Glen Eira Debates

Readers will remember the 1056-1060 Dandenong Road application for 12 storeys, 173 dwellings and retail/office premises. They will also remember councillors’ ‘compromise’ of a permit for 8 storeys and 70 odd dwellings. Needless to say the VCAT judgement has come down and the developers basically got everything they wanted. We’ve no doubt that VCAT will again become the convenient scapegoat  – it is never but never this Council’s fault that Glen Eira is turning into a developer’s paradise.

We urge residents to have a very careful read of the judgement and to note in particular the following extracts taken directly from – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/745.html

The review site is in Precinct 1 ‘Dandenong Road Precinct’ of the Carnegie Urban Village. There are no specific policies for this Precinct in clause 22.05 as they expired in 2007.

Given the lack of specific policies, Mr Crack took me to the objectives of the Urban Villages Policy, which include:

To encourage increased densities within and around commercial/transport nodes which respects transition to the surrounding residential area.

To ensure development respects the amenity of the surrounding area and provides a transition to the surrounding residential area.

To ensure future development is appropriate to the constraints of infrastructure and vehicular traffic movement (including parking).

Based on these submissions, Mr Crack contends that the Planning Scheme’s policies require that a development must ‘be mindful of and have regard to the prevailing character’ and ‘sit comfortably in both the existing and emerging context’.

Alternately, Mr Pitt took me to Amendments C46 and C77 to the Planning Scheme. In 2005, Amendment C46 introduced new land use and built form directions in the ‘Dandenong Road Precinct’ of the Carnegie Urban Village. Mr Pitt referred to the Explanatory Report for this Amendment, which identified this Precinct as being strategically acceptable for major change, including high density residential development.

In January 2011, Amendment C77 rezoned the site and surrounds from Business 4 to Business 2. This change allowed the land to be used for housing whereas previously it could not. The Explanatory Report for Amendment C77 describes its principal purpose was to facilitate the establishment of large format retail uses this area, however, it also states that:

Other planning policy objectives that will be satisfied as a result of the rezoning include allowing additional office floor space and the potential for new residential accommodation.

The Explanatory Report goes on to say that the zoning change would support and implement local policies relating to housing, urban villages and housing diversity.

Mr Pitt contends the strategic context for this area remains as described in the Explanatory Reports of Amendments C46 and C77 and that the site is a candidate for major change.

I find it is appropriate, as Mr Crack has done, to ‘de-fault’ to the general urban village objectives. I find the Explanatory Report for Amendment C77 is relevant as it describes the justification for the current zoning of the land, however, I will not assume the Explanatory Report for Amendment C46 describes the strategic context for the site and surrounds as the interim controls have expired and have not been re-activated.

I do not need to rely on the Explanatory Report for Amendment C46 to find in favour of the Applicant for Review. I am satisfied that the site’s physical context can accommodate major change at the review site and elaborate on this finding in the reasons below.

I disagree with Mr Crack’s submission that the Planning Scheme’s policies require a regard for the area’s prevailing character. This is not what the policies say. In a nutshell, the policies support transformative change as long as it is site responsive and, in Glen Eira’s case, transitions acceptably to nearby residential areas.

I also see no reason why this will be an isolated building in the short to medium term. There are a number of similarly sized lots in the precinct that could accommodate large buildings. The policy framework supports transformative change and recent rezoning allows this to happen. As such, it is likely that other tall buildings will emerge in this precinct in the short to medium term.

I acknowledge the building will not be screened by street trees such as occurs in some places in the Phoenix Precinct. This is not a reason to reduce its height. Only the lower levels of buildings in the Phoenix Precinct that are screened by trees and the upper levels are fully visible. Apart from this, it would be inappropriate to screen the restricted retail showroom that occupies the building’s lower levels as the showroom relies on exposure to passing trade.

Is it appropriate to restrict the proportion of dwellings that use borrowed light?

Condition 1(a) reads as follows:

No more than 20% dwellings reliant on ‘borrowed light’ (i.e. Type A dwellings facing east). The remainder of the dwellings must include direct natural light and ventilation to all habitable rooms to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This may result in a reduction of dwellings.

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

Mr Crack contends that limiting the number of ‘borrowed’ light dwellings is justified by Design Suggestion 5.4.1 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development which encourages development that:

Provide(s) direct light and air to all rooms wherever possible.

He contends that a proportion of 20% of all dwellings is the ‘right balance’ in this building. He justifies this by saying it will ensure that some of the most affordable dwellings will have a level of internal amenity comparable to that of the larger dwellings in the building.

I do not accept this argument. I consider the proposed one-bedroom dwellings have an acceptable level of amenity and I find that Design Suggestion 5.4.1 of the Guidelines does not justify the contention that only 20% of dwellings in this building should rely on ‘borrowed’ light.

On the second point, Design Suggestion 5.4.1 envisages higher density developments may contain some rooms that do not have direct access to light and air. One of the emerging principles on dwellings with rooms reliant on ‘borrowed’ light is that the proportion of such dwellings in a development is an irrelevant consideration on the basis that if a particular dwelling design provides an appropriate level of amenity, then that decision is valid for all such dwellings.

This principle applies directly here. As the council supports 20% of dwellings with bedrooms reliant on ‘borrowed’ light, the amenity of the remaining dwellings of this configuration must be satisfactory.

Mr Kiriakidis relies on empirical surveys of existing restricted retail uses with floorspace of 5,000 square metres or less. He draws on 14 such surveys that indicate an average demand of 1.51 car spaces per 100 square metres and an 85^th percentile demand of 2 spaces per 100 square metres. Based on these surveys, he is confident that 32, rather than 48, car spaces will satisfy the showroom’s car parking demand. He notes that the officers of the council’s Transport Planning Department share his view.

Mr Kiriakides statement of evidence also contains a survey of the existing demand for car parking within 200 metres of the site. This survey identified a total of 177 on-street spaces, including 84 that are subject to restrictions during business hours. The surveys show a peak demand of 120 spaces or, put otherwise, an occupancy rate of 68%.

Mr Bluzer submits that this survey is inadequate as it was undertaken in 2011, prior to the opening of the supermarket complex at the corner of Koornong/Dandenong Roads. He also believes the survey was inadequate as it was done for one mid-week day only.

Despite having regard for the issues raised by Mr Crack, Mr Favre, Ms Cranage and Mr Bluzer, I accept Mr Kiriakidis evidence. I find the quantum of surveys of existing restricted retail uses carries more weight than Mr Fauvre and Ms Cranage’s contention that the standard rate should be applied as a matter of principle. I note that the Planning Scheme allows a reduction in parking for a range of reasons, including empirical evidence of a lower rate of demand. In my view, the surveys relied upon by Mr Kiriakidis, demonstrate an empirical demand for restricted retail showrooms that is lower than the standard of the Planning Scheme.

I acknowledge Mr Bluzer’s points about the car parking survey. I would be concerned about the usefulness of the survey if it showed an occupancy rate far higher than 68%, yet it does not. At 68% it indicates that almost one in three car spaces were available at the time of the survey. This is a considerable number.

Mr Kiriakides’ evidence is that the likely traffic volumes are well within acceptable standards. His surveys demonstrate the Egan Street arm of the Koornang Road/Egan Street/Woorayl Road intersection will remain well below saturation levels if the building was approved.

He also notes the comments of the council’s officers that: ‘The convenient accessibility of the site to public transport will encourage greater use of public transport. It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channelling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.

I accept Mr Kiriakides evidence and support the comments of the council’s officers.

With another 75 dwellings on the cards at the Alma Club location, we thought residents should know what has been going on in Glen Eira. Below are a series of decisions granting permits for multi-unit developments over the past 18 months or so. The decisions include both VCAT rulings and permits granted by either DPC or council resolution. Far too many of these developments can only be described as ‘over developments’ that the current planning scheme actively encourages, especially in Housing Diversity Areas. When 3 storey blocks can contain up to 30 units and where up to a quarter do not receive daylight, when open space does not matter, when vegetation is not protected, when no development contributions are collected, and when the extent of impervious surfaces grows and grows, then something is drastically wrong. And when car parking is continually waived then the flow on effects are obvious. Add all these up and the result is planning mayhem and carte blanche for developers. We have excluded developments that are basically 2 and 3 dwellings and concentrated only on developments over 8 units per block.

• 451 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building (with roof-top terraces) comprising a shop and ten (10) dwellings; a reduction in the standard car parking requirement; and waiving of the loading bay requirement

• 14 Maroona Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings and a basement car park on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement

• 3 Morton Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of five storey building comprising up to 38 dwellings with basement car parking

• 40 Koornang Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 21 dwellings, basement carparking, two shops on the ground floor and the reduction of the carparking requirement

• 433 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising thirty (30) dwellings and basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay Amended application

• 160 Hotham Street ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a four storey building comprising of up to thirty (30) dwellings  A reduction in standard car parking requirements

• 170 East Boundary Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165. Construction of a three storey building (and a basement) comprising up to 12 dwellings and to alter access to a road zone category 1

• 14 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with a basement car park

• 19 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings with basement car parking

• 269 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings and basement car park
• 18 Lillimur Road, Ormond.3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings with basement car parking
• 2C Walsh Street Ormond. 3204. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
• 17 Murrumbeena Road Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings. Reduction in visitor car parking requirement and a variation to the car parking design standards.
• 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings and basement car parking
• 117-125 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163. Construction of a part four storey part three storey building, use of the land for dwellings, two levels of basement and a reduction in car parking requirements on land affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay
• 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH VIC 3162 Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
• 687 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 Construction of a three storey building and basement carpark, comprising two (2) offices, up to nineteen (19) dwellings and reduction in the standard car parking requirement
• 127 Murray Street CAULFIELD VIC 3162. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising no more than twenty eight (28) dwellings with basement carparking
• 290 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162. The construction of a three storey building comprising up to ten (10) dwellings and basement car parking
• 400 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings with basement car park, a reduction in the car parking requirement and alter access to a road
• 402-404 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to thirty-four (34) dwellings, a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road in a Road Zone Category 1
• 193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement

• 61 Centre Road, Bentleigh.  Five (5) storey building comprising two shops and 32 dwellings. Reduction in the standard car parking requirement. Waiving of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 688 Inkerman Road, Caulfield North. Three-storey building (plus basement) accommodating 12 dwellings and associated car parking.

• 54 & 56 Rosstown Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with two shops and 17 dwellings, use of the land as a shop, reduction of the standard car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 111 – 113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena. 3 storeys; 2 shops and 8 dwellings, with 10 car spaces across three levels.

• 2 Belsize Ave. Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with thirteen (13) dwellings

• 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly.Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising up to twenty-seven (27) dwellings and associated basement car park and A reduction in car parking requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 249 Neerim Road, Carnegie. 3 storey, 11 dwellings

• 23 Bent St., Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 26 dwellings with basement car parking

• 633-635 Centre Road, Bentleigh 4 storey, 10 dwellings;

• 289-291 Kooyong Road, Elsternwick. Use of the land for the purpose of a Medical Centre, construction of buildings and works and a reduction in the car parking requirements

• 815 Centre Road Bentleigh East 2 storey 8 dwellings

• 658 and 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East; ·  The permit will allow for 658 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 46 dwellings, six shops and a convenience restaurant, use of the land as a car park, alterations to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in standard car parking requirement and waiver of loading facilities in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of this order.  For 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 40 dwellings, five shops and a convenience restaurant, alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in the standard car parking requirement, waiver of loading facilities and removal of an easement in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of this order.

• 221-229 Glenhuntly Road, Elsternwick. The construction of a ten (10) storey building for up to 89 dwellings, 3 shops, 1 ground floor office, reduction of standard car parking requirements and loading bay requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 1094 & 1096 Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly. 3 storey 38 dwellings

• No. 270 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Four storey building, a reduction in the car parking requirements for a shop and dwellings, and waiver of a loading bay in accordance with the endorsed plans. (8 dwellings?)

• 7-13 Dudley Street, Caulfield East. Five storey building containing up to 71 dwellings; the construction and use of a five storey building for student accommodation (containing up to 116 student bedrooms), a convenience shop and basement car park (accommodating up to 101 car spaces) and the reduction of the standard car parking requirement and changes to the built form

• 650 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 13 dwellings

• 95 Nicholson St., McKinnon. Three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings

• 1 Mackie Road, Bentleigh East. Development of a three storey apartment building, comprising 29 dwellings

• 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South. Three storey apartment building of fourteen (14) dwellings with basement parking and reduction in the provision of visitor parking.

• 32 Mavho Street, Bentleigh. Construction of a three storey building comprising 10 dwellings with basement car parking

• 426 Hawthorn Road , Caulfield South. Construction of a three storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings 

• 98 – 100 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Construction of a three storey building with basement car parking comprising 28 dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay.

• 14 & 16 Maroona Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the construction of 26 dwellings in a three storey building
  

We’ve commented previously on council’s so called ‘Action Plan’ and the simple fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the objectives, actions, and ‘measures’. This follows on after repeated reports by the Auditor General and the reporting standards of councils – how there is a reliance on OUTPUTS rather than OUTCOMES and how so very little of budgets contain well worded rationales and data to substantiate the various claims.

In this post we will focus on the Town Planning & Development set of objectives since this has been repeatedly highlighted as a major concern by residents.

COMMENTS

If council was fair dinkum then the measure would state something along the lines of ‘report statistics on the number of 1, 2 and 3+ bedroom dwellings and their location within both the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas’. Further, it is a bit hard to ‘plan for a ‘mixture of housing’ or enforcing a policy that ‘encourages’ 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings when there is no Urban Design Framework and no such prescriptive clauses within the Planning Scheme. Needless to say there is no information provided on how these objectives and the associated policies are to be evaluated! Revealing that 65% of new dwellings go into Housing Diversity says nothing about the number of bedrooms in each dwelling!

COMMENT

Strange how ‘encouraging’ ‘community involvement’ is limited to only one aspect of the planning process – fast tracking of the application, which of course is designed to assist developers and applicants rather than the broader community. We also have to scratch our heads and wonder how on earth the ‘reporting’ of PERCENTAGES can in any shape or form be interpreted as a policy designed to ‘encourage’ involvement! Both the actions and the measures we maintain are totally unrelated to the objective!

COMMENT

Suddenly ‘fair transparent and inclusive’ is reduced to mere ‘efficiency’. If the underlying philosophy of pro-development remains the same then ‘efficiency’ is no indication of ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’. Further, 10 mediation meetings provides no measurable outcome nor even a sizeable proportion of applications. And what if all of these ‘mediation’ meetings are failures –will the public be informed as to the outcomes of such meetings? In our view, ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’ must involve the promise that:

• All objectors will be informed of amended plans and council’s position within the legal timeframe. This has not occurred on numerous occasions
• That objectors learn of officer’s determination not on the Friday before a council meeting where the decision will be made, but at least a week ahead so that they have the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the logic of the officer’s report and to contact their councillor representatives
• That objectors are fully informed of their rights and the processes involved and that councillors do not attempt to abort discussions and questions as has again been the case on various occasions at Planning Conferences.

COMMENT

This has to be our favourite from the list because of its total nonsense. If the objective is to ‘undertake community consultation’ to ensure that the Planning Scheme and its associated processes are in line with ‘needs’ and expectations of residents, then limiting ‘consultation’ to mere SURVEYS of only ONE ASPECT of the planning process is entirely ludicrous. Consultation involves more than a ‘survey’ – especially when the questions asked remain top secret and are never published! One might then well ask why only 80% and who are the most ‘satisfied’ in this sham ‘consultation’ – the applicant or the objector?

The planning scheme was last reviewed in 2010. Three years later we are still awaiting half of the promised actions to materialise. To the best of our knowledge no ‘community consultation’ has occurred since then although the oft cited community satisfaction survey reveals year after year major DISSATISFACTION with planning in Glen Eira.

The take home message from this community plan is that there is no intention of changing anything. It is full steam ahead to what we believe is the detriment of the community. The least that ratepayers should expect is that when a community plan is funded and devised that the measures, actions and objectives are worth the paper they are written on.