GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

March 13, 2013

Ineptitude or More Hoodwinking?

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

We’ve reported ad nauseum on the failure of this administration to provide accurate, comprehensive, and timely information to both residents and councillors. This post focuses on the regular ‘VCAT Watch’ that appears in every council meeting agenda. We’ve already commented on the fact that there is no complete record of DPC decision making in contrast to what other councils provide their communities. The Glen Eira version of reporting on VCAT cases is equally deficient and misleading.

Every agenda item is entitled ‘VCAT WATCH – (monthly) Decisions’ – where the current month’s name is inserted. Any reasonable person would then expect that what is contained in this watch does in fact represent the decisions made by VCAT for that particular month. As we will show, nothing could be further from the truth! But first, here’s how some other councils do it –

Boroondara provides regular tables outlining results according to ward. These are comprehensive, so that residents know the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of each appearance at VCAT plus whether the decision to grant or deny the permit was made by council or under delegation. (Click to enlarge).

Bayside also includes a list, and then a full report on each decision where residents can again see the tabulated form of success or failure.

Glen Eira in contrast relies on its ‘VCAT WATCH’ where often very selective editing accompanies the ‘summary’ of the VCAT decision. We’ve taken the trouble to go through all ‘VCAT WATCHES’ FROM February 2012 to February 2013. The results are fascinating in that:

Not one single judgement has occurred when it is stated it did occur. Once a decision has been made the applicant, council, and objectors are notified that day by email. There is absolutely no excuse that a judgement which was handed down in say November 2012, does not feature until February 2013 – even though the tag line for the February agenda item states ‘February Decisions’. Let’s have a little honesty shall we, and simply label this as ‘past VCAT decisions’!
Not all VCAT decisions are reported. Why not, if this is meant to be genuine and honest feedback to councillors and residents? For example: in August 2012 there are 9 VCAT decisions listed on the VCAT website. Council only reported on 4 of these decisions. What happened to the other five? Why weren’t these included and reported upon? This trend is also evident for the following months – April 2012 – Glen Eira reported on 3 out of 7; November 2012 – 4 out of 5; October – 6 out of 7.
Nowhere does Glen Eira report on its ‘success rate’ at VCAT. Residents do not know the total figures, as they do with other councils, nor how many decisions are upheld, set aside, varied.

Below is our table of the VCAT WATCH from council minutes. The first column lists the applicant (or objector); the second column the date the decision was handed down and the last column lists the date that Council reported the decision. In practically every case there was at least one council meeting in the intervening period when the result could have been reported upon. It shouldn’t take 3 months to get something onto the agenda and then pretend it is current!

Highland properties	15^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Long plan printing	4^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
B Central	1^st December 2011	7^th February 2012
Gold investments	25^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Bilic homes	Not listed on vcat	7^th February 2012
Healy & Gold	20^th January 2012	28^th February 2012
Arch	28^th December 2011	28^th February 2012
Blue Wolf	22^nd December 2011	28^th February 2012
Sharp	8^th February 2012	20^th March 2012
Malina	22^nd February	20^th March 2012
Bayside building	Not on vcat website	20^th March 2012
Gillon	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Blint	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina & business solutions	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Imperium design	23^rd March 2012	1^st May 2012
Furman	22 March	1^st May 2012
Pascoe	12 april	22^nd May 2012
SilverArc	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Anderson	30^th April 2012	12 June 2012
Bail	15^th May 2012	3^rd July 2012
Perkins	7^th May	3^rd July 2012
Poath rd	8^th May	3^rd July 2012
Architecture works	17^th May	3^rd July 2012
Tefillah	23^rd May	24^th July 2012
crb	4thJune	24^th July 2012
pbbs	6^th june	24^th July 2012
Booran rd	19^th june	24^th July 2012
Thermal	21^st June	14^th August 2012
IKONOMIDIS REID	26^th June	14^th August 2012
St wise	9^th August	4^th September 2012
Hta property	2^nd August	4^th September 2012
Brent Williams	8^th August	24^th September 2012
Smith	13^th August	24^th September 2012
Upside dental	4^th September	16^th October 2012
Vision 3	5^th September	16^th October 2012
284 Neerim Rd	18^th September	13^th November 2012
Trubuilt	24^th September	13^th November 2012
Hamilton	1^st October	13^th November 2012
Victoria Developments	8^th October	13^th November 2012
Malina	12 October 2012	27^th November 2012
Menory	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Supreme Property Group	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Visionary designs	25^th October 2012	18^th December 2012
campbell	26^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
sharp	27^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
pegasus	30^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Carnegie apartments	10^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Worotnicki	11^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Linacre	23^rd November 2012	26^th Feb 2013
Mirmilstein	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013
Boston celtics	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013

What all this leads to are two possible conclusions – either there is vast incompetence or the failure to provide complete information is deliberate. Readers can make up their own minds. What is certain is that the processes and practices within Glen Eira’s reporting framework is well and truly below par and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

March 13, 2013

GESAC & Letters To The Editor

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

March 12, 2013

From A Resident

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

“How many years does it take for a building to be constructed? How many times can a planning permit be issued or revised. Why can’t the planning permit for this property be found on councils planning register? How long does a public footpath have to be unsafe before council does anything?

The multi-storey building in Koornang road which includes 26 units and shops has been under construction for years and years and years. How can this be? Surely building permits and planning permits must expire. There has been so little movement with this development over so many years.

Who owns this property and why are they not forced to finish it and tidy up the site and repair the damage to the footpath? Has anyone from council ever looked at this site? Does it comply with public safety requirements?

Should we be suspicious about this never ending construction process? Does the owner have some special privileges that put the site outside public safety compliance? Questions I can’t answer but maybe someone else knows what is going on and can explain why Carnegie has been blighted by an unfinished construction site for so many years and residents have had to put up with the unsightly mess and the very unsafe footpath.”

March 6, 2013

Planning: ‘Reformed’ Zones

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

The committee appointed to ‘investigate’ the proposed new zones has had its report finally made public – together with the government’s response. A quick perusal of the documents indicates that nothing major has changed. What is unique about this ‘consultation’ is that there were 2,083 SUBMISSIONS – surely a record! It’s also worth noting that at the last parliamentary sitting the government promised to table ALL submissions by February 5th. Yesterday’s Hansard records a letter from Matthew Guy which states in part: “Regrettably, the Government is not able to respond to the Council’s resolution within the time period requested by the Council. The Government will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.”!!!

We urge all residents to read the documents contained in the Media Release below since it is a foregone conclusion that Glen Eira Council’s mandatory ‘consultation’ process will be the typical rubber stamping process that has occurred time and time again.

Reformed residential zones bringing new certainty to Melbourne’s neighbourhoods

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

From the Minister for Planning

Sweeping reforms of residential planning zones are one step closer as Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the Victorian Coalition Government’s final details on the reform of Victoria’s residential planning zones.

After a detailed consultation process with over 2,000 submissions from individuals, businesses, councils and community groups, the Coalition Government will now establish the three reformed residential zones on 1 July this year.

A key feature will be the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone which will be the strictest planning zone in Australia, aimed at protecting existing suburbs’ neighbourhood character.

“The Coalition Government’s reforms to residential zones reflect what communities have been calling for, for many years – certainty for neighbourhoods and protection from inappropriate development,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what Melburnians love about Melbourne. Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability which are too valuable to ignore.

“At the same time the new zones will clearly define the appropriate locations where growth and density should occur,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) on zone reform has suggested a number of improvements to the residential zones as initially proposed last year, to ensure the protection of community amenity and provide clearer rules and greater certainty for the community.

“The improvements recommended by the MAC further protect residential amenity and neighbourhood character and are supported by the Coalition Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Today’s announcement is about the right development in the right locations and the package of residential zones will deliver this for local communities.”

The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will provide the strongest protections for local neighbourhood character for the first time in Victoria’s planning history. Key features of the zone include:

implementing local neighbourhood character policy to provide increased weight to local planning policy;
limiting increased residential development through lot size restrictions; and
providing an eight metre mandatory height limit.

In contrast, the Residential Growth Zone will be applied in areas determined appropriate for increased growth and density and provide for medium density developments.

Minor commercial uses will be permitted in the Residential Growth Zone to provide additional local services to the population, subject to strict conditions.

“Local communities will now know and clearly understand where growth can and will occur, unlike the previous haphazard approach that was allowed to foster under the previous Labor Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.”

The Coalition Government will work with local councils between March and May to further develop the implementation procedures and criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Development will also provide technical assistance to local council’s in implementing the residential zones.

Implementation of the residential zones will commence on 1 July 2013 and will be completed over a 12 month period.

A copy of the MAC report and the Coalition Government’s response can be found at: www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/reszones

PS: An email from a reader –

March 4, 2013

When Will The Bullshit End? – #2

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[15] Comments

Only 2% of planning applications come to the full council for decision. Hence, 98% of all decisions are made by officers either through the Delegated Planning Committee or under ‘managers’. These committees are held during work hours, and officers have already made recommendations as to accepting or rejecting the proposal. Objectors are given the opportunity to attend, but we suggest that their chances of altering the recommendations at this late stage are basically buckleys and none!

The INDIVIDUAL decisions of the DPC are NOT MADE PUBLIC, except for those which result in an appeal to VCAT and are therefore listed in the regular VCAT Watch as an item on every Council Meeting Agenda. Official figures state that the number of VCAT appeals each year totals approximately 160 – that means that THE DETAILS of about 1000 decisions made by the DPC or ‘managers’ are not made public. Residents therefore have absolutely no idea why these 1000 applications were accepted, or rejected. No minutes are made public (or maybe even kept) and the criteria, decision making processes used to assess each application is also top secret. There is no tabulated, clear or regular reporting on any of these decisions. Other councils report fully every month so that residents know exactly what decisions have been made under the planning delegations. Below is just one example from Kingston which goes on for pages and pages. In Glen Eira this doesn’t happen. The ‘secret society’ of officers keeps everyone, and we believe even councillors, in the dark! If councillors do not even know what applications have come in, nor when DPC meetings will be held, nor are they invited to attend, then all pretense of these councillors actually representing their constituents is a myth!

At last week’s council meeting a public question on this exact issue was asked. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?”

Here is the council response to the question –

“Your statement is not correct.

Council’s Planning Application Register is publicly available on Council’s website. This Register contains details of all Glen Eira planning applications lodged and the decisions made. This is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker.

The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

COMMENTS:

The statement IS CORRECT! Council’s Online Planning Register DOES NOT tell us whether decisions were made by the DPC, COUNCIL, or a ‘manager’. It also does not ‘tabulate’ any results as noted in the Kingston and other councils’ versions. A user must first enter a street name, or suburb, and then hunt through all the resulting ‘hits’. Unless someone is willing to spend hours on scouring every single entry in the database they will not know which properties are, or were up for consideration and they certainly won’t know who made the final decision to accept or reject. The question asked for links between individual planning application decisions with those responsible for making the decision. To therefore say ‘there is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker’ is not answering the question but just affirming the current inadequacies of the situation.
Again, the Services Report is a useless document that is almost indecipherable and reveals nothing in terms of what the question is asking. We challenge any reader to make sense of the following which is taken directly from the last Services Report. Not only are they illegible, but neither link individual applications to decision makers.

A ‘new’ version will apparently materialise in March. We do not hold out much hope that this will be any more informative, nor decipherable. Will this link property address and decision makers? Will any information of value actually be forthcoming – or will it be another exercise in sham information provision?
Finally, the comment needs to be made that this is the direct result of councillors signing away their oversight roles via the delegations to officers. We reiterate – there is no councillor call in; there is no clear criteria as to when applications will go to full council; no councillor attends DPC meetings; councillors we expect don’t even get a full report on upcoming applications and most importantly THERE IS A TOTAL FAILURE FOR COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. This isn’t surprising. When councillors can’t even open their mouths and insist that public questions are answered appropriately then there is no reason why the ‘bullshit’ of reporting on planning applications should be any different!

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates