Glen Eira Debates

In 2010 Council went through the motions of a ‘review’ on its planning scheme.  The councillors who partook in this ‘review’ and remain on council are: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Lobo. They resolved to pass the ‘action plan’ that is pictured below (from the minutes of August 2010).

We urge readers to note the following:

• Items highlighted in YELLOW have not been completed or even attempted as far as we know
• Time frames (ie the ‘when’ sections) mean absolutely nothing.
• All initiatives to be done ‘internally’ – very few reported on!

Thus, these images stand as a damning indictment of these councillors and administration. A repeat of this sham must not be allowed to happen with the current ‘review’.

What stands out like a sore thumb in the Glen Eira submission is:

• the lack of detail and justification for the various positions – ie of the 72 ‘recommendations’ made by the committee, council does not provide any comment for 44 of these.
• The hypocrisy is literally astounding when we find that for some recommendations (ie inclusion of structure plans, urban design frameworks, etc Council is in agreement! Pity that this ‘agreement’ has not seen any action for the past 14 years!)
• Even more hypocritical is the repetition of this sentence – Boundaries should be based on housing policies and community consultation.
• All in all, council’s submission is another attempt to justify what it has done and to maintain the status quo. Developers should be very pleased with Council’s set of responses!

The ‘evidence’ for these claims is obvious once we compare Council’s stated position with some of its neighbours. Below is Glen Eira versus Bayside. Whilst these two councils do agree on numerous items, their differences are what is most telling.  We focus in this post on the recommendations for the Residential Growth Zone only (RGZ). A quick summary –

Recommendation #20 – Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of the zone.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – The purpose of the RGZ is to enable new housing growth and diversity in locations that offer good access to services, transport and other infrastructure. In developed areas, a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth is required. A four storey development outcome will be appropriate in these circumstances and therefore it is recommended that the current reference remains in the purpose of the zone.

RECOMMENDATION #21 – Amend ResCode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within the RGZ contradict that of ResCode.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – ResCode was not intended to provide direction on apartment typology. It is recommended that the Better Apartments tool be implemented as the new assessment mechanism for apartment’s development of any scale.

RECOMMENDATION #30 – Apply Clause 55 to multi dwellings greater than four storeys.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – ResCode should apply to all forms of multi-dwelling residential development. The lack of prescription in the State Government’s Higher Density Design Guidelines (6 storeys and above) creates uncertainty

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – Rescode was not designed to assess multi storey building typology. A more appropriate tool such as the Better Apartments should apply for multi dwellings greater than four storeys

RECOMMENDATION #41 – Under Clause 32.07-9 Application requirements, delete: For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – Agree subject to ResCode applying to multi-dwelling residential developments of five or more storeys

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – An urban context report and design response are required to ensure that the purpose of the zone, the future vision of the area and any sensitive interfaces are taken into consideration

RECOMMENDATION #42 – Under Clause 32.07-11 Dwelling and residential building, delete: For a development of five or more storeys,excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment or explanation provided)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – In the absence of a more current policy to guide Higher Density Residential Development it is considered that the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential should remain. It is recommended that it be replaced with the Better Apartments policy once it is implemented.

Glen Eira has finally published (without a formal council resolution and after the fact) its submission to the ‘review’ of the residential zones. This post is the first in a series where we will analyse this submission and highlight its incompetency, hypocrisy and once again council’s determination to insist that it got it right in August 2013.

Council’s incompetency and attempt to mislead is clearly shown in the following statement which comes from page 12 of its submission.  (please note that the actual submission is really only a page or two since most of the 19 pages consist of regurgitating previous submissions and then tables from the committee’s recommendations).

Council writes –

Glen Eira will need to provide 800 dwellings (red line in Figure 1) each year to cater for the increase of 12000 households over the next 15 years.

Wrong on all counts!!!  In the first place the figure of 12,000 households does not originate from 2016, as this sentence implies, but from 2011 as calculated by data from both Victoria in Future 2015, and profile.id. Thus what council has done is divide 12,000 by 15 years, instead of the 20 years specified by the government. That brings the average required addition of dwellings to 600 per year and NOT the claimed 800 per year.

Yet Glen Eira has over 2000 net new dwellings going up per year ever since the zones came in thus tripling its required net new dwellings in order to meet population growth. Nowhere in this submission will residents find any statement to this effect – unlike other councils’ submissions. In Glen Eira it is a case of the more the better, but without any thought given to ensuring that residential amenity, open space, infrastructure is capable of meeting this 300% over supply.

We urge all residents to read this council submission (uploaded here) and to ask themselves:

• How can such poor quality be produced time and time again?
• Why are residents deceived time and time again with faulty and incomplete data?
• Why is there no formal resolution by COUNCIL?
• Why can other councils produce pages and pages of well argued submissions, table their documents in council, and seek a formal resolution and this council can’t?

Source: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Strategic-Planning/Planning-scheme-policies-and-strategies#Review-of-the-Glen-Eira-Planning-Scheme-3

PS: the above page has now disappeared entirely from council’s website! Instead of removing the incriminating evidence, surely it would not have been that hard to state – “Apologies, we were wrong”!!!!!!!!!!

This is totally unbelievable. Either it is the most blatant lie ever perpetrated by this council, or it reveals how little credence is given to good governance and adhering to directions issued by the State Government.

If a planning scheme review was in fact undertaken, then Council is obliged according to Planning Practice Note No. 32 (uploaded here) to:

• Consult with the community
• Table a report to a full council
• Forward their review to the Minister

Readers should note that no Record of Assembly minutes contained any reference to a Planning Scheme Review. No documents have been tabled in council. No councillor has uttered a single word about a review.

If, on the other hand, no such review has been undertaken then what is up on council’s website can only be seen as an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. It should also be remembered that in response to a public question dated 8^th April 2015 which asked when Council would be undertaking a full planning scheme review, the response provided was –

“Council will undertake a review of its planning scheme once the State Government has completed its comprehensive review of both the State and local planning policy frameworks. The State Government review will help to guide Council’s future planning scheme review.

Other Councils are also awaiting the completion of the State Government review before undertaking their respective planning scheme reviews.

Council will undertake public consultation of the next planning scheme review in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”

Thus we have two clear possibilities. Either the statement on council’s website is another example of deliberately hoodwinking the public, or a ‘review’ was carried out but without adhering to best practice and most importantly, letting residents know. Either way, this is totally unacceptable.