GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

September 17, 2011

Proposed C93 Amendment – More Stealth?

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

This item must surely win the award for obfuscation and keeping everyone in the dark. Here we have a 2 page officer’s report proposing the removal of the Commercial Centre Policy from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. One page is fully taken up with the processes involved in seeking an amendment – ie. permission to advertise, submissions, perhaps a panel, etc. The first page is nothing more than waffle, and we believe a deliberate attempt to disguise what is really going on and the motives behind such a move. When any amendment is proposed, residents have every right to expect the following:

Clear, comprehensible, and comprehensive information as to the reasons which justify the amendment. In this case, all the rationale states is that the original policy dates from 1998 and is ‘redundant’. Not good enough we say. What’s wrong with updating and improving a policy rather than removing it entirely?
No explanation is given as to the potential ramifications if the policy is removed. What will it mean to traders? To residents? To the neighbourhood? To those little shopping strip centres that are already struggling against the big ones, Chadstone and now the C60 stores? Where are the statistics, planning strategies – in short, where is the evidence that this policy is now ‘outdated’ as claimed and that the municipality will be better off without Clause 22.04 remaining in the Planning Scheme?
We also wonder whether the removal of the Commercial Centres policy is simply one way of declaring open slather for all forms of (residential) development and council washing its hands of all strip shopping centres except for the big three – Centre Rd, Carnegie & Elsternwick. So much for enhancing, developing, and maintaining local strip shopping! So much for looking after this sector of the community!

If councillors pass this as stands then we believe they are again not fulfilling their obligations as councillors. They must question in depth this proposal and not simply sit there and rubber stamp everything that is stuck under their noses. Such a report should never be accepted. It is bereft of detail, logic, and argument. It remains a ‘report’ in name only and certainly a below par effort. But then again, perhaps this is the objective – to get something through with as little fuss, furore, discussion and debate as possible? Rule by stealth perhaps? Make up your own mind when you read these paltry few pages.

September 16, 2011

Agenda Items: Part 1

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

We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the various Records of Assembly and the range of topics that are discussed behind closed doors, in secret, and which never seem to make it into the council chamber. The Pools Steering Committee Meeting Minutes is of the same ilk. For example: for months and months now Cr. Lipshutz has been spruiking how wonderfully well GESAC is going – apart from rain delays it seems. Only at the last council meeting was it disclosed that tiling was somewhat behind schedule. Now we have mention of ‘liquidated damages’. According to Wikipedia, the definition of this term is:

“Liquidated damages (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late performance).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Do these damages apply to the tiling or are there other aspects of this extravaganza that are not going all that well? And how much are the ‘damages’ actually worth? Are we talking a paltry few thousand or do the figures run into hundreds of thousands – thereby signalling some major hiccup and placing many of Lipshutz’s early claims into the very doubtful basket. Of course, it would be too much to ask that council is upfront and fully forthcoming on these issues!

Tang also appears to have great difficulty in showing up to meetings – he missed the August 2^nd August, 9^th & the 16^th August meetings!

Councillor Assembly for the 9^th August includes the following: “Confidential – ‘contractual’, ‘legal advice’ and ‘may prejudice the Council or any other person’ which relates to GESAC. Cr Magee – access to two other legal opinions and his conversation with the Ombudsman. Section 3 of the Whistleblower Protection Act and S. 76D of the Local Government Act.”

Two things to notice: (1) more money is now being spent on lawyers and the GESAC allocations stuff ups and (2) the whistleblowers act does not enforce the stipulation of ‘confidential information’ whilst the Local Government Act does. So what has all this to do with Magee? Is he being read the riot act by Newton and Burke and accomplices over his support for the McKinnon basketballers? We can only speculate of course, since all of this is carried on behind closed doors. And again, we are expected to believe that NO DECISIONS are being made – only continual straw votes it would appear!

We do however discover that on the 23^rd August there WAS a draft submission to the Ministerial planning Review – it even went to 8 pages. Again we ask: where is it? Why isn’t this public? Why do such important discussions and decisions which impact on the entire community only occur behind the closed doors of Assembly Meetings? If other councils can publish their submissions and have councillors debate the drafts, then the question must be asked as to why Glen Eira is again the odd man out?

Last but not least there is again an ‘OH &S’ matter where Penhalluriack leaves the room. We can only assume that this is again related to Newton’s bullying charges. Oh what wonderful games are played out in these meetings and how little the public is informed as to what is really going on and how their monies are being spent.

September 9, 2011

Planning & Enforcement: Another ‘Happy’ Customer!

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

We’ve received an email from one of our readers asking that we put the following up as a post –

How can a building be completed and occupied when the basemen car park was not built to the Approved Plans?

Carnegie residents were surprised to receive an application from the developer for an amendment to the VCAT approved plans of a 3 storey apartment development in Neerim Road, Carnegie. his might not be unusual, except for the fact that the apartments have been completed and occupied for over 12 months

It appears the ramp into the basement car park was not built to the approved plans. In fact the ramp that was constructed does not meet Australian standards.

So the developers are going back to VCAT to seek an amendment to the plans after the building has been constructed proposing changes to the length and angle to the entrance ramp to the requirements of council.

How can a development to be completed, signed off, occupied and then found to have not been built to plan, particularly when the basement car park is one of the first things constructed?

How can this happen? Why wasn’t this picked up at the very earliest stages of construction by the building surveyor who has a legal responsibility to ensure plans are complied with? Who signed off the project at different stages of construction to say it met with the approved plans? What was council’s role in this and if council didn’t have a role in signing off on the construction then what action will be taken by council against a building surveyor who has signed it off?

It is beyond belief that a project can get to this stage and this issue arise following construction and occupation of a building.

There are very serious planning issue for council and the questions must be answered. This is not the first time developers have constructed buildings multi storey buildings in Cargnegie not to the approved plans. Council has chosen in these instances to take no action against the developer or the surveyor. SO how can we as residents have faith or trust in the developers and the planning and building system of this municipality?

September 8, 2011

Monash Master Plan

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments

Vision for Caulfield campus approved

An impression of the Caulfield campus

The Monash University Council has given its seal of approval to a plan that will define the look of the University’s Caulfield campus over the next 20 years.

The Caulfield campus master plan will be followed shortly by a similar plan for the Clayton campus.

Together, the schemes make up Monash Master Plan 2030. It is the culmination of close to two years of painstaking work that has involved more than 2000 people, both internal and external to the university community. There have been more than 200 meetings and feedback has been sought from all sections of the University.

Bradley Williamson, Director, Strategic Planning and Development at Facilities and Services said that there had been a very thorough process to produce the plans.

“They provide the guiding framework that will transform the physical environment of the campuses over the next 20 years,” Mr Williamson said.

“The plans identify where buildings will be developed and consider the complex relationships between the buildings, deliveries and servicing, the wayfinding routes and the outdoor spaces that surround them.

“The aim of the master plan is to facilitate the organisational vision and to transform our campuses into inspiring and motivating environments. The master plans include a set of principles that will endure throughout the life of the plans and will be applied to all work on the campuses.”

There are six core improvement themes forming the backbone to each master plan. They are:

access and wayfinding
spaces and places
precincts and identity
collaborations
partnerships and community
sustainability

Facilities and Services will be responsible for implementing the master plans through the capital development and minor works programs identified by the University’s business units.

An executive summary of the Caulfield master plan is available online

September 6, 2011

The Age Revisits Heritage

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

Council’s heritage decision panned

Jason Dowling

September 6, 2011
A COUNCIL decision to reject heritage protection for three homes in Caulfield South – one owned by the mayor – has been rebuffed by an independent planning panel.

Glen Eira councillors ignored the advice of the council’s own heritage and planning advisers, and additional advice from independent heritage experts, to extend heritage protection to all three homes.

In a sharp critique of the council’s decision to push to have the three maisonette dwellings on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street not heritage protected, the panel found ”there should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance”.
When asked by the panel why it had not accepted the expert advice, the council stated that ”council may form its own view”.The heritage dispute arose when the council discovered a heritage planning anomaly for the three dwellings.

While the entire building containing the three dwellings was included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one of the three individual dwellings was recorded for heritage protection.

One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband, Jack.

Cr Esakoff has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.

When council staff discovered the heritage anomaly, they recommended extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors rejected the advice of its own heritage staff on two occasions and voted to begin a process to remove heritage protection from the entire site.

The matter was referred to an expert planning panel and the panel’s findings were released publicly on Friday.

The panel’s report recommends the council’s attempt to remove heritage protection from the building be dismissed and calls on the Planning Minister to extend heritage protection to all three dwellings.

The panel said it was not provided with any justification to disregard the view of heritage experts that the entire apartment building deserved heritage protection.

September 5, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Ministerial Planning Review

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[4] Comments

We have commented previously on the non appearance of a Glen Eira submission to the Ministerial Planning Scheme Review. Nothing has entered the public domain – no agenda item has listed this discussion, no draft has been made public. Our conclusion is that Glen Eira has not, and possibly will not, provide any input into the review. Since the gallery is continually assailed with attack after attack upon VCAT, then surely this is the opportunity to attempt to redress the balance and to offer considered opinion on how the laws and regulations might be improved. Council’s silence is thus extremely baffling – especially in light of the numerous and comprehensive submissions provided by other neighbouring councils.

What is also alarming is that even if a submission has been made, councillors have not been party to this submission in an open public forum – again in stark contrast to other councils. We can only hope that even if a submission has been made that it is a vast improvement on the paltry page and a half that was submitted to the VEAC inquiry.

We’ve uploaded the Stonnington submission as an example of how other councils have responded.

September 2, 2011

Heritage Panel Report: 466 Hawthorn Rd

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

The Panel Report on proposed Amendment C83 has been released. Below are edited highlights –

The Panel is satisfied that the significance of the entire apartment building supports its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel does not support the deletion of HO114. Rather, the Panel recommends a Ministerial amendment to correct the description of HO114 in the schedule to the HO which omitted 2A and 2B Sea View Street in error. This will ensure that the protection of heritage values is taken into account in future planning decisions.

The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment C83 process, including the Panel process, has provided the affected landowners with an opportunity to make submissions with respect to HO114 and for the merits of the Amendment to be evaluated. This addresses the mistake made when notice was given of Amendment C19.

‘In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over‐painted on the front apartment).’ (Council’s current Heritage Advisor‐ Gabrielle Moylan 27 July 2010)

‘I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted.” “ Property is significant and will not write any strategic justification for removal of this overlay‘ (John Briggs 15 November 2010)

‘This building justifies the current Heritage Overlay….The two rear dwellings are integral parts of the whole, the building being basically symmetrical on the Sea View Street façade (which is somewhat unusual as side street frontages of such buildings are often simpler). This building is of unusually good quality’ (David Bick 26 November 2010)

‘In my view, both publicly visible facades, while different from each other in composition, are integral to the strong overall design, and hence to the heritage value of this prominent building. I do not believe it would be appropriate to remove the current heritage protection.’ (Dale Kelly 14 December 2010)

‘The site is clearly worthy of heritage controls…further research might be undertaken which would have the likely effect of amplifying the heritage attributes of the place’. (Roger Beeston 14 December 2010)

It was Council’s decision not to call expert evidence and this limited the ability to test at the Hearing the expert advice provided to Council. This does not mean that the views and the consensus opinion of these experienced heritage experts should be disregarded. Nothing was presented to the Panel that would justify setting aside the views of any of these heritage experts.

The Panel accords significant weight to the consistent expert view that the heritage value of the Site warrants the application of the HO. There has been no expert view to the contrary.

Council responded to the query from the Panel about why the Council did not accept the expert advice provided by stating that Council may form its own view. These responses do not support removal of HO114. Planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that planning schemes have a sound basis. There should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance.

The Panel does not accept the argument put by Council that removal of HO114 is justified by the fact that one quite different example of development influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright will be retained and all examples would not be lost.

The Sea View Street properties are in a Minimal Change Area, whereas 466 Hawthorn Road is in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive housing development. These strategic designations do not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives.

The Panel agrees with ….(objector)… that it would set ‘a dangerous precedent’ if a strategic designation for more intense redevelopment was deemed sufficient justification for removing heritage overlays. The protection of heritage values remains a valid planning consideration in planning decisions. It could even be argued that heritages places make a particularly important contribution to the urban fabric in areas undergoing significant change, such as along Hawthorn Road in the vicinity of the Site.

The Panel was not provided with any justification to disregard the clear view of heritage experts that the significance of the entire apartment building, in its current condition, supports its inclusion in the HO.

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme includes 466 Hawthorn Road in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive development. This strategic designation does not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives. Rather, where the Heritage Overlay applies in a Housing Diversity Area, local policy (Clause 22.07) highlights the continued relevance of heritage considerations and makes it clear that development should not compromise heritage values.

August 30, 2011

Council Meeting

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

Well, the doors were unlocked tonight! However, strange things always seem to be going on – ie. two page 51 of the hard copy agenda items – and with different in camera items included on each! We’ve also learnt that several public questions that had been (a) hand delivered, and (b) emailed were simply not read out. Another ‘clerical error’ perhaps?

We highlight below the discussion on Item 9.1 – the 5 storey planning application and the resulting lack of consensus, vision, and we suggest, clear planning policy.

Motion: instead of 5 storeys, 4 storeys, 1 shop (with loading bay) and up to 30 dwellings instead of 42 (HYAMS/PILLING)

HYAMS: ‘appropriate site for large development’ because in Urban Village….’question is ‘how large?’….(busy area, single storeys across road)…’it will be the highest building in Carnegie…(supermarket carpark available but not for) ‘developers to take advantage of so I would support reducing that requirement….(shops should have loading bays)…’visually I don’t think it’s such a bad development…(conditions will add trees)…’one per 5 visitor (car parking) spaces’….’taking into account the nature of the site and the nature of the surroundings…appropriate compromise (in what’s been asked) and what residents might prefer….

PILLING: Supports motion…’good size development’…’large site, corner site…addition of loading bay…(no 5 storeys in Carnegie, 4 storeys approved before, so ‘appropriate’ (and this is what the) ’emerging streetscape is’….very busy site, very busy intersection…(the motion goes)’ some way to solving some of the issues raised…

PENHALLURIACK: (against and foreshadowed alternative motion)…Argued for 5 storeys because ‘we do need to provide accommodation’….’this is one of the better sites in this area…good off street parking…..I think this would be a good site for development….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports Penhalluriack since ‘ordinarily …I would not support a 5 storey development in this area….5th storey is recessed back (and looks like 4 storeys from street)….’if anywhere else …I would say ‘no to this’…it’s a unique site, it’s a large site….(carparking) there is a supermarket car parking….(and not every space there is going to be used especially on weekends) ‘reality is there will be some visitors….so for that reason I doubt that is an issue….(supported loading bay area)….(will go to VCAT and developers will get what they want) ‘I would have thought this is a perfect site for 5 storeys…If this doesn’t get up I will support
Penhalluriack’s motion…..

FORGE: supports Penhalluriack’s alternative. Spent time ‘wavering between 4 and 5′ (must look at future and how railway lines develop)….’there will be increased traffic to some point’…(in a couple of years down the track more development sites will be put in)…

LOBO: Supports Hyams’ motion which will help ‘reduce traffic and allow people to park quite easily’. Esakoff asked what he’s supporting – the 4 or 5 storey. LOBO: ‘4 storey’.

MAGEE: ‘2 storeys becomes 3, 3 becomes 4, and 4 becomes 5 and on we go’…(Argued that the city is unique and that its incumbent on councillors to try and maintain this uniqueness. When looking into the future and people ask ‘where will Glen Eira be I’d like it to be much) ‘like it is today’…(Hoped that minimal change areas remain as they are today)…(If someone can build 5 storeys then next person can ask for 6, ‘maybe 7’….’we have to be consistent’…’I’m not particularly happy with 4 (would prefer 3)…

TANG: ‘My position was one in favour of refusal…(but recently seen amendments made to planning and then done away at VCAT) and ‘leads to confusion in minds of councillors….and bad planning decisions….particularly around the elsternwick area where we’ve been looking at 14 storey applications….(with) some councillors supporting 14 storeys, some supporting 10, some supporting 7….what’s scared me is if I knock back the proposal (then there’s Penhalluriack’s 5 storeys) ‘which is even worse’….(outlined history of area and)’whilst there is some policy support for higher density areas…I found overwhelming reason to support a refusal…(urged councillors to knock back this motion and) ‘see if we can put together a motion of refusal’…’no less confusing but it’s the best outcome that I can see’….

ESAKOFF: Supports motion (for 4 storeys)…My preference is not for a 5 storey building…..doesn’t abutt other residences….it doesn’t overshadow other residences…it’s an appropriate site for a building of this size….

HYAMS: Size is ‘two or three blocks’…I wouldn’t be supporting a refusal and if I had to choose between (a refusal) and 5 storeys I’d probably go with 5 storeys….’so councillors might want to take that in mind when they’re considering how they might vote on this motion’….(spoke about full supermarket car parking; if it goes to VCAT and the argument that the loading bay would be lost that council has to) ‘stand by principle’….I don’t think this site is worthy of a refusal….(and if it came to a choice between refusal he would go for original recommendations).

MOTION CARRIED 5 to 4

COMMENTS:

3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys, 10 storeys, 14 storeys, ‘compromise’, ‘refusal’ etc. etc. etc. This is not the first time, nor the last, that the arguments will continue on height limits and parking. Once again this ‘debate’ highlights the arbitrariness of decision making in Glen Eira. With no attempt to achieve interim or permanent height controls for certain areas within the municipality, we can only expect more of the same! Piece meal decision making!

August 27, 2011

Agenda Item 9.4

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
Comments Off

For years now the question of how to protect residents living in Minimal Change Areas that just happen to be near, or abutting activity or neighbourhood centres has been occupying the minds of many ratepayers – if not all councillors and planners! Listed for decision this coming Tuesday is the latest version of Council’s vision for ‘transition zones’. We urge all readers interested in how this Council approaches planning to pay particular attention to this Item and to ask themselves whether the proposed ‘prescriptive guidance’ will achieve any positive outcomes for residents living in both Minimal Change Areas and in residential areas within Activity Centres.

We’ve received one email on this matter already and publish an edited version of it below:

“The new guidance applies very narrowly and specifically to properties on the Housing Diversity side of a transition boundary. It doesn’t address all the single-storey dwellings inside Housing Diversity areas who are repeatedly having their amenity trashed. It is (to me) blatantly unfair to expect these people to have their amenity trashed by allowing non-compliant developments next them that Council and VCAT refuse to allow elsewhere. In the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 s8 “Recognition and equality before the law”, protections of amenity should be more equal than that. “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” [Not saying developers are animals mind you…]

Council really should be more explicit in saying what the minimum standards of protection are for *all* dwellings in Housing Diversity areas, and publicly justify why lesser protection is appropriate for people who inconveniently get in the way of developers’ profits. I’d go further and include explicit words in the document to make it clear that there are universal human rights and that Council’s policy is for all people to be treated equally–that relaxation of standards are dependent on a development not being sited next to an existing low-rise dwelling. These dwellings provide sensitive interfaces too.

If I was a Councillor I would be looking for a summary covering each proposed development of what standards are being violated, and an explanation provided of why it is appropriate. Helping a developer make more money isn’t good enough … I’d love to hear Councillors explain why the protection proposed is not appropriate for properties inside but not on the transition boundary.”

August 26, 2011

Planning: Are We That Perfect?

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

Submissions on the State Planning Ministerial Review close on August 31^st. Thus far Glen Eira has not produced any public documentation on its anticipated submission. That’s fine, except that the next council meeting is set for the 30^th August – one day prior to the closing date and there’s nothing in the agenda items for this important document. So once again the likely scenario is that officers will write the report but without full public discussion by councillors. Or perhaps no report from council will eventuate! In any event, the outcome will mean that councillors either will have had no input; or if there has been any input, then it is once again done behind closed doors. Without an agenda item, councillors can at least be saved from the embarrassment of rubber stamping something that is put under their noses at the last minute.

No so at other councils however. We discover that Bayside has included a ‘report’ on the draft submission at its last council meeting, thus providing plenty of time for debate and alterations. Kingston has also produced a draft six and a half page submission plus media releases and commentary by the Mayor. Surely it’s not too much to expect that in two months since the
announcement of the review and the establishment of the Panel, that something more than a link on council’s home page would eventuate?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates