GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 2, 2019

A New Year’s ‘Present’!

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

Neighbourhood centres in Glen Eira have been totally ignored for years despite the fact that development is proceeding at a great pace and with ever increasing heights and density. The latest result of council’s failure to introduce any planning controls for these areas comes with a new application for a 7 storey development at 75-85 Hawthorn Road. This will sit directly alongside another 7 storey building and opposite a 6 storey building.

McKinnon now has 6 storeys. Glen Huntly has multiple sites with 6 storeys. East Bentleigh the same and will soon have at least 8 storeys. Murrumbeena and Hughesdale also feature 6 storey permits. Ormond will have 10 storeys and currently has several 5 storey permits. Each and every neighbourhood centre will now become another de facto high rise area.

So what is council doing about this? Very little it would seem. This stands in stark contrast to other councils who have refused to be so compliant and pro-development.  Boroondara through its C229 Amendment managed to ensure mandatory height limits for all but its 3 major commercial shopping strips where the majority were of a maximum height of 3 storeys and only 1 was for 5 storeys. (See HERE). Bayside has also worked tirelessly to shore up protection for its neighbourhood centres. In Glen Eira we still await any indication as to:

  • Will these neighbourhood centres also have structure plans?
  • When will council get around to introducing any real protection for these centres?
  • Will council be fighting tooth and nail for mandatory height limits as Boroondara did?
  • With the stated ‘upgrading’ of Bentleigh East and Caulfield South, what will council decide as an ‘appropriate’ height for these centres? – 8 storeys? 9 storeys? And how much land will be rezoned to either RGZ or GRZ that is now zoned Neighbourhood Residential?

True to form, council’s modus operandi remains the same – keep the plebs ignorant until it is too late!

 

December 24, 2018

The Year In Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

To begin with, wishing all our readers a safe and healthy festive season, with thanks for your input throughout the year.

2018 has in many ways been pretty momentous. There have been some governance advances but overall majority resident views continue to be ignored. Here is a summary:

THE POSITIVES

  • Telecasting of council meetings and ‘public participation’ section a continued winner
  • Heritage action(s), whilst far from complete, has at least got off the ground
  • Reform of permit time extension applications and council’s admission that it stuffed up badly on one application

THE NEGATIVES

  • Structure planning ‘consultations’ that are ‘tokenistic’ given the continued changes that have not gone out for proper consultation and when no justification is provided for the changes – ie setbacks, heights.
  • Continued delays on the introduction of parking plans, heritage overlays, open space levies
  • Local Law review still well over a year away – ie removing the ridiculous clause that those asking public questions have to sit through up to 3 hours of items before their questions can be addressed. If not present then no record of the question or response exists in the minutes.
  • Tree register still belonging in some unspecified never-never land.
  • When the city is well and truly meeting its housing needs for population growth, no justification has been provided for why so much more development is required.
  • No firm commitment to introduce structure plans for neighbourhood centres – merely ‘urban design guidelines’ that are non-mandatory. Timelines also a mystery. Yet we have seen up to 8 storeys in these centres.
  • Officers granted more power via the recent delegation resolution – ie need now for over 15 objections to a planning permit in order for it to be considered as ‘suitable’ for a full council decision – otherwise decided by the Delegated Planning Committee which consists entirely of officers. One concession – councilors now have ‘call in’ rights. How often will this be used we wonder and no guidelines/policies have been published to inform residents as to how this will work.

There are plenty of other issues we might highlight. The take home message is that planning and traffic remain residents’ major concern and this council has done very little to ameliorate the continuing damage. When the vast majority of residents are opposed to 12 storeys in Carnegie & Elsternwick, and the majority were also in favour of only 4 storeys for Bentleigh, council has shown time and time again that it is intent on ramming its agenda through despite community opposition. Until we have a group of councilors determined to listen to its residents then nothing will change.

 

 

December 17, 2018

Please Explain!

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

UPDATE ON DECISIONS: Councillors voted unanimously to reject the Egan Street application last night. (Davey was absent and Taylor has resigned). The Snowden Avenue application was another rejection! Both will undoubtedly end up at VCAT and we envisage permits for both.

Once again we have two applications up for decision where the officer recommendations appear to have no correlation with the current planning scheme. The applications are:

  • 8 Egan Street, Carnegie for an 8 storey mixed use development containing 84 apartments of 40 one bedroom. 38 two bedroom and 6 one bedroom plus study. Parking shortfall is 8 spaces. A permit is recommended.
  • 57 Snowden Avenue, Caulfield for a two storey building containing 4 dwellings of three bedrooms each in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The site is 857 square metres. Officer recommendation is a refusal of permit.

The first application received one objection whilst the Snowden Avenue one had 12 objections.

What is staggering about the officer recommendations plus the overall assessment of these two applications is the inconsistency, plus the complete disavowal of council’s planning scheme.

EGAN STREET APPLICATION

The site has a long history of applications. Initially there was a 16 storey attempt which both council and VCAT refused. This current application is an amendment to what was originally a 12 storey plan and as a result of the interim height amendment of August 2018, the developer has opted for an 8 storey version. In this instance the introduction of the DDO has resulted in a reduction of height. That’s a positive outcome. What is not so ‘positive’ is the evaluation by the planning department of this current attempt and the explicit acknowledgement how council has stuffed up in the past.

An important element in the decision is the interpretation of ‘community benefit’. Council admits that currently there is no clear definition or criteria to adjudicate on what ‘community benefit’ means. This does not stop the report however from claiming that pedestrian access from Egan Street to the rear of 1062-1064 Dandenong Road  equates to ‘community benefit’!!!!!! This is further endorsed with the following  –

The proposal also contains a diverse mix of housing, as one (some with study’s) and two bedroom dwellings with various layouts and sizes are proposed. While this, in the context of community benefit is low, it does add to the broader community benefit that is achieved through the securing of a publicly accessible laneway 

Thus, housing diversity is satisfied by a 8 storey building containing primarily single and two bedroom apartments! That is seen as a ‘community benefit’!

We then have the biggest backflip of all time when it comes to overshadowing of public open space. Council admits that the degree of overshadowing is excessive and inappropriate’, but this is okay since the language of the amendment is so poorly constructed  –

When considering the wording of the DDO control being to minimise overshadowing impacts on existing and future open spaces … , it is considered that the Urban Design advice in this instance goes beyond what the control seeks to achieve. In this respect, Council must be satisfied that the proposal has minimised overshadowing impacts. It is considered that the extent of shadow is limited to the northern section of the park directly opposite the site. The shadow largely avoids the walking and cycling path and the building’s side setback will also provide filtered light through to the open space when shadow is cast by the building. Overall, the proposal is considered to have minimised the impact of overshadowing onto this new park. 

There are plenty of other issues with this application that have basically been ignored in the report, or failed to be addressed with clear and irrefutable ‘evidence’. In the end, a narrow laneway becomes a ‘community benefit’ and dubious employment potential another benefit. Overshadowing is okay because the authors of the amendment got it so wrong!

SNOWDEN AVENUE APPLICATION 

This application well and truly meets all requirements of the planning scheme in terms of height, site coverage, permeability, garden area, setbacks etc. Yet it is refused on the most tenuous and ‘subjective’ reasons. The major reason for the refusal is that the application is for an ‘apartment’ style building in the NRZ, rather than detached housing/townhouses. The hypocrisy of such a stance is unbelievable given that:

  • Council is now proposing to allow 3 storey townhouses/apartments in NRZ areas as per its latest structure planning proposals
  • Council has already granted permits for apartment style buildings in its NRZ – ie Hudson Street (below)

The planning scheme verbage has not changed in the intervening period. Why this current application which meets all criteria is refused when council previously issued a permit for exactly the same kind of structure is bewildering to say the least. Does the answer lie in the number of objections perhaps?

The greatest blooper in this officer’s report however is the questioning of why the applicant chose to provide on site car parking that goes beyond what is required!

It is unclear as to why a total of 10 resident spaces are proposed along with an additional visitor space (total – 11 spaces) have been proposed for a 4-dwelling development which would generate a requirement of 8 spaces.

We are not endorsing the granting of a permit. What we are questioning is the consistency and validity of council’s decision making and the ‘influences’ that might be at work. When the planning scheme is ignored then planning is indeed in an almighty mess. That is Glen Eira!

 

December 10, 2018

Another 14 Storeys!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[10] Comments 

Elsternwick is quickly emerging as Glen Eira’s high rise capital with another 14 storey application for the former Daily Planet site. Adding salt to the wounds of residents, this application:

  • Abuts the 4 storey mandatory height limit of Ross Street – where many dwellings are single storey
  • The discretionary height limit is 12 storeys but developers regard this as nothing more than a ‘minimum’.

Possibly the biggest joke in this application is the developer’s claims to ‘community benefit’. Readers should remember that council decided that development could go from 8 to 12 storeys if there was ‘community benefit’. Of course there is very little definition of what this term actually means and certainly nothing worth a cracker in the eventual interim amendment. For those applications wishing to exceed the preferred height, all they have to show is (quote) – that the development includes the provision of significant community benefit. Not a single of word of definition exists; no decision criteria exist. Council should congratulate itself on producing the perfect example of waffle par excellence!

How does the developer respond to this clause then? Here’s what is claimed as ‘community benefit’ –

We get a paragraph on office space and ’employment’, then more of the same. Please note the reference to the former brothel!

And the result will look like this:

There’s another aspect to this application worth considering. As recently as the last council meeting a resolution was passed to grant this site a permit for a drug rehabilitation unit. It had apparently been operating for some time without a permit. The current application allegedly arrived at council on the 2nd November.  Discussions prior to this date would undoubtedly have taken place with council planners. Thus, given that developers operated without a permit, did council issue any fines, or merely turn a blind eye knowing this was in the works?

Many other aspects of the application are contentious – ie overshadowing; traffic, open space. What is becoming clearer and clearer is that Elsternwick has always been seen as Glen Eira’s high rise capital and every effort has been made to further this agenda by a council that steadfastly refuses to listen to its residents!

 

December 7, 2018

Budget Blow Out?

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

Common sense is a very scarce commodity in Glen Eira council. Why on earth would you close off three quarters of a family park on December 3rd when kids and families are about to go on holidays and would enjoy spending some time in a public park? Why now, and for a stretch of 6 months, when the decision to spend a squillion on Harleston park was made just on 18 months ago?

Here’s the breakdown of events:

  • The first inkling that council had decided to spend $650,000 on a new playground, and $350,000 on toilets came in the 2017/18 budget papers. That’s 18 months ago!
  • Next came the pretty drawings and public consultation where the vast majority of responses were opposed to the expense and the decision to create a full size basketball court. Countless comments wanted the park to remain the same.
  • With this fierce opposition, we then had another round of ‘consultation’ with the majority of residents still opposed. This time councilors voted to proceed but with a half court instead. How much these rounds of ‘consultation’ cost has never been disclosed, nor has the ‘design’ drawings as far as we know.
  • The 2018/19 budget papers included another $155,000 for an ‘all purpose court’ – is this in addition to the $650,000?
  • The tender finally went out with closing dates of October 2018 – a year of doing nothing despite what the budget stated.
  • On November 7th, council awarded the contract as shown below –

 

It is unclear whether this successful tender includes the toilet costs or is simply for the playground and landscaping. Please note that the stated amount is EXCLUSIVE of GST – meaning that this project will cost well over a million dollars.

This exercise raises plenty of issues, such as:

  • When will this council finally start listening to its residents? If the majority didn’t want this ‘redevelopment’ then how can the expenditure of over one million be justified?
  • Why does it take so long for budget items to get off the ground? Is it that council doesn’t have the requisite cash available at the time?
  • Couldn’t the restructure have been started earlier, well before XMAS and the holiday season? Should it really take 6 months for completion?
  • And the over-riding question – why must each park look the same? What’s wrong with one area that is specifically suited to toddlers as the majority of responses indicated?

The photo (below) shows the removal of rubber matting that has only recently been installed and is probably still in very good condition. Again, how much did this cost?

 

December 4, 2018

Here We Go Again!

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

Developers continue to have a field day in Glen Eira. Council can spruik its planning prowess all it likes, but its performance has been abysmal in protecting suburbs, residential amenity and heritage. Elsternwick is Glen Eira’s current sacrificial lamb, following on from Carnegie.

We now have another application alongside the Coles development for an 8 storey, shops, offices and 23 apartments – the majority being 2 bedroom with 8 being three bedroom apartments. Of greater significance is that the site is located in a heritage overlay and the existing buildings are deemed as ‘contributory’ in the planning scheme. Furthermore, according to the current structure plan, there is a preferred height limit of 4 storeys. But of course, since the height limits are only ‘preferred’ there is nothing to stop any developer applying for 8 or 10 or even more! We have to wonder how hard Council fought for mandatory controls in Elsternwick overall, and specifically in these heritage overlay areas. If Bentleigh & Carnegie achieved mandatory heights, then the question needs to be asked as to why Elsternwick is the odd man out. Plus why wasn’t Elsternwick included in the first set of structure planning undertaken by council?

What is remarkable with this application is that the developer has been ‘advised’ by a heritage ‘expert’ that –

Perhaps this expert should explain what ‘modest level of heritage value’ means – especially since the buildings are designated as ‘contributory’.  Surely, either something is of heritage value or it isn’t! But it’s not only these dwellings. This ‘expert’ sees the entire heritage overlay as being of ‘modest’ value. Of course, there is nothing stated to ‘quantify’ or even justify such perverse adjudication!

We must also wonder how an 8 storey building plopped on top of a 2 storey building can be ‘consistent’ with any heritage overlay as well as creating a ‘responsive heritage outcome’.  Here’s what is proposed and readers be the judge as to whether this is a desirable outcome –

There is plenty of other things to be concerned about with this application. Set backs for the storeys above the podium will only be 3.5 metres along Orrong Road. What does this do to overshadowing, etc? And given that in February 2018 council proclaimed –

The Elsternwick shopping precinct is truly unique in wider Melbourne. The shopping strip has
an existing heritage overlay, which seeks to preserve the unique and intact heritage
streetscape. Despite this heritage protection, recent VCAT approvals have seen a number of
taller buildings of up to 8 storeys being constructed in the shopping strip.

When justifying taller buildings in the heritage overlay, VCAT has pointed to the lack of
alternative priority development areas in Elsternwick to accommodate the centre’s future
growth. If this current development trend continues, the heritage precinct is in danger of
being significantly eroded by, or lost to, major development.

Thus the existence of heritage overlays which supposedly curtail development became the argument for 12 storeys along Nepean Highway. Since Glen Huntly Road is now a developers’ paradise, one could very well question why we still need 12 storeys along Nepean Highway? Or an even better question – given current high rise activity along Glen Huntly Road, and if the heritage shopping strip is so ‘truly unique’, then why has the major Heritage Review been put off until years down the track? If heritage is truly a priority then nothing can excuse this inaction. But then again, we remind readers of councillors’ dismal record on heritage when they recently voted to grant a permit for a 12 storey building in the Derby Road heritage area. We anticipate more of the same here with the argument being that there already are plenty of high rises along Glen Huntly road and its surrounds, so one more won’t matter! This of course makes an utter mockery of their structure planning! The only ‘certainty’ has been provided to developers. The message is clear – go for it and the higher the better!

 

November 29, 2018

Neighbourhood Character Overlays

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

Whilst there is cause for ‘congratulations’ that council is now responding to resident requests regarding the zoning of various areas within Glen Eira, we also find that the actions proposed fall far short of what is required.

At last council meeting the application for Weeroona Road was refused by councillors. Much was made of the fact that there existed a Neighbourhood Character Overlay on the other side of the street and not on the side that included the application site. Hence we now get the following Request for a Report –

Instead of a total review of all NCO’s, the report only wishes to look at those areas on opposite sides of the street. It is also possible to see this as an explicit admission of how woeful Glen Eira’s planning has been. If planning was done properly to begin with we would now not be in the situation where it takes a huge resident outcry to get some responses underway. The incompetence of council’s planning is fully illustrated in the following screen dumps. Please note that these Neighbourhood Character Overlays also incorporate areas zoned as GRZ and RGZ. If the objective is to protect streets via the NCO, then it is really incomprehensible how these places could have been assigned the GRZ and RGZ zoning – which still stand. Thus, the issue isn’t simply about NCOs on the opposite side of the street, but the overall zoning embedded within existing NCOs – plus how many more streets and properties deserve to be granted an NCO. Thus we now have had 5 years of zoning and any amendment will likely take another 18 to 24 months – making this a 7 year issue where nothing has been done to correct previous glaring errors!

 

November 22, 2018

13 Storeys – Still!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

Woolworths Elsternwick: Supermarket giant resubmits plans for high rise tower

Emma-Jayne Schenk, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

November 21, 2018 12:00am

The battle between Woolies and Elsternwick neighbours is back on, with Woolworths pinning its hopes on a new public facility in their planned Selwyn St complex, to help quell backlash against its plan for a towering high-rise.

The supermarket giant has finalised plans for the 13-storey complex, following more than 115 objections about height and scale, traffic congestion, parking, loss of heritage, and overshadowing on nearby houses.

The former ABC building on Selwyn St, which Woolies bought for $45 million in March 2017, is currently only two storeys high.

Woolworths resubmitted plans to Glen Eira Council for the mammoth building earlier this month, which will be released to the public for feedback next week. If approved by Glen Eira councillors next year, the 80-unit complex would include a two-storey, 1000 sq m community facility on the corner of Sinclair and Selwyn streets with a small cafe, meeting and discussion spaces, and a multimedia space available for hire. The Kadimah Jewish Cultural Centre will also be relocated within the centre.

Other changes include increased setbacks and the glass exterior being replaced with brick.

But a Woolworths spokesman said the height and the scale — which is what most residents objected to — remained “very similar”.

Elsternwick resident Rosemary Scott-Thompson, who owns an apartment on Selwyn St, said while the community centre was a “nice idea”, the changes did not ease her concerns.Woolworths is hoping its new design, shown here, will quell community concern.

She said the “monstrosity” would block any direct sunlight she gets in her home, and the only opening window would be facing the underground carpark, which would “stick fumes into her apartment”.

“Unless they step the building back on Selwyn St … it’s not something I’ll ever be happy about,” Ms Scott-Thompson said.

“They stepped the building back on the other side but (because we’re in a commercial zone), it’s like they don’t care.

“From my own personal point of view, it’s just not a good idea.”The old plans, seen here, for 10-16 Selwyn St have been scrapped by Woolies.

Woolworths senior development manager Don Foulds said the revised plans came in response to community needs. “We’re confident we can deliver a development that becomes a vibrant cultural and entertainment hub for local residents and look forward to discussing our revised proposal with the council and community members,” he said.

Source: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/woolworths-elsternwick-supermarket-giant-resubmits-plans-for-high-rise-tower/news-story/089d1b38e00c44720eda19f883684576?utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_medium=Twitter

 

November 20, 2018

Value For Money?

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

From today’s Caulfield Leader –

 

November 14, 2018

Quality Design Guidelines: Where’s The ‘Quality’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

For all the spin that the Urban Design Guidelines will ensure the right buildings in the right places, recent events reveal how ineffectual such ‘guidelines’ really are. Here’s why:

  • They are ‘discretionary’ and NOT mandatory
  • They are Reference documents only and NOT part of any specific clause of the planning scheme
  • There is nothing in the recently gazetted structure plans which mandate developers to abide by the aspirations of this ‘reference’ document

Best illustrating how council’s spin does not equate with reality, we have the example of 100-104 Mimosa Road, Carnegie. Originally an application came in for a 4 storey apartment block of 49 apartments. With the introduction of the structure plans we now have a ‘revised’ application for 3 storeys and 41 apartments. Height is the only aspect of the structure plans which are mandatory (only for Bentleigh & Carnegie), hence the removal of one storey. All well and good people might say. Except that Mimosa Road is, according to the structure plan, located in Precinct 2. And Precinct 2 is supposedly designated as ‘Garden Townhouse’ of up to 3 storeys, 11 metres. In other words, NOT an apartment block.  Yet this is what is now proposed – definitely NOT ‘townhouses’!

On the 28th February 2018, council minutes contained the following in regard to the Urban Design Guidelines –

The Quality Design Guidelines were produced to:

– Respond to the aspirations of the Glen Eira community regarding neighbourhood character and to deliver on the vision for our neighbourhoods.

– Encourage a high level of architectural design in new developments.

– Provide clarity and certainty about Council’s expectations for new developments.

– Support and supplement existing design guidance provided by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and relevant State Government initiatives.

AND

Beyond ensuring better design outcomes are achieved across Glen Eira, implementation of the Quality Design Guidelines will deliver four significant benefits:

  1. Clarity and certainty for everyone
  2. Garden townhouses in residential streets
  3. Protection of character and human scale of shopping streets
  4. Maximising community benefit on strategic and urban renewal sites

Another ‘advantage’ of the Garden Townhouse aspiration was that –

  • Ground floor living reduces the impact of overlooking onto neighbouring backyards
  • Less dwelling density in residential streets address concerns of parking and traffic

The developer’s ‘revised’ application puts pay to all of this spin. We quote directly from the Urbis report:

…it is noted that the setback, landscaping, building design, landscaping and all other objectives are considered to be discretionary, whilst the specified height is considered to be mandatory. 

The built form currently proposed is an ‘apartment’ style building. It is considered that although a ‘town house character’ is encouraged by Amendment C157, it is noted that an apartment style character is a common characteristic within this neighbourhood setting 

It is noted that the proposed development does not provide the number of canopy trees required to be planted on the entire site and deep soil planting is restricted along the rear of the boundary and partly along the side boundaries. However, the street trees are proposed to be retained as part of this proposal and additional planting can be provided within the front setback of the development 

There are plenty of other problems with this application. For example:

Site coverage is 68%. Supposed to be 60%

Permeability is cited as 20% the required amount, but one has to query the following phrase attached to this number – ie deep soil area is 13% remains unchanged. What does this say about permeability per se, or the extent of the basement car park? Please remember that council’s ‘promise’ was to ensure that basement car parks did not cover practically the entire site!

What happens with this application will be instructive to say the least. More than anything it highlights once again the failure of this council to produce results that have real effect.

Finally a comment on governance and the continued monkey business that occurs with council’s online register. The application for 4 storeys came in months and months ago. It then disappeared entirely from the online register. Nothing such as ‘withdrawn’ was noted. It then made a reappearance as an entirely new application but still contained the SAME DATE as the original application for 4 storeys.

Online registers are required to contain information about every single application – their amendments, dates, decisions, etc. Far too often in Glen Eira inaccuracy and obfuscation replaces legal requirements!

Here are the two different applications and please note the dates:

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »