GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

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

 

September 21, 2013

Dead As A Dodo!

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

The Phoenix Precinct has been moribund for years. Now it is officially dead with council’s proposed Amendment C109 in Tuesday night’s agenda. What was envisaged as a ‘grand plan’ that would look at an entire area (Caulfield Racecourse & Monash, plus surrounding areas and plan appropriately) has been hacked to pieces. The C60 was just the beginning of the dismantling. Now there is the Monash proposal (nothing definite of course!) and Council once again rolling over and complying with all developer requests – this time our old friend Urbis rather than Equiset.

The Amendment proposes to remove the Priority Development Zone and vest control in Council – which would have happened anyway with the demise of Priority Development Zones under the new planning laws.  However, there will not be the NEED FOR ANY PLANNING PERMIT and that probably means no public input into the eventual plans. Worse is that the officer’s report only tells half the story. Reading this document we could be forgiven for thinking it is only about Derby Rd and a few shops. Hardly! The Monash Plan is now reinvigorated and will include – 800 student residences; retail, cafes, etc. (See: http://monash.edu/about/who/ambition/masterplan/). Yet all of this barely rates a mention. Why?

Just for a taste of what is to come, here is the award winning entry for a new building on Dandenong Rd – Source: http://www.australiandesignreview.com/news/26244-mcbride-charles-ryan-to-design-monash-uni-complex

monash

Other Monash sites providing information on the development may be accessed at:

Your Rates At Work!

Our questions are straight forward –

  • What are residents not being told?
  • Will this be another C60 that excludes community input?
  • Has everything already been decided in those ivory towers?
 

September 18, 2013

Millions For (Some) Lawyers But Not On Supporting Residents?

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

Family seeks to run school

Date: September 18, 2013
The Kornhauser family, who control a property and business empire worth an estimated $430 million, have taken their bid to run a religious school from their mansion in a residential area in St Kilda East all the way to the Supreme Court.

The legal move comes after Eliezer (Eric) and Nicole Kornhauser failed to secure planning approval from the Glen Eira Council and lost an appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The dispute centres on the operation of an ”education centre” the Kornhausers have run from their two-storey contemporary mansion built across two allotments on Springfield Avenue in St Kilda East.

The northern wing of the U-shaped property holds classrooms where 14 boys receive Jewish religious instruction during the day, and intensive courses are held for young local and international Jewish women through the Merkos Women program.

Some of the visiting women live next door at another property owned by the Kornhausers. After complaints began to mount from neighbours about ”creeping” intensity of use at the site – particularly noise, parking and traffic problems – the Kornhausers sought formal planning approval for the education centre. Glen Eira Council refused the application and the decision was upheld at VCAT in July.

VCAT member Philip Martin found the Kornhausers’ proposal represented a ”fatally poor planning outcome”.

”I have some sympathy for the line of thinking that a dead-end residential street zoned Residential 1 is not an obvious place to establish this type of combined ‘women’s and children’s religious studies’ use,” he said.

Mr Martin also found that it was likely that a 95-year-old covenant established over the southern allotment prohibiting the use of the land for ”any religious educational or charitable use” was being breached by students using the pool on the residential side of the property.

The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.

Nicole Kornhauser could not be reached for comment. A directions hearing is set for November 29.

cvedelago@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2fCUdkcti

 

September 15, 2013

L.A.R.G.E. Community Forum

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

This afternoon’s LARGE Community Forum had a terrific turnout and very informative speakers. Apparently all Glen Eira councillors and some senior planning staff were invited. To their credit the only councillors to show up were Lobo, Delahunty and Magee. No officer turned up and no other councillors.

Since the afternoon was videotaped we’re assuming that LARGE will upload a full record of the formal presentation on their website (http://www.largeinc.com.au) so we won’t comment on this aspect of the event. Instead we will focus on some of the questions or comments that members of the audience made and the remarks made by the above councillors in response.

One resident asked that the map of the new zones be put up on the screen. He was from Wheeler St., Ormond which is a ‘purple area’ (4 storeys). He expressed ‘sorrow’ for anyone who lived in such areas because they were ‘high density zones’. His problem was that it was also a ‘flooding zone’ and there had been some progress with melbourne Water and council about upgrading drains but ‘without upgrades of infrastructure’ council is ‘still approving development’. They went to VCAT opposing a 3 storey development and they won. But that was several months ago, before the introduction of the zones, so the resident wanted to know what this means for the new development now – ie could there be another application and a permit granted because this is now a higher density zone. The resident asked if ‘council is stronger than VCAT?’

Professor Buxton explained that there are other forms of control via layers of overlays and if there is one he felt that VCAT would uphold it – although he didn’t know the extent of Glen Eira’s overlays. Delahunty then said that council is continuing to ‘look for new areas to apply neighbourhood character overlays’ and these are ‘primarily in the green section of the map’ (minimal change). Said that with permeability controls, height controls and other things that ‘we are quite proud of’ and that ‘VCAT cannot overturn’. She didn’t forsee any change to the current flooding zone.

Another member of the audience then began her question by saying that the data that the residential zones are based on comes from figures of the nineties. Things have changed a lot since then and the floods of 2011 impacted on a huge area near her. Yet council still grants permits and hasn’t taken into account ‘greater surface’ for buildings which means ‘greater flooding’ and all this whilst there’s been ‘limited infrastructure upgrades’. Said that she lived in the ‘purple zone’ and that council has been ‘quite remiss’ in blocking themselves off from the community. (applause). ‘there is definitely no regard for us living in this area’. Claimed that she had spoken with planners at council and asked what consideration was given to ‘infrastructure’ and their response was ‘oh, we looked at it in 2000’ and that she should take it to council. Mentioned ‘schools bursting at the seams’ and whilst a state responsibility, council still has to advocate but it ‘seems that our rights in Glen Eira have been overlooked’. Schools and kindergartens are ‘bursting at the seams’ and whilst there is a train station there is no bus service’. Talked about traffic and that ‘yes’ 3 storey limit is great’ but it’s not enough.

Another speaker then said that she finds the ‘of right uses’ (ie no permit required) ‘abhorrent’ since it removes her rights as a resident to object, ‘voice my concern, to be heard’. Asked if this is in fact an abuse of administrative and legal power as well as a ‘denial of natural justice’ (applause). Buxton answered that the government has justified this by granting ‘certainty’ and removing delays therefore saving money for everyone. Said irony of all this is that there are heaps of Section 2 uses (service stations etc.) that can then get permits. Government hasn’t prohibited anything and there are no height controls for commercial areas and will be a huge problem because these of right uses don’t have height limits applied to them.

Buxton also stated that the criteria to assess these uses in residential areas are ‘very vague’ so anything could go into a residential street. Said that these ‘criteria’ are supposed to be ‘performance measures’ but they are anything but performance measures – ie will they cause ‘detriment’ to someone. These are vague and all subjective. Buxton then went on to say that a planning scheme is a legal document and people’s rights are either ‘given’ or ‘taken away’ via the planning scheme.

Several residents then gave examples of battles they had won elsewhere and the call was for ‘people power’.

Another residents asked whether VCAT could still ignore ResCode standards if councils simply defaulted to these in its schedules since VCAT often ignored ResCode in the past. Buxton responded that if specified in the schedules such as height then this was mandatory but it was vital that councils apply ‘the maximum powers they have under the schedules’. Gave the example that council could have stipulated one dwelling per lot but Glen Eira didn’t – they’ve allowed 2 dwellings per lot. Where there is medium or high density and there is no specifications by council then they will be assessed under ResCode. Problem is that ResCode only applies to 3 storeys so applications for 4 or more storeys  in Residential Growth Zones won’t even have these ‘standards’. ‘No developer in his or her right mind is going to apply for a 3 storey development in a commercial zone when there’s no height control’. Also the guide that assesses higher density is ‘even less strict than ResCode’. So ‘not only do you get an incentive to go over 3 storeys but you’re being assessed against a weaker code’…’you’d have to be nuts not to do it’.

One ‘brown zone’ resident said she was ‘shocked’ by what has been said. Asked if it’s true that those living in these areas have no rights and no protection and that the lovely heritage places around her have no value whatwoever except for developers. Buxton said that ‘you lose rights if application relates to Section 1 uses’ otherwise people can still go to VCAT. (SECTION 1 INCLUDES ‘food and drink premises’ within 100 metres of commercial zones; shops, medical centres, places of worship etc.) Many of these are ‘high impact’ that people won’t be able to do anything about. The other problem here is that there are no height limits on such uses so a hypothetical could be a 9 storey application with no rights to objection next door to a single storey.

Comments from Backlash about population growth and no planning for infrastructure – transport. Buxton claimed that no government is confronting the planning for a city of 6.5 million people by 2050 because it will cost 25 to 50 billion just in transport.

LOBO then spoke saying that ‘it’s a pity the other 6 councillors did not turn up’. Said that Labor lost ‘because of Justin Madden’ at the last election and now we’ve got Matthew Guy ‘who became mad’ and is ‘on his way out’. Told residents that they should ‘go to the State Member of Parliament’ and that when councillors promise to stop development so that the ‘next time’ they come to ‘your house’ asking for your vote ‘throw a bucket of water on their face’. He then said that ‘personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree’  and that ‘I made that very clear’ and as he’s already said that ‘Melbourne is going to be like Calcutta’.

After a few more questions and comments on community activism and networking Magee spoke.

MAGEE: said he wanted to bring the discussion back to ‘some basic’ facts. Said that previously they only had ‘policies’ and not ‘zones’ and the former weren’t ‘enforceable’. This meant that ‘quite often’ at VCAT the ‘developer would win’. Claimed that ‘now’ the green areas were about ‘78% of Glen Eira’ and that developers therefore know that 2 dwellings is the maximum and that 2 storeys is the maximum. ‘that is not arguable through VCAT’. The blue zones are ‘a maximum of 3 storeys’ and the light blue is also 3 storeys and has ‘the greatest setback between the light blue and the green’. Brown is another zone with 4 storey maximum. Said that even with permitted uses in Glen Eira ‘not a lot has changed’. Said that in 2010 there was ‘quite significant’ consultation althought people might disagree with this. So all that’s happened is that the policies have ‘been changed over to zones’.

Another resident then stated that the spin doctors were outin force because the zones were rushed through and therefore they didn’t have time to consult with residents. Said that previously there were transition areas between the brown and blue zones and now there isn’t any. Asked if you own a house in a green zone and next door in the brown zone someone builds a 4 storey and blocks your solar panels what rights do residents have?

MAGEE: conceded that buildings could be 4 storeys but that ‘have to set back from 4 to 3 to 2’ and said this was a ‘natural setback’ and even in the growth zones (brown) these are ‘bordered by general residential zone’ (light blue)

DELAHUNTY: said that council had tried to have ‘transition zones in the past. Now we actually have transition zones’ and that ResCode could be applied to 4 storey buildings and council was trying to make transition zones enforceable whereas before they weren’t and now they are.

One resident got up and asked that those councillors who are present take back to their groups the community feeling that community consultation is what is needed and that rather than having the plans ‘left at the library where someone has to go with a magnifying glass’ to make head or tails out of it.

MAGEE: said that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space and that ‘there is no way that we are looking to encroach on open space’. The white areas on the maps are open space but ‘predominantly commercial zones’. Said that the first test is ‘about to come up’ in regards to the Virginia Park industrial site. Claimed that the Minister was approached by the developer to rezone without public consultation. Said that MP Miller had written to council and ‘endorsed’ the Minister’s  position ‘not to go to public consultation’. Said that ‘council has actually fought that’ and will be putting it out under normal amendment processes which means public consultation. ‘These things are not debatable in council’. Said that council and ‘i’m one of them, I’m very proud of these zones’. Said that nothing has changed except that they have ‘guaranteed’ ‘maximum height limits’ in 98%’ of the municipality.

 

September 13, 2013

Definitely Not Glen Eira!

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

One of the range of videos created by Moreland City Council on their proposed implementation of the new residential zones. Please note a couple of stark differences:

  • 10 information sessions for residents
  • An online survey
  • 2 months of public consultation
  • TWO STOREY LIMIT FOR GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (Glen Eira has decided that 3 storeys are fine!)

 

 

September 11, 2013

More On Why Residents Come Last!

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

The difference between Glen Eira’s open slather approach to development compared to other councils is made even clearer when the schedules for the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1) are looked at side by side. In Glen Eira, the GRZ1 has been applied holus bolus to existing ‘Neighbourhood Centres’ and Main Roads. Suddenly, developers have been given the green light for 3 storey apartment blocks in countless residential streets.

Instead of using the schedules to achieve a balance, and to ensure the protection of local amenity, Glen Eira’s councillors have simply rubber stamped the Newton and Akehurst agenda.

Please note carefully:

  • Glen Eira imposes a 10.5 metre height limit. BOROONDARA FOR THE SAME ZONING IMPOSES A 9 METRE MAXIMUM.
  • Glen Eira has no limitations. Boroondara imposes plenty.

Here are the schedules from both Councils. We ask readers to compare and contrast and start questioning whether our elected representatives are indeed acting in the best interests of the community?

Pages from general residential zone schedule 1Here’s the Boroondara version for the identical zone –

GRZ1_Page_1GRZ1_Page_2

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »