GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

May 9, 2025

Incompetent Or Colluding?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn from Glen Eira council’s submission into the state government’s select committee review of recent government planning amendments – either our planning officers are entirely incompetent or, they are basically on side with the proposed changes and therefore will not be as critical as they should in their dealings with government.

Yes, council in its submission addresses what most other councils point out:

  1. The removal of third party objection rights
  2. The lack of consultation and release of documents that justify the proposed changes
  3. The ungodly haste of these changes
  4. The lack of infrastructure funding information

But that’s where it stops. The failure to highlight, or even mention some of the following is inexcusable –

  • The increasing control of the Minister over planning permits
  • The reduction in private open space everywhere
  • The failure to ensure that tree canopies will increase
  • The destruction of local residential amenity
  • Heritage, environment, flooding, and neighbourhood character in general
  • Housing targets compared to Victoria in Future figures

Here was an opportunity to delve deep into the consequences of these amendments and show how they will change the face of Melbourne forever if they become ‘law’. This council failed to do. Instead all we got were largely minor criticisms of wording, their ambiguity, and the ‘risks’ this presented to council – not the community at large!!!!!

For starters, please compare the Glen Eira’s overall interpretation compared to other councils. Note the tone!

…. it is way too early to make a call on whether these amendments will result in more housing being built and whether the type of housing that will be built will be affordable and meet the diversity needs of home seekers. The question as to whether the three amendments give proper effect, to the objectives of ‘planning’ and the’ planning framework’ in Victoria is, to some degree, considered premature.

BAYSIDE – The change that could occur through the Amendments should not be underestimated. It has the potential to very substantially change the face of Melbourne because of how large the affected areas are. None of this is consistent with the “fairness” objective of planning in Victoria.

STONNINGTON – Stonnington was disappointed that these amendments were largely announced through the media, representing major urban planning and public policy by stealth, which risks poor long term liveability outcomes for residents.

KNOX – Knox officers do not believe that the proposed provisions will achieve better design outcomes and as drafted, are not fit for purpose and risk a range of unintended consequences

MAROONDAH – A key assumption behind recent changes to the VPPs is that having a standardised approach to development across Victoria will deliver an increased number of dwellings. With the attempt to standardise development types in activity centres, as well as the deemed to comply approach for Rescode ……to encourage and approve development that responds to local amenity, place and neighbourhood character is now a thing of the past

The majority of other councils concentrated heavily on the impacts of the removal of their existing residential zone schedules and what this would mean in terms of reduced open space availability given the increased site coverages and its effects on tree removal and protection of tree canopy targets. For instance, Glen Eira currently has a 50% coverage in its residential NRZ1 zone. This will now be 60% with a reduction in private open space requirements, front setbacks reduced to 6 m instead of current 9 metres. There are other mooted changes that will impact horribly on local streets and neighbourhoods throughout the municipality. So what is Glen Eira’s response to these threats? Please read the following extract carefully –

No mention is made of how this might affect tree canopy targets, nor whether the increased site coverage could simply result in larger dwellings. What’s even more amusing is the continued emphases on ‘risks’ to councils. But it has always been up to council to determine the appropriateness of landscaping. This hasn’t changed..

Here are the views of some other councils –

STONNINGTON – New requirements require a minimum of 10% canopy cover for sites 1000 square metres or less, and 20% for sites over 1000 square metres. The majority of residential lots in Stonnington are less than 1000 square metres. 10 per cent canopy cover will not raise greening to reach the target identified in Plan for Victoria and is significantly lower than what is currently being provided in new developments throughout residential areas in Stonnington.

The one-size-fits-all approach of codified design standards will discourage high quality architecture in favour of cookie-cutter development that is not site responsive

Further evidence of the piecemeal approach to planning currently occurring in Victoria is the fact that none of the VC Amendments make any reference to either Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 or the belated announcement of Plan for Victoria.

BOROONDARA – The 10% canopy cover target is also inconsistent with the 30% canopy cover target contained in Plan for Victoria and significantly lower than Boroondara’s own target of 27%. In established areas the 10% canopy cover will often be less than currently exists so development will result in a reduction. This places too much onus on public land to make up the shortfall and achieve the tree canopy target.

Removal of environmental considerations is highly concerning. The deemed to comply nature of the Code means that local planning policies designed to achieve better environmental outcomes (i.e. Environmental Sustainable Design and tree protection) will be removed from consideration. Where a development is deemed to -comply only the minimal environmental considerations within the Code can be considered. This is highly problematic and not consistent with the delivery of future housing which is sustainable and reduces energy use for future residents

MAROONDAH – Removing the locally varied Clause 55 standards in the schedule to the zones as well as reducing the number of standards that could be varied in future, is more about the State s intent to maximise building footprints which often equates to larger homes, and not additional dwelling numbers, as opposed to achieving well designed dwellings that are site responsive designs that respond to the local amenity and conditions. There has been no evidence published by the State as to why the removal of local variations or how the new Code standards are necessary to meet housing targets..

Finally a summation of what these changes will mean for residents.

KNOX – Removing neighbourhood character consideration means that a development in Boronia or Ferntree Gully is assessed in the same way as a development in Elsternwick or Richmond.

New residential development in Knox, along with the rest of Victoria, will become a homogenous cookie‐cutter outcome that bears little relationship to its surrounding neighbourhood MAROONDAH – This flawed approach will result in all dwellings in Victoria being constructed to the same standards and design outcomes with no consideration of local context and character.

It has not been adequately evidenced by the Victorian Government as to how the revised Code will provide the capacity to deliver more housing. Expanding the building footprint permitted, reducing open space requirements and allowing dwellings to be larger, taller and of cheaper quality building materials, does not necessarily result in more or better housing.

There is much, much more that could be said in regards to council’s submission. Overall, it fails dismally by almost completely ignoring the impacts on local neighbourhoods. Heritage does not even rate a mention, and neither does decreasing open space. Why other councils can focus on these issues and Glen Eira chooses to basically ignore them is the crucial question.

We urge readers to acquaint themselves with the content of the various submissions. They can be accessed via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/submissions

 

February 28, 2025

The Upcoming Planning Disaster!

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

Over the past week or so we have had announcement after announcement regarding the proposed changes to our activity centres. All bereft of strategic justification and lacking essential detail as to eventual heights, open space provision or infrastructure and its appropriate funding. We await the gazetting of other plans.

This tsunami of proposed changes will undoubtedly impact Glen Eira more than other councils and most will be without third party objection rights.

We itemise below each of these proposals –

Moorabbin

The changes to the Moorabbin major activity centre will affect Glen Eira in many ways. The latest version is depicted in the image below. Please note that Glen Eira sites feature north of South Road and north/east of Nepean Highway. The other areas included are within the Kingston and Bayside areas.

A summary of the most important changes are:

  • Catchment areas increased all the way from South Road to Patterson Road. Highly questionable whether this range is really 800m or simply as the crow flies.
  • The areas marked light blue are currently zoned as NRZ (ie two storey height limit). They will now be rezoned as suitable for up to three storeys and some four storeys depending on land size.
  • Most of the green coloured sites now have a three storey height limit which will be increased to six storeys.
  • Car parking requirements remain unknown

Thus hundreds of Glen Eira sites are impacted.

Railway Stations/Activity Centres

Yesterday’s announcement of another list of activity centres about to be changed forever has Glen Eira featuring prominently. We will now have 5 areas designated for major high density development – Bentleigh, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick, and Caulfield. No other details as to heights, setbacks, parking, infrastructure, etc. has been released, nor most importantly what size their respective ‘catchment areas’ will be. We have no idea as to whether we are looking at 10 or 12 storeys (even though North Road has already been granted the ‘right’ for 10 storeys as this stage).

The only other council to have 5 areas nominated is Stonnington. What’s important to bear in mind is that Glen Eira is only 38.9 square km in size compared to most other councils. We also lack the commercial areas that Stonnington and other councils have – ie we are basically a residential municipality compared with the size of the commercial areas in other councils. (ie Glen Eira has 3.8% of land zoned commercial compared to Stonnington nearing 9%). With the prospect of all these areas suddenly becoming high density, this could mean that close to half of our municipality will now be a developer’s paradise. Glen Huntly currently has, according to profile.id data, a population density of 5,824 persons per square km – the highest in Glen Eira as well as being one of the smallest suburbs. Parts of our drainage system feature pipes that are 100 years old; our roads are often narrow, and congestion is already a major headache.

Equitable distribution of increased population planning does not seem to exist for this government. As long as there are railway stations, then the myth continues to be propagated that this is suitable for high density regardless of the fact that:

  • People living in one or two bedroom apartments still own cars as we’ve recently illustrated
  • More dwellings does not mean more affordable housing. When three bedroom apartments can sell for over $3m and two bedroom apartments for $1.4m then affordable housing is truly a myth in most of Glen Eira.

The tsunami of recent media releases by this government appears to mirror the Trump techniques – inundate readers with a deluge so that the ability to clearly focus, question, and assess becomes limited. Secondly resort to spin and more spin that simply makes no sense except to push a political agenda creating the impression that government is actually doing something.

Unless our council is prepared to become far more proactive and critical, as other councils have, then Glen Eira is basically doomed. It will, in our opinion, become the ghettos of either high priced luxury apartments, or our future slums with no real advance on affordable homes or protecting existing residential amenity.  

 

February 26, 2025

Woolies Wins!

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

The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:

How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:

  • A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
  • How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?

What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.

Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application  exceeds the 8 storey limit.  Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!

Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!

We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.  

We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –

What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.

This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.

Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false

Source: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your-council/news-and-media/boroondara-news/councils-response-state-governments-latest-plan-camberwell-junction-activity-centre

 

February 24, 2025

Woolworths’ Hypocrisy!!!!!

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

Social media has been busy with the Woolworths’ new plans for Selwyn Street, Elsternwick. As pointed out repeatedly, they have gone directly to the planning minister with a new application that seeks to undermine previous VCAT decisions and restore heights that had been knocked on the head years ago. In other words, if you don’t get what you want, then simply ignore the umpire’s previous decision and have another go via one single individual – the planning minister. Even worse is that such an action effectively sidelines objectors and even council.

This is hypocrisy of the highest level – especially when we consider the Woolworths’ arguments at the second VCAT hearing, which they now clearly have forgotten. At this hearing, their argument was:

The Applicant’s closing submission highlights examples of this and points out a second VCAT hearing should not be about forum shopping and relitigating previously determined matters in the hope of securing a different outcome. The Applicant also highlights that the previous Tribunal comprised experienced legal and planning members and their reasoning was considerable in explaining why particular issues were acceptable.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2022/1025.html

So these ‘experienced legal and planning members’ of VCAT, cannot now be ‘trusted’ to endorse Woolworths’ ambitions. They must be sidestepped and appealed to the planning minister in the hope of a fast tracked permit that is all for seeking a ‘different outcome’.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from these events is that our planning system is an entire mess that invariably favours developers. Council itself has been complicit in these events as its lousy planning over the years and unwillingness to take on major developments have shown – ie with the MRC, with the Virginia Estate, and now with Woolworths. It is residents who literally pay the costs of such folly and craven inaction.

 

January 7, 2025

Ormond Station Development

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

Ormond ‘Sky Tower’ plans have been revived – again – but with some key differences

Adam Carey

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.”

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ormond-sky-tower-plans-have-been-revived-again-but-with-some-key-differences-20241218-p5kzgi.html

COMMENTS

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 –

 

December 22, 2024

Where Are You Glen Eira?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

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.

Below are some of the links provided by Bayside –

Click to access Bayside%20Community%20Forum%20on%20Victorian%20Gov%20Planning%20Reforms%20Information%20Pack_0.pdf

Click to access Bayside%20Community%20Forum%20slides%2018%20December%202024.pdf

https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/services/planning-and-building/victorian-government-planning-initiatives

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 –

 

December 16, 2024

Parking – #2

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

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.
 

December 13, 2024

Parking: An Unmitigated Mess!

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

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).

 

December 6, 2024

A New Beginning Or More Of The Same?

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

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.

 

August 20, 2024

Council’s Stand On Housing Targets

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

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?

27-29 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 31 dwellings

277-279 Centre road, Bentleigh – 36 dwellings

98-100 Truganini Road, Carnegie – 34 dwellings

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – 104 dwellings

285-287 Neerim road, Carnegie – 47 dwellings

54 Kambrook Road, Caulfield – 54 dwellings

80 Hotham Street, St.Kilda – 10 dwellings

96-100 Truganini road, Carnegie – 12 dwellings

22-26 Ridell Street, Elsternwick – 24 dwellings

34-36 Jersey Parade, Carnegie – 16 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 38 dwellings

29-31 Jersey parade, Carnegie – 10 dwellings

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 –

90-92 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 5 lot subdivision – permit issued 14/10/2023

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 (NOD -4/7/2023 and amended permit granted 18/8/2023)

14 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – permit issued 6/12/2023

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’.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »