At Tuesday night’s council meeting Magee, with righteous indignation, declared  in relation to the application at 848 Centre Road – ‘a terrible decision, so VCAT shame on you’!! (Council’s version of events is printed in the minutes). So once again, VCAT becomes the culprit bringing down decisions that councillors bemoan and residents suffer from. 

Let us state quite clearly that we do not endorse, condone, or in anyway support VCAT’s decisions. Nor do we blithely accept council’s version of events! It is exceedingly easy, and politically savvy, to throw up one’s hands and to lay ALL the blame at the feet of VCAT and the State government as this council has repeatedly done. Yet, when one looks closely at the various judgements a different picture emerges. Listed below are extracts from the Centre Rd judgement. We especially wish to highlight: 

1. The member’s repeated remarks about council’s failure to provide ‘evidence’ and,
2. The ‘failure’ of council to get its act together
3. Questions as to the ‘preparedness’ of council in presenting cases 

We cite directly from the judgement: 

“Neither the Council’s Traffic Engineers or VicRoads raised any concerns regarding the likely traffic generation or any potential safety issues at the intersection. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that removal of the four dwellings is justified on traffic safety grounds.  

The Council submitted that the areas should be increased in size to 60m² in order to accommodate sufficient landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. This view, however, is not supported by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who, in their referral comments, raised no concerns regarding the opportunities for landscaping throughout the site. 

I also note that the Standard relates to the following Objective: To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.

1. 20.           Further, the associated decision guidelines refer to the useability of the open space area, its orientation to the street and the sun, and the availability or access to public/communal open space. As the Applicant correctly pointed out, there is no mention of landscaping in either the Objective or decision guidelines.
2. The Council quite fairly conceded that the proposed courtyard areas are adequate for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, and I agree. I can find no support in Clause 55.05-4 for an increase in the courtyard sizes. In my opinion, the proposed open space areas are of dimension and area that are appropriate to this development. I agree with the comments of the earlier Tribunal that some flexibility can be exercised in assessing the open space provision against the Standard, given the apartment style of the development.
3. The courtyard spaces are able to accommodate landscaping, including appropriately sized canopy trees. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that areas of at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of approximately 5.0 metres are unable to support adequate planting to enhance the amenity of the development and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.
4. 30.           From my reading of the documents provided by the Council, notably the referral comments of the Traffic Engineer, it is evident that the 6 metre width reflects a desired outcome – rather than one which is necessary to ensure that the driveway can function in an acceptable manner. I note the Council’s submission that the increased width is required to comply with an Objective of Clause 55.03-9. I was not provided with any evidence to the effect that compliance with Standard B14, and with the requirements of VicRoads, would not allow this Objective to be met.
5. 31.           I consider that a fair and objective assessment of this issue, based on the information before me, must lead to the conclusion that the proposed 5 metre width is acceptable. Had I been presented with evidence which demonstrated the width to be inadequate to allow for the passing of vehicles, then I may have formed a different view.

 Conclusion:

1. What do such decisions reveal about the current planning scheme and its inadequacies?
2. What do such decisions reveal about the adequacy of council’s presentations at VCAT?
3. What does all this say about adequately protecting residents?
4. What does all this say about the recent planning scheme review?

Front Page – Bayside Leader.

Plan up in the air

It is with utter disbelief that we read the following Officers’ Recommendation for the 10 storey proposed development in Ripon Grove, Elsternwick located in today’s agenda items –

Never has there been anything so vague, so ambiguous, and so pro-development as this report. How can any planner worth his salt recommend 3 to 10 stories – either it is 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. or 10!  Instead we have:

“It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 10 storeys in height represents a signifcant change. In considering the merits of the proposed 10 storey height, a number of contextual factors must be considered: The subject site contains several allotments adding up to an area of 3,450sqm. This represents a unique and major opportunity for significant redevelopment in this centre.”

A little further on, there is this gem: “Having regard to the site’s context and policy considerations, the 10 storey scale of the proposal is considered acceptable. It is a significant but policy-appropriate change of character that ought to be expected in this location and can be absorbed in this location given the contextual factors. A building of high architectural quality will be achieved. However, it is considered that some aspects of the proposal are inconsistent with the urban context of the site and will need refinement.”

As far as parking goes, we then have: “The Planning Scheme requires 358 car spaces for the combined shop and residential uses. The Planning Scheme acknowledges that the parking rates for each use can be waived or reduced. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department considers that a more realistic figure of 178 spaces for the proposal reflects anticipated car parking demand”.

We urge all residents to carefully read this report. It will soon be coming to your neighbourhood! If councillors do not reject this report, ask numerous questions about its findings and recommendations, then as Whitlam once said, ‘nothing will save them’!!!

The State Government has just released another $8.3 million to assist Councils and the private sector to ‘drive growth and change in activity centres’  through the Expert Assistance Program. The money available through grants is designed to provide: “specialist expert advice to assist councils to finalise and implement structure plans for principal, major and specialised activity centres in metropolitan Melbourne. This is in addition to the provision of specialist expert advice to assist councils to finalise and implement structure plans for Principal, Major and Specialised Activity Centres in metropolitan Melbourne”.

Not only is hard cash available, but the necessary “knowledge and expertise that is hindering the completion or implementation of strategic planning or structure planning work.” Assistance is provided in the following areas:

· environmental planning
· statutory planning implementation
· development facilitation
· transport planning
· community consultation
· property development
· built form / urban design
· social planning
· public realm planning

Currently 40 councils are already the beneficiaries of grants – but not Glen Eira it seems. We can only wonder at the repeated opportunities this council lets slip by and the motives behind such actions. The results of the Planning Scheme Review have again shut out all possibility for long term strategic and comprehensive planning that would make Glen Eira eligible for any of the above. 

(All quotations come from the State government’s website: http://www.land.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/7020B1BB206F6AC6CA2572FA00192772EB42DA4324DA309FCA2572E4000D84ED

We have received a slightly edited version of a letter that was sent by a resident to all Councillors early this year in regard to planning in general, and the planning scheme review in particular. We note, that only 3 councillors bothered to respond to this letter. We further note, that of all the comments made, only 1 even received token comment in the final planning scheme review.

I wish to bring to your attention some matters relating to planning in Glen Eira and seek your support in addressing these issues in this term of council.

You will be aware that the Save Carnegie Action Group has been active in Carnegie over recent years, trying hard to retain some character and residential amenity in a neighbourhood under intense development pressure.  I will continue to work to ensure my children have an opportunity to grow up in the type of suburb and neighbourhood that made us want to purchase our home 30 years ago.

I have major concerns about the inadequacies of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and how these inadequacies have offered residents of my neighbourhood little or no protection against inappropriate high-density development.

I am familiar with the planning scheme, Melbourne 2030 and now Melbourne @5m.  I am aware that it is easy to blame state policies whenever development proposals are put forward.  But it is and always has been state policy linked heavily to councils planning scheme that have threatened and continue to threaten the character and community of Carnegie. Council always states that state policy drives the planning scheme but many other councils have planning responses that more heavily protect residents.

You need to look after residents across the whole municipality on planning matters, not only those people who have been fortunate enough to live in ‘minimal change’ areas.

Twenty percent of the Glen Eira municipality has been designated for high density development with little protection of residential amenity, the other 80% get far more protection.  Why are not all property owners being treated equally?

I want you as councilors to see ensure that the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is rewritten and redeveloped in consultation with the community so that we can preserve and maintain some of the great features of this, and other neighbourhoods across the city.

Some points I want to raise with you:

1. Glen Eira has not prepared structure plans for any of the 5 urban village (activity centres) within its boundaries
2. The plans that have been prepared have the planning work dated as 2000 – TEN YEARS AGO! – Good planning cannot take place when the plans and consultative processes leading to the plans are over 10 years old
3. The 10 year old plans are no longer relevant to the city and certainly not relevant to Carnegie
4. C25 contains no where near enough details to guide development of most of the Carnegie neighbourhoods
5. There is no rational thinking behind the designation of urban village (activity centre) boundaries in Carnegie – with areas better suited to higher density development being ignored and streets with single storey family homes designated as appropriate to 3 (and higher) storey buildings
6. Unless the planning scheme is changed council will not be able to stop inappropriate high density development as the scheme, as it is now, gives developers the full go ahead and gives little protection to existing land owners
7. Glen Eira already has a very dense population for a ‘middle ring’ municipality – the density per square kilometre of Glen Eira’s population sits more closely with inner ring municipalities rather than middle ring municipalities, based on population figures from 2006

1. Given the already high density of population in the city, why are we under pressure to increase this density?
2. Glen Eira has a similar population density to the Cities of Yarra and Port Phillip  – why has there been such a ‘planning push’ to increase the density of our city any further?
3. The only winners from high density development are the developers – the community loses on every front including:
   • Loss of amenity
   • Increase traffic in our local area
   • Increased on street parking
   • Increasing numbers on an already overstretched public transport system
   • More cars on local roads with increasingly lengthy waits at railway crossings – sometimes the traffic along Darling Road heading south can be backed up almost to Waverley Road’ at peak hour
   • Loss of diversity in the Carnegie shopping strip – nearly every vacant shop is being redeveloped as a café or Asian supermarket
   • Continual noise and disruption from construction works
4. Carnegie is not suited to be an activity centre – we have no public open space in the activity centre – this is a factor considered as very important in state planning guidelines for activity centres but was totally ignored when Glen Eira council nominated Carnegie as an Urban Village.
5.  The size of blocks in the Urban Village in Carnegie are quite small, with most having 50’ frontages and being 122’ deep,  so intense development really pushes what is reasonable and acceptable on small blocks and challenges residential amenity when high density development is located next to residential properties.
6. The inappropriate and amenity-compromised outcomes of high density development in a low density housing area  

What you as elected representatives need to do is: 

• Immediately review the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, particularly C25 – genuine review that includes detailed consultation with residents 
• Undertake planning with a focus on the ‘public realm’ rather than a singular focus on housing – Carnegie needs a new planning scheme that will result in a neighbourhood with vitality, viability and vibrancy – this is not what is happening at the moment 
• Oppose inappropriate development that results in 3 (or more) storey buildings being constructed next to single residential dwellings 
• Limit the height of developments so as to protect residential amenity 
• Continue to challenge the recommendations of council’s planners who often get it wrong and present incorrect information in their reports to council 
• Listen to what the community wants and offer us some protection to our residential amenity, our property values and the values and character of our neighbourhoods

This post asks the simple question – why is Glen Eira Council always the ‘odd man out’? What benefits does the community derive from this idiosyncratic approach to planning? We proffer the following information so that residents can compare and answer the above: