GERA Inc. has a new post up on the outcome of the sale of 487 Neerim Rd. The auction was held early this evening. We remind readers that GERA had written to council requesting that serious consideration be given to the purchase of this land as it would extend the Riley Reserve and be in keeping with the priorities outlined in the Community Plan.

For a full report see: http://geresidents.wordpress.com

This is an exceedingly long post – so our apologies.

Item 9.8 of the current agenda concerns Environmental Sensitive Design in the broadest sense, and its application to residential and/or commercial developments. This isn’t a new issue or question that council has been asked to consider. On February 5^th 2008 then councillors Robilliard and Whiteside requested a report “that clarifies the planning process in relation to Environmental Sensitive Design (ESD) principles.” On the 8^th April, 2008 the officer’s response stated that despite various state government statements “encouraging ESD principles”, Glen Eira’s position was that  “If more is done preferably it should be driven as a State wide initiative rather than piecemeal by individual local Councils.” Four and a half years later nothing has changed. Once again this council revisits issues and proffers excuse after excuse for its reluctance to do a damn thing. Council’s position remains the same – “Council should not introduce more detailed Environmental Sustainable Design principles into Glen Eira Planning Scheme and instead advocate to the State Government for a state wide policy on the principles of Environmental Sustainable Design in order to ensure a consistent approach is applied by all Councils. For optimum effect, any changes should relate to building rather than town planning approval.”

The rationale that is supposed to justify this failure to move into the 21^st Century is varied.

• The requirements are onerous and insist on far too much detail. They are nothing but ‘overkill’.
• Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) has not been approved by the Minister for integration into Planning Schemes despite the bids of various councils. As local council policies only, they are not mandatory.
• That the issue is best handled by building laws rather than planning laws.

Glen Eira’s solution and sole contribution to the issue is to produce a ‘booklet’ (only available later next year) which ‘will encourage people to implement sustainable design features in their building’!!!

Much of the current Akehurst report resorts to quotations from Government funded investigations (Local Government for a Better Victoria: Inquiry into Streamlining Local Government Regulations) whose primary aim was to investigate planning processes and how to ‘stream line’ applications. Those interviewed were primarily builders, developers and councils. Nothing wrong with that, but surely it is not asking too much that when a report comes back to council that it is  accurate, especially when citing resources or alleging certain ‘facts’. Here’s an example:

• Akehurst states: “There are a number of Councils within the metropolitan area that have local planning policies specifically related to STEPS/SDS and WSUD. These are ‘under the counter” policies (not in the planning scheme). These policies go above the minimum requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA)”. We certainly beg to differ. Whilst it is true that an extraordinary number of councils have ‘local’ policies, Bayside also has such policies accepted into its Planning Scheme. The latest is Amendment C99 entitled “Water Sensitive Urban Design’ for commercial/industrial sites and is dated May 2011.

• In 2008 the arguments presented were that ESD is only used by a handful of councils. In 2012 that argument is no longer tenable since countless councils have introduced policies that include a variety of the STEPS, ESD and WSUD principles AND not just for council facilities but for all residential developments in their municipalities. We have not gone through all councils, but some of those located thus far (plus some websites) are:

Moreland

Port phillip – http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/sdapp.htm

Moonee Valley

Whitehorse – http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Sustainable-Design-Assessment.html

Nillumbik

Mornington Peninsula –

Brimbank –

Yarra City – http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/planning–building/Environmentally-Sustainable-Design/#launch

Ballarat

Darebin

Yarra Ranges

Banyule

Boroondara –

Greater Shepparton

Maribyrnong

Baw Baw

Hobson’s Bay – http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Environmental_Sustainable_Design_ESD

Manningham

Casey

We note that in Glen Eira’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy all mention of WSUD, or ESD is confined to ‘council facilities’. Not a single word is directed to private housing/commercial/industrial areas and the myriad of environmental concerns associated with development. Glen Eira’s overall contribution remains the production of a ‘booklet’.

Next, there is also Akehurst’s assertion that the STEPS program is ‘overkill’. The Municipal Association of Victoria would tend to disagree. The oft quoted VCEC report also contains this analysis from the MAV –

“The MAV commenced preliminary work in process improvement in early 2009. Both the planning scheme amendment process and the planning permit process were examined in detail. From this work the MAV highlighted the following benefits to councils (page 341):

several times (3-7) return on investment for councils within 18 months – annual average savings to councils of $150 000

removal on average of 22 days from the current planning permit application process, resulting in savings of 1per cent of project costs. For a subdivision of 2 000 lots ($100 million) this is a $1 million saving. For a smaller project of $1 million the savings are $10 000 identifying key areas for improvement – such as quality of applications being accepted and referral processes (both external and internal)

low cost methodology

higher levels of stakeholder satisfaction

better allocation of staff and skills

integration of processes and e-planning improvements

better availability of data and internal benchmarks

a culture of continuous improvement

improved compliance and risk management.”(PAGE 342)

It is also worth pointing out that the report included Glen Eira as a ‘case study’ emphasising its pre-lodgement certification and other application processes. The conclusion drawn by the authors of the report is interesting: “It is difficult to determine the costs and benefits of the Glen Eira planning improvements. While the average number of days for a decision appear to be lower with a pre-lodgement certification process, there is more time spent at the front end of the process (before lodgement), so it is unclear how much time the applicant saves overall. That said, discussions with planning consultants that have used the Glen Eira processes have been positive about the overall savings.

Likewise, the Commission heard that there are benefits to business from providing greater clarity about the areas where more intensive forms of development are preferred, and areas where such proposed developments will generally be rejected. The location of new dwellings in Glen Eira since the development of the planning scheme suggests that this clarity has influenced investment and redevelopment. The Commission has not formed a view about whether the application of Glen Eira’s minimal change areas (which cover 80 per cent of the municipality) is an optimal outcome from a metropolitan- and state-wide perspective.”

We note that no comments are recorded from the other side of the fence – ie residents and/or objectors!

Finally, whilst the report and the State government response was to emphasise the role of the Building Council above Planning, there were still some important comments made in relation to councils’ and councillors’ roles in setting overall policy and in truly working with their communities. We quote some here:

VCEC PAGE 47 – “While regulations can impose costs on businesses, the adoption of good regulatory design principles can help to ensure that the expected benefits of the regulations outweigh these costs—and that there is no feasible alternative that could yield a higher net benefit while achieving the stated objectives.

PAGE 68 – parties will have different objectives for planning regulation, or prioritise objectives differently. Divergent objectives between State and local governments are not surprising. Councils have clear obligations under the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) to reflect the views of their communities, and have a political imperative to represent the views of those who elect them,6 whereas the State Government’s role is to serve

PAGE 117 – councillors have the opportunity of shaping decisions in other ways. For example, councillors have the opportunity to shape local policy through their municipal strategic statement and council plans required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) respectively. Encouraging amenity-based policy judgements to be made earlier, preferably through planning schemes, rather than on an ad hoc basis for individual permits, is consistent with better practice processes, and likely to reduce costs (chapter 4).”

In conclusion residents have to ask themselves why this council is so reluctant to undertake reforms which are now commonplace in countless other municipalities across the state. Why is it that Glen Eira is consistently the ‘odd man out’ when it comes to innovation, and accountability?

With two Greens on Council it will be fascinating to see what eventuates from the ‘debate’ on this item!

Over time we have observed countless officer reports on planning applications that simply to not stack up in terms of:

• Transparency and accountability
• Providing sound justification for the recommendations
• General professionalism

Glen Eira is currently advertising two positions for its planning department. One pays over $60,000 – the other over $70,000. With these kinds of salaries paid for by residents, then the least we should expect is the production of officer reports that are fair, unbiased, detailed, and informative. We do not believe that this is what residents are getting.

We’ve gone back over the last council meeting and looked at one major application that was before council. We’ve chosen several paragraphs from this report to highlight our concerns. Comments are interspersed with the quotations.

Gardenvale Rd – Madeleine Snell

Recommendation: “allowing the construction of a four (4) storey building comprising two (2) retail premises and twelve (12) dwellings and a reduction of the standard car parking requirements on land within a Special Building Overlay”

 Here are the officer’s comments:

“On the one hand, Council’s Transport Planning Department has requested the provision of two at-grade visitor car spaces. On the other hand, the applicant’s traffic engineering advice suggests that no visitor car parking is required given the ability to accommodate this parking demand in the surrounding streets.”

COMMENT: Quite extraordinary that council’s own traffic department is over-ruled in favour of the DEVELOPER’S traffic advice! Why bother having a transport/traffic department in this case? Why not simply leave everything to the developer? Secondly how much consideration has council given to the “surrounding streets” in this instance? What surveys, data, analysis has actually been carried out – or has this also been left entirely to the developer? But, how typical of traffic management as a whole in this municipality – just shift the problem to surrounding areas and then worry about it. With no parking precinct plans, and no overall vision, just ad hoc developments again and again, this is the inevitable outcome.

“Parking in this development is provided in stacker arrangement which is unsuitable for visitor/short term users unfamiliar with stacker parking”

COMMENT: Again, the logic is incredible. Don’t worry about visitor parking because the only provisions insisted upon are stackers – as if that is a plausible excuse to ignore the requirement for visitor carparking!

“A loading bay is not considered necessary for the proposed development according to the advice of Council’s Transport Planning Department. There is no loading bay on site for the existing retail uses.”

COMMENT; More pearls of wisdom! Because something isn’t already there, it should never be there, or isn’t deemed as necessary now or years down the track?

No plausible, reasonable, nor justifiable ‘excuse’ has been provided in this officer’s report as to why the laws, regulations, and requirements of the planning scheme have not been enforced. We can only conclude that reports are not written to inform, elucidate, or alert councillors and the public to the reality of the situation. Rather, their purpose is to ensure that whatever the recommendation is (especially if it is pro-development) that this is passed. Compared to the work that goes into other council’s reports, Glen Eira remains at the bottom of the list.

Finally we wish to state that we do feel sorry for council’s planners. They are lumbered with a scheme that is deficient and as employees they are beholden to their managers and to a culture that is clearly on the side of applicants at the expense of residents.

PS: In order to provide clear ‘evidence’ of our claims above, we’ve included some extracts from the Stonnington Officer’s report on one application. In this agenda (December 3rd) there were 3 applications. These reports were: 19 pages, 21 pages and 15 pages respectively. Admittedly length is no guarantee of quality. However, readers should note that each report contains commentary on such aspects as: ‘permeability’; ‘design’; drainage/infrastructure and much more. To the best of our knowledge most of these standards have never rated a mention in any Glen Eira reports! Here are some extracts from the first application. Please note the tone, the detail, and the justification for various recommendations.

“The development proposes 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings, 14 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling.  Therefore the parking requirement for the development is 18 residents’ spaces and 3 visitor spaces.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings

A development must meet all the objectives of this clause and should meet all of the standards of this clause.

The provision of no visitor parking spaces on site cannot be supported. A development of this size should have on-site visitor parking.

Strategic Justification 

State Policy

• The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher densities and a range of dwelling types where they can take advantage of well established physical and social infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with these policies in that the proposal represents a net increase of 15 dwellings on a site that is located close to local shops and services and takes advantage of public transport links and a number of community services and facilities in close proximity to the subject site.

• When considered against State housing policy objectives there is policy support for the proposed development and residential intensification of this existing site.

• Notwithstanding the strategic housing provision objectives outlined in the State Planning Policy Framework, these must also be balanced against other sustainable design based objectives that promote new housing development to respect neighbourhood character, amenity and the efficient use of resources. With specific reference to housing, Clause 16.01-4 seeks to encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which respects the neighbourhood character, improves housing choice makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

• Having regard to these objectives the proposal fails to address these matters.  Further discussion of these issues are addressed later in this report.

Local Policy

• At the local policy level, Clause 21.03 (Housing) of the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages a range of dwelling types to meet the community’s needs, including development in Activity Centre’s, providing for residential ‘infill’ development consistent with maintaining a balance of dwelling types in the area, and development that displays good design which reflects the surrounding scale, height, density, bulk, setbacks, style, form and character of buildings, fences, gardens and the streetscape.

• It is Council policy, pursuant to Clause 22.02 (Urban Design), that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings, parts of the building over 2-storeys be set back behind the facade to minimise impacts on the streetscape, and that developments be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location and generally respect the one to two-storey built form character of the City’s residential areas.  At 3-storeys high, with extensive site coverage and built form and minimal setbacks, the proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with this policy direction

Permeability

• Permeability is 7.6% and does not meet the Standard.  The applicant states that the existing site permeable area of the combined sites is 10.7% and also does not meet the standard.  The absence of existing plans prevents this figure from being verified.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal should be seeking to improve existing poor design outcomes not exacerbate them.  Given the combined site area of 806m² it is considered that this is ample opportunity to ensure the development comes close to achieving the 20% permeable area required by Standard B9.  For this reason, the proposal does not meet the objective of Clause 55.03-4
• The shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application demonstrate that the neighbouring SPOS area at 22 Athol Street will not receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September as required by the standard.  Therefore the proposal does not meet standard B21.

• Having regard to the decision guidelines and the objective of Clause 55.04-5 the proposal would significantly overshadow the SPOS area of 22 Athol Street and would have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the occupants of this property, contrary to Clause 55.04-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

• The site is not within easy walking distance of  nearby public open space to justify a variation of the standard.  It is considered that the insufficient SPOS provision is reflective of a development that is attempting to squeeze too much development onto this site.

The Planning Scheme Review of early August 2010 promised much, but thus far has delivered very little –  apart from Amendment after Amendment which rezones land making it available for residential development – without Structure Planning of course! That has clearly been the priority of this council rather than all the other fundamental issues that were earmarked for analysis, improvement and adoption.

Whilst most of the promises were to be developed ‘internally’ according to the Action Plan, it doesn’t look like there has been much progress, if any at all. Many of the suggested ‘reviews’ are now long overdue so that Glen Eira is still dominated by planning that originated over a decade ago and is based on statistics that belong in a museum.

Two and a half years later we are still waiting for the release of the following reviews and policies:

• Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy

• Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
  

• Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
  

• Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)

• Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
  

• complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
  

• Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
  

• Include a statement in the Heritage section of the MSS and local heritage policy about the importance of Aboriginal cultural heritage;
  

• Create a tourism section in the MSS that discusses the city and statewide importance of Glen Eira’s tourist sites such as the Melbourne Racing Club and Ripon Lea;
  

• Alter the ‘Transport’ section of the MSS to indicate the Principle Bicycle Network and bus routes on the transport framework plan
  

• Include the Melbourne @ 5 Million ‘employment corridor’ on the Strategic Framework Plan in the MSS.
  

• Integrate Environmental Sustainability, Street Tree, Transport, Bicycle, Ageing Strategies into the MSS.
• Review/Amend: Phoenix Precinct Policy & Heritage Policy