GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

July 6, 2016

New Monsters!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

Presented below is a list of SOME of the new applications that have been submitted in the past 6 weeks. We have ignored many of the ‘smaller’ applications such as 2 double storeys, or 3 dwellings on one site. Council decisions are still to be made and many have as yet still to be advertised.

8 Egan Street, CARNEGIE – 16 storey mixed use (original application was for 155 dwellings – now 135)

60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 8 storey, accommodation 49 rooms

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storey, 59 dwellings

322-326 Neerim Road & 17 Elliot Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 38 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 34 dwellings

90-94 Mimosa Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 49 dwellings

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 5 new dwellings

3 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 7 new dwellings

26 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 10 dwellings

1 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 5 three storeys

23 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 5 dwellings

25-27 Horne Street ELSTERNWICK VIC – 7 storeys, 25 dwellings

411-415 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – 8 storey mixed use (no. of units not stated)

71 Patterson Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 5 dwellings

37 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, (no. of units not stated)

45 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – 6 dwellings

  • South Avenue BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

9 St Georges Avenue BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – 15 double storeys

3 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings

92 Kooyong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 storey, 23 dwellings

1-9 Claire Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 44 dwellings

  • 9 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 34 dwellings

2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 –  4 double storeys

12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 double storeys

9 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

229 McKinnon Road, MCKINNON – 8 three storeys

2 Adelaide Street, MCKINNON – 4 double storeys

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 23 dwellings

31 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY – 5 double storeys

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

43 Balaclava Road ST KILDA EAST VIC – 3 storey, 18 dwellings

3 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

56 Hobart Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 new dwellings

126-128 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 32 dwellings

Flat 1-28 235 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161 – 26 dwellings

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183 – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

460-464 Glen Eira Road CAULFIELD – 6 dwellings (4 double storey, 2 single storey)

TOTAL 774 PLUS UNKNOWNS in the six weeks!

The Planning Scheme cites an average of 500-600 dwellings PER YEAR!

The facts:

  • Glen Eira has quadrupled its average new dwellings per year
  • How many of these new dwellings are single bedroom is undisclosed
  • How many of these new dwellings stand empty is anyone’s guess
  • How many ‘standards’ council overlooks in granting these permits is undisclosed
  • Why Council fails repeatedly at VCAT remains unreported (but we know why according to VCAT judgements – the fault lies almost exclusively with the current planning scheme)
  • Have any of these 2000+ new dwellings been granted an exemption in paying their open space levy and, for those that have paid, is the levy at the maximum of 5.7% in each and every case?

 

 

 

July 5, 2016

Neighbourhood Character

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

Item 9.8 – Neighbourhood Character Provisions

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That Council notes this report and considers implementation of Neighbourhood Character Provisions as well as Design and Development Overlays to support existing and expected future residential character, assome of the preferred planning scheme tools to implement the findings of the City of Glen Eira Planning Scheme Review Process.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

SOUNNESS: said he had talked with planners and that ‘it is good to have a review and see how other councils are doing things’. The current process of ‘consulting with the community’ has resulted in a lot of issues being put forward. Council has to decide ‘what weight’ to give to these suggestions. The current officer’s report however will be useful to ‘resource us’ for what will be a useful ‘outcome’.  Said the report shows that ‘different tools achieve different outcomes’ but in ‘different ways’. Council needs to try and be in a ‘defendable position’ on policies. He supports the officer’s recommendations but would like these things as part of the consideration of the planning scheme review.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had had an ‘off the cuff discussion’ on Neighbourhood Character Overlays.  Said that in ‘applying’ these Neighbourhood Character Overlays there are objectors so it is ‘perhaps a little more of a vexed issue’. Said that she thinks more and more people are becoming in favour of them and sees this as ‘our obligation’ to ‘extend’ these through ‘housing areas’ that are ‘post war stock in Glen Eira’ and not just Victorian places. So ‘we are discussing Neighbourhood Character Overlays in the context of our planning scheme review’ but she thinks that we ‘ought to have more conversations about character overlays’ and ‘how to extend them’. Torres ‘tells us’ that these things do ‘carry some genuine weight’. This is ‘what people are asking for’ and will protect the ‘old parts of Glen Eira’.

Sounness declined the opportunity to sum up.

COMMENT

The officer’s report highlights the work done by neighbouring councils. Significantly, the officer report does not include a Glen Eira summary alongside so that a real comparison may be made. Nor does it spell out the various heights and other conditions these councils have implemented through their schedules to the zones – all of which stand in stark contrast to the Glen Eira (lazy) approach of ‘one size fits all’. In fact, no mention of the zones occurs at all in the councillor ‘discussion’.

More concerning is that ‘neighbourhood character’ appears to have morphed into Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) only judging by the comments of these two councillors. Hardly satisfactory – especially since NCOs are tools designed for use in specific areas – generally a street or two – and certainly won’t cover large swathes of Glen Eira. What does cover large swathes of Glen Eira are the abysmal zones – which do not rate a mention from either Sounness or Delahunty and certainly did not feature in the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper nor did it receive the attention it required in the ‘feedback forum’ presenting the draft ‘workplan’.

Even the State Government’s Practice Note highlights the additional tools that councils may use, but which this motion appears to ignore – Different areas do have different characteristics and expectations and the VPP allows councils to set different residential development standards through either the schedule to the residential zones or the application of the NCO to achieve local neighbourhood character objectives. These can influence the nature and extent of development that can occur in order to achieve a desired neighbourhood character outcome for an area.

A further cause for concern is the stated intention of council to wait until release of the data from the August Census before anything in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is truly amended and/or updated. Again, this does not adhere to the published Practice Notes – The objectives for neighbourhood character and the strategies and implementation measures for achieving the neighbourhood character objectives should also be included in the MSS.

We can therefore only conclude that the intent of Council is to do precisely what they have been ordered to do by the Minister and nothing more! The zones remain sacrosanct – despite the outcry, petitions and media coverage from residents dismayed at what is happening to their streets. And, the longer these zones remain untouched our fear is that it will be too late to do anything to halt the destruction. Perhaps this is what it’s all about?

 

July 1, 2016

Money & The Open Space Levy!

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

Hyams moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ – (ie not to do anything for a year or two!) Delahunty seconded.

HYAMS: said his request for a report was the result of ratecapping coming in and therefore reducing the amount of money ‘we would require’ to fulfil the Open Space Strategy recommendations. Said that it ‘was always intended’ that rates would ‘fund more than half’ of what was required.  Population however has increased, ‘especially in McKinnon’ where the strategy stated there would be a decline. Thus ‘once the census figures are in which will be later this year’ they could ‘recalculate based on those’ new figures.  Also said that ‘no other council’ has the high uniform rate that Glen Eira has.

DELAHUNTY:  said that the ‘premise’ that council used to argue for 5.7% ‘has changed’ because of population growth and ‘our ability to resource what we actually wanted to do’.  Therefore she thinks that it is council’s ‘obligation’ to review the levy. They need the census data to ‘add weight to what I already think is a pretty watertight argument’.

PILLING: agreed that ‘times have changed’ and limited their ability to raise funds because of rate capping. Said that raising the levy is ‘worth looking at but we need to do it properly’.  Stated that the data should ‘take 6 months to come out’ so that would be ‘early 2017’.

HYAMS: said they went through an ‘exhaustive process’ in justifying the levy. Also said that ‘we would have received’ another million dollars ‘had the planning scheme not been held up by what ultimately turned out to be pointless objections’ which ‘delayed’ things by 9 months.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

  • How many millions is council foregoing by deciding to wait instead of instigating the process for a higher levy now?
  • How many more times will Hyams be allowed to get away with misrepresenting the facts – ie. the Census website clearly states that data will be released ‘from mid 2017’ and certainly NOT ‘later this year’ as he claims.
  • How ironic that every single point made by the objectors to a levy of only 5.7% is now vindicated?
  • Parts of St. Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Street are now in council’s sights to close off the street and construct some ‘open space’. What analysis has been undertaken to ensure that council is getting ‘value for money’ from its previous street closures – ie Eskdale Road ( a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park) and another in Elsternwick? How much have these conversions cost? What is the total size? How much of these ‘open spaces’ are covered in concrete? The crucial question of course is – would residents be better served by the purchase of bona fide areas of new open space that do provide the space required for multi-purpose use?

As an illustration of council’s sheer profligacy, and unbelievable decision making, we feature these photographs taken in the last week. Readers will note that a bench, on a relatively small concrete base already exists. So council has now come along and doubled the size of the concrete – presumably to move the existing seat two metres to the left! How much did this new endeavour cost for a council screaming blue murder over ratecapping and the need for frugality? Who made such a decision? How on earth can it ever be justified?

P1000438

 

June 30, 2016

Repeating History Again & Again

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

We urge all readers to carefully consider the following report. It illustrates fully:

  • The failure of these councillors to address the ‘elephant in the room’ – ie the planning scheme and the abysmal zones. If council is now saying that a four storey development is inappropriate in this location, then why was it zoned as four storey? We also remind readers of the Hyams quote pre zones where he said that mandatory height limits means that developers will build to those height limits!
  • The zoning here is not the result of sound planning but the result of someone sitting at a desk and simply drawing a circle around a number of streets that then became the Residential Growth Zone.
  • The language used is deliberately misleading – Glen Eira does not have TRANSITION ZONES. It has pathetic ‘transition buffers’ but only for sites zoned GRZ2 and not GRZ1
  • Magee’s petty attack on Lobo reveals once more the animosity and dysfunction within this council. Of course Magee shoots himself in the foot by admitting that he also has no clue as to what clause 22.05 says or means!
  • Is Delahunty now changing her tune – ie on the rate of change?
  • Is Sounness vote really a vote for 4 storeys?
  • We also remind readers that VCAT does not legally have any role in council decision making. Its job is to look at the planning scheme that exists. VCAT does this. The fault lies mainly with council
  • Finally, we reiterate THAT ON EVERY SINGLE DECISION THAT HAS GONE TO VCAT AND WHERE COUNCIL LOPPED OFF A STOREY, OR REDUCED THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS, THE DEVELOPER WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING WHAT HE WANTS. These councillors have obviously not learnt a single thing in their four years as councillors. They keep stupidly, and nonsensically repeating the same errors over and over again!

Item 9.2 – Vickery Street, Bentleigh.

Hyams moved motion to lop off one storey to three levels instead of four and to reduce the number of apartments to 27. Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS:  started by saying that council has got a ‘policy’ about height needing to be at the centre of activity zones and that this application is ‘right on the edge’ and is ‘next to the transition zone’. So ‘it is right on the edge of this Residential Growth Zone’.  He therefore ‘believes that 3 storeys is more appropriate’ than four.  Said that he attended the planning conference where residents ‘raised’ concerns and he ‘shares those concerns’ and the motion is the result.  Residents were worried about overshadowing so 3 storeys takes care of this. Residents concern about ‘density’ is also catered for by removing  ‘a quarter of the apartments’ (ie from 36 down to 27). There are also conditions about site coverage and set backs. The conditions also want the number of 3 bedroom units increased so there will be ‘greater diversity’.  Said that residents and councillors agree that 1 car park per 2 bedroom unit probably isn’t enough but that is what ‘ResCode’ sets out and ‘that’s all that we can require’.  Residents also were worried about traffic, but the Australian Standards set the number of cars travelling  and what the various streets can ‘handle’ and ‘that’s what our officers are bound by’.  Thought that the motion represents a ‘reasonable compromise’.

MAGEE: said that the first thing done is to consider whether the application complies ‘with ResCode’ and the planning scheme.  Said that this ‘does meet those basic guidelines’. For councillors they ask ‘is this the best use of this land?’ and ‘does this improve the amenity or detract from it’. He thinks it ‘detracts’.  ‘We can sit up here and refuse it because we don’t like it’ but that would be ‘stupid’ since they know that it ‘already complies’ with ResCode and the planning scheme which was ‘put together with great community consultation with our residents’ who together with ‘council decided what can be built in what streets’.  Said this is ‘right on the edge. It is that transition zone’. Admitted that this will overlook people as a four storey building. Went on with ‘we as a responsible authority have to decide’ whether to reject the application and ‘send it off to VCAT who are then going to apply ResCode’ and maybe ‘come up with the same conclusion that the officers did’. What councillors want to do is ‘give something to the developer that is still pleasing, that is still profitable’ so they may not go to VCAT. Admitted there are problems with parking and amenity and Vickery Street is ‘right at the extreme where we start changing into the neighbourhood residential zone’. Said that this is ‘a difficult one’ but to ‘simply refuse’ is ‘the wrong way to go’ – it is the ‘weak way to go’ and they still ‘have to be the responsible authority’. ‘We can’t just stand here and want to become popular’.  It’s not ‘about being popular ,it’s about doing the right thing’. They have to ‘suit the developer’ as well as residents and probably only a two storey development will suit ‘anyone living around it’. He wouldn’t like to go into ‘my back yard’ and look up at a four storey building. Thought that Hyams motion was a ‘much better outcome’ than proposed.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Hyams and said that when council makes a decision it stands as a ‘quasi tribunal’ and that they have to ‘look at planning law’ and not ‘just what we feel should happen’. If they do only what ‘residents want’ then VCAT will ‘say we have no credibility’. Council has to consider  planning law and ‘issues that residents have raised’.  Said that residents had ‘raised important issues’ like overshadowing and neighbourhood character. He can ‘reject’ the application but that doesn’t ‘achieve anything’ because it will go to VCAT and ‘VCAT will overrule us’. Claimed that they ‘had looked’ at setbacks, overlooking, etc. Said he wouldn’t like a building like this ‘next to me but development is going to happen’ so ‘my job as councillor’ is to ‘ensure’ the ‘least impact’ on residents. The imposed conditions ensure ‘lower mass’, etc. The problem of ‘high rise’ is through all of Melbourne so ‘if you knock off one floor’ that ‘also reduced the number of cars’ in our congested streets.

SOUNNESS: said he had spoken to neighbouring residents and thanked them for ‘inviting’ him into their houses. Thought that reducing the application by one level is a ‘good compromise’ if it goes to VCAT. Thought it was ‘strange’ that they always ‘talk’ as if VCAT ‘were in the room’ but VCAT isn’t in the room so ‘we don’t have that opportunity’ to talk with them. But ‘VCAT is the hidden partner to our discussion’. Said he ‘recognised’ that residents will be impacted and that the planning scheme ‘is written’ and because of the zones, ‘there will be some form of development that will impact’ on people. Said he would support the ‘proposal as written’ but sees that there probably won’t be ‘support around the table’ for anything other than Hyams motion.

LOBO: said that councillors are there to ‘represent the residents’ and not governments or others. Said that the application isn’t in line with ‘clause 22.05’ of the planning scheme, and is ‘inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood’ in terms of ‘mass and scale’, and doesn’t meet the requirements of Clause 55.02 and other bits from this clause. Said that even at 3 storeys, or 4 storeys, the ‘height of the building will be oppressive and overwhelming’ and impact on residents in Godfrey Street that it backs onto. Said that ‘aesthetics’ would change and noise level from residents living in the units increase plus looking into backyards and backyards are ‘the dream’ of Australians where they have barbecues , a ‘beer and watch the cricket or footy’. Thought that the government and council were ‘wrong’ in letting the ‘residential zones go ahead’ and ‘after seeing the tears rolling on people’s’ faces he now knows ‘they have lost their biggest asset’ – ‘their castle’. (At this point Lobo asked for the extension of two minutes to his time. All councillors except Lipshutz – who did not put up his hand – voted on extending time.) Went on to say that the proposed development will ‘destroy the character of Godfrey St’ plus their privacy. Thought that they should refuse the application like they did with 14-18 Vickery but that ‘ultimately’ was given a permit by VCAT. If the permit for 3 or even 2 storeys is given then ‘residents will be left to sing or hum – ‘there goes my only possession’.

MAGEE: asked Lobo a question in that he said the proposal ‘doesn’t accord with Clause 22.05’ and said ‘I’m not actually familiar with that’ so ‘could Cr Lobo tell us what that might be’?

LOBO: asked to ‘direct’ the question to Torres

Pilling sought to do this but MAGEE interrupted saying –

MAGEE: since Lobo said ‘he disapproved of this development’ because it doesn’t meet the objectives of 22.05 so ‘he must obviously know what that is so I’d like to hear from him what that clause is’.  Pilling then asked Lobo to ‘respond to that question’.

LOBO: said that he relies on the ‘recommendations of Ron Torres’ and that he ‘nor any of the councillors are technically aware of things’ so ‘I have to depend on him’.

PILLING then said ‘I might ask the question’.

TORRES: explained that clause 22.05 refers to ‘council’s Urban Village Policy’.

MAGEE: asked Lobo whether he ‘understands all of those clauses, do you?’

LOBO: ‘I don’t think it is your business, thank you’.

MAGEE: ‘I’ll take that as a ‘no’”

DELAHUNTY: said that she is ‘familiar’ with the policy and has been wondering ‘how to cast my vote’ by listening to everyone. She has been to the site and doesn’t ‘think that we are managing the rate of change’ in these streets and that ‘town planning is about managing that rate of change’. Referred to Lobo ‘mentioning’ some of the clauses ‘where we think this application might fall down’. Although ‘I can see very strong grounds for refusal’ she is concerned about VCAT as ‘that extra person in the room’. However, several months ago they ‘kept hammering VCAT’ for not ‘applying our policy’ and ‘we’re second guessing what they are going to do’. So it’s now ‘come to a point where I’ve got to be consistent in my arguments or I can’t expect them to be consistent as well’. Even though Hyams has done a ‘good job in providing balance, it still falls down’. Since it does ‘fall down’ on ‘so many’ areas then a refusal is necessary. Thought that ‘it is unusual to see so much tinkering’ by ‘tiny degrees’ from council and ‘not a straight out refusal’. It’s on the edge of other zones so they need to think carefully about these situations. Claimed to ‘still be in two minds’.

PILLING: thought all councillor comments were good. Said this was ‘on the cusp’ of the growth zone ‘is an issue’ and asked Hyams if he would ‘like to address those concerns’. Thought that 4 storeys is too much and that ‘I would tend to support the alternative’ since this answers residents and is more ‘realistic’.

HYAMS:   said that ‘there are some things’ in the planning scheme that are ‘cut and dried and mandatory’ and others that are ‘more subjective’ like neighbourhood character. So even though 4 storeys is mandatory they can ‘reasonably say’ that here ‘it should be 3 storeys’. Agreed with the ‘non compliance’ with ResCode that Lobo spoke about but his motion now ‘resolves those issues’.  Thought it was a ‘seductive argument’ to say that ‘we’re here to represent the residents’  and ‘so we should do what the residents say’ but ‘we need to take our responsibilities seriously’ and that means ‘to apply the planning law’. Lobo’s concern about privacy is handled by the condition of ‘screening’ so ‘you should not be able to see into those backyards’ even though the ‘people in those backyards will be able to see the building’. Thought his motion was the ‘best outcome’ and residents wouldn’t thank them if they refuse and then VCAT says that ‘council is being unreasonable’. ‘What we should be doing is to go to VCAT with a reasonable position’. So three storeys is fulfilling both the responsibility to residents and as a council. Lobo’s comments on the zones need a reply. Claimed that the zones were ‘a direct transition from our previous zones’ and the Urban Villages before are now Residential Growth Zones. Before there were no height limits and now ‘we have mandatory height limits’ and that they are the ‘only council in Victoria that has mandatory height limits across all of its residential zones’. Claimed that council also has its ‘transition zones’ and that these didn’t come out of Neighbourhood residential areas but out of ‘where the Urban Villages were’. If these weren’t there, they would all now be ‘4 storey maximum’. Said that every council has a ‘reponsibility’ to ‘cater for population growth’ and that ‘council has done the best’ it could ‘under those circumstances’.

MOTION PUT – VOTE WAS FOUR AGAINST FOUR (ESAKOFF ABSENT)

VOTING FOR MOTION: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST MOTION: SOUNNESS, HO, LOBO, DELAHUNTY

PILLING USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF MOTION.

 

June 28, 2016

More ‘Do Nothing’ – Open Space Levy

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

The lack of open space in Glen Eira has been known for years. It is high on the list of resident priorities for some dramatic change in council’s approach – for instance, the purchase of new open space. The claim to counter this is that Glen Eira is highly ‘urbanised’ and purchasing land is very expensive. Yes, land is expensive and council did raise the developer levy to 5.7%, (only after years of collecting a pittance). Objectors in 2014 argued that even this new levy was insufficient to meet the needs of the existing and future population. Now there is an officer’s report on whether council should seek to raise the levy even further. The recommendations read:

That Council:

Σ notes the report

Σ requests that a report update be prepared following the release of the 2016 ABS Census data

The report claims that the Census data will be released in ‘early 2017’. Another porky by Council. We prefer to rely on what the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) tell us and not what features in officer reports. Here’s the ABS version:

census

Thus nothing will be done for at least a year, and then another year to go through the amendment process, consultation process, possible planning panel review, and then awaiting the Minister’s rubber stamping.

Further, we see absolutely no reason why council needs to wait. All of the relevant statistics should be available right now to council. They should know precisely:

  • The number of new dwellings built
  • The location of these new dwellings
  • The number of permits granted
  • What areas these permits are in
  • If council and the consultants relied on Profile.id prognostications in 2013/2014, then they can rely on the updated figures right now!

In 2014 it was obvious that council’s and the consultants’ prognostications were inadequate given the zones and the inundation of planning permits. It is our firm belief that if council had done its work properly back in 2013/2014, then the open space levy would not now be an issue. If a correct levy was sought, then residents would now have plenty of more open space, instead of a decline per individual as is happening. Contrary to what is currently claimed by the ‘consultants’, their report, based on the statistics provided by council was totally inadequate and inaccurate. At the time of the planning panel, objectors highlighted this again and again. For example:

  • The claim was that Caulfield Village would still only be 1100-1200 units, when the Development Plan for 2046 units had already been rubber stamped and would near completion by 2026
  • Virginia Estate was ignored
  • Countless amendment rezoning to Mixed Use were ignored
  • Council’s estimate of only 5.22 hectares being redeveloped in the space of 14 years in Carnegie had already seen this number exceeded in the space of a single year and the same was true for the other activity centres. How on earth council could claim that only 5 hectares is available from 3.8 square km and over a third zoned for ‘growth’ is beyond us!
  • Council’s ‘estimate’ of existing public open space was and is, literally a joke, since they had changed the ‘definition’ of open space and of course included car parks within this calculation.

There is absolutely no excuse waiting another year before an increase is even attempted. This of course fits right into the philosophy of this council – do nothing if you can help it!

 

June 27, 2016

Inconsistency & ‘Objectivity’?

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

Three planning applications for Tuesday night’s council meeting deserve some close attention and questions asked about:

  1. The competency/objectivity of the planning department
  2. What outside influences are at play here?

We are not arguing in favour of development here. We are simply questioning the basis of this council’s decision making.

One application involves Bentleigh, and the other Carnegie. Both are zoned RGZ, and both are within council’s lines drawn on a map that designate them both as being within the Urban Village structure. Yet, remarkably, the one in Bentleigh for 30 odd units receives the nod of approval and the one in Carnegie for ‘only’ 13 units is refused. Why? – when both are basically ‘compliant’ with the planning scheme? Secondly if the one in Bentleigh can be ‘fixed’ via the imposition of conditions, then why not the one in Carnegie?

Even more disturbing is the absolute rubbish that we find in the Rocky Camera reports – inaccuracies, and blatant bias as evidenced in the following. We’ve drawn up a table so that readers can compare like for like.

applications

The Tranmere Avenue application also makes reference to Skyrail and the land’s proximity to the proposed rail line. The developer has submitted a noise impact statement for trains at ground level only. Given that no one knows much about Skyrail and its impacts, it is interesting to note that for Montgomery House application council granted a permit with the notation that should Heritage Victoria not rule in favour of retention, then a new application can be submitted. No such leeway was provided to Tranmere.

Application for 2 double storey in Barry Street, Bentleigh

Please note:

  • The site is zoned Neighbourhood residential Zone – ie suitable for 2 dwellings
  • No objections
  • Area of approximately 650 square metres – well and truly able to ‘cater’ for 2 double storeys

The officer’s report states:

  • An acceptable level of articulation has been provided for the development. The first floor is recessed behind the ground floor walls, with minor staggering of facades providing further articulation. Single garages are proposed ensuring that garages are not a dominant feature of the development.
  • The dwellings have both been provided with ground floor, east-facing private open space areas of 58m2 and 87m2 respectively, in accordance with the requirements of the zone and Rescode.
  • There are adequate landscaping opportunities at the front and rear of the site. Councils Landscape Officer has recommended that two canopy trees be planted in the front and rear yards of each dwelling (4 trees in total). Site coverage is less than 50%, which complies with Rescode requirements.
  • All proposed setbacks are in compliance with the State Government guidelines

 COMMENT

Thus we get a page and a half report where practically every aspect of the planning scheme is met, plus NO OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION. Yet, it still is put on the agenda for a council resolution. Why? When countless other applications are decided at officer level, why is this one granted the privilege of a council resolution? What factors are at play here? Why is council’s time being wasted on such an application when the agenda is already overpacked (a mere 721 pages for Tuesday night). Is this a case of someone knowing someone else? Or knowing what might eventuate a year or two down the track? Who is responsible for getting this onto the agenda and what are the real motives?

 

June 21, 2016

Are We About To Be Screwed Again?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments 

The latest Development Plan for the Mixed Use Precinct of the Caulfield Village reveals once again the failure of this council to keep its residents informed as to what is really going on. Worse still, the proposed plans are another example of MRC profit making and to hell with the local community.

Council Secrecy

The plans reveal the following (and we quote) –

On 27 May 2014 Glen Eira City Council (GECC) approved the initial Development Plan for Caulfield Village (DP 16060/2013) relating to that part of the Residential Precinct west of Bond Street. That Development Plan approval was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, most recently on 05 May 2015  (page 6 –Town Planning Assessment Report)

Condition 24 of Development Plan approval DP 16060/2013 required that the proposed design of the Normanby Road / Boulevard / PHE / Sir John Monash Drive intersection be resolved and approved by SJB Planning Council before further work on the future stages of Caulfield Village can advance. Following extensive engagement with State and local government stakeholders, an updated Integrated Transport Plan was submitted to Council for endorsement on 01 October 2015. (Page 13/14)

Thus, the MRC keeps putting in amended plans and residents know nothing about the amendments and what concessions have undoubtedly been granted to the MRC and by whom! There has not been any formal council resolution on the 5th May 2015, nor any notice that amendments were sought. Why not? And who made the decisions and under whose authority? And as we stated in our previous post, who made the current decision to ‘refuse’ the new Development Plan and what were the grounds of refusal? Why aren’t residents informed as to what is going on until after the fact?

The Development Plan

There is much that could be said about this current proposal. We will only highlight the most obvious things –

  • Another 397 apartments proposed in 4 buildings
  • Building A – 9 storeys of 56 one bedroom and 56 two bedroom
  • Building B – 9 storeys of 44 one bedroom, 56 two bedroom and 9 three bedrooms
  • Building C – 5 storeys of 36 one bedroom and 12 two bedroom
  • Building D – 7 storeys of 92 one bedroom and 36 two bedroom

Thus the percentage of family oriented three bedroom apartments is the wonderful number of 2.26% – whereas the documents claim 5%!

The proposed configurations of these apartments are also nothing to write home about. For example:

No of apartments under 50 square metres – 51

No of units between 50 and 60 square metres – 60

No of balconies under 8 square metres – 71

We remind readers that council caved in on the requirement for 8 square metres of balcony on a previous amendment. Also the State Government’s Better Apartments is looking at legislating for a minimum size and 50 square metres is one suggestion.

Traffic Management & Parking

  • Thanks to the incompetence of the Incorporated Plan, there is NO VISITOR CAR PARKING
  • 397 units plus retail only warrants 441 spots
  • The ‘statistics’ used date from 2010 and ‘updated’ in 2013! No mention of course of impacts on Eskdale Road, Newington, and other local streets all round the precinct!

Affordable Housing

We are so dumbfounded by this proposal that we cite it in full. Please remember that some councillors wrung their hands in dismay when there was no provision for ‘affordable housing’ in Precinct One. The argument put forward by the Lipshutzs and Hyams and Pillings of this world, was that the other precincts would fulfill this requirement. Well here is the ‘master plan’ for affordable housing, courtesy of the MRC. We are sure that readers will get a good laugh out of the following:

Aspirations for the provision of affordable housing within the Caulfield Village development are expressed in the Incorporated Plan. In the current absence of a Federal or State Government scheme to support the development of affordable rental housing, BPG has given detailed consideration to how it might self implement an opportunity for affordable housing within its development that is suitable to Caulfield Village and the broader Caulfield context.

The Caulfield Village & Affordable Housing Report at Appendix Q explores a variety of models that might be adopted to facilitate affordable housing opportunities within the development. It identifies the “Pathway to Ownership” model as the most appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of the proposal and its context. Broadly, the model would offer assistance to low-to-moderate income renter households to purchase an affordable home in the Caulfield Village development by providing people in affordable or private rental with a savings record an opportunity for assistance to meet the necessary start up funds to facilitate ownership. Deposit subsidies from BPG to eligible participants also form part of the assistance package. The scheme would be administered by a community housing provider. It is anticipated that eligible purchasers would currently be living in community housing or private rental accommodation, with limited opportunities to otherwise enter the housing market.

The added benefits of the scheme include the direct expertise of a community housing provider to assist appropriate and eligible candidates on the pathway to ownership, and the freeing up of low rental accommodation previously occupied by participants in the Pathway to Ownership scheme.

The preferred affordable housing model, which will be known as Caulfield Apartment Start Program (CASP) could potentially be applied to any of the proposed accommodation within the development, rather than limited to certain apartments or apartment types. Likewise there would be no limit to the number of apartments able to be purchased under the affordability scheme. The model applies a subsidy to eligible purchasers, rather than dwellings. It is uncertain, until the scheme is up and running, what the uptake of accommodation through the Pathway to Ownership model will look like, but BPG is committed to implementing the program for accommodation within the Mixed Use Precinct, and potentially future development stages

Our final word of caution

Whilst the variously dated Incorporated Plan (ie some of the documents refer to the Incorporated Plan as being 2011 and other documents cite 2014!) stated that the maximum preferred heights for Precinct 1 was 5 storeys, we now have 6 storeys looming over Station St. This is because of the neat little trick perpetrated by the MRC and permitted by council of using the formula of AHD. This refers to sea level heights. Thus if the land is sloping, then instead of the preferred height of say 5 storeys, the MRC can build 6 storeys. Council of course, and all their expert planners, did not pick this up – or if they did, did not care! Thus we warn residents that the mooted heights of these building are just that – mooted and nothing is set in concrete!

PS: stuck between the four building of 9/10 storeys, and 5/6 and 7/8 storeys, the MRC proposes to create a ‘pocket park’. The accompanying visuals are astounding: vast expanses of ‘open space’ that make the area look like a major park and not a ‘pocket park’. No real high rise to dominate the site; no overshadowing whatsoever, and nowhere in the landscape plan could we find any data which states the size and dimensions of this proposed ‘park’. What we do know at this stage is that 25 onsite trees will be removed and 14 street trees at least!

pp

 

 

June 21, 2016

Caulfield Village: Stage 2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Untitled

COMMENT

Residents should be outraged at the processes involved with the development of this project. At last council meeting a public question was asked in relation to a Practice Day hearing held at VCAT on this application. The response was far from satisfactory. Be that as it may, plenty of questions need answering, and all have to do with due process and sound governance.

  • When did council first receive this second stage Development Plan?
  • Who made the decision to ‘refuse’ and why wasn’t this done via a formal council resolution given the magnitude of the plans and the contentious nature of the entire project?
  • What was the purpose of the Practice Day hearing and what were the grounds for someone’s (not Council’s) refusal? What is the outcome of this hearing?
  • If decisions by VCAT are already pending as potentially indicated by the response to the public question, what is the use of calling for submissions after the fact?
  • Time for submissions is 16 days. Whilst this does meet the conditions set by the relevant Schedule it is far from satisfactory, given that council also had the option of 28 days – ie “Display the development plan for public comment for at least 14 days, but no longer than 28 days”
  • And how does the VCAT involvement meet this stated requirement from the Schedule – “The responsible authority must decide whether to approve a development plan or amendment to a development plan within 60 days after the display of the development plan is completed.”

In short, we maintain that every single aspect of planning for this site, has been abysmal with council and especially Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling, falling over backwards to accommodate the MRC!

PS: the link to view the plans is – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Planning/Large-scale-developments/Caulfield-Village-Development-Plans/Development-Plan-2

 

June 20, 2016

Q & A: #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments 

Not on this topic, but worth a read – http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/06/20/use-other-footpath/

RESIDENT #5 – stated that he ‘lived directly behind the town hall’ and that council talks about ‘community planning’ but they got a letter ‘yesterday’ telling them that their 2 hour parking on their street would now become all day parking. Believed that this change was to ‘facilitate council employee’ parking and not residents.  Facilitator again interrupted and said that the resident is basically asking about the amount of information and ‘why’ this is happening. Resident answered that he is talking about ‘prior consultation’.  Facilitator then rephrased again to include ‘consultation’.

TORRES: started saying about a ‘review’ of parking in the municipality, but was interrupted by the resident saying that he isn’t concerned with the entire municipality just why this happened to his street. Torres then continued and said that some ‘underutilised parking areas’ had been identified and having one side of the street as two hours and the opposite as unrestricted is ‘consistent’ with other streets in Glen Eira. Also said that parking is ‘dynamic’ and changes happen ‘over time’ so ‘it’s not a permanent situation’.  The letter also said that the new conditions would  be ‘reviewed early next year’.

Resident then explained how he already can’t get out of his drive. Facilitator again suggested that the resident speak with Torres and to provide him with details about the ‘process that took place’ and how the resident might ‘make an objection’.  Resident claimed that this situation is exactly the same as happened to the other speaker’s question on Phillip’s Street changes. Facilitator summed up by saying ‘parking is a huge issue’ and therefore there needs to be the opportunity for this to be ‘examined’.  Resident then went on with issue about trees and breaking branches and that ‘nothing’ ever happens about their concerns.

COMMENT

The resident’s question of ‘consultation’ has again been neatly sidestepped as has justification for the changes.  In light of these actions, readers need to consider council’s ‘policy’ on traffic management changes. To the best of our knowledge this policy is still extant and is available online. Only 2002 this time!Traffic_Management_Consultation-1_Page_1Traffic_Management_Consultation-1_Page_2 AND

13.3_Parking_Restrictions_Page_113.3_Parking_Restrictions_Page_2

 

June 18, 2016

Planning: Residents’ Q & A!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[9] Comments 

Residents at Wednesday night’s ‘feedback’ forum were provided with the opportunity to ask questions. Here is a summary of the first few –

Resident #1 –  asked what part of structure planning will ensure, for example that heights are mandatory?

THE TORRES RESPONSE: said that there can be a mixture of controls – some are discretionary and also mandatory. ‘Ideally’ they want mandatory which VCAT cannot overturn. Glen Eira has got mandatory height controls over residential zoned land and VCAT can’t change this, but they can over-ride the ResCode guidelines such as setbacks, car parking requirements, etc.

Resident 1 then asked whether ‘we can assume’ that mandatory height limits will be put on commercial zoned sites like in Centre Road?  Torres responded by saying that there would be a ‘thorough review’ of what people want to see develop in the future and that ‘there are tools available to produce greater clarity’ and height limits is one of these and there is ‘potential for mandatory height limits’ but this will involve a planning scheme amendment, then ‘ultimately the Minister for Planning has to approve that’. We will ‘ensure that we produce the best strategic justification’ for this.

RESIDENT #2 – spoke about heritage and that ‘our heritage areas are being attacked and we are losing them’.   Said he couldn’t understand why council hasn’t done anything about its 2002 draft heritage guidelines which VCAT continually ignores because it is only a ‘reference document’ in the planning scheme and not a major policy. Said that he ‘understands’ that all that needs to happen is for this draft to be ‘ratified’ in some way. So instead of having ‘five or ten years of destruction happen’ he can’t understand why this draft document isn’t ‘ratified’ since a lot of the work has already been done and ‘is far better than the 1996 plan’. ‘We need to do something about it now’.  (applause).

TORRES: said that what was called the ‘draft’ is part of the plan for the review and they’re ‘not talking 5 or 10 years’ time . The review will also probably recommend an ‘updated status’ of heritage within the planning scheme. They still need to go through the planning scheme review process though.  Resident then asked that the draft plan stems from 2002 and that’s 14 years, so ‘why wasn’t this certified or ratified’? Also stated that he doesn’t understand Torres’ response and asked if he’s saying that it ‘can’t be certified or ratified now or do we have to wait for this other grand plan?’

Torres replied that there has to be a planning scheme amendment process in order for this to be ‘elevated’ in status in ‘our planning scheme’.  They are reference documents currently and VCAT is ‘not giving them the weight’ that they should have.  Resident again asked why this draft ‘can’t be certified now. Why wait’. The facilitator then interrupted asking officers to explain the amendment process to the audience because ‘there is a process involved here’. Torres then went through the process – ie asking the minister for authorisation to exhibit the amendment, public consultation, and if there are concerns then an independent planning panel is convened and this ‘applies to all of Victoria’. ‘There are many legal stages and they have to be honoured’.  The comment was that all this could take 18 months.

Again the resident stated that he didn’t understand why nothing has been done in 16 years on something that is a lot better than the work produced in 1996. Then resident asked ‘why can’t this be taken as interim’ for the time being? Facilitator then intervened suggesting that the resident sit down with Torres privately so he could explain the State Government ‘process and the local council process’. Resident again stated that if it is taken directly to the Minister that the minister ‘can come up with some interim’ orders. Smith responded that it is part of the ‘work plan’ and that they can’t do anything that hasn’t been ‘reviewed’.

COMMENT

The responses to both of these questions are informative not for what they state, but for what is left UNSTATED! On the heritage questions, Torres kept insisting on the legal processes of a formal advertised amendment, possibly a planning panel and then the Minister’s approval. What is NOT STATED and could be a viable option is an application to the Minister under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, asking the minister to intervene and approve the amendment, or impose interim controls – without the need for public consultation or a panel. This we remind readers is what council did when they introduced the residential zones by stealth and in secret! Of course, the major obstacle to such an approach is that since council has done bugger all for the past 14 years on Heritage, the minister may well be loath to rubber stamp a document that is so out of date. Another scathing indictment of the failure of this council to act and to fulfil anything that it has promised in the planning scheme.

On the first question of height limits for Centre Road, we again have to query the comprehensiveness of the Torres response. When both Lipshutz and Hyams have declared that they think that 6 storeys is appropriate in Centre Road, then how much credence should residents have that their preferred heights (which some have already stated to be 4 storeys) will get a look in from this council. Once again council has the option of applying for interim height controls whilst working on their structure plans and thus ten years need not go by before anything is done. This option is not stated!

Nor is it clear what position LOCAL CENTRES have in all this discussion of ‘activity centre’ commercial zoning. Glen Eira has heaps of LOCAL CENTRES and in each we have commercially zoned sites, many directly abutting Neighbourhood Residential zones. Not once has the discussion paper referred to these areas. Not once has any councillor or planner referred to these areas.  Nor is it even clear whether Local Centres are classified as ‘activity centres’!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »