Glen Eira Debates

PS: We now learn that Council is to receive the pittance of $575,000 as the open space levy for Precinct One of the Caulfield Village development (ie 463 units). In their wisdom only a 4% fee was exacted for this part of the development.

Item 9.2 – Riddell Parade, Elsternwick. Application for 12 storeys and 40 dwellings.

Whilst the officer’s report recommends a ‘refusal’ there are several fascinating aspects to this application.

• Council in its wisdom decided last year to sell the owner of the site a 60 sqm splay from its council owned car park that is also the corner edge of a laneway. This was done in order to “allow them to build a first floor above and a basement below the splay but still allow sightlines along the adjacent laneway.” (Minutes of May 19^th, 2015). In return, council received the princely sum of $59,015 and the developer was to pay legal costs of $26,222.
• The proposed development is deemed as Stage 2 since Stage 1 is for an 8 storey development (under construction) and both sites belong to the same owner.
• Only 14 properties were notified and 3 objections received.

All the above is merely the ‘background’ to some extraordinary aspects of Rocky Camera’s report. The question is: does this report represent some ‘radical’ change in council’s approach or is it merely Camera once again scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to come up with any justification for a refusal?

For the first time, as far as we know, we have statements such as:

…..the development fails to adequately encourage economic development. A building of this height, scale and location should provide for more economic development opportunities than one ground floor office space.

No communal facilities are proposed within either the approved development (Stage 1- 28 Riddle (sic) Parade) or within the proposed development. This is considered to be a poor outcome for a development of this scale.

A total of 58 car spaces are provided on-site. A reduction in the residential visitor and office car spaces is sought. However, the allocation of car spaces is unclear due to the oversupply of residential car spaces. Further, no disabled car space has been provided.

The application proposes vehicle access through ‘Stage 1’ of the development at 28 Riddell Parade. However, there is no formal legal accessway provided between both properties currently.

These are literally extraordinary ‘reasons’ for refusal – especially when seen in light of previous decisions. For example:

• In November 2012 the officer report for 1056 Dandenong Road recommended ‘approval’ for a 12 storey and 173 dwellings. Councillors knocked this back to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. The developer got what he wanted at VCAT. However, there was not a single word in this report on ‘communal facilities’. Nor do we find any mention of this in the recent 9 storey application in Centre Road, Bentleigh – nor in countless others!
• The current Camera report also just happens to conveniently ignore other sections of the Planning Scheme that were included in the 12 storey application. Omitted here are – To consolidate retail functions within existing strip shopping centres; To encourage increased densities within and around commercial/transport nodes which respect transition to the surrounding residential area; To ensure future development is appropriate to the constraints of infrastructure and vehicular traffic movement (including parking). We must also remember that the site is within the Elsternwick Urban Village, where everything in the planning scheme promotes higher density.
• If there is an ‘oversupply of residential car spaces’, then why not simply turn these ‘residential’ spots into ‘visitor’ car parking spots as done in countless other application conditions?
• If the developer owns both sites, then is ‘formal legal accessway’ nothing more than a furphy? It will be interesting to see how VCAT views the issue.
• Surely the argument regarding ‘employment’ and ‘economic development’ is on very shakey ground considering that the rationale has always been that increased populations in urban villages via higher density dwelling, will ‘invigorate’ centres and help sustain them?

Thus we are again faced with the conundrum of a planning scheme that facilitates high rise development and planners engaged in major ‘damage control’ forced to come up with ‘reasons’ for refusal that anyone can drive a truck through – especially developers with stacks of money for ‘expert witnesses’ and reports! Residents are now paying the full price of a planning scheme that administrators and councillors have refused to touch since 2002. As we’ve stated previously, the only valid response is a total revamp of the zones and a major overhaul of the planning scheme.

God help us if this is the quality of planning application reports by officers! We are referring to an application for 4 storeys and 49 units at 90-94 Mimosa Road, Carnegie. The area is zoned Residential Growth Zone, and a permit has already been granted by VCAT for 4 storeys and 50 units at 110-114 Mimosa Road – just a few doors down the same road. Of course, this is not even mentioned in the Camera report!

The recommendation is to refuse the permit. We wonder whether the correlation between refusals and the number of objections has again reared its ugly head (ie 56 objections). Please note, we are not disagreeing with the recommendation to refuse, but are merely pointing out how Rocky Camera is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with any valid reason to refuse the permit given council’s current planning scheme. In our opinion, the officer’s report is not only sub-standard, but hasn’t got a hope in hell of convincing VCAT.

Then of course, there is the argument that if council didn’t want ‘consolidation’ of lots, or 4 storey developments along Mimosa Road, then why did they zone this as a Residential Growth Zone? Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now, is far too late. If instead of simply drawing a circle on a map, council had done its work properly at the time of introducing the zones, we wouldn’t be having the farce that is now standard practice for council. Nor would we be having to cough up tens of thousands of dollars for officers and consultants to go to VCAT on wild goose chases and at ratepayers’ expense. This is literally money thrown down the drain.

Here’s why:

Camera writes – Policy encourages that the highest residential densities be located in Urban Villages, particularly for sites in closest proximity to a commercial activity Centre. The case is different here noting the subject site is located on the outer edge of the Residential Growth Zone with lower intensity zones located to the south and west.

COMMENT: decision after VCAT decision has already commented on the fact that proximity to the centre of an urban village is not an argument, and that if anything it is the GRZ2 zones which are to be taken as the ‘transition buffers’.

This illustrates that the subject site in a more sensitive ‘transitional’ location on the ‘fringe’ of the Residential Growth Zone, with lower density residential zones to the south and west.

COMMENT: When VCAT considers that a 2 storey differential is not enough to refuse a permit, then the difference between RGZ (4 storeys) and GRZ (3 storeys) will not carry any weight whatsoever. Readers should also remember how many developments that directly abutt Neighbourhood Residential zones (ie 2 storeys) have been granted permits by council alone.

Whilst policy also supports a degree of change in this area, the proposal is not site responsive nor is it contextually appropriate having regard to the disparity in scale and massing between the 4 storey building and prevailing single storey development pattern on the west side of Mimosa Road (and beyond).

COMMENT – Again a totally ludicrous argument when back yards in countless streets are the ‘buffer’ between RGZ and the other zones. Or, streets become the buffers between the various zones – ie one side of Garden Avenue Glen Huntly is zoned for 3 storeys (GRZ1) and the opposite side is 2 storeys (NRZ). One section of Balaclava Road is also zoned RGZ and across the road it is NRZ. The same applies for Kambrook Road and Newington Road; Blackwood St in Carnegie as well – or Rowan Street in Elsternwick. There are countless examples of this throughout the municipality. Does this mean that Camera’s argument applies to all? Or is it only that the decision has been made to refuse this application and something has to be coughed up in the attempt to justify the pre-determined decision?

The building will be highly prominent and further exacerbated when viewed at street level and from the wider area due to the site’s overall area (as a result of the consolidation of three lots). As such the development will unreasonably detract from the character and residential amenity of this transitional location (between zones).

COMMENT: All of a sudden ‘residential amenity’ is a concern, when the schedules to the zones do not provide any consideration of ‘amenity’ in the RGZ areas. And doesn’t the planning scheme after all actively ‘encourage’ the consolidation of lots?

Whilst redevelopment of the site at a higher density (than what currently exists) is not opposed, it is considered the proposal fails to adequately respect the neighbourhood character due to excessive mass, bulk and scale of the building (thereby resulting in unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the streetscape and adjoining properties).

COMMENT: how can one speak of ‘neighbourhood character’ when ‘change’ is the purpose and there is no ‘preferred character statement’ whatsoever in the planning scheme for housing diversity. As pointed out numerous times in VCAT decisions.

The development has a Planning Scheme car parking requirement of 62 car spaces (53 resident spaces and 9 visitor spaces). A total of 58 car spaces are proposed on-site (53 allocated to the residential dwellings and 5 to the visitors). This results in a shortfall of 4 visitor spaces. Council’s Transport Planning Department does not oppose the proposed shortfall of 4 visitor car spaces for the development

COMMENT: and the final insult to injury is that council itself does not insist on the requisite number of visitor car parking spaces.

The flood gates have now opened on Mimosa Road – as they have in every street that is zoned RGZ and GRZ. Council can continue to blame VCAT but in our view the fault basically lies with a planning scheme and a planning department that has failed dismally to undertake proper strategic planning. What residents are now faced with is council’s ‘damage control’ tactics. It is very, very easy to refuse application after application and continue to blame VCAT. As for the quality of the Camera report – in our view it is not only sub-standard, but not worth the paper it is written on. There is not one single ‘fact’ – ie what is the percentage of overshadowing? what is site coverage? Compared to the depth and comprehensiveness of other council’s reports on planning applications, Glen Eira should literally hang its head in shame!

We continue our ‘series’ which we started in February on councillor decision making on applications and the results at VCAT. Now that there is finally a planning scheme review being undertaken, council must address the core issues of what is missing in council’s planning scheme.

In our February post (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/dumb-or-complicit-1/) we asserted that councillors have not learnt from their mistakes; that they have been content to play to the gallery and repeatedly knock off a level or two, or the number of apartments, and think they have done their job. History shows that in every single decision involving a reduction in height or dwellings and where the developer has subsequently gone to VCAT such councillor decisions have been well and truly trounced.

When decision after VCAT decision spells out in lurid technicolor what is amiss with the planning scheme and nothing has been done to address these gaping holes, then as we stated in our header – either councillors are incredibly dumb or completely complicit in a pro-development agenda!

With elections around the corner, readers need to take careful note of who voted for what!

COUNCILLOR DECISION – #5 – 8 Railway Crescent, Bentleigh. Application was for 3 storeys and 10 apartments. Officer recommendation – permit granted. Esakoff and Lipshutz moved motion for 3 storeys and 8 units. Motion was carried unanimously. Developer went to VCAT and was awarded his 10 units. Member decision included: I could perhaps understand Council seeking to remove Dwellings 9 and 10 if there were direct and unacceptable amenity impacts, such as overshadowing of neighbouring properties, or if the site was on the boundary with land included in a Minimal Change Area and in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.  But neither of those circumstances applies here. The land is well away from the boundary of a Minimal Change Area and the only adjoining property affected by overshadowing is to the east and any shadow is only cast in the mid afternoon to the non-secluded front yard. I note that Mr Wood, Mr O’Brien and Mr Filatov do not live adjacent to the site and are not directly affected by the two dwellings proposed to be deleted. Ms Snell agreed that the development complies with all the numeric ResCode standards

COUNCILLOR DECISION -#6 – 24-26 Mavho Street Bentleigh. Application was for 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Officer recommendation to grant a permit. Hyams and Lobo moved motion to grant permit for 3 storey and 25 units. This motion was carried with Pilling voting against it. Developer went to VCAT and got his 4 storeys and 28 units! The decision reads in part – I am not persuaded by Council’s zoning submissions that the surrounding zoning will in some way perform the role of limiting development or height in this case on this site. This site is clearly in the Residential Growth Zone and does not share a boundary with any other zone….I am not persuaded that this site is to perform a transition role. The is a zone and an area of intensive development. Other sites further will peform this transition role. The fact that Council has rezoned 24 Mavho Street Residential Growth as is the adjoining lot at 22A and 22B Mavho Street and then the zone changes to a General Residential Zone at 20 Mavho Street, tells me that the transition site and role is performed at 20 Mavho Street.