Ten years at least and still counting for Glen Eira to achieve anything on tree protection. We have reported on this several times already and direct readers to a previous post – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/

In February 2011, hundreds of properties in Glen Eira were flooded. Council’s response was a report three months later which concentrated on either laying the blame elsewhere (ie Melbourne Water, developers and residents), or patting itself on the back for its ‘emergency response’. Promises were made, such as – Council officers are currently investigating increasing Council’s drainage maintenance resources and will report on this in due course. (Minutes of 28^th June 2011). Needless to say, such a report has never seen the light of day in three and a half years!

Compounding the problem of flooding in Glen Eira is the fact that it is now 9 years at least since the introduction of the Special Building Overlay into the Planning Scheme. Such overlays are meant to safeguard against the risk of flooding by mandating floor level heights. Past estimates have placed properties at risk of flooding in Glen Eira as well over 12,000. With rapid development going on in the municipality, coupled with the increase of impermeable surfaces that such development brings, it surely is time to reassess the entire local drainage system and to evaluate whether any additional sites are now also deemed to be at flood risk.

Other councils have been proactive on this issue – Darebin, Greater Geelong and Port Phillip are the current examples. Port Phillip, which bears the brunt of much water flowing down from Glen Eira’s territory, resolved at its last council meeting to seek an amendment. The amendment follows several years of joint study with Melbourne Water and intends to clearly differentiate between Melbourne Water drains and local council drains. We’ve uploaded the full officer report HERE, but included below some important extracts –

Commencing a planning scheme amendment to update the SBO immediately is recommended. Following the SBO Review, it is now known that the current SBO does not accurately reflect all properties at risk of overland flooding. Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date, and the SBO provides an important and transparent statutory mechanism for indicating properties that are subject to inundation in a severe storm event

Modification of the SBO boundaries on planning scheme maps to reflect the revised flood shape agreed by Melbourne Water and Council (refer maps at Attachment 4). This would:

• Include approximately 10,200 new properties which have now been identified as being subject to inundation.
• Remove approximately 500 properties from the SBO which are no longer identified as being subject to inundation.
• Retain the SBO over approximately 17,300 properties which remain subject to inundation. (Note: The extent of the SBO over these properties may be altered.)

Port Phillip has also included maps of the new sites in its proposed amendment. We find it extremely difficult to accept that potential flooding risk as determined by Port Phillip ‘conveniently’ stops at the border with Glen Eira. If many of the streets running off Hotham on the Port Phillip side are now deemed to require an SBO, then surely many of the properties less then 20 metres away on the Glen Eira side of the street could also be under threat. The questions that need to be asked regarding these new studies are:

• If ‘Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date’, then what has Glen Eira done in the past decade or so in relation to its SBO?
• Why has Council been so reticent in providing any information on its flood risks and measures taken to improve and extend local drainage systems – especially after its ‘promise’ of 2011.
• The current buzz word for councillors is ‘capacity’. How is this quantified, evaluated, and acted upon?
• What impact is all this new development having on Glen Eira’s drainage systems and the water table? Does Council even know?
• And the most important question for residents is – how much longer will ratepayers continue to subsidise developers given that Glen Eira has abandoned its development contributions levy scheme?

Finally, readers may also find the Darebin proposed amendment of interest. Uploaded HERE.

Plan to fund new drainage works

17 December 2014

Developers will be asked to contribute towards the cost of drainage works to improve flood protection in Bayside under a proposed development contributions plan.

Bayside City Council Mayor Cr. Felicity Frederico said the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan (DCP) proposes a fair and equitable system for developers to make a contribution to the increased drainage capacity required when units and apartment blocks are built.

“The plan also allows Council to remain focused on its long-term financial management by continuing to look at opportunities for alternative revenue streams to take pressure off rate increases,” said Mayor Cr. Frederico.

The DCP proposes a development levy of $2000 for each additional ground floor dwelling, $1000 for each additional upper floor dwelling and $340 for each additional 100 sq.m of commercial development built in the Bayside municipality.

Contributions from developers will only be spent on infrastructure that services the drainage needs of new development in that catchment.

Residents building one house on a block of land will be exempt from paying the levy. Other exemptions include additions or extensions to existing dwellings, new dwellings that replace an existing dwelling, or commercial development that does not increase the existing building area and development on public land.

Contributions will be collected when applications for planning permits are approved or at the time of subdivision.

Implementation of the DCP is dependent on its incorporation into the Bayside Planning Scheme which requires authorisation from the Minister for Planning and will follow the planning scheme amendment process.

For further information contact Council on 9599 4444.

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/media_release_fund_new_drainage_works.htm

247 – 251 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Four storey multi-residential development and associated basement car parking

322-326 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking

8 Egan Street, Carnegie – Construction of a 16 storey building comprising 155 dwellings above three levels of basement car parking (with additional parking above ground), two retail tenacies and reduction of statutory car parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements

198-202 Balaclava Road, Caulfield North – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a four storey building (with a basement car park) comprising shop, office, 14 dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement on land affected by the Special Building Overlay

795-809 Centre Road and 150 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East – Construction of a part-3, part-7 storey mixed use building, use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in car parking requirements, waiver of the loading and unloading requirements associated with the use of the land for a shop, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 and the variation of an easement

251-253 Jasper Road, McKinnon – Development of a four (4) storey mixed use building, comprising of a shop and twelve (12) dwellings, waiver of car parking associated with shop and residential visitors and waiver of loading facilities

3 Grange Road, Caulfield East – Construction of a three storey building for the use of twenty eight (28) student accommodation; reduction of car parking requirements; alter access to a Road Zone Category 

Item 9.7 – Bent St., Bentleigh – 4 storey 55 dwellings

Sounness moved motion. Magee seconded to accept recommendations.

SOUNNESS: began by saying this is close to the station and that ‘there is parking’ available where the Sunday markets are held. Thought that it was a ‘consistent proposal with what is envisaged’ for the area by the planning scheme.

MAGEE: repeated that this is close to a railway station and a shopping centre and a Residential Growth Zone. ‘this is where 4 storey buildings have been aimed for’.

LOBO: ‘zones are cutting to the bones’ and that ‘we are heading to Calcutta’. Started to quote from the newspaper and Magee interrupted with ‘we are not here to quote from the newspaper’ and that Glen Eira is not like Calcutta. Told Lobo he ‘was finished’.

HYAMS: supported the motion ‘reluctantly’ but it was near the station and height was less than the 13.5 metre limit. Thought that ‘there will come a time when Bent St’ reaches capacity but the officers look at this and they have ‘judged quite rightly that’ capacity hasn’t been reached ‘quite yet’. ResCode parking has been met and ‘you rarely get an application’ that abides by these rules. Said that ‘crossovers will be reinstated’ and thus provide ‘more parking’. Went through some of the other conditions such as 4 metre set backs for landscaping, waste management plan etc.

DELAHUNTY: thought that it was ‘the best of times and the worst of times’ and that the area is a ‘great place to live’. Supported the conditions and set backs because this was ‘important’ in ‘how this appears to the street’. The development is ‘potentially the right outcome in the right place’.

SOUNNESS: thought this was ‘one of the better design buildings’ but ‘while it will be a dominant feature’ it won’t be ‘jarring and clashing to the eyes’. This application ‘ticks most of the boxes’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO CALLED FOR A DIVISION and was the only councillor to vote against.

DURATION OF ‘DEBATE’ – APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES!