October 11, 2014

Will The Bullshit Ever Stop?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

The latest and crudest example of Council’s desperation and public relations gone mad is the pathetic exercise that comes in Item 9.1 of the current agenda. It is Akehurst’s puerile attempt to gild the lily and to justify the new residential zones. We have to say that this must go down in the annals of Glen Eira City Council as its most ineffectual and lamentable effort – and we also suspect that Akehurst must in his heart of hearts feel the same. Poor man. Council is obviously feeling the heat from a growing chorus of outraged residents and this is the corporate response – propaganda, and mistruths at the drop of a hat!

The stated purpose is quite grandiose – To inform the Council of changes which may increase building height and density in other municipalities but which will not apply in Glen Eira. Please note the careful equivocation here. Nothing is certain, things ‘may’ change in other councils. The premise is set – Glen Eira is above and beyond the best council; untouchable because of its wonderful residential zones. Of course, the only point that is made is HEIGHT and the assumed resulting density. But more on this later.

Akehurst is quite correct when he writes – Authority to re-zone land rests with the State Minister for Planning. No Council has the power to zone or rezone any land. It’s just a great pity that Akehurst didn’t go on to say that it is Councils who do the planning and designing and analysis of their municipalities and then go on to figure out where zones should be. That is then put to the minister and department for approval. He also neglects to say that the role of council is to advocate strongly on behalf of residents. Hard to advocate we say when residents haven’t been asked and the zones as they currently stand are based on figures and projections from the 1990s. At least Akehurst had the sense not to cite ‘consultation’ from 2010 which was the previous excuse. Now it is strictly 2003. Yes, the zones are based on “consultation” that took place in the dark ages.

There’s also the usual sleight of hand with this next sentence – The Minister announced that he would rezone land into the three new residential zones by way of Ministerial Amendments. No, that is not what he said and in no way does it present the full picture of that time. In fact Guy’s Media Release of 5th March 2013 contained this statement – “Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.” http://premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/6183-reformed-residential-zones-bringing-new-certainty-to-melbournes-neighbourhoods.html

Casting further doubt on Akehurst’s claims is the Governments Advisory Note 50 dating from July 2013. Of relevance here is this quotation from page 3 for those councils who feel that their policies are ‘ready to go’ – as Glen Eira claims – ie the ‘neutral translation’ line. It states categorically –

A council can begin preparing an amendment to implement the new residential zones. This may include a request to the Minister for Planning to prepare the amendment and use his powers under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to exempt himself from the requirements of giving notice depending on the earlier consultation informing the housing and development strategy and its implementation

http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/229871/AN50-Reformed-residential-zones-July-2013.pdf

So we’ve again got the ‘may’ word. As for the ‘earlier consultation’ bit, we wonder if it ever entered the Minister’s head that such consultation might also apply to data originating in the last century. We doubt it! The import however is that the onus is again on council to REQUEST the minister to act, whereas the Akehurst claim would like everyone to believe that it was the minister acting unilaterally and without any input or consultation from council. What this page 3 also makes very clear is that council had various options it could have taken. It did nothing except operate in secrecy and in deliberately misleading its residents when asked specific public questions.

Akehurst then rambles on about council’s letter and how adamant it was in maintaining the current status quo of minimal change and housing diversity. Height again rears its ugly head but no mention is made of all the other ‘protections’ that could have been afforded via the respective schedules and which countless other councils have taken up.

Other claims made by Akehurst are also very very suspect. Of course nothing is council’s fault – the Alma Club rezoning had nothing to do with them. They didn’t even know about it. Factually Akehurst is dead wrong here too. In claiming that the Alma Club was the only ‘change’ is incorrect. Tovan Akas was rezoned. Large sites were now under the standards of General Residential Zones and not the previous minimal change zones. They also put their heads together to concoct the wonderful escape loop of subdivision prior to applications in order to subvert the very policy of two dwellings per lot in Neighourhnood Residential Zone. Of course, none of this gets a mention.

The most incredible porkies in the entire document come towards the end of the Akehurst effort. If the wording of the ‘purpose’ is changed, then why should Glen Eira be exempt? Akehurst then makes the following extraordinary statement –

Glen Eira is understood to be the only Council which has this mandatory height limit.

What utter nonsense! Here are some examples of other councils having height limits in their RGZ that are lower or equal to Glen Eira’s –

LATROBE COUNCIL – RGZ2 – HEIGHT LIMIT OF 9 METRES (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/latrobe/ordinance/32_07s02_latr.pdf)

STONNINGTON – RGZ2 – 13.5 metres – (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/stonnington/ordinance/32_07s02_ston.pdf)

It should also be pointed out that there are quite a few councils that don’t even have RGZ in their planning schemes. Instead, they have relied on numerous General Residential Zoning schedules to implement their finely grained schemes. As we’ve noted before, Stonnington and Bayside have plenty of GRZ schedules that include some that have a 9 metre height limit. Further, even for Greater Dandenong which was the second council to have their zones ratified their attempts to limit the damage is evident in their schedule to the RGZ. Note all that they have included in comparison to Glen Eira’s cave in. Greater Dandenong was able to achieve a site coverage of 70%. Glen Eira has 80%. Greater Dandenong has standards on landscaping, fences etc. Glen Eira is silent on all of this.

greater dandenong

The most outrageous statement of all comes in the final recommendation – That Council notes that the maximum height limits achieved last year are providing greater protection to Glen Eira than in other municipalities.

Height is only a fraction of what could be seen as constituting ‘protection’. Of far greater importance is:

  • Where the RGZ zones are placed – are they only along main shopping strips or main roads which people could live with, or do they engulf entire quiet residential streets that are now being destroyed – such as Mavho, Penang, Loranne, Bent, Glen Orme and hundreds of others?
  • If 52 units can be crammed onto one site, then ‘density’ is not exclusively dependent on height, but on size of dwellings, permeability and site coverage, landscaping requirements, etc. All of these considerations do not rate a mention in Council’s view of planning and do not feature in the zoning for RGZ and neither do they feature in the GRZ zones.

The more Council insists on issuing such misleading and deceptive public relations exercises the more residents should start thinking that this is not the sort of council that is serving its populace as it should. When trust is lost, when public pronouncements can’t be believed, when self aggrandisement and continual cover ups occur, then there is definitely something rotten at the heart. Right now it is reeking to high heaven!

 

October 10, 2014

Treating Residents Like Fools!

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

Below is our analysis of the first two planning applications and the officers’ reports. We have for ages lamented the quality of such reports, their lack of detail, lack of cogent reasoning and overall lack of consistency from application to application. For example: one application might rate a mention of ‘internal amenity’, another might skip this altogether. But the overriding characteristic of all the reports is the failure to quantify, explain, and to insist on the adherence to council’s own standards – time and time again.

For these two reports we’ve extracted some sentences and then provided our comments. The extracts do not constitute everything we could have said. Otherwise this post would definitely turn into a major opus of interminable length. So, please read and try not to laugh too loudly!

22 Mavho St, Bentleigh -14 properties notified and 30 objections

A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to full compliance with ResCode and improve the streetscape appearance of the proposal.

COMMENT: what a nebulous airy fairy comment. What does ‘closer to full compliance mean’. If it’s not compliant then why accept it? And how much out of compliance is the final recommendation?

The plans lack sufficient detail to demonstrate that neighbouring properties will be protected from overlooking. A recommended condition requires privacy protection measures to be added to the plans and elevations.

COMMENT: if there is a ‘lack of sufficient detail’ then why assume that screening will solve the problem? Did council bother to check to see if it would?

The recommended increases in basement setbacks (or basement size reduction) can reduce car space numbers, and therefore dwelling numbers or the mix of dwelling sizes. However, the ‘lost’ spaces can be regained by the use of car stackers, or a second basement level, or a combination of the two. That is, the proposed dwelling yield will not necessarily change.

COMMENT – Not only does council worry about the developer losing a few units because he hasn’t supplied enough basement setbacks, but they are even providing him with the ‘answer’ to leapfrog their conditions. What a wonderfully kind council this is! And so blithely to recommend a second underground level of car parking without even considering what this does to neighbouring properties. Sink holes here we come perhaps!

Council’s Transport Planning Department is satisfied that each dwelling has satisfactory car parking. It accepts the provision of three visitor spaces, acknowledging that parking guidelines suggest five. The removal of a redundant crossing will provide an additional on-street space, and the site has good access to public transport.

COMMENT: another visitor car spot gone. As for on-street car car parking space please note that no statistics, no traffic counts are provided. As for ‘good access’ to public transport – only if you want to park  in a two hour zone throughout most of the area, or if for longer then the hike to the station is much longer.

Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the current operation of Mavho Street or the surrounding road network

COMMENT: ‘unlikely’ – does that mean that Council really doesn’t know? That they haven’t done the proper and necessary research? And exactly how is ‘significant adverse impact’ defined? Is there a difference between ‘significant’ and plain, old ordinary ‘adverse impact’? To quote Ms Hansen – PLEASE EXPLAIN ON EVERYTHING! and a few statistics to back up such unsupported statements wouldn’t go astray either!

Create a gentler transition to the rear of the site.

 COMMENT: oh, the language is sublime. Straight out of Shakeseare no doubt. Again, what does ‘gentler transition’ really mean? Are we talking 4 storeys down to 2? What’s ‘gentle’ about a 4 storey building sitting alongside single storey dwellings?

AND OF COURSE THERE’S NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT INTERNAL AMENITY, SUNLIGHT, ETC. to be found anywhere in the report.

Application NO.2 – 2-4 Penang St McKinnon – 12 properties notified – 48 objections + petiti0n with 34 signatures

Recent developments of three or more storeys in scale have been constructed on McKinnon Road in close proximity to the subject site.

COMMENT: McKinnon Road is a main street with buses, and a railway station. It is not a quiet residential street consisting of a handful of dwellings. To compare McKinnon Road to Penang St is like comparing Jack the Ripper with Little Orphan Annie!

An emerging new character is evident in the neighbourhood which varies from single to three storeys in scale. It is considered that the proposed development adequately respects the existing and emerging character of the neighbourhood.

COMMENTS: language, language that says absolutely nothing. What does ‘adequate’ mean? More importantly there are no three storey developments in any residential side street close to Penang. How can something ‘respect’ the existing neighbourhood (when there aren’t any 3 storeys) and then in the same breath claim that it ‘respects’ emerging character. What this report doesn’t state is that the emerging character is based on this application – it will set the precedent for what comes after – as is intended no doubt!

The overshadowing of adjoining properties satisfies Res Code requirements. The relevant standards ensure a minimum level of sunlight for adjoining secluded private open space areas.

COMMENT: ‘minimum level of sunlight’. Welcome to the world of the mole!

One dwelling at first floor (Apartment 14) is considered to have poor internal amenity, by virtue of its undersized balcony and south facing orientation. It is recommended that this dwelling be deleted (which will allow for the additional visitor car space within the basement).

COMMENT: Thank god – the ‘problem’ of car parking is solved. But since when is a balcony part of ‘internal amenity’?

Street tree at the front of 4 Penang Street can be removed as it does not meet with current Council Strategy

COMMENT – we simply adore this comment. Trees can be destroyed because they (poor things) don’t happen to fit in with what council decided should only be planted two years ago. Never mind that the tree is in good health, at least 15 years old, provides shade, and aesthetic ‘ambience’ to the street. It has to go because the developer needs a crossover! And council might just make some money out of the deal!

Landscape Assessment Officer

Σ It appears that there are trees to be removed at the rear of 4 Penang Street

Σ Advanced tree requirements in post construction landscape

COMMENT: ‘it appears’ – don’t they even know?!!!! What trees? Are they healthy, large, ‘significant’? The best is that ‘advanced tree requirements’ only get a look in after the fact. Surely this is Monty Python at their absolute best?

The applicant commented that they would check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams and ensure there are no other errors on the plans. Council’s Town Planning Department also commented they would check the shadow diagrams to ensure their accuracy.

COMMENT: so it’s been ‘checked’. What are the outcomes? Do they ALL comply? Could the poor paying public please be let in on the little secret with some facts, some figures, some real information?
 

October 10, 2014

Stuff-Ups, Spin and Rampant Over Development

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is, as we anticipated, another example of the ineptitude of this council; its hard working spin department determined to convince residents of the superiority of Glen Eira compared to every other council in the state, and finally the continuing approval of developments that fly in the face of sound planning principles and community views. In short, (and we will elaborate fully in the next few days) what this overloaded agenda proposes is:

  • Granting permits for 261 new dwellings plus another 11 for an amended permit that seeks to increase the number of dwellings by 11
  • Waiving of both resident and visitor car parking
  • Another admission of lousy planning with council seeking permission to advertise Amendment C121. This now seeks to REZONE PROPERTIES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE and to introduce HEIGHT LIMITS for mixed use zones. Why council did not bother to achieve such outcomes BEFORE the zones were introduced is the critical question. Our view is that residents should expect more and more stuff ups to become clearer in the weeks and months ahead when council attempts to ‘remedy’ some of its most glaring errors. Again this shows what kind of overall vision and strategic planning went on when the zones were introduced.
  • Of far greater interest is the question of what council will now do in the face of the current petition going around that asks council to review its zones (with community consultation) and to finally get things right. The probable ‘answer’ that this can’t be done is disproved by the above. Given this proposed Amendment any refusal to undergo genuine ‘review’ can only be seen as a total rejection of community.
  • Finally, Tuesday night’s meeting will show residents to what extent councillors represent the community and to what extent they are mere puppets of an administration hell bent on more and more inappropriate overdevelopment.
 

October 9, 2014

Even Real Estate Agents Are More Honest!

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

pdfAnd just for the record, here’s what’s currently on the market in Bent St or recently been sold. Folks are getting out whilst the going is good. No one wants to live with a four storey box next door to them, opposite them, or behind them – not when they weren’t told a single thing, weren’t consulted, and must now bear witness to the creation of our future slums. This pattern is being repeated in Mavho Street as well and will soon come to a street near YOU!

Unit 3. No.7;

Unit 5. No 7;

Unit 10.No.9;

No.10;

No.12;

No. 14/16/18;

Unit 8.No.21;

No.23;

No.26;

No.28;

No. 34

 

October 8, 2014

The Truth Shall Set Us Free!

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

Council and some of their supporters insist on propagating the myth that the introduction of the new zones has not been the impetus for far greater development, and density, in Glen Eira. The standard line has now become that nothing is different; that the introduction of the new zones merely reinforced what was council’s policy since 2002 and earlier. That in the end, the new zones represent a ‘neutral translation’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Readers will know that Bent Street Bentleigh has now become the focus of some large combined property sales with the potential for huge developments. Bent St was previously designated as ‘housing diversity’. A large part of Bent St is now zoned Residential Growth Zone – meaning that 4 storey developments are likely to become the norm.

In the interests of historical accuracy, we want readers to reflect on the following VCAT case and development application. It dates from February 2012 and concerned an application at 23 Bent St for a 3 storey, 27 unit development. The land comprised a large block of 1,057 square metres. Council had refused the application. VCAT granted the permit. What is most telling however is the argument produced by Council against the development and the VCAT member’s comments. We cite directly from the judgement.

I note from council’s delegate report at page 7 “the construction of a three storey development is reasonable having regard to the zoning of the land is consistent with the state and local policy in terms of its strategic vision for the Bentleigh urban village”.

COMMENT – so two years ago a 3 storey development was considered ‘reasonable’. Now we have to assume that a 4 storey development is also ‘reasonable’

Council acknowledged that a site of this size could accommodate a three storey building however had concerns regarding the extent of the third level combined with its side setbacks, in that it would provide an overly dominant form particularly when viewed from the private open space of 25 Bent Street to the north which is a single storey dwelling.

COMMENT – 3 storeys was ‘dominant’ 2 years ago, and now 4 storeys is okay?

The maximum overall height of the building varies between 8.8 metres and 9.51 metres due to the fall of the site from south to north. It is acknowledged that the overall height largely exceeds the suggested 9 metre height contained in clause 55 but the permit applicant maintains that it is an appropriate and respectful height given the existing and preferred character of the neighbourhood which is identified in the LPPF for managed change to accommodate more intensive residential development.

COMMENT – So a building of 9.51 metres was in 2012 considered ‘dominant’. Even Clause 55 suggests a ‘9 metre height’. What we’ve got now is 13.5m!!!

The subject site is within the residential precinct 4 of the Bentleigh Activity Centre which at a policy level is directed towards increasing residential densities. This building will be the first introduction of a three storey building into the locality however, I am satisfied with the changes that I require via permit condition the proposal will set a standard for future redevelopment within the area whilst also sitting comfortably with its neighbours in the street

COMMENT: what was the ‘standard’ two years ago has therefore changed. The ‘standard’ now is 4 storey due entirely to the introduction of the new zones and the designation of this street as a Residential Growth Zone. The same applies to countless other streets throughout all of Glen Eira.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/197.html

PS: and like any sensible developer would, given the largesse of council, there has been an APPROVED amended application to turn this 3 storey development into a FOUR STOREY DEVELOPMENT. The developer got his amended application in October 2013 – after the zones were introduced!

 

October 7, 2014

Coming To Your Letterbox!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

IMG

AND FROM TODAY’S LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – CAULFIELD LEADER

letters

 

October 5, 2014

The Cave-In Kings!

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

The bastardry, skulduggery, and pattern of capitulation which has dogged the entire Caulfield Village fiasco, is now complete. Council has once again caved in completely to the MRC/Developer judging by the VCAT order resulting from the August ‘mediation’. (full document uploaded here).

We remind readers that in May this year the Development Plan was rubber stamped by the majority of councillors. Attempting to simply save face, Lipshutz and Sounness put forward an amendment which was meant to ‘rectify’ the problems such as ‘fixing’ the vast number of miniscule balconies, and car parking issues. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/defending-the-indefensible/).

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise – the developer got practically everything he wanted! The two most important conditions (balconies and car parking) were practically tossed out the window and many other conditions eroded away in favour of the developer. All that council appears to have gained is to force the developer to provide more detailed information on soil depths so that the promised ‘garden of Eden’ will have enough soil to actually survive a year or two!

Which leads us to some pretty important questions:

  • Why didn’t council insist that this goes to a full hearing and not mediation if they were so adamant that their conditions were vital?
  • How much did this mediation cost ratepayers since we would bet that council employed barristers, planning ‘experts’ etc.?

We also must congratulate all those ‘backroom boys’ for their years of plotting, since this development is now exclusively OUT OF THE HANDS OF COUNCILLORS. Everything is now up to the ‘satisfaction’ of the ‘responsible authority’ – ie officers (exclusively). Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff have done their work and handed the MRC their biggest prize ever to the detriment of every single resident living in Glen Eira.

Below is a summary that we’ve drawn up. On the left hand side is what the resolution of May 2014 stipulated. On the right hand side is what has now changed according to the VCAT order. These are all verbatim. Please read carefully and then ask yourselves whether or not you believe that Glen Eira is indeed the ‘cave in Kings’ of the State!!!

There’s undoubtedly a lot more buried in the technical detail of this order, so we welcome your views on what we’ve left out.

mrc

 

 

October 4, 2014

Thank You Council!!!!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

PS: We’ve received notification that there is currently an online and hard copy petition doing the rounds of Glen Eira. The petition is basically asking that this council review the damage it has wrought via the zones and that full community consultation be included. We urge all readers to follow the links and to voice their opinions on the various sites. GE Debates fully supports any group that seeks better outcomes for the community.

Please click on – http://geresidents.wordpress.com/

There’s a new tactic being employed by real estate agents and their buddy developer friends throughout significant areas of Glen Eira and it’s all due to the new zones. So, thank you Newton, Akehurst, and councillors for unleashing this tsunami of inappropriate development into our quiet residential streets – all done of course in secret, and behind closed doors.

We urge all readers to note the following screen dumps carefully because they reveal exactly what is happening and the tactics that are now being employed.

  1. Instead of planning applications there are now ‘concept plans’ inviting developers to buy
  2. No planning permit exists for this site, according to council’s planning register. No application has even come in as yet.
  3. Height and density are the biggest selling points
  4. Note the idealistic glorified design – with so much green, green, open space around!

bent street

bent2PPS: we just couldn’t resist this stunning offer to be ONE OF 83 UNITS in Elsternwick. Design of building is something else again – like the Mad Hatter’s tea party perhaps?

Untitled2

 

October 3, 2014

Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion: How Much?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the residents of Glen Eira had a council that was upfront, direct, and fully transparent? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if residents knew how much money was going down the drain, wasted, misspent on lawyers, stuff ups, and countless other ‘irregularities’? Alas, this is definitely not the way council functions.

Last council meeting saw a public question asked about Duncan Mackinnon pavilion. Readers will remember that apart from being years and years behind schedule, plus the fact that originally the stated price was around 6 million and then ballooned out to 10 million, there were plenty of other problems. Maxstra, the original main contractor ostensibly got the boot and another contractor replaced this company. The pavilion is still not finished! Here’s what the public question asked and council’s response –

What exact sums of money has Council paid to Maxstra Constructions prior to their dismissal as major contractor for the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion? Are funds still payable to Maxtra following the termination of their contract? And, what were the total invoiced costs for legal advice regarding the termination of the contract?”

“Maxstra Constructions have been paid $2.81 million. Whether any other payments are due them cannot be determined until all works are completed. As the balance of the work was taken out of Maxstra’s hands no legal costs have been incurred in relation to a termination because a termination has not occurred.”

Going back into history, it’s worthwhile considering the following as well.

  1. On the 22nd May 2012, council awarded the contract to Maxstra for the amount of $9,744,651.52
  2. On the 10th June 2014 a new contract was awarded to Fimma for $8,185,711.67

Doing our maths, things just don’t add up. If Maxstra has already been paid $2.81 million, with the possibility of receiving even more, then does this mean that the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion project is literally MILLIONS OVER BUDGET?

We also can’t accept that there will not be any further wrangling over these sums, which potentially means more lawyers, more courts, more settlements, and more cost to residents. Nor can we believe that a company like Fimma would undertake work for a set price and then be prepared to have that sum whittled way down.

For years now there has been a stony silence concerning this project – no upfront public announcements of what’s really going on. Just a buried sentence or two in annual reports (that 99% of people don’t bother to read). So, how about a simple, honest answer to these questions councillors?

  • How much over budget is Duncan Mackinnon pavilion?
  • Can residents expect more legal battles? And how much is this likely to cost?
 

October 1, 2014

Bentleigh – Very Definitely Gone!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 
Bentleigh garden supplies land sells for $4 million, developer plans multi-level retail and apartment complex
  • Troels Sommerville
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
  • October 01, 2014 1:41PM
Kevin Broadbent of Broadbent Garden Supplies, recently moved his 70-year-old, three gener

Kevin Broadbent of Broadbent Garden Supplies, recently moved his 70-year-old, three generation Bentleigh business, and the land has just sold for over $4 million. Picture: Derrick den Hollander

A Bentleigh garden supplies centre has sold for just over $4 million, cracking the $4000 per square metre mark for the first time in the suburb.

Frank Ruffo, director of Hodges Bentleigh, which managed the sale, said auction of the generations old business, Broadbents Garden Supplies, attracted 22 bids, with 14 bidders vying for the prime piece of real estate on the day.

He said the international developer who bought the property for about $4600 per square meter, has plans to turn the 324 Centre Rd site into a multi-level retail and apartment complex.

Mr Ruffo said his agency knew the prime spot would garner interest, but the final price surprised even them.

“We had aspirations around $3 million and something, we just didn’t think the extra something would be an extra million and ten thousand dollars” Mr Ruffo said.

He said the 14 bidders on auction day were all developers, which was indicative of the “seachange” happening in Glen Eira.

New planning zones and changing demographics have made Bentleigh a “highly sought after suburb where developers were keen to get a foothold,” he said.

Recently another developer, Launch Corporation, also bought up seven neighbouring properties on the corner of East Boundary Rd and Centre Rd for just over $6.5 million.

On the 3,415sq m site they plan to invest somewhere between $60-$70 million to build a mixed-use development of about 100 apartments and five retail outlets.

“There are a lot of developers inquiring about finding land in the area, and it’s a trend that’s growing,” Mr Ruffo said.

“Over the next 10 years, we’re going to see a dramatic change in Bentleigh.

“When you walk down Centre Rd, instead of seeing the traditional two-storey Art Deco buildings, you’ll start to see four or five storey buildings in their place.”

For the record, Broadbents is still operating, having moved to South Rd, Moorabbin.

COMMENT

  • Forget 4 or 5 storeys. The land is zoned Commercial and in order to fit in 100 apartments chances are the building will be more in the order of 7 or 8 storeys.
  • Where are the cars from 100 units going to park? How many will be single bedroom chicken coops? Broadbents is close to Aldi, and other popular shops – not to mention Mavho and Loranne Streets that are now seeing applications for 4 storeys and heaps of units.
  • Where is Council’s parking precinct plans promised over a decade ago but yet to materialise?
  • Will resident rates be paying for all the extra drainage infrastructure required rather than the developer?
  • When will councillors start grappling with the planning problems they have so successfully unleashed? – when everyone currently living in Bentleigh, McKinnon, Carnegie sells out to more and more developers so that Bentleigh can officially turn into the next decade’s slums? This like everything else (environmental sustainable design, size of apartments) is never council’s problem but always a state problem!
  • And what of open space (both private and public). Oh yes, we mustn’t forget the Centre Road rotunda that was also the subject of ‘community consultation’ over three years ago and not a whisper since. But Bentleigh is not Elsternwick, is it?

PS: Just to highlight the insanity, if not straight out incompetence of the new zones, the planning map below is worthy of consideration. If the Broadbent site does reach 8 storeys, then what ‘protection’ is provided for those residents living directly behind in a neighbourhood residential zone (Campbell Street) or even those residents living the other side in Mavho? Allowing NRZ to directly abut commercial is not strategic planning – it is lousy planning in spades!

broadbents

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »