December 9, 2014
+++++++++
A few points on the following image:
1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?
2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?
December 8, 2014
487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.
Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:
Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –
Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)
Questions galore arise as a consequence:
And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!
December 6, 2014
Corner Kokarrib and Neerim Roads – taken today (6/12/2014)
December 2, 2014
PS: BREAKING ALL RECORDS, HERE’S THE LATEST APPLICATION FOR EGAN STREET, CARNEGIE. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THE DEFICIENCIES OF COUNCIL’S PLANNING REGISTER WHEN REAL DETAILS ARE NOT PUBLISHED.
Construction of a 16 storey mixed use development (shop and dwellings); waiver of loading bay; reduction of car parking
+++++++++++++
The total devastation of local residential streets is nowhere more evident than in what has been happening in Bent Street since the introduction of the new zones.
No account has been taken of the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on neighbourhood amenity, much less parking, drainage, open space, overshadowing and so on. For example: Bent Street comprised approximately 70 lots of land. The overwhelming majority of these lots contained one house – many of them stunning Californian bungalows. In the past 15 months permits have either been granted, or awaiting decision for an additional 178 dwellings. In other words, the potential rise in dwelling stock is to the order of 300%.
Below we feature the sad history of this once lovely street –
14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking) (up for decision)
64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a part three and part four storey building comprising 31 dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor car parking (up for decision)
22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four storey building containing up to 36 dwellings above a basement (permit)
15 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings and a basement car park (permit)
23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to 27 dwellings with basement car parking – Amended (permit)
67 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of two double storey attached dwellings (permit)
TOTAL = 178 dwellings
What is unclear is how 64-66 Bent Street’s application wasn’t rejected outright since it is our belief that this part of Bent Street is actually zoned as General Residential Zone 2 – ie supposedly 3 storey dwellings. What makes this application even more interesting is that both 64 and 66 Bent Street went up for auction on this weekend (according to the Age’s Auction results) selling for $1,750,000 each. Thus with an ‘investment’ of $3.5 million we can be assured of one thing – the developer(s) will attempt to squeeze every ounce of profit they can from this land and it’s all thanks to the zones in our view.
Unless this council starts taking account of the CUMULATIVE impacts of its permits then hundreds of streets in Glen Eira will go the way of Bent St. A five fold increase in dwellings in a previously quiet residential area of several hundred metres is not sound planning. It is destruction on a major scale that is not in accord with any planning document or concern for residents.
December 1, 2014
November 29, 2014
Councillors have repeatedly stated that it is the State Government and the Minister who is responsible for the new zoning. This only reveals half of the story. Yes, amendments have to be signed off by the Minister and yes, councils have to abide by the Minister’s decision. However, it was up to councils to first determine
On all of these aspects, Glen Eira City Council has, in our view failed those residents living in GRZ, RGZ and Mixed Use Zones. These are the areas where Council did have the choice as to what went into their schedules and standards. Glen Eira chose to go for the least protection possible.
Please consider the following table which outlines exactly the scope provided to councils. Readers will note that in terms of height, there was the ability to impose a 9 metre limit in GRZ. Glen Eira opted for 10.5 across the board. Even in the RGZ council again had the option of selecting a lower height limit. They didn’t. The heights listed in this document are MAXIMUMS and were not set in stone. And as we’ve previously stated, height by itself is only one component of good planning. Council ignored all the other aspects that we’ve mentioned such as: site coverage; permeability; setbacks; minimum lot sizes, etc.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND PLEASE NOTE THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS.
November 28, 2014
Applications for high density dwellings are going through the roof. Residents are selling up as quickly as they can – often together with their neighbours. Developers are picking the eyes out of all areas now zoned as RGZ and GRZ plus commercial and Mixed Use. And what are our councillors doing about all this? Zilch! Nothing! A big fat zero!
Instead of any firm commitment to review the current planning scheme, (which they legally must) all residents are getting is more of the same hogwash, dissembling and mistruths. Hyams, Magee, Pilling and the rest can repeat ad nauseam that the zones haven’t made any difference. That what is happening now could have happened before. Well, in theory it might have, but the reality is that it didn’t! Apart from a few aberrations in Carnegie and Elsternwick, developers knew that applying for a four storey 20+ apartment block in quiet local streets of normal block size wouldn’t get through. Many got knocked back at VCAT and some even by council. Now with the zones, developers are rubbing their hands with glee knowing that 4 storeys are acceptable, and what’s more, expected. Even more disconcerting is the growing incidence of amended applications going in for additional storeys and units. The latest is today’s publication from VCAT of a five storey amended permit application that increases the number of dwellings by 3. Council had no objection to this increase! This and countless other examples have got nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the current zones which give carte blanche to these increases.
Residents keep being told the same old furphies and to paraphrase Lipshutz citing Goebbels – if you repeat some lies often enough then people might also start believing them. Or at least that is the hope. For example:
“Glen Eira is the only council with mandatory height limits in the Residential Growth Zone.” What utter rubbish! Stonnington also has a 13.5 mandatory height limit in its RGZ2 Schedule; Latrobe goes even better with a 9 metre height limit in its RGZ2; Greater Geelong has 10.5 for its RGZ2 and so does the Yarra Ranges. How this allegedly super efficient council is ‘ignorant’ of what is going on next door (Stonnington) is not only highly improbable, but totally unbelievable. Yet residents are inflicted with these continual furphies and mistruths.
When other councils (as we’ve previously reported) can exact lower height limits for parts of their GRZ areas or, have lesser site coverage mandates, or greater permeability impostes, and Glen Eira has none of these similar standards, then residents have to start scratching their heads and wondering why this council can keep claiming that they have the best ‘protections’ in the state. Height restrictions are only one of a multitude of standards that could have been introduced or improved upon. That Council has not progressed one iota in terms of the conditions from fifteen years ago is testimony to either how little they tried, or how ineffectual their ‘negotiating’ actually was.
There is no other way of looking at the zones except to say that Glen Eira councillors have failed their constituents – not only because they did not bother to undergo consultation, but more importantly, because officers failed to do the necessary homework and come up with zones and schedules that are based on detailed and current analysis. This is shoddy, inept, and woeful planning and reveals a total disregard for thousands and thousands of residents who are now paying the price for this ineptitude and unfounded arrogance. By doing nothing, by accepting the disenfranchisement of residents, by permitting lax and sub-standard processes to continue, councillors must be tarred with the same brush!
PS: Listed below are some of the latest applications. Poor old Bent St!
64 Bent St – part 3 and part 4 storey building; 31 dwellings; reduction of requirement for visitor parking
27 Jasper Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 25 dwellings, waiving of 3 visitor car parking
322 Neerim Road, Carnegie – 4 storey, 38 dwellings
1240 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – 6 storey, 118 dwellings, waiving car park & loading bay
4-6 James Street, Glen Huntly – 3 storey, 45 dwellings, visitor car parking reduction
November 27, 2014
Council minutes of 31st August 2010 record the following sentence in response to a public question – Under no circumstances are variations to standards allowed if they compromise safety. Given this unequivocal response, it would be fascinating to know exactly how many dispensations Council has granted to developers, or failed to enforce the standards, on developments for underground car parking – in particular ensuring the adequacy of sightlines for exiting cars. How many of these subterranean canyons have been allowed to exist that potentially endanger pedestrian safety? How many near misses have you experienced from cars exiting their steep driveways and you simply couldn’t see them until the last second?
Here are some examples from a range of material we’ve been sent by residents.
November 26, 2014
We urge all readers to carefully consider this post. In our view it encapsulates all that is awry in Glen Eira concerning planning, namely:
Item 9.2 – 7 storey application for Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick
Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded Sounness.
DELAHUNTY: began by saying that the motion was for a ‘shorter building’ and some ‘rearranging’ (ie 5 storeys instead of 7). Felt that this addressed most, ‘but not all’ of the objectors’ claims such as zones and area. She felt that officers had done as much as is ‘possible’ considering that this is a main road with good transport options. There’s a 7 storey building not yet started nearby and Delahunty said she was ‘very uncomfortable’ with that at the time. Said that when this came up there was ‘shocking open space’ and with all the new people coming into the area she was concerned about how council would ‘address’ the issue of lack of public open space. But now, ‘I feel much more comfortable’ since council has got a ‘strategic plan’ and ‘soon a very robust funding source’ so she now feels more ‘comfortable’ that this will be ‘a building that can be absorbed into the streetscape’. This application has got different zoning to the 7 storey building (ie Mixed Use) and this application for 7 storeys in terms of ‘scale’ is ‘inappropriate’. Now that officers have reduced the height to 5 storeys this ‘allays many of the privacy’ concerns of objectors. What is still ‘missing’ as pointed out by objectors is the ‘traffic’ impacts and that’s something that council needs to ‘take on board’ in future. Since it is on a main busy road that traffic is something that ‘we will have to deal with as separate from this application’.
SOUNNESS: said that people had contacted him and were pleased with the fact that this was now reduced to 5 storeys and he supported ‘their position’ since a 5 storey is ‘much better’ than a 7 storey building. He still felt ‘uncomfortable’ though about the ‘intensity of the building’ but that’s what the ‘planning zones speak about’ so he can’t see any good grounds to reject or amend since it is likely to be approved if it ‘goes to VCAT’. As for the ‘architectural’ features this is really all ‘in the eye of the beholder’. He recommends the proposal.
ESAKOFF: said she hadn’t made up her mind as yet and whatever she decides it will be with a ‘heavy heart’. Was worried about the ‘amenity impact on neighbouring properties’ especially the proposed ‘balconies to the east’ where they had received photos from residents. Even though they will receive sunlight it will ‘still be a major amenity impact’. There is a NRZ of 8 metres to the north so even a 5 storey building ‘will be a disappointment to say the least’. The site is ‘at the fringe of the activity centre of Elsternwick’ and ‘outside the boundaries of the urban village’. Therefore she felt it needed ‘more transition to what is essentially a tram route’. VCAT ‘allowed’ the 7 storey building opposite and that one ‘abuts a GRZ and not RGZ’. She thought that this application needed to be of ‘less intensity’ and that a ‘four storey building would have been more appropriate here’. With tramlines they allow 4 storeys but ‘there may be the odd 4’. Also concerned about the ‘border to border building’. Said that in the past she had tried to get the ‘old fashiioned’ conditions that would allow a ‘backyard with a clothes line’ or roof top gardens but this ‘seems to go nowhere’. When people said they are ‘happy’ with 5 storeys, she thought it was more a case of ‘damn relief that it’s not going to be 7’.
HYAMS: this was a ‘difficult one’ because it backs onto NRZ and is ‘outside the urban village’ and there’s a 7 storey going up nearby. Council has ensured sufficient visitor parking to ‘meet policy’ and it presents ‘as a three storey podium’ plus a Construction Management Plan. Since the other 7 storey building hasn’t started as yet there’s the possibility that both developments will go on at the same time and cause disruption but he didn’t think there was anything council could do about that. Asked Akehurst and the response was that at ‘critical times’ council could ensure that Yorston Street wasn’t blocked off. Hyams then said that the Waste Management Plan would ‘stop 60 or 70 bins being out on the road’. Even though he’s got some ‘sympathy’ for Esakoff’s views, because of the site of this application, he will support the motion.
LIPSHUTZ: said this was causing ‘concern’ because since they don’t have in their planning scheme anything about size of apartments or ‘how big a back yard is’ and that’s his ‘concerns about general development’. So they can’t look at this and everywhere ‘there’s an issue of traffic’. However, ‘if I was to listen to that and take that as my primary issue’ then he would have to reject every application since there isn’t enough infrastructure in Victoria – ‘trains and trams don’t cope sufficiently’. On this application he asks himself ‘where else’ could something like this go except on a ‘main road’. He wouldn’t accept 7 storeys but 5 storeys ‘is appropriate’ and there is a ‘trend’ on Glen Huntly road for ‘larger style buildings’. 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’. So the officers have ‘mitigated’ some of the ‘major problems’. At ‘the end of the day it’s a general compromise’ and it will be ‘appropriate’.
LOBO: thought that ‘Mixed Use Zone should have a stop somewhere’. Said that ‘we cannot afford to have schools, massage parlours’ in streets. Schools should be in ‘places where there is more open space’. Before with a smaller population it was okay to have Mixed Use.
MAGEE: asked Lobo to ‘come back’ to the item.
LOBO: ‘yeah, yeah’. Said he ‘wasn’t going to philosophise on the residential codes’ but he ‘definitely’ wasn’t in ‘favour of 7 storeys’ since this is a ‘monstrosity’ and will lead to other 7 storeys. This will ‘completely spoil the present beauty of Glen Eira’. Wasn’t saying that councillors ‘have destroyed the beauty’ but that they are ‘guided by the Minister’. Whoever is the Minister next week should ‘be told that he needs to revise the planning scheme’.
DELAHUNTY: said that Eskoff is right in that councillors weren’t ‘completely comfortable with what is going on’ but they are ‘all aware of our obligation to provide housing’ and her view is that this ‘doesn’t have to include a garden’ since her kids won’t be able to afford a garden. So they will have to provide ‘high density living where high density is appropriate’ such as ‘tramlines, close proximity to trains’ and the right sort of ‘infrastructure’ and in ‘this case public open space’. This site ‘is very close to public gardens’ . Went on to say that on the issue of sunlight, this provides sunlight when people aren’t home so there are ‘anomalies’ in the notion of ‘adequate sunlight’ that ‘needs addressing at a level’ higher up than council. Said that parking is now ‘more appropriate’ with 2 less storeys. Hoped that there comes a point when they can ‘influence behavioural change’ and that people don’t use cars and that ‘the more’ car sharing and other options are looked at then it will be more likely to ‘become a reality’. Ultimately even though ‘we’re not comfortable’ with the application she thought it was an ‘appropriate response to that site’ and that ‘traffic is something we have to look at as a council’ down the track.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division. Those voting in favour: LIPSHUTZ, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS, OKOTEL, PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE. Voting against – ESKAOFF AND LOBO.
November 25, 2014
Glen Eira Debates 