GE Planning


This is what council is recommending for a planning permit at 9-13 Derby Road, Caulfield East. Instead of 15 storeys we are supposed to swallow 12 storeys in a heritage precinct surrounded by 1 and 2 storey significant heritage buildings. This is the second application by this developer. The first was for 18 storeys and 158 student accommodation cubby holes. It was rejected by both council and VCAT. So we now have this new attempt for 15 storeys and 49 short term accommodation units. Council’s ‘solution’ is to lop off 3 storeys and reduce the number of units.

What is particularly disturbing about the accompanying officer’s report is the failure to fully acknowledge the comments made in the original VCAT decision PLUS the fact that council’s own urban planning advice together with the Planning Scheme requirements of the Phoenix Precinct are totally ignored. The only detail we get for the proposed southern setbacks is this vague sentence –

Setbacks have also been provided from the southern boundary to allow for future development of the adjoining site to the south. 

The report also relies heavily on a throwaway line in the 2017 VCAT judgement that a 10-14 storey development MIGHT be appropriate for the western site. This of course raises the issue of why council is determining applications on the basis of what VCAT MIGHT SAY, or what it has stated in the past. Planning decisions are meant to be determined on an individual case basis and NOT what might happen at VCAT!

More infuriating is that readers are not told that the member repeatedly stated that heritage and the low rise surrounding buildings should be the focal point of any proposal. More importantly we are not told that when council attended the 2017 VCAT hearing, their position at that time was (and we quote from the judgement) – The council felt something in the order of ten to twelve storeys would be acceptable provided that the tallest part of a new building above the existing level is located towards the rear of the site. (para.58) 

Thus over a year ago, council was prepared to accept a 12 storey building in its heritage area. Nothing has changed then. We are simply provided with a fait accompli.

Readers might be interested in the following statements from the 2017 VCAT decision. The full decision is available at – http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1768.html 

A predominantly Edwardian shopping centre associated with the Caulfield Racecourse and having a distinctive urban form determined by its short length and accentuated by a double line of electric tramway. Its architectural significance is established by the diversity of its street architecture and railway station and is enhanced by their substantially intact state.

Council’s Planning Scheme/Phoenix Precinct states:

Encourage development no higher than the predominant existing height in Derby Road  and retain the scale and form of places in the Derby Road heritage overlay area

Encourage the design of new buildings in a contemporary style that respects the height, scale, rhythm of and proportions of the heritage buildings when adjoining buildings are located in a HO (Clause 22.06)

Member’s comments:

Paragraph 78 – While the building complies with the broad objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework and the Phoenix Precinct, we have decided that the building fails because of its height and detailed design execution. We are not persuaded that 18 storeys (or 19 storeys to the rear lane) is the appropriate height. We think that while the heritage fabric along  Derby Road  is of local heritage significance it is sufficiently intact and significant to temper the design response.

We are not persuaded that inclusion of the site within the Phoenix Precinct and its proximity to Caulfield train station are sufficient reasons to entirely disregard the local policy. The Phoenix Precinct is very large and has considerable development capacity. Not every site has to be maximised.

Paragraph 82 – We also think that at the height proposed, the tower will be visually dominant from important vantage points, including the station entry and the rail line itself. We think the building will be very prominent from the station entrance and from vantage points along Sir John Monash Drive, to a much greater extent than envisaged by planning policy.

Paragraph 93 – We are persuaded that the tower is too tall, and would result in an excessively bulky appearance that would be out of balance with the scale of  Derby Road . We are satisfied that with a significant setback from  Derby Road  and subject to an appropriate architectural expression, a tower higher than the existing form should be acceptable but scaled so as to reduce its visual impact from key vantage points.

Paragraph 101& 2 –  We encourage the council to complete the necessary strategic planning/urban design work to provide a coherent framework for decisions on new developments in this area.

  • Until that work is completed, we think a preferred approach to this site is to retain the two storey built form along the Derby road  frontage, a four to five storey podium with the setback to Derby Street increasing with height, and significantly more than the five metres proposed in this application. We think the tallest built form at the western end of the site could be in the order of ten to fourteen storeys, depending on architectural expression.

PS: An explanation is also required as to the following:

1. Council’s online register states that it received the above application on the 30th May, 2018.

2. The Urbis planning report is dated August 2018 AND IT IS FOR A 13 STOREY DEVELOPMENT AND NOT A 15 STOREY DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED.

3. Thus why the difference and how much faith can be placed in council’s online register? Or is it simply that there has been an amended permit put in? If so, then this should be highlighted? If not, is it council playing funny buggers with the facts?

We’ve uploaded the following from the August 2018 Urbis report –

13

 

Councillors’ performance tonight in unanimously accepting the East Virginia structure plan signals how little these individuals are willing to stand up for residents and for common sense.

Magee’s grandstanding has become habitual plus lacking all logic when he can begin his statements with –‘I will be speaking against the motion but voting for it’!!!!

Hyams continues with the old arguments that this is only the first step in the process blah, blah, blah and then spending 9 minutes on regurgitating what the documents contain but in a totally uncritical way.

The only ‘news’ that came out of Hyams’ mouth was the naming of the individuals involved in the Community Reference Group – for the very first time. How on earth a COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP can function without anyone knowing who they are is beyond belief. If their role was to represent the community, then it is incumbent upon council to ensure that the wider community knows who these individuals are so that they may be contacted and ideas exchanged. But that is not the way this council functions. No agendas or minutes of these meetings have ever been published. We don’t even know how many meetings occurred. As for the individuals named what is their background? How many are associated with the development industry? How many were tapped on the shoulder and asked to apply? We note, and with no intent to cast aspersions on these individuals, that the vast majority have never asked a public question, have probably never attended a council meeting and certainly are not active on social media. Thus on what basis was this community reference group selected? For all the talk about transparency and accountability the way these Community Reference Groups have been set up and function is anything but transparent and accountable. The $64 question of course remains – how many suggestions made by OUR community reference group saw its way into this final structure plan? We would hazard a guess that very little produced the desired outcomes.

As a further example of council’s failure to address the gaping holes in this structure plan we present one speaker’s question (and statements) to council from this meeting. It is significant we believe that she received not a single word from anyone in response to her comments! So much for ‘public participation’. The only saving grace of tonight’s meeting was that it only lasted about an hour!!!!!!!

Council has released the proposed structure plan for Virginia Estate. The above map indicates the (indicative/preferred) height limits for the various precincts.

There is much in this set of documents that require comment. However, due to the paucity of detail, we can only surmise what will eventuate. One thing however is abundantly clear – once this structure plan and its accompanying Comprehensive Development Plan is passed by council, sent off to a Planning Panel, and it enters the Planning Scheme via its associated Amendment then community involvement and input will NOT EXIST. There will not be any objector review rights in exactly the same way that occurred with the Caulfield Village projects. Council is not even bound, according to the Schedule for this Comprehensive Development zone, to notify any resident. Hence, there are no guarantees that what is presented in these documents will be the final outcome.

Below we feature some points from the various documents which reveal the ‘wriggle room’ allowed to the developer.

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

  • Building heights are NOT MANDATORY! They are ‘preferred maximum heights’.
  • ‘SHOULD’ instead of ‘MUST’ dominates throughout all of the built form specifications. And we all know what ‘should’ means!!!!!!
  • For all the talk about rehashing the Open Space Strategy and considering overshadowing at the winter solstice, we still get the following – – Development must not cast any shadow on more than 75% of the area of any public open space described in Plan 2 of the incorporated CDP between 11am and 2pm on 21 June the winter solstice.
  • What is totally and deliberately misleading is the following breakdown of residential versus commercial/retail components of the site. The only areas specified as NON residential are the buildings to go along North Road, and East Boundary Road. All the rest will have residential dwellings built above the shops/offices located on the ground or several floors above. To therefore claim that only 4.92 hectares of the entire site is set aside for ‘residential’ is inaccurate and unacceptable.

THE SCHEDULE 

  • Exemption from notice and review

An application for the use of land is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act if it is generally consistent with the incorporated CDP. 

  • An assessment of the likely traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, including the ability of the Cobar Street / North Road / Crosbie Road to function effectively without signalisation. This is to include an assessment of the precinct’s existing and the proposed development traffic generation during peak AM and PM period. Where the traffic generation is expected to exceed 2,000 vehicles accessing the site in the PM peak, the Cobar Street site access intersection should be implemented. What this means is that the developer does not have to do anything UNTIL they determine that Cobar Street has 2000 cars travelling along it each day. Thus first get the permit, build and then worry about traffic and safety!

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 

According to the figures provided in this document we are supposed to accept that the developer will fork out $60 million in infrastructure improvements to the site of which $16m will be for community improvements. What we query is given the flooding and drainage issues, plus contamination, that $1,199,835 comes anywhere near what the cost will be to ameliorate the potential for flooding and ensure contamination is eliminated.

On the positive side, council will get a ‘community hub’, a sports pavilion, and some open space. These will only come into operation however when ‘population growth is deemed to require the infrastructure’. So once again it is build first and then worry about the necessary infrastructure after the fact.

Even more concerning is the community infrastructure levy assigned to each dwelling of $831.65. Legislation allows a maximum of $1,150. Thus Gillon is getting a discount of $318.35 per dwelling. In total that amounts to just under a million dollars. Other councils have successfully exacted this full cost for major developments. Not so in Glen Eira!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS 

  • Residents are presented with a 58 page Structure Plan that is so bereft of detail that it beggars belief. Of these 58 pages there are 22 that are frontispieces or pages with pretty pictures. The rest is primarily nothing more than vague motherhood statements such as this nonsense for ‘Transport’ – Explore innovative approaches to car parking and traffic management
  • No indication is provided as to how traffic and parking will be handled. Will we have subterranean car parks 3 levels down in a flooding area? Or will we have high rise car parks? Why is current traffic analysis focusing almost exclusively on PM peak periods?
  • If the proposed school is next door to 3 storey building then how high will this school be? – 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys? And will the 1.2 hectares be sufficient to provide open space for up to 1150 students – or will they be expected to utilise fully existing open space next door?
  • The Section 173 agreement between developers and council will remain ‘secret’ according to the officer report recommendation – ie Direct officers to not commence exhibition unless the appropriate Section 173 Agreements are signed and executed by all parties and a summary of the purpose of the document is exhibited along with the planning controls. In other words, residents will not get to see the nitty gritty of this agreement we presume!
  • Affordable housing is another questionable aspect when so much of the officer’s report contains the following caveats:

One of the main difficulties with seeking an agreement at this stage, is that it needs to be ‘clear of outcome’ to enable the detail to be resolved later, while also being ‘tight enough’ to ensure it can be suitably enforced 

Past experience has demonstrated that the more restrictions placed by Council, the more difficult it is to make a project feasible. 

However, it is understood that this is an ambitious outcome to achieve, with many factors that are outside the landowners’ control. It is important that the agreement is written in a way that gives the landowners flexibility and the greatest chance to achieve this outcome.

As such it is recommended that the agreement is primarily focused on this outcome, with appropriate detailing of the mechanism only where required.

Finally, the VPA has today released another 10 updated ‘background’ documents from its 2017 versions. We will comment on these once we have had time to digest them fully. In total these documents amount to well over a 1000 pages. Yet councillors are expected to vote on these matters next Tuesday night. How many of them we wonder will have read even some of the documentation? What questions, if any, will this documentation bring to the fore from councillors?

 

 

 

 

Last night’s discussion on the Planning Scheme Review and the rehashed work plan 2018, illustrates once more how the tail continues to wag the dog in Glen Eira. Everything was passed unanimously with barely a whimper.

In theory, councillors are supposed to set priorities. They are supposed to determine policy, budgets, and overall direction for councils based on community expectations. What we find in Glen Eira is total subservience to unelected officialdom.

The discussion last night featured:

  • Some totally inane comments by Magee – ie ‘multi-racial development’ that has got nothing to do with planning per se. We do love the statement that planning policy should not be allowed to ‘stagnate’ – this coming from a councillor who has been there since 2008 and has condoned, aided and abetted the ‘stagnation’ time and time again!
  • Hyams’ deferring to the ‘experts’ that have to be trusted despite the Major Heritage review being 5 or 6 years away until full completion.
  • Delahunty’s desire to learn ‘the annoying lesson of having patience’ and it is ‘a little gut wrenching’ that heritage will be ‘drawn out over that period of time’. These words from another councillor who was quite happy that she ‘lost the debate’ in 2013 about refusing to go to community consultation for the introduction of the disastrous zones – which readers should note have now been acknowledged as failing to adequately protect residential amenity.
  • Taylor wishes to ‘surge’ ahead on ‘environmentallysustainable design’ yet votes for another ‘do nothing’ – it’s a State Government responsibility. Totally ignoring the fact that countless other councils have had such policies enshrined in their planning schemes for years and years. Nor does she mention one single word about earlier promises for increased permeability standards, etc.
  • Athanasopolous’ claim that Glen Eira is ‘leading many other municipalities’ because of its work on 3 structure plans simultaneously, in contrast to other councils who only work on one at a time! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Bayside managed to create draft structure plans for all its neighbourhood centres in one go, as did Boroondara. Further, are residents happy with the ‘outcomes’ of these structure plans – especially the 12 storey height limits in Elsternwick & Carnegie? To what extent do these structure plans reflect what the community said they wanted?

It’s also worth noting that not one councillor bothered to explain why they considered the proposed Quality Design Guidelines as a superior option to creating what was promised – ie a Neighbourhood Character Policy!

Here is the ‘discussion’, for it surely can’t be called a ‘debate’!!!!

 

 

Apologies for this long post but it highlights once again how residents have been lead down the garden path in so many ways by our representatives.

The current agenda includes an item on the 2018 Planning Scheme Review – done without consultation. There is an updated Work Plan that stretches out for years and years, or simply does not provide any time schedules. The promises of 2016 are in tatters. Instead we get a euphemistically labelled Planning Scheme Review, that is anything but a comprehensive ‘review’. The objective of any Planning Scheme Review, according to Practice Note 32 is to:

….assess whether the scheme provisions, such as local planning policies, zones, overlays and schedules have been effective and efficient in achieving the objectives and strategies of the planning scheme.

What has been dished up now does not contain one single word of analysis for any of the above. Even the purported VCAT decisions are nothing more than summaries. No recommendations have been made on how to tighten the scheme, what to scrub, or what needs including.

Of far greater importance however is the newly proposed Work Plan. We have created a table below which features the promises from 2016 and put them alongside what is the plan today. One major difference between 2016 and 2018 that should be highlighted is the disappearance of any intention to introduce a Neighbourhood Character Policy. In 2016 we got these statements:

A Neighbourhood Character Policy is recommended to clarify when protection of existing character is required, and clarity on neighbourhood character design outcomes for ‘change areas’

AND

The work plan also recommends that the residential zones support the neighbourhood character policy by including additional neighbourhood character objectives and increased schedule standards to protect and enhance character.

In 2018, this has gone and with no explanation, justification, or further reference, is replaced with this single sentence – The implementation of the Quality Design Guidelines addresses the Planning Scheme Review 2016 Work Plan action to implement a Neighbourhood Character Policy. 

There are several things to note about these proposed changes:

  • The Quality Design Guidelines only apply to the existing structure plans of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie. They are not mandatory.
  • Its status in the Planning Scheme is nothing more than a ‘reference document’ and hence is basically useless. At least a full blown POLICY, whilst also not mandatory, would at least have more weight at VCAT than an appended ‘reference’ document.
  • The 2016 statements applied to ALL housing diversity, not just the 3 Activity Centres of Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick.  Yet even in these latter activity centres nothing has changed in terms of the schedules for permeability, site coverage, open space, etc.

There is much, much more which has been tossed out in the 2018 version -ie

  • The major heritage ‘review’ is now set down for the Major Activity Centres with no time line as to when the entire municipality review will be completed.
  • Tree registers and open space amendments are years down the track
  • And poor old neighbourhood/localcentres such as Ormond, McKinnon, East Bentleigh, etc.will not have any protection for years and years. Council is only committing to ‘one or two’ urban design frameworks starting in 2021/22!!!! PLUS no longer any talk of ‘structure plans’ for these centres just Urban Design Frameworks!!!!.
  • Limiting the impact of car parking basements is also watered down so instead of definitive standards such as Bayside implemented years ago in its schedules to the zones (ie max of 75% site coverage) our council is happy with statements such as this in its so called QUALITY Design Guidelines – Buildings should minimise basement footprints within the front and rear setbacks to provide for deep planting. No ‘musts’, no numbers, no changes to the schedules throughout the municipality.

Here is the table which quotes verbatim the August 2016 report and the current 2018 report. We have only highlighted some of the most important issues. The dates in parenthesis for 2018 merely indicate the STARTING TIME AND NOT COMPLETION TIME.

Please read carefully and consider the consequences.­­­

This is anything BUT a Planning Scheme Review. Yes we acknowledge that after 15 years of doing nothing Glen Eira Council is certainly behind the eight ball. But this should not be the excuse for watering down what was promised in 2016 without consultation and most importantly, without any strategic justification. It is merely another example of why this council cannot be trusted!

PS: Announcement today of a second campus for McKinnon High at Virginia Estate. A $70m, multi level school catering for 650 students. Whilst this is definitely needed we have to ask: is the site 1.2 hectares only? how high is multi level? will these 650 students be using the adjoining open space of the reserve and hence letting Gillon et al off the hook from providing sufficient open space for the proposed burgeoning population at the site? Plenty of other questions too regarding traffic, drainage, etc.

Another month and another set of figures that show no sign of a development downturn in Glen Eira. If anything, the number of building permits granted is increasing rather than decreasing. Thus even if we accept the figures that council relies upon so heavily to push their pro-development agenda, Glen Eira is maintaining its record of being far ahead of all required net new dwellings to cater for population growth.

Council keeps spouting the Victoria In Future (VIF) 2016 projections that an additional 9000 dwellings are necessary by 2031. Inexplicably, the government or the DWELP has failed to come up with Victoria in Future 2017 and neither have they produced Victoria in Future 2018. Promises to provide new Planning Practice Notes following VC110 on how to apply zoning, have yet to materialize – 18 months later! An abysmal record of planning all round!

Even if we accept that between 2016 and 2031, Glen Eira should produce an additional 9000 net new dwellings that means a lowly average of 600 net new dwellings per year. Glen Eira is currently TRIPLING THIS NUMBER and then some.

The tables below reveal the latest ABS stats published today. We have combined the totals from the year 2011 onwards, for our surrounding municipalities, as well as indicating the numbers of single houses. If we subtract the house numbers from the overall totals for the 2016/17 period up to the present, then we find that in Glen Eira, there have been 4,365 building permits granted for net new dwellings – in the space of 26 months! That’s an average of 2014 net new dwellings per annum! More than triple what VIF 2016 projected and more than double what Plan Melbourne Refresh indicates! Yet council still seems hell bent on more and more development according to its doubling of activity centre areas and believing that 12 storeys in Elsternwick and Carnegie are required.  Isn’t it time that council stopped with its propaganda and finally admitted that they see more and more development as their goal and raison d’etre!!!!

Please peruse the following tables carefully. We’ve uploaded the ABS stats HERE

To their credit, councillors last night voted to refuse (unanimously with Esakoff absent) the two controversial planning applications – ie 300 Glen Eira Road, and Wattle Grove McKinnon. Much was made of site coverage and permeability and the fact that the McKinnon application would directly overshadow a memorial park.

Yet, there was not one single word from any councillor regarding the ‘quality’ of the officer’s report. The most fascinating aspect involved several councillors claiming that the McKinnon plans did not meet the ‘standards’/’guidelines’ set down in the Open Space Strategy for developments abutting open space. The officer’s report on this component stated –

In relation to the assessment criteria in this strategy, the proposal:

Σ Fosters good access to the open space

Σ Provides passive surveillance over the open space

Σ Presents an appropriate residential interface envisaged under the strategy

Σ Maintains an appropriate level of direct sunlight during the winter solstice and equinox

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the guidelines for development nearby open space

How the planning department can see something as ‘consistent’ and ‘appropriate’ with the ‘standards’/’guidelines’ and councillors the opposite needs investigation. Either the guidelines are so vague that they are useless, or there are plenty of hidden agendas.

One further question requires consideration. When council officers produce sub-standard reports who should be held accountable?  Who signs off on the report? Torres? McKenzie?

TREE PROTECTION (MAYBE?)

Following last night’s discussion on the consultation feedback on the significant tree register, we have major doubts as to whether this will eventually get up, or if it does, whether it will be so emasculated as to be practically worthless.  Magee, Strajt, and based on historical record, Esakoff, are firmly opposed to protecting trees on private land. This was made abundantly clear last night.

ABC STUDIOS

Another extraordinary motion put up by Delahunty and voted in unanimously regarding the ABC studios and council’s desire that the land not be sold and instead utilised for ‘community benefit’ – ie open space, affordable housing, heritage protection, etc.

Part of the motion included council’s possibility of employing the ‘compulsory acquisition’ component of legislation. Bluff and bluster in spades here and it certainly does not excuse years and years of inaction.

Council knew in 2013 and maybe earlier, that the site was up for sale. Where were Delahunty, Magee, Hyams and Esakoff then? Why has it taken 5 years for council to suddenly decide there is heritage value in the property? How on earth would council even dream of compulsory acquisition when it is forecast that the land will sell for $40 million?  The Commonwealth provided the ABC with $90 million for their relocation. The sale will recoup some of this money. If council proceeds with the threat of acquisition, then council is liable to pay the land value to the owners. Currently council is in hock up to its ears. The prospect of paying the land valuation price, plus legal fees is a pipe dream. So is, we suspect, the hope that either the federal or state government will forgo millions in handing over the land.

Bluff and bluster indeed. The tragedy is that for years and years this council sat on its backside and did nothing – as is so often their want!

« Previous PageNext Page »