GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

December 3, 2012

The Spin Doctors At Work

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

At the last council meeting officers provided a report in response to the motion moved by Okotel and Esakoff.

“In the interest of transparency and demystifying the planning process for residents and ratepayers, I request a report on:

(a) The information provided to applicants and objectors in relation to Council’s procedures in dealing with planning applications; and

(b) If and how applicants and objectors are informed about the points along the process where they can be involved or express their views.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

In accepting this report both councillors praised its ‘fulsome’ and ‘comprehensive nature’ although Okotel did comment on several ‘misprints’ that managed to worm their way into official documents. Sadly she did not elaborate! We beg to differ on these  evaluations of the report.

The entire report, presumably by Jeff Akehurst since his name is provided for ‘enquiries’, is merely a regurgitation of the current provided information, and the usual litany of self-congratulatory statements. For example, one sentence claims that both the DPC and the Planning Conferences are a result of “Council choos(ing) to have these public forums in the interest of broader community involvement in town planning decision making.” “Community involvement’ is a wonderful catchcry. It is however illusory in Glen Eira when the implementation of these committees are examined in detail.

The DPC meetings are far from encouraging ‘broader community involvement’ for the following reasons:

  1. Objectors, if they’re lucky, receive only 5 days notice! Further it is not clear whether this means that letters are posted 5 days earlier, or whether council ensures via earlier posting, that objectors have the full 5 days notice. It is even conceivable that if the letters are posted on a Friday, and the DPC meeting is arranged for a Tuesday or Wednesday, that objectors would only receive the notification on the Monday. Hardly a full 5 days notice. Surely if ‘broader community involvement’ was the real objective, Council would inform objectors far earlier of the set dates.
  2. DPC meetings are scheduled DURING OFFICE HOURS. Hardly an appropriate time for resident objectors to attend such a conference if they work. Once again, this would limit and hinder full participation by all objectors. Since community forums and other countless meetings are held in the evening, and if the desire for ‘broader community involvement’ was genuine, then DPC meetings would also be held in the evenings when a far greater number of residents would be likely to attend.
  3. No councillor is granted decision making authority for these meetings. We even wonder whether councillors know which applications are being considered by the DPC, or more significantly, when they find out. Before the fact, or after the permit has been granted or refused? In this instance, councillors are sidelined as effectively as residents. All committee members are officers and the meetings generally go for about one hour. It is further not compulsory for applicants to attend. No minutes or records of DPC decisions are available for public scrutiny. Hardly a transparent and accountable process!

 

PLANNING CONFERENCES

Whilst a councillor is chair of such meetings, and planning conferences usually go to council for ultimate decision making, the procedures are again non conducive to ‘broader community involvement’. Some of the reasons are the same as those outlined above –

  • The lack of sufficient notice
  • The repeated gagging of objector comments and questions (ie Mahvo St is the perfect example)
  • Applicants often do not attend and hence are not available for questioning and ‘compromise’ with residents

The greatest drawback however is that NO OFFICER recommendations are available until the application appears as a report in council agenda papers. This is made public on Friday – usually late in the afternoon on Council’s website. It should again be pointed out that most people work. Most people would also be respectful of councillors’ weekends. So that means that objectors only have 2 working days in order to analyse the officer’s recommendations, contact their councillors and attempt to achieve some favourable outcomes. Timing is everything. Why aren’t the officers’ recommendations reported back to objectors well before the item surfaces as a council agenda item? The 64 dollar question would be – are developers notified of officer recommendations in the same manner or do they get a look in well before objectors find out the fate of the application?

The entire planning processes in Glen Eira are designed to favour the applicant rather than the resident objector. Okotel and Esakoff may continue singing the praises of officer reports, but in doing so they fail to address the central concerns of how such information is disseminated and what protocols are in existence to ensure a fair hearing for both objectors and applicants.

 

November 30, 2012

Open Space, Lost Opportunities & More Bloody Pavilions!

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

This post attempts to tie together 3 consistent themes and to ask the basic question: are pavilions that cost millions a greater priority in Glen Eira that the creation (and preservation) of open space?

This question is the result of MP Miller’s announcement in Hansard (29th November) that a $500,000 grant has been awarded by the State Government for the development of a ‘brand new pavilion, including changing rooms and clubhouse facilities” at Centenary Park. In 2007, according to the ‘Priority List’ established for pavilions, the estimated cost was ‘more than $2,000,000”. The Duncan McKinnon development at the time was listed as ‘more than $6,000,000’. That means that council will be forking out at least a few million for another pavilion!

Let us state clearly that we are not against the (re)development of existing pavilions. What we question are the priorities of this council when literally millions upon millions are poured into very questionable taj mahals and practically nothing is spent on what residents and some councillors have identified as a major need in Glen Eira – the acquisition of more open space.

Opportunity after opportunity to acquire more land has gone begging. Even when land is available council does nothing about it – ie. the Booran Rd Reservoir will stand untouched for another 4 years. What a disgrace that no funding has been allocated to this important potential source of open space when the issue has dragged on for nearly 10 years. We also remind readers of the recent debacle over the Alma Club when for $3 million council could have acquired property that eventually sold for just under $8 million.

Now there is another opportunity – the sale of 487 Neerim Rd. The real estate advertisement (below) shows that it is right in a reserve. Why can’t this be purchased? Why must new pavilions be built year after year (rather than upgraded) at the expense of what residents have repeatedly highlighted as one of the three major concerns – overdevelopment, consultation and lack of open space. Why must this perfect potential for more passive parkland be ignored so that more units, and cars can clog Neerim Rd which is already a disaster? Why has nothing been done about the Open Space Levy and its ridiculously low cost to developers – especially since this was mooted to be ‘looked at’ nearly 3 years ago and especially since other councils are applying a 5% levy across their entire municipalities? And why, oh why, aren’t the funds collected from this levy used in the manner that the legislation primarily intended – the acquisition of public open space?

Finally, we wish to point out the obvious. The delicate position of MP Miller in Bentleigh leads to all kinds of pork barrelling by the Libs. But $500,000 doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It has to be asked for, and a project nominated. Council obviously asked for the Centenary Park funding. They could just as easily have applied for anything else. The priorities of this administration and some of its councillors needs to be questioned and they need to justify why sporting facilities are continually more important than plain old open space. And open space that is likely to shrink even further once the footprint of these pavilions encroaches on parkland, car parks are extended and concrete, yellow brick roads continue to overtake green parkland.

PS: We’ve done some further homework on this site and there’s a long history associated with 487 Neerim Rd. None of it flatters our administration! Here are the facts:

  • In 1985 there was a subdivision for 2 houses to be subdivided
  • In 2005 an application went in for 9 double storey dwellings (refused)
  • In 2008,3 storey dwelling; 26 dwellings (refused)
  • In 2009, the officers recommended a permit for two storeys and 23 dwellings. Councillors refused a permit
  • In 2009 VCAT (on amended plans) accepted 3 storeys and 28 dwellings (See:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/2529.html)
  • THE AREA IS MINIMAL CHANGE!

So what does all this mean? First off, it tells us that the saga of 487 Neerim Rd. has been on the horizon for nearly 20 years and not once has council apparently thought of purchasing the land even though it has a Special Building Overlay and is prone to flooding. Secondly, if officers recommended 2 storeys eons ago, the likelihood is that this will now occasion at least a 5 storey development. Thirdly, given this history, it is most likely that there is an existing permit on this land – something council clearly would know about. Again, they have been quite content to sit back and allow it to go to developers! So much for the empty refrain of lack of open space, the protected nature of minimal change areas, and the danger of flooding. What should be open space will likely become a living nightmare for residents of Murrumbeena.

 

November 27, 2012

What A Welcoming, Flexible Council This Is!

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

The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.

GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT

Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.

DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how  a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.

LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.

ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.

AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.

Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)

We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.

 

November 23, 2012

The Myth of 80/20 & Reporting Standards

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

Council resolutions and policy in Glen Eira are very flexible instruments depending on the individual issues they cover, and the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of these issues. Planning undoubtedly comes under the umbrella of ‘sensitive’. Hence, formal council resolutions, such as items from the Community/Council plan are repeatedly ignored, forgotten and distorted. The Community plan, repeated in the 2011/12 Annual Report under Strategic Planning, stated:

“Strategy: Ensure town planning controls and policies are as clear, concise, relevant and helpful as possible in deciding planning applications in a logical, repeatable and transparent manner.

Action: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas.

Measure: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly.”

Unless we are entirely deficient in our English Language Skills, ‘numbers’ does not mean PERCENTAGES, and ‘quarterly’ refers to the 4 times a year SERVICES REPORT. The last council meeting had the Services report (ending September 2012) as one of the items. Included in this report was the following:

“84% of dwellings approved for first quarter are in Housing Diversity Areas.”

That’s it! No numbers, no mention of Minimal Change statistics, and no real overview of what is happening in the municipality in terms of the success of failure of the 80/20 policy. We have to go to the Annual Report to glean some information on this vital question.

The Annual Report includes in very small font this statement for dwelling approvals– “Total for 2011–12 minimal change 345, housing diversity 830”. This means that the so called 80/20 division of Glen Eira is rapidly falling to bits since we do not believe that the majority of approvals in these areas would be the simple replacement of one dwelling for another single dwelling. Further, 345 approvals makes the ‘division’ of Glen Eira more like 60/40 instead of the touted 80/20. Amendment C25 claimed to “re-direct multi-unit housing into appropriate locations” and “within the minimal change areas, existing low intensity, low-rise character will be protected and enhanced.” It goes on to claim “For the majority of the City, single houses, extensions to existing houses and two dwelling developments are envisaged as the predominant types of dwellings. By limiting development to this level, existing neighbourhood character can be protected, while still promoting a range of housing through the City.” Is this really happening? How many developments in Minimal Change Areas are more than 2 units per block? How many protect ‘neighbourhood character’ given that there is no real mandatory Urban Design Framework in Glen Eira?

Again, we have to go back to the crucial questions of:

  • Where is the information that will reveal the true ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these objectives?
  • What’s the point of having Council Resolutions when these aren’t adhered to?
  • Why aren’t councillors insisting that their Resolutions are carried out to the letter?
  • Why are such vital statistics allowed to be buried, instead of highlighted?
  • How much longer will ‘transparency’ be merely a word, rather than the fundamental tenet underpinning all operations in Glen Eira?
 

November 21, 2012

Double-Speak Perfected!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Double-Speak Perfected! 

We’ve featured the Minister for Planning’s response(s) on the question he was asked in parliament last week concerning the publication of submissions on the Zoning Reforms. His answer was that it is all in the hands of the Advisory Committee who must first perform a ‘peer review’ of the submissions. As the opposition member pointed out, the real reason is probably that the vast majority of the submissions were totally negative!

Just to clarify the issue further we quote from the Minister’s terms of reference for this Advisory Committee –  “Any documents provided to the Committee must be available for public inspection until submission of its report, unless the Committee specifically directs that the material is to remain confidential”. More buck passing it appears, since the Minister in his response does not seem to understand the terms that he or his department set down. He stated: “It would not be appropriate that they would be peer reviewing a public document, because obviously there would be influence on them to do that. The documents will be made public when the process is concluded. That is the appropriate way to do business, and that is how it will be done.”

We got pretty tired of waiting, so doing a simple Google search, revealed the following submissions. No real surprises in that the Building and Planning industries are all gung-ho about the proposed changes. Readers may access the documents simply by clicking on the desired ones.

Master Builders Association

Housing Industry Association

Victorian Farmers’ Federation

Planning Institute of Australia, Victorian Division

Port Phillip

Greater Geelong

Boroondara

Maribyrnong

Brimbank

Casey

Manningham

Frankston

Melton

Cardinia

Bayside

Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA)

 

November 20, 2012

Open Space: Compare & Contrast

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[7] Comments 

Several posts back we reported on the ‘debate’ in chamber regarding the mooted Open Space Strategy. From comments made by several councillors it was obvious that in Glen Eira the ACQUISITION of open space is a forlorn hope and that the emphases has been, and will continue to be, how best to utilise the existing land stocks. We also remind readers that in Glen Eira the revenue accrued from the Open Space levy falls well below the 5% currently permitted and that most of this revenue is used for ‘maintenance’ rather than the purchase of additional open space. For a municipality continually crying about its status as having the lowest amount of public open space in the state, such policy directions arguably fall well short of what is required.

By way of contrast we highlight extracts from the November 19th 2012 agenda items from Stonnington. Please note that Stonnington has the SECOND least amount of public open space behind Glen Eira. Their officers’ report on their upcoming Open Space review stands in stark opposition to the mentality that is evident in Glen Eira. Here are some interesting quotes –

“The purpose of this report is to consider adoption of a long term strategy that identifies and funds land that can be progressively acquired to increase open space and associated strategic links, and address some areas of critical flooding risk.  This initial report is for Councillor Briefing only.”

Stonnington cannot catch up to the levels of open space, recreation facilities and landscaping provided in other municipalities. It does however need to actively pursue additional open space as opportunities arise.  There is a need to look for non traditional opportunities such as improving the public realm through local streetscaping, undergrounding parking to create open space on top, and encourage green walls/ rooves, and require setbacks and landscaping in new developments to maintain and foster a City which is as green as possible. It also needs to more proactively pursue new open space opportunities, associated and new linkages to improve access to open space and in general. 

The strategy involves the comprehensive assessment and identification of open space, access and some drainage needs and opportunities on a suburb by suburb basis to be outlined in detail in subsequent reports to Council.

Council has an open space reserve fund of $23m for the purchase of open space. While this is a very significant amount of money given a normal small land purchase is in the order of $2m the current fund could represent say 10 properties or 8000m2. This fund accumulates from resort and recreation payments required by the current Subdivision Act. The Act requires up to 5% of the land value is paid to Council when a new unit development is subdivided. This money is held in reserve and is required to be spent in the suburb it was collected in. The money can be used to upgrade existing open space, and / or acquire new open space.

In reviewing opportunities for additional open space, problem drainage and overland flood areas were also reviewed. These areas can provide useful areas of open space and address drainage concerns at the same time.

It is proposed that Council considers a detailed review for each suburb on potential opportunities and costs for land acquisition for open space, strategic links and drainage improvement, and adopts an approach for funding this acquisition.

It is estimated assuming similar ongoing levels of redevelopment that the reserve funds from developer contributions will accumulate and support strategic property purchases over the next 15 years. It may be possible to increase the base of this fund. A report has been commissioned into how these developer contributions can be widened to other uses and the percentage contributions increased…”.

That’s Stonnington! We remind readers that in Glen Eira the Open Space Levies are miniscule and that there was no definite indication in the Planning Scheme review  of 2010 that things would really change. Two and a half years on, this council is silent on the issue.

 

November 18, 2012

Governance: More Of The Same!

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

Poor governance has been the perennial issue at Glen Eira. It continues unabated. We’ve taken the time to compare the Community Plan as accepted by formal Council Resolution on June 26th   and what now appears as part of the formal Community Plan in the Quarterly Report (13th Nov minutes). The changes are alarming. Further, they have NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY FORMAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION and nor has there been any public statement, officers’ report, or open discussion about these alterations. We allege that these changes represent another failure of transparent and open government in Glen Eira. We are especially concerned about:

  • Changes in wording from the accepted Community Plan to what is now paraded in the current Community Plan
  • The removal of certain actions from the original plan
  • Resolutions relating to Amendments withdrawn without another full council resolution
  • Measures that are meaningless and do not address either the objectives or the stated measures

There are only two conclusions possible – either unelected bureaucrats made these decisions or, if councillors did have a say then they were made behind closed doors in secret. We find it appalling that unless the public are willing to analyse and compare documents word for word, then such changes remain unknown, hidden, and the public is continually being duped and kept ignorant. The only conclusion possible is that this tactic is deliberate. Important policy decisions are continually buried in the volumes of waffle rather than highlighted and commented upon. The result is the failure of good governance and open, transparent government.

In the June version of the accepted Community Plan there was this ‘action’ item: “investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan”. The ‘measure’ was stated to be – “Report provided to council”. This has now completely disappeared from the September version. We ask: who made this decision? When was it made? Where is the ‘report’ to council?

Next there is the subtle change in language. Another of the ‘action’ items from the June version states “Introduce a Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”. The measure is: “Local Law considered by council” The September version has altered this to read: ‘Local Law adopted by council”. Whilst not earth shattering in itself, the very fact that  terms can be changed without formal resolution is a concern. Again, who decided and when was the decision reached? Doesn’t this in fact pre-empt the entire process of community consultation on the Local Law?

We also need to highlight just one of the ludicrous ‘progress reports’ on vital aspects of planning which totally ignore both ‘actions’ and ‘measures’. Here is an example:

Measure – “Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.” The progress reports says: “DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 4 mediation meetings held to date”. We note that:

  • No report has gone to a formal council meeting
  • No logical connection between the ‘success’ of a video and ‘mediation’
  • No  statistics that reveal the success or failure of mediation, video, or anything

Also buried in the documentation is the withdrawal of Amendment C90 – ie the ‘Transition Zones Policy”. This came before council on the 30th August 2011. The resolution to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit the amendment was passed unanimously. Now over a year later we find out that “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”. Once more the question becomes: who decided upon this? When was it decided and why, oh why, did this not go to a formal Council Meeting? Even the language associated with this decision is conflicting and unclear. The Quarterly Report stated the the Amendment will be ‘withdrawn’. The Community Plan Report simply states this is ‘on hold’. Whichever is closer to the truth the fact remains that none of this has ever been highlighted, explained, or discussed in an open forum.

Since a year has now practically passed since the original council resolution we cannot believe that the matter wasn’t referred to the Minister for permission to exhibit. The Amendment has not been advertised as far as we know, nor has it been gazetted as granting permission. Thus we suspect that someone must have contacted the Minister and said ‘hold on’ – again without any formal announcement to the public, nor any formal council resolution.

It would appear that it’s business as usual with this Council – a clear case of the tail continuing to wag the dog! Residents would be well advised to ask their supposed representatives the following questions –

  • How well do councillors actually read officers’ reports?
  • Do any of them question the data/information that is provided?
  • If the above questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then why was nothing said about any of the points we have raised in this post?
  • Why do these councillors continue to allow what appears to be unelected officials to make crucial decisions on issues that dramatically impact on residents?
 

November 13, 2012

Too Late She Cried……..

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[19] Comments 

This post features a report on the 12 storey application on Dandenong Road. We ask readers to carefully assess the arguments presented by each councillor since we feel they are extraordinary and in fact, represent an admission of total failure to plan and protect residential amenity.

Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Magee have now been on council for a period ranging from 9 to 4 years. Not once throughout this time have any of them been willing to address the issue of height limits in Glen Eira. Not once have any of them insisted (in public) that Glen Eira Council applies for interim or permanent height controls. Now we have the nonsense argument that since there is no policy we can’t knock back entirely such applications. But, with the planning zone reforms they will finally look at height controls. It’s anyone’s guess if these height controls will be anything less than 8 storeys for activity zones.

Here’s the ‘debate’. Lobo was on ‘leave of absence’ until December.

Esakoff moved an alternate motion. Instead of 12 storeys the application be reduced to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings and that only 20% of dwellings be reliant on artificial light and car parking be 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and not less than 48 retail car parking spaces. Seconded by Pilling.

ESAKOFF: said that her motion basically ‘halves’ the number of levels and reduced the number of units from 173 to 97. Her motion also ‘brings back the scale of the building where it will fit more comfortably into the surrounds’ but will still allow this development where it is “most appropriate along Dandenong Road”. Stated that she was concerned that there would be more traffic congestion along Koornangk Road therefore “the reduction in the number of dwellings is appropriate”….’although clearly there will still be an increase in car movements’. Concerned about the borrowed light and ‘my preference would be that all apartments’ have natural light but that this isn’t unusual these days when people go to VCAT. Even though council’s traffic department said that 35 car parks were sufficient for the retail section she felt that 48 should be available in ‘accordance with the requirements’. A sign would also have to be placed to let people know that no residential parking permits will be given out for this development so that people who are thinking of buying or renting will know the situation.

PILLING: supported Esakoff because it was ‘more modest’ even though the site is ‘right for development’ and is in a “fairly unique part of Carnegie’ but he does ‘have problems with the 12 storeys’. Went on to explain that in Carnegie currently most buildings are four stories even though VCAT did allow a couple of 5 storeys recently, so to go ‘from 5 to 12 is…too much for this area’. Said that “it was never envisaged that Carnegie would have 12 storey towers’ but that the alternative of 8 storeys “is appropriate”. Said that council needed to look at heights in some areas to give “better surety” to people.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he always wanted to be consistent in that ‘development should be reasonable’ but in this case he supports the officer’s recommendation for 12 storeys. Argued that he would agree with Pilling if this was in a ‘quiet residential street’ but this is on Dandenong Road with a railway line and ‘doesn’t impact on any housing’ or overshadowing. ‘Where else are we going to have high density housing?”. Said that the government supports high density housing but that he doesn’t want that in ‘our quiet residential streets’ or some of the main streets in Glen Eira, but Dandenong Road is okay. Went on to ask ‘why is 12 storeys wrong’? Agreed that there would be an impact on traffic though but that would happen regardless of whether it was 8 storeys or 12 storeys. Further, this is a ‘high quality building’ and not cheap and nasty. The area is mainly commercial/industrial and there’s nothing really nice about it and this would ‘improve the area’. If the application was for anywhere else he would support the alternate motion but not this time. “I see nothing wrong with this building in this particular site”.

MAGEE: said that he’s got his own little ‘checklist’ and that before he makes a decision he asks whether the application is in a Major Activity Centre, and this is. It also ‘meets the State Planning Policy Framework’. Asked ‘where are the reasons to object to this?’ It meets state planning policy, is in a Housing Diversity Area and that earlier in the year council voted to turn this ‘into a business 2 zone’, so ‘intense development is encouraged in that area’. Also part of the urban village policy ‘which encourages high residential density’ in these areas. Further no problems with director of public transport nor vic roads and parks, waste management and no-one thought there was an issue or problem. What the problem is, is that ‘the framework is not there….because we have set no height limits. There is no height limits set by us in the past’ but there is an ‘opportunity’ with the Minister’s planned new zones ‘we may be able to put some restrictions in ourselves’ then. Said that council can’t tell a developer to apply for a permit and then say we’re ‘not going to give it to you’ when council has put in these conditions and allowed things to happen. Said that vcat would approve it anyway because they’ll look at the fact that it’s in a Major Activity Centre and ‘tick, tick, tick tick’. Vcat won’t reduce it by 4 floors. Instead of reducing it ‘you’ve got to say’ reject it entirely. “we as a council have put this policy in place….the framework is not consistent with reducing it by 4 floors’…‘we’ve got to make sure in future that we do set height limits’ and this application shows ‘the failings’ of council in that they haven’t looked at height limits closely enough.

SOUNNESS: supported the officers recommendations for 12 storeys. “I feel that if the development is not there, then where?’ He didn’t find the grounds ‘sufficiently compelling’ to support the alternate motion.

DELAHUNTY: started off by saying that many ‘of us campaigned on the grounds of opposing inappropriate development’ . Said that Lipshutz had made her case for her in that Lipshutz admitted there were traffic problems, borrowed light. Felt that this development ‘was overly intense and that’s enough for me’

OKOTEL: Said that no policy has been developed on how tall buildings should be and felt that this decision would set a precedent for development in the area. Said that other buildings on opposite side of Dandenong Road are 3 storeys and apartments of ‘no more than 2 storeys’ so this would be ‘far, far greater’ than what’s there presently. This would also cause ‘pressure on existing amenities’ and ‘create further congestion’. Said that residents already have severe problems with Koornang Rd, and trains make this even worse. Stated that ‘in the absence of policy’ as to height limits then council must also consider what the community benefit will be so given congestion and the likelihood of many families with kids living in the area, she thinks there wouldn’t be overall community benefit.

HYAMS: ‘this is a really tough one’…’it certainly is the right place for more intense development’. It ‘might set a precedent’ but since it’s the only such block in the area then maybe it won’t set a precedent. No overlooking or overshadowing, near shops and trains, ‘so the ideal place for intense development’. Said that Esakoff’s proposal would equate to ‘intense development’  but ‘it fits this site’. ‘In the absence of height limits it’s up to us….to work out what we think the height should be’. Admitted that there is ‘chaos on Koornang Road’. Said that he didn’t think it ‘was ever put to Vic Roads that there should be ingress from Dandenong Road’ and if there ‘had been my decision might have been a bit different’. Said that he did like the changes to parking, private waste collection and no parking permits. He supported the motion for 8 storeys.

ESAKOFF: said that this was ‘an intense development even at the reduced level’. Height limits ‘can be put when we deal with the residential zones at the appropriate time…..but this is what we have on the table now’.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. VOTE WAS TIED 4 ALL. HYAMS USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION.

IN FAVOUR OF ESAKOFF’S MOTION WERE – ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS

AGAINST – PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE, LIPSHUTZ

 

November 9, 2012

Now For 12 Storeys

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[12] Comments 

Tuesday night’s council meeting will feature the planning application for a 12 storey building at 1056-60 Dandenong Rd. The report by Ron Torres recommends acceptance of this application for 173 dwellings and commercial space, PLUS a reduction in car parking requirements. The proposed layout includes: 50 one bedroom apartments and the rest 2 bedroom, plus 264 car spaces. Apart from a bit of tinkering here and there, the developer’s application has largely been accepted intact.

In this post we will simply highlight and comment on various extracts from the officer’s report.

  • The usual blurb about projected population increases feature prominently in the opening – ie.”Glen Eira, amongst other municipalities, is identified by the State Government to have opportunities for increased dwelling numbers. We of course note the irony that in numerous VCAT hearings council has repeatedly argued that Glen Eira has already exceeded its projected increase!  How council can therefore use one argument that its population trends have been met and then turn around and argue that there is still a need for ‘increased dwelling numbers’ is simply unbelievable, hypocritical and totally expedient. Consistency, logic, and a real concern for residents is nowhere to be found.
  • Whilst new to this precinct the residential land use is consistent with what planning policy is seeking to achieve. There we have it! This council sees nothing wrong with 12 storeys!
  • The land is located within a State Government designated Major Activity Centre with access to services, public transport, existing infrastructure and road networks that can accommodate this level of development.  Interesting that there is not one scrap of ‘evidence’ provided in this report to support this claim. But it gets even worse when we find this paragraph – In addition, the intensity and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with the vision for the Carnegie Urban Village. Please note that the Minister’s Planning Zone Reform leaves height limits largely up to council. Is this what residents can expect from Glen Eira Council – the acceptance of at least 12 storeys in all its Activity Centres?
  • A total of 50 out of the 173 dwellings are one bedroom dwellings (29% of the total). These one bedroom dwellings are located on the east side of the building and their single bedrooms rely on borrowed light (ie The rooms do not have a normal window)…..It is recommended that a maximum of 35 dwellings (20%)_ should rely on borrowed light. No comment is necessary here – it speaks for itself!
  • It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. But that’s okay it seems! Again, no facts, figures, analysis. We point out that the plan is to have left hand turn into Dandenong Road and right and left hand turns into Egan St. This wonderful sentence says it all – An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road  is considered to be significant advantage for this development site.

PS: Another item features the revamped minutes of the Local Law Committee. Tree registers dominate the minutes which state:

 “Classified Tree Register

The draft Local Law, selection criteria for classification and appeal provisions were discussed in detail. It was agreed to proceed with the process for finalising a proposed Local Law for community consultation in accordance with the Statutory requirements.”

We highlight this as another example of inaction by this council and its councillors. It should not take ten years for a council to fulfill a resolution. It should not take two years to “consult” with other councils as per other, committee meeting minutes. The public should not have to endure years of spin for no result. We draw readers’ attention to the following:

 

Minutes of 26th May 2003

 Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That Council send a letter to the Minister asking the Minister to protect the Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North and that Council Officers examine ways to protect this and other significant trees in the City.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

In these same minutes there was this public question which was taken on notice for a response –““Does Council have a significant tree register? If not then will this be undertaken by the soon to be appointed arborist?”

Yes, things certainly move at a glacial pace in Glen Eira – even when the mover of the 2003 motion has now been on council for eons and the chair of the Local Laws Committee likewise!

 

 

October 14, 2012

Agenda Item: VCAT

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[4] Comments 

This is a long post, but we believe an important one. Further, it’s important that residents fully understand the folly contained in the current Glen Eira Planning Scheme and how this has, and will continue to impact on them. As we’ve previously noted, VCAT has become the convenient scape goat. It is repeatedly blamed for ignoring council’s wishes, local amenity, etc. Councillors continue to bemoan unpopular VCAT decisions and wipe their hands of all responsibility as a consequence. Not once however has the real problem been addressed – ie. the planning scheme itself!

The Agenda Items for Tuesday night feature an important VCAT decision. There are some VCAT quotes included in the report, but the important bits – like the rationale for the decision and the loopholes and inconsistencies of the Urban Villages/Major Activity Centres policy – are of course omitted. We publish these in an extended version from the actual decision itself and ask readers to consider the following:

  • How much blame can be levelled at VCAT as opposed to Council in this decision?
  • Why has Glen Eira for the past 12 years refused to entertain the idea of permanent or interim height controls?

Here are the lowlights of the decision –

Upside Dental Pty Ltd and Tanfield Pty Ltd sought a planning permit from Glen Eira City Council for a five storey building on the land at 276 and 278 Neerim Road in Carnegie. The building would contain a basement car park, ground floor retail and residential apartments and consequently require permission for the use and the development. Council’s planning officers supported the application subject to conditions….. The Council decided to grant a permit, adopted the recommended conditions of its officers but added more conditions to reduce the development to four storeys and include a loading bay in the development.

  1. The Council thus relies on policy, the zoning and the character of the site’s setting to reject a five storey response. It has expressly deleted the second storey from the design because it accepts that the recessive form of the fifth storey will, after the amendment, provide a recessive fourth storey level and so look like a three storey development.
  2. Carnegie is identified in Melbourne 2030 as a Major Activity Centre. The role of a Major Activity Centre is amongst other outcomes, to ‘support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses’. There are a range of other outcomes less relevant to the issues in this application, but which in summary can be said to support intensification of land use. In translation this means increased density in land use, be it commercial, retail, entertainment or residential. The increased intensity of land use co-located with public transport access and other services are to provide a range of community, social and environmental benefits.
  3. 18.           These policy outcomes are not in dispute. The Council’s case recognises the role of the Carnegie Urban Village in supporting intensification in land use, as expressed in the Urban Village Policy. However, in my view the Council’s case is based on an interpretation of this policy that is not supported when a full view of this and other relevant planning policy is considered.  
  4. Together these policy statements and objectives, along with the MSS are said by the Council to:
  • ‘clearly promote the highest residential densities be located within the Urban Villages’; and
  • ‘clearly states’ that the highest densities be located within the commercial centres with residential density declining with distance from the core of the centre.
  • I agree that there is a clear policy direction for the highest levels of residential density to be located into the Urban Villages. I respectfully disagree that there is a ‘clear’ intention within this policy for a graduated residential density within an Urban Village, particularly in the case I have examined for Carnegie.

Nothing in the policy direction for Precinct 4 conveys any sense or need for a transition. The only reference to its relationship to other precincts or surrounding land is an expressed preference is for development in this precinct should not take the retail focus away from Koornang Road (i.e. the Retail Hub). If anything this policy direction seeks modest amounts of retail and so correspondingly greater use of the land for commercial, office or residential use.

The Council draws a contrast between policy for the Retail Hub and the Mixed Use precincts, specifically to the reference that it is in only the former where there is a direction for ‘increased building heights’ to be determined on the basis of site context and other urban design elements.

It is true that there is no specific reference to building height in policy guidance for the Mixed Use Precinct. It is also true that there is similarly no such reference to height in the surrounding residential precincts either. In the latter case, there is encouragement for increased density of residential development, a mix of density and housing type and encouragement for ‘managed change of the neighbourhood character’.

However it is also true that the design parameters said to guide development responses in the Retail Hub are as a matter of course commonly applied urban design considerations and do not highlight any particularly special characteristics for this precinct. Thus the same design guidance would be expected to also apply to other precincts within the Urban Village.

30.           Having thus considered this policy matrix, I am not persuaded that this policy or the Urban Village policy as a whole seeks any particularly special gradation in building height from the Retail Hub outward through the surrounding precincts. Indeed when one reflects on the design parameters specified for a consideration of height along the Retail Hub and applies them to these surrounding precents, it is likely that the large lots surrounding the Retail Hub will be able to accommodate higher built form rather than the other way.  

As I have set earlier, in the absence of specific direction about height in the Mixed Use precincts, the overall policy direction for increased density and intensity of land use in the Urban Villages applies and so there should be a reasonable expectation of increased height. References to height in Retail Hub are in the context of the words used in the policy:

  • To accommodate office and residential use – a direction to promote these uses over others; and
  • Establish guidance on determining an acceptable height, much of which adopts, as I have noted earlier, commonly applied non-controversial urban design principles.

34.           To suggest that the reference to height in this context and that an absence in other policy guidance imparts a higher order outcome for the Retail Hub reads far more into this guidance than would appear intended.

Scaling back development intensity within the urban village using ‘selective interpretation’ of policy would prevent the highest and best use of the land and be contrary to state and local policy seeking such outcomes for a major activity centre.

  • Graduated scale within the Urban Village is a factor to be considered where the site is located in proximity to non-urban village residential zoned land.
  • Existing residential land within the Urban Village will be subject to substantive change to accommodate the intensification of land use. Consequently existing conditions are a poor indicator of scale on which to base development responses within the central areas, including the core and mixed use areas. It is more appropriate to anticipate a scaling up of building form in proximity to these precincts, while sites with an interface to the residential hinterland play a role in transitioning built form to the scale of these latter areas.

39.           That said, the existing conditions of the hinterland will also not be static notwithstanding their designation as minimal change areas. Policy dictates that even within these areas some change, be it dual occupancies or new single dwellings of two storey form will see gradual changes in character.

40.           I therefore concur with the applicants and Mr McGurn that there is no policy reason why a five storey development cannot be considered for this site. In my view, if a five storey building can be accommodated on the basis of its design response, then it should be allowed to do so as it will achieve the applicable objectives set out for this site under the State and local planning policy frameworks. Specifically it will achieve an important policy objective established for the Urban Villages, to accommodate the greatest change in land use intensity and density.

44.           Consequently refusing higher scale buildings of more than four storeys then citing that are no higher scale buildings in the area becomes somewhat of a circular and fallacious argument.

Given my findings about policy direction and the surrounding site context I consider there is future capacity for higher order scale in this urban village/major activity centre. It is therefore appropriate to envisage that this well resolved proposal for five storeys will ultimately be seen in a setting of similar if not higher order scale within this and the adjoining Retail Hub and Mixed Use East precincts. 

The Council officers acknowledged that an increase in traffic levels would occur and perhaps be noticeable. However, the Council’s engineering staff conclude that the increase in traffic levels would not adversely affect the operation of Neerim or Kokaribb Roads or other local streets.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »