GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

February 22, 2013

Laying The Foundations For Calcutta!

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

Whether pure coincidence given the recent announcement of the new councillor MRC trustees, or simply superb timing, the groundwork for the MRC is being rapidly put in place. Tuesday night’s council meeting features Item 9.3 – subdividing the land that will basically consist of the C60 into 9 lots.

The Officer’s Report tells us:

No public notice is required for this subdivision
“This application is a separate planning application from Amendment C60. There is no development proposed under this application. The intention behind this application is to tidy up the several land titles. Separate planning approval is required in the form of a “Development Plan”. This process will include a 28 day community consultation period. To date, no development plan has been submitted.”

The information accompanying the recommendation is barely half a page! Residents, thanks to the gang and the Racecourse Special Committee, are stuck with the ‘Incorporated Plan’ prepared by the MRC. We are still no closer to knowing whether the ultimate ‘Development Plan’ will consist of 20 storeys, 23 storeys, 1200 units, 1500 units, etc. The ‘incorporated plan’ that was included with the C60 Amendment is short on detail, and big on euphemisms, spin, and vagueness. We remind readers of some of these statements:

The scale of buildings in the Mixed Use Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character, emphasizing the vertical aspect of the buildings. Retail, residential and commercial uses and off street parking will be accommodated whilst maintaining an appropriate scale and activation of street frontages

Passive design strategies that take advantage of unassisted cross-flow ventilation and building orientation to manage thermal comfort are encouraged, particularly in residential buildings.

The street edge on the western side of The Boulevard will have transitional periods of sunshine during the day in winter and street activation such as outdoor dining is encouraged.

The Smith Street Precinct is capable in urban design terms of the highest level of development. The Smith Street Precinct will be a ‘bookend’ to the higher buildings located to the north of the railway line.

The scale of buildings in the Smith Street Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character and scale. As such the building envelopes, setbacks and height must encourage the creation of good urban form

But there’s even more important things to consider now that things are up and running. This Council has literally dropped the ball on so many development issues that it is frightening. There is no vision, no views on the future, and no proactive involvement by the community and councillors. Everything has been left in the hands of developers and council remains the compliant hand-maiden.

We urge readers to check out this website. http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix. This is the blueprint for the future. At least half of the projects outlined here will have a direct and detrimental impact on all the residents of Glen Eira. Yet, where is the council view? Where is the vision? And where is the consultation and planning with the community? Yes, this is all in the future, but it is essential that planning takes place now.

We point out again that in stark contrast to other councils, Glen Eira has:

Dropped its Development Contributions Levy – so what will the MRC ‘contribute’ to the public purse on this project? Readers should check out this document from Stonnington and how they go about a major project. Every single cent that is to be levied is depicted, explained and justified. Nothing like this has ever existed in Glen Eira – or at least it’s not made public.
When will the MRC hand over the Open Space Contributions for the C60? Why isn’t there one single word about this in the officer’s report? As a ‘major development’ other councils attract an 8% levy. According to the C60 Glen Eira was bought off with a mere 5%. Why?
Why can the Moonee Valley Raceclub submit a Master Plan for the Principal Activity Centre and that Council fight tooth and nail to protect residents, even taking on the Minister. See: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/major-developments/proposed-major-developments/draft-master-plan-and-rezoning-proposal-from-moonee-valley-racecourse.aspx
Why do they see fit to have residents as participants in all working parties and Glen Eira does it all via 4 specially selected and obedient councillors?

The farce of the entire Glen Eira approach to development is exemplified by one item from the current VCAT Watch. It concerns what was initially an application for a 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd that readers will likely remember. Newton at the time declared a conflict of interest because he lived close by. Council resolution was permission for 7 storeys. Naturally the developer went to VCAT, got his ten and then put in amended plans for 11 storeys! THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE DPC!!!!!!! So we have the ludicrous situation that councillors vote for 7, and it ends up as 11 on the vote by employees! And Hyams still has the gall to argue against height limits!

The writing is definitely on the wall. Unless there are drastic changes within Glen Eira such as structure plans, height limits, an open space levy that applies across all districts in Glen Eira, and a real interest in the Public Realm, then this municipality is ripe for the picking and will definitely become the new Calcutta!

PS: Off topic, but we thought readers would be interested in the photo below –

PPS!!!!!!

February 19, 2013

Earth To Council!

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

Media Releases 2013

Council submission on VCAT fee regulations

18 Feb 2013
Stonnington Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce has made a submission to the State Government Department of Justice on behalf of Stonnington Council in relation to proposed VCAT fee increases.

The submission responded to the Regulatory Impact Statement for proposed VCAT fees regulation, released in December 2012.

Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that several of the fee increases proposed appear out of step with the key objectives of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which is to provide the community with access to a civil justice system which is both accessible and cost-effective.

“In particular, fee increases for ‘objector appeals’ and mediation will be particularly hard on ordinary residents, who unlike property developers, are unable to claim the cost of VCAT fees as a tax deduction or business expense. These proposed fee increases are substantial and risks placing the justice system beyond the reach of many Victorians.

“Cost-effective dispute resolution is, and must remain, a fundamental objective of VCAT because VCAT was established to provide affordable and fair access to justice for the whole Victorian community.”

Mayor, Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that the Regulatory Impact Statement mentioned VCAT could introduce mediation fees – to be set at a level equivalent to 45 per cent of the estimated cost of carrying out the activity.

“Increased fees should not be imposed for mediation. Mediation provides a useful tool in resolving issues without the formality of a hearing, coupled with obvious time and cost savings to all parties. Increasing such fees may dissuade participants to utilise this option.”

However, no objections were proposed in relation to VCAT fee increases for major cases, large scale developments and enforcement orders relating to breaches of the Planning Scheme.

Cr Koce said: “The fee increases for some permit applicants appear relative to the cost of a larger development. It is considered appropriate that this fee is increased based on the cost of the development (i.e. increasing after both $1m and $5m) – which is generally proportionate to the resources required to deal with the matter.”

He said that in terms of Enforcement Orders, Council took no objection to a fee increase as Council can recoup such costs as part of such applications to the Tribunal (in the instance of successfully being able to establish a breach of the Planning Scheme).

The submission letter is available on the Stonnington website at www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/news-and-information/whats-new
Media Contact: Media and Communications Coordinator T: (03) 8290 1113 M: 0408 523 708

February 15, 2013

From A ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’: Part 2

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

Here is the second part of our email which continues on from the quotes derived from the 2002 Housing Strategy.

“There is plenty more in this document and it reads well. I have just concentrated on residential development, population estimates, and the public realm issue in the wider sense. It would be good if Councillors concerned with overdevelopment, high rate of residential development and the type of development and its consequential very high population increase could pursue the review of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy. It only needs 5 Councillors and it seems that Cr Lobo and Cr Sounness, as the one with some town planning background could start the ball rolling by first asking how many action points have been implemented. So how did Glen Eira actually develop? Let me expand on the issues raised and its problems.

The residential development is always greater than forecast by a significant amount. In 1996 it was 300 dwellings per year, 2001 over 600 dwellings per year, and 2006 and beyond nearly 900 dwellings per year. And the current building applications are close to 1200 per year. It is not clear if building application means 1 dwelling or a number of dwellings. Clearly, the rate of development is much greater than anticipated and there has to be a reason for that. Is the Council doing its job to ensure that infrastructure, public realm and services are there for such a large development rate?

The result of all that development is the population explosion in Glen Eira (http://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/population-estimate ). In 1996 it was around 115,000 with projected figures of 121,000 by 2020. In 2001 it was 123,000 with a forecast of 130,000 by 2021. In 2006 it was 130,000 with estimates of 136,000 by 2011, 148,000 by 2021 and 157,000 by 2031 (forecast2.id.com.au/templates/forecast2/Clients/133Glen/PDF/10.pdf ).

In the 2002 document the capacity for multi-dwelling developments (lot availability) was estimated to be in the order of 10,000 dwellings to be used up by 2020. This estimate depends on the density of dwellings built. We suggest it is a gross underestimate. Over 6,000 dwellings have already been built. The service reports indicate that 80% of those are in the housing diversity areas, so 5,000 dwellings have already taken up the available lots. With greater density being built one can safely assume another 10,000 dwellings can be built in the housing diversity areas. The population under such condition is likely to grow to 160,000 by 2021 and 180,000 by 2031. Properly conducted structure plans as suggested in 2002 would elucidate more accurately the lot availability and density of dwellings. As it is now, Councillors and the community are left deliberately in darkness.

But there is more. The sleeper issue is the minimal change area. Once the pressure is on to develop it will. So what is the capacity for developments in this area since it is 4 times bigger than housing diversity area. The 2002 report gives a figure of 5,000 dwelling opportunity for low density developments in housing diversity area. With the existing rules for dual occupancy, single or double storey units, flats and subdivision, all allowed in minimal change area, the end point of 20,000 dwellings is not unreasonable. Assuming a very low no. of 2 to 3 people per dwelling we get a whopping population of over 220,000 perhaps by 2041. The population density in 1996 was 29.7 per hectare growing to a 41.4 by 2021 and 56.9 persons per hectare by 2041. Clearly, such an influx of people with nearly double the density will have major implications on the character, lifestyle and liveability of Glen Eira. Is there evidence of minimal change areas developments? YES. Take Bentleigh East with the largest minimal change area and the smallest population density. The dwelling growth of medium density housing between 1996 and 2011 was 127% as opposed to only 26% in Glen Eira overall i.e. more than 4 times the average. Councillors should ask for details of each suburb growth patterns in terms of medium density and high density. The pressure to develop is on everywhere. What are we building? Is the Council ready for it?

Nearly all developments outlined are suitable for small time developers, who like Glen Eira Council focus on a single project at a time. Koornang Rd Carnegie has exceeded its electricity power capacity and requires a new sub-station to be built. Jemena, the infrastructure provider will not provide more electricity than necessary if it is a case-by-case approach rather than an area approach. Ormond has a number of recently built apartment blocks erected from concrete. When you flush a toilet, you can hear it throughout the building. Quality is not there and they will become rental slums. Ormond – Glen Huntly reached the dubious distinction of the greatest population density increase of suburbs in Melbourne (http://chartingtransport.com/2012/09/21/first-look-2011-density/ ). Why? And what about water supply and drainage? Are we sufficiently ready for the over 200,000 people living in Glen Eira?

Now to the level crossings of which Glen Eira has 9. Work on North Rd level crossing begins with Murrumbeena Rd being next. The Department of Premier and Cabinet website says: “A program of level crossing removal will contribute to improved productivity and safety outcomes in Melbourne and improved land use outcomes by supporting urban renewal to cater for Melbourne’s growth.” (http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix). One of the criteria for priority level crossing removal is urban renewal, which means more residential development in the area. Lowering of the rail provides more opportunities than having a flyover rail line, although it is probably cheaper. With $100m to remove a level crossing the State Government is looking for funding from private corporations. They are willing to do that for a price (http://www.afr.com/p/national/cash_cocktail_for_melbourne_rail_Sgxu1YvQcayPIEk9lqWwoK ). If private capital is to fund the level crossing removal then what development would cover such a cost?

Caulfield Village development gives a clue to that with about 7 to 10 times the value of level crossing removal i.e. $700m to $1billion. That would provide a huge injection of capital into the Ormond area. Businesses and traders will support it wholeheartedly. The result for residents may not be that great. The Dorothy Ave bridge would disappear and Dorothy Ave, Royal Ave, Katandra St, and the land around Ormond station redeveloped. This development is for the ‘big boys’. Similar consideration goes for Murrumbeena Rd. Of course if the Committee for Melbourne would have their way they would prefer to do a sequence of level crossings e.g. from Caulfield to Patterson (Frankston line) and from Caulfield to Oakleigh (Dandenong line). Each level crossing removal could add few thousand people into the area. With 9 of them in Glen Eira we could see another 20,000 to 30,000 people. How long would it take? Committee for Melbourne claims they can do it in 20 years. So by 2041 we could see a population of 250,000 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2011/08/16/should-replacing-level-crossings-be-given-high-priority/).

One has to ask how all this development affects the Public Realm, which is the responsibility of every Local Government. Glen Eira Council has no definition of Public Realm and has a narrow focus on Open Space. Stonnington Council has developed a Public Realm Strategy (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/strategies/ ) – “This Strategy extends the typical open space strategy, which includes ‘green spaces’ such as gardens and parks, to the broader understanding of the public realm, which includes all external space that is available for public use”. And it illustrates the concept with the following diagram

The diagram illustrates the context in which this Strategy operates. The outer layer identifies the broader State policies that govern public space policy in Victoria. The next layer identifies the Council Plan as Stonnington’s key strategic document. The next layer shows both the Municipal Public Health Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement. The Public Realm follows, and includes streets, parks, hubs and links. Stonnington’s public realm is further divided into suburbs and the many elements from across Council that form the core of the Public Realm Strategy.

Glen Eira Council is conducting a Survey to review its Open Space Strategy – “Open space is all publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, passive outdoor enjoyment and nature conservation” and the Strategy “includes planning ahead for the provision and design of open space to meet the needs of the anticipated future population”. How they can do it without an integrated approach to planning and by letting developers drive the City growth is a question to be asked. When one examines Glen Eira Council Strategies one gets the feeling it is for administrative/public relations purposes. Look at the Stonnington Council Strategies and one feels more confident in their ability to plan comprehensively and manage their plans in an integrated way.

Perhaps we may as well ask again after Cr Lobo – ‘are we building Calcutta or Richmond’. Over to you Councillors.

February 14, 2013

Definitely A Do Nothing Council!

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

We thought it might be extremely informative following our last few posts to investigate what’s been happening in other councils in terms of reviewing and updating their Housing Strategies. What a surprise! Countless other municipalities are at it hammer and tongs and their reviews include lengthy periods of community consultations ranging up to a year! Please note, we are not commenting on the quality, processes, outcomes, nor the various strategies themselves. We are simply highlighting that unlike Glen Eira City Council, these municipalities have not been sitting on their hands doing nothing. Glen Eira has been stagnant since well before 2002 and bases its policies on statistics that are woefully out of date. There are only two possible conclusions here: either this council is entirely incompetent, or the strategy is to do nothing whilst Rome burns because it benefits development and more development.

We remind readers that a bare minimum of the recommendations from the 1998 Open Space Strategy has been implemented. Even less has been implemented from the 2002 Housing Strategy. The sham of the Planning Scheme Review and its recommendations are also in limbo – the only things that have been pushed through facilitate further development! This is Glen Eira in a nutshell. Maintain the status quo and do nothing to safeguard local neighbourhoods, social amenity, and so forth.

Here are the URLs plus the dates that accompany other councils’ reviews of their housing strategies:

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Draft_Housing_Strategy_April_2012.pdf (April 2012)

https://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Housing%20Strategy%20%28Adopted%2016%20March%202009%29.pdf (March 2009)

http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/files/Strategic_planning/HS_PP1_IssuesPaper_Feb2009.pdf (Feb. 2009)

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/planning–building/studies-strategies-and-guidelines/Housing-Strategy/ (October 2010)

http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/page/Page.aspx?Page_id=7505 (October 2011)

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=9798 (2012 – current)

www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/…/Adopted_Brimbank_Housing_Strategy… (August 2012)

http://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/Residents/Planning/Planning_Strategies_Studies/Housing_Strategy (May 2009)

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/o24750.pdf (June 2007)

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (current)

http://www.campaspe.vic.gov.au/hardcopy/112123_190784.pdf (March 2011)

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/policiesstrategies/article.asp?Item=5332 (2005)

http://www.southgippsland.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1126 (current)

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/documents.asp?ID=23637&Title=Housing+Strategy (July 2012)

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (2012 – current)

February 13, 2013

From A ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’: Part 1

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

We’ve received a very long email from ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’ that we’ve split into two. In our view it makes for essential reading for all those people concerned about the policies and autocracy that is currently in power at this council. As a snapshot of what is happening we direct readers to http://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/dwellings to realise the full extent of the impending disaster. Here is the ‘headline’ from this research:

Now for Seriously Concerned Resident’s email:

“Last week’s posts on the Council meeting reinforces the view that the Lipshutz/Hyams law as practiced in Glen Eira weakens this “government to represent and respond to the needs expressed by local communities” (for general discussion see epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/cjlg/article/ ).

The arguments presented by Crs Lipshutz and Hyams have little to do with community representation or being ‘fair, just, and equitable’. It raises suspicion that the Council favours the rich, powerful, or influential. The long term neglect to plan and govern in favour of ‘quasijudicial’ or case-by-case decision making is simply to diminish the democratic nature of a Council. Best example is the Local Law provisions, which is more akin to some kind of autocratic regime rather than a democratically elected local government. The best proof is that there is no other Council in Victoria that have such draconian limitations on Councillors as we have in Glen Eira, and the delegated immense power of the administration. The Local Laws in other Councils tend towards ‘participatory democracy’ elements. Glen Eira tends towards ‘autocratic’ administration elements. The other problem with the arrangements in Glen Eira are the opportunities for corruption as explained by Prof Graycar (http://cass.anu.edu.au/story/when-local-government-decisions-are-sale ) “For example, too much discretion devolved to decision makers can lead to abuse, so can a highly complex process involving excessive time periods and a lack of transparency in who makes decisions and how they are made.” The building development decisions made by open Council are few in comparison to total number of developments. Most are made by staff and the Delegated Planning Committee with residents or Councillors absent.

The more important issue is that of planning for the future. ‘gleneira’ posts and ‘Reprobate’ are commenting on those at length in here. I would like to refer to 2002 Report on ‘Housing and Residential Development Strategy’. It is a well written document strategically focussed and outlining ( www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/files/bdb7243f-fca5-489e-89d3-a08301 ) objectives, strategies, and implementation actions. It also tries to determine the end point of developments in a section 4.5 Dwelling Supply Analysis. Whether one agrees with the plan or not such plans should be reviewed or updated at least every 5 years. That has not happened in 2007 or 2012. The vision for Glen Eira has not changed since 1996 (Glen Eira 2020). Other Councils have done at least one vision revision since creation of amalgamated Cities. The problem with not reviewing is that the predictions are usually wrong and making decisions on a case-by-case basis catches up on things like infrastructure, traffic congestion, provision for parks, sporting facilities, and other community amenities etc. Ad hoc developments allow developers to control the rate and the type of development nilly willy case-by-case. The questions arise: – what kind of city does the community want to end up with? And do the Councillors know that? Does the administration work directed towards such an end point?

Cr Lobo remarked in relation to some proposals ‘are we in Calcutta or Richmond?’ And so we may well ask. Here are some quotes from the 2002 Housing and Residential Development Strategy:

· The total private dwelling stock in Glen Eira in 1996 was 51,060 dwellings. The State Government predicts an increase in dwellings from 53,000 in 2000 to 59,000 in 2021 (approximately 300 dwellings per year). However, these trends may be underestimated. Over the last five years, 600 dwellings a year have been approved by both Council and VCAT.

· A major issue for Glen Eira is how additional dwellings will be accommodated over the next 20 years. New dwellings could potentially effect existing neighbourhood character, traffic and parking, energy consumption, infrastructure, access to services and facilities and meeting housing needs.

· The State Government estimates about 500 dwellings per year between 2000-2009. About 600 dwellings per year are currently approved in Glen Eira.

· While Council targeted a particular concentration of dwelling activity in areas designated for higher densities in the Municipal Strategic Statement, such as urban villages and neighbourhood centres, development is spread across most of the City.

· Two main locations for development in Glen Eira are infill development and major redevelopment sites. Overall, major redevelopment will make a small contribution to new housing in Glen Eira as many major redevelopment sites are nearly fully constructed. This means infill development will constitute the majority of Glen Eira’s future development. Growing community concern exists over the impact of infill development on existing neighbourhoods, including character, amenity and infrastructure.

· Through its planning role, Council has some control over the type and location of residential development. However, Council has an even more important role to ensure the community’s visions and aspirations are reflected in planning policy.

· Council can ensure that housing policy represents the aspirations of its community. Council can also enhance the liveability of Glen Eira’s residential areas by maintaining and enhancing parks, improving the public realm (eg, street trees) and maintaining roads, footpaths and the physical infrastructure.

· Develop structure plans and urban design frameworks for the neighbourhood centres of Alma Village, Balaclava Junction (Caulfield North), Bentleigh East, Caulfield South Glen Huntly, Hughesdale, McKinnon, Moorabbin, Murrumbeena, and Ormond.

· Develop suburb plans for each suburb which integrates land use and development planning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens, street trees and business development.

· Investigate further mechanisms for development contributions.

· Involve the community in public realm streetscape improvement works to enhance the residential amenity and suburban character.

· Investigate opportunities to increase open space in locations where deficiencies have been identified in the Glen Eira Open Space Long Term Strategy.

· In 1996, there were 47,000 households in Glen Eira (Department of Infrastructure, 1998b).The number of households is growing at a faster rate than the population. The State Government has predicted that Glen Eira will have 58,000 households by 2021 (Department of Infrastructure, 2000e).

· Building activity has remained steady in Glen Eira since the building boom began in 1997 averaging 675 dwellings a year. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, separate houses account for the majority (58 per cent) of approvals in Glen Eira between 1996 and 2001. While Council targeted particular concentration of dwelling activity in areas designated for higher densities in the Municipal Strategic Statement (such as urban villages and neighbourhood centres), development is spread across most of the City.

· Infill development will constitute the majority of Glen Eira’s development. Community concern over the impact of infill development on existing neighbourhoods is growing. Depending on the individual developments, infill development has the potential to impact on access to sunlight, daylight and privacy. It can also affect neighbourhood character.

· At the 1996-2001 average annual rate of development of almost 600, the total potential stock of 10,864 dwellings (in housing diversity areas with higher density) will last for 18 years (to 2020).

· ‘Low density’ scenario produced 9,820 new dwellings in total. If only half the lots were developed in this scenario, then only 5,000 new dwellings would be developed.

· Glen Eira has been growing since it was established in 1994. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that Glen Eira’s population was nearly 126,000 in June 2001 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). The State Government estimates the population will increase to 130,000 by 2021 (Department of Infrastructure, 2001e). However, given recent levels of residential development this figure may understate the likely population growth in Glen Eira.”

Our comment: ask yourselves how many of the above ‘promises’ have been investigated, implemented, or even partially achieved? Why not? The only constant in this sad, sad saga has been the ongoing administration.

February 12, 2013

The Truth & Nothing But The Truth?

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

We are becoming increasingly concerned at what can only be described as the deliberate hoodwinking of an unsuspecting public. Our comments relate to one item from the regular VCAT Watch – namely the 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena decision. This was an application for a 3 storey and 15 dwellings development.

Reading the officer’s report, residents could be forgiven for believing that council has done everything in its power to halt this development. We’re told that the Delegated Planning Committee refused the application but that VCAT ordered a permit be granted. So far this is the truth. But it’s not the ENTIRE TRUTH! What is not revealed in the officer’s report is:

Amended plans were submitted and it was these plans that were under consideration by VCAT
Council fully accepted the amended plans
The resident objector did not show up to the hearing and in fact was the owner of another 3 storey neighbouring development. He claimed amongst other things, that this proposed building would now ‘overshadow’ his.

Here is the important part of the officer’s report –

“The application was refused by Council on the grounds that the proposal did not adequately respond to its context in terms of urban character. Of particular concern was its poor transition to the adjoining property to the east, excessive visual bulk and failure to satisfy a number of ResCode standards. Thus the refusal was premised on a poor design response rather than a policy breach.

 The Tribunal identified that the type of development proposed is to be anticipated in this location given its strategic context. It further identified that the implementation of the Housing Diversity Area Policy is clearly demonstrated by the recently constructed three-storey apartment building on the neighbouring property located to the east.

 Ultimately the Tribunal determined that a three-storey building is acceptable on this site given its strategic context and the two and three-storey apartment buildings on neighbouring properties. Furthermore the Tribunal considered that the contemporary design and materials would be an appropriate response to the emerging character of the area.

 The Tribunal therefore determined to overturn Council’s refusal and direct that a planning permit should be granted.”

The above extracts seek, we believe, to perpetuate the myth that all the blame should be laid at the feet of VCAT. Council is merely the poor, impotent victim where its decisions are continually overturned. Please note that we are not commenting on the application’s merits, nor the merits of the member’s decision. We’re not even commenting on the merit of the final agreement between Council and developer. What we are commenting on is the failure of this report to include all the salient facts.

When we go to what the member actually said, we find the following:

“On considering the amended plans, the Council finds the changes overcome its concerns with respect to the proposal. It now supports the grant of a permit subject to conditions. Pegasus Realty supports the grant of the permit subject to the Council’s conditions.”

“The Council submits that the proposal is now worthy of a permit. It submits that the land is strategically well located within a NAC that is well served by public transport and in an area where increased densities is encouraged. It also submits that the changes to the plans, particularly the increased setbacks and reduction in the size of the basement, result in an outcome that is acceptable.”

“To the extent that there is non-compliance with standard B6, I agree with both the Council and Mr McGurn that it is minor and acceptable given the angled alignment of the land’s frontage.”

Here are some questions to consider:

Why couldn’t readers be told that the member was considering amended plans?
Why couldn’t readers be told that council was accepting of these amended plans?
Why couldn’t we be told that council argued strongly that the site was ‘strategically well located’ and that ‘increased densit(y) is encouraged’?
Why couldn’t readers be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1843.html

February 12, 2013

An Answer Versus A Response!

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

We have long bemoaned the failure of this council to actually ANSWER a public question. More often than not, residents receive replies that neatly dodge the central concerns of the query or, the response is padded out with superfluous nonsense and irrelevancies. The most common tactic, is the tendency to engage in semantics. When it suits, council seems quite incapable of understanding the question. On only two occasions from the recent past, has any councillor objected to either the tone or content of these answers – presumably penned by Paul Burke. They sit there dumbstruck, and hence complicit in allowing such practices to continue. To add further insult to injury, councillors often do not even get the time to READ the public questions prior to the council meeting. At most, they might spend 5 minutes at the end of their assembly meetings and are confronted with the already written responses. If there have been numerous questions, then there is no time to even read the responses and to contemplate their import. None of this is good enough.

We’ve decided to keep a running score on public questions and their responses. Readers will be able to access all questions/responses from our new category in the header – ‘Public questions’. They will be arranged in chronological order of council meetings and be classified according to our categories – ie governance, transport, performance, etc. After each council meeting we will also be featuring a separate post on some or all of these questions and responses. If appropriate, we will comment directly on the responses given and invite, as always, your feedback. Here is one from last week’s effort:

QUESTION 1 – Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

ANSWER: The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward. Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

COMMENT: The question is clearly not answered! Will residents get to see the submission? Your guess is as good as ours! Not for the first time are formal council submissions done in secret. Secondly, if this submission did involve councillors being “informed” then why, oh why is there no mention of it in the relevant records of assembly? Or was it a tiny one liner in some briefing paper that could so very easily be overlooked by councillors? Did councillors in fact ever discuss this issue? Did they have any role in the writing of the document, vetting some of the ideas/suggestions, did they in fact have any say whatsoever? Or worse, did they even know this was happening?

As an aside, we remind readers that Glen Eira in its wisdom scrapped the levy. Thus, we assume that no monies are being collected from developers for drainage and other infrastructure whilst high rise apartments are mushrooming everywhere. The State Government has now released its response to the committee’s report and is again seeking submissions. We note that other councils have publicised this submission process. Glen Eira of course, keeps it under wraps. Please see: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/130727/Fair-and-simple-development-contributions.pdf

February 9, 2013

Mandatory Height Controls

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

Why is Glen Eira Council doing absolutely nothing about height limits, urban design frameworks, heritage reviews and controls, ESD’s and much more? And of course, there’s that absolute ‘no-no’ of structure planning! Why are residents fed the continual clap trap about better to lop off a few storeys than to reject outright? Why must there be this moratorium until the proposed Planning Zone Reforms come in and are rubber stamped with glee by Newton, Akehurst and the gang? The only amendments that have come up in council are all to do with preparing the ground for further development, or extending the Housing Diversity areas. The C87 for instance was nothing but a sham that resulted in the ‘protection’ of barely a thousand or so dwellings and, of course, all suggested ‘inclusions’ into these significant character areas were made by officers and NOT residents and councillors.

Other councils are not sitting on their backsides doing nothing. Amendments after amendments are flowing, each designed to add protection after protection to its neighbourhoods and residents. Yes, many of these amendments are subject to Ministerial approval, and yes, many will require a huge amount of budget expenditure, and yes, they will take time. And yes, some may not get up. But at least the will, drive, and vision are there. And above all, there is the recognition that something must be done. Allowing municipalities to descend into high-rise ghettos (or as Lobo has called them, new Calcuttas) is not sound planning and certainly not what the majority of residents want.

It’s really farcical that now, after thirteen years of doing nothing about height controls, some councillors are lamenting the fact that Glen Eira does not have these limits. The argument of course goes – ‘oh well with the new zone reforms we will be able to set limits’. We dread to think what these ‘limits’ will be!

There’s one agenda item set down for 12^th February from Port Phillip which is worthy of highlighting. It’s an amendment that proposes to introduce an Urban Design Framework for St. Kilda Rd as well as mandatory height limits for this zone. They are also seeking to speed up the process by requesting Ministerial intervention. We’ve uploaded the full officer’s report, but present below some extracts which should provide a clear example of what can be done when the will, vision, and welfare of a municipality is at stake.

“This report recommends that Council request that the Minister for Planning introduce interim planning (mandatory height) controls for the St Kilda Road South precinct via a Ministerial Amendment to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

1.4 It is further recommended that Council commit to the preparation of an Urban Design Framework for the precinct which would inform a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent built form and height controls for the area.

While the current strategic framework directs growth to this area there is no detailed urban design framework or planning controls to guide the form, style and height of new development. In addition there has been increasing development pressure on St Kilda Road south.

3.11 This increase in development activity, coupled with the absence of height and built form controls has contributed to uncertainty regarding desired planning outcomes and the future character of the precinct

Recent planning approvals and development applications in this area include:

• 26 storey (91 metre) apartment tower at 3-5 St Kilda Road;

• 18 storey apartment tower at 42 Barkly Street (fronts St Kilda Road, pending VCAT hearing)

• 18 storey (56 metre) apartment tower at 2-8 St Kilda Road

• 13 storey apartment at 181 St Kilda Road

• 8 storey, 88 Carlisle Street (pending VCAT hearing)

• 8 storey, 3-7 Alma Road; and

• 8 storey, 25-29 Alma Road.

3.13 In all of the above applications, the lack of detailed design and height controls in the planning scheme were determining factors in the overturning of Council’s decisions by VCAT and the granting of the permits.

3.14 To ensure that the planning of the development of this area is orderly and consistent with Councils strategic vision, detailed planning controls are required for the area. These planning controls can only be developed from the preparation of a detailed urban design framework for the precinct.

Interim controls will provide time for Council to develop detailed urban design guidelines and height controls for the precinct.

3.20 A request for interim controls generally requires a commitment from Council to the preparation of an urban design framework and permanent planning controls.

Stage 2: Urban Design Framework and Permanent Height Controls

3.21 Council would then need to undertake a detailed planning assessment of the precinct, prepare urban design guidelines and a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent planning controls through the normal planning processes.

3.22 This would include community and key stakeholder engagement.

It is anticipated that this work will cost approximately $160,000 in 2013/14. Funds will need to be allocated in the 2013/14 budget to progress the study.

5.5 LEGAL & RISK IMPLICATIONS

5.5.1 The interim height controls will provide a degree of certainty whilst a detailed Urban Design Framework and permanent planning controls are prepared. Interim controls would also provide a statutory framework for assessment of future development applications in this area.

5.5.2 There is some risk that the Minister will not agree to introduce interim mandatory height controls.

5.5.3 This risk may be reduced if there is a commitment by Council to undertake the preparation of the Urban Design Framework and permanent planning controls though a detailed planning process that will include extensive community and industry consultation.”

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd: #2

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

Below is our report on the second Glen Huntly Rd application. We suggest that readers pay careful attention to the following:

The total inanity of Sounness’ arguments – ie admitting that this is an ‘overdevelopment’ but that’s not ‘compelling’ enough reason to deny a permit! From a planner, this is an astounding statement!
Magee’s inconsistency! Vote in favour of no permit first off, and then turn around and vote for 3 storeys. Incomprehensible!
Please, please councillors, can we please discover a new vocabulary to justify the unjustifiable – “appropriate’ is becoming incredibly tiresome and meaningless
Consistency or lack of, is really baffling. Why not a motion to reject 8 storeys, but one to reject 4? especially when they’re on the same road and the planning scheme indicates this as a major transport/arterial road?

Here’s the discussion. It is not worthy of the label ‘debate’!

Lobo moved to reject on grounds of consistency with ‘urban design’, setbacks, streetscape, car parking, etc. Delahunty seconded.

LOBO: went into the history of the site (ie previous application for lesser no of storeys and dwellings). Said that previously there was ‘already the issue of overlooking’ and with a bigger size development now this will be worse for traffic. Lobo said that Glen Eira is ‘already a busy suburb with trains…..making a nuisance’. Said he was ‘concerned’ and asked himself ‘whom am I working for?’ – residents or developers? Mentioned the interface with minimal change, mass, overshadowing and the health issues associated with this. Will be a problem for residents who ‘pay their rates’ and will soon cop the fire levy.

DELAHUNTY: thought that Lobo summarised the ‘main issues’ such as car parking pretty well and protection of amenity. She therefore supported the motion to refuse.

PILLING: went into the history slightly but said that the developer had ‘redesigned’ the building and that this was a ‘reasonable site’ for this kind of application. Foreshadowed that if the motion failed he was going to move an alternate motion to accept.

ESAKOFF: thought that it was ‘an over-reaction in refusing’ but would wait for the foreshadowed motion.

LIPSHUTZ: supports Pilling ‘in what he said’. Went on to state that they’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion.

MAGEE: said that Glen Huntly Rd had been ‘identified as a major opportunity for developers’ to ‘go for broke’ – ‘go for 8, go for 10, there is no height limits’…’have a crack and see what you can come up with’. Probably their applications would be ‘halved’ but ‘this is a failure of councils over many, many years’ (but not just the recent council or Glen Eira alone). Said that the planning scheme ‘doesn’t protect municipalities’. This is not in the shopping centre and they’re ‘still looking at 4 and 6 storey buildings’. Claimed that what was happening was ‘filling in the gaps’ and the reduction of 2 storeys here and there was pointless when it came to a 10 storey development. The result will be that ‘Glen Huntly Rd is (no longer) Glen Huntly Rd. ‘We need to show some courage here’, and reject the application. People live around here and ‘it’s not fair’. He wouldn’t want to ‘live next to sit’ so he’s not giving his vote for something that he wouldn’t like next door to him.

HYAMS: agreed that 4 storeys was ‘inappropriate’ because there’s nothing similar in the area ‘unlike the previous application’ – so 3 storeys is appropriate. Talked about ‘taking off the top floor’, setbacks, and laneways which meant that the impacts ‘wouldn’t be so severe’. By refusing it’s saying that this is ‘no good’ and it will go to vcat and vcat ‘will be relying on precedent’ and that what a rejection means is that ‘basically wasted council’s time’. Said that the question arose about whether councillors work for developers or residents but that when applications come ‘we’re not working for anyone’ and that what they are doing is function as a ‘judicial body’, ‘we’re applying planning law according to the planning law’. If ‘we were working for the residents’ then they’d be refusing ‘everything’ that there was an objection to. Then the govt would ‘in very short order say this is a complete farce’ and council’s power to decide would be ‘removed’. ‘What we need to do is apply the planning law appropriately’. Referred to Magee’s statement about failure of planning law. Hyams said that this is the result of ‘successive state governments’ so ‘you can’t blame councils’ who have to abide by the parameters. Soon with the reforms there will be hopefully the opportunity to ‘produce better outcomes’ when councils can have a say. Said that they work for residents in trying to produce the best law for Glen Eira and therefore they have to be ‘impartial’.

LOBO: didn’t have any more to say.

MOTION WAS PUT AND LOST. Voting in favour of motion – Lobo, Delahunty, Okotel, Magee.

AGAINST: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling, Sounness

Pilling then moved his foreshadowed motion to accept 3 storeys, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

PILLING: said that the ‘size and scale’ of the building is pretty close to the original application that was approved by VCAT. Thought this was ‘a reasonable outcome’ and that by taking off one storey this ‘satisfies some of the residents’ concerns’ and is a ‘reasonable outcome to the streetscape’ and it’s ‘in line….with council policy’.

LIPSHUTZ: 4 storeys isn’t ‘appropriate’ and that there aren’t any longer ‘issues of overlooking’ or Lobo’s ‘concerns about people’s bathrooms’ and therefore ‘it is appropriate’.

SOUNNESS: just wanted this ‘for the record’ that he recognised tht there’s a permit for 3 storeys and 19 units that he would ‘prefer’ that now there is something ‘close’ to that number again, but council is increasing the number. Would prefer a greater reduction in units but even though ‘it’s an overdevelopment of the site’ that’s not ‘a compelling enough reason to refuse it’.

PUT TO THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. VOTING IN FAVOUR WERE – MAGEE, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING

AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO, DELAHUNTY

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd

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

Lipshutz moved motion to permit 6 storeys, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and 45 dwellings. Seconded by Sounness.

LIPSHUTZ: was ‘conscious’ of residents around area and that there were lots of high rise with ‘no infrastructure’ to go with them. Traffic is a problem especially with 6 storey development very close by. There is ‘creeping development’ and therefore he’s seeking to ‘reduce it to 6’ storeys which is ‘more in line’ with what’s already going up.

SOUNNESS: did ‘recognise’ that an urban village has got ‘certain features’ and that if this was close to a train station 8 storeys would be suitable. Since it’s not, then 6 storeys is “appropriate”. ‘Recognised’ that the ‘design of the building is good’. Said he was “a bit uncomfortable with 6′ but ‘can’t see any compelling reasons to refuse’ the application. For him, ‘6 is a compromise’. It’s not ideal but is better than refusal which ‘may not stand up to scrutiny at VCAT’.

DELAHUNTY: favoured a ‘refusal’. Said that there are more and more ‘high quality apartments’ and she does support high density living but ‘not at the expense of infrastructure’. Spoke about real estate agents telling people that Glen Eira is not like Richmond because Glen Eira doesn’t have the same open space problems, traffic problems, etc. But that in time ‘the more we allow’ these sorts of building to go up, then the more ‘we’ve moving towards being like Richmond’ and it’s the residents who have to put up with this. Said that until developers leave the city ‘as they found it’ (ie with open space, ‘and traffic catered for’) she won’t support this application/motion.

LOBO: Said that councillors had promised not to ‘encourage development of such monstrosity’. Said that people want to know the definition of ‘intense development’. Lobo then asked Akehurst to define it. Akehurst said that the terms of ‘low, medium, high’ density aren’t defined in the Planning Scheme. Lobo then quoted from the planning scheme about being as ‘sympathetic as possible to neighbourhood character’ and wanted to know how the state was going to achieve a population of 5 million people. Asked ‘why are we ignoring’ transport’… ‘this is beyond my comprehension’. Said that the policy from 1999 ‘needs a review’ and that Rescode recipe for parking spaces ‘is a joke’ since most dwellings have 2 cars and people don’t always use public tranport. Went on to talk about overshadowing, and overlooking ‘neighbours bathroom’ so people can’t have showers ‘in their birthday suits’ and will possibly end up ‘using pyjamas’ whilst showering. Said that it’s ‘disappointing’ that councillors are now reneging on the election promises.

PILLING: ‘sympathised’ with Lobo and Delahunty but refusing isn’t the answer as it ‘will lead to’ vcat perhaps giving 8 storeys. This solution of 6 storeys is ‘more practical outcome’. Also said that ‘looking at the bigger picture’ there are issues about height and that there’s ‘increasingly’ a diversion of views between councillors and the community about ‘what is a reasonable height’. Said that that’s where the ‘heart of the issue lies’ and that all they’ve been doing is ‘tinkering’ at the edges and that ‘we really need to develop a more solid approach’ so that when developers come to council they fully know ‘what’s expected’. Said that this is worse than the previous 12 storey application in Carnegie because the Carnegie one was at least a ‘commercial’ area but this one is smaller and backs onto 2 storey places. Said that there ‘needs to be more guidance’ about height levels and expectations because ‘at the moment the sky….is the limit’. Said he ‘wasn’t sure’ about the answer, but knew that they ‘had to do something’ because at ‘the moment it’s become increasingly ad hoc’.

HYAMS: asked Lobo whether he said that Lipshutz was ignoring the recommendations of transport planning. Lobo answered that he didn’t say that and Hyams then ‘confirmed’ that Lobo ‘didn’t say that we were ignoring’ transport recommendations. Said that Lobo talked about what councillors said in election campaigns but that he only said that he would ‘be opposing inappropriate development’ and ‘inappropriate’ is all in ‘the eye of the beholder’. It doesn’t mean ‘oppose everything’ and that people have to ‘apply the planning law’ in order to decide whether an application is ‘appropriate or not’. Said this was an urban village and went on to list the cirteria such as size, orientation, etc. He agreed that ‘8 storeys is too high’ but since there was going to be 6 storeys near Coles, that this one was ‘probably appropriate’. Went on to talk about how the impact was taken into consideration by the waste management plan and other imposed conditions. Agreed with Pilling’s concerns about height and said that ‘it is a bit of a dog’s breakfast’. Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. Also council policies ‘aren’t enforceable at VCAT’. Talked about the zoning reforms and that these would be ‘prescriptive’ so the ‘greater certainty’ that they want will ‘come in’ in the next year or so. In this case he thought that Lipshutz’s motion was ‘appropriate’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that both Lobo and Delahunty had identified ‘deficiencies in the planning system’. Said that Melbourne was going to get higher density without sufficient transport, but all this isn’t ‘for us to decide’. Said that things aren’t going to stay the same. Councillors have to make decisions on planning law and they are a ‘quasi tribunal’ and the ‘law is not scientific’ and on what each individual regards ‘as appropriate or inappropriate’. Said he’d like to see no changes along Glen Huntly Rd but ‘that isn’t going to happen’ and that by voting against he’s ‘not doing anyone a service’ because the ‘developer will go to VCAT and get his 8 storeys’. Putting down 6 storeys means that ‘you can go to vcat and argue that cogently’/ It’s ‘nice’ to be populist but that’s not ‘realistic’ and ‘I’d rather be realistic’. 6 storeys ‘is a compromise’ but which ‘vcat more than likely will support’.

MOTION PUT. Lobo asked for a division.

IN FAVOUR – PILLING, ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL

AGAINST – DELAHUNTY, LOBO, MAGEE

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates