GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

July 25, 2018

Hansard & Structure Plans

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)
— My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Planning in the other place, and it concerns the planning scheme in Glen Eira. Glen Eira is an area that needs significant protection. I note that it is an area where in 2013 –14 Matthew Guy as  planning minister provided significant protection through neighbourhood residential zone layers to prevent the intense development of many areas of the municipality.
Under this government those neighbourhood zones have been trashed, have been weakened significantly, Removing the two -dwelling cap and allowing a cap of nothing. There is no cap: you can have as many dwellings as you wish on a property. Indeed the general residential zone issues are also significant, with an increase in height and, as of right, three storeys in many locations.
Parallel with that there has been a battle by many in the City of Glen Eira to protect Elsternwick, Bentleigh and Carnegie. The minister put temporary height restrictions in Bentleigh and Carnegie a year or so ago. But the issue remains: what will occur now? We know that the council has asked the minister, through section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for its draft structure plans for Elsternwick, Bentleigh and Carnegie to be approved. Residents believe there has been insufficient justification for some of the proposed heights. For example, in Elsternwick 12 storeys is significant and is likely to change the area of Elsternwick that has that proposed height very significantly so that it would be unrecognisable from its current shape. What would justify an increase of five storeys in Carnegie and some of those other areas of Glen Eira?
I say that there needs to be a change of government and there actually need to be protections in Glen Eira that protect open space and indeed protect the quality of life, the livability of Glen Eira, which has one of the lowest amounts of open space of any municipality.
Council has done significant strategic work, but I ask the minister to come forward with clear policies. I do not necessarily endorse the structure plans put forward by the City of Glen Eira. I ask him, though, in the coming months before the state election to come forward with structure plans and arrangements that provide sufficient protection. That does not mean five storeys as of right in Carnegie and Bentleigh, and it does not mean 12 storeys in Elsternwick. So I ask him to act and come forward with those structure plans before the election.
 

July 18, 2018

Damage Control!

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

It is becoming abundantly clear that council has stuffed up monumentally in its structure planning fiasco. Richard Wynne has obviously not been willing to sign off on the Elsternwick proposals. The reason? Major community opposition plus the failure to provide any strategic justification. The result is that council is now being forced to:

  • Spend more money on more consultants for something that should have been researched and analysed right from the start of the process
  • Commit to further ‘community consultation’ via a ‘reference group’ so that the Elsternwick structure plan is now put back until late 2019 and probably beyond.

The History of Machination

Elsternwick was ignored when the interim height guidelines were introduced for Bentleigh & Carnegie. Why? We still have had no explanation, unless of course the objective has always been to turn Elsternwick into a high rise centre. Now another year at least will pass without any decent protection for the suburb.

Council called for further traffic and overshadowing data in February 2018. It is now 5 months later and still no sign of these documents. Have these even been done? If so, then why do we need more consultants to do the same work?

Are we about to have another Clayton’s  reference group that is sworn to secrecy? Why couldn’t such processes be instituted for all the activity centres right from the start?

So now we’ve reached the ludicrous situation where the ‘objectives’ for Elsternwick include:

All of the above ‘criteria’ were supposedly analysed and confirmed by council in February 2018. We had urban design guidelines that established setbacks and heights; we had ‘landuse frameworks’; we had ‘place making’ projects; we had promises about open space levies and developer contributions, etc. etc. Two conclusions are therefore possible: either this latest consultancy is there simply to endorse what has already been determined or, it is an acknowledgement of the total incompetence of this council where even Richard Wynne won’t go along with the existing draft structure plan and tells council to go back to the drawing board! And all of this begs the question of course as to why Carnegie is being totally ignored. It also has heritage plus 12 storeys and pathetically limited justification. We congratulate Elsternwick residents but bemoan the fact that it is opposition that causes ‘reviews’ rather than sound planning by this council!

For more ‘damage control’ info, see – www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/elsternwick-masterplan

 

June 29, 2018

More Council Hokus-Pokus & Keeping The Peasants Ignorant! -#1

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

In what purports to be a ‘progress update’ on implementing the recommendations of the Planning Scheme Review, council has published its  ‘updated work plan’. No real detail is provided. No costings are provided. No real information is provided as to what any amendments might contain. Basically, residents are again being kept in the dark.

Worse still are innumerable statements that are incorrect, misleading, or nothing more than vague, useless motherhood statements that reveal the absolute minimum.  After two years of so-called ‘extensive consultation’, residents should know far more about what council has in mind. The fact that we don’t is testimony to the lack of transparency that is the modus operandi of this council.

Here are some examples which substantiate our claims. The images are taken directly from today’s published agenda (Item 9.5)

Some things to note:

  • Urban Design Guidelines are just that – guidelines. Generally they enter the planning scheme as a ‘reference document’ and thus are pretty useless in enforcing policy and ensuring that VCAT adheres to them. To therefore claim that ‘neighbourhood character’ will be protected at best, or strengthened via the Urban Design Guidelines is a total furphy. What is required is the inclusion of ‘preferred character statements’ for all housing diversity areas (and not just the current structure plans) into the planning scheme as a separate policy with clear directions for interpretation. This would involve an overall Housing Character Study, which council hasn’t really undertaken since 1996 when the document was produced. The 2011 Planishere review basically looked at certain areas for Neighbourhood Character Overlays. It certainly did not revisit the entire municipality which was required. Further compounding the lack of planning is the fact that Glen Eira has never had a ‘neighbourhood character policy’ and only those sites in minimal change have had anything comprising ‘character statements’. Most of these have been unworkable since they incorporate vast areas into their descriptions (ie Bentleigh, Ormond and McKinnon are lumped together in 5 short bullet points). Other councils have been far more proactive and have such policies enshrined in their planning schemes with substantial ‘preferred character statements’ for their entire municipalities. These councils are – Bayside, Boroondara, Darebin, Frankston,  Dandenong, Hobson’s Bay, Knox, Maribyrnong, Maroondah, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra. Many of these documents have been completed in the past few years. We’ve uploaded the Stonnington document as an example of what can be done and which Glen Eira has failed to even commence, much less complete. Available HERE
  • The Urban Design Guidelines constantly refer to ‘minimal change areas’ (ie NRZ) as containing One or two detached or semi-detached dwellings built on a lot. The height is one or two storeys. Since Wynne’s introduction of his 2017 amendment that removed the 2 dwellings per lot provision, there have been at least 16 applications go to council for multiple dwellings in areas zoned as NRZ. Many of these have already received permits. Yet, there is nothing in the Urban Design Guidelines that acknowledges this fact and its potential ramifications. Not a word is said about the impact of these developments on ‘neighbourhood character’. Nor are residents given any information as to how the schedules to the zoning might change in any ensuing amendment. If the plan is to ‘upgrade’ hundreds of dwellings so that they will go from 2 storeys maximum to 3 or 4, then how does this alter the ‘neighbourhood character’?
  • And are we still having to wait for at least another 3 years before anything is done? If so, what does this portend for our Neighbourhood Centres? We already have 6 storeys in McKinnon, 10 storeys in Ormond, and 7 storeys in Bentleigh East and Caulfield North. What ‘character’ will council see fit to delineate in these areas?
  • And of course the crucial question is: how can any valid character statements be made when there hasn’t been a genuine revisiting of the housing strategy since 1996?

Far more honesty is required from council. Two years have come and gone since the planning scheme review and all we’ve had is the imposition of changes that fly in the face of community views and without the opportunity to comment on such changes. Thus far we have still to see any strategic justification, or any inkling of what the schedules to the zones will contain. Residents are being treated like mushrooms – kept ignorant until it is too late and plans are set in concrete. That is governance at its most devious and despicable.

 

June 27, 2018

Planning Mayhem

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

Glen Eira is currently experiencing planning mayhem thanks to this council’s failure to enact any meaningful reforms to its planning scheme and the ongoing pro-development ethos. Three recent applications (two still to be decided) exemplify this lack of sound planning.

One application is having a third shot at a multi storey development (8 Egan Street Carnegie). This site has twice attempted a 16 storey tower. Both times it has been knocked back by both council and VCAT. Now there is a new application in for 12 storeys and 108 apartments. Only 4 of the proposed apartments will feature three bedrooms. All the rest are single and double bedroom.

What makes this application so unacceptable is that it sits in the Design & Development Overlay for a 7 storey ‘preferred’ maximum height limit introduced via the Carnegie amendment of April 2017. Of course, council has now proposed via its current structure plans, that the area be zoned as suitable for 12 storeys! How five storeys can be added in the space of one year simply beggars belief and makes a mockery of Wynne’s rubber stamping of the original request!

The second application is for the Selwyn Street Woolworths development which proposes not one, but two towers and 180 apartments. One tower will be 10 storeys and the second one 13 storeys. Again, council is quite happy with a 12 storey height limit here according to its structure planning. (PS: CORRECTION – council’s draft structure plan proposes 8 storeys here. Elsternwick is completely vulnerable however since no interim height amendments exist as with Bentleigh & Carnegie.)

A third application has already been granted a permit in a ‘confidential’ cave in at VCAT. This is for 14-22 Woorayl Street, Carnegie that will be 12 storeys and 109 apartments. The proposed council zoning here reflects the Egan Street situation – ie a 7 storey ‘preferred’ maximum a year ago and now ‘elevated’ to 12 storeys!

Thus in 3 applications alone we will have half of the ‘quota’ required per year to meet the projected housing needs for the future – 397 apartments!

Nothing can excuse council’s failure to undertake sound planning and to pursue amendments that meet the community’s aspirations. If 7 storeys was sufficient a year ago, then where is the strategic justification for 12 storeys now?

 

June 6, 2018

The Latest Stats

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

For all the talk of a down turn in the construction industry, Glen Eira is well and truly maintaining its record rate of development. The table below is compiled from today’s ABS released figures on building approvals for the current financial year – up to and including May. That means 11 months worth of approvals. Again we note:

  • Glen Eira leading the pack
  • Victoria in Future predictions well and truly outstripped – ie 13,000 by 2031. At this rate, this figure will be reached by 2020/21
  • None of these figures take into account the additional 4,500 (‘preliminary’ numbers) set for Caulfield Village and Virginia Estate

There is absolutely no strategic justification for council’s current plans to double the size of activity centres and to impose 12 storey height limits, plus rezoning hundreds upon hundreds of sites that will be earmarked for higher height limits.

We’ve uploaded the latest ABS figures HERE

 

May 26, 2018

Another Nail In The Coffin?

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

A new application has come in for Loranne Street, Bentleigh which signals another nail in the coffin for council’s structure plans. According to the proposed new zoning, the East side of Loranne will be reduced to a 2 storey height limit. The application is for 4 storeys in line with the current zoning of Residential Growth Zone and whilst the number of apartments is not revealed, we assume that this will be anywhere from 25 upwards. Given the current zoning the chances of the developer getting his 4 storeys is pretty good

What this means is that council’s calculations on housing numbers are basically works of fiction. Council has previously simply provided figures on how many sites will be ‘downgraded’ to lower heights and how many ‘upgraded’ to greater heights, with no accounting for how many of these former sites already contain dwellings that are at the maximum heights (and densities) introduced in 2013. And this will continue for at least another year, and even longer for our neighbourhood centres which are bereft of any decent controls and with no time lines set for the introduction of anything to ameliorate the continuing damage.

 

May 23, 2018

Movement At The (Caulfield) Station

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[14] Comments 

The VPA (and Council) has finally released its version of Stage 1 of ‘community consultation’ on the Caulfield Station structure planning with this neat little blurb and a ‘survey’. (See: https://vpa.vic.gov.au/caulfield-station-precinct-vision-survey/

It would seem that the norm now for government and council is to fall back on meaningless jargon (ie ‘Vision’) and surveys that are highly questionable. Our view is that surveys are fine – but only AFTER residents know exactly what they are dealing with. What are the parameters that have been set? What is the proposed land use? Before any ‘survey’ results can be truly meaningful then residents need to know exactly what are the options? We fear that this process will simply mirror what has already happened with Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick – albeit on a much grander scale!

Here’s part of the ‘survey’. We ask readers to consider its merit.

PS – FROM TODAY’S HANSARD

Caulfield electorate

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)

(12:00)

My question is for the Minister for Planning. I raise an issue on behalf of 1300 local petition signatories who are outraged by the Elsternwick rezoning master plan, which will increase the local population by over 20 per cent with no consideration of the impacts on amenity, infrastructure and traffic congestion. Residents are also confused at the seemingly different rules for different electorates whereby the areas of Bentleigh and Carnegie are benefiting from interim height controls as low as four to five storeys whereas sections of  Elsternwick have no current height limits and could face up to 20 –storey apartments complexes.

The current Elsternwick rezoning plan is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the local area. Can the minister provide an answer to concerned Elsternwick residents as to why are there are these inconsistencies whereby one electorate, the marginal seat of Bentleigh, is being benefited in comparison with another electorate, my electorate of Caulfield?

 

May 18, 2018

More Wynne Concessions To Developers!

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

If anyone needs further proof of what an unmitigated disaster planning is in Victoria the events of the past week prove this in spades. Wynne has certainly outdone himself this time in gazetting Amendment C143 on the 15th May, without any consultation, without any forewarning, and handing more and more advantage to developers and complicit councils which we label Glen Eira as.

Amendment C143 has basically diluted the much vaunted ‘garden requirement’ – especially for areas zoned as General Residential (GRZ). When this amendment was introduced in March 2017, garden areas were mandatory and proclaimed that dwellings in both NRZ and GRZ had to set aside, 25%, 30% and 35% of the site depending on their respective size. Each garden area was supposed to be at ground level, not to include any ‘covered’ areas, and there was no scope for councils to ignore this. On the 15th May all this changed. What we have now is depicted in the following image taken from the amendment

Please note the following:

  • Councils now have the option to include in their schedules an ‘exclusion’. That means that if they so desire then the garden requirement need not apply to any proposed development. Further, if the site is designated as ‘medium density’ then it may also be excluded. We note that according to council’s draft structure plans and the Urban Design guidelines Garden townhouses and Urban townhouses are defined as ‘medium density’ and given the ridiculous label of 2 to 3 storeys. That can only mean that all these areas will be rezoned to GRZ and hence may be excluded from the requirement to provide any ‘garden area’.
  • Land under the eaves is now to be included in any garden area calculation.
  • Garden areas now do not need to be at ground level – they can be calculated via balcony size and whatever is under a balcony that projects out from the building is also included in the garden area calculation.
  • Sheds of up to 10 square metres can now also be included in the required calculation. If the site happens to be 420 square metres, then 25% should be ‘garden area’. That means 105 square metres. Thus if a shed is built, it can occupy 10% of the previously designated garden area.
  • Pergolas are now also acceptable – even if they have louvred shutters that at various time could form an ‘enclosed’ area. And who will supervise that these louvres remain open all the time?
  • The most interesting aspect is again the possibility that everything included in an approved structure plan can also be excluded from having a mandatory garden area. In Glen Eira where we estimate 90% of the municipality will become ‘activity centres’ according to council’s published ‘study area’ borders, that could mean that only a small proportion of land will be required to meet the garden area clause.

Making matters worse is that VCAT has finally started hearing cases post the introduction of Amendment C110. In two recent decisions, labeled as ‘red dot’, one respective member had this to say:

The Tribunal’s finding regarding the MGAR (minimum garden area requirement) is that the areas underneath the eaves and extended roofline of the proposal are excluded from the calculation of the ‘garden area’ because they are not ‘uncovered outdoor areas’; and because they are ‘roofed areas’ within the ordinary meaning of those terms.  (Source: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2018/646.html)

Both decisions came to the same conclusion on MGAR. But not a week later, Wynne gazetted his Amendment C143 which contradicted these decisions! Where does that leave us? What are the legal ramifications? How much further will Wynne go to accommodate developers and reduce residential amenity for communities? And the $64 question?– which way will council jump? Will they introduce some nifty clause into their amendments which remove the need for garden areas in the GRZ? Will they continue to plough on in their unjustified endeavours to expand activity centres and facilitate more and more development – in the face of huge community opposition? How many more attempts to bypass the community via applying under section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act will we have to endure? When will this group of 9 councillors have the guts to stand up and say ‘enough is enough’?

 

May 16, 2018

The Developer’s Best Friend – Council’s Planning Department!

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

To what extent is council’s planning department in cahoots with developers? A recent application renders this question very, very relevant. The application is for an 8 storey student accommodation building  in Dudley Street, Caulfield East. The proposal is to house 104 students, a shop at ground level and a car parking waiver of 31 spaces. The application is currently being advertised.

All well and good – perhaps. Except that:

  • The site is zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – ie a MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMIT OF 9 METRES OR 2 STOREYS
  • The site is NOT PART of the Phoenix precinct which is (partly) geared towards accommodating student housing.

Yet, this application is now being advertised. Why? Why hasn’t it been refused outright given the above? Secondly, why when the developer admits to ‘pre-application’ meetings with the planning department has council allowed this application to reach this stage of advertising instead of refusing it outright under delegation? Doesn’t the planning department know its own zoning or its own planning scheme?

Regardless of whether Dudley street should have been rezoned eons ago given that there is now 5 storey buildings in this street, the fact remains that it hasn’t been rezoned. So what conclusions can we draw from this? It is clear that council and the VPA intends to expand the Phoenix Precinct. That residents of the area can expect more and more high rise development. This however does not excuse the planning department’s failure to enforce the current planning scheme or to insist that the ‘errors’ contained in the application are removed. For instance: we are repeatedly told that the site is in ‘housing diversity’ area. It is NOT. We are also repeatedly told that the site is part of the Phoenix precinct. It is NOT. Time and again council’s officer reports tell us that it is the current planning scheme that matters and that council’s draft structure plans therefore play no part in the decision making since they are not approved parts of the planning scheme. Surely the same should apply to this application? The fact that it hasn’t, that the developer has been allowed to get away with blue murder, raises fundamental questions about governance, ‘favouritism’, the sheer competence of the planning department and of course, council’s hidden agendas!

We’ve uploaded the current zoning (below)  that clearly shows the NRZ status of the land –

It will be fascinating to see the officer’s report (if we get one) and the rationalising that will undoubtedly attempt to excuse the inexcusable. What is at stake here is the community’s faith in the integrity and objectivity of planning in Glen Eira.

 

May 15, 2018

Plenty Of Questions But No Answers!

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

The two tables presented below are from the latest ABS building approvals. (uploaded HERE) The first table features the total number of building permits granted per year for the past 6 years and 9 months – ie until March 2018. Glen Eira is still ahead of the pack in unit development, plus the fact that Stonnington is a special example – ie three times the commercial zoning that Glen Eira has, whilst Port Phillip is in a league of its own with over 15% of its land mass designated as ‘capital city zone’ plus its large quotient of commercial zoning plus tourism. Monash is double the size of Glen Eira and has double the number of houses built compared to Glen Eira. Boroondara is also well ahead of Glen Eira in the number of houses versus apartments erected in that municipality.

So, once you add in the following, then the ‘damage’ done to Glen Eira is evident:

  • Small size of municipality
  • Least amount of open space
  • High population density and increasing
  • Dwellings per hectare
  • Lack of any traffic plans
  • No developer contributions for drainage, community infrastructure, parking waivers
  • Small commercial zoning which means development is occurring in local streets (approx 3% compared to Stonnington’s 8%)
  • Money squandered on open space ‘improvements’ instead of the purchase of more and more open space
  • No local environmental or water policy in the planning scheme
  • No local policy regarding tree protection in the planning scheme – and a mooted ‘significant tree register’ which will probably total only about 150 trees. This won’t go far enough by a long shot to halt the rampant moonscaping that has been plaguing Glen Eira for decades.
  • Most importantly, these figures make a mockery of council’s prognostications. Our supposed 13000 net new dwellings by 2031 will be here within the next few years – especially with a mooted 4500 net new dwellings for East Village and precinct 3 for Caulfield Village. Thus, why are hundreds upon hundreds of properties being rezoned? Why are activity centres being doubled in size? And why oh why does council refuse to address and answer these fundamental questions?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »