GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 2, 2014

Our Great ‘Negotiators’ – Newton, Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling & Esakoff!

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

In return for 2046 dwellings (at this stage) which will comprise the Caulfield Village, our great negotiators exacted the paltry sums of 4 and 5 percent as the open space contributions. We estimate that this will provide a return of around $5 to $6 million by the time the money starts rolling in. Similar, long term ‘negotiations’ have taken place over the Moonee Valley Racing Club’s development plans.

Matthew Guy recently gazetted the amendments necessary – declaring the area the equivalent of a Priority Development Zone and, also similar to Caulfield, the creation of an Incorporated Plan approach. An Advisory Committee had been set up to consider the proposals and public hearings were held over ten days. Guy admittedly over-rode many of the committee’s recommendations regarding height and density. However, the following conditions were exacted from the racing club and outstrip by light years what our wonderful negotiating team achieved. We cite directly from the council minutes and remind readers that when queried about the open space within the Caulfield Village development there was no answer forthcoming from our planners and negotiators.

In the end, the Moonee Valley Racing Club were forced to cough up some substantial concessions since council and community worked together. In Glen Eira, residents have to wonder who the negotiating team really worked for? According to the figures below, the Moonee Valley Council can look forward to about $12 million in levies, and countless other millions worth in public facilities. Not so in Glen Eira!

This will allow for the provision of cash and land contributions up to the value of $6,000 per dwelling.

The contributions are to comprise the following:

A public open space contribution in the form of a single park equivalent to 5,000 square metres, and additional open spaces up to 2,000 square metres.

A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of 2 full sized AFL/Cricket playing fields, including lights and car parking.

A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of a 500 square metre sporting pavilion.

Delivery/upgrade on-site or off-site for physical and community infrastructure,having regard to the demand generated by the anticipated additional populationwithin the precinct, including:

Contribution towards or provision of public art on the site.
Financial contributions equivalent to 30% of the construction cost of a Multi-Purpose Community Facility on-site (based on a 500 square metre facility)

Source: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Governance/Council%20meetings/2014/28%20October%20Ord%202014/Agenda%20%20Ordinary%20Council%20Meeting%20to%20be%20held%2028%20October%202014.pdf

November 1, 2014

Where Are You Council?

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

We’ve received a series of photographs that illustrate the carnage caused by development and the failure of this council to enforce its own regulations – much less fine contractors or even order a halt to construction because permit conditions aren’t being adhered to or everyday road rules are ignored. There is absolutely no excuse why residents living near these constructions should have their safety, and lives impacted to such an extent. Developers are not outside the law – but it might appear to some that in Glen Eira they are free to do what they like, when they like, and how they like!

October 31, 2014

What A Helpful Council!

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

Last council meeting the agenda was jam packed with application after application – all of them highly contentious and controversial – ie Belsize Avenue, Penang St., Mavho St., Lorranne St., Tucker Road, etc. We commented at the time that this is the typical council strategy. Cram all important decisions onto the one agenda so that debate and decision making is reduced to a measly 5 or 10 minutes each, as well as getting the resulting ‘pain’ from outraged residents over in the one fell swoop!

The agenda for next Wednesday night’s council meeting confirms this deliberate manipulation. There’s nothing that equals last meeting’s controversy. Item after item is so inconsequential that we have to laugh at the obvious ‘light weight’ nature of this agenda compared to what was dished up three weeks ago. There are no planning applications that occur in residential zones; there are no reports that couldn’t have appeared at last meeting given that councillors had requested them as far back as the 23^rd September and the 12^th August. For a council that claims to get councillor requests back at the next meeting this makes a mockery of such claims. Manipulation of the agenda is the name of the game!

There are however a couple of interesting applications for increases in both height and number of dwellings. These are all in areas zoned Commercial and hence there are no height limits. We’ve done a comparison of two of these in order to illustrate how inconsistent and nonsensical the officers’ reports are. Readers should remember that basically, these constitute a single development. Council in its benevolence at the time of decision making granted them 13 public car parking spots in return for an exeloo toilet! The buildings will ultimately be seen as basically fronting Centre Road, so why one should be allowed to be 5 storeys and the other only 4 given that both abut residential areas is anyone’s guess.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that these buildings are literally side by side, then allowing car parking waivers on one and simultaneously arguing that trucks can park on the same street taken up by cars from the other development is quite farcical
Since both are on Centre Road, why should one report single out the opposite side of Centre Road and argue that 4 storeys will dominate, but that 5 storeys won’t? Further the mention of Tucker Road buildings are at least 850 metres away – see screen dump below.
Finally we don’t believe that asking for accuracy and some decent officer reports is demanding too much – especially not when ratepayers are footing the bill for such efforts!

PS: THIS MUST SURELY TAKE THE CAKE!

AND THE BLURB STATES:

Vacant Land with Plans and Permits approved

Planning Permit Now Issued.
13.72m X 13.31m = 182.60m2 approx.
Elevated from the street with entrance from rear laneway.
Possible site for a 2-3 bedroom unit.
Use your imagination to create your new home in this great location.
Minutes to transport, shops, parklands and good schools.
Call for more details.

2011522262

October 30, 2014

Here We Go Again!

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

October 29, 2014

‘Sleepers Wake!’

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

Our apologies for this long post. However, we believe it lays to rest any misapprehensions about the new zones and the damage they are wreaking throughout Glen Eira.

We highlight one single case that has dragged on for over 12 years – that of 17 Rosella Street, Murrumbeena which is now zoned GRZ2 but which directly abuts the so called ‘minimal change area’. It is also a large site of approximately 1200 square metres. The property, we believe, was originally a government sale in 2002. Since then, there has been application after application for a variety of developments. Here’s a brief history:

2003 – application for 3 double storeys and one single storey. Application withdrawn eventually.

2003/4 – application for 2 double storeys and one single storey. Permit granted (3/2/2004)

2005 – application for 5 double storeys. Permit granted 6/9/2005

2005 – amended application – permit granted 7/4/2006

2006 – ‘voluntary amendments’ – Permit granted 22/8/2006

2007 – application for amendment to increase units from 5 to 9. Refused permit – 21/6/2007

2010 – application for 2 storey and 12 dwellings. Officers recommended approval. Councillors unanimously refused permit – 40 objections. VCAT hearing – which incidentally is not recorded in the planning register!

2013 – application for 3 storey and 7 dwellings. Permit refused – 15/4/2014

2014 – application for 7 double storeys. Decision pending.

In 2010, when that particular application went to council, the officers report included the following gems:

A Planning Permit was issued by Council in May 2005 for the subject site and authorised the construction of five (5) double storey dwellings and basement carparking. This permit has not been acted upon and has expired.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with and respectful to the existing and envisaged character of this neighbourhood. At a height of two storeys, the proposal is considered to be compatible with the existing building stock inRosella Street and nearby streets which includes single and double storey dwellings and a range of multi unit development. Its setbacks and appearance (materials and roof form) are also appropriate in the existing streetscape on this 1177 square metre site.

The development will have a maximum height of 6.6 metres. This is comparable with other building heights in the neighbourhood and will provide a reasonable transition with adjacent single storey development.

The site abuts seven properties within the Minimal Change Area to the south and west. The development provides setbacks of at least 4 metres from the western boundary and over 14 metres from the southern boundary at both ground and first floor. This is considered an appropriate design response to these sensitive interfaces. The rear setback in particular could be described as a generous outcome for a housing diversity area and will allow planting of canopy trees and protection of the Melbourne Water main drain asset.

Crs Esakoff/Pilling

That Council:

Issues a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of a two storey building comprising twelve dwellings and basement carparking, in a Special Building Overlay Area for Application No. GE/PP-22781/2010 in accordance with the following grounds:

The proposal does not satisfy the intent and objectives of Council’sHousing Diversity Areas policy (Clause 22.07-3.1). It will have anadverse visual impact on the adjoining residential properties to thewest, which are located in a minimal change area.

The proposal is not site responsive in terms of minimising adversevisual bulk impacts on the adjoining residential properties to thewest.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The ensuing VCAT hearing which also refused the application, had the following comments to make:

The review site is within the Hughesdale residential neighbourhood centre. Its western boundary is the boundary between the residential neighbourhood centre and an area of minimal change. Council and residents opined the site is a transition site and development should respond to guidelines for minimal change areas as well as those for residential neighbourhood centres.
Planning policies for the residential neighbourhood centres such as Hughesdale anticipate an intensification of dwellings and built form in a manner that:
is a lower scale and density than development in commercial and mixed use areas of neighbourhood centres
is appropriate to that of the neighbourhood centre
is sited and designed so that it does not dominate the streetscape
responds positively to its interfaces with existing residential development in minimal change areas.
The submissions, photos tendered at the hearing and my inspection suggest to me the neighbourhood character of this area comprises:
predominantly interwar single storey dwellings, with very low site coverage, generous front setbacks, side setbacks and some canopy trees in rear yards. Nearly all dwellings have hipped roofs, articulated built form and a mix of materials and colours
some varied larger built form such as 1960’s style ‘barrack’ flats, articulated townhouses and dual occupancies in both tandem and side by side arrangements
few developments with basements and ramps to the public realm
breaks and gaps in the built form when it extends deep into the site.
Mr Bowden, Mr Shumack and Ms Ramsay opined the proposed development would be inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood, even allowing for some level of change and intensification. Mr Bowden submitted broad planning policy objectives need to be tempered by the site’s inclusion in a residential neighbourhood centre and its proximity to a minimal change area. He thought the site to be suitable for some intensification but not to the intensity or built form proposed. He thought the proposed level of intensification to be better located within a higher order commercial neighbourhood centre or village. (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/352.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=17%20and%20rosella

CONCLUSIONS

Under the new GRZ zones there IS NO TRANSITION BUFFER
3 years ago, it was considered that 12 units and 2 storeys (of 6.5 metres in height) was ‘too intense’ development. Now 3 storeys (and 10.5 metres) is deemed suitable by council
There is no differentiation in council’s GRZ AND RGZ zones between commercial and ‘neighbourhood centres’ that are hundreds of metres away from any shop, any railway station, or any transport route.
This application typifies everything that’s wrong with planning per se, but especially the disaster that is planning in Glen Eira.

October 29, 2014

Up, Up, & Away With 3 Storeys!

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

PS: this is the real estate agent’s blurb that accompanied the 6 Larman St, East Bentleigh advertising –

Play with the Possibilities (general residential zone)

Fit the family, invite the in-laws, develop the dream! With a charming three bedroom, two bathroom brick home, around 643sqm of land and flexible General Residential Zoning, this versatile property in the Gardeners Reserve/Moorabbin Hospital precinct has so many possibilities to play with!

Offering three living areas, two quality kitchens, two-car garaging and scope to configure as two dwellings, this immaculately presented home offers excellent family accommodation for today, exceptional rental potential for tomorrow and all the extras you could need (including gas and woodfire heating, air-con’r, polished boards and robes) as a basis for renovation and extension in the future.

Alternatively, see the future rewards in this super-central site and explore the multi-level, multi-home potential offered by flexible zoning (subject to Council Approval). Close to the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre, medical facilities and Centre Rd shopping and transport, this prime site is ready to get into the game!

October 28, 2014

Council’s Broken Record!

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

Council is clinging desperately to its myth that the new zones are a ‘neutral translation’ of the past. According to their version of history, nothing is different. Well, much is different we say. The number of permits granted since the zones came in have skyrocketed and it’s not due to developers trying to get their ambit applications in before the gazetting of the amendment so that the ‘old’ rules would apply. Nothing is the same under the new zones. The staggering increase of four storey applications for quiet residential streets is a new phenomenon – thanks to the zones. The number of amended permits seeking higher and greater numbers of dwellings is also ‘new’. The current trend of selling multiple blocks of land in order to build bigger and denser apartment blocks is also new. The number of residents getting out of Glen Eira because their streets are becoming the slums of the future is also new. Everything has changed and in our view, to the detriment of thousands upon thousands of residents.

It’s therefore interesting to see in today’s Leader this little ‘clarification’ –

We have to ask:

What pressure was put on The Leader to insert this token ‘correction’?
Isn’t it news that the old system ‘permitted buildings of up to five storeys’ when we are repeatedly told that there were no height limits in the past?
Will Council’s reach ever extend to silence real estate agents when they disclose the truth?

October 27, 2014

Developers Come Before Residents!

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

At last council meeting Hyams let slip the fact that developers were in the know well before residents had any clue as to what was going to happen on August 5th 2013 – ie the introduction of the new zones.

Here’s some further evidence to substantiate our claim that it is developers who get the ‘inside information’ and residents are the ones left out in the cold – despite numerous public questions as to what was going on in early July 2013.

The screen dump below comes from Ratio Consulting – a big firm that has done plenty of work for developers and has undoubtedly got many ‘friendly’ contacts within council. In a posting dated 30th July 2013 they state the following:

To keep our clients in the loop, here is a summary of what we know so far. We are mindful that the following information is gathered from verbal discussions from various Department and Council officers as there is little official feedback. Things are moving quickly so we strongly advise you to make additional enquiries that relate to you and your circumstances.

Many Councils are currently reviewing the zones and the implications and we would expect substantial movement in the next 2-3 months. We will keep you posted of progress in these municipalities. The municipalities we do mention below are those we and our clients work with on a regular basis, and/or have information to share.

Source: http://www.ratio.com.au/ratio-news-planning-zones-update

Here’s what is stated about Glen Eira, before the Minister’s announcement on August 5th. We conclude that developers knew more about what was going on within Glen Eira, than residents. Readers will remember that whilst other councils were busily organising their processes for consultation, Glen Eira’s residents had a year of stunning silence. The only item relating to the zones was Council’s submission to the Minister’s draft in 2012 – just on a year before the March 2013 Minister’s announcement that the zones were now set and that they would come into effect on July 1st 2013. This would give councils a year to implement and consult on their proposed zones. For Ratio to therefore state that Glen Eira “is well advanced with the translation of the zones” and that council is ‘working’ with the Department shows exactly how much the big end of town was in the know and how little the ratepayers knew!

October 25, 2014

Proactive Versus Do Nothing!

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

Recent planning conferences, plus some of our previous posts, have highlighted the concerns that residents have with deep excavation for underground car parks and the irreversible problems that these constructions can cause. In a municipality that this prone to flooding, that has large areas of water table, and where basements are abutting neighbours’ fence lines, the prospect of real long term damage is high.

Council’s position has been: first grant a permit and then worry about such things as flooding, discharging polluted waters into the drainage system and lowering of the water table so that surrounding areas are susceptible to earth movement and instability. In contrast, the latest agenda items for Kingston contain a policy called “BASEMENTS AND DEEP BUILDING CONSTRUCTION POLICY”. If the policy is ratified, then Kingston will demand before any permit is granted the following:

Prior to application for a building permit, developers must conduct a site investigation to assess the local hydrology. The results of the site investigation must be presented to council in the form of a Groundwater Assessment Report Site limitations with respect to groundwater that have been identified in the initial design phase should be considered prior to the commencement of construction. Any excavation within 1.00 metre of the groundwater table will require a documented management plan to be submitted as part of or in conjunction with a Construction Management Plan. All necessary permits for the drainage of or de-watering of the site shall be in-place prior to construction commencing

Double depth excavations for two levels of basement car parking is now becoming more frequent in Glen Eira. Yet all council has done is include some ‘conditions’ in the planning permit about water discharge, etc. No real consideration has been given to what could happen to the groundwater levels; what could happen as a result of earth anchors; what could happen as a result of the cumulative impacts of such developments. Granting a permit and then trying to fix the problem is far too late as has been evidenced by several disasters in Carnegie.

If development is going to continue at the rate it is and with the proliferation of underground parking that reaches several levels, then greater surveillance, and far more restrictions on what can be done where is necessary. Sitting back and doing nothing is not the answer.

We have uploaded the entire Kingston officer’s report and the policy. Please refer to pages 210-235.

October 24, 2014

It’s Never The Zones!

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

At last council meeting a public question asked how many amended permits have been submitted requesting either an increase in height or number of dwellings and how many were granted since the introduction of the zones. The first part of the question remained unanswered. The second part of the question provided the response of only 4 granted permits.

Either council is suffering badly from amnesia, or its record keeping systems are sub-standard, or perhaps the third possibility is that the responses to public questions are far from accurate, truthful, and precise. Somehow, council simply forgot to note one major application that had been decided at the previous council meeting and neatly sidestepped all those applications in commercial zones – admittedly because the question did not specifically refer to this zone.

The argument consistently put up by council is that the zones have had no impact on the increased intensity of development. Not so we argue. With the introduction of the new zones what is starting to emerge is that developers who have clung onto their land (some for several years) are now taking advantage of the ‘largesse’ provided to them via the new zones and submitting amended applications for either increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. This is even more rampant in the commercial zones where there are no height limits. Below we feature, in addition to the paltry 4 that council nominated, some examples:

150 Tucker Road Bentleigh – Amend Planning Permit GE/PP-21042/2008 by changing the description of what the permit allows/covers to provide an increase of 7 dwellings (from 13 to 20 dwellings) (GRZ1 zone)

259-261 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – A previous application for a 3-storey building comprising 19 dwellings was approved by the Delegated Planning Committee with a reduction in the number of dwellings to 17 on 8 September 2010. Subsequently, on 11 January 2011, following a VCAT hearing about conditions, the Planning Permit was amended to allow up to 18 dwellings. This permit expired on 8 September 2013.

The current proposal for 28 dwellings is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and one additional storey. (RGZ1) (Note: this is technically regarded then as a ‘new permit application’!!!!!

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Construction of a six (6) storey building comprising forty (40) dwellings, one (1) shop and a basement; reduction of the car parking requirement for dwelling visitors to one (1) car space; reduction of the car parking requirement for the shop to zero; and waiving of the loading bay requirement (Application to Amend a Planning Permit) AND –

A planning permit already exists for the site. The original permit was issued on 14 June 2011. It allowed the construction of a 4 storey building comprising 20 dwellings and a shop. This Planning Permit is still valid and will expire on 14 June 2014. The current proposal for 40 dwellings and a shop is a complete redesign of the approved building with an increased number of dwellings and 2 additional storeys. (C1Z)

467C HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD SOUTH – Amend the current planning permit to allow an additional storey (total of 4 storeys), provision of a lift and internal alterations. The four dwellings approved under the current permit will not increase in number. (c1z)

356-364 Orrong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – Application to amend Planning Permit GE/PP-22648/2010 which allows a five (5) storey mixed-use building comprising a supermarket, dwellings and a basement car park with an increase in the number of dwellings from fiftysix (56) to sixty-seven (67), an increase in the overall building height by 1.9m, the inclusion of five (5) advertising signs and associated changes to the internal layout and external appearance of the building (c1z)

338A Orrong Road, CAULFIELD NORTH – Amended Application – Amend the permit preamble to allow for a four (4) storey building – was a 3 storey – permit granted on 30/4/2014) (c1z)

670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – Amendment to existing permit as follows – An increase to the size of the building to five storeys – Modifications to the first, second and third floors, including an increase in size and internal changes to the layout of the dwellings – The addition of ten (10) apartments – A reduction to the commercial floor area – (C1Z)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates