GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

October 13, 2011

News Flash: Look What’s Turned Up!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments

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.

October 13, 2011

More Secrecy!

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

We’ve commented before on the secrecy which surrounds the Glen Eira submission to the Ministerial Planning Scheme Review. Council has no plan to release their submission to the general public as revealed in the response to a public question on Tuesday night. The submission will merely be sent to the questioner! We therefore assume that it will not be published on the website, there will be no discussion in any open forum, and nor will we be informed of any responses to this submission. Secrecy for whatever reason must be maintained!

By way of contrast, we provide links below to the following submissions from various councils – none of which appear to have had any problem with tabling their drafts at full council meetings, nor in making their submissions freely available to ratepayers. Glen Eira just continues along in its merry way completely out of step with other councils and with no regard for openness, transparency and accountability.

Port Phillip: Report_2_-_Attachment_1_-_Submission_to_the_Victorian_Planning_System_Ministerial_Advisory_Committee

Stonnington: 29-08-11 Vic Plan System Review – Attach 1 submission

Kingston: (from minutes) http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Files/PublicAgendaOrdinaryCouncil22August2011.pdf

Bayside: (from minutes) https://gleneira.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bayside-submission.pdf

There are countless other councils that have published their submissions, but the above should suffice for the moment.

September 28, 2011

One (Valid) Interpretation: Minimal Change Areas

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off

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.

September 26, 2011

Submission – But Not For Public Consumption?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments

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.

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only – please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates