Council’s heritage overlay policy dates back to 1996. Despite Panel Reports recommending ‘reviews’ of these overlays, nothing approaching a comprehensive and up-to-date review has been embarked upon. Council in its wisdom also decided that many properties found in such overlays could also be zoned as ripe for development under the Residential Growth Zone.

Here is an example of the latest application:

Address: 441-461 Glen Huntly Road, 9 Beavis Street, Elsternwick

Proposal: Demolish the existing building on the land (Heritage Overlay) construct and carry out works associated with the construction of a ten storey building and two buildings of four storeys plus basement, use of the land for the purpose of Accomadation (sic) and shop (Supermarket), a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements of Clause 52.6 and the removal of easement pursuant to Clause 52.02

Readers may remember that prior to the recent state election, Bayside was on the verge of having its RGZ areas removed from the municipality. With a change in government, and a new planning minister, Bayside is again moving towards improving amenity for their residents. All of this goes to show that amendments, changes, and preserving local amenity is possible for councils. Of course, there has to be the will to do so and to pursue these issues.

In the published agenda for their first council meeting of the year, Bayside is seeking a formal resolution to:

• Organise a meeting with the new planning minister
• Proceed with those aspects of Amendment C106 which were refused by Guy

Bayside is seeking, via this amendment to:

• Remove all areas zoned RGZ
• Have a minimum lot size of 400 square metres in its Residential zone
• Increase permeability to 35%
• Maximum of 10 metres height in GRZ6
• Increase private open space requirement according to number of bedrooms

For a full coverage of this amendment, see Agenda Item 10.3. Available at – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/documents/Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda_27_January_2015_without_Confidential.pdf

All of the above makes us wonder what on earth our band of councillors are doing 18 months down the track and when the full disaster is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.

In comparison to Bayside, we remind readers once again, of what Glen Eira underachieved and continues to underachieve when mirrored against the real gains of countless other municipalities – all of which we’ve highlighted over the past year.

• NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE (meaning that 487 Neerim Road can have subdivisions of 199 square metres)
• 3 GRZ SCHEDULES (in reality only 2 applying widely)
• GRZ zones where ‘one size fits all’ of 10.5 metre height
• Permeability of 20% in housing diversity, and 25% in minimal change
• Open space again, ‘one size fits all’, regardless of numbers of rooms, size, etc.
• Residential Growth Zones in narrow, local streets (Bent, Mavho, Loranne,Belsize, etc. etc.)

State Government vows to make Places Victoria more efficient, monitor parking spaces

• Kylie Adoranti
• Leader
• January 15, 2015 12:00AM

THE State Government has vowed to make government developer Places Victoria more efficient and promised to monitor councils’ decisions on parking spaces in new apartment complexes.

These are among a list of thorny planning matters Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas has assured the government will address.

Mr Pallas said under the new Labor Government, Places Victoria would have “a greater purpose and focus”.

He described Places Victoria as being “a shambles” under the former Liberal Government.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” he said.

Mr Pallas said his government would oversee councils’ use of carparking waivers “to protect livability and to make sure cars aren’t causing congestion and parking in suburban streets”.

“Local councils decide the carparking ratios for apartments in their areas. State governments have a responsibility to protect Melbourne’s livability. Development is important — but it needs to strengthen our communities, not weaken them,” he said.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” — Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas

When asked about whether the scrapped Linking Melbourne Authority would be replaced, Mr Pallas said the government was in the process of establishing Infrastructure Victoria — an independent organisation to oversee capital projects.

He said there were no plans to review the urban growth boundaries and the green wedge would be protected.

The government has also promised to conduct a review into the residential planning zones.

Mr Pallas told the Leader the government would recast Fishermans Bend as a series of neighbourhoods.

“Part of this involves ensuring there is a mixture of heights and densities — from medium to high. Fishermans Bend is not a short-term project. It is a place that will evolve over many years into a precinct where people will want to live, to work and to raise a family.”

Mr Pallas was acting planning minister at the time of publication, replacing Acting Planning Minister Robin Scott who has been on leave and who was replacing Planning Minister Richard Wynne who was recovering from a minor heart attack.

Opposition Planning Spokesman David Davis said Mr Pallas criticising Places Victoria was “the pot calling the kettle black”.

“Places Victoria was a step by the previous government to clean up the rabble and mess left by Labor by the Vic Urban authority.

“Presumably Tim Pallas will retain the butler that was introduced in Labor’s period,” he said.

Mr Davis said the government had to release more details on its plan for Fishermans Bend.

“I have no idea what the erratic Andrews Government will do (to Fishermans Bend). The CFMEU-inspired planning spokesman prior to the election had no idea where it was heading.”

Ten years at least and still counting for Glen Eira to achieve anything on tree protection. We have reported on this several times already and direct readers to a previous post – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/

In February 2011, hundreds of properties in Glen Eira were flooded. Council’s response was a report three months later which concentrated on either laying the blame elsewhere (ie Melbourne Water, developers and residents), or patting itself on the back for its ‘emergency response’. Promises were made, such as – Council officers are currently investigating increasing Council’s drainage maintenance resources and will report on this in due course. (Minutes of 28^th June 2011). Needless to say, such a report has never seen the light of day in three and a half years!

Compounding the problem of flooding in Glen Eira is the fact that it is now 9 years at least since the introduction of the Special Building Overlay into the Planning Scheme. Such overlays are meant to safeguard against the risk of flooding by mandating floor level heights. Past estimates have placed properties at risk of flooding in Glen Eira as well over 12,000. With rapid development going on in the municipality, coupled with the increase of impermeable surfaces that such development brings, it surely is time to reassess the entire local drainage system and to evaluate whether any additional sites are now also deemed to be at flood risk.

Other councils have been proactive on this issue – Darebin, Greater Geelong and Port Phillip are the current examples. Port Phillip, which bears the brunt of much water flowing down from Glen Eira’s territory, resolved at its last council meeting to seek an amendment. The amendment follows several years of joint study with Melbourne Water and intends to clearly differentiate between Melbourne Water drains and local council drains. We’ve uploaded the full officer report HERE, but included below some important extracts –

Commencing a planning scheme amendment to update the SBO immediately is recommended. Following the SBO Review, it is now known that the current SBO does not accurately reflect all properties at risk of overland flooding. Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date, and the SBO provides an important and transparent statutory mechanism for indicating properties that are subject to inundation in a severe storm event

Modification of the SBO boundaries on planning scheme maps to reflect the revised flood shape agreed by Melbourne Water and Council (refer maps at Attachment 4). This would:

• Include approximately 10,200 new properties which have now been identified as being subject to inundation.
• Remove approximately 500 properties from the SBO which are no longer identified as being subject to inundation.
• Retain the SBO over approximately 17,300 properties which remain subject to inundation. (Note: The extent of the SBO over these properties may be altered.)

Port Phillip has also included maps of the new sites in its proposed amendment. We find it extremely difficult to accept that potential flooding risk as determined by Port Phillip ‘conveniently’ stops at the border with Glen Eira. If many of the streets running off Hotham on the Port Phillip side are now deemed to require an SBO, then surely many of the properties less then 20 metres away on the Glen Eira side of the street could also be under threat. The questions that need to be asked regarding these new studies are:

• If ‘Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date’, then what has Glen Eira done in the past decade or so in relation to its SBO?
• Why has Council been so reticent in providing any information on its flood risks and measures taken to improve and extend local drainage systems – especially after its ‘promise’ of 2011.
• The current buzz word for councillors is ‘capacity’. How is this quantified, evaluated, and acted upon?
• What impact is all this new development having on Glen Eira’s drainage systems and the water table? Does Council even know?
• And the most important question for residents is – how much longer will ratepayers continue to subsidise developers given that Glen Eira has abandoned its development contributions levy scheme?

Finally, readers may also find the Darebin proposed amendment of interest. Uploaded HERE.

Plan to fund new drainage works

17 December 2014

Developers will be asked to contribute towards the cost of drainage works to improve flood protection in Bayside under a proposed development contributions plan.

Bayside City Council Mayor Cr. Felicity Frederico said the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan (DCP) proposes a fair and equitable system for developers to make a contribution to the increased drainage capacity required when units and apartment blocks are built.

“The plan also allows Council to remain focused on its long-term financial management by continuing to look at opportunities for alternative revenue streams to take pressure off rate increases,” said Mayor Cr. Frederico.

The DCP proposes a development levy of $2000 for each additional ground floor dwelling, $1000 for each additional upper floor dwelling and $340 for each additional 100 sq.m of commercial development built in the Bayside municipality.

Contributions from developers will only be spent on infrastructure that services the drainage needs of new development in that catchment.

Residents building one house on a block of land will be exempt from paying the levy. Other exemptions include additions or extensions to existing dwellings, new dwellings that replace an existing dwelling, or commercial development that does not increase the existing building area and development on public land.

Contributions will be collected when applications for planning permits are approved or at the time of subdivision.

Implementation of the DCP is dependent on its incorporation into the Bayside Planning Scheme which requires authorisation from the Minister for Planning and will follow the planning scheme amendment process.

For further information contact Council on 9599 4444.

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/media_release_fund_new_drainage_works.htm