GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

September 17, 2012

Time For A Change – #2

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

The June 26th 2012 Special Council Meeting  to consider the budget and the community plan listed the term ‘open space’ 73 times in the minutes of this meeting. Time and time again lip service has been paid to the importance of ‘open space’ – how to acquire more, how to use this to enhance liveability and recreation, and how ‘open space’ is important for all residents. That’s the spin. The reality is far different.

We’ve commented in the past on how little this council has done in regards to open space levies and how out of step they are with the current thinking of many other councils. On the one hand, they bemoan the fact of how little open space is available in Glen Eira and how much it would cost to purchase. Yet, in the same breath, this council imposes minimal financial costs on developers who seek to subdivide land and erect anything from 3 to 4 to 20 storey high density dwellings! They can’t have it both ways!

Even more telling is that these councillors have again turned a blind eye to the inadequacies of the Planning Scheme. Instead of ensuring that subdivisions bring in some real money to pay for open space, our woeful lot have allowed the current rates to stand from at least January, 2006. If the following isn’t an enticement for more and more development, then we don’t know what is! The current levies are:

CRITERIA

PERCENTAGE   OF CONTRIBUTION
The   number of lots in the subdivision capable of containing a   dwelling.

3   lots – 2%

4   lots – 2.5%

5   lots – 3%

6 or more lots –   3.5%
The   site is in McKinnon, East Brighton, Ormond or Bentleigh.

0%
The   site is in Carnegie, Murrumbeena or East Bentleigh.

0.25%
The   site is in Caulfield, Caulfield North, Caulfield South, Caulfield   East, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick or St Kilda East.

0.5%
The   site is not within 300 metres (walking distance) of a park listed in Table   2.

0.25%
Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   less than 40 square metres of private open space, not including   the area in the front setback.

0.25%
Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   more than two bedrooms (a study is regarded as a bedroom).

0.25%
A   six or more lot subdivision which does not provide useable   communal open space that has a minimum of 4   metres and provides a minimum area of 60 square metres,   and is not part of the front setback, service area or   driveway.

0.25%

Compare this to:

KINGSTON: about to introduce 5% and 8% in Major Activity Centres

CARDINIA – in all residential Zone 1 – 8%

PORT PHILLIP – all municipality 5%

GREATER DANDENONG – “Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south (except for Lot 2, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 885 and Lot1, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 884). 20%”. Other residential zones – 5%

KNOX – “Subdivision of land into lots having an area of 725 square metres or greater in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 5% of the total land to be subdivided.

Subdivision of land which includes lots having an area of less than 725 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 8.5% of the total land to be subdivided.

MANNINGHAM – 5%

MAROONDAH – “All subdivisions 5 per cent. Land at the south west corner of Canterbury Road and Dorset Road, Bayswater North 8 per cent”,

MOONEE VALLEY – “Subdivisions of greater than 10 lots 5 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land 5 per cent or greater subject to negotiation of the density and layout of the development where provided as land. All other land 5 per cent”.

MORELAND – Location as defined by Plan 1:

1. Brunswick East / North Fitzroy 2.8%

2. Brunswick 3.1%

3. Brunswick West 2.5%

4. Coburg 6.8%

5. Pascoe Vale South 3.4%

6. Coburg North 4.3%

7. Pascoe Vale 3.7%

8. Oak Park 3.1%

9. Fawkner 5.7%

10. Hadfield 4.3%

11. Glenroy 4.0%

12. Gowanbrae / Tullamarine 4.7%

We could go on and on! Suffice to say that the hypocrisy of Glen Eira council is mind blowing. Residents are on the one hand fed the tripe about halting overdevelopment in such areas as Bentleigh and Carnegie, yet every possible enticement has been offered for more and more development in these areas. We can only speculate as to the stupidity and/or ignorance of our councillors, or their complicity in the Newton and Akehurst pro-development vision.

 

September 15, 2012

Super Indecent Haste!

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

Geoff Akehurst’s benign ‘interpretation’ of Matthew Guy’s proposed planning reforms (which we’ve already commented on) is clearly out of step with other councils. Several motions that are to go before the MAV board meeting illustrate this. (See motions 21-23 under ‘State Council Business Papers’ at: http://www.mav.asn.au/publications/bulletins/mav/Pages/issue-898.aspx).

Then yesterday we get this Media Release from Guy. Of further concern is the composition of the ‘expert advisory committee’ all from the gung ho, pro-development lobby, and the helter skelter intent to rush through legislation that will create mayhem for residents whilst denying them most of their objection rights.

Final step for Victoria’s zone reform

Friday, 14 September 2012

From the Minister for Planning

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has today announced the final step in ensuring the Victorian Coalition Government’s zone reform package delivers productivity growth and drives investment and liveability outcomes for Victorians.

An expert advisory committee consisting of Ministerial Advisory Committee Chairman Geoff Underwood, Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will review all submissions and provide advice back to the Coalition Government.

With the ten week consultation closing on 21 September the expert advisory committee will report back to the Coalition Government by 30 November 2012, ensuring that zone reform will be in place early next year.

“Having council and industry representatives provide thorough advice back to the Coalition Government and a fair and reasonable review of submissions will ensure that zone reform reflects the views of all Victorians,” Mr Guy said.

“This is a marked departure from Labor’s sham consultation processes,” Mr Guy said.

Earlier this year, the Coalition Government introduced a package of sweeping reforms to planning zones.

Proposed reforms to Victoria’s residential, commercial, industrial and rural planning zones include:

  • The introduction of a new Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a new      General Residential Zone and a new Residential Growth Zone;
  • Improvements to the existing Mixed Use Zone, Comprehensive      Development Zone and Activity Centre Zone;
  • New and more flexible Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 Zones replacing      five existing Business zones;
  • Reform to support tourism activities in Farming Zones, the Rural      Conservation Zone and the Green Wedge Zones; and
  • Significant reforms to rural zones to promote the growth of      agricultural activity.”The Coalition Government considers planning      zone reform as a key part of its planning reform agenda and an important      step to provide greater certainty to residents, councils and      investors,” Mr Guy said.

“Modernising Victoria’s planning system is not optional; it is a vital plank of social and economic reform for our state’s long term future.”

 

 

September 13, 2012

Setting The Record Straight!

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

We’ve received the following comment, which we believe deserves to be featured as a separate post.

“I know the objector and the lengths she has gone to in order to try and ensure that residents get a fair deal. Unlike so many of us who are prepared to sit back and whinge, this lady has put her money where her mouth is. At the vcat hearing on the subdivision she hired a barrister which probably cost her thousands of dollars. She didn’t have to do this, and god knows, she’s not flush with funds. But she was determined to at least try and get some justice and a decent hearing. She lost of course.

Then there was the centre of the racecourse. I’ve seen her objection and to me it made plenty of sense. She did her homework, running all over Melbourne to see how other councils dealt with pathways. She took photos of these alternate tracks, costed them, and backed this up with medical journal articles that showed how jogging on hard concrete injures people. She met with the MRC, and they were supposed to get back to her and organise another meeting. Of course they didn’t but literally ploughed ahead, with the acquiescence of this council to create their yellow concrete monstrosities throughout an area that is supposed to be a recreation and park land.

It’s incredibly easy to blame one individual as Hyams, Esakoff and now Southwick have done. Just because there is only one objection, doesn’t mean that the rest of the municipality accepts what is happening. I certainly don’t. But I was too lazy, and despondent, to write up a formal objection.

Ultimately she did withdraw her objection. Not because she thought she was wrong, or because the fire had left the belly. I suspect it was simply that the threat of paying out the mrc’s legal costs, which I’ve no doubt they would have tried, was a risk too great to take. Idealism and a social conscience can come at a great cost when you’re fighting unscrupulous councils and a mega industry who don’t care one little bit about who they want to crush and how much it will cost. For council, they simply put their hands into our pockets. For the mrc, well they got Napthine and the whole damn government supporting them.

Southwick’s, Hyams and Esakoff’s attacks are totally without foundation and tell us more about them and their dirty tactics, than they do about the objector. She should be awarded the Citizen of The Year!”

 

September 4, 2012

Selling For A Song!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Council is about to sell just under 100 square metres of its land to the MRC for the paltry figure of $140,000. Stuck in the middle of the current car park it is admittedly useless to Council but extremely important to the MRC. This is where the 4 storey buildings are to go.

This leads us on to several important questions:

  • Has council ever received ‘rent’ from the MRC for this land?
  • Why wasn’t this discovered when the C60 was being planned?
  • This is the second time that odd little pieces of land are changing hands. What does this say about the planning department’s fingers on the pulse and their vigilance?
  • Why is Council prepared to sell this 100 sq metres for a song? Most real estate experts value the price of land in this area as between $2,000 – $2,500 per square metre if not more. That would make it at least double what council is prepared to sell for. Why and how has this bargain basement figure been determined?

 

 

September 3, 2012

Fact & Fiction

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Fact & Fiction 

Many councils are now publishing their draft submissions to the Minister’s planning changes. It’s therefore fascinating to compare the rose-coloured spin presented by Akehurst and his bosses with what other councils see as major problems. Below is the City of Yarra’s response from the upcoming September 4th agenda papers. We urge readers to compare and contrast this vision with the PollyAnna scenarios presented by Glen Eira. Of most concern is the removal of third party objection rights. It’s also worthy of repeating that countless other councils have met with resident groups (as has Yarra) and organised ‘information evenings’ in order to fully inform residents of the potential ramifications of these draft proposals. Again, this has not happened in Glen Eira! Here are some extracts from the Yarra Council response –

” A preliminary assessment of the new zones indicates a major reduction in the capacity for Council to control some aspects of new development and land use, as the proposals generally increase the land uses in the ‘no permit required’ category. Two of the proposed residential zones propose ‘no permit required’ for smaller shops, cafés and offices within 100 metres of a commercial zone or mixed use zone and for a medical centre up to 250sqm anywhere in the zone.

The implementation of the proposed new residential zones presents Council with some complex choices about where and how to apply them. These zones include scope for mandatory height limits and variable restrictions on a range of building form and subdivision matters. The proposals do not indicate, however, the strategic justification required to support Council proposals.

In all three proposed Residential Zones no permit is required for medical centres (up to a floor area of 250sqm). This is far less restrictive than currently, where a planning permit is needed in a Residential 1 Zone. This will remove the capacity to control operating hours and other aspects of operation which might impact on local amenity.

The changes to this zone are significant and include a new objective ‘to provide for housing at higher densities’. The range of no permit required land uses has increased and the scope to specify the limits to floor-space has been removed from the Schedule to the zone.

The economic and amenity implications from these proposals include potentially undermining the viability of strip shopping centres, local traffic impacts in residential streets and conflicts between household amenity and nuisance and pollution from neighbouring cafes and shops. If no permit is required, there is no scope to apply conditions on hours of operation, managing odours and other local impacts.

There are likely to be both intended and unintended impacts from these changes. Some of the implications are difficult to predict. It seems likely that if the new zones come into effect the City of Yarra could potentially change in the following ways:

(a) there will be more small supermarkets in a wide range of fringe commercial / industrial locations;

(b) there will be more shops, cafes and small offices in residential areas on the fringes of commercial areas;

(c) there will be more retail activity outside the existing centres; and

(d) a range of nursing homes, hostels, aged care facilities and other types of accommodation could begin to occur in semi-industrial locations.

While the implications and impacts are not certain it is clear that Council will, as Planning Authority, have much less capacity to control and respond to how the city develops and changes. The new zones also mean that particularly in mixed use neighbourhoods which in many ways characterise Yarra residents, business owners and others with an interest in the future of their city will have much less say or influence over the outcomes.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »