GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 16, 2017

Our Non-Existent Tree Protection!

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

In the ‘community participation’ segment of Tuesday night’s council meeting, one resident got up and said that ‘large trees’ are being taken down by developers before they put in their applications. The resident claimed that two large trees in Hamilton Street Bentleigh had been removed prior to the planning permit application and that he had sent an email to council ‘asking for them to be considered as significant trees’ but hadn’t got any response. He wanted to know ‘how do I go about’ having someone from council ‘come and have a look at it’. Delahunty answered that ‘council currently doesn’t have any tree protection on private land’. Only when someone has applied for a planning permit can council start assessing whether or not there is any ‘significant vegetation’ on the property. Delahunty went on to say that ‘unfortunately at the moment there is no ability for us to protect those trees‘. The resident then wanted it confirmed that ‘there’s nothing we can do’. The developer will cut down the trees ‘and they will be gone’ before he puts in the planning application. Delahunty then asked Torres to ‘detail’ the planning scheme’s ‘anti-moonscaping provision’.

TORRES: said that ResCode allows councils to ‘consider significant vegetation’ that are removed ‘in the past 12 months prior to lodging’ the application and that there are ‘principles around that in not granting a development advantage’.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘that doesn’t necessarily address what you are talking about’.

RESIDENT: said that the property up for decision that night had a ‘big tree removed’ from there and wanted to know ‘what can be done about that?’

DELAHUNTY: passed this onto Torres and said that she didn’t ‘realise’ that there were any trees involved and that councillors didn’t have any information on that. In the end answered that ‘nothing’ can be done.

DAVEY: asked ‘what can we do?’

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘previously council has considered a significant tree register’ and that many other councils have one. Also that this is something they will ‘consider’ in the future.

RESIDENT: asked ‘how do we go about the process’ for getting council to ‘consider that again?’

DELAHUNTY: said she is a ‘big fan’ of a significant tree register. It’s been part of the last Community Plan but wasn’t ‘enacted at council’. ‘We will have to kick off a Local Law Review’ and that’s when they will start to ‘look at this very seriously’.

HYAMS: asked Torres about ‘this moonscaping development’ how council knows whether large trees are gone before the application comes in?

TORRES: said council has ‘detailed aerial photography’. Plus they get ‘information from the community as well’.

HYAMS: asked the resident when the tree was removed.

RESIDENT: answered that it was removed ‘just before the planning application’ went in on the property.

HYAMS: ‘so theoretically, our officers would have taken that into account’ in writing up their recommendations for the development.

RESIDENT: ‘it’s not been listed on the plans at all’. ‘so it’s just bad luck and they can do what they like’. Said this ‘doesn’t give’ him any ‘hope for the future for the place across the road’. Went on to describe how since all the palm trees along Nicholson St had been removed, the birds are now using these trees in Hamilton and if they go, then there’s nowhere for them.

DELAHUNTY: said she would have ‘another look’ at the aerial shots and ‘maybe it wasn’t significant’

RESIDENT: said the tree was ‘absolutely enormous’.

DELAHUNTY: thanked the resident and said ‘that’s interesting’.

COMMENT

The above ‘discussion’ highlights everything that is suspect about planning in Glen Eira. Apart from the fact that time after time the possibility of a tree register has been defeated by the likes of Esakoff, Lipshutz, Magee, Okotel and Lobo, we find Hyams doing his best ‘public relations’ performance by implying that council officers ‘would have taken into account’ the missing tree in their permit deliberations. It’s very strange then that the officer’s report states – There are no significant trees on the site that would be affected by the proposed development. Thus, did the planning department even bother to visit the site? Did they actually view these ‘aerial photos’. Even a quick search on Google shows large trees across both properties in the application!

Perhaps Hyams and the planning department should be made to answer this very simple question – how many times in the past ten years has council refused to grant a permit on the basis that a tree has been removed? Or even, how many times has the applicant been forced to amend his planning application to encourage the planting of a new tree in the exact same spot that the butchery occurred?

It would also be fascinating to know whether, and how much, council fined Jewish Care over the Wahgoo fiasco when overnight the bulldozers moved in and destroyed nearly 90 trees (including 4 designated as ‘significant’) prior to a permit being granted?

We also need to question why the emphases is on the Local Law (not due for renewal until 2019) and not ensuring that tree protection is part of the Planning Scheme itself. Local laws have far less weight than a provision in the planning scheme. The fact that something is in the Planning Scheme also ensures that residents have objection rights and can go to VCAT if they so decide. Depending how the Local Law is written, there may not be any objection rights whatsoever! Nor would residents have to wait 2 years for the law to be reviewed. An amendment could be started immediately – that is, if council really had the will. A simple copying from other councils should not take too much officer time!

Davey’s question is also disappointing. Doesn’t she really know what is possible? Doesn’t she work for Boroondara which has a tree protection policy? Or is she playing Dorothy Dix here? Either way, after 8 months as a councillor, and a Green, surely she should be aware of the options? Boroondara even allows the ordinary Joe Blow to nominate a tree for the register – https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/waste-environment/trees-and-naturestrips/nominate-tree-recognition-and-protection

Plus there’s also this latest move from a resident in Bayside to protect her peppercorn trees once the property is sold to a developer – See: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/bayside-council-lists-sandringhams-susan-st-peppercorns-on-their-protective-significant-tree-register/news-story/c8b1172df081b566ba92cb903a05bcb7

New councillors have overall been most disappointing. Goes to show how promises to represent the community all too often and quickly disappear into thin air once elected. Much can and should be happening right now. All it takes is for 5 councillors to have the gumption to get up, move a resolution and have it passed. Of course that would require Glen Eira joining every other council in the state and having what it known as a Notice of Motion – repeatedly defeated by the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams, Okotel, Esakoff, Ho and Tang.

June 15, 2017

And The Prize Goes To……..

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

The prize for the most disingenuous, misleading, and completely ignorant or politically expedient comments for the year must go to Delahunty, Magee and Athanasopolous. How anyone in their right mind could even contemplate uttering the sentiment that 20+ storeys of dog boxes is acceptable, given the community’s outcry about height and inappropriate development is simply staggering. But that’s what has happened as exemplified in the following ‘debate’ on the option of seeking mandatory height controls for the Caulfield Village Smith Street Precinct.

First, some explanation is necessary. The approved Incorporated Plan for the entire Caulfield Village project includes the following:

All stated heights are ‘preferred’ and are not MANDATORY.
The cited heights are listed according to AHD and for the Smith Street precinct the highest is nominated as 120 metres which is then recorded as ‘typical 20 storeys’.

AHD, or Australian Height Datum involves calculating street level from sea levels. In other words, how much above sea level is the land under discussion. The image we present below comes from the State Government’s Land Services division. It shows the contours of the land. Readers should note that the lie of the land varies from 46 to 49 metres. Since the Incorporated Plan specified 120m AHD that means that the 46 or 49 metres needs to be subtracted from the 120 metres to get any idea of the ensuing height. If we subtract 50 metres from 120 metres, the result is 70 metres above ground level that the building can reach – unless of course the MRC decides to push the buttons on the ‘preferred’ aspect and go for higher. The Building Code of Australia sets a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres. Thus even if we have larger floor to ceiling heights for the commercial ground floor areas, that would still leave approximately 60 metres available for residential purposes. The possible results are that the developer could quite easily construct a building of 25 and above storeys. Nothing binds the developer to a mere 20 storeys as this council would like residents to believe! – and especially not when we have a ‘preferred’ height limit rather than a mandatory one!

Please read the following carefully and decide how well these councillors are representing the community and how much they really understand as to the implications of their voting!

Delahunty moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: thanked the resident for bringing council’s attention to the issue of ‘additional’ controls concerning heights at a recent council meeting and ‘whether or not we should look at some height controls’. Said the report gave the option that ‘we could apply to the minister to change the height controls’ or they could ‘reserve’ action until after the structure planning is done. Went on to say that ‘at the moment’ the Smith St precinct has height that varies from ’12 to 20 storeys’ and if the developer wanted to go over this height limit then ‘they would have to go through a planning application’. She therefore ‘supposes’ there is a ‘large disincentive’ for the developer to do this. Said she wasn’t ‘of a mind to impose anything additional’ on the developer that ‘isn’t in keeping with that particular precinct’. Her concern was getting ‘nice apartments’ and ‘not how high’ those apartments are. ‘I’m not particularly concerned about that’ or the ‘height of the Smith Street precinct at the moment’ because ‘I do not believe it will go over 20’. Admitted that it has been ‘much debated, much hated, but it is what it is’. It’s on an ‘incredibly major transport hub’ with no open space, but this ‘will change’. ‘So it’s right and proper that it takes a fair bit of development’. ‘So the height is of less concern to me personally’ than who will live there – ie affordable housing. This is where ‘I am suggesting we focus our energies’ and that’s why ‘I endorse that we reserve our considerations’ until the structure planning strategies are done. Said that it was ‘good’ to have to consider this and to have the reminder that there is a ‘built in disincentive for the developer’.

COMMENT

As to the Incorporated Plan being a ‘disincentive’ this is utter hogwash. If anything it and the history of this project are INCENTIVES, since the MRC has won every battle it has chosen to pursue at VCAT – and all with council’s complicity, or cave- ins. There is no reason to suspect that any future visit to VCAT will result in a different outcome if council does not strengthen its controls. And that, this motion has explicitly refused to do. Readers need to question why?

MAGEE: ‘like you’, I ‘certainly don’t have any issues with a 20 storey building on that site’. Said it can already be ’22 storeys because what we’re talking about is height’ and by lowering the ceilings for each storey they can fit more storeys in. So on the ‘number of apartments’ there is ‘room to move’ but the overall height ‘can’t change’. ‘If you’re not going to put this sort of density around major transport’ hubs then ‘where are you going to put it?’ Went on to say that it does lack open space so ‘where can we find open space’ and implied the racecourse. Said that the precinct will also have commercial areas and that will bring ’employment opportunities’ and ‘right next to a railway station is a great incentive’. Didn’t think they should go to the government and try to get anything that’s ‘not there right now’. What’s there was ‘put in place many years ago and I believe we’ve moved on from that’. Went on to say that this is ‘really a great opportunity for people who don’t want to have a car’ to ‘live in a precinct’ that will give ‘unprecedented opportunities for public transport’ and ‘overlooking’ one of the most valued and ‘new open space’. With developments of this size there are ‘security’ issues but what council is ‘talking about today is not security, not open space, but height limits’. What’s there now is ‘may be not’ what was originally wanted but he thought it could be. ‘detrimental if we try and change that’ because ‘it could be changed the other way and we could see something that is quite significantly higher’

COMMENT

Money is NOT IN RETAIL, but in residential. That’s why the MRC has almost halved the originally mooted amount of commercial space in the development. For Magee to therefore spruik the ‘employment’ benefits of commercial space is a nonsense. We would not be surprised to find that the next development plan intends to cut the already reduced commercial space by another few thousand square metres and instead go for more apartments. Since nothing about this entire project is ‘mandatory’ the MRC can do what it likes – and it has!
Just because something has ‘been in place’ for years and has time and again shown to be inadequate is NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT TO TRY AND REMEDY THE SITUATION.

ATHANASOPOLOUS: asked if there was any site within the area that could provide space for ‘consumer car parking’ and whether ‘we’ve ever looked at the opportunity’ provided by the racecourse for ‘visitor car parking’?

TORRES: said it was a ‘private development on private land’ and so ‘the approval doesn’t envisage private car parking but it does envisage providing enough car parking for the various uses’ that will be ‘developed on this land’.

COMMENT

Athanasopolous’s question to Torres displays not only ignorance of the history of this project – for which admittedly some slack may be given – but surely when a councillor is about to vote on an important issue, he should make it his business to find out about the history of the project. If Athanasopolous had bothered to do his homework he would have found that on the issue of using the centre of the racecourse as a car park, both the community and council for that matter were strongly opposed.
Torres also needs to be ticked off on his response since it is only half true. The ‘various uses’ may be met, but there is no visitor car parking – agreed to by council!

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

June 14, 2017

Council Meeting & Waffle!

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

A brief report on last night’s marathon 3.5hr council meeting. Full reports to follow.

On development applications, resolutions basically went along with officer recommendations. Certain councillors excelled in once again waffling on about ‘strategic vision’ instead of making even one comment as to the merits or drawbacks of the submitted plans and whether or not the plans were in accordance with the planning scheme.
Environmental Sustainability? Much hand wringing and crocodile tears regarding the environment but ‘too late’ to do anything now since the Government will be introducing its own guidelines/standards.
Mandatory heights for Caulfield Village? – Delahunty and Magee aren’t concerned about heights. Besides, there is already enough ‘protection’ regarding heights!

Comments

Whilst 5 new councillors were elected, it hasn’t taken long for them to be completely absorbed into the prevailing ‘do nothing’ , pro-development culture of this council. Opportunity after opportunity has arisen for real and dramatic change, as evidenced by the last two bullet points mentioned above. Residents should also not forget that any changes to the Local Law have also been delayed until 2019 when the current law expires. Nor should we forget the delay in introducing an amendment to hike up the open space levy. Council’s excuse? Let’s wait for the latest census data! Well it is obvious that other councils do not intend to wait and have been working away solidly to impose adequate costs on developers that actually mean something. Here’s what Kingston is doing. The image is from today’s Caulfield-Moorabbin Leader. Amazing how other councils can proceed and work for their community!

June 12, 2017

More ‘Do Nothings’

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

Item 9.8 of the current agenda features council’s approach to Environmental Sustainability. That is, let’s not do anything and wait another two to three years for the State Government to introduce legislation. This ‘recommendation’ is despite all resident feedback on the need to increase open space in developments; to increase permeability and to introduce some decent amendments that will address the lack of any decent environmental measures in the current planning scheme.

We must also point out the complete lack of ‘objectivity’ in the officer’s report. Six metropolitan councils have been successful in introducing their own Environmental Sustainability Design amendments. Admittedly, these expire at the end of December 2017 as noted in the report. What is not noted is:

Are these councils seeking to extend their sunset clause?
What benefits have already been derived by having policy in place for nearly 3 years?
What damage will continue to occur in Glen Eira over the next 3 years whilst this council sits on its hands?
What of Water Sensitive Urban Design policies that these councils have with NO expiry date?

Every time that there is the possibility of introducing some new measure to protect the environment, or residential amenity, this council resorts to its old tricks – let’s wait for a couple of years because it is a state responsibility and not ours! Imagine how many more trees will go and how much more concrete will be poured whilst this council does nothing!!!!!!!

Here are the ‘unbiased’ officer recommendations –

June 9, 2017

Caulfield Village – More ‘Do Nothing’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

Another incredible agenda of 273 pages. More developments feature and more ‘let’s do nothing’ recommendations.

Caulfield Village Height Limits

Item 9.10 is the officer report on councillors’ request to investigate the options available to provide more rigorous height provisions for the Smith Street precinct.

This report is the outcome from previous council resolutions that in typical fashion have gone nowhere and disappeared into the dustbin of history. On February 7^th 2017, councillors passed this resolution –

requests officers to undertake a review of the current town planning controls applying to the Caulfield Village Development given that planning scheme controls have evolved since the approval of Amendment C60. The review is to identify any potential gaps in the controls including the loss of on-street car parking around the Caulfield Village development site. Should any gaps be identified officers are to commence a planning scheme amendment process to address these gaps.

Then again on the 21^st March there was this resolution –

That Council:

notes this report;
notes potential gaps identified in the current controls relating to social/affordablehousing, and the precinct boundaries;
commences a planning scheme amendment process to address these gaps in thecontrols, and seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibitthe amendment; and
seeks a further report from officers on the options available to provide more rigorousheight provisions for the Smith Street precinct..

Nothing could be clearer we maintain that the ‘order’ to begin a planning scheme amendment. It is yet to materialise.

So for this council meeting we get the following recommendations –

That Council:

notes this report.
notes that Council could apply to Minister for Planning to change the current preferred height controls within the Smith Street precinct to mandatory maximum height controls.
reserves its consideration of height provisions for the Smith Street precinct until after Council has completed its Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy, and resultant built form guidelines for Glen Eira’s activity centres.

The proffered arguments for this ‘do nothing’ approach are indeed lamentable.

First we’re told how wonderful the existing Incorporated Plan is – ie This process provides a significant incentive to the developer to comply with the heights and setbacks set out in the Incorporated Plan. Really?!!!! So this is why the developer has gone to VCAT time and time again and increased his heights and setbacks for Precinct One and now had major victories with Precinct 2? How much longer will council continue with this charade that the Incorporated Plan is worth the paper it is written on?
Next, there is the usual scare campaign – ie requesting the Minister to authorise mandatory height limits could very well result in greater than the current 20 storey ‘discretionary’ height.
Then finally we get the ‘promise’ of ‘action’ down the track – ie The Activity Centre Housing and Local Economy Stategy will result in ‘built form’ guidelines for Glen Eira’s activity centres, such as the Caulfield Station Precinct. It is recommended that any further consideration of the Smith Street precinct occurs after the completion of the built form guidelines. What this recommendation does not highlight is that ‘guidelines’ are just that, and in no shape or form are they a better option than mandatory provisions.
Nor is there any discussion of whether any proposed ‘mandatory height limits’ will be judged on the number of storeys, or what is known as the Australian Height Datum (AHD). We have already seen that because of the slope of the land Precinct 1 now has 6 storeys instead of 5, and the Smith Street precinct is mooting 22 storeys instead of the wonderful council promise of 20 storeys!

Conclusions

How many more times will council resolutions be ignored and not acted upon?
How many more times will residents have to wait before council gets off its backside and actually begins reforming its all too numerous mistakes of the past?
How many more times will this administration use ‘scare tactics’ as the excuse to not attempt anything?

June 7, 2017

8 Storeys In ‘Heritage’ Area

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

VCAT has handed down a decision for 411-15 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick. The permit will allow:

Demolition of existing building at 415 Glen Huntly Road on land affected by Heritage Overlay;
Partial demolition of buildings at 411 and 413 Glen Huntly Road on land affected by Heritage Overlay;
Construction of an Eight Storey building with basements, comprising 37 dwellings and 2 shops on land within a Commercial 1 Zone and affected by Heritage Overlay;
Reduction of the standard car parking requirements associated with a shop, residential car parking and residential visitor car parking in accordance with Clause 52.06; and
Waiver of the requirement for a loading bay in accordance with Clause 52.07

There was an earlier VCAT decision in July 2015 which refused a 6 storey dwelling because of poor ‘internal amenity’. The developer returned with an application for 8 storeys and an increase in dwellings on a site of 649 square metres. The earlier 2015 decision saw no problems with height nor impacts on ‘heritage’.

Thus council has had 2 years since this previous decision to shore up its Heritage policy – and remember this policy dates back to 2003. Thus we have another example of council (and long serving councillors) sitting on their hands for 14 years whilst the horse has well and truly bolted. Admittedly Council moved in March 2017 to ‘update’ its policy – but this was only to include the ‘update’ from years ago as a ‘reference document’ to the Planning Scheme.

June 6, 2017

Wynne – The Developers’ ‘Santa Claus’

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

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planning-minister-richard-wynne-rejected-planners-input-on-175b-crown-tower-20170605-gwkfdz.html

Minister Wynne recently gazetted Amendment VC110 which introduced several changes to the residential zones – ie those sites included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) and the General Residential Zone (GRZ) in particular. With much fanfare it was declared as saving residential backyards and improving ‘liveability’ (see: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/saving-the-backyard-and-boosting-liveability/).

By way of summary, here are the major changes introduced. We will then analyse their potential impact.

The mandatory height limit in the NRZ changed from 8 metres to 9 metres.
In the GRZ the mandatory height changed to 11 metres from the previous 10.5 metres.
The mandatory maximum number of 2 dwellings per lot in the NRZ have now been removed. There is no limit on the number of new dwellings now allowable in the NRZ. The GRZ has never had a limit imposed.
If councils have mandatory heights already imposed via their respective zones and accompanying schedules, these will remain for the time being. Councils have three years to fall into line with the new legislation. They can change the new height limits – but only go higher, not lower!
A new category of ‘Minimum garden requirement’ has been introduced for all NRZ and GRZ lots over 400 square metres. If the property happens to be 399 square metres or less, then none of these new requirements for a ‘garden area’ apply.

So what does all this mean? – especially for Glen Eira and its zoning? Whilst there are some potentially positive changes, notably for the GRZ, there are also some very negative ones that have the potential to impact severely on development throughout both the NRZ and GRZ areas.

Height Limits

With wonderful sleight of hand, Wynne has included this sentence in the requirements for both NRZ and GRZ –

A basement is not a storey for the purposes of calculating the number of storeys contained in a building.

By raising the maximum height limit in the NRZ from 8 to 9 metres, coupled with the single sentence above, this has the potential to allow a three storey building to be developed in the NRZ and 4 storeys in the GRZ – especially if part of the ‘basement’ is at least below ground level and does not exceed 1.2 metres above ground level. The following depicts why this is a real possibility.

Dwelling Numbers

There is absolutely nothing to stop a developer now deciding to construct a 2 storey apartment block on a 500 square metre site and incorporate as many units as he possibly can in the NRZ. Making things even easier for him is the fact that the government refused to introduce mandatory apartment sizes in its recent Better Apartments ‘standards’. We suspect that the NRZ can now look forward to plenty of apartment buildings that quite feasibly could contain anything from 8 apartments upwards depending on lot size. If the site is very large (ie over 1500 sqm) then the sky is literally the limit!

Garden Requirements

Here is an image of what Wynne and the department would like us to think will be the outcome of his ‘garden’ requirement and why this is totally misleading –

Anything above 1 metre in width can be included in the 25/35% ‘garden area’. Hence, instead of one single decent sized ‘garden area’ that is portrayed in the image, the reality is that the end product will see narrow strips at the sides and back of developments that will count as ‘garden’ space.
Here’s a hypothetical to see how Wynne’s ‘garden requirements’ could work in practice. We have a 650 square metre site in either the General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Site coverage in the GRZ is 60% – ie 390 square metres therefore taken up by the actual building and 50% in the NRZ (IE 325 SQUARE METRES). Since the hypothetical site is 650 square metres, the mandatory ‘garden requirement’ is 227.5 square metres (at 35% of site). 130 square metres (20% of the total block area) is required to be permeable in the GRZ and 162 square metres in the NRZ. This would mean in the GRZ case that 97.5 square metres of the 227.5 square metres (43%) of the garden area could be non-permeable.
Another problem with Wynne’s ‘garden area’ is that swimming pools and tennis courts would be included in the calculation as well as concreted, uncovered patios. Since the permeability requirements aren’t mandatory we could literally be seeing those ‘liveable’ backyards become concrete!

The legislation is poorly drafted (intentionally?). We also find it incredible that instead of ‘road testing’ the legislation first, and that it be accompanied by Practice Notes, we first get the legislation and then there’s the mad scramble to provide guidance via the drafting of some Practice Notes. The best example of the current confusion is Wynne’s references to subdivision and the phrase ‘vacant lot’ as a trigger for subdivision. Planners have already questioned what the term might mean – ie a previously demolished dwelling? An untenanted, empty dwelling? Each interpretation has its ramifications that are yet to be made clear and most importantly, capable of holding up before VCAT and possibly a court of law.

After two years of ‘review’, the outcome is nothing more than another ‘gift’ to developers and the further erosion of residential amenity. Quite clearly the intent was to diminish the clear lines between the Neighbourhood Residential Zones and the General Residential Zones. The NRZ is now ‘open for business’ to developers. And Council? Not a peep! And we’ve already seen one application in Bignell Road exploiting the changes!

June 3, 2017

Selling The Myths!

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

The above image comes from page 93 of council’s commissioned Housing Report. We highlight this paragraph because it illustrates completely how statistics can be used to distort situations, especially when only half of the story is presented.

Both Plan Melbourne and Victoria in Future 2016 are cited, leading to two possible scenarios required to meet Glen Eira’s population growth – either 28,600 net new dwellings, or 32,500 required dwellings. Thirty two thousand certainly sounds a lot, and is intended to. What readers need to remember is that these figures are projections for the next thirty-three (33) years up to 2050 or 2051. Thus if we are indeed in need of another 32,500 new dwellings, then all Glen Eira has to average is 970 net new dwellings per year! And for the past 5 years this pro-development council has averaged 2000+ per annum – OVER DOUBLE WHAT IS ‘REQUIRED’!!!!!

Why couldn’t the document state this simple fact? Why do residents have to perform some basic arithmetic in order to come up with a scenario that is far more ‘realistic’ and accurate? When put into perspective isn’t the issue that Glen Eira doesn’t need to:

Expand its activity centre borders as we suspect will happen
Maintain a growth that is double and triple what is required
Maintain a growth that increases density per square km that is totally unsustainable
Make Glen Eira the development ‘capitol’ of the Southern Region?

To illustrate all of the above here are the ABS building approval figures up to the end of March 2017 – that is, 9 months of building approvals. At this rate the year’s total will be approximately another 2000 new dwellings.

Residents need to understand that council’s mantra is and has always been to welcome development irrespective of its cost to residential amenity, sustainability, and overall density. Residents also need to demand answers as to why this council isn’t screaming blue murder as a result of Wynne’s recent amendments and why no genuine attempt is being made to rein in development?

Finally, it is also worth pointing out that the very figures presented by Plan Melbourne are highly questionable. Victoria in Future 2016 only shows projections up to the year 2031. Yet Plan Melbourne sites this source as projecting to 2051. There’s also the question as to how Glen Eira is supposed to represent 26% of the required new dwellings when there are only 4 municipalities included in the Inner Southern Region – Glen Eira, Stonnington, Bayside and Boroondara? Surely that’s 25%? Plenty of other stats in all of these documents can and should be called into question.

June 1, 2017

Social Housing

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

Thanks to the Stonnington agenda, we now know that the state government’s promise to facilitate social housing is a step closer. We’ve uploaded Stonnington’s submission, plus provided extracts from their officer’s report. Whether or not this will be another example of government policy railroaded through on the back of poorly drafted legislation and with little thought given to the countless loopholes that can be exploited, remains to be seen.

Here are the officer report extracts –

Proposed Planning Reforms

Council was notified on 22 May 2017 that the Minister for Planning is seeking feedback on proposed reforms to the Victoria Planning Provisions to provide permit exemptions or streamline permit application processes for specified accommodation land uses.

Comments on the proposed reforms are due by Friday, 16 June 2017. Due to the short consultation timeframe and the timing of Council report cycles, this provides Council a short time frame to review the reforms and prepare a submission for Council endorsement.

Facilitation of public housing

The Government argues that there is a pressing need to increase the supply of social housing in Victoria. The reforms are intended to help support government policy to replace ageing public housing stock and develop new public housing.

The reforms seek to streamline the planning permit process for the development of no more than 10 dwellings on a lot by, or on behalf of, a public authority such as the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It exempts assessment under Clause 55 (ResCode) and car parking requirements if specified requirements are met. In addition, it exempts an application from public notice and review requirement

Rooming house

The term “shared housing” is proposed to be replaced by the term “rooming house” (a newly defined land use term under Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme) which clarifies that other land uses such as a backpackers accommodation, boarding houses and hostels cannot benefit from the provision. The provision proposes to provide a permit exemption for use and development of land for a rooming house where specified requirements are met supporting the development of ‘domestic scale’ rooming houses under the proposed draft provisions.

The requirements propose limits of 12 persons, 8 bedrooms and a gross floor area of 300 square metres. It proposes to exempt applications by public authorities from public notice and review requirements.

Council is not confident that the draft controls will result in a high level accommodation that is respectful of its neighbourhood character, context or surrounding amenity.

The draft controls propose to provide a reduced assessment threshold to a proportion of Public Housing, Community Care Accommodation and Rooming Houses. This raises concern in relation to whether adequate levels of internal amenity, managing off -site amenity impacts and how successful integration of development within its neighbourhood context will be achieved.

The lower assessment threshold may lead to an increase in such developments, creating a loop hole for the development of sub -standard accommodation if the buildings are retro fitted into private apartment buildings in the future.

It is also considered that the Clauses as drafted will pose challenges in the extent of public notice and review exemptions. The lack of notice and review means that where otherwise affected parties would be able to make submissions, there will not be an opportunity to do so.

The proposed exemption from notice and review may result in a disconnected community and potentially increased compliance expectations on Council

Stonnington’s submission uploaded HERE

May 30, 2017

The Rot Has Started!

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

In March 2017, Wynne gazetted Amendment VC110 which is the latest version of the residential zones and the one trumpeted to ‘save our backyards’. Practically every other council has at least put up on its website information about this amendment. Many have included an officer’s report in their agenda papers and some like Banyule and Boroondara (see images below) have voiced strong concerns/objections to the amendment. Glen Eira on the other hand has maintained a stony silence! Not a public peep has come out from any councillor and certainly not from any administrative quarters via a media release, a web page announcement. Nothing but silence! Why? Is this another foray into keeping the public ignorant? Or is it more to do with not wanting to ‘antagonise’ Wynne and the Labor party so that brokered secret deals can go through? How much is politics at play here rather than transparent planning? Why, when after years and years of patting itself on the back for achieving such ‘largesse’ from Matthew Guy (ie mandatory heights, 2 dwellings per nrz) is council now silent when these very ‘achievements’ are about to go down the drain?

And if we are correct, then the rot has already started for the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. An application is in for 76 Bignell Road, Bentleigh East. This is a site in the NRZ of 580 Sqm and was sold in September 2016 for $1m. The application is for 3 attached double storeys! And all is ‘legal’ since March 2017 thanks to Wynne. We therefore urge all residents in both the NRZ and GRZ zones to be on the look out for this new threat to our neighbourhoods – one that council is hoping will slip through unnoticed no doubt! Wynne’s amendment we suggest sits well with council’s long history of a pro-development agenda. Like VCAT it will eventually become the convenient scapegoat for over a decade of appalling strategic planning and gang after gang of complicit councillors.

We will report on the potential impacts of Wynne’s amendment in posts to come. In the meantime, here are some screen dumps from a recent Banyule council meeting and the letter that Boroondara sent out to its residents –