We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
A dormant high-rise housing project – derisively dubbed the “Ormond Sky Tower” when plans for it emerged eight years ago – has been revived as the latest in a string of build-to-rent projects for Melbourne.
The tower was first planned to reach 13 storeys above largely low-rise Ormond, rising from a concrete platform the Andrews government built over the Frankston line train tracks when it removed the North Road level crossing in 2016.
The revised plans for the Ormond station development would rise to 10 storeys at North Road and six storeys elsewhere.
It was to have been the first example of value capture from the government’s multibillion-dollar level crossing removal program and one of the tallest residential buildings in Melbourne’s south-east.
But it was later shaved to 10 storeys after the Coalition and the Greens joined forces to block the development in a rare parliamentary revocation of a state government planning approval.
The proposal includes 288 build-to-rent homes and a supermarket.
The purpose-built concrete platform above and next to Ormond station remains empty despite a new planning permit being granted to developer DealCorp in 2021.
But DealCorp now hopes to revive the project as a mixed-use development with almost 300 rental apartments, office spaces, a ground floor supermarket and several smaller stores.
Amended plans lodged with the Department of Planning last year and obtained by The Age reveal DealCorp wants to build a 288-unit building which would rise to 10 storeys above Ormond station on busy North Road and to six storeys where it extends into quieter residential parts behind the station. The development would have 514 parking spaces and 289 bicycle parking spaces.
DealCorp director David Kobritz said construction cost increases of about 50 per cent over the past few years had rendered the original build-to-sell project financially unviable. Trying to sell the apartments to investors or owner-occupiers could take years in the current market, increase costs and jeopardise the project’s viability yet again, Kobritz said.
“So we think build-to-rent is the correct option,” he said.He hoped construction on the project, which would cost more than $200 million, would begin this year and be completed by 2027.
Melbourne’s apartment market is unique among Australian cities in that the number of new build-to-rent developments in the pipeline has overtaken traditional build-to-sell developments. Kobritz said this was due to rising costs and flat sales.
The City of Glen Eira opposed the original “sky tower” in 2016 and the scaled-down 10-storey version approved in 2018. But current mayor Simone Zmood said it made sense to support population growth where there was easy access to public transport, shops and services.
“We think it’s important to get the balance right between the inevitability of population growth – and with it, higher density housing – and the neighbourhood character our residents know and love. This is what we’ve done through our structure plans, created through conversations with our community,” Zmood said.
She said the Ormond station proposal was being led by the Victorian government, with minimal council involvement.
Ormond was not included among the first 25 train and tram zone activity centres where the state government is poised to seize planning controls to encourage greater housing density.
Liton Kamruzzaman, an associate professor of transport at Monash University, has studied how the government’s level crossing removal program has changed land use around each site.
Kamruzzaman said the program had not led to a housing boom so far and was a “missed opportunity in terms of urban regeneration”.
Analysis of land use changes at 13 level crossing removal sites found a significant increase in commercial activity within 100 metres of each site, a significant increase in open space and a rise in car parking availability. But the proportion of residential land had fallen almost 30 per cent.
“There is a missed opportunity because huge investment is going on there on the transport side; with a little bit of impetus from the government on the land use side you would see much more integrated development,” Kamruzzaman said.
The Monash University study found that level crossing removals in which the tracks were lowered, such as at Ormond station, produced the least change in land use, while elevated tracks spurred more.
“Overall, the [removal program] resulted in more open spaces, parking and commercial land, while the relative proportion of residential areas showed a pattern of reduction,” the study said.
“In addition, the [program] achieved an increase in pedestrian and cycling lanes to replace railroads on the ground. These changes are expected to enhance the living environment for residents around the case sites.”
Whilst this has been a long time coming, we note the following:
No mention of social housing in a 288 apartment development
No mention of rental period, nor the concessions provided to these tenants – ie as with the Caulfield Village development, only a ten year lease and only 20% reduction on current rental costs.
No mention of the fact that abutting properties on the western side are under a heritage overlay and have an SBO running right through the area.
The vast majority of properties along the neighbouring streets are single storey which would now be confronted with heights of 6 to 10 storeys.
Below we show the current zonings and the flooding overlay –
Whilst Glen Eira basically sits back and does practically nothing, apart from a very belated media release by the CEO, Bayside City Council has been working flat out to ensure that the community knows what the State Gov is planning for their council. They have:
Held a community forum on December 18th with expert commentators where over 200 residents attended
Published summaries of what is proposed and its impact on their municipality
In contrast, residents of Glen Eira would be hard pressed to locate any specific information on council’s website, and there certainly has been no information sessions/forums held by our council.
One activity centre of concern to Glen Eira is Moorabbin where the west side of South Road is in Glen Eira and the East covers Kingston and south Bayside. Here is what Bayside has said about the proposals for this area and its views on the proposed housing targets –
Our previous post featured car ownership data across all of Glen Eira. The following table has broken down the stats to show what is happening across individual suburbs. The vast majority of these areas are within our major activity centres, or our neighbourhood centres, plus featuring major roads.
(CLICK THE ABOVE TO ENLARGE)
What the data reveals is that assigning a one onsite car parking spot for dwellings that contain either one or two bedrooms is doing nothing to reduce car ownership – which is purportedly the aim. And parking issues are even further exacerbated when we have council or vcat waiving spots. We have not included this variable in the above analysis.
What we can conclude is that:
Over 6,141 cars do not have onsite parking spots – and probably more given car parking waivers. That can only mean that they are parking outside on the street. This number is based on the following calculation – 432 second cars in one bedroom places, plus 70 spots for 3 cars per such dwellings. Added to this we have 4,761 two car households in two bedroom homes, plus 439 three car households. The latter figure means that 2 cars won’t have onsite parking, which makes it another 878 cars likely to park in the street. The total becomes 432+70+4,761+878=6,141!
There are of course certain assumptions made in the above calculation. For example: whether two bedroom places are townhouses with driveways and a one car garage, so that the second and third car might perhaps park in the driveway. However, the number of two bedroom town houses/units is quite small, (just over 5000) so should not over-ride the conclusion that there is a huge shortfall of required onsite parking in our municipality.
For council and VCAT to frequently waive onsite car parking and to even consider further reducing the ratio can only worsen the situation. It also shoots down in flames the argument that people living near transport areas will not own cars. Furthermore, if the major criterion is how people get to work, then this tells us nothing about how people use their cars apart from getting to work – ie. shopping, picking kids up from school, visiting places and friends. It also assumes that public transport is great at all hours of the day. What is indisputable is that the number of cars is increasing based on the past census data and they are outstripping the number of new dwellings. To assume that people living in one bedroom apartments in particular and who live close to transport will not own and use cars, is to ignore the facts.
According to the 2021 census results Glen Eira had 5,357 one bedroom dwellings and 17,588 two bedroom dwellings. We can assume that the vast majority of one bedroom dwellings are within our activity centres and/or around main roads and transport hubs. The question then becomes how many of these one and two bedroom homes own motor cars? How well do all the assumptions regarding car ownership and whether or not residents living close to public transport do not own, nor have a need for cars actually stand up to scrutiny? Do the stats support this state and council thinking?
We have had a closer look at the 2021 census results in the attempt to answer these basic questions. The results clearly indicate that the spin does not match reality. The majority of people who live in one bedroom apartments still own a car and the same is true for those folks who live in two bedroom homes.
Below is a screen dump derived from the ABS which provides tallies of the number of NO CARS and ONE CAR for each dwelling of either one or two bedrooms.
If we do a simple calculation based on the above data, we can see that:
Only one quarter of residents in single bedroom homes do not own a car (ie 26%)
In two bedroom homes only 12.9%do not own a car
Thus if we have 75% of residents living in single bedroom homes owning cars, and 87% who reside in two bedroom dwellings also owning cars, what does this say about the requirements for adequate onsite parking? What does it say about off street parking becoming impossible for the majority of residents if onsite car parking waivers are the norm as illustrated with the recent Halstead Street application? And let’s not forget that council has already mooted that it intends to REDUCE the requirement for onsite parking in our major activity centres in the very near future.
The constant refrain of recent times is that car parking in Glen Eira is inadequate. Streets are ‘parked out’ and residents often cannot even get out of their own driveways. Yes, it is laudable that alternative modes of transport are being considered (ie bike paths, car share, etc.) but NOTHING can improve the situation when developments are continually allowed to waive the requisite number of onsite car parking spots. Cars are a fact of life in Australia and will remain so. It is indeed time that council acknowledged this and did everything in its power to address the problem instead of adopting policies that are pie in the sky, feel good, motherhood statements (ie 50:50 mode share).
Perhaps it is a little bit early to pass complete judgement, but the hope that with this new council, decision making could potentially be free from political party alignments and/or affiliations appeared to be firmly dashed on Tuesday night. The item that illustrated this in spades was the proposed 3 storey development at the corner of Halstead and Hawthorn Road in Caulfield North.
Here are some details of the application:
3 storeys, 26 dwellings of which 12 are single bedroom and 14 double bedroom
The officer report recommended a permit and the waiver of 4 onsite parking spots
The double site is 1300 square metres and just outside the Caulfield North activity centre
The area is zoned GRZ2 and is located along a main road hence no requirement for visitor parking
Prior to the item being debated, Halstead Street residents voiced their strong opposition in the public participation section of the meeting. They emphasised again and again the lack of available street parking given the close proximity to the commercial core in Hawthorn Road which meant that visitors to the shops were often forced to park in surrounding residential streets. The result, according to residents, was that Halstead street was already ‘parked out’ and made it impossible for tradies, emergency vehicles, visitors, carers, etc. to find parking near their destinations. Interestingly, only 7 properties had been notified of the application and yet there were 32 objections.
Karslake moved the motion to accept the recommendation and this was seconded by Zhang. The ‘accepting’ vote went along indisputable ‘party lines’ with Karslake, Zhang and Ragni voting in favour of the permit and Esakoff, Daniel, Szmood, Kennedy and Rimbaldo voting against. The motion was thus defeated 5 to 3. Parasol had previously declared a conflict of interest.
Once the motion to grant a permit was defeated, Esakoff presented an alternate motion that the proposed 26 units be reduced to 22, and thus the allocated parking would not involve any waivers. This was passed 6 to 2 with the opposing councillors being Karslake and Zhang. Ragni decided to vote in favour of the motion this time around.
Whatever the outcome at the presumed future VCAT hearing, the issue here is not really about the merits of the application, but whether or not certain councillors will see their role as backing state government proposals instead of firmly representing their constituents and addressing the ills of our current strategic planning.
We’ve uploaded the comments made by Karslake, Zhang and Esakoff and ask readers to carefully listen to what was said and then decide as to the credibility of the arguments. We will also comment on the officer’s report for this item in our next post.
We have repeatedly contrasted how other councils approach dealings with the State Government and how their official communications vastly differ. In Glen Eira the criticisms and dare we say ‘outrage’ is muted and practically non-existent. Nor are residents truly informed as to what is going on behind the scenes.
This post concentrates on the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan released by the State Government in August 2024. Bayside publishes its proposed submission in the current agenda. Glen Eira merely presents a ‘summary’ of what officers will draft (September 3rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain. The submissions are due on the 29th September.
Bayside does not hold back in informing residents as to what occurred. Their officer’s report states:
The VPA and DTP scheduled a meeting with officers from Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston City Councils on Wednesday 21 August, informing that Phase 2 Engagement on a Draft Plan for Moorabbin would likely occur within the coming days, and that the Draft Plan would be released to Council officers and the public at this time. On 22 August, release of the Draft Plan was made via an article in the Age
All we learn from Glen Eira via the September 3rd report is:
The State Government has released the Draft Activity Centre Plans for Moorabbin and Chadstone for comment to both Council and the public on 22 August 2024.
No mention of the indecent haste; no mention of meetings and certainly no mention of the failure to inform council and the community directly. Is this a minor oversight, an unfortunate lapse? Or does it signify Glen Eira’s refusal to even imply major criticisms of the State Government’s processes and autocratic actions?
Here are some other comments made by Bayside in their officer’s report –
Council officers are extremely disappointed in the manner that the VPA and DTP has and continues to engage on this important project. The limited time and information available to provide meaningful feedback has created significant scepticism and lack of trust in the State Government’s ability to appropriately plan or manage such projects. Specifically, the approach provides little confidence and raises significant concern about the State Governments failure to follow its own planning framework and principles of the State Governments own Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the principles for a transparent planning process. Instead, the State Government, VPA and DTP are failing to openly engage with Council or the community, presenting all parties with plans for the Moorabbin Activity Centre without any technical reports, justification for the proposed approach, or any planning provisions.
There are grave concerns that the State Government is operating on the very outskirts of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the process of this program going far beyond what orderly and proper planning seeks to achieve. (Bayside bolding)
The Activity Centres program continues the State Government’s continued erosion of the community and local government participation in the planning process. It is based on the State Governments false narrative that Councils are a critical block in the delivery of housing.
The VPA and DTP have informed Council officers that there will not be an open or transparent review process. The plan will be presented to a Standing Advisory Committee on papers only – considering submissions raised. This approach will remove any peer review or cross examination of experts. The State Government, VPA, and DTP are running a process where there is no accountability or opportunity to question their work (which has not been released to the public).
It is understood that the Activity Centre Program is a pilot program which will be used as a basis to replicate across the metropolitan area. The approach undertaken by the VPA and DTP does not provide Bayside, nor should it provide the remainer of the Local Government Sector across Victoria, with any confidence that a replicated approach could be efficiently or effectively rolled out. The localised issues and needs of communities will be different and the work undertaken has not given due regard to the community expectations.
The VPA and DTP continue to inform Bayside of the program rather than genuinely consult or collaborate which represents a lost opportunity for a collaborative approach which could genuinely achieve improved outcomes. Bayside sees the output to date by the VPA and DTP as not having any real value or improved planning outcome beyond a small uplift in building heights in the most sensitive part of the project area.
There are plenty of other statements we could have included. This officer’s report is then followed by a 25 page formal submission. If the Glen Eira submission gets to even 12 pages we will be surprised!
The Bayside submission includes discussion on:
The State Government’s abandonment of its own planning rules and processes
Whether the gov’s draft plan is in accord with the ’purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone to facilitate commercial growth.
The 3rd September Glen Eira report ignores most of the above categories. Not a word is stated in regard to: housing affordability; transport and traffic; Sustainable Design; actions/plans in accordance with the ‘purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone. Whilst the 3rd September report is supposed to be a ‘summary’ only of what will eventuate in the actual submission, its lack of coverage and detail is concerning. Of greatest concern is the overall TONE of the report. Yes, we get verbage such as ‘concern’, a token acknowledgement of the ‘community’ but nothing to match what Bayside sees as vital to full transparency and democratic process.
This isn’t simply an issue of semantics. When we have a State Government that bulldozes through ill thought out planning changes as a political escape clause to camouflage its incompetence and indifference to the housing crisis, then it is incumbent on ALL councils to stand united and to call out such incompetence in the strongest terms. Glen Eira remains the odd man out – refusing to call a spade a spade, and thereby failing in its obligations to the thousands of residents (and future residents) who will be impacted by these spurious ‘reforms’. As we’ve said before – why on earth is Glen Eira taking this course? What is really behind such mealy- mouthed responses?
After two months of total silence on the proposed state government housing targets, council has produced its formal submission on the matter. Readers should remember that Glen Eira has been told that its target will be 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 – that is a doubling of the current housing numbers.
The submission does highlight what most other councils have complained about – ie.lack of detail; lack of strategic justification; lack of funding for essential infrastructure; importance of open space and the failure to consult with councils and community. But, unlike other councils’ submissions which are currently available, Glen Eira in both tone and content baulks at truly trying to protect the municipality. Here’s some of what other councils had to say in their submissions.
Stonnington
The Council’s attempts to engage in meaningful consultation with the State Government to ensure that the needs of the local community are met have been largely ignored.
On behalf of its local community, Council challenges the State Government to do better in future developments, in areas such as:
• High quality design of buildings, landscaping and public realm
• On-site provision of wraparound services to support community wellbeing
• the significant impacts to existing public facilities on which current and future residents will rely (for instance overshadowing of open space and recreation facilities)
• sufficient provision of useable, activated and safe open space and on-site amenity relative to the increase in population
• Embed decision-making processes that respond to site context, elevate sustainable design and value the voice of all stakeholders; increasing rigour through efficient and transparent planning approval processes, and at its core, the delivery of long term sustainable housing and services that are fit-for-purpose and support residents to thrive in the community.
Bayside
Council has grave concerns about the draft housing target for Bayside. The target of 31,000 additional homes has the potential to irrevocably change Bayside’s character and undermine the strategic planning framework that has been put in place tomanage and facilitate growth, whilst maintaining the liveability and character of themunicipality.
Council is concerned about the preparation, and release, of housing targets which vastly contradict current planning with no engagement with Councils, community or industry bodies. Furthermore, releasing these targets directly to the media without engagement or warning to industry bodies further fuels unnecessary concern in the community
Frankston
While Metropolitan and Major Activity Centres are locations identified for change and growth, the right balance must be struck to ensure that strategic planning for these centres ensures the right outcomes. It is important that development, open space and streets have access to sunlight, that built form is responsive to its environment, streets are of a human scale and that these centres remain liveable – the very essence of Melbourne, ‘the world’s most liveable city’.
Hobson’s Bay
The current Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and its zones and overlays for the municipality, based on the Housing Capacity assessment from 2019, has a significantly lower capacity than the State’s June 2024 draft Housing Targets and at present, the Housing Targets cannot be accommodated in Hobsons Bay
The best that Glen Eira can come up with is – The submission argues that the housing targets of 65,000 additional new dwellings for Glen Eira should be revised down to 55,000 to reflect the capacity identified in Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy 2022. The Housing Strategy was underpinned by detailed neighbourhood character assessments and a housing capacity and demand analysis as well as extensive community consultation.
No real mention in the Glen Eira submission of: neighbourhood character, sunlight, or flooding risk (council’s overlays date back to 2005!!!!). Again, readers should remember that the Housing Strategy was voted in by the skin of its teeth and as far as consultation goes this was nothing but a sham when over 110 people attended a meeting at the town hall and voiced various objections. This did not even rate a mention in the summary report. Council also refused to release the community surveys. All we got was a bogus ‘summary report’.
Whilst council might not agree with 65,000 new dwellings, they are happy with 55,000 arguing that this is based on the ‘capacity’ analysis which accompanied the Housing Strategy. Several points need to be borne in mind here:
The capacity analysis was completed in 2021. How many sites have now been developed in the last three years which reduce the figure of 55,000?
What is totally ignored and unstated in the council submission is that the capacity analyses that landed on the figure of 55,000 was Scenario 3 which mooted the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for all 7000+ properties zoned GRZ. The subsequent amendment decided against this move. Hence, there is less land available for development and certainly less than the cited 55,000.
When the analysis was done, not all of the subsequent heritage listed properties were done, dusted, and gazetted. Several amendments are still waiting to be gazetted. Again, this removes the ability to increase units per site and is again ignored in the latest council document.
To settle on a figure of 55,000 as suitable and appropriate is literally mind boggling and strategically impossible to justify given all the above.
To base planning completely on a fictional housing capacity figure as the state government insists upon is untenable. If this were the case, then in all probability most councils could have capacity for 100,000 new dwellings. It would be easy to achieve by simply allowing towers of 20 to 30 storeys in all activity centres and ignoring the environment, heritage, required infrastructure, and the contentious issue of ‘neighbourhood character’. Even a ‘reduction’ to 55,000 as council has done would spell disaster for many of our suburbs.
WHAT DOES THE SUBMISSION SAY?
On some of the most important issues Glen Eira sticks to the current pro-development ideology. Here are some of them –
Social/Affordable housing
Instead of fully supporting the introduction of a MANDATORY aspect to the provision of social/affordable housing, Glen Eira instead argues:
….Council cautions against introducing a system that makes all new housing more expensive to subsidise affordable housing and one that potentially makes it even more difficult to build new housing in a climate where land and construction costs are already very expensive.
In other words, nothing should be mandatory. Compare this approach to some of the other councils’ submissions –
Frankston – An easier, mandatory affordable housing mechanism must be considered as part of the Plan for Victoria, prioritising locations that are close to services, jobs and transport and in locations where there is a cluster of key workers, such as a health and education precinct.
Moonee Valley – argues for Mandatory planning controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions to deliver social and affordable housing at scale.
Mandatory controls versus the current ‘performance based’ process
It would appear that for Glen Eira mandatory controls should be severely limited. Again, this flies in the face of what other councils have put forward. In terms of deciding planning applications, Glen Eira comes down firmly on the side of ‘let’s have flexibility’ and let planning officers decide rather than adhering to mandatory/ prescriptive standards. Here’s how this is argued:
Council’s urban planners do an excellent job in negotiating improved outcomes on developments, and while some of what they do could be codified, their work sees better outcomes than if much of what they do were to be codified.
In other words, ‘we don’t want mandatory standards’ where it might impact on developers!!!!! Is this why these officers are incapable of ensuring more than a 5% social housing component, or a paltry 150 such dwellings in a yield of 3000+ for the Virginia Estate project? Why can other councils ‘negotiate’ up to 20% for a social housing component?
Data Presented in the Glen Eira Submission
Featured prominently in the Glen Eira document are several tables including the number of permits granted, as well as dwellings completed in various years. We take issue with what is presented and ask: is the divergence from publically available data deliberate? Where are the explanations for how this data has been compiled and accounted for?
Here are two tables where the figures are so skewed it is truly remarkable.
The first table is supposed to tell us how many developments of 10 or more dwellings were either completed, underway, or not yet started between 2018-2023. There is no breakdown of year to year. We have resorted to the state government’s Urban Design Development program which is based on data presented by council. This site presents what has been completed, or under construction, or ‘firm’ (ie with a permit) for various years. See: https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/udpmap/
We have concentrated solely on the results for 2022. According the map share data, the ‘completion’ rate is well above council’s claim of only 16 for a 5 year period. We have only bothered to look at some of the areas and our totals are well and truly above what council claims. Here is a shortened list for 2022 alone. We did not bother to go through other years ‘completion’ rates! If for simply one single year there have been at least 14 completed projects, then how on earth can council claim THAT FOR A 5 YEAR PERIOD THE TOTAL NUMBER IS 16?
1.111 Normanby Road, Caulfield North – 283 dwellings
45-47 Kangaroo Road, Murrumbeena – 15 dwellings
The second council table is also open to query.
This is supposed to tell us how many permits were granted for 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. dwellings. We are told that for the year 2023, only ONE permit was granted for 5 dwellings. Then why does council’s own planning register reveal that there have been at least 3 such permits granted. Here are the addresses and the dates permits were granted – all according to the online planning register –
All of this brings us to the central question: If we can’t trust council data, then how on earth can we trust their decision making? Or is all data simply geared to producing one single desired result? Who is accountable for this?
This has been an extremely long post for which we beg indulgence from our readers. However, it does go to the heart of what we believe is wrong in Glen Eira. Namely:
A refusal to take a far more critical and public stand against government policy as countless other councils continue to do
The continued publication of data that is both suspect and misleading and proffered as absolute ‘fact’
The continued preference to leave ‘control’ basically in the hands of officers, rather than see the introduction of essential mandatory standards
The failure to introduce any processes that can benefit the community – ie developer contribution levies, as well as opting for more than 5% for a social housing component in all major projects
Until residents can have absolute trust in this administration, or in councillors that are truly fulfilling their roles of oversight, questioning, and listening to the community, we will continue along this same path that ignores all that the community has stated again and again is fundamental to its ‘liveability’.
Last night’s council meeting unanimously passed the ‘updated’ Community Engagement Strategy/Policy. It was lauded as foundational to everything council did and how important community feedback was. There was not one reference to the quality of the ‘engagements’, the value of the continued pathetic surveys, nor the validity and accuracy of the various consultation summary reports.
We illustrate how skewed and manipulated these summary reports are by analysing the most recent effort – the fenced off leash area in the Caulfield Racecourse.
Here is a summary of what we’re told:
There were 368 comments made in the survey responses
There were 13 emails sent in as responses – none of the points made in these emails were cited or commented upon. In other words, we have absolutely no idea what these 13 emails stated!
The claim is that 62% were in favour of council’s proposal and 38% were opposed.
Here are some thoughts to ponder.
The vast majority of responses came (as expected) from dog owners. These participants used the racecourse more than any other cohort of users – ie 85% we’re told. So how are they likely to respond to the question asked – Do you support the proposal to formalise a fenced dog off-leash area in the north-west corner of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve? Given that there is nothing in the survey to tell participants anything about the site chosen – ie size, distance from water, etc. how many of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses can be taken at face value as support or opposition to the proposal? Over recent years there have been numerous public questions and requests to council to introduce fenced off leash areas. Council has responded that fencing does not fit in with their ‘open space’ planning. Thus, how many of the ‘yes’ responses are a result of wanting a fence, but not necessarily what has been put forward? Is the figure of 62% fully endorsing council’s plan, or simply endorsing the idea of a fenced area but not necessarily what is presented? We can’t tell based on how the question is presented and the lack of accompanying information.
We then get down to the nitty-gritty of the so called ‘Survey Data Analysis’ and this is assessed largely by the section called ‘Free Text Feedback Analysis’.. We are told:
Of the 325 responses which provided free-text feedback to question two, 185 responses support the proposal and 140 responses do not support the proposal.
The implication of such a sentence is clear – participants support the council proposal!
We then get this breakdown of written responses –
Please remember that the ‘conclusion’ was 140 responses DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL!!!!! Is this figure accurate? How is this number arrived at? What criteria was used to interpret the responses? Or were these ‘interpretations’ simply done to ‘confirm’ overall support’ and hence council’s stated position?!!!!!
We have highlighted in orange all those response which might be interpreted as opposed to the proposal – acknowledging that we can only go on the ‘themes’ that council claims came up more than 10 times in the responses. Given that council refuses to publish the comments, as they used to do, we have no idea of what was actually stated by participants!
The highlighted sections represent those responses that we are fairly confident might indicate opposition to the plan. The figures are: 94 + 53 + 22 + 19 + 14 + 13 + 10 + 6 + 5 + 3 = 239. Yet we’re told that the total number of opposed comments only equals 140!!!!! Tallying up even the first two categories alone (ie 94 +53) gives us a total of 147 and not the 140 cited!!! Subtracting some of the ambiguous ‘themes’ such as ‘dog training’, or ‘Exercise with dog’ still leaves us with numbers well and truly above the claimed 140!!!
The very act of enumerating ‘themes’ is a pointless exercise, as does counting the number of mentions. Unless the full comments are published we do not have any idea as to what the participants actually prioritised or thought.
There are plenty of other contentious ‘conclusions’ in this summary. Is it simply incompetence on the part of the report’s authors, or is such skewing of results deliberate and orchestrated?
Until we have a set of councillors who actually bother to analyse what is put in front of them, and who have the courage to call out such manipulative practices, then community consultation is Glen Eira will remain a farce.
There are several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting which illustrate the utter cowardice and complicity of the Glen Eira administration with the State government’s ad hoc and appalling planning processes and plans. In addition there is the continued watering down of consultation protocols that further limit transparency and, most importantly, community involvement in decision making.
We will focus on these two separate items.
Proposed Government Planning for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre
Item 8.3 consists of 4 pages outlining the ‘preliminary/draft’ Moorabbin plans. Two of these pages consist of the maps created by the government. The other two pages are spin and summaries of what the government has stated as its goals. Throughout this verbage there is not one single criticism or even analysis of what is proposed. Instead, we are repeatedly told that:
Council officers are actively involved in these discussions
Council officers will continue to be involved in the briefings with the VPA/DTP and ensure appropriate feedback is provided on the proposed controls and the respective Activity Centre plans. Feedback will align with Council’s priorities and more importantly advocate to be coordinated with funded infrastructure improvements to ensure our communities are not disadvantaged unfairly.
It is anticipated that a significant level of change in these activity centres will be proposed with further changes to be seen in the surrounding catchment areas as depicted in the figures within this report.
Moorabbin Activity Centre planning does not merely impact on Glen Eira. It also includes Bayside and Kingston.
Here is what the Bayside officer report stated on the issue. All quotes come from the 21st May agenda from that council. Please read carefully and ask yourselves which council is really standing up for its residents?
… there are concerns with the manner these projects are being undertaken, and the lack of genuine engagement with the affected councils
The program has been given an un-realistic deadline of implementation of planning controls into the planning scheme by December 2024. Council Officers have had minimal engagement with the project with the following key questions unable to be addressed by the VPA:
• What boundary of the activity centre is being used?
• What are the proposed planning controls to be used?
• What mechanisms for the collection of development contributions will be used to fund infrastructure triggered by the program?
• What technical studies are being undertaken to inform the work?
• How will the community and Council be meaningfully engaged in the process?
Until now, Council officers have had no meaningful engagement with this project, with no information forthcoming in response to any concerns
As this report critically points out, increasing population and development growth in these areas will only exacerbate the need for more infrastructure and community services. Victoria is already witnessing the amounting pressures on our public health system and ambulance services – a result of under resourcing and funding by the State Government. There is real concern that proper planning will not be accounted for as part of these Major Projects and impact the liveability of our current and future residents.
Council fundamentally questions where strategic justification for these targets has arisen from and whether the processes being led for these major projects are consistent with theoutcomes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the objectives of Planning in Victoria,
Council has previously raised concerns with the SRLA, Victorian Planning Authority and Department Transport and Planning regarding the process, governance and Council’s role within these major projects being led by the State Government. At present, Council has been mostly kept informed and ‘drip fed’ decisions rather than having any real ability to input into these processes and decisions being made.
There are also major concerns regarding the State Government’s agenda to ‘fast-track’ these projects. Proper planning takes time, resources and input at the local scale – this includes both local government and the community. Fast-tracking these major projects only further restricts Council and the community’s input and role in these processes.
Questions
Why is it that on the same issue, one council can have an officer report that is highly critical of what is happening and Glen Eira has taken 2 months to come up with a report that basically says nothing and is silent on the processes and impacts of the government proposal? Add this issue to the total deafening silence on the published housing targets of 65,000- net new dwelling by 2051, then this just confirms how little our administration cares about liveability and advocating for residents in Glen Eira.
Can we really trust the officers and their stated ‘involvement’ in any discussions? Are councillors informed of what is being discussed? Do they ever see hard copy printouts of discussion points or ‘resolutions’? Or are councillors, as usual, kept in the dark?
The real question is – what does council have to gain by being fully complicit with this government? Who is this administration really representing?
Community Engagement Strategy
The current Community Engagement Strategy, adopted in 2021, was supposed to run until 2026. So we now have a new strategy 2 years before the current one is set to expire. Why? What’s the rush? What’s the purpose of introducing a new strategy so far ahead of time?
Once the proposed draft is examined, we can achieve some understanding of why this administration is pushing for a new strategy. Put simply, it is to further reduce community input into council decision making.
The key paragraph of the new policy is to be found in these officer comments :
As the updated Policy does not substantively change the intent of the previous Policy, and was co-designed with the Community Engagement Advisory Committee, Council will undertake an ‘Inform’ level community engagement program.
The most important word here is ‘inform’. This is a reference to the IAPP standards of community engagement/consultation where we have ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’ as the steps on the ladder of full and meaningful consultation with the community. ‘Inform’ is the lowest level of consultation. It basically says, ‘here is what we will do and we’re simply telling you about it’. End of story.
When the initial strategy came to light, and included which plans, issues would occasion what sort of consultation, councillors passed the resolution that major issues such as structure plans, important infrastructure, etc. would go well beyond the ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ stage that was initially proposed for all consultations – apart from those mandated by legislation. Councillor then voted for this resolution:
Since the above resolution was passed we have not had ONE SINGLE ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ for any of the structure plans.
But what is even more alarming in the new proposed draft is the complete EXCLUSION of any link between projects and the anticipated level of consultation. We have no idea which issues will have more than ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ associated with them.
We have written previously on how other councils have designated their intended level of consultation. See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/01/07/consultation-2-2/. With this new draft all we get are motherhood statements, vague promises, and nil detail.
Here is one page from the ‘framework’ document. Please note:
‘Engagement Level’ has now nothing whatsoever to do with how council will consult, much less the level of consultation according to the IAPP standards. It now simply becomes a question of how long the consultation will last!
We then get another page that supposedly outlines the methods of consultation.
Once again we have no idea which projects will involve which levels of consultation. The stated methodology also leaves much to be desired. For example: the community engagement committee is stated as having input into the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ standards. To the best of our knowledge and according to the minutes of this committee, not once did this committee produce any ‘recommendations’ or even discuss the various draft structure plans. They certainly have had no input whatsoever into the framing, analyses and testing of the atrocious survey questions that are continually produced by this council.
The final outrage is that in the actual draft policy we find this table that is supposed to outline the level of consultation. The very inclusion of a sentence such as ‘Level to be selected depending on the complexity of the matter’ is the loophole that allows this administration to do whatever it likes, when it likes. In other words, because the standard isn’t in black and white, council can neatly side step the need for ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’. This is both dishonest and devious!!!!!
We have previously shown how other councils specifically itemise the task and the appropriate level of consultation. None of this exists in this new proposal. It represents nothing more than a continued watering down of the fundamentals of sound governance and democratic process. Sadly, it also means that residents, and probably councillors are once again sidelined as much as is legally possible. What a sad state of affairs and what a self serving administration we truly have.
At last week’s council meeting councillors unanimously resolved to seek ministerial approval to advertise the Caulfield Major Activity Centre amendment. To refresh our memory here is some of the history surrounding this issue:
The final structure plan was decided in September 2022 and scraped through on the casting vote of Magee – as has happened with several other major structure plans. Those voting against the plan were Esakoff, Zyngier, Pennicuik and Szmood. Concerns included the proposed heights, the activity centre zoning, parking, etc. The final resolution accepted: one 20 storey height and other precincts ranging up to 12 storeys. All heights were discretionary with none cited as mandatory.
8 storey preferred height above heritage in Derby Road
The accompanying background document from the first version of the structure plan by Charter, Keck and Kramer stated that the various precincts would house 8700 new residents and that the vast majority of new dwellings would consist of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.
So what has changed to have the four previously opposing councillors now voting unanimously for the draft proposals? Nothing we believe has really changed and the proposed schedule to the new Activity Centre zone falls far short of dealing with the concerns of both residents and the four councillors previously named.
If we examine the schedule closely we find:
A paltry 5% for every 20 dwellings to be social/affordable housing. When you are anticipating around 4000+ net new dwelling that makes it only 200 of these residences. Pathetic – especially when we are told time and again how lacking in social/affordable housing this municipality is.
No mention of overshadowing and sunlight requirements for open space and/or surrounding properties.
Reduction in car parking requirements
No consideration of the impact on existing and proposed new open space with the substantial mooted increase in population.
Review rights ONLY if the nominated heights and/or setbacks are exceeded in upcoming proposals. Even this is not across the board but only for specific precincts. It basically means that the proposed heights are now a given. Furthermore development plans only have to be advertised ‘for public comment’ and council is required to consider them rather than allow formal objections.
The schedule repeatedly mentions ‘diversity’ of dwellings, yet we know that the forecast is for over 90% to be single and 2 bedroom high rise apartments.
No mandatory height limit or setback requirements
As with everything this council does we have the magical get out of jail phrase of ‘where appropriate’ added to the objectives for decent landscaping and parking.The sentence which best sums up this nonsense is: To encourage the retention and enhancement of existing mature vegetation where appropriate.
Once again we find the phrase ‘generally in accordance’ with any future development plan. As we’ve seen with Caulfield Village this isn’t worth the paper it’s written on given that the Incorporated Plan nominated 1100 net new dwellings. Once finished Caulfield Village will exceed 2000! It is carte blanche once again for the MRC when we find the following sentence included in the schedule – Where there is an inconsistency between a provision of this schedule and the development plan, the provisions of the development plan prevail.
Activity Centre Zones (ACZ)
This is the first ACZ zone to be introduced into Glen Eira. It is therefore important to understand and compare what other councils have achieved with similar zoning. Below we feature the gazetted (ie approved) schedules that other councils have achieved in the past 20 months. We quote verbatim from the various schedules and simply ask – why don’t these conditions also apply in Glen Eira?
BANYULE – amendment C162 November 2022
Overshadowing and Pedestrian Amenity
Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the defined Solar Access Area shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3. Generally, buildings should not overshadow the footpath on the south side of this part of the Main Street between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.
Development should be designed to avoid casting shadows on the Town Square as shown on the Framework Plan and Precinct Plans for Precincts 1 and 3 between 11am and 2pm on 22 June.
DAREBIN – Amendment C182 – August 2023
The agreement must provide for an Affordable Housing Contribution defined as:
1. The transfer of land that has the demonstrated capacity to support the development of 10 per cent of the site’s total residential yield as affordable housing dwellings, to a registered housing agency at nil consideration for the Agency to develop and rent and/or sell completed dwellings to eligible households. An average 65 square metres /unit is proposed to be used to calculate the amount of land to be provided; or 2. 6 per cent of dwellings provided at 30 per cent discount to a registered housing agency;
Street wall height requirements
Street wall heights must not exceed the maximum measurements specified in clause 5.0 of this schedule
Overshadowing requirements for public open space
Development must not overshadow:
– more than 50 per cent of the primary public open space within the precinct between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.
– Any part of the Preston City Oval (playing surface and surrounding open spaces) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June.
– Areas of the public open space north of the Preston City Oval playing surface to the southern edge of the inner footpath and south side of Cramer Street (including the barbeque/picnic area in the north-eastern corner) between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21 June
Moonee Valley – Amendment c207 – January 2022
Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on September 22 to open spaces and streets identified with a spring equinox solar control on relevant precinct maps. The spring equinox solar controls apply to the length of the southern footpath on Holmes Road, Puckle Street and Alexandra Avenue, measured from the property boundary to the existing kerb. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.
Built form above the street wall height must cast no additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm on June 21 to open spaces identified with a winter solstice solar control on relevant precinct maps. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.
A permit cannot be granted for buildings and works which exceed the maximum building height specified in Table 1.
Table 1 – Mandatory building heights
Sub-Precinct
Mandatory maximum building height (excluding basement)
9A
20 metres
9C
11 metres
9E
14 metres
9H
32 metres
Geelong – Amendment C431 – March 2023
Table 8. Mandatory overshadowing requirements for existing and proposed public open space and the proposed Geelong Station Forecourt.
Austin Park
Johnstone Park
Customs Park
Transvaal Square
Steampacket Gardens
No additional overshadowing. 10am-3pm 22 June
Proposed open space
Proposed Geelong Station Forecourt
No additional overshadowing beyond a shadow that would be cast by a wall on a boundary of not more than 8 metres. 10am-3pm 22 June
Conclusion
So we now wait for the formal consent to advertise this draft. It will head off to a planning panel where the chances of residents’ concerns being addressed and ameliorated will be minimal. That is what invariably happens once structure plans scrape through by the skin of their teeth and councillors permit sub-standard planning to end up at planning panels. This whole exercise is merely another example of how little Glen Eira council is prepared to say ‘no’ to anything associated with the Melbourne Racing Club.
Glen Eira Debates 