Glen Eira Debates

Another terrific turnout for the Save Glen Eira lobby group. Yesterday’s rally at Elsternwick Plaza showed that opposition to Council’s inept and autocratic planning processes were well and truly on the nose.

Tellingly, all councillors were invited to attend. The organisers reported that only two had responded with their apologies: Silver and Hyams. The other 7 councillors didn’t even bother.

Several residents addressed the gathering and highlighted what we all know about this council:

• A ‘tsunami’ of overdevelopment
• A failure to adequately plan for sustainable growth
• A critical lack of open space
• Consultation that simply endorses decisions already made

Several MPs closed the meeting:

• Clifford Hayes spoke about his private members bill which will be up for debate this week in parliament. He is advocating limiting the Minister’s and VCAT’s power and ensuring that planning is truly ‘democratic’ and that residents are at the centre of all planning.
• David Southwick was joined by Georgie Crozier and Tim Smith. Each spoke about the need to ‘maintain the rage’ as well as rescinding some of the Labor Government’s recent moves on planning.

All in all, the take home message was clear. Glen Eira City Council via its elected representatives are not doing their jobs. They are demonstrably failing their residents.

From today’s Caulfield Leader

We’ve been forwarded the following flyer:

The audio below also comes from last Wednesday night’s council meeting. It presents a resident’s question on the development rate in Glen Eira and how council can justify its proposed structure plans, especially the nominated heights, when this is in complete opposition to what residents have stated repeatedly they did not want.

We urge everyone to listen very, very carefully to the response that Hyams gave. He is certainly not averse to embellishment (being kind) or straight out misleading and erroneous statements. Needless to say, the resident’s question was not answered in any shape or form.

Some observations:

• Hyams’ claims that structure plans are there to present a very, very long term vision (ie 50 years) in order to cater for projected population growth. Nothing could be further from the truth! Structure plans have a time span of roughly 20 to a maximum of 30 years and certainly not 50 years as claimed. Secondly, even the State Government’s Plan Melbourne Refresh, only goes to 2050. That is a time span of 34 years. No reputable institution, and certainly no council, plans ahead for 50 years. This is a blatant untruth. Something that Hyams knows, or should know given his time on council since 2003!
• As an example of how other councils view the function of structure plans, we present below two screen dumps on CURRENT structure planning consultations by Bayside and Kingston. Please note the duration of both these plans! Hardly 50 years!!!!!!

• We also note that the resident’s question has not been answered! Nothing Hyams has stated explains why these councilors so willingly adopted heights of 12 storeys in the face of constant community opposition and outrage. Where is the justification for this? The recent VCAT judgement made it stunningly clear how sub standard planning is in Glen Eira!

VCAT has handed down its decision for the Daily Planet, Elsternwick application. This was for a 14 storey building with 21 apartments. Readers should note that council’s Structure Plan states that this area be 8 storeys but with ‘community benefit’ be allowed to reach 12 storeys. With Wynne’s interim height amendment (C157) the site was granted discretionary heights of ‘up to 12 storeys’.

What is remarkable about this decision is the fact that VCAT has spelled out in full the sheer incompetency of Glen Eira Council’s planning; their lack of action, and once again councillors who do not have the guts to do the right thing by their residents. On this last point we quote the decision:

We choose to observe that, if the Council had determined to refuse to grant a permit for the proposed development, rather than condition a reduction in height by six storeys, we would have readily supported that decision that no permit be granted.  We agree with the submissions of nearby residents, lead by Mr Jones and Ms Smith, that the proposed building results in a range of built form impacts, that will even be considerable with a reduction in height to 8 storeys.  Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position where a permit has been granted, and we are left to determine particular contested conditions, which only influence particular elements of the overall proposal.  Having regard to the various considerations that we need to balance in our decision making task, we consider that the fairest outcome we can offer to all parties, is to support the Council’s position in relation to building height. 

At the council meeting of 19^th March 2019, Delahunty & Magee moved the motion for refusal. This was defeated and an alternate motion granting a permit of 8 storeys was carried. The movers for this second motion were Silver & Sztrajt. So much for  Camden ward councillors protecting their ward! This was carried. Thus the developer got his 8 storeys. Yes, better than 14, but certainly something that could have been avoided.

But there’s far, far more to this decision that pin points exactly what is wrong with our council and by implication asks how on earth Wynne could have rubber stamped the interim amendment when there is absolutely no strategic justification for anything!

Here are some of the quotes from the decision and we’ve uploaded the full document HERE

…. by grouping the review site with the adjacent residential neighbourhood in Precinct 3, despite its commercial zoning, the policy at Clause 22.05 undersells the development potential of the review site.  …..One reason for this conservative policy position is the age of this policy, which we understand dates from 1999, and therefore does not take account of successive redrafting of State policy which increasingly raises the bar for the extent of redevelopment expected in higher order activity centres

While Clause 22.05 forms part of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and must contribute to our decision making process, we choose to give it limited weight, given its inconsistency with the next two documents, and its failure to be revised in a manner consistent with the progress of State policy over time.

1           Under the ESP (Elsternwick Structure Plan), the review site is identified as having a height of between 8-12 storeys.  These heights are only expressed as storeys, and not as metres. (meaning that the developer has put in a height that is equivalent to approx 50 metres!) …..

2            It is fair to say that we have some concerns with the content and guidance contained in the ESP, which we summarise as follows:

1. The ESP contains no urban design or built form analysis, and no meaningful strategic planning analysis, which explains how the recommended heights of 8-12 storeys are arrived at. The lack of any rigour or meaningful analysis in establishing these heights, lends us to give less weight to them.
2. The ESP contains a series of eleven design principles, without explaining how these design principles are intended to interact with the recommended building heights. Relevant to the review site are the following two design principles.
3. As we have already observed, the ESP is largely devoid of any urban design or strategic analysis that supports the heights set out in that structure plan, which appears to form the basis for the discretionary height limit set out in DDO10.
4. The ESP identifies the need for more analysis and assessment to be undertaken to further refine building heights, as well as the treatment of interface locations and the likely shadows to impact residential properties. It appears that none of this work has been undertaken prior to the introduction of DDO10.
5. DDO10 contains very little guidance to enable a decision maker to assess whether a building that is at or under the discretionary height limit, achieves an appropriate built form outcome for a particular site. We accept that a useful decision guideline exists for developments that seek to exceed the discretionary height limit.  Decision guidelines and requirements also apply that relate to particular elements of a built form, such as the use of materials and colours, the provision of entries, the placement and design of building services, the potential overlooking of nearby dwellings, the treatment of interfaces to heritage places, and the desired treatment of the lower levels of the building.  However, when one comes to assess the appropriateness of the overall height and scale of a building, the extent of guidance is very thin, and amounts to not much more than the following statements, some of which are only somewhat relevant to the issue of building height and scale.

Firstly, we form that view having regard to the absence of any genuine urban design or strategic analysis that supports the 43 metre discretionary height limit currently set out in DDO10. Secondly, we are also concerned that the existing DDO10 is an interim control, and that the more permanent planning controls and built form guidance for this activity centre are still being created. In the absence of a considered, tested and permanent set of built form controls for this activity centre, we are loath to approve a 14 storey 59.8 metre tall building on the review site, that will have the effect of permanently transforming in a significant manner the built form language for this activity centre

CONCLUSIONS

We have been asking for years now for council to provide strategic justification for its planning decisions. These answers have not been forthcoming. This judgement makes it absolutely clear that:

• There is NO STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION for a 12 storey height limit
• There is no strategic justification that covers this height and the overshadowing impacts
• There is no adequate building design
• We have a planning scheme that belongs in the museum of antiquities
• We have councillors who do not have a clue and repeatedly betray their constituents