Glen Eira Debates

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!

Item 9.2 – Elliot St., Carnegie – 4 storey, 21 dwellings.

Esakoff moved motion for 3 storey and 18 dwellings plus no waiving of visitor car parking requirements. Seconded by Okotel.

ESAKOFF: even though this is a growth zone, Esakoff thought it required more ‘conditions’ put on the development. Said that a 4 storey would ‘dominate the existing area’ so a 3 storey will ‘allow better integration’ into the residential areas to the north plus reducing the ‘number of apartments’. As a result this will then also meet the car parking regulations. Spoke about conditions on setbacks to Neerim Road and site coverage of 60%.

COMMENT: we wonder how well ‘integrated’ a 3 storey development will be in a street that is predominantly single storey and predominantly Edwardian weather boards? Are residents to assume that height is the only criterion that signifies ‘integration’? And that towering two storeys above a single storey meets any reasonable person’s interpretation of ‘integration’?

OKOTEL: in the last year council had seen ‘a number’ of applications along Neerim Road for ‘four storey buildings’ and ‘because’ of this it is ‘important that council look at the impact’ and the increases in ‘the number of people living in those buildings’ and the effect this will have on ‘existing infrastructure as well as traffic’. This application is ‘next to one storey dwellings’ and so ‘important that there is that transition’ from 4 storey to single storey. Agrees with Esakoff that it’s not ‘appropriate’ that there be a four storey on the site but that a ‘three storey building would be more appropriate’. Also a 3 storey building would ‘certainly be more in keeping with neighbourhood character’ and the ’emerging neighbourhood character’. Reiterated the conditions about setbacks and site coverage. Said that residents had asked that there might be a Neighbournood Character Overlay for the Californian bungalows and Edwardian houses and that this was a street that ‘could be looked at’ to see if this might be applied.

COMMENT: Okotel is developing the habit of ‘noting’ things that pertain to residents’ concerns – ie traffic, infrastructure, etc. However, words never seem to materialise into action! Neither she nor any other councillor has got up on their hind legs and moved any motion to give effect to these ‘concerns’. If this isn’t grandstanding and playing to the packed gallery, then we don’t know what is! Furthermore, we suggest that Okotel revisits the Glen Eira Planning scheme and ‘notes’ that there is NO DEFINITION of ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ in the equivalent of Housing Diversity.

LOBO: said that ‘residential zones are cutting to the bones of the residents’. Said that ‘China had a boom’ in building and that they now have 64 million apartments empty. Magee asked Lobo to ‘stick to item 9.2’. Lobo said that Australia has the potential to increase population but that it is also ‘democratic’ and ‘should be seen to be democratic’. Said that he has previously ‘asked for forgiveness’ from residents for ‘being part of the decision’ about the zones. Magee then interrupted, asking Lobo to ‘address item 9.2’. Lobo said that ‘Carnegie is going, going, gone’ and that it will ‘be full of apartments. Carnegie will be destroyed’. Applause from gallery. Hoped that the ‘new government will do something about it’.

COMMENT: Our impression following all the media coverage, plus the GERA forum is that residents are waiting for councillors to do ‘something about it’ for starters!

SOUNNESS: was worried by the 4 storey development but is now ‘comforted’ that it has been reduced by one storey but was still ‘uncomfortable with the density’ but that’s what developers are doing. Nevertheless, he supports the Esakoff motion.

DELAHUNTY: supported the motion and that 4 storeys is not ‘fair on neighbouring properties’ and is ‘perhaps asking too much of that block’.

COMMENT: Perhaps Cr Delahunty might answer the basic question of how she interprets the meaning of ‘fairness’ and exactly what ‘asking too much of that block’ means? What would be ‘fair’ and what constitutes not ‘too much’?

LIPSHUTZ: told the gallery that there would be development ‘like it or not’ and that councillors’ job was to ‘try and get it appropriate’ and ‘reality’ is that the Government wants ‘development in this area’. Said that council has to look ‘at this from a legal point of view’ because they are a ‘quasi judicial body’ looking at ‘planning law’. ‘It would be nice’ for councillors to reject the application. Said he grew up in Balwyn and his old street is now developed and Elwood is ‘ruined by flats’. He has to look at the application and ‘see what can I do as a councillor’ to ‘try and minimise impact on residents’. The motion is ‘the way to go’ because it tries ‘to improve transition’. Stated that he ‘would love to have a law’ that determined ‘how big’ rooms are, the design and there ‘shouldn’t be shared light’ but there are no such laws and that’s up to the government. So all he can do is ‘minimise the impact on residents’ which the motion succeeds in doing.

COMMENT: oh dear, the old bug bear of the ‘quasi judicial’ rubbish. Once and for all, the government establishes the parameters and nominates the activity centres. But it is councils who have the lee way to nominate what goes where, and what goes into the schedules associated with the zones. Any use of the term ‘transition’ is the biggest furphy of all. There is no transition zone in Glen Eira. All there is are upper level setbacks of multi-storey buildings. Readers should visit some of the new developments currently going up in Centre Road to see exactly what such set-backs mean. They are visible from hundreds of metres away. As for size of rooms, lights, sustainable design, etc., other councils have amendments in that attempt to set such standards. They have not sat back waiting for ‘government’ to act but have taken the initiative themselves.

ESAKOFF: Reminded people that this is a Residential Growth Zone with a maximum of 13.5 metre height limit. But ‘this doesn’t mean that 13.5’ is suitable for everywhere and that ‘this is a prime example of that’. Said that ‘we are lucky to have the height limits that we do have’ and that the issues ‘are not limited to Glen Eira’ but ‘they are everywhere’. Told Lobo to be ‘careful in what you wish for’ since the Government has said it will ‘review the new zones’. ‘We could end up with a worse case scenario’. Now council ‘knows what we’ve got, knows what to expect’ and they attempt to ‘moderate where we can’. That’s what she’s done with this motion but VCAT is ‘another story’. Thought that a three storey site was the best result.

Motion put and carried. Lobo called for a division and was the only councillor to vote against.

In order to give people a taste of what Elliot Avenue looks like, we’ve taken a screen dump from Google dated June 2013. This needs to be archived since Elliott Avenue, with this permit, will never be the same again. The zones are an open invitation and the permit sets the precedent. Well done councillors!

The outcomes from last night’s council meeting should provide a clear message to all residents that councillors are incapable, or unwilling, to represent their community. It is beyond doubt that there is no intention of doing anything about the new zones.

The gallery was packed to the rafters with residents holding placards opposing the destruction of neighbourhoods. Yet on each planning application councillors came up with basically everything that the developers wanted. Once again the old clichés and shonky arguments were trotted out on cue – most of them irrelevant to the issue at hand. We will go through each application in detail so that all readers can judge for themselves the nonsense that parades as informed decision making by these 9 individuals.

Item 9.1 – Tucker Road Bentleigh – Childcare centre for 142

Okotel moved to accept. Lipshutz seconded.

OKOTEL: said that many many residents’ comments concerned the increased traffic problems that would be created and that there were ‘queries’ about the developer’s traffic management report and how ‘outdated’ it was. However, council had conducted its own investigation on the 18th September and took into account school drop offs and the impact on the local side street. Went on to say that Council’s ‘survey’ was in peak periods and it found that with the childcare centre the outcome would not be ‘burdensome’. Continued with the conditions that council was imposing such as acoustic fences and increased setbacks. Council has got a policy for non-residential uses in residential areas and with the conditions these meet the requirements. Because the proposal has a pitched roof it is therefore in keeping with ‘the character’ of the street. Okotel then stated that she had asked the developer, who runs other such centres, whether they had received any complaints about these other centres and ‘whether there were any issues to do with traffic’. The ‘developer assured that that hasn’t been the case’. Okotel supports the officer’s recommendations because of the ‘strict conditions’ the permit imposes.

COMMENT: Residents should surely be reassured when councillors’ decision making relies on the developer’s word that his other enterprises have not garnered any complaints. Apart from being totally irrelevant to the application at hand, we can only surmise that a developer’s opinion counts far more than resident views!

LIPSHUTZ: began by saying that in today’s world most family income in spent on mortgages which means that both parents work and that childcare is required. Further, that with this application, ‘this is an area where children are’. So ‘this is the right place’ but the question is ‘how can we reduce the impact on the community’. Because council has increased the area permitted for each child the effect has been to ‘reduce the number of children’ to 132 instead of 142. Agrees with Okotel and they’ve reduced the impact on community but at the same time created a childcare centre ‘where it is required’.

LOBO: said this was a ‘recipe for disaster’. Agreed that children need places like childcare, schools, and so on, but there ‘should be certain place for certain things’. Said that kids would be ‘shouting’ and ‘neighbours be disturbed’. Traffic will be ‘mayhem’ since there are 7 local streets and the traffic flows to East Boundary Road or shopping in Centre Road. He’s not saying that ‘we should disregard children’. Council has a walking strategy on the one hand but council is also ‘encouraging young kids to be hit’ by cars as they go to their primary and secondary schools. Said it ‘was a shame’ that kids can’t walk safely. Didn’t think that there was a ‘shortage of childcare’. He is ‘disgusted’ that non-residential businesses can operate in residential areas.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to correct Okotel’s claims about the traffic reports because she got it wrong about who did what and when and because there are ‘some people’ who are ‘very, very good on the details’. Okotel merely made an ‘error’ in inverting ‘who did what’. Said that council’s traffic report was done in 2011 and counted 1450 cars whilst the applicant’s report was ‘on a weekday’ in September 2014 and found 1150 cars. Officers used the 1450 figure because it was bigger and ‘might give a better indication’ of what the traffic is like. Having visited the area she could see that traffic ‘doesn’t flow very fast’. She lives on a ‘beautiful’ wide street and they have traffic calming to keep the speed down. This might look like a ‘messy’ option, but to her and the traffic engineers, it is a sensible solution. As a mother of 3 kids she uses childcare centres and these days people use the basement car parking. It can be hard and there might be some ‘manoeuvring’ especially with babies but is ‘actually quite safe’. On Lobo’s point about children’s noise it is an incredibly ‘happy and joyful’ thing to hear kids playing. If people see this as ‘bedlam’ then she believes that this is a ‘very sad response’.

COMMENT: Are we supposed to congratulate council because they relied on data from 2011? Surely with recent development in the area, and overall increase in traffic movements, figures going back three years are as implausible as the developer’s traffic management report? Residents need to be asking why council does not undertake its own up-to-date analysis of such proposals?

ESAKOFF: said this was ‘allowable use’ so they can’t oppose it and it meets all the requirements for a ‘preferred location’. Thought that they need to consider ‘neighbourhood amenity’ and ‘neighbourhood character’. There is ‘adequate’ transition to the neighbouring properties and the setbacks will ‘minimise visual bulk’. Worried about neighourhood amenity and the condition about the acoustic fence – ‘that’s fine’. but the numbers even at 132 ‘are too high’. Went through other applications where no permit was given for over 120. Thought that reducing numbers would address noise and traffic issues.

HYAMS: ‘thought long and hard about this’ but council has got ‘the right response’. There was concern that if this commercial business was allowed then others could also be allowed but ‘that’s not the case’ except for medical offices and places of worship. People also commented on another application in Tucker Road that was refused but that one wasn’t on a corner. Also if this is refused, then the owner who has got two blocks and ‘will build flats’ which will be ‘up to 10.5 metres high’ and this is lower so ‘far less impact on the area’. Also flats will be ‘busier’ during the night when ‘everyone’s home’ and even residents prefer a childcare centre to a block of flats. So ‘it’s one or the other’. Traffic is an issue but with childcare centres the movements are ‘staggered’ since people arrive and leave at different times. Mentioned the Glen Eira Road childcare centre which council refused but VCAT allowed so chances of them ‘disallowing’ this one is remote. On the number of childcare centres in the area, this wasn’t a ‘planning issue’ and if there are plenty, then this one might stand empty.

COMMENT: Quite incredible that what other childcare centres are in the area isn’t a ‘planning issue’, but somehow, what the developer could build if the proposal is knocked back IS a planning issue. Consistency of argument is definitely not councillors’ forte!

SOUNNESS: said he would prefer fewer children but didn’t see grounds for refusing and with all the conditions imposed saw this as in an ‘acceptable form’.

OKOTEL: said this wasn’t an easy decision and in relation to noise the conditions require ‘acoustic’ walls to ‘alleviate’ this. Where kids play near houses then the conditions again require this to be for babies and that the applicant has said that the babies would ‘only be outside if they are settled’. In regard to numbers, council has applied the guidelines and this reduced the numbers proposed by the applicant. Since it’s a General Residential zone they could have seen an application for units and it’s also ‘pleasing’ that the applicant didn’t ask for the maximum height allowable (ie 10.5 metres). It’s also ‘pleasing’ that it’s a pitched rather than a flat roof.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. LOBO CALLED FOR A DIVISION. Voting for: Okotel, Lipshutz, Hyams, Delahunty, Sounness, Magee. Voting against: Lobo and Esakoff

PS: Pilling was absent.