GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

August 8, 2016

The Ultimate Betrayal!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments

Residents need to take careful note of what happens tomorrow night, especially what councillors say and how they vote on the so called Planning Scheme Review. If this is passed as it stands, then it is a clear message that councillors are not the community’s real representatives. They have to be gone in October!

The euphemistically entitled Planning Scheme Review, is anything but a professional and comprehensive review. It continues the tradition of pro-development, anti-community, and the ‘ let’s do nothing’ mentality that has so bedevilled this council since its inception.

Here are our reasons why this document is not worth the paper it is written on:

Does not meet the legal requirements associated with planning scheme reviews (ie the relevant Practice Notes and the ‘continuous improvement kit’.
Does not present full and comprehensive figures (ie very selective editing)
A work plan that is literally ludicrous and designed to only delay and then delay some more
The absence of any data in this review which assesses the actual performance of the planning scheme.

Questions that should be answered of councillors:

Why is it that practically everything is lumped together under the umbrella of a ‘structure plan’? Plenty of actions can be taken without the need for a structure plan! Parking overlays can achieve the same result. Council had no trouble with Amendment C99 that introduced another student parking overlay to assist the Caulfield Village! No structure plan was needed here!
Why is it that the issue of basement car parking is lumped under the ridiculous category of Water Sensitive Urban Design? Again, a simple amendment to increase basement car park site coverage can be done immediately via a change to the schedules – ie. Stonnington for both its Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones has this – Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
Why is it that the zones themselves do not rate a mention when this has been the constant cry from residents? Why is nearly half of Ormond zoned as GRZ1 – telling developers they can put in 3 storeys to their hearts’ content? Why aren’t the zones themselves a priority for ‘review’ – especially since Glen Eira has quadrupled its population and housing targets? This of course is not mentioned anywhere!
Why does the section on Local Policy simply state ‘develop new policies where gaps are identified’ and the time span is given as 2 to 3 years? Any decent ‘review’ should already have identified all the gaps!
Why is there no mention of Mixed Use Zoning, or Local Centres, where there are no height limits? Will council only look at Activity Centres and nothing else? Why isn’t this spelt out fully?

There is plenty more that could be said about this effort. We will desist and simply urge all concerned residents to write to the Minister and local politicians and demand that this Planning Scheme review be consigned to the rubbish bin and that Minister Wynne intervene directly and bring in interim measures. If council is incapable or unwilling to do its job properly, then the State Government needs to know and to act now. Glen Eira simply cannot afford another 3 to 4 years of doing nothing!

August 7, 2016

Planning Scheme Review: Spin & More Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

All Planning Scheme Reviews are basically an audit of how well councils are performing in land management and how efficient their various departments are. The objective is ‘continuous improvement’ backed up by statistical analysis of progress. The Glen Eira review does not meet these requirements. Not only does this review lack real data, but like everything else council produces it is full of misleading and untrue statements.

The best way of illustrating this is to compare the December 2015 Bayside Planning Scheme Review with what is before us from Glen Eira. Councils are required to report on ‘progress’ made from their last review – such as: how many of the proposed actions have been carried out? Bayside reveals the following:

In contrast, here is the Glen Eira version of ‘reality’ –

COMMENT

The difference between the two councils is staggering. In Glen Eira there is no overall data presented and the statements are false. Two examples should suffice:

When council writes that “There were also a number of large strategic projects that were undertaken by Council between 2010 and 2016 that were not noted on the Work plan. These projects are detailed below”. Council then list the Neighbourhood Character Review as part of this ‘non-workplan’. Yet the minutes of 10^th August 2010 contain the resolution that Council “ Complete review of Significant Character Areas as prelude to the introduction of a Neighbourhood Character Overlay”.

Council continues with another furphy on the Municipal Strategic Statement claiming that – “Council commenced a review of the MSS but paused it in anticipation of the release of the State Government review into the Planning Policy Framework. Council’s review was commenced in 2013. Since no outcomes or further direction has been provided by the State Government on its Planning Policy Framework project, it is now imperative that Council completes a full review of the MSS. The latest ABS statistics on population and housing will contribute to this review, together with the latest Glen Eira Community Plan.” An extraordinary excuse for doing nothing, especially when the State Government recommends ‘annual reviews’ of the MSS and the minutes of 2010 (that is 3 years before council decided to get started on any review) contained the resolution that council Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process.

To repeat what we’ve previously stated – countless other objectives from 2010 have failed to materialise (ie parking precinct plans; tree/vegetation protection; review of Activity Centres, etc. etc.) Why aren’t these listed? Why can’t council provide an honest and comprehensive account instead of its continual spin, obfuscation, and to be blunt – lies via the crime of ‘sins of omission’!

August 5, 2016

Planning Scheme Review – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments

As expected, the long awaited Planning Scheme Review, will NOT BE REVIEWING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES as demanded by so many residents! Nor does the proposed work plan fill us with confidence that the municipality overall will greatly benefit from what is mooted – especially when suggested time frames go out to 4 years down the track. In this first of our posts we simply summarise sections of the suggested work plan and the stated time for completion.

Structure Plans – Complete first 3 within 4 years. Ongoing, continue with structure plans each taking 1-2 years to complete. (Comment – given that there are 10 Neighbourhood centres – that is a time frame of between 10-20 years!)

Neighbourhood Character Policy – 2 to 3 years.

Heritage Internal Review – 3 to 12 months

Heritage Major Review – 2 to 3 years

Municipal Strategic Statement – 1 to 2 years

Local Planning Policy Review – 2 to 3 years

Development contributions levy – 2 years

Parking Provisions – 3 to 4 years

Open Space – 2 to 3 years

Sustainability Policy – 2 to 3 years

Water Sensitive Urban Design – 2 to 3 years

Transition between zones – 2 to 3 years

Special Building Overlay – 2 to 3 years

Tree Protection Policy – 2-3 years

COMMENT

We acknowledge that due to council’s failure to act on planning issues for the past decade, there is now a huge backlog of work that is required. Having said that, residents should not be prepared to sit back and wait for another 2 to 3 years for changes to eventuate. The Minister’s directive to start work came in December 2015. Exactly what has council done in the past 8 months? How much money has been set aside in the budget to hire consultants to undertake the necessary work? How much of the upcoming work will remain ‘internal’ and secret – such as this statement from page 106 – Glen Eira has completed its review of the new residential zones. Though some community feedback is calling for Council to review the residential zone boundaries, particularly at ‘transition areas’ where two different residential zones meet, it is prudent to wait for the State Government to release its findings before any decision is made about reviewing our own locations.

And if council is so overwhelmed with the task ahead, then there is always the alternative of pinching what other councils have already successfully introduced into their planning schemes. Tree protection is the perfect example. Why this should take 2 to 3 years is laughable and says much about the underlying intentions of this council and its inept planners and councillors.

August 3, 2016

Another ‘Mistake’!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

PS: The sheer and utter incompetence of Glen Eira Council knows no bounds. Finally, after nearly 2 weeks the minutes have been published. They are a dog’s breakfast of endless repetition, questions with different ‘answers’ assigned and the PUBLICATION IN FULL OF QUESTIONERS’ NAMES, ADDRESSES AND EMAIL CONTACTS. This is unforgivable and breaches the Privacy Act. It is even more unforgivable given that this is the second occasion in a row that this has occurred. Only after a complaint was made were the details of individuals redacted from the previously published agenda. We can only conclude that this is the result of either total ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to somehow intimidate and perhaps ‘silence’ those residents who have the cheek to speak up and ask uncomfortable questions. Needless to say the responses to these public questions are again totally uninformative and fail to either respond to the question directly or provide statements that are deliberately misleading. We will highlight all these in our next post.

The list of ‘mistakes’ by the planning department is growing and growing. No one is perfect and yes, errors occur. This is no excuse however for the failure to correct such mistakes straight away instead of heading off to VCAT for another expensive hearing and ratepayers’ hard earned cash going down the drain.

The latest episode involves the application for an advertising sign in North Road. A relatively minor issue and should have been resolved a lot earlier. Council decided that together with the permit for this sign they would impose a 5 year time limit – despite the fact that their own planning scheme states at Clause 52.05 that “the date must not be less than 10 years or more than 25 years from the date the permit is issued.” The poor consultant fronts up and has to say “Council acknowledges its error in setting an expiry date of 5 years from the date of issue.”

The applicant wanted 25 years. The result? A permit for 15 years.

Questions abound:

Why did this have to end up at VCAT? Why couldn’t this be resolved earlier?
How well do our planning decision makers know their own planning scheme?
How much did this farce cost ratepayers?

July 26, 2016

And The Prize Goes To………

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

If council’s online planning register is to be believed, then the prize for the most outrageous, arrogant application for ages goes to the following:

Address: 1 Adelaide Street, McKinnon

Area: approx. 640 square metres

Zone: GRZ1

Application: Construction of 34 (that’s right, 34) THREE STOREY dwellings!

Once again we can only thank these councillors for opening the flood gates and welcoming developers with open arms via the zoning and planning scheme!

July 25, 2016

News Flash: Cramming Them In!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments

High-rises plans for suburban stations to help fund level crossing removals
Adam Carey

The state government plans to build a residential tower up to 13 storeys high above the Frankston railway line in Melbourne’s south-east to help pay for its level crossing removals, in a strategy it wants to replicate across Melbourne.

The apartment building with street-level retail would be built on North Road above Ormond station, and in a first for Melbourne’s mostly low-rise suburbs, will be built directly over the railway tracks. It would be significantly taller than other buildings in Ormond.

The deck on the which the building would stand has just been built during the 37-day shutdown of the Frankston line between Caulfield and Moorabbin to remove three level crossings.

The line is due to reopen in a much transformed state on Monday.
Labor flagged in Opposition that it would develop land as part of some level crossing removals to help pay for other transport upgrades, including extra station car parking and yet more level crossing removals. Ormond marks the first example by the Andrews government of this “value capture” approach.

At up to 13 storeys high, the development would be much taller than any other building in that part of Melbourne, which is low-rise in character.

The building, which the government said would also include ground level shops and restaurants, would have to pass the usual planning hurdles before being approved.

Just south of Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon stations are also being rebuilt as their level crossings are removed, and land has also been set aside there for future development.

The government said developments at those two stations would be smaller in scale, in keeping with the village atmosphere.

Luke Donnellan, the acting public transport minister, said the Ormond station site on North Road was well suited to larger-scale residential development, given North Road was a busy six-lane arterial.

“This location is ideally suited to new homes and businesses – in the heart of a vibrant community, directly connected to transport, shops and opportunities,” Mr Donnellan said.

The government estimates the development will create 250 construction jobs and 300 ongoing local jobs at businesses that would occupy the new building.

The government has plans to remove 50 level crossings by 2022, and these three in Ormond, McKinnon and Bentleigh are among the first.

There are also plans to build a new tower at Gardiner station in Glen Iris, where the Burke Road level crossing was recently removed, the government said.

Other potential development sites have also been earmarked as part of the sky rail project, the removal of nine crossings on the Dandenong rail corridor.

Daniel Bowen, spokesman for the Public Transport Users Association, said there were good arguments for developing around railway stations, but predicted many locals would be shocked by the proposed height of the building Ormond station.

“Perhaps it will be a landmark but it would want to be very beautifully designed to have that status,” Mr Bowen said.

David Davis, the Opposition’s planning spokesman, said the proposed height of the development was excessive for Ormond.

“This is another treacherous step by [premier] Daniel Andrews,” he said. “The community will be shocked to see 13-storey towers built when they expected a more human scale.”

VicTrack, the government corporation that owns the state’s railway land, also has a number of development projects under way, including one over the railway tracks at Windsor station on the Sandringham line.

Apartment and retail developments at Hampton and Jewell stations are also under way.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrises-to-soar-over-suburban-stations-to-help-fund-level-crossing-removals-20160725-gqd3gi.html

July 23, 2016

Parking: Glen Eira Versus Moonee Valley!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

A petition was tabled with 63 signatures on ‘parking in Caulfield’. The petitioners stated that they didn’t ‘want 2 hour parking on one side of the street’ only and that council ‘reverse’ this decision because it ‘was done without hearing first’ what residents wanted. They asked council to introduce 2 hour parking on both sides of the street. They listed quite a few streets where this should happen.

Delahunty moved motion to ‘note and accept petition’ plus that officers ‘provide an update on preliminary and final findings’. Lipshutz seconded.

DELAHUNTY: acknowledged that there’s been an increase in parking issues and ‘that no area is safe’ from this. Thought it right that council is petitioned, but that it comes in the middle of a process ‘that we’re undertaking to gather some more thoughts’ and that the public will be ‘updated’ when the process is ‘done’.

LIPSHUTZ: claimed that because of the parking policy at Caulfield Hospital that what is happening is that ‘the nurses who are employed by the hospital are now parking in these streets’. But if there was 2 hour parking on both sides of the street ‘all that would happen is that the parking would shift’ to other local streets. Thus what ‘has to happen is a concerted approach and a total review of parking in the area’. That’s happening through ‘the review’.

TORRES: said that council is ‘reviewing broad areas’ and that ‘car parking can’t be looked at on a street by street basis’ and that restrictions in one street ‘has the potential to displace parking’ in another street’ so the issue has to be seen in a ‘broader area’. Also said that ‘we are going to consult with the residents in this area after one month’ in order to ‘obtain preliminary feedback and findings on the effect of the changes’. After the ‘prelimary findings’ council would ‘continue to receive feedback and engagement’ with residents and then they will have a ‘far more comprehensive review to report’ at the end of February.

LIPSHUTZ: he supports council in reviewing ‘overall parking’. ‘There is a problem, there’s no doubt there is a problem’ for people living on the south side of Glen Eira Road and people are now parking on the north side as well. Thus ‘there needs to be a concerted approach’ and that is ‘the right way to go’.

LOBO: said this is the second petition within 4 weeks – another one from Bentleigh. Agreed that cars might shift from street to street but residents pay their rates and council needs to start thinking about building ‘3 or 4 parking storeys’. Claimed that this ‘is a result of the developments taking place’ and that ‘infrastructure will not be enough if we are going at the rate we are going’. Wanted council to ‘get our wheels in motion’ to have ‘3 or 4 storey’ parking facilities in Bentleigh and Caulfield and ‘particularly 2 or 3 in Carnegie’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in the area of the petition there is the impact of ‘local employment’ and this is something they ‘want to encourage’. But ‘how do you do that in a hospital setting’ when you’ve also got shift workers. Claimed the ‘solution’ was to ‘listen to the residents’ and that the petition ‘forms part of the consultation’. Acknowledged that it is an ‘incredibly difficult’ issue.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS

There is much here that is unacceptable in our view –

Why weren’t residents consulted first before any action was implemented?
On what statistical basis were these changes made? Why hasn’t the evidence been provided?
Torres’ claim that council can’t look at parking ‘street by street’ is surely open to challenge. Moonee Valley Council seems quite capable of investigating its municipality street by street. Why can’t Glen Eira?

FYI – we urge all readers to consider the Moonee Valley approach in terms of direct community input, comprehensive community consultation, and real street by street evaluation. It is also worth taking a look at the links to the documents provided in this URL – http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/for-residents/parking-and-transport/current-transport-projects-and-studies/local-area-traffic-management-plans/buckley-park.aspx

For Residents

Buckley Park Local Area Traffic Management Study

We have been undertaking Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) studies in selected precincts within the municipality in order to manage vehicle movements, review parking restrictions and improve the residential environment.

In 2015/16, we are undertaking a LATM study of the Buckley Park precinct as part of this ongoing LATM program. The study area (pdf, 222KB) is bounded by Keilor Road, Lincoln Road, Buckley Street and Hoffmans Road in Essendon.

The study includes an extensive community consultation process to involve the local community in identifying traffic and parking issues and provide opportunities for community feedback on the developed traffic and parking proposals.

Working group

We have formed a working group comprising 10 community volunteers, Ward Councillors, Council officers and traffic engineering consultants.

The role of community volunteers is to provide local information, act as a contact for the local community and to provide feedback in the development of traffic and parking management plans for the area.

View the Terms of Reference for the working group.

Initial community questionnaire – traffic and parking issues

A questionnaire on traffic and parking issues in your local area was posted to properties in the study area in August 2015.

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Monday, 14 September 2015. Thank you to everyone who responded. The information you provided has helped to identify problem areas and assist us to develop draft traffic and parking management plans for the area.

Draft traffic management plan

A draft Traffic Management Plan (pdf, 1.1MB) setting out recommended solutions to traffic issues has been developed and circulated with a questionnaire to all properties and property owners in the study area for community comment.

The draft plan aims to address the key issues identified by the community in the initial questionnaire on traffic issues distributed to local properties in August 2015, as well as feedback from the Working Group.
The proposal has been considered on an area wide basis to minimise any adverse impacts on adjacent streets.

The objectives of the draft plan are to:

Reduce the incidence and potential for vehicle and pedestrian crashes in the local area.
Improve the safety of local streets by reducing traffic speeds.
Discourage through traffic from using the local area.
Develop proposals that address traffic concerns raised by the community, while maintaining adequate levels of accessibility for local residents, local businesses and emergency services.
Maximise the safety benefits with the available funding (with priority given to reported crash locations and those streets with the greatest level of community concern).

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Friday, 1 April 2016. Thanks to everyone who responded.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Traffic Management Plan in a report to Council.

Draft parking management plan

As part of the LATM study, the existing parking conditions within the local area have been reviewed. A draft Parking Management Plan (pdf, 340KB) setting out proposed changes to the parking arrangements in the Dean Precinct local area has now been developed.

This component of the project has involved the collection of an extensive set of parking occupancy data in addition to community and Working Group feedback.

Using the parking occupancy data, the streets where parking changes are warranted have been determined based on our Parking Demand Management Framework.

Our Kerbside Road Space User Hierarchy was then used to determine appropriate parking restrictions in each street.

Below are streets which have proposed changes to existing parking arrangements along with the general location of the changes:

Street	Location
Collins Street	Queen Street to Market Street
Cooper Street	Spencer Street to Buckley Street
Gilbertson Street	Keilor Road and Market Street
King Street	Collins Street and Lincoln Road
Lincoln Road	Queen Street and Market Street
Queen Street	Lincoln Road to end
Spencer Street	Collins Street to Lincoln Road
William Street	Collins Street to Lincoln Road
Keilor Road	McCracken and Collins Street

Residents and property owners in the streets that are directly affected by the proposed parking arrangements have been sent a questionnaire survey to seek their views on the proposals. Alternatively, community members can also provide their views on the proposals via an online questionnaire (external link).

The closing date for responses was Friday, 1 April 2016.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Parking Management Plan in a report to Council.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We make no comment on the outcome for Moonee Valley – ie how ‘good, bad, poor, inadequate’, etc. their plans are. What we wish to highlight is the PROCESS. How one council can, if there is the will, to involve its community before decision making, rather than after the fact which is what Glen Eira consistently does. That means that ‘consultation’ is nothing more than a token exercise when the decision has already been made. Nor are those councillors who consistently endorse such a top-down approach doing anything to engender real confidence that resident views will be listened to and acted upon. Ultimately, drastic and dramatic change is required!

July 22, 2016

Lipshutz Versus Hyams!

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

Below are some incredible statements that were made on Tuesday night by Lipshutz and then Hyams on the Council Watch item. Please note carefully:

The Lipshutz sudden change of heart with his admission that council policy is ‘deficient’.
The Hyams counter that it is still VCAT’s fault!

LIPSHUZ: On the McKinnon application he said that ‘VCAT held again’ on the grounds of ‘policy direction’ in a housing diversity, decided that in ‘the absence of any neighbourhood character guidelines, there was no requirement to respect this neighbourhood character’. Said that they would be looking at ‘the issue of having guidelines so that VCAT can’t necessarily refuse us’. Said that council is looking at ‘mandatory issues rather than discretionary’ but VCAT in a ‘discretionary situation can look at our policy’ and ignore it. Said ‘we haven’t got mandatory requirements detailing height limits, neighbourhood character, those sorts of things, VCAT will ignore those issues’.

Called the results a ‘mixed bag’ and the reason why vcat decided against council was ‘deficiencies in policy’. Said that council was aware of this and ‘improved’ their situation with the zones but ‘we need to do more than that’ and ‘hopefully that will be addressed in the planning review’. Said that when it comes through ‘everyone will have a chance to speak’ and council will then ‘go to the minister and seek changes’. Claimed that ‘as a council we will be listening to our residents’ and ‘will make sure there are stricter policy guidelines in place’.

HYAMS: said when an application is refused at manager level that means it is ‘so unreasonable’ and therefore more disappointing that it is approved by VCAT which does ‘happen from time to time’. Lipshutz said ‘it’s our policies that are deficient’ but he takes ‘a slightly different view’. Said that VCAT appears ‘to have changed the goal posts’ in that ‘unless you’ve got prescribed neighbourhood character for an area, all of a sudden neighbourhood character doesn’t apply’. Wished that if the ‘goalposts’ were changed that VCAT ‘gave us a couple of years notice to rewrite our policies so we could do what they say’. So ‘neighbourhood character seemingly doesn’t apply’

COMMENT

For Lipshutz to admit that council’s policies are ‘deficient’ is indeed a remarkable first. Sadly, it has only taken him 11 years to come to this realisation! As for his ‘promises’ that council will ‘listen’ to residents, that remains to be seen.

What is even more telling is Hyams refusal to side with his colleague. The same line of defense is used – it is VCAT’s fault and never, ever, his and council’s. However, what irks us most is the continued spouting of untruths by Hyams. He would have residents believe that VCAT has ‘changed the goal posts’ and that council should have been given a ‘couple of years notice’. Utter bullshit as he probably well knows. VCAT has NOT changed the goal posts and council has had at least a decade of VCAT decisions which highlighted the deficiencies of their planning scheme. Council has had plenty of time to address all of these loopholes – especially in relation to housing diversity prior to 2013 and now the new zones. They have steadfastly refused to do a single thing until ordered to by the minister.

As proof of the falsity of Hyams’ statements we cite some extracts from VCAT decisions going back years where ‘neighbourhood character’ and the shortcomings of the planning scheme were referred to time and time again – most clearly for applications involving housing diversity. We could have cited scores and scores of judgements but feel that these examples suffice. The only conclusion possible is that council has known for years that its policies are ‘deficient’ but has simply turned a blind eye to this reality.

No particular neighbourhood character study applies. No relevant overlays or R1Z schedule applies. The surrounding neighbourhood has a relatively wide variety of dwelling types. Haycox v Glen Eira CC [2011] VCAT 1384 (19 July 2011)

+++++++++

Ms Hanson submitted the proposed building did not adequately respond to local policy to facilitate high quality urban design that enhanced neighbourhood character and promoted good streetscape design. …. In this regard she submitted a four storey form would be uncharacteristic of the area which was predominately single storey to the east and two to three storey elsewhere nearby. …..· All parties acknowledged that local policy 22.07 was not clear in its direction to assess proposals in a Mixed Use Zone. MIG Pty Ltd & Ors v Glen Eira CC [2010] VCAT 1954 (8 December 2010)

+++++++++++

The thrust of the Housing and Residential Development policy is that sites in Urban Villages can expect a higher order and density of development. Sites in a Housing Diversity area can expect some change, but less than in the Urban Villages whilst sites in Minimal Change areas can expect a smaller amount of development, such as dual occupancy development to protect the neighbourhood character. The policy does not really deal with differences in extent of development at the interface …..I acknowledge the concern about the building mass impacting on properties in the Minimal Change Area behind the site in Yendon Road but there is little guidance in the planning scheme or the local policy to categorically define the level of acceptability. Perkins Architects v Glen Eira CC [2009] VCAT 437 (19 March 2009)

July 21, 2016

Truth & Mistruth in Glen Eira!

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

PS: In order to clarify why this entire application has been so disastrously botched by Council we ask readers to contemplate the following and to have a close look at the zoning shown in the image. In the first place:

Council argued that this triple block site was ‘transitional’. The map shows it is smack bang in the middle of the RGZ
Council’s conditions included increased setbacks. Again ridiculous when the schedules don’t include this, plus there are already 4 storeys backing onto this site from Bent St and soon no doubt across the road.
The 3 block site is over 2000 square metres – positively encouraged by the planning scheme- even in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone
How many more times must councillors be hit over the head and realise that they haven’t got a hope in hell when they lop off a storey or two, or a handful of apartments and expect VCAT and the developer to accept this? The fault isn’t with VCAT. The fault lies with the planning scheme and lousy decision making that costs ratepayers a fortune to defend!
When some planner sits at a desk and draws circles on a map then insanity reigns supreme. That’s why one side of Godfrey Street will have 4 storeys opposite and other parts of Godfrey Street will have 2 storeys. As we’ve said, this isn’t planning, it is incompetence and indifference.

vickery

PPS: we are in error below. VCAT did order that council pay the developer’s appeal costs of $2,086.20

It is surely incumbent on every council officer to ensure that when a report is tabled, or a councillor says something that it is accurate, and not misleading. The number of times that Glen Eira City Council produces reports that are deceptive, lacking in complete information, and designed to portray only the ‘positives’ and these are then repeated by councillors is extraordinary. If a councillor does not know the facts, then it is his/her duty to find out. He should not as Lipshutz, Esakoff and some of the others invariably do, just regurgitate what has been put in front of them.

Our current case in point concerns Item 9.3 from Tuesday night – the so called VCAT WATCH. In the report on the decision for Vickery Street, Bentleigh, the Michael Henderson report states:

The Tribunal held that the interface between the building and the street was ‘urban’ rather than ‘suburban’, and that consequently hard surfaces, fences and limited landscaping along the front boundary are considered to be part of that ‘urban’ character.

Either this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the member’s judgement, or it reveals a total lack of understanding by our supposed ‘VCAT representative’. The full judgement can be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/920.html

Whilst it is true that the member does use the terms ‘urban’ and ‘suburban’, it is clear that his use of this terminology is based on the simple fact that COUNCIL ITSELF REFERS TO BENTLEIGH AS AN ‘URBAN VILLAGE’!!!!! He uses the term ‘suburban’ to differentiate this from the Minimal Change Areas or the current NRZ. It is NOT the member’s fault that Council’s planning scheme still contains the outdated terminology of ‘urban village’ when the 2010 Planning Scheme Review reported that it should be removed! 6 years on, it is still there!

More to the point, the member does not simply proffer a personal opinion that says ‘urban’ areas can have ‘hard surfaces, fences and limited landscaping’ because that is part of the ‘urban character’ as opposed to a ‘suburban’ character as Henderson would like to portray. The quoted sentence appears only AFTER the member has gone through all of the policy and zoning statements on height, etc and focuses simply on fence heights . It is Council itself, which has determined via its zoning of RGZ, what is acceptable in these areas. The member is merely adhering to the schedules, or the lack of differentiation, that council in its wisdom imposed. He is thus following council policy and what the zones tell him and what the developer is permitted to exploit!

Here is some of what the member actually wrote.

In the past few years multiple planning approvals have been granted for four storey apartment buildings in and around the Bentleigh urban village. One such development is under construction on the land adjoining to the west. This and other similar proposals respond to the site’s proximity to the activity centre and the planning policy context.

Schedule 1 to the Zone applies to the review site. It limits the height of a new building on this site to 14.5 metres, as its slope exceeds 2.5 degrees over an 8 metre cross section. No clause 55 standards are varied by the schedule. In addition to the purposes of the zone, intensive development is clearly encouraged by planning policy.

The Glen Eira local planning policy framework directs the most intensive development to the Phoenix Precinct at Caulfield and urban villages such as Bentleigh. These areas are to experience the most change. Housing diversity areas adjacent to the urban villages are to accommodate incremental change….

There is strong policy support for the development of apartment style buildings in urban villages, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by Council.

I am not persuaded that one storey should be removed from the proposed building. Firstly, while all of the Bentleigh urban village is identified for substantial change, opportunities for intensive development within the centre are constrained. Heritage Overlays, Special Building Overlays, small lot sizes along Centre Road, four storey building heights and fragmented ownership all constrain to varying degrees the opportunities for Bentleigh to play the role envisaged by policy. Consequently I consider that weight has to be given to using the unconstrained sites efficiently so the urban villages can contribute to broader housing diversity and compact city objectives. Opportunities should be realised, unless there are particular site constraints or unacceptable amenity impacts that arise from an intensive development. I have noted above this site has no constraints and is well located to the core of the centre

In the absence of specific directions in the Scheme regarding massing, site coverage or setbacks for this site (the applicable schedule does not vary an clause 55 standards), I consider any transition in height and massing is confined to the boundary of the zone where it interfaces with a zone where less intensive development is to occur.
Consequently I see no reason to regard the review site as being within a transition area. Rather, as I have noted I think sites that are consolidated and unconstrained should be developed efficiently, given the relatively limited opportunities in Glen Eira as a whole and in the Bentleigh urban village.

I agree with the parties the development does not comply with standard B6. I must therefore turn to the objective of clause 55.03-1, which is: To ensure the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. I give limited weight to the prevailing character, and note that the scheme provides little specific guidance to a preferred character.

I also think the proposed setback can take its cues from the activity centre to the south rather than the suburban character to the north and because of the type of building that is proposed. The somewhat lesser setbacks to the street will be more consistent with the supermarket and shops within the centre that are built close to their boundaries. I consider that this built form that provides a context for the emerging character, rather than the suburban setting of detached dwellings further north along Vickery Street.

I think it is entirely reasonable that a development in an area of substantial change has a higher site coverage and less permeability than a two dwelling development in a local suburban street in a minimal change area. The responsible authority was unable to provide a basis in policy or context to justify these requirements.

Conclusions

Once again councillors’ grandstanding by lopping off a storey has been truly routed by VCAT because of council’s deficient planning scheme.
If council really wanted these properties to be ‘transition’ then why zone them RGZ? Remember that in Glen Eira there really is no ‘transition zone’ just a one house ‘interval’ between the growth zones!
Henderson’s report is entirely disingenuous. Almost none of the negatives noted above re council are reported and this is regurgitated ad nauseum by the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams and Magee. Either they have not read the actual judgements themselves, or they are willing to sacrifice ‘truth’ in order to maintain the myth of how wonderful Glen Eira’s planning is.
Council should finally thank its lucky stars that the member did not grant the developer’s wish that ratepayers fork out their costs because of council’s failure to determine this application in the requisite time!

Finally, with the current Planning Scheme Review to be produced at the next council meeting, we can only hope that for once there is a comprehensive and honest analysis of all VCAT decisions over the past 6 years. Anything less, is totally unacceptable.

July 18, 2016

The Future Writ Large – Compliments Of Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

Below is just some of what is happening in Glen Eira. Urban Melbourne lists over 70 major current projects. We’ve selected a mere 30! Please note that all of these have permits and many are under construction. As we’ve revealed in an earlier post there are at least another 774 apartments waiting in the wings for council approval. Also note that these mere 30 projects equal over 1300 apartments.

Our thanks to Urban Melbourne for these screen dumps.

CLICK TO ENLARGE