GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

June 6, 2016

Heights

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

Glen Eira Council considering height limits for commercial zones in Glen Eira under planning scheme review

June 5, 2016 12:00am

Chad Van Estrop

Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

HEIGHT restrictions could be imposed on commercial zones in Glen Eira following a review of the council’s planning scheme.

Glen Eira’s director of planning Ron Torres said the review, expected to be complete by June 30, would consider height limits.

Angry residents have been calling for the limits on developments in activity hubs like Centre Rd, Bentleigh and say commercial zones, which do not have mandatory height limits, are fuelling over development.

“The key theme that the community raised consistently were the rate and level of development occurring in Glen Eira and in particular around our shopping centres,” Mr Torres said of recent community consultation sessions.

“While our policies don’t contain numerical heights they talk about transitioning down in scale to the residential areas.”

The review comes as two apartment blocks — one of eight storeys (33 dwellings) and another of six storeys (22 dwellings) — have been approved for Centre Rd since April.

Mr Torres was concerned the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was not implementing council’s policy when their decisions were appealed.

“What our particular concern has always been is that VCAT is not giving the due consideration to our policies,” he said. Mr Torres said VCAT was “not necessarily” setting a precedent with its planning decisions.

He said the planning review would address development scale and size, car parking, heritage protections and neighbourhood character but that any changes to Glen Eira’s planning scheme would need approval from planning minister Richard Wynne.

RMIT professor of urban studies Peter Norden backed the community call for height limits within commercial zones. “I can see that if we starting getting (more) six and seven storey developments on Centre Rd it will conflict seriously with the local urban context,” he said. Prof Norden, a Centre Rd resident, said development was necessary to cater for Melbourne’s booming population. “I’m not against development but it needs to be done in a way that is balanced and not giving green lights to greedy over development.”

In a letter to council last year Mr Wynne said he was concerned that Glen Eira’s planning policy “may not be providing adequate guidance in relation to development within Glen Eira’s activity centre.”

June 5, 2016

Another VCAT Decision

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

VCAT has once more pronounced ‘judgement’ on council’s Planning Scheme and shown its inadequacies to prevent overdevelopment. One of the latest decisions comes from the same developer who gained a permit for the 8 storey proposal in Centre Road, Bentleigh. This time it is for a 3 storey, 21 apartment venture in Prince Edward Avenue, McKinnon. Below are some extracts from the decision. If Council is ‘fair dinkum’ about shoring up its defences against inappropriate development, then each and every VCAT decision must be considered and amendments drawn up to plug the countless loopholes that developers have so successfully exploited. Anything less is unacceptable.

In principle, I consider that the zone, the absence of overlays, the consideration of relevant planning policies and the locational attributes all lend support to a more intensive development on the review site. Although residents may prefer medium density developments of not more than two or three double storey townhouses, that intensity of development is inconsistent with the extent of built form expected within a neighbourhood centre and in a housing diversity area.

However I make the point that more intensive development does not necessarily mean that individual lots along Prince Edward Avenue will be capable of accommodating three storey apartment style buildings containing ten dwellings. It may be, for example, that individual lots are unable to comfortably accommodate such development and that lot consolidation will provide a means whereby such buildings can be comfortably accommodated in this area. It is certainly the case that policy at Clause 22.07-3 encourages lot consolidation to promote development opportunities.

In contrast with the residential areas which lie outside the Housing Diversity Areas (within the Minimal Change Areas), there is no neighbourhood character policy to articulate the expected outcomes here. Nor are there any built-form overlays, such as a Design and Development Overlay, to establish the parameters which would apply to new development. Beyond the policies which have been detailed above, the only guidance which can be gained from the Planning Scheme is essentially from the purpose of the GRZ1, the 10.5 metre height limit specified in the schedule to the GRZ1, and the provisions of Clause 55.

The extracts from Tribunal decisions provided earlier confirm that the new buildings within Housing Diversity Areas are not expected to respect the existing character. To do so would detract from the policy direction that these areas are to evolve over time into locations where there is a predominance of higher density housing. This view is supported by the fact that the Planning Scheme does not include a neighbourhood character policy for the Housing Diversity Areas. They are expected to change in quite a substantial way, and this involves a very obvious departure from the traditional dwelling forms and styles which presently characterise streets like Prince Edward Avenue.

Having regard to the maximum 10.5 metre building height provided for in the Schedule to the zone, submissions that development should not be greater than two-storeys cannot be substantiated, as this specified height allows for three-storey development. The inclusion of Prince Edward Avenue in GRZ1 is an indicator that, at a point in time, a conscious decision was made that three-storey development in this street would represent an acceptable outcome. The provisions of the GRZ1 as they currently stand reflect an expectation that, over time, three-storey buildings will be constructed not only in Prince Edward Avenue, but also in the nearby residential streets contained within this zone. Indeed, approvals for such buildings are in place for sites in Station Avenue and Penang Street, both of which are within the residential area of the Neighbourhood Centre.

Within the zoning and policy context where these forms of development are anticipated, it is inevitable that new buildings of this type will affect neighbouring properties. The resultant impact on the occupants of those properties will, undeniably, be significant. It will represent a significant change from what they have become accustomed to and will, of course, affect their amenity. This is particularly so for the properties at 27 & 33 Prince Edward Avenue and at 30 & 32 Station Avenue, all of which I have inspected. The residents’ opposition to the development is entirely understandable.

However, as explained in earlier Tribunal decisions, the Council has identified this neighbourhood as one which will undergo a much greater level of change than other residential locations which are situated in Minimal Change Areas and where the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) applies. In those other areas, new development is restricted by the zone provisions to a maximum of two dwellings on a lot and the height is restricted to 8.0 metres (equivalent to two storeys). That is not the Council’s vision for this neighbourhood, as articulated in the Planning Scheme. If it were, then it would have sought to apply the NRZ here. It has not. Rather, a strategic decision has been made based on the location within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre to apply the GRZ1 and to allow higher and more intensive development. This is not without its consequences for the amenity of adjoining properties

I acknowledge the residents’ opposition to the proposed overlooking on the basis that views beyond 9.0 metres into their secluded private open space areas will be possible. While this may be true, the Objective is to limit views, not to prevent them altogether, and the Standard only requires views within 9.0 metres to be screened. The Planning Scheme’s provisions do not address views beyond this distance

The residents expressed concerns regarding the capacity of local services to absorb the demand generated by developments such as this. Although these concerns may be understandable, I have no evidence before me to lead me to conclude that the capacity of local infrastructure will be exceeded as a consequence of this development.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/823.html

June 3, 2016

Agenda: What’s Not There

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is interesting not merely for what it contains, but more so, for what is not included. A few examples:

No mention in any of the records of assembly of council’s ‘discussion’ on the appointment of Ms Fiona O’Brien to investigate allegations of bullying. Pilling has been quoted as stating that council ‘engaged’ Ms O’Brien to undertake this work. Hence, we wonder when and where this decision was made. Even if ‘confidential’, our reading of the Local Government Act would still require a note that some item of a confidential matter was being discussed. No such notation exists.
On the 26^th April (that is two council meetings ago) there was a request for a report on the potential for an increased open space levy. The report has not yet materialised – meaning that if it does appear for the next council meeting, it will have taken 2 months for a document to be tabled. In our view, not good enough!
The records of assembly meeting of 24^th May include this item – (a) CFO – outcome of loan re-structuring negotiations. No item in the agenda to inform residents of what this will mean in terms of late payments, the new interest rate, or in fact any information whatsoever. We assume that ratepayers will be required to plough through the new Strategic Resource Plan (when it appears) and try and figure out what is really happening! Surely some media release or official statement would not go astray at this point in time?

June 1, 2016

Get Ready For 16 Storeys!

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

A new application for a 16 storey mixed use development has come in for Egan Street, Carnegie. This is the second time the developer is asking for this height. The first application was refused by council in December 2014 and VCAT affirmed Council’s decision in October 2015. What should be noted about this VCAT refusal is that 16 storeys was considered acceptable by VCAT given Council’s planning scheme (ie – ‘As I have indicated in this decision, there are many aspects of the proposal that I do support, including its overall height.’) What stymied this first application was ‘internal amenity’ (apartments without natural light, some of miniscule size – 41 square metres, and whether or not there would be ‘equitable’ opportunities for potential development for buildings alongside this project. It should also be noted that this site is listed as being in Precinct 1 of the Carnegie Urban Village. Tough luck that this feature of the planning scheme lapsed in 2007!!!!!! The following paragraph from the decision sums it up nicely –

Whilst the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks encourages the development of higher density housing on this site, the planning scheme does not contain specific design guidance usually provided within planning schemes for locations such as the Carnegie Urban Village. A Design and Development Overlay has not been applied to the site, and there is no guidance as to the expected height of buildings within Precinct 1.

This is clearly another example of council sitting on its hands until it is too late. Yes, there is now a planning scheme review. However, the chances of amendments being introduced in time to limit height and design and then being applied retrospectively is zero in our view. Then there is of course, the other option of the developer going immediately to VCAT if council does not come up with a decision in the required 60 days.

The take-home message from all of this is that unless the current planning scheme review achieves major reform and that includes much, much more than simply slapping on a height limit for commercial sites, then inappropriate development will continue.

May 31, 2016

Magee & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[24] Comments

Councillor camps out at Caulfield Racecourse to campaign on public space

Date: May 30, 2016

Clay Lucas

Councillor Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp site. Photo: Jason South

Jim Magee is camping out. Conservative by nature, the Glen Eira councillor is not the type to conduct a sit-in, or break his own council’s by-laws banning camping on public land.

But he was worried his long-running campaign to draw attention to the little-used public space inside Caulfield Racecourse might end up going nowhere with the state’s new environment minister, Lily D’Ambrosio.

So last week he dug the family tent out of the garden shed. “Finally in my old age, I’ve become an activist,” says Cr Magee, sitting by a fire, outside the five-person tent he pitched on Saturday by the racecourse.

Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp sit-in. Photo: Jason South

There are local laws against camping on public land, which Glen Eira is usually quick to enforce.

“But this is a political sit-in,” says Cr Magee, who has been told by council officers that unless there are complaints from residents, they are unlikely to issue him with a notice to vacate.

Cr Magee will stay put until Saturday afternoon, by which time he hopes to have met Ms D’Ambrosio to discuss the fate of the 54 hectares of land in the centre of Caulfield Racetrack.

The reserve, set aside for the public more than a century ago, is hard to get to, because of the racing infrastructure that must be navigated. It’s open from 9.30am each morning until sundown, and many locals don’t even know it’s there.

Cr Magee was concerned that, with Ms D’Ambrosio only recently taking over environmental matters, she might not pay enough attention to a review under way by the Andrews government.

There’s little chance of that now, with the land at the centre of a fight that has led to much debate – and a scathing Auditor-General’s report. It found the public land was being used almost exclusively to serve the interests of the Melbourne Racing Club.

Cr Magee has five more nights ahead of him before his hoped-for meeting with the minister, and a rally of sporting clubs who want ovals built on the land, which equates to 15 MCG playing surfaces.

“I’ve been here through two very cold nights so far – I’ve made friends with a couple of foxes,” says a slightly blurry Cr Magee, who says he is waking every 90 minutes or so. “I’m doing more sitting than sleeping – I’m actually right next to a very busy roundabout.”

The Andrews government is reviewing the status of how the land is governed and controlled, and Cr Magee – who was once a member of the trust that controls the land – says it must change.

He wants Ms D’Ambrosio to step in as minister and take control of the land and help Glen Eira council turn it into sporting fields and parklands for use at all times.

Ms Lily D’Ambrosio said she understood the high level of community interest in the public land at the racecourse and that the government had set up a bi-partisan working group to consider the issue.

“I’m expecting to receive this report next month and look forward to working with the community to reach a resolution,” she said.

May 26, 2016

Another ‘Clayton’s Consultation’?

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

For the second consecutive time, Theme 1 (Municipal Strategic Statement & Local Policies) contained in the ‘Discussion Paper’ for the review of the planning scheme has been neatly side-stepped and no discussion permitted. We therefore wonder how Council can ‘know’ what residents suggest, or want, if they haven’t even bothered to ask. What comments council officers have made in previous forums on this theme has been far from satisfactory. Torres simply admitted that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is well and truly outdated and will need to be ‘revised’. That’s it!

Given that the MSS and its associated Local Policies are perhaps the most important components of any planning scheme, it is unforgiveable that residents have not been provided with (a) enough information on these sections, and (b) that ‘discussion’ has been literally ‘censored’. That of course leads to the very obvious questions of:

Is this another Clayton’s consultation where ‘changes’ have already been predetermined but residents are kept in the dark like mushrooms?
Who decided to discard discussion on Theme 1? Was Ms Turner given her orders to do so or was it her decision alone?

Below is a screen dump from the Discussion Paper. Please note how bereft of detail this really is, yet how this Theme contains all the vital policies and which, of course, ultimately lead onto the zones and their schedules. From our perspective, it appears that council has done everything it can to avoid any discussion on the most contentious issue in Glen Eira – ie a review of the zones and their respective schedules.

PS: also worthy of note – the only councillor to front last night was Lobo. No sign of Lipshutz at any of these ‘forums’ and Magee’s 5 minute appearance at the first one! Delahunty has also been a noticeable absentee.

May 25, 2016

Open Space

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

The lack of public open space in Glen Eira has been known for decades. It was acknowledged in 1987, again in the open space strategy of the nineties and once more in 2013. Residents were lead to believe in the 1996 strategy that 50% of revenue raised would be used to purchase NEW open space. In 2013/14 ratepayers were promised even more (via council resolutions) – ie that all monies raised from the levy would be put towards the purchase of NEW open space and not used for ‘development’ of existing open space. Thus twice residents have been dudded and promises literally thrown out the window.

Council’s record on dealing with this issue is appalling. Monies have been frittered away on lawyers, pavilion developments that come in double the original monetary proposals, always late, and inevitably turn parks into more concrete and parking at more expense. Even when council had the opportunity to purchase land they removed the public acquisition overlay on Magnolia Road Gardenvale only to re-impose it 8 years later and pay the then current market price! Their largesse to the MRC has thus far garnered a paltry $575,000 for 463 units on over a hectare of land which at today’s prices will not even buy half a suburban block!

The result? Instead of increasing public open space through proper planning and budgeting, residents are now bequeathed less public open space per individual given the population increase. To add insult to injury there is now the Request for a Report to consider whether council should be seeking a higher levy when objectors argued this point years ago. When other councils can exact levies of 8% and even more for some of their areas, this council has always been unwilling to impose anything that may be seen as an impediment to more and more development. Present and future residents are ultimately paying the cost for such generosity.

May 20, 2016

Racecourse

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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

May 19, 2016

Community Forum: Planning Scheme Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

Last night’s community forum had a good turnout of residents. We estimate that 50+ people attended. Many new ideas were proffered as well as some old perennials – ie community gardens; tree register and protection, traffic, etc.

Whilst there are undoubtedly time limits and such meetings cannot go on all night, we were very surprised by the fact that Theme 1 of the Discussion Paper (ie the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)and all council’s Local Policies) did not get a guernsy. In fact, the ‘discussion’ went immediately to Theme 2. Given that the MSS is arguably Council’s most significant document since it sets the framework for all land use together with the Local Policies, and has not had a revamp for well over a decade, it is disappointing that residents were not provided with the opportunity to voice their views on this important component of the planning scheme. It should also be noted that only two councillors were in attendance – Sounness and Lobo.

Below is a ‘snapshot’ summarising the feedback on the Environmental Sustainable Design theme as it went up on the overhead projector. (apologies for the poor quality!)

A sample of the other feedback provided throughout the evening was:

Review Urban Design for Racecourse, Caulfield Station, Monash Uni
Rubbish bins on roads
More family sized apartments
Open space levy increase to purchase land
More permeable surfaces for footpaths
One way streets to reduce congestion
All new dwellings to have solar power and green roofs
Significant tree register
Increased permeability for developments via schedules
Population density has impact on resources
Bicycles for short distance travel

Opening comments from some residents were also informative –

Heritage Update 2002 is not part of the Planning Scheme and that’s why VCAT does not have to consider it.
What is the capacity of population growth for Glen Eira and what does this say about density and all that follows from this?
As one commentator has said in our previous post, residents appeared to favour a 4 storey height limit for commercial dwellings/zonings.

May 18, 2016

Lipshutz & Hyams!!!!!

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

Residents need to consider carefully the following from last night’s council meeting. In our view it encapsulates fully the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and decision making that has already been determined, despite the ongoing planning scheme review.

Item 9.1 was an application for a 7 storey and 24 dwellings in Centre Road, Bentleigh. Officers recommended 6 storeys and 22 dwellings. True to form, councillors decided that they would lop off another storey and a handful of units so that the motion was for 5 storeys and 19 dwellings. This was moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that objectors did not attend the planning conference. Said that there is a ‘quandary’ here because ‘we have our beliefs’ about what is appropriate for Centre Road and ‘on the other hand’ there is the recent VCAT decision for 8 storeys up the road. If it wasn’t for this decision then ‘5 storeys would be pretty much a lay down misere’. So the questions is ‘do we change our opinion’ because of the VCAT decision and make a further decision based on this ‘which we think is wrong’ and ‘hope’ that VCAT ‘gets it right this time’. His motion is because he thinks that ‘five storeys is appropriate’ in Centre Road. ‘Currently’, the ‘tallest building in Centre Road is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think ‘that we should compound the mistakes made by VCAT’ which they ‘would be doing’ if a permit was granted for 7 storeys. Spoke about setbacks and car stackers and that ‘they are accepted by the government’. Thought that ‘5 storeys is reasonable’ since it ‘backs onto 4 storeys’.

LIPSHUTZ: Centre Road has got ‘3 and 4 storeys’ and even though this might look like a 3 storey from the ‘street, it is nevertheless a 7 storey building’. “I think that’s wrong’. ‘I think the appropriate level is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think that they should say that because VCAT ‘will approve it’ that they should change their minds. Thought that ‘we have to stand up for our principles and residents’ since ‘we know what we want’. ‘This council has policies and I think we have to maintain our position’ and if ‘vcat overrules us, well so be it’. ‘We have principles and we have to stand by them’ and that he thinks that ‘5 storeys is the appropriate level’.

LOBO: give the developer ‘an inch’ and he will ‘take large square metres’ to build ‘inappropriate’ buildings. Said that Mavho ‘has a uniformity of 4 storeys’ and giving this 5, then with VCAT, there is the possibility of ‘giving 9 or 10’ storeys. Residents ‘have said’ that Bentleigh is ‘completely destroyed’. Said that since the Minister ‘has asked us to review’ the planning scheme he thinks that the commercial zones shouldn’t change until the review is done. Said that ‘I have never accepted anything over 3 storeys’ and apart from the General Residential Zone, the ‘new zones don’t say that’. After ‘the destruction of Bent St and Mavho Street’, Loranne and Campbell street are now the ‘targets’ and developers have also ‘encroached East Bentleigh where there is no public transport’. This has ‘created chaos as far as traffic is concerned’. Gave examples of residents who could not get out of their driveways and ambulances could not get in. Said that councillors ‘have to look after the residents’ and that they are ‘elected not for any political party’. ‘If we are not doing this, then we had better stay home’.

PILLING: said that Hyams motion is for a main road, in a commercial zone and not residential. Thought that the ‘five storeys’ is ‘appropriate’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo implied that there weren’t 4 storey developments before the zones came in, but there were, especially in Carnegie and Murrumbeena. So he ‘hoped that people don’t draw that parallel because it wouldn’t be true’. Said that the ‘problem’ is that ‘we have policies in place’ to protect Centre Road, but VCAT ‘has suddenly started interpreting it as if we don’t’. thus ‘our policies haven’t changed but VCAT’s interpretation has changed’. Didn’t think that ‘under planning law’ council can put a ‘hold on developments’ waiting for the review. Repeated that he thought that 5 storeys ‘in commercial zones is appropriate’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST

COMMENTS

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of both Hyams and Lipshutz is simply mind-boggling. Truth, consistency, and above all, integrity, goes out the window when it comes to getting their motions up. Here are some quotes that these two individuals have said in the not too distant past. Please compare their above comments with what follows –

HYAMS

‘it’s not as if you will get a six storey building in a row of shops’. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/hyams-can-we-believe-him/).
HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.) Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement – Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)

LIPSHUTZ

LIPSHUTZ: He also needs to be ‘practical’ in that he could ‘easily reject’ this but it will go to VCAT and they will say that ‘I haven’t turned my mind to it properly’ since he has to sit here in a ‘quasi judicial’ position and ‘working on planning laws’. These laws ‘allow this building to happen’. (on 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick – 26/11/2014)

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’ (on double storey application for rear in Bolinda St., Bentleigh East – 15/11/2013)
LIPSHUTZ – Glen Eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. (30/12/2014)

There are literally countless other statements we could have included in the above. Some simple questions will suffice –

How much longer will these councillors continue the sham of blaming VCAT for their inaction and lack of sound strategic planning?
How many more times will Lipshutz get up and try to warn off objectors from going to VCAT?
How many more times will half-truths be portrayed as gospel in the chamber?
And how much longer will residents put up with such self-serving incompetence, especially from these two councillors?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates