The original application was for a 14 storey development at 221-229 Glen Huntly Rd. Council granted a permit for 7 storeys. In this decision, VCAT approved the amended plans by the developer and granted a permit for 10 storeys. Below are some extracts from the decision. The full transcript may be read at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2203.html

“The officers considered that the proposed development at 10 storeys was appropriate given the location of the site within the housing diversity area, having had regard to the VCAT decision acknowledging the strong policy support for high density development with regard to a development at 233-247 Glenhuntly Road Elsternwick in February 2010^[. Therefore, it is the Tribunal’s position that a multi-storey mixed-use development is appropriate on the site. However the three groups of conditions that have been appealed by the Permit Applicant in this case revolved around height and external appearance of building and the objectors concerns relate to car parking, access to the site and off-site amenity impacts

We consider that a multi-storey development on this site is consistent with the vision of the Elsternwick Urban Village where the statement for the retail hub requires:

The height of residential development be determined by:

1. Site context, including the scale and character of surrounding development.
2. Site characteristics, including area, dimensions, orientation and topography.
3. Existing development on the site, including height, bulk and site coverage.

Council in its final decision required the overall building height to be reduced to seven storeys and amended plans were then prepared. The Permit Applicant prepared amended plans for a 10 storey building generally in accordance with the recommendations of Council’s officers”.

AND FROM TODAY’S ‘AGE’

Building permits system damned

Clay Lucas and Adam Carey

December 7, 2011

VICTORIA’S building permit system is broken, with little evidence to show even minimum construction and safety standards are being upheld, according to a report by state Auditor-General Des Pearson.

The report, to be tabled today in Parliament, will reveal that 96 per cent of 401 building permits examined by the Auditor failed to comply with basic standards. It provides a damning critique of the Building Commission, the state agency that regulates construction standards in everything from home extensions to major city towers.

The $24.3 billion-a-year construction industry, instead of being properly regulated, ”depends heavily on trust which is neither guided nor demonstrably affirmed by reliable data on the performance of building surveyors”, says a leaked draft of the report obtained by The Age.

”Our results have revealed a system marked by confusion and inadequate practice, including a lack of transparency and accountability for decisions made. In consequence, there exists significant scope for collusion and conflicts of interest,” the draft report states.

Building Commissioner Tony Arnel – who has been in his position for 11 years – is legally prohibited from commenting on the report before it is tabled.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who oversees the Building Commission, would wait to read the report before commenting, a spokesman said.

The Building Commission was established 17 years ago to regulate council and private building surveyors, and to monitor how effectively surveyors enforce building laws.

The Auditor found that damning reports on the commission’s work in 2000 and 2005 had been ignored, and that it had fundamentally failed to do its job. ”The commission cannot demonstrate that the building permit system is working effectively, or that building surveyors are effectively discharging their role to uphold and enforce minimum building and safety standards,” the draft report says.

It also finds that while the commission monitors the number of complaints against builders, little is done to monitor whether surveyors do their jobs properly.

Surveyors assess and approve building permits and check that work meets the standards of building laws.

Speaking ahead of the report’s release, the president of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors’ Victorian chapter, Con Giazi, admitted the Auditor had highlighted ”deficiencies”. But he said the failures were a case of poor administration, not lax safety standards.

The report warns of possible collusion between surveyors and clients because of ”inadequate monitoring and enforcement” by the commission.

The Auditor randomly selected 401 building permits lodged with Melton, Monash and Mitchell councils.

Audit office inspectors found ”the vast majority” of permits examined failed to adequately document whether buildings met all requirements. They found far more problems with commercial buildings than with new houses. The report also found serious problems with:

■Adherence to town planning requirements.

■Site plans inconsistent with properties in 167 of 319 cases.

■Fire safety standards.

■Demolition works, with little evidence of adequate precautionary measures.

Big builders this week rallied around Mr Arnel and the commission before the release of the report. Grocon chief Daniel Grollo said Victoria’s building industry was ”as efficient, if not more efficient [than anywhere] in Australia. Any process can be improved, but we don’t see any evidence that the system is broken. Is the issue one of record keeping or is it [problems] with the building itself?”

Executive director of the Housing Industry Association Gil King said the problems identified were about paperwork, not safety. ”Very rarely do we see major faults in the structure of buildings,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/building-permits-system-damned-20111206-1ohcf.html#ixzz1fnVdn3Wx

Push to cut  planning appeals

Josh Gordon

November 29, 2011
VICTORIANS would have less scope to appeal against contentious planning  proposals under a    plan being considered by the Baillieu government.

A briefing by the Department of Treasury and Finance says  planning rules for  developers  have become a ”significant drag on growth”, urging government to  streamline the process to cut costs for new developments.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy tomorrow will  be handed a separate  review of  the planning system from an ”industry” advisory group he commissioned to  ”help overhaul the planning system”.

The treasury briefing document, obtained by The Age, suggests that  the appeal process should be pared back to cut the number of objectors, amid  complaints from developers that the average cost of delays waiting for planning  permits is $35,000.

Treasury has also expressed concern about what it sees as ”conflicting  policy objectives”, with the state government under pressure to tackle housing  affordability, maintain liveability and boost economic growth, while local  government bodies are worried about protecting heritage issues, maintaining the  value of the existing housing stock and keeping the ”character” of a local  area.

”The land planning framework should be overhauled to reduce the scope for  appeals due to conflicting policy objectives, clarify who has standing to appeal  planning decisions and assess the potential for greater use of market  instruments to achieve planning objectives,” the briefing document says.

Tomorrow, Mr Guy’s office will be handed its review of planning rules headed  by consultant Geoff Underwood, who faced claims of a conflict after it was  revealed his consulting firm, Spade Consultants, had been lobbying the  government on behalf of developers.

Under current rules, any person claiming to be affected by a proposed  development can lodge an appeal, even if they have not been officially notified  or they don’t live nearby.

The Master Builders Association of Victoria has told the review this is an  ”unacceptable state of affairs” that opens the  door to the possibility of  ”commercial extortion”. It says that in 2009-10, 7 per cent of all planning  applications ended up in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Mr Guy’s spokesman, Nicholas McGowan, declined to address questions put by The Age, instead providing a list of unrelated list of achievements in  the planning area.

Mary Drost, from Planning Backlash, which represents almost 250 resident  groups across Victoria, said any move that blocked residents’ right to appeal  would be met with anger.

”We would be totally opposed to any restrictions placed on the ability to  object,” Ms Drost said.

Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch said  he believed the rules were ”excessively democratic” and encouraged ”vexatious  objectors”. ”Every person with $35 or $40 in their hand has third-party appeal  rights, so it’s a low threshold for people to have their voice heard, whether  they are on the same side of the city or not,” he said.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/push-to-cut-planning-appeals-20111128-1o3c7.html#ixzz1f0opplcP

With no false modesty, Glen Eira Debates is taking at least some credit for the fact that the council submission has belatedly appeared via a link on Council’s home page!! We’ve uploaded it here.

We also provide below a verbatim listing of Council’s recommendations. Residents should carefully note the position taken on Height Limits. We urge all residents to compare this effort – tone, content, solutions, with what the other councils recommend and see as vital for their municipalities.

HEIGHT LIMITS

Target: The current approach to height limits is flawed. Height limits are most needed to protect areas earmarked for gradual or very limited change; the majority of Melbourne’s residential areas. Yet there are no tools to achieve this. Planning tools are potentially available to impose height limits for activity centres where more intense development is appropriate to be channelled (such as structure plans).

Proposed Solution: Introduce controls which enable mandatory height limits to be set in residential areas.

Environment

Proposed Solution: A State-wide approach to environmental sustainability is needed. The State Government should introduce a planning scheme control which complements the ‘star’ standard in Victoria’s Building Code. This control can be implemented through a ‘particular provision’ of the planning scheme.

VCAT

Proposed Solution: Amend the VCAT Act to require VCAT to implement Council policy. This is not simply a one sided solution aimed at benefiting local government. Yes, it will raise the status of local planning policies in VCAT decisions. However, this will also challenge local government. It will put greater pressure on local government to apply its own policies. More importantly, it will put greater pressure on local government and the DPCD to ensure local policies are clear, relevant, and logical.

Infrastructure

Proposed Solution: The State Government to take the lead in coordinating public authorities in the provision of infrastructure for activity centres so that improvements are directly linked to the increased demand/load of new development.

Local Planning Policy

Proposed Solution: A shift from policy to control based approach takes the difficulty away from interpreting policy, for all parties involved in the planning process. However, this requires the availability of controls from the State Government which can properly and completely replace policy and express policy aspirations. There will still be a need for some policy to assist with decision making. In this case, the State Government should allow the drafting of explicit and clear policy

Public Open Space Contributions

Proposed Solution: Enable inner and middle ring municipalities such as Glen Eira to obtain significantly higher developer public open space contributions. Shift the ability to obtain a public open space contribution from the subdivision stage to the development stage, to ensure multi-unit residential developments pay a public open space contribution. State Government to encourage multiple uses of public authority land (such as school playgrounds and the Caulfield Racecourse) as a means of providing additional open space in metropolitan Melbourne and Glen Eira. Council urges the State Government to encourage schools and the racecourse to cooperate and embrace this initiative

Time

Proposed Solution: Legislate for timeframes for the planning scheme amendment process for proponents, Local Government, and State Government.

Objections

Proposed Solution: Legislate clearly defined tests to what constitutes a valid objection, or valid submission, in the case of planning scheme amendments

Xmas Periods

Proposed Solution: Legislate changes to enable the stopping of the statutory clock during the Christmas holiday period. 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1824.html

Below we feature an extract from a recent VCAT hearing and the member’s comments on Council’s ‘Minimal Change Areas’. Whilst it is true that VCAT must only ‘consider’ planning policy, the comments below illustrate clearly the countless loopholes in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

“Are three dwellings in conflict with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy?

4.         This was the key issue in Council’s case. It was agree by the parties that putting aside minimal change area policy, the site is well located to further urban consolidation policies. It achieves policies at clause 16 [Housing], which recognises the need to increase the proportion of housing to be developed within the established urban areas. It also furthers policies at clause 16.01-4 [Housing Diversity] to provide a range of housing types to meet the increasingly diverse housing types.

5.         However, Mr Hatcher submitted that Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] establishes a targeted approach to residential development by establishing a hierarchy of housing diversity areas within the municipality, where a range or housing types are encouraged. In all other areas, Council seeks minimal change.

Council refused the application on the ground that the proposal fails to meet the test of Clause 22.08 [Minimal Change Area] policy as the proposal is for more than two dwellings. The review site is within a minimal change area. Council acknowledged that the size of the site may provide an opportunity for multi-dwelling development in it s own right, but fails in this case due to the minimal change policy. Specifically referring to the number of dwellings, the policy recognises that more than two dwellings may be appropriate to be achieved where factors such as the following apply:

• Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone have been met. Circumstances where more than two dwellings may be achieved could include any of the following:
• Where the site is in an area characterised by larger than conventional lots.
• Where the site is significantly larger than the majority of properties immediately abutting the title boundary and the properties directly opposite.
• Where the prevailing development in the street and neighbouring streets is predominantly characterised by multi-unit development.

Mr Barber put to me that consideration of this proposal is not a ‘numbers game’ and that despite the policy as identified above, these provisions are not exhaustive, but rather are circumstances where it could constitute an appropriate reason for the construction of more than two dwellings.

The application of Council’s minimal change policy has been discussed by this Tribunal. I agree with Mr Barber that development of land should not be a ‘numbers game’. The planning scheme no longer refers to densities as a tool for assessment. In Galanis v Glen Eira CC^[2] Member Hewet made observations regarding the Tribunal’s approach to development applications within the minimal change area. He states:

Minimal change areas are not “no change” areas. The policy recognises that within these areas a contribution still needs to be made to providing housing diversity and opportunities for new development. It needs to be recognised that that the planning scheme does not identify any residential areas as “no change” areas, and even those residential areas which are protected by heritage overlays (which this area is not) are not immune from development and
redevelopment.

[8] The inclusion of the review site within a minimal change area under the Council’s policy framework, does impose a constraint on the level and scale of development of the site, but it is not a prohibition on medium density housing.
An application for this form of development needs to demonstrate that it appropriately responds to and respects the existing character of the neighbourhood. I acknowledge that a judgement needs to be exercised in determining whether a proposal has successfully met this test, and legitimate debate can occur around the exercise of that judgement.

I adopt this approach and find that three dwellings are not prohibited on this site. The test is how the development respects the character of the neighbourhood, its assessment against the provisions of clause 55 and what impact the development has on its
neighbours, which are discussed below.

BY REBECCA THISTLETON rebecca.thistleton@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Council wants state to drive transport reform

ROADS and public transport are suffering under Glen Eira’s development surge, according to a submission by Glen Eira Council for the state’s new planning strategy.

The council highlighted Elsternwick, Bentleigh, Carnegie and the Phoenix precinct around Caulfield station as places where infrastructure lagged behind development and population.

Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff put forward the council’s submission to the Victorian Planning System ministerial advisory committee at the end of August.

According to the submission, state planning policy promotes higher-density development which is not supported by other infrastructure. Residents were often unable to board packed trains, the council submission stated. “Some residents argue that planning policies are attracting more residents than the public transport system can support,’’ the submission stated.
Funding was desperately needed to remove rail crossings at Carnegie and Murrumbeena stations to stop traffic problems worsening as the population grows. “The need for change in our urban environment is a source of tension in the community,” the submission said. “The role of town planning in managing this is now more prominent than ever before.’’

The advisory committee is examining ways to improve the Victorian Planning System, which relates to buildings and homes, the location of shopping centres and community facilities, as well as the location of transport infrastructure and recreation space.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said both the planning and transport departments would be involved in developing the new strategy.

“It is absolutely essential to get planning and transport policy working together to improve efficiency, mobility and liveability,” Mr Guy said.

Consultation workshops would be held with councils in coming weeks, he said. The committee is expected to submit a preliminary report to the minister by November 30.