We’ve commented numerous times on the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and its deficiencies and loopholes. In this post we pinpoint exactly why the scheme fails to do what it is supposed to do – ie provide a detailed and comprehensive blueprint for the future – a vision that has been developed in CONJUNCTION with residents and which has the full support of the community. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme is ill conceived, poorly articulated and does not benefit the majority of residents. As an integrated planning (as opposed to town planning) document it is a shambles. Here are our reasons why –

Quote from Ian Wood, President Save Our Suburbs:

“Found this recently: The Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy 2005 was endorsed by Council in March 2005. This strategy is yet to be incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. [http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1641&h=1] [last updated 7 Sept.2010]!!!!! How bloody long does it take DPCD [Department of Planning & Community Development] to approve this stuff????”

COMMENT – If this is true, here are the likely reasons for the Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy (GEACS) not  being incorporated i.e. not accepted by the Planning Minister:

• The 2005 Strategy is inconsistent with Melbourne 2030 on the status of Glen Huntly;
• The 2005 Strategy proposes no Structure Plans;
• The 2005 Strategy has no impact statement on Centres due to population and housing growth;
• The 2005 Strategy has no relevance to transport issues like congestion and level crossings;
• The 2005 Strategy has not worked through its implications for the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Glen Eira PS) and Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) established prior to 2005;
• The 2005 Strategy identified 52 shopping centres, but the MSS mentions only 17 centres;
• In March 2005 Councillors who endorsed the GEACS were – Bury, Erlich, Grosbard, Hyams, Martens, Marwick,  and Sapir.  Esakoff, and Goudge opposed it.
• In July 2006 the issue of the Glen Huntly status was deliberated and Councillors voted against developing a Structure Plan to determine its status. Councillors that unanimously rejected the Planning Minister’s suggestion were: Ashmor, Esakoff, Feldman, Lipshutz, Robilliard, Spaulding, Staikos, Tang, and Whiteside;
• LPPF Section 21.03 Vision Strategic Framework states – “The Glen Eira Community Plan identifies the corporate direction of Council over a 3 year period (2001-2004)” and from 1996 “Glen Eira 2020 identifies a long-term vision for the municipality over the next 20 years. Glen Eira 2020 identifies a desired future for the City and was developed through analysis of trends and consultation with the community”. This is a back to the future Vision. Where is the new updated and accepted by the community, Community Plan?;
• LPPF Section 21.04 Housing & Residential Development – extensive & detailed to develop 20% of Glen Eira, whereas only 8% development is needed. No justification for this course of action is given;
• LPPF Section 21.06 Business – policy focus to improve Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie and nowhere else. That is in spite of the population and housing growth everywhere in Glen Eira;
• LPPF Section 21.08 Institutional & Non-residential uses in Residential Areas – policy focus only on schools/hospitals. Nothing on “medical centres, churches, childcare and kindergartens”. Purpose of this policy is to “encourage uses that retain housing stock”;
•  LPPF Section 21.09 Public Uses / Community Facilities – general and non-specific with this telling statement “With the corporatisation of a number of government utilities it is no longer necessary for sites owned by private utility company to be included in a Public Use Zone”. MRC was structured in 1990s to utilize this argument admirably;
• LPPF Section 21.09 again “The plan also examines properties that are Council owned or zoned for public uses in order to determine the opportunities for each property to maximize the potential return to the community.” Can anyone explain this gobbledygook?
• LPPF Section 21.12 Transport – Short and sweet. No problems. Forget about complaining;
• LPPF Section 21.13 Open Space – states the shortage of Open Space. No mention of the Crown Land provisions at the Caulfield Racecourse and no strategy to increase the amount of Open Space. Accept the reality!
• LPPF Section 21.14 Monitoring & Review – “A review of this planning scheme will be undertaken at least every three years”. The last Review accepted by the planning Minister occurred in 2004, gazetted with permanent control 27 May 2004. No acceptable review has taken place in 2007 or 2010;
• LPPF Section 22.02 Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy – extensive & detailed description of how “medical centres, schools, parks, churches, childcare, and kindergartens [are placed and located] within residential areas”. No objective or policy analysis as to whether we need more or less of such community facilities and why we may need it. No factual information and data to support the objectives and policies. One of the objectives states “To encourage proposals that retain the existing housing stock within the municipality”. Increasing the stock is certainly retaining it;
• LPPF Section 22.04 Commercial Centres Policy – Deals with Business Zone. Short and sweet. Only Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie are to develop their retailing space. The following telling statement summarises the Policy “Retail and commercial floorspace is at a level that currently serves the needs of the community. Additional floorspace must be closely monitored ensuring established centres are not weakened”. Can anyone explain how does the support of Caulfield Village with its proposed 35,000 square metres additional commercial floorspace maintain consistency with this Policy?
• LPPF Section 22.05 Urban Villages Policy – Deals extensively and in detail with the 3 Urban Villages of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, whose Structure Plans were developed in June 1999. However, they never followed the guidelines of Melbourne 2030, in particular in regards to Community Consultation Process. For this reason those Plans are described in Structure Plans Status document as Other Spatial Plans. Essentially those plans have never had even a modicum of acceptance by the residents of those Villages. Each one of them has now got Residents Groups up in arms as to the way those areas are being developed 

All the information on LPPF and the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is available on line www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/gleneira/home.html . 

The question arises what makes for a good Planning Scheme. The answer is very simple. Any area plan affecting residents should have a modicum of support from people living in those areas. There is not one shred of evidence that this has happened in Glen Eira. The six point Community Consultation is a tick the box approach to satisfy the legislation and nothing else.  

Yet some stakeholders have benefited from the great development that has occurred in Glen Eira. The question arises who are those beneficiaries and who on the Council has also benefitted if there is no general support from the community?

Last chance to have your say…

9 Feb 11 @ 12:41pm by Jenny Ling

The site of the proposed new six-storey development in Elsternwick.

RESIDENTS have until Friday (February 11) to have their say on revised plans for a multi-million dollar revamped Coles supermarket and apartments in Elsternwick.

Last year 66 residents objected to the original plans which included three buildings of up to seven storeys, 137 apartments, a new supermarket, shops and offices on Glenhuntly Rd, between Orrong Rd and Beavis St.

The original plan was rejected by Glen Eira Council and was appealed to VCAT last year.

Glen Eira councillors will form their view on the new plans, which include one six-storey building with 99 units and a supermarket, on February 22 before a three-day VCAT hearing on March 7.

Full details of the plans can be viewed at VCAT or Glen Eira Council. (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=190&h=0#BM8474)

At tonight’s Bayside Council meeting, councillors will decide on the draft Bayside Housing Strategy as well as the draft Information Sheets which will form the first part of community consultation on their Planning Scheme Review. We’ve decided to highlight this strategy since it stands in stark contrast to the Glen Eira approach to planning. There are several things that readers need to note:

• The Glen Eira Housing and Residential Strategy dates back a decade. It’s genesis is even earlier. Yet the amendment which this precipitated still stands. The jargon includes ‘structure plans’ – yet no structure plans have ever been devised.
• With the C25 amendment, Glen Eira earmarked 20% of the municipality as ripe for development.  The Planning Scheme [clause 24.04(1)] states: “Over the next 20 years, the City will undergo moderate population growth and will see a continued decline in household sizes”. This has not been adequately reviewed to determine whether the assumption still holds a decade later. Glen Eira has in fact already outstripped its projected population figures. Yet, the consequences of such a policy are rampant high density living in more than 20% of the municipality. According to the 2009/10 annual Report (page 71), only 40% of new dwellings are being located in the so called ‘housing diversity areas’. Instead of protecting neighbourhoods, there is now basically open slather.
• Glen Eira’s approach is reactive – that is, developers submit proposals, rather than developers having to fit in with clearly designated Structure Plans that govern growth, and development
• Glen Eira’s policies are piecemeal. There is a real failure to fully integrate, and take account of such basics as: ESD, Open Space; health and wellbeing; etc.

By way of comparison to the above points, we would like readers to note that the Bayside strategy works in completely different, and we contend, better ways. Firstly, their starting point has always been carefully researched and developed structure plans for activity centres that have been endorsed by the community following bone fide consultation. Bayside also concentrates on population growth, not just housing stock, and finally the imperative to incorporate community sentiments via their Community Plan is given major prominence. Glen Eira of course does not have a ‘real’ community plan. It only has a Council Plan. The Bayside diagram below illustrates the interconnection of all these facets –

Your comments are welcome.

Recent announcements by both Glen Eira Council and the State Government need exploring and the asking of many important questions. We are referring to the Grade Separation in North Rd., Ormond. This month’s Glen Eira News, carries this small announcement on page 3 –

“VicRoads has advised Council that the Dandenong Rail Corridor Project is investigating short-term and long-term measures to improve the operation of the roads intersecting the Dandenong railway line. Community engagement is likely to occur in the first half of 2011.  

VicRoads has also advised Council that the new Government’s policy includes planning for grade separation projects including North Road, Ormond (project cost $150 million, $12 million allocated in the first term) and Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena (project cost $150 million, $2.5 million allocated in the first term)”. (Notice the order? – a case of let’s bury this as much as we can?)

Last year, the Leader’s ‘Red Spot Survey’ on level crossings had the Murrumbeena crossing as the worst in Metropolitan Melbourne. Glen Eira Council has for the past few years also joined in the chorus for upgrading of the Murrumbeena crossing (See Glen Eira News, front page, September, 2008). In a Media Release dated 22^nd November, 2010 we find this: “Coalition Leader Ted Baillieu has announced if elected Premier this Saturday, he will commit an initial $379 million to fix the problems at eight metropolitan level crossings, including North Road, Ormond and Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena. Glen Eira Mayor Cr Steven Tang said the separation of local level crossings is a perennial issue that has been most recently highlighted by Murrumbeena Road’s number one position in the RACV and Leader Community Newspaper’s Redspot Survey. “

All well and good! But this doesn’t explain why, when Murrumbeena has always been in the spotlight, we suddenly have the Ormond project receiving $12 million dollars in the first term, compared with only $2.5 million dollars for the Murrumbeena site!!!!! What is going on? Why have the priorities suddenly been switched around?  Are there any backroom deals going on that the community knows nothing about?

After being alerted by a comment from Streuth we’ve done a little digging regarding IKEA’s plans for expansion and development in Melbourne. Streuth cited a job ad by IKEA, where the location was listed as ‘Ormond’. We  have also found other IKEA plans on the drawing boards. If IKEA is moving into Ormond then residents need answers to the following questions:

• What does this mean for the Caulfield Village development?
• What does this mean for local streets and neighbourhoods when Council doesn’t even possess a Integrated Transport Plan as part of its Planning Scheme?
• Who knows anything about this, and when did they know?
• Does anyone stand to make a profit here?
• Has there been collusion between the bureaucrats/councillors and the State Government – all done behind closed doors?

In the end, any such development will only provide further conclusive proof of what a total shambles the Glen Eira Planning Scheme really is. No structure plans; no transport plan; no public realm policy. A case of the ‘secret society’ at work?

One of the most important functions that any council has, especially in these ‘pro development’ times, is the power to refuse, or to grant a permit. We’ve previously pointed out how the Glen Eira delegations to officers in effect removes many powers from councillors (as a council) and redirects them to select officers.  We’ve also pointed out how this council differs fundamentally from the delegations and planning committee rules that other councils see fit to impose. But there’s worse! The very language that Glen Eira uses in its delegations is deliberately vague, obtuse, and hence allows subjective judgements rather than stringent and explicit policy to provide the framework for decision making. The end result can only be the further erosion of Council powers. We refer in particular to Section 61 (1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act which covers delegates power to grant a permit. Glen Eira proposes the following ‘conditions and limitations’ –

“the exercise of this power is limited to the following circumstances:

i)               There has been no objections lodged; and

ii)             The application/amending plan is generally in compliance with existing policy or guidelines;

iii)           The application has not been referred to the Council or the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) for determination

The power cannot be exercised where:

i)               an application is for use of land for a brothel; or

ii)             An application is for use of land for gaming machines; or

iii)           An application is for extension of time for tennis court illumination beyond 10,00pm; or

iv)            A proposal involves dwellings exceeding one level, except where the delegate is DCD, MTP or MStatP who may grant a permit allowing a double storey development.

The permit must not be inconsistent with a cultural heritage management plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.”

Readers should take careful note of the above bolded and underlined words and phrases. Exactly what does ‘generally’ mean? If there are 10 conditions, will someone still get a permit if they only meet 5, or 6, or 7 of those conditions? Thus subjectivity on the part of the officer is enough it seems. As to the issue of double storey developments, compare the above with the Port Phillip version. Implicit in the latter’s delegation conditions is the acknowledgement that councillors will ACTUALLY KNOW about all applications – that they are informed. Can we say the same about the processes at work in Glen Eira? And of course, in Port Phillip and numerous other councils but NOT Glen Eira, there is the ubiquitous ‘councillor call in’ principle stated clearly again and again – “Decision to grant a permit where the application involves a two storey extension and a ‘line of sight’ principle is involved and the proposal does not meet the prescription but does, in the officers view, meet the performance approach set out in the Heritage Policy and unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.”  

It’s really time that councillors took control of this council and fulfilled their fiduciary duties to the community.