GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

March 28, 2012

Delegations & Failure To Insist On Councillor ‘Call-In’

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

We’ve received the following email from a reader –

In planning permit GE/PP-24534/2012, the Elsternwick Club, already a privileged operator in a residential zone with a 24 hour liqour licence, machine gambling, food and its expensive and non-green bowling green (massive use of chemicals and insecticides at present well beyond that expected in a “garden” region) had applied to Glen Eira Council to have a licence to run a restaurant and cafe business for the financial benefit of its members (who will retain non-exclusive use of the bar and gambling areas as well as the green and surrounds).

The current use is already a burden to particular residents (including the correspondent) in terms of loss of amenity. The officers have advised Council that the matter be considered by the Delegated PLanning Committee tomorrow 28/3/2012, on the basis that the matter is either insufficiently significant of there have not been enough respondents.

Council sent information to the immediate neighbours including… (a) neighbour in hospital recovering from hip surgery, the corner owner spending a large amount on a major renewal without advance warning of the potential reduction of amenity, notices to new residents unaware of the potential impact a fully commercialised business might have in a previously exclusively residential area.

I doubt that anyone else except me saw the second and smaller notice of application to the Justice Dept for a second licence for alcohol provision in addition to the 24 hour existent licence for gamblers and club members (and their “guests”) in time to protest this as well.

My wife is caring for her recently widowed mother who is in hospital after fracturing her hip, I am (phrase deleted to maintain anonymity) and don’t have the time or a great deal of energy to go door to door to arouse local interest in this matter, sufficient to draw actual councillors’ attention to what appears to be an underhand way of achieving what is in reality, a highly significant and fundamental alteration to the character and amenity of our block of Elsternwick.

This area is already well served by the RSL and local pubs and restaurants. What next? Private hotels, bars, home based restaurants and shops, even brothels in our streets?

I doubt that the local business folk know that the club, which has the unique advantage of the attraction of a summer bowling attrraction and open access  machine gambling is intending to take customers from their doors. The only advantaged groups are the club and the council which may be able to charge better rates for a business than for a private club.

Is anybody out there aware of this or concerned about the subtle changes council officers are able to create without necessarily bringing matters to council attention?

 

March 27, 2012

Grattan Institute: Social Cities

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

The Grattan Institute yesterday released its insightful report Social Cities. We’ve selected a few extracts and ask readers to contemplate what can be done and how well our councillors and planners are moving in this direction – if at all? The full report is available from: http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/137_report_social_cities.pdf

“…quality of open space is just as important as the quantity. A small park that is well maintained and watered, with established trees to provide shade, vibrant flower gardens for visual pleasure, quality seating and creative playgrounds, will be used far more actively than a park that is far larger but less inviting. In fact without appropriate design, parks can be too big for comfort. In his pioneering work William H Whyte demonstrated that people prefer to congregate on the edges of public spaces (see Figure 18). So if seating and play equipment are stranded in the middle of large open areas they will not get much use, because people will feel exposed and vulnerable. This is particularly true when a park is bounded by busy roads, blank walls and fences or vacant and derelict land.

Some of the most successful parks are intimate mini-parks or ‘pocket parks’. Pocket parks are often created on irregular-shaped patches of land that are too small for building, or on vacant lots between other developments. Sometimes the developers of major projects are required to include pocket parks as part of their planning approval. In response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the City of Los Angeles is transforming foreclosed properties into pocket parks with the aim of adding amenity and raising the value of surrounding houses and neighbourhoods at the same time.

In the 1980s in the UK, Northamptonshire planner Alan Teulon pioneered the idea of pocket parks by involving local residents in identifying, creating and maintaining small, local parks. This evolved into the Doorstep Greens program that, for a small investment, has transformed more than 100 neglected public areas into popular green spaces. Strong public engagement and volunteering has helped to keep costs and vandalism down. The process of developing these pocket parks has brought local residents together and helped to foster social connection.(p.23)

Traffic

In his pioneering work on streets, Donald Appleyard showed that residents in a street with light traffic flow (2,000 vehicles per day) had three times more friends living in the street (and twice as many acquaintances) than residents on a street with heavy traffic flow (16,000 vehicles per day).

The heavily trafficked street had little or no sidewalk activity while on the street with light traffic, front steps were frequently used for sitting and chatting, and there was play and casual conversation on the pavement.

More recent studies confirm the impact that traffic has on the time people spend on the street. In New York, 44% of people who live on streets with heavy traffic say they respond by going out less often. This compares to only 7% of people who live in medium traffic areas, and 3% of people in light traffic areas. (p.36-7)

There are many ways to shift the role of streets from the car dominated default. The first and most obvious is to reduce speed limits in residential streets. In recent years the default speed limit in built-up areas in many Australian cities has been reduced from 60 to 50km/h. Road safety experts say Australia should follow the Swedish example and further reduce residential speed limits to 30km/h, a speed below which pedestrians have dramatically improved chances of surviving the impact of being hit by a car.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, a significant reduction in speed limits is predicted to have only a minor impact on average travel times (p.38)

 

March 24, 2012

For The Record

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

The table below comprises:

  • decisions made by this group of councillors (Dec. 2008  until February 2012)
  • decisions which represent mere ‘tinkering’ with the original applications
  • not included are all those decisions which were simply passed without such ‘tinkering’
  • not included are those decisions which Council did refuse (that will come in a separate post)
  • not included are those decisions which councillors went against officers’ recommendations – (again, a separate post)

Our constant claim has been that this Council is not doing enough to protect its residents – especially in so called Housing Diversity Areas which dominate this table. Reducing the number of units, or even the number of storeys, is applying cosmetic treatment rather than the required radical surgery – the complete makeover of the Planning Scheme.

We further restate our belief that many decisions made over these years have nothing to do with existing planning policy, but resident opposition. It would seem that anything over 40 objections suddenly has traction, especially in 2012 with the election looming large. Our sacrosanct planning policy is  thus receiving a hell of a battering from certain councillors suddenly aware that their jobs may be on the line.

ADDRESS

APPLICATION

DECISION
40   Koornang Rd, Carnegie 5 storeys   & 26 units 4 storey   & 16 units
135 Neerim   Rd., Carnegie 3 storey   & 44 units 3 storey   & 33 units
309   Hawthorn Rd., North Caulfield 2 storey   & 7 units 2 storey   & 6 units
7-13   Dudley St., Caulfield North 4 storey   & 112 units 4 storey   & 100 units
273 Grange   Rd., Ormond 3 storey   & 19 units 2 storey   & 14 units
19 Parker   St., Ormond 4   dwellings 2 double storey and 2 single storey at rear 1 double   storey & 3 single storey at rear
1902 Glen Huntly   rd., Glen Huntly 3 storey   & 10 units 3 storey   & 8 units
29   Holloway St., Ormond 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
846-848   Centre Rd. Bentleigh 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
341-55   Murumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 40 units & 6 shops 3 storey,   23 units & 6 shops.
443-57   Hawthorn Rd., Caulfield 5 storey,   42 units, 7 shops 4 STOREY
400   Dandenong Rd., Caulfield Nth 3 storey   & 18 units 3 storey   & 17 units
894-900   Glen Huntly Rd., Caulfield 4 storey,   24 units & 1 shop 3 storey, 16   units & 1 shop
2-4   William St., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 41 units 3 storey   & 29 units
111-113   Poath Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey,   10 units & 2 shops 3 storey,   8 units & 2 shops
15 Dudley   St., East Caulfield 5 storey   & 29 units 4 storeys   & 27 units
17 Railway   Pde., Murrumbeena 3 storeys   & 19 units 3 storeys   & 16 units
243-247   Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick 10 storey   & 130 units 8 storeys   & 95 units
41   Murrumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 2-3 storey   & 59 units 2 storey   & 50 units
385-95   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 4 storey   & 32 units

17 double   storey units (Emily St.)

 3 storey   & 25 units

12 double   storey units (Emily St.)
2 Anzac   St., Carnegie 3 storey   & 22 units 2 storey   & 19 units
16 Malane   St., East Bentleigh 2 storey   & 8 units 2 storey   & 6 units
221-29   Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick 14 storey   & 3 shops & 109 units 7 storey   & 46 units & 2 shops
22 Station   St McKinnon 7 double   storeys units 6 double   storey units
54-56   Rosstown Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 20 units 3 storey   10 units
402-4   Dandenong Rd., Nth Caulfield 3 storey   & 37 units 3 storey   & 32 units
276-280   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 42 units 4 storey   & 30 units
188   Hawthorn Rd Caulfield 3 storey   & 8 units 3 storey   & 6 units
259-61   East Boundary Rd, East Bentleigh 3 storey   & 9 units & shop 3 storey   & 5 units & shop
127-129   Murray St., Caulfield 4 storey   & 31 units 3 storey   & 21 units

 

 

March 22, 2012

What’s A Few Porkies Between Friends?

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

The Mahvo Street development was the second application to be tossed out at Tuesday night’s Council Meeting. A terrific result and we once again applaud the efforts of residents. But, as with the previous Morrice St decision, consistency has never been a hallmark of this council. We note that telling a few porkies to the assembled throng in order to back up spurious arguments also doesn’t hurt.

What needs to be strongly emphasised is:

  • Mahvo Street is anything but INTACT – a word employed by several councillors. Of the 40 plus houses in the street proper, countless are recent developments and multiple single and double storey units are common. There are also old, run down weatherboards just waiting to be picked off by developers.
  • Council’s own Online Planning Register reveals that from March 2000 there were 20 applications for this street. 9 were for 2 lot subdivisions. Of these 20 applications only 2 were refused and 1 withdrawn. Far from an ‘intact’ area!
  • The claim that it is ‘predominantly single dwelling’ is thus also dubious. What WERE once single lots have now been subdivided and replaced by two and more dwellings Just under half of the street features these subdivisions and most are now double storey dwellings.

When councillors get up and propagate falsehoods in support of their arguments, then there is something drastically wrong with our council, our system, and the ability of these people to represent us! Either these councillors never visited the street and are relying on dubious reports, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Neither possibility is enough to excuse them.

We provide our ‘evidence’ below. These photos were all taken on the 22nd March, 2012. Two photos feature the view facing onto Centre Rd and are taken from Mahvo Street itself. There were many other residences which included long driveways with units nestled in the back which we didn’t bother to photograph and encroach on people’s private property.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As for the ‘debate’, here’s what happened.

Lobo moved the motion to refuse on the grounds not compatible with urban and neighbourhood character, mass, bulk, streetscape, neighbourhood character, set back, parking, design, ‘detrimental impact’ on surrounding areas/neighbours. Magee seconded.

LOBO: ‘predominantly single dwelling’ (street and family oriented). Stated that the planning conference ‘clearly showed the troubled state of mind of the residents’. Claimed that this proposed development is ‘nothing but insane’ and a ‘monstrosity’. Height will cause lack of privacy and enjoyment of lifestyle. Also will be ‘traffic chaos’ because of proximity to Centre Rd, train station and bus stops. Ambulances therefore wouldn’t have a clear run with all this congestion and people parking on the street and nature strips. Flow on effect to other streets and would set a precedent ‘for other builders’. Impact will be on streetscape and the ‘investment’ of people. Size of objectors must be ‘acknowledged’. Government’s attempt to have 5 million people settled in Melbourne shows ‘who cares a rats for the value of the property’. Stated that the government needs to get its act together and that ‘before long’ film producers will be making the equivalent of Slum Dog Millionaire in Melbourne.

MAGEE: ‘Mahvo street at the moment is INTACT’ unlike Lillimur St. There’s an ‘opportunity’ to save ‘not just this street but’ (most of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh). Said that because these are in an ‘urban street’ he would ‘treat them as a Minimal Change Area’ (because) ‘there’s no difference from this house to my house up in East Bentleigh’…..’deliberate overdevelopment of this site’…’beginning of the end for this street’ (if we let developer go through with this). Claimed that this was the perfect example of ‘inappropriate development’ and that at last election councillors had vowed to fight this..’Let’s save this street, let’s save Bentleigh, let’s save East Bentleigh…’

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted to chairing the planning conference and hearing objections. Stated that as councillors they have to ‘approach this from the point of view of planning law’ (disagreed with Lobo’s claim about loss of value of property). Reminisced about when he was growing up there were many red clinker brick properties in the street and on a recent visit to that street they were now gone, and ‘street is ruined’. So with a street like Mahvo, which is ‘INTACT’, ‘I think that’s an issue that has to be considered’. Thought that 3 stories was too high although thought that the street would ultimately have development….’this development is not sympathetic’ to neighbouhood. Spoke about traffic and lack of trees that were ‘on paper’ in the plans but weren’t there in reality. In the end it’s an ‘inappropriate development’.

FORGE: It’s a Major Activity Centre and there’s a ‘problem with grade separation’ because of the station, leading to terrible traffic jams. 3 storeys would set a precedent. Knows the area very well and until there’s grade separation then there’s going to be ‘constant gridlock’. Safety is another concern.’ we have to take care of the local community….overdevelopment’.

HYAMS: Mahvo St is in an ‘urban village’, on regular sized lot, ‘there’s nothing like it in the street at the moment’. Stated that even ‘in an Urban Village we should still be respecting’ neighbourhood character. He and people are ‘looking for sympathetic development’. When he visited there were cars coming down both ends of street and they didn’t have ‘anywhere to go’ because the street is ‘narrow’ and ‘parked out’. Denied the rumour that council wanted to change the planning for that street and that policy has been in since 2004 and ‘only after….extensive consultation’ of 4 years.

TANG: ‘wrong development for the block’. Disagreed with some points such as property values and said that 3 storeys would increase value of properties because of development potential. Tribunal would reject this argument. Reminded councillors that ‘our policy promotes change in this area’….’Mavho st residents will have to accept more applications’…‘we can’t say ….that it’s not (entirely our) fault’ (since we’ve set the areas where there will be development). ‘There will be change’….(and that some will) ‘go into residential streets like Mahvo’.

LOBO: thanked Tang and Lipshutz. Said he understood the policy from 2004 but that some residents weren’t living here in 2004. Admitted that he himself ‘didn’t know what was happening in 2004’. This development will create traffic problems and should be considered.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: When countless other applications have NOT BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT and mere cosmetic conditions put on (ie 8 storeys instead of 10; 8 units instead of 12, etc) and the consistent argument for such decisions is that VCAT will permit what the developer wants, if not more, then all we can conclude is that elections are indeed around the corner! If these councillors are going to reject applications outright, then at least be consistent in both words and actions for all unreasonable applications!

 

March 21, 2012

Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery

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

It’s  quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!

Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!

Morrice St Child Care Centre

LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.

Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)

LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)

PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)

HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’

MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.

FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of  Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)

TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)

HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.

TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’

PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING

 

 

March 20, 2012

A Mountain Of ‘Clerical Errors’?

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

We’ve received some emails from a reader in relation to the recent Planning Audit Report for 2010/11 published by the Department and which we highlighted several posts ago. The emails reveal that all the figures and graphs have been compiled on the basis of the data submitted to the Department – ie Councils have provided the stats. We are left to ponder once again whether the Glen Eira figures represent another ‘clerical error’?!!  Our focus is the stated increase in the car parking waivers. The bar graph shows that for this category in 2009/10 Glen Eira had 8 applications and in 2010/11 the claim is that they had 25 applications.

We cannot agree with these figures. The Department’s definition of this category is: “An application which requires consent for a waiver or reduction in car parking requirements” (page 201 from the full report). They have also written:

Put simply, any application for a planning permit received by Council (be it for a new permit, or an amendment to an existing permit) that includes a waiver/reduction of car parking should be marked as such. Be aware that whether the permit is issued/refused or winds up at VCAT should have no bearing on this number, as it is when the application is first received at Council that we count it.

Glen Eira claims that they have received approximately 1200 applications. Of these, only 25 included the request for a reduction/waiver in car parking schedules for the financial year of 2010/11.

We’ve therefore gone to the trouble of double checking all the VCAT reports contained in council minutes for the period under consideration. We’ve looked at all the scheduled hearings and their descriptions of the actual applications. Readers should note that the VCAT appeals represent applications that have already been decided – not simply applications that have been ‘received’. Even on these reduced figures we find that nothing tallies. VCAT appeals that contain car parking waivers tally over 30 and not the 25 that presumably council provided to the department. We emphasise that we have no way of knowing how many other applications that did not go to appeal and were simply decided via delegation also included the request for car parking waivers. It could tally hundreds and not merely 25 as claimed.

Listed below are the addresses that we’ve found of the VCAT appeals for 2010/11 that contain such waiver components. Even if not all of these were decided in the 2010/11 period, it would still not cover the countless decisions made under delegation, or by the full Council.

  • 1032 Dandenong Road, Carnegie
  • 439 and Lot S4 441-495 Inkerman Road St Kilda East
  • 82 Hotham Street, St Kilda East
  • 326-328 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North
  • 619 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield
  • 9 Morton Ave, Carnegie
  • 763 Centre Road, Bentleigh East
  • 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 356-364 Orrong Road Caulfield North
  • SUITE 1-2G, 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 1 & 1A Albany Court, Caulfield North
  • 142 McKinnon Road, McKinnon
  • 285-305 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 12-14 Ripon Grove, Elsternwick.
  • 15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East
  • 111-113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena.
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.
  • 107-109 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
  • 888-890 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South
  • 389-395 Neerim Road & 10 Emily Street, Carnegie.
  • 2-4 Station Street, Caulfield North.
  • 47 Kooyong Road, Caulfield.
  • 5 Dudley St & 1 Gibson St, Carnegie.
  • 183-189 Booran Road, Caulfield South (waiver of loading bay)
  • 715-727 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East
  • 31-32 Leamington Street, Caulfield East.
  • 354 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick
  • 443-457 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield East.
  • 251 Koornang Road, Carnegie
  • 633 Centre Road, Bentleigh
  • 4 Maple Street Caulfield

GRAND TOTAL – 32

This of course leaves open to question how many other ‘clerical errors’ might be contained in the data that council sent off to the Department?

 

March 16, 2012

Age Editorial

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
Comments Off on Age Editorial 

Good planning  must balance rights

March 16, 2012

STRIKING a balance between efficiency and fairness in urban planning is a  vexing challenge for state governments of whatever political persuasion. It is  precisely this tension – the need for a streamlined system of planning approvals  as against the rights of residents to shape their communities – that informs the  debate over a dramatic overhaul to Victoria’s planning system scheduled to be  introduced in State Parliament by July.

In one of the biggest reforms of the state’s planning laws in a decade,  councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area,  including height and density. Building applications that comply with the  guidelines would then be fast-tracked through the planning system. Crucially,  once the system is in place residents will no longer be notified of new  development proposals and will not be able to object.

The government envisages this ”code assess” system applying to more than  one in five development applications and will require them to be processed  within 10 working days. While councils will initially use the system to develop  guidelines for low-level applications – extensions and dual occupancy  developments, for instance – the changes are also intended to govern more  significant proposals, including high-rise towers in key suburbs targeted for  urban growth, such as Box Hill, Frankston, Ringwood and Dandenong.

The case for a planning shake-up is a compelling one. Developers, councils  and indeed the wider community pay a heavy price for the excessive red tape,  uncertainty and litigiousness that characterise the current system. The problems  consume council resources, and pose a threat to both the short-term imperative  of economic growth and the longer-term goal of urban consolidation. But given  the emphatic changes to residents’ rights, and we’re potentially talking about  residents watching helplessly as a high-rise suddenly goes up next door, the  onus is on the Planning Minister to ensure the laws do not strike at local  democracy. Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, is  correct in warning, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with  the community” before basic rights be removed.

The legislation must enshrine the principle of genuine community consultation  in the development of guidelines. And developers too must be denied  wriggle-room, losing all right of appeal if planning applications fall foul of  the guidelines. Certainty in planning must cut both ways.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/good-planning-must-balance-rights-20120315-1v86s.html#ixzz1pEPjMqUZ

 

March 15, 2012

GERA Forum

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Tonight’s GERA Overdevelopment Forum was a major success with well over 80 people cramming into the Bentleigh Club and, we’re told, many new memberships to GERA resulting.

Unfortunately Cr. Thomann was a no show, but Cr. West from Kingston was most informative and engaging. Residents received the clear message on how different Kingston Council was in its planning processes compared to Glen Eira. For example: the manner in which planning conferences are held, restricting planning officers’ delegatory powers, Kingston’s hiring of ‘experts’ to support resident objectors, and in the mere fact that Kingston has all those things which Glen Eira doesn’t – structure plans, height limits, developer contributions etc. Cr. West also emphasised the importance of lobbying individual councillors, especially with elections around the corner, and standing candidates who are truly representative of community wishes.

Speaking with people afterwards, their comments revealed how much they had learnt about good planning processes and how much needs to change in Glen Eira.

It was also obvious that upon listening to the audience’s questions and comments Cr. West was astounded at some of the stories and how planning matters are handled in our fair city.

We congratulate GERA for their efforts in this inaugural event and look forward to many more forums that focus on residents and their concerns.

 

March 15, 2012

Another Windsor Hotel Exercise?

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

Planning reform blocks appeals

Jason Dowling
March 15, 2012

A DRAMATIC overhaul to the state’s planning system will soon mean residents will not be notified of thousands of new development proposals or be able to object to them.

The government says the new planning system to be introduced in State Parliament by July will cut red tape, reduce waiting times and free up council resources for complex planning issues.

Under the changes – one of the biggest overhauls of the state’s planning laws in a decade – councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density, and then applications matching the definition will be fast-tracked through the planning system.
0pposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new system would reduce community consultation in planning decisions.

”Communities will be locked out and watch helplessly as historical buildings and tree-lined streets are attacked by [Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s] wrecking ball and replaced by high-rise skyscrapers,” he said.

The new planning system is expected to apply to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days with no notification or appeal rights for neighbours.

The system, called ”code assess”, will initially be used by local councils for processing low-level planning issues such as extensions and dual occupancy developments.

But the system is also intended for key development areas across Melbourne – Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston, and Ringwood – to process development applications that could include apartment towers of more than 20 storeys.

Mr Guy said the new system would add ”certainty and clarity” to planning.

He said guidelines for development set by councils and communities would be mandatory and developers would only be able to appeal a council’s decision if it was inconsistent with the area’s new planning code.

”It will determine what can be built and where,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said the planning system needed improvement but warned, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community before removing public notice and third party appeal rights”.

”Until this happens, councils will remain concerned about including some single dwellings, extensions and multi-units in a fast-track process,” he said.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said councils and the community should set the rules for development in their areas and developers should not be able to appeal the decisions under the new accelerated planning process. ”If it’s out – it’s out,” she said.

Victoria’s building and development industry has long advocated for an accelerated planning application system. The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said changes to planning laws would help economic growth.

Gil King, of the Housing Industry Association, said developments that met existing planning guidelines were chewing up council time and resources in a drawn-out approval process.

”This will actually make it clearer, if it meets the requirements it will be approved much more quickly, it will streamline the whole process.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planning-reform-blocks-appeals-20120314-1v3li.html#ixzz1p87UvdML

 

March 15, 2012

GERA On Overdevelopment

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

A reminder about tonight’s GERA Community Forum.

TIME: 7.30 (nibbles at 7)

VENUE: The Bentleigh Club, Yawla St., Bentleigh.

For full information see: http://geresidents.wordpress.com

PS: From today’s Age. Does C60 and 1400 units also qualify?

Health fear on  estates

Miki Perkins
March 15, 2012

NEW suburbs in Melbourne are so poorly designed that residents face an  epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity and depression that will cost the  health system millions of dollars, a state government inquiry has been told.

Councils in  outer growth areas say soaring populations have outstripped  their ability to provide basic infrastructure such as public transport, parks  and medical services, and are creating ”obesogenic” environments that promote  weight gain.

The concerns have prompted a state government inquiry into the impacts of  urban design on health, and fuelled calls to make health a priority in planning  laws.  ”When it comes to urban planning, we are building suburbs that in 20  years will be ghettos of ill health,” said Margaret Beavis, a Melbourne doctor  who appeared before the inquiry.

Wyndham, in Melbourne’s outer west, is the fastest growing municipality in  Australia in percentage terms. Each week about 60 babies are born and the  council receives 120 new requests for a bin service.

Mayor Kim McAliney said research showed residents were  suffering from an  ”epidemic” of obesity and diabetes exacerbated by decades of car-focused  planning, which meant locals had limited or no public transport within walking  distance.

”We are beholden to the annual budget cycles of central governments to get  buses, trains and arterial roads,” said Ms McAliney. ”Being the fastest  growing area is not something we wear as a badge of honour.”

Other councils in areas of rapid growth – such as Whittlesea, which  expects  a 90 per cent increase in population in the next two decades – face similar  concerns.

A VicHealth submission said children living in  growth areas reported higher  hospital admissions for respiratory problems, which were likely to be from air  pollution from road traffic.

VicHealth also wants planning regulations to take account of the risks  associated with bottle shops, which are concentrated in poorer communities.

For every 10,000 litres of pure alcohol sold from a liquor shop, the risk of  violence on residential properties nearby increased by 26 per cent.

”We are designing communities that are making people sick and politicians  have to listen to that,” said opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee.

Melbourne University planning expert Carolyn Whitzman said Melbourne needed  to stick to its urban growth boundary and encourage mid-rise development  throughout, rather than ”sprawl”  on the fringes and high-rise in and around  the centre.

In 2010, the Brumby government extended Melbourne’s urban growth boundary by 43,600 hectares – increasing what was already one of the world’s most sprawling  urban areas,  stretching 100 kilometres from east to west.

Many experts told the panel that health needed to be made a key objective in  the state’s planning laws.   The Age contacted Planning Minister  Matthew Guy but did not receive a comment before deadline.

The committee is expected to release its report by June.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/health-fear-on-estates-20120314-1v3lw.html#ixzz1p7r0VxVr

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »