VCAT has allowed a 6 storey development at the Coles supermarket site in Elsternwick. The decision allows for: 99 dwellings; basement carparking; 500 square metres of retail in a Residential zone 1 area, and a waiver of car parking requirements. Councillors rejected the application  – Officers recommended adoption.

The member states: “It is our conclusion that there is strong policy support for this development and council’s position that we do not need to push the boundaries for residential development when other issues are coming into play are not supported. We consider developing this site to its full potential will relieve development pressure in other parts of the city that are purely residential in nature and often covered by heritage controls.”

Policy, policy, policy. Again we ask: Are Glen Eira’s planning policies tight enough? What can and should be done? Why hasn’t it been done?

There is also one incredibly interesting sentence in the judgement – “Council raised an issue indicating that with regard to its required provision of additional housing that the rate that they are currently achieving housing growth is sufficient and that this site would put the level above what is required.”

In document after document from Council, residents are presented with the argument that thousands and thousands of new residents need to be provided for; that hundreds and hundreds of new dwellings are required. What’s happened to this argument? How can Council now claim after all the preceding propaganda that the rate is ‘sufficient’? Have we been sold a furphy all along?

Finally, there is the question of resident support from council. The previous Ripon Grove/Glen Huntly Road developers had Chris Canavan QC, Barnaby Chessell, barrister representing them. They also called ‘expert witnesses’ in Vaughn Connor (town planner of Contour); Mark Shepherd (Urban designer of David Loch) and Stuart McGurn (town planner of ERM). Council had Ian Pridgeon, solicitor of Russell Kennedy. In this latest supermarket decision, developers were represented by J. Gobbo QC; B. Chessell (solicitor). Experts were A. Biacsi (town planning); M. Sheppard (Urban design) and J. Walsh – Traffic. Council had C. Bowdern (town planner). Memories from the panel hearing for the C60?

In many major decisions, residents have every right to feel that Council does not represent their interests adequately enough and that the support they receive is negligible. Perhaps it is time that the playing field is levelled out and that Council ensures its resources are marshalled to properly defend cases and the community? If we can spend millions and millions on sporting venues, then surely a proper and sustained legal defence in major cases is also warranted?

PS: On the 24th November 2004 the following public question was asked by Robilliard – that is, prior to her becoming a councillor. As far as we know, no response was given, no action taken, and the current situation still persists.

“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?”

We highlight one recent VCAT judgement   where the application for a three storey extension to a shop and the waiving of car parking was accepted by the member. Council’s position was that the fronting car park should not be utilised as car parking for the development, and that there be onsite parking. 

This sounds reasonable – on the surface! Closer examination reveals the flaws in current planning policy and the agendas which guide such policy. In the end it’s all about leaving as many options open as possible for future development. Structure plans, height limits, and precinct car parking policies would in effect limit such development. The members judgement below makes this absolutely clear – 

“The Council’s opposition to the proposed rear shopfront also appears to be partly based on a potential future scenario where the car park may be redeveloped in an intensive manner. The concern is that any such redevelopment may be constrained by the fact that the shop has its only access and outlook to this area, and/or that any such future development will detrimentally affect the visibility and viability of the shop by effectively concealing it from view. While I can understand Council’s concerns, it is highly relevant that there are currently no plans to redevelop the car park.

There is no Structure Plan for the activity centre, no planning policy in the Planning Scheme which identifies this as a potential outcome, nor any Council-adopted strategy or other policy which nominates the public car park as a redevelopment site within the centre. It appears to me to be a case of the Council, somewhat understandably, wishing to ‘keep its options open’ but there is no evidence that this potential outcome will, in fact, materialise. The necessary strategic work has not been undertaken, and to constrain the redevelopment of neighbouring sites on the basis of something that ‘may’ happen some time in the future (in the absence of any policy or strategy) does not seem to me to be reasonable.” 

The following section also raises questions as to how well council prepares in its VCAT defence. The lack of logic, shown up by the member, speaks for itself –

“I was advised that the Council’s Building and Properties Department does not recognise any carriageway rights the review site may have over the laneway. It is noteworthy that the Certificate of Title identifies the laneway as a ‘Road’. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the review site does not have a legal right of carriageway over this road. Nonetheless, I perceive an inherent contradiction in the Council’s position on this issue. It is willing to support the proposal subject to the provision of four car spaces on the land (as I will detail in the following section of these reasons) and therefore acknowledges rights of carriageway over the laneway for the purposes of accessing these desired car spaces, but it is not willing to acknowledge these carriageway rights for pedestrians accessing the proposed shop. As I see it, the review site either enjoys carriageway rights over the laneway, or it does not. I was not referred to any document which states that the review site can rely on the abutting road (laneway) for vehicular access, but it cannot do so for pedestrian access”.

Conclusion? We merely repeat the member’s comments – ie. ‘necessary strategic work has not been undertaken’; ‘no evidence; ‘contradictory’ and so on……..

Our rumour was correct. An application is in for a fourteen (14) storey development almost next door to the 10 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick.

To view the full details of the plan, see: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1759&h=0

Lowlights include:

• Waiver of carparking and loading
• 109 residential apartments
• Developer’s traffic engineer states: “there were at least 162 vacant spaces within the survey area from 7pm onwards”. Other conclusions of note in regards to parking are:

A recent comment by ‘Ben’ has alerted us to the current advertising by Council of  an Amendment. The objective is to remove Heritage status from properties in Hawthorn Road and Seaview Avenue. We thought this was important enough to go back to the original Officer’s report and to analyse the content and ultimate recommendations.

The report was tabled at Council on 31^st August, 2010. The name of the officer under Enquiries was Jacquie Brasher, Strategic Planner. The motion put by Lipshutz and Pilling to remove Heritage Status  from all of the properties and to seek the Minister’s approval to advertise,  was accepted unanimously by Council with Esakoff declaring 3 ‘conflicts of interest’. We present our analysis below –

The original Heritage status was applied in 2003 under Amendment C19. Only the property in Hawthorn Road was listed in the original amendment although all properties were incorporated into the map overlay, hence there is an ‘anomaly’. Further, the owners of the Seaview properties were not informed at the time that they were now under the Heritage Overlay. Brasher recommends that as a consequence all 3 properties should be included in the Heritage status. 

The arguments are: 

• ‘Consultation’ only involved the 3 owners of the properties. Two ‘submissions’ were received in response. Brasher includes the points raised in these submissions – perhaps more extensively than other planning applications that come to council. Some of the issues raised include: development will be stymied; ‘building is not sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated so will involve ‘substantial costs’ to ‘rectify’; the design does not ‘cater for the needs…of modern day living’; it’s a Housing Diversity area so will ultimately ‘detract, and demean any perceived value’ of the property; heritage listing detracts from housing needs of the area;  
• Brasher then posits the argument that changes may still be made especially to the inside of buildings hence “the application of the Heritage Overlay may restrain but does not completely prohibit changes to the building. The building can be altered to cater for the needs of modern living”. 

The final section of the report includes the current Council Heritage Advisor’s comments, as well as a report from the original advisor (2000) which resulted in the properties’ listing. Some of these comments are: 

“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). 

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. 

It is considered that this individually significant building at 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Sea View Street should be included in the Heritage Overlay. Therefore an amendment to modify the schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include 2A and 2B Sea View Street at HO114 is warranted and should be commenced as soon as possible to rectify the anomaly.” 

Andrew Ward, 2000 wrote: “They (the properties) are aesthetically significant (Criterion E) as uncommon examples of residential buildings undertaken in a manner directly influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, comparing in Glen Eira only with the house at no.45 Balaclava Road but demonstrating that the influence of his work was still being felt in Melbourne during the late Inter War years”. 

QUESTIONS: 

• What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
• Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
• Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
• Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties? 
• Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors. Not only do residents need clear arguments and logic, but so do those individuals who apply for permits. Consistency, logic, and comprehensiveness in considering all issues is what is needed. We will be following this issue closely.

Fired up over McKinnon ‘monstrosity’

1 Mar 11 @ 05:00pm by Jessica Bennett

This period house could be replaced by 25 apartments.

RESIDENTS are gearing up to fight the development of a three-storey “monstrosity” in McKinnon.

A 25-apartment complex with a 30-space basement car park is proposed for the corner of Nicholson and Lees streets, near McKinnon Rd. A substantial old house on the 1480sq m block would have to be demolished.

Glen Eira Council has received more than 80 objections.

One resident, Belinda Clark, said 70 objectors attended a community meeting about the development. She said they feared a significant rise in traffic in surrounding streets and a strain on local infrastructure. Residents were also concerned about impacts on their quality of life and privacy, as most homes in the street were only one or two storeys.

“This is inappropriate on all levels and will set a bad precedent for other developments in the area,” Ms Clark said. “We appreciate the space may be developed some day and we are not against progress, but not like this.”

McKinnon real estate agent Eric Cohen said developers were attacking Glen Eira suburbs. “They are coming in street by street and trying to set up high-density housing that is not suitable for this area,” Mr Cohen said. “Developers are not concerned about the repercussions for the neighbourhood. There needs to be some conscious decisions made about this by the developers and the council.”

Developer Peter Lewis said the application conformed with the requirements of Rescode. “I am of the view that McKinnon is nothing short of a great suburb and the design as prepared would, I believe, be nothing short of the best development that the area has ever seen,” Mr Lewis said.

The council will hold a planning conference this month before the application is considered at the April 5 council meeting.