apply. Given council’s penchant for granting time extensions willy nilly, and of course not keeping any meaningful records of such extensions, then all continues to favour the applicant. Landbanking can still continue unabated it would seem. This latest Amendment in no way exonerates anyone from the accusation of sloppy and shoddy work. One would think that when something as important as the residential zones are concerned every single word would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and gaps filled in. It should not take another Amendment 9 days later to correct what wasn’t there in the first place.

Here’s the wording: Schedule 2 to clause 32.08 to the General Residential Zone does not apply to an application
to construct a dwelling or residential building made before the approval date of the planning scheme amendment that introduced this schedule into the planning scheme. The requirements of clause 54 as they apply to clause 54.03-2 or of clause 55 as they to clause 55.03-2 as in force immediately before the said approved date continue to apply.
Despite the provisions of Schedule 2 to Clause 32.08, these do not apply to an application under section 69 of the Act to extend a permit to construct or extend a development.

 

October 11, 2013

Cramming It All In – As Per Usual!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Cramming It All In – As Per Usual! 

Tuesday night’s agenda contains at least 4 crucial items for decision and discussion –

  • The Draft Open Space Strategy
  • The Tree Register
  • Caulfield Racecourse and the C60
  • Koornang Park removal of Cypress Trees

We will need some time to fully digest the implications of all these documents and recommendations. What is obvious from a superficial reading is:

  • Nothing much will change in terms of open space – everything is qualified by the term ‘where feasible’ – the typical Glen Eira Council jargon for ‘we will decide what, when and if something is ‘feasible’.
  • Developers have hit another home run with the mooted changes to the Incorporated Development Scheme for C60. Council officers do not see too much wrong with ‘little’ changes such as intrusions, height, etc.
  • It’s ironic that when on the one hand council consistently states its commitment to trees and landscape in Glen Eira it is again so willing to take out the  axes to an entire group of trees in Koornang Park. Taken together with the lame waffle that constitutes the tree register report (no author assigned of course!) developers are again given a free hand to remove as many trees as they like.

We urge all residents to carefully read these agenda items. We will provide our analysis of each in the next few days.

 

October 9, 2013

How It Can & Should Be Done!

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

PS: More grist to the mill comes from Whitehorse City Council on the residential zones. In the extract below this council makes it absolutely clear why CURRENT ANALYSIS is required in order to obtain maximum benefit from the new zones. They are currently undertaking full community consultation on: Housing and Neighborhood Review; Drafting new Urban Design Guidelines and reviewing the Whitehorse Housing Study. Only then, will they embark on shaping the residential zones. We repeat – when is the last time that Glen Eira undertook any analysis, any genuine consultation? Here’s what Whitehorse has to say. The full explanation is available at: http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html

Why do we need the Whitehorse Housing and Neighbourhood Character Review 2013?

Council currently has two main studies that guide decisions on housing development:

  • The Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study 2003
  • The Whitehorse Housing Study 2003

Both documents were prepared some time ago, and there have been changes both in terms of the housing development which taken place since the studies were prepared, and the needs of the residential community into the future.

Council faces changes in its future housing demand, with a trend towards smaller household sizes, a more diverse mix of household compositions and backgrounds, and an ageing population. The number of households to be accommodated is expected to grow.

The review seeks to ensure that Whitehorse can cater for these changing needs, while still ensuring the City’s preferred future neighbourhood character can be maintained and enhanced. It is also important that the new strategies and corresponding controls (including designating substantial, incremental and minimal change areas) reflect changes that have occurred over the past 10 years and provide opportunities to meet the future needs of Whitehorse residents.

There have also been a number of developments within some of Whitehorse’s smaller shopping centres, referred to as Neighbourhood Activity Centres. To provide greater direction in determining the form of development which may be suitable for these locations, draft Urban Design Guidelines have been prepared for most centres

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

 

The contrast between Glen Eira Council’s secrecy, lack of up-to-date planning, and total disregard for residents is becoming more and more evident when compared to what lengths other councils are going to in order to both INFORM and CONSULT with their residents on the residential zones. Below we feature two screen dumps from the Boroondara Council’s website on the issue. Please note that their draft document is:

  • Going out to full consultation
  • Is based on years of local analysis (Neighbourhood Character Study) and research where their municipality was divided up into 75 individual precincts. The document was only finalised as recently as this month. When did Glen Eira last perform such a study that covered the entire municipality?
  • The expense and technological wizardry that Boroondara has gone to should be applauded. Residents are able to use the ‘interactive’ maps to locate their homes and immediately see the proposed zoning, and the statements on ‘preferred character’ for that area, as well as the related schedules. Glen Eira in all its documents has no ‘preferred character’ statements for ANY of their zones – that would only handicap future development if actually expressed in black and white.
  • We’ve already noted the schedules and how vastly different they are to the Glen Eira ones in an earlier post.

The Boroondara effort can be viewed in detail at: http://www.boroondara.characterstudy.com.au/

boroondara

boroondara2

 

October 9, 2013

How To Make A Fabulous Buck

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

There appears to be a new game in town for developers. First you get a permit for some monstrosity somewhere – either through a council permit or VCAT. Once signed sealed and delivered you then flog the property with the permit. If the land is large enough and if the permit grants permission for high density, then you’re home and hosed. The other advantage is that with the recent residential rezoning so kindly and quickly implemented by Glen Eira Council, the profit margins are likely to be even bigger if any new application for even greater density is considered to be post August 23rd when the zones were gazetted and became L-A-W.

Two recent examples are worth noting:

  • The 12 storey, 173 apartments on Dandenong Road is on the market again – with permit of course. Rumour has it that the asking price is around $7 million dollars. Not a bad little profit we say!
  • The Alma Club which recently underwent ‘mediation’ is back on the market. We can only guess whether or not the $7.9+ million originally paid will now, with carte blanche for 3 storey development (thanks to the rezoning) suddenly make this land swell from 69 units to 80+ and the profits escalate astronomically.

Whilst perfectly legal we do question lots of things. Perhaps the developer has gone broke and cut his losses? Perhaps it was nothing more than a short term investment for long term gain? Did Council have any inkling? And will residents be the outright losers in the end with more and more higher density on their doorsteps?

 

October 4, 2013

Collusion & Deceit?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments 

It is our firm belief that further consultation (on residential zones) could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community. (13th August, 2013)

Thus spoke Council as part of the answer to a public question! The villainy is further compounded by the Minister’s mandatory release of his ‘reasons’ for approving Amendment C110 under Section 20(4) – that is, without public consultation. We’ve uploaded the complete Ministerial statement here and highlighted some choice sections below. What is absolutely clear is:

  • Council’s continued responses to public questions were at worst entirely dishonest and, at best, deliberately evasive and disingenuous
  • ‘Negotiations’ between the department, minister, and Council had been ongoing well before the announcement of August 5th 2013
  • The Minister’s statement reads exactly like something that would have been composed by the public relations arm of Council and he merely signed off on it.

Here are some extracts and residents should question the failure of governance that has spawned this amendment  –

The Glen Eira City Council has requested that I prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C110 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, with exemption from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

The Glen Eira City Council gave effect to its Housing and Residential Development Strategy (Strategy) with the introduction in 2004 of Amendment C25. Work on the Strategy commenced in October 2000, and included a community notification and consultation process. Nine community workshops attended by approximately 50 people also contributed to the development and refinement of the Strategy. The Strategy was adopted by the Council in 2002.

Exemption of the amendment under section 20(4) will enable a prompt decision on the adoption and approval of the amendment and will allow for the orderly application of residential zoning controls for this planning scheme, based on previous strategic work. It will avoid the need for a further notification, exhibition and consultation process, which is considered unnecessary given the strategic basis for applying the new zones can be found within the existing planning scheme.

As the Glen Eira City Council has requested the amendment, the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.

I consider that further notification through the formal statutory process is unnecessary. Consultation has been conducted during the development of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy and in relation to Amendment C25, which introduced the local policies upon which the application of the new residential zones is based.

 

October 3, 2013

How Do You Like Them Apples?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

We urge readers to carefully consider the following map which reveals in all its gory details the consequences of the new residential zones. Please keep in mind the following:

  • All white areas here are Commercial – meaning that there are NO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER
  • Brown areas are 4 storeys
  • Blue areas are 3 storeys, and
  • Green areas are supposedly eligible for only 2 storeys

zones

What this carving up of the municipality, plus the addition to both the brown and blue zones, actually means is that residents living alongside, behind, or opposite certain streets will now be confronted with the view of 3 storeys hovering near, over, and around their properties. Council’s so called ‘transition buffer’ is nothing more than spin and semantics. There is no ‘buffer’ unless you consider that recessive storey setbacks even come close to any form of ‘transition’ that will not impinge on the social, and environmental amenity of neighbours.

Adding to the sheer lunacy is that council, for whatever arbitrary reason has decided that it is okay for the 11th house on one side of Mahvo street to be 4 storeys, the 12th house 3 storeys but the 13 house can remain as the equivalent of minimal change. To compound the stupidity, we then have on the opposite side of the street, only the first 8 properties that are deemed suitable for 3 storeys! This same outcome is evident for all of the areas marked in blue – ie Oak St., Loranne St., Burgandy St., etc.

This pattern is continued throughout Glen Eira. No real strategic justification has been provided for such decisions, and certainly no real safeguards accorded to the 13th and 9th house in Mahvo street. No everyone from the 13th and 9th property will suddenly decide to subdivide and build 2, two storey units. Hence it is conceivable that all such streets will have 3 storey and 4 storey apartments towering over single storey homes. All that has happened is that a magic wand has been waved across Glen Eira and the past policies transferred holus bolus into the new zones (plus some major additions and all without major and long overdue review). And we again remind residents that councillors allowed this to occur in secret, and without proper recourse to the community itself. That is definitely NOT ‘representing’ one’s constituents.

 

October 1, 2013

Hyams & More Weasel Words!

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

According to today’s Leader article, the Alma Club site development is now ‘settled’ when resident objectors agreed to new amended plans put in by Monark Pty Ltd. The upshot is that instead of 75 units, there will now be 69, and one townhouse has been ‘downgraded’ to 2 storeys. The other ‘win’ is that instead of the original intention of 4 visitor parking spots, there will now be a ‘generous’ 10 spots (Even under the abysmal ResCode standards, the number should be a minimum of 14).

‘Mediation’ in this instance is far from an appropriate term when one considers:

  • The huge financial pockets of Monark as opposed to residents
  • The potential costs of a 3 or 4 day hearing at VCAT when residents would feel obliged to hire their own barristers, planners, urban designers etc. The costs involved are prohibitive for any group of residents faced with opposing a Goliath such as Monark.
  • The real failure of council to support residents via its planning scheme and the absolute, total, failure to introduce schedules into the new residential zones which would not allow something like this to ever happen again.

How far removed this council is from residents and how little thought and effort has gone into ensuring the protection of residents’ amenity, is encapsulated by the alleged remarks of Hyams. The Leader article reports him as stating: We’re pleased that the parties have worked together to achieve an outcome that’s satisfactory to everyone’.  When a financial gun is held to your head that’s not our idea of a ‘satisfactory’ outcome! One of the objectors in fact retorts with this alleged comment: It (the outcome) gives some benefit to the neighbouring residents but it’s still not an ideal solution for the site’.

We remind readers that:

  • Council had the opportunity to purchase this site in an area deficient in open space for the bargain basement cost of $3 million. The decision not to purchase never went to a council meeting, and was not noted as being discussed in assemblies. Someone, other than the full crop of councillors made this decision. So much for good governance and transparency.
  • There is nothing in the old planning scheme or the new residential zones which will prevent a repeat of such events. Glen Eira has kept its options open when it comes to the size of lots, even if they happen to be in minimal change.
  • We also do not accept for one moment council’s claim that it was the Minister for Planning who ‘decided’ unilaterally and arbitrarily to remove the minimal change zoning from this land. Given all the huge developments that Guy has not interfered with, it is inconceivable we believe that he would involve himself in something so paltry as a 7000sq metre piece of land – unless he was consistently urged to do so!

Any resident who believes that this council has done its utmost to protect our suburbs is living in a fool’s paradise. The best, and most recent example of this comes with a comparison to the Kingston draft residential zones where they have included 10 specific schedules into their Neighbourhood Residential 1 Zones – following months of consultation of course!. Glen Eira could only manage 2 with no limitation on subdivisions or the number of dwellings that could then be erected. Kingston’s objectives are to negate this cramming of countless units onto a single block of land. Here are their schedules on this. Without such limitations, the Alma Club scenario can, and will be repeated countless times in the very near future. Any block of sizeable land under this regime represents an open invitation to developers.

Here’s what Kingston have done:

“Rather than rely on the default of two dwellings per allotment a series of schedules be developed which provide for the following outcome:

Schedule No.

Lot size

 No. of Dwellings

1

 Under 500m2 and/or recently developed greenfield areas

1

2

 500m2 – 899m2

2

3

 900m2 – 1199m2

3

4

 1200m2 -1499m2

4

5

 1500m2 – 1799m2

5

6

 1800m2 – 2099m2

6

7

 2100m2 – 2399m2

7

8

 2400m2 – 2699m2

8

9

 2700m2 – 2999m2

9

10

 3000m2 or above

10

But Kingston don’t stop there. There is also a nice little dig at Glen Eira –

The approach taken by the City of Glen Eira in its approved Amendment is to first rely on a subdivision application of larger lots in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and then additional development application(s). Such a City of Kingston approach is considered time consuming and costly for the land owner(s). Further by needing to instigate a subdivision application first, it is likely to create an increased potential number of disputes between neighbours due to the lack of clarity about the eventual development outcome and as a consequence create additional constraints on resources and discontent with planning processes.

The approach recommended for Kingston will allow Council through its strategic planning to have a much clearly understanding of ‘development capacity’ across its areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential.

In our view, it is precisely this lack of ‘clarity’ which is the desired objective of Glen Eira Council. Like everything else, when nothing is set in concrete, then all is permitted. When the policy is to evaluate on a ‘case by case’ basis, then chaos and inept planning is the inevitable outcome.

Finally, to return to our erstwhile Mayor, we remind readers that on one of his pre-election promises there was this noble sentiment – Take advantage of the new government planning zones to achieve maximum protection from overdevelopment for our neighbourhoods.

Need we say any more?

PS: WE NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE FOLLOWING KINGSTON INITIATIVES THAT LEAVE GLEN EIRA FOR DEAD –

  • Glen Eira has 25% permeability quota, but only for its equivalent to minimal change. Kingston has decided that 40% is required and not just in its minimal change areas but also for its Growth Zones. In these latter zones there is the stipulation of 30% permeability requirement for each of its 3 Residential Growth Zones
  • Also incorporated into this amendment is the Open Space Levy of 5% across the board and 8% for businesses. Glen Eira is still stuck on 0.25% for some areas. Even if the new Open Space Levy is recommended, it will take another amendment to make this law. That could be years down the track as Hyams likes to tell people. In the meantime developers will continue to get away with paying nothing or a mere pittance.
  • And last but not least there is this commitment from Kingston which is unheard of in Glen Eira –Although the Advisory Note indicates that Councils with existing Local Planning Policies could immediately begin a Planning Scheme Amendment and potentially seek the Minister for Planning’s consent to exempt public notice, this approach has not been followed by Council. The Council has chosen to ensure that community feedback on how the reforms are best implemented in Kingston is sought. The Planning Scheme Amendment is also to include community consultation.

    As a consequence of the consultation period which ran from the 17 June – 26 July 2013, a total of 153 submissions were received. A detailed briefing on the submissions was provided to Councillors on the 5 August 2013 and copies of all submissions have been made available to Councillors.

    Council has maintained the view that it is important that this initiative is broadly promoted across the Kingston Community and opportunities for the community to participate in firstly understanding the reforms (Stage 1) and secondly commenting on the Planning Scheme Amendment which introduces the reforms is provided (Stage 2).

 

October 1, 2013

Consultation Stonnington Style In The Leader

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

stonnington

 

September 30, 2013

Words Of Wisdom Or Newtonspeak?

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

Below we feature the ‘discussion’ from Tuesday night’s council meeting on a 3 storey development in Centre Rd. We certainly would not dignify this by employing the word ‘debate’. Please read and laugh at the nonsense continually perpetrated on residents under the guise of ‘informed decision making’!

Pilling moved motion to accept. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: noted that this was housing diversity, 3 storeys, 2 shops, and car parking will mainly be ‘out of hours’ so there’s a waiver for car parking. ‘All in all, this is a very modest proposal’ for an area that ‘can take’ extra ‘diversity’.

OKOTEL: agreed with Pilling and that the proposal is for 8 dwellings and 2 shops in 3 storeys but the ‘original application’ had been for 4 storeys but ‘because of council’s concern’ this was now reduced.  ‘Given the other buildings nearby’ of 4 or more storey developments so this is ‘not an overdevelopment’ and if it went to VCAT ‘it would be highly unlikely’ that the permit was refused.

LOBO: said he visited the site on two days and the proposal was ‘good’ and no objections, there is a ‘major concern’ of the laneway which is used as a shortcut to go to the pub for ‘glasses of beer’.  People from neighbouring municipalities also use this laneway to avoid the busy intersection. So residents ‘will suffer’ from both noise and ‘space’. 2 other developments are on the cards and there will be about 17 or 18 ‘rubbish bins’  from ‘businesses’ ‘kept near the parking area’. There will be a ‘lot of stench because food smells’. Talked about the need to ‘find ways to have a compromise’ and that the planning department had told him that the laneway is not council property.  The question then becomes ‘what to do with the traffic’ that uses the laneway? ‘I’m not against the development but I’m against the process’. ‘We have to get process right’ because this makes council ‘transparent’. If the process isn’t right then ‘it is assumed we are not transparent’.

MAGEE: ‘it’s not a nice development’ and they are ‘taking out one shop and squeezing on 8 developments’. ‘But it is in the right position’. To answer Lobo, Magee said that there is a ‘waste management plan’ and on process ‘I think the process is right’ because of what they’ve implemented which is a ‘very stringent process’. If council wants to ‘encourage development in shopping strips’ he can live with 2 shops instead of one, even though he ‘wouldn’t be racing out to buy one of the units’ . For anyone living close to shopping centres then they ‘know what happens in the laneway’. Admitted that the extra traffic would be ‘imposed on those residents’ living close by and when they bought their properties 10 or 20 years ago they ‘certainly did not see this happening’. In 30 years he’d never ‘gone up that laneway once’ and certainly not to get a ‘glass of beer’. He will support the application because ‘you can support it without liking it’ and ‘developer does have the right’ to go for ‘the maximum’ and ‘the planning scheme allows that’. So that’s the policy and he will ‘support it’.

HYAMS: as a ward councillor here he needed to say something and he supported most of what’s already been said. Stated that the question that councillors have to ask is whether the application ‘complies with the planning scheme’. If yes, then ‘we approve it’. Since the plans now remove one storey it won’t ‘impose’ on height and bulk. The waiving of visitor and retail parking spots is ‘justified’ because the spot now for office is only one and replacing this with a ‘shop won’t make any difference’. On the visitor spot, well ‘people tend to have visitors mostly when’ the shops are already closed and there’s ‘more parking around’. Said he’d been down there and there’s timed parking until 5.30 so that when visitors do come that time period will have expired and they can park there. The problem with the laneway will be solved by ‘screening’. Waste management plan will take care of bins and there will be a construction management plan too so the laneway won’t be blocked. ‘We’re told’ that overshadowing ‘won’t affect solar panels’. Dentist next door was worried about impacting on their business but ‘that’s not part of the planning process’. Said there was an agreement between developer and objectors about installing skylights and ‘they can agree if they want’ but it’s ‘not something by law that we can put in the planning permit’. So ‘I don’t necessarily have to like it but if it fits into our planning scheme’ then it will be approved.

PILLING: in response to Lobo’s concern about ‘amenity’ reiterated that there is a waste management plan and construction management plan which will ‘try to protect residents’. Laneway and managing traffic is long term and important and that’s ‘an ongoing’ process. There are problems with ‘traffic volumes in side streets’ so ‘that’s a long ongoing issue’. Application ‘does comply with planning scheme’ so ‘on that basis I will certainly be supporting the motion’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – LOBO AGAINST.

 

September 24, 2013

And This Is Being Transparent & Accountable?

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

letter

PS: And from the Stonnington Leader we have Matthew Guy’s admonition to Councils to prepare structure plans following the Orrong Rd Supreme Court judgement. Funny how this not only contradicts the arguments against structure plans that have been endemic in Glen Eira, but reveals the complete failure(s) of this council’s approach to planning for the past decade.

structure plans

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »