Glen Eira Debates

The following Request for a Report was passed unanimously on Wednesday night. Whilst a definite step forward, much will depend on the eventual report and the determination of councillors to follow through on changes to the planning scheme. We wait with bated breath!

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the effectiveness of existing planning scheme tools addressing neighbourhood character, and consider the merits of a fresh publicly advertised scheme amendment, local policy and/or design guidelines to establish the preferred emerging neighbourhood character.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Here’s the “discussion” –

SOUNNESS: Started by saying that there has been ‘some discussion’ about ‘where development is taking place’ and that ‘some parts’ of the planning scheme talk about ‘neighbourhood character’. Said that when applications come in he often hears the comments that this is ‘evidence of emerging neighbourhood character’ and that it should ‘be respected’. However, Sounness ‘isn’t so sure of what that emerging character is’. Thought that ‘council and the community’ should have ‘more involvement with that conversation’. Said he would ‘love to see’ a conversation about ‘height, density, form’. Acknowledged that there had been a lot of work done previously on neighbourhood character and that this was ‘best practice’.

DELAHUNTY: said that once councillors ‘get some more information’ then that ‘would be great’.

PILLING: stated that he was a ‘bit dubious about the results’ that ‘would come back’. Said the zones ‘were all about’ the height and that in trying ‘to be more prescriptive’ he wasn’t ‘sure that there are such tools’. Nevertheless, ‘more information is always good’. Said that ‘there’s a reason’ why Glen Eira hasn’t gone down the path of structure plans but he is ‘happy to support’ the call for more information.

PS: From ‘The Age’

High-rise buildings banned on strip shopping centres in Melbourne’s leafy east

Date: April 9, 2015 – 5:45PM

Clay Lucas

High-rise development has been all but banned along strip shopping centres in some of Melbourne’s wealthiest suburbs, after new laws were approved by the Andrews government.

Boroondara Council covers suburbs including Camberwell, Surrey Hills, Balwyn, Kew and Hawthorn.

On Thursday, the state government gazetted laws the council had requested that effectively remove the prospect of new buildings higher than three levels in most of its shopping strips.

The changes to the council’s planning scheme mean that, in all but a dozen locations across Boroondara’s 6000 hectares, development is capped at just over three levels.
The new rules include mandatory height limits of 11 metres in areas that are on tram and train lines, such as Camberwell and Surrey Hills.

Boroondara Mayor Coral Ross said that, in all, there were 31 neighbourhood shopping centres that now had new building heights capped.

She said the change would allow for medium-rise development, and would mean residents and developers had certainty about what was allowed.

“The primary focus,” she said, for the planning rule changes, “was to balance the need to provide growth opportunities while at the same time maintaining the neighbourhood shopping centre scale”.

An independent government planning panel formed in 2013 considered the proposal to prevent high-rise development put forward by Boroondara.

It found last year that, while rules on heights should be applied in neighbourhood shopping centres, there should be the possibility of buildings going higher and that mandatory height limits should not be used.

The limits to height in these suburbs stands in contrast to many other suburbs of Melbourne where high-rise towers are proposed or being developed.

In the most recent case in suburban Melbourne, Banyule Council will next Monday decide whether to approve a 26-level tower proposed for Heidelberg.

Planner Colleen Peterson has been vocal over the past two years on the push by Melbourne’s inner eastern councils, including Boroondara, to stop higher-density housing.

New zones introduced by the Napthine government prevented high-rise in many residential areas of Melbourne’s inner eastern suburbs.

Ms Peterson said that the latest changes for Boroondara meant anything above three levels would now largely be stopped at many of Boroondara’s busy shopping strips as well.

Ms Peterson said 80 per cent of Boroondara had already been “locked away from development” after changes to residential zones last year.

“Now, what limited chance there was for in-fill housing is being locked away even more tightly,” Ms Peterson said. “There are a lot of centres in Boroondara, particularly on tram and bus routes, that are suitable for higher forms of development – four or five storeys,” she said.

“We are not talking about 27-storey towers,” she said, “and the opportunity to increase density along public transport corridors has been undermined.”

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-buildings-banned-on-strip-shopping-centres-in-melbournes-leafy-east-20150409-1mhpgi.html

Much has been made of ‘neighbourhood character’ at recent council meetings when considering planning applications. Neighbourhood character is defined by the State Government as:

Neighbourhood character is essentially the combination of the public and private realms. Every property, public place or piece of infrastructure makes a contribution, whether great or small. It is the cumulative impact of all these contributions that establishes neighbourhood character.

We draw readers’ attention to some further statements from this document that highlight the shortcomings within Glen Eira –

The character of all areas is to be respected (even areas that planners or designers might not think to be attractive). If, for a broader range of considerations, a change in the character of an area is sought, then this must be achieved by setting out a preferred future character statement in the planning scheme

Describing the character of an area will also depend on the extent of neighbourhood character analysis already undertaken by the relevant council and the particular characteristics of the neighbourhood in question

Source: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/231648/Understanding_Neighbourhood_Character.pdf

Why this is so relevant to Glen Eira is that there is no preferred character statements for any area designated as housing diversity. This has been made clear in numerous VCAT decisions and has played a major role in the member’s final conclusions. For example – A recent VCAT decision on 10-12 Cromwell Street, North Caulfield contained the following comments in the decision to grant a permit for 8 townhouses –

There is no local planning policy that addresses neighbourhood character within the  housing diversity  areas. While regard must be given to the existing character of these areas, any assessment needs to balance this against the change that is anticipated in these areas.

Thus we have the ludicrous situation where on the one hand change is forecast and expected, but the nature of that change (ie preferred neighbourhood character) is never defined, illustrated, or circumscribed. With no future vision clearly laid out, then most developments are possible – especially if council has already granted a permit for a large development in the street. Change without statements on preferred neighbourhood character are Glen Eira Council’s further presents to developers.

Not all councils take this approach. Whitehorse, Stonnington, Bayside, and plenty of others, have as part of their planning schemes specific ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ statements for all of their residential areas – including the equivalent of Residential Growth Zones, and General Residential Zones. They also have structure plans, development overlays, etc – all of those ‘planning tools’ which Glen Eira has steadfastly refused to consider and implement.

The result is that councillors can talk until the cows come home about neighbourhood character. But unless the planning scheme includes some direct and explicit mention of these tools, then developers will continue to have a field day in our municipality.

PS: Below is an example from Bayside. Please note that every square inch of land designated as ‘residential’ has been allocated a ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ statement regardless of whether or not that site is in the so called ‘housing diversity’ areas.

At last week’s council meeting there was plenty of implied criticism of how strategic planning in Glen Eira was arguably negligent and inept and had not achieved what was possible in protecting residential amenity. The most damning comments came from Sounness in relation to the Glen Huntly Road application (Item 9.2).

SOUNNESS: ‘I recognise the building is kind of ugly’ and ‘if we wanted to have a particular form for built form outcome’ then council would be saying ‘this is the character we want’ but ‘Glen Eira hasn’t gone down that particular path’ (apart from Neighbourhood Character Overlays). This means that ‘not having said what we want’ this application then becomes what is ‘acceptable‘. Believed that a ‘refusal’ would ‘be hard to substantiate’ given the zoning and potential future development of the area. Said he would ‘love to see good tools’ but ‘we don’t seem to have them’.

The ‘tools’ that Sounness is referring to, and which other councils have worked on and included in their planning scheme – some, a decade ago – include such things as:

• Structure Plans – especially for Activity Centres
• Design and Development Overlays
• Urban Design policies
• Parking Precinct Plans

It should also be noted that councils which have had Structure Plans in place for eons have also had interim height limits for commercial buildings. Many, such as Bayside, now want these ‘interim’ height limits on a permanent basis and as part of their overall strategic planning for Activity Centres. In Glen Eira, because of the failure to implement any structure plans, or to even seek height limits on commercial properties, the sky is literally the limit. Now there are applications for 12 and even 16 storeys. But do the planning department and councillors really care?

As for Design and Development Overlays, Glen Eira has 5 in its planning scheme. Are they there to protect against ‘inappropriate development’? Definitely NOT. Two of these 5 are designed to permit (and we quote) higher density and higher scale development. The remaining three concern themselves with the height of fences in specific areas.

Here’s how many of these overlays other neighbouring councils have in their planning schemes. All vary in their intent and the ‘limits’ on development. Most however take a proactive approach in attempting to describe what they want, and to list what kind of development should be excluded. Not in Glen Eira though! Here are the tallies –

Bayside – 12

Boroondara – 31

Kingston – 24

Manningham – 12

Monash – 11

Moonee Valley – 12

Moreland – 23

Port Phillip – 21

Stonnington – 13

Whitehorse – 8

Yarra – 13

Glen Eira of course has its Neighbourhood Character Overlays. The ‘problem’ with this is that all of these together basically cover a bare 1500 properties and a few score number of streets throughout Glen Eira. It is no use therefore complaining, as Hyams and others have, about the lack of pitched roof applications, especially in housing diversity areas, when no attempt has been made, as Sounness says, to introduce the ‘tools’ that would help achieve such an outcome.

Sounness’ comments are warranted. Okotel’s previous claims about having to ‘watch’ the number of applications in Neerim Road and the car parking situation is also warranted. But what then? Apart from stating the obvious, what has council done in the past ten years to even come close to addressing such issues?

Ultimately the hand wringing of Lobo, Sounness, Okotel, and Hyams with his pitched roof pitch, does not excuse the inaction of this current crop of councillors, and those before them. When the problem is so obvious, and when countless streets are being destroyed, it is incumbent on councillors to ensure that all means are introduced to protect the local amenity, and neighbourhood character. It does not mean wringing one’s hands and saying ‘we do not have the tools’! The tools are available – if wanted. They have been available for years! Yet under this administration and its compliant councillor group, none of these tools have ever been openly discussed, much less implemented. In our view this represents a clear failure of planning prowess or, the deliberate decision to place as few obstacles in front of developers as legally possible. Either way, it is the community who pays the ultimate cost.

A trend is definitely occurring within Glen Eira where properties zoned Neighbourhood Residential, are selling up and getting out as quickly as they can. The latest example comes from Mavho Street, Bentleigh where some properties are zoned Residential Growth, some General Residential and others Neighbourhood Residential. Below is a screen dump of two adjoining properties located in the Neighbourhood Residential zone. We can only assume that the owners have seen what is happening to their street and their neighbourhood and decided that they want out.

What will also be vital in the months to come is what happens on such relatively large sites. Whilst the Planning Scheme still contains the criterion that larger than surrounding blocks will be adjudicated against the General Residential Zone ‘standards’ instead of the Neighbourhood Residential zone ones, it will be most interesting to see how this plays out if the purchaser decides to aim for a 3 storey and 20+ unit development.

Mavho Street is already gone. Now it is the turn of Bendigo Avenue as these recent advertisements show. Two triple blocks zoned Residential Growth are on the market and the single property is zoned General Residential Zone 2. An ‘invitation’ for 4 and 3 storey developments in an area with a Heritage Overlay and a SBO (Melbourne Water overlay).