October 14, 2013

The Saga Of The Tree Register

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

A long, but important post on the Tree Register saga, so apologies. The following should be borne in mind:

  • At least ten years in the making and still no satisfactory resolution
  • Residents and councillors are totally excluded from the processes that are about to be implemented. Thus full control and decision making power resides exclusively with unnamed and unaccountable officers.
  • The suggested Tree Register has slowly morphed into only applying to private property when its original intention was to include both public and private land as enunciated in the Community Plan. Of course, no public consultation has occurred to validate this surreptitious ‘transition’.
  • Glen Eira has a Street Tree Policy, which is primarily concerned with what to plant and where.
  • Glen Eira does not have a Tree Maintenance Policy – only a Tree Removal Policy
  • Glen Eira does not have any policy whatsoever that can assure residents that trees are not the victims of greedy developers or poor maintenance.

All of the above coalesce in the again UNNAMED OFFICER’S REPORT for Tuesday. The report is largely a verbatim repetition of the document that appeared in February 2013. This time however, pretending to be ‘seeking guidance’ by proffering 4 totally skewed and misleading ‘arguments’. All are heavily weighted to achieve only one outcome – that which has already been pre-determined. We will go through each one of these spurious arguments by quoting directly from the officer’s report and then commenting.

Given around 1,200 planning applications per year, many being for residential development, it is estimated that over 200 valued existing trees are protected each year. Removal of a tree contrary to a planning permit is a breach of the Planning and Environment Act which can attract court penalties far in excess of any breach of a local law. Penalties of between $5,000 to $20,000 are relatively common.

COMMENT

Here’s some terrific bluff and bluster but what this doesn’t tell us is:

  • What protection is there against any owner who decides to CUT DOWN a tree on his property not at a subsequent planning application stage, but at the perhaps initial SUBDIVISION stage?
  • What happens if the property is landbanked for years and years, no application goes in, and then suddenly a tree is gone? Or what if one year and one day after an application has gone in, the tree is removed?
  • How many prosecutions has council actually followed through on?
  • How many fines have been issued (and paid) in the last ten years?
  • How many ‘valued’ trees  on public or private land have been added in the past ten years?
  • How many trees have been removed from public parks and streets WITHOUT a full arborist’s report?
  • How many healthy trees have been planted on streets and then removed within months in order to aid and abet the installation of a carriageway in a new development?
  • What if any notice is provided to residents about the intended removal of park and street trees – especially when this is done en masse?

The ResCode mechanism is that any tree removed within 12 months of a town planning application being lodged must be assessed as though the “removed” tree is still in place. This has proven to be somewhat of a defacto tree retention control because it has effectively removed any advantage a developer could gain from moonscaping. This means that any town planning application for medium density dwellings needs to consider existing trees/vegetation.

COMMENT

We love the first sentence for its sheer inanity! The TREE IS GONE – end of story! For a developer the risk of being prosecuted by a pro development council is minimal. Secondly, even if there was some action taken, the advantage of being able to squeeze another unit, worth maybe $400000 – $500000 onto a property compared with a paltry fine of even $20,000 is a total no brainer!

We repeat our message from an earlier post that included photograph after photograph of moonscaped properties – bereft of any vegetation including trees. Only one property still retained a palm tree in the corner of the site. All other developments resembled the Sahara Desert. And yet council has the gall to claim that it is successful in preventing rampant moonscaping!

The problem is that the Planning Scheme is designed to regulate matters which are unlikely to change over the short to medium term (eg buildings) whereas trees grow, become senescent, may become hazardous and die. Over time, the Planning Scheme will include trees which need, for safety reasons, to be removed. To reflect that in the Scheme would require a full Planning Scheme Amendment process in each case which would be cumbersome.

COMMENT

Never, but never put anything into a Planning Scheme because that becomes far too binding and gives residents the legal potential to object to council decisions. Via a Local Law, which provides no leeway for resident objections, this little obstacle is overcome!

So, after much manoeuvring we’re left with the obvious solution – proposal D which reads –

A Local Law but only over Classified Trees

This option also uses a Local Law which covers only those trees which the Council has included on a Classified Tree Register. The Register would include those trees which the Council had assessed and considered were important to protect. The owner would have the opportunity to challenge whether the tree would be included in the Register or not. Once included, a permit would be required to lop or remove the tree.

COMMENT

This represents the heart of the issue. It is officers only who will decide on what is ‘valuable’. No outside interference from residents or councillors permitted. No ‘suggestions’ for trees on public land. No objection rights for resident neighbours – only developers. Residents won’t even know when a tree will be gone. The chain saws will come out one morning and poof – gone with the wind! No notice, no explanation, no objection rights, and only profit for the developer.

Given this current state of affairs it is worth pointing out the radically different approach taken by countless other councils. Some have vegetation overlays in their planning schemes; some have opted to  include the requirement for a permit within these planning schemes. Those that have the need for permits only as part of a Local Law at least request residents to nominate trees on both public and private land and residents are given full notification and objection rights if a decision is made to cut down a tree. Many make their policies and laws applicable not only to a tree register which might consist of only 100 to 200 trees, but to any tree earmarked for removal. Here are some examples:

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/tree_protection.htm

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-city/trees/significant-treeshttp://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-Building/Significant-Tree-Register

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/environment_trees.htm

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Environment/Trees/Register_of_Significant_Trees_on_Public_Land/index.aspx

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/environment/trees/significant-tree-register/http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files/Item_8.4_Appendix_A_-_Report_to_Council_on_17_September_2012.pdf

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Environment-and-Sustainabilty/Trees-and-Plants/Significant-Tree-Register

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/document/23514/trees

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/UrbanForest/ExceptionalTrees/Pages/AssessmentInfo.aspx

http://www.mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/long-term-planning-in-moonee-valley/significant-trees.aspx)

THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW

We make the following observations on the draft Local Law:

  • The appeal process consists of officers and ‘independent’ arborists. No councillors of course and no need for a council resolution or public documentation to support any decision making. All is to be left in the ‘capable’ hands of administrators. There is not even the requirement that results of such appeals be placed in the public domain, or that any documentation sees the light of day. Again in stark contrast to what happens at other councils such as Bayside.

Last but definitely not least, we remind readers of the previously stated opinions of Lipshutz, and Esakoff. Okotel also voted against having a Tree Register in February. We will now see whether consistency is their strong point, since the circumstances have not changed and the anti arguments certainly have not changed. Maybe they will cut their losses and think that a minimalist Tree Register of only 50 or so trees, or even 100 trees is better than letting the public in on anything. So the question is: Will they become turncoats and vote for a register, or will they introduce some nice little pre-orchestrated amendment? Here’s what they said way back in February (from our post of the time) –

ESAKOFF: didn’t support ‘tree protection’ and that people in general ‘do appreciate the value of trees’ and that people don’t remove trees ‘without good reason’ ( such as property damage, or dangerous). Thought that people ‘should have the right of choice’ over their own property and shouldn’t have to pay to get a permit to prune, or ‘being forced’ to hire an arborist to ‘report on whether they should be allowed to prune’. Accepted that there are a ‘range of views’ and that some people would feel that ‘they are over-governed’ and to introduce a tree register ‘will only cement that view’. Existing mechanisms include town planning, so that if there is a significant tree then town planning conditions are ‘put in place to protect them’. There are also ‘large penalties’ for ‘breach of those conditions’. Other safeguards are landscape plans, 4 metre setbacks and open space requirements which means that more trees can be planted. ‘There are enough hoops to jump through’ without adding to them.

LIPSHUTZ: said this has been up to council a ‘number of times’ and council has changed its mind a few times. Doesn’t support a tree register for the reasons basically outlined by Esakoff. Said that his worry is that ‘I don’t trust the arborist’…’I don’t trust the people who make the heritage decisions’. He sees heritage advisors saying it’s heritage but ‘I see nothing heritage about it’….’it’s in the eyes of the beholder’ since there’s ‘no scientific way of saying this is heritage or this is a significant tree’. Said that laws exist. Reflected on his personal trees but ‘over the last 20 years’ they’ve gone because they were ‘ordinary specimens and they’ve been replaced’, Now he’s got ‘nicer’ and ‘better trees’….It was my choice to do that’. Doesn’t want people telling him ‘this is the way to do it’. Local laws committee has ‘investigated’ this and ‘gone a fair way down the track’. In the end it’s about ‘making a decision on your tree’. Didn’t believe it’s ‘our’ role to ‘implement this law which infringes on our rights’.

OKOTEL: talked about the expense of this and trees on private property that can’t be removed. There will be ‘ongoing costs…..increased red tape’ and ‘continuous discussion’ about what is or is not a significant tree. She thought that residents ‘are more than sensible enough to know’ what’s a good tree and ‘what’s appropriate to maintain’ and ‘to make those decisions for themselves’.

 

October 12, 2013

C60 & Amendment C111

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

First off, a mea culpa: we have removed a previous post (first time ever!) because we were in error regarding the Booran Road Reservoir as potential public open space. Unlike council, we do freely admit when we have erred!

This post concerns the Ministerial and developer initiated Amendment that there be permitted divergence from what the Caulfield Village Incorporated Plan originally stated. Council has to now provide an ‘opinion’ on the proposal.

Our first reaction is:

  • Here we go again! No ‘development plan’ has as yet been made public, but council are quite prepared to make decisions BEFORE any detail, or real plans are released.
  • The requested changes will be on crucial issues such as height and setbacks plus ‘intrusions’ into public open space. Instead of a straight out rejection on height, all council is recommending is ”the need for a town planning permit if a development plan exceeds a height in the Incorporated Plan”. We all know what happens to applications put in by the MRC/developer!
  • Council is again up to its old tricks of citing ResCode, when they know that ResCode does not apply – especially for buildings that will be 20 storeys plus!

Below are the relevant sections – ie the changes and officer responses.

1. An ability to allow Council to allow limited intrusions into the building height such as architectural features, plant and equipment such as a lift over run. The requested intrusions are limited to no more than 2m in general but no more than 1.5m within 3m of the edge of a building.

Officer comment

Council’s new residential zones recognised that it is reasonable to allow some intrusion of plant and equipment into building heights. This request is consistent with usual town planning practice and is therefore considered reasonable. Plant and equipment typically includes air conditioning units, vents, ducts and a lift over run.

2. An ability to allow minor building works such as verandahs, balconies, eaves, down pipes, street furniture and art works to intrude into stipulated setbacks.

Officer comment

When front setbacks are stipulated in town planning, measurements are taken from the street alignment to the wall of a building. It is common for minor building intrusions to be disregarded in setback distances prescribed. In fact, Rescode specifically states that verandahs, porches, pergolas and eaves are allowable encroachments.

The extent of any intrusion into a setback is not prescribed but needs to be assessed as ancillary or minor. For example, a porch at an entrance to a building provides a sense of entrance, identity and shelter and is acceptable provided it fulfills these functions and does not detract from the purpose of the setback which is usually for landscaping purposes.The area available for development is not increased by virtue of this request.

If Council is not happy with the extent of any intrusions, it would either condition a development plan to alter or remove the intrusions or refuse the development plan. There are appeal rights to VCAT between the developer and Council over any development plan dispute.

3. Clarification that Council can approve a Development Plan with building heights exceeding heights stipulated in the Incorporated Plan. However, as described above this would trigger the need for a normal town planning process with full appeal rights for all parties including objectors. This request does not alter the current situation but removes any ambiguity.

Officer comment

This change does not have any effect on the existing planning controls. Subject to emphasising the need for a town planning permit with full appeal rights there is no objection to this change.

 

October 11, 2013

News Flash: Amendment C112

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

The secrecy, lack of information dissemination, and complete stuff ups continue unabated in Glen Eira City Council. We have learnt that there is now a new, gazetted amendment (c112) for the schedules to the new residential zones. Of course, there is nothing on council’s website and the department’s website gives no information as of Friday 11th October. However, the amendment was gazetted on October 3rd and came into operation on that day.

We do know that once again it is the Minister who is the ‘responsible authority’ and that the amendment is only ‘transitional’ – whatever that might mean! Yet it raises questions galore:

  • Why should there be another amendment just 9 days after the gazetting of Amendment c110? What stuff ups have there been – both on the part of council and the department and Minister? But, being generous, perhaps these new schedules represent a modicum of ‘improvement’? Is so, then why wasn’t this thought of before the zones were rushed through with such indecent haste?
  • When was council thinking of telling the public anything? or given recent history, was this a forlorn hope to begin with?
  • What does this whole continuing saga tell us about planning in Glen Eira? When will adhoc, piecemeal strategic planning be weeded out? When will professional competence be a top priority?
  • Since this is now labelled amendment c112, there are many more surprises in store for residents given the gap between c101 and c112.

Here is the gazetted announcement. Make of it what you will!

Planning and Environment Act 1987

GLEN EIRA PLANNING SCHEME

Notice of Approval of Amendment

Amendment C112

The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C112 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.

The Amendment introduces transitional provisions to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the General Residential Zone and Schedule 1 to the Residential Growth Zone.

A copy of the Amendment can be inspected, free of charge, at the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure website at http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection and free of charge, during office hours, at the offices of the City of Glen Eira, Corner Glen Eira Road and Hawthorn Road, Caulfield.

JOHN PHILLIPSDirectorPlanning and Building SystemsDepartment of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

PS: The mystery is solved! After much hunting and detective work we’ve located the text of the illusive Amendment. It does not ‘improve’ one single thing except to state that if a developer applies for an extension to his permit then the current schedules do not apply. Given council’s penchant for granting time extensions willy nilly, and of course not keeping any meaningful records of such extensions, then all continues to favour the applicant. Landbanking can still continue unabated it would seem. This latest Amendment in no way exonerates anyone from the accusation of sloppy and shoddy work. One would think that when something as important as the residential zones are concerned every single word would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and gaps filled in. It should not take another Amendment 9 days later to correct what wasn’t there in the first place.

Here’s the wording: Schedule 2 to clause 32.08 to the General Residential Zone does not apply to an application
to construct a dwelling or residential building made before the approval date of the planning scheme amendment that introduced this schedule into the planning scheme. The requirements of clause 54 as they apply to clause 54.03-2 or of clause 55 as they to clause 55.03-2 as in force immediately before the said approved date continue to apply.
Despite the provisions of Schedule 2 to Clause 32.08, these do not apply to an application under section 69 of the Act to extend a permit to construct or extend a development.

 

October 11, 2013

Cramming It All In – As Per Usual!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Cramming It All In – As Per Usual! 

Tuesday night’s agenda contains at least 4 crucial items for decision and discussion –

  • The Draft Open Space Strategy
  • The Tree Register
  • Caulfield Racecourse and the C60
  • Koornang Park removal of Cypress Trees

We will need some time to fully digest the implications of all these documents and recommendations. What is obvious from a superficial reading is:

  • Nothing much will change in terms of open space – everything is qualified by the term ‘where feasible’ – the typical Glen Eira Council jargon for ‘we will decide what, when and if something is ‘feasible’.
  • Developers have hit another home run with the mooted changes to the Incorporated Development Scheme for C60. Council officers do not see too much wrong with ‘little’ changes such as intrusions, height, etc.
  • It’s ironic that when on the one hand council consistently states its commitment to trees and landscape in Glen Eira it is again so willing to take out the  axes to an entire group of trees in Koornang Park. Taken together with the lame waffle that constitutes the tree register report (no author assigned of course!) developers are again given a free hand to remove as many trees as they like.

We urge all residents to carefully read these agenda items. We will provide our analysis of each in the next few days.

 

October 9, 2013

How It Can & Should Be Done!

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

PS: More grist to the mill comes from Whitehorse City Council on the residential zones. In the extract below this council makes it absolutely clear why CURRENT ANALYSIS is required in order to obtain maximum benefit from the new zones. They are currently undertaking full community consultation on: Housing and Neighborhood Review; Drafting new Urban Design Guidelines and reviewing the Whitehorse Housing Study. Only then, will they embark on shaping the residential zones. We repeat – when is the last time that Glen Eira undertook any analysis, any genuine consultation? Here’s what Whitehorse has to say. The full explanation is available at: http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html

Why do we need the Whitehorse Housing and Neighbourhood Character Review 2013?

Council currently has two main studies that guide decisions on housing development:

  • The Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study 2003
  • The Whitehorse Housing Study 2003

Both documents were prepared some time ago, and there have been changes both in terms of the housing development which taken place since the studies were prepared, and the needs of the residential community into the future.

Council faces changes in its future housing demand, with a trend towards smaller household sizes, a more diverse mix of household compositions and backgrounds, and an ageing population. The number of households to be accommodated is expected to grow.

The review seeks to ensure that Whitehorse can cater for these changing needs, while still ensuring the City’s preferred future neighbourhood character can be maintained and enhanced. It is also important that the new strategies and corresponding controls (including designating substantial, incremental and minimal change areas) reflect changes that have occurred over the past 10 years and provide opportunities to meet the future needs of Whitehorse residents.

There have also been a number of developments within some of Whitehorse’s smaller shopping centres, referred to as Neighbourhood Activity Centres. To provide greater direction in determining the form of development which may be suitable for these locations, draft Urban Design Guidelines have been prepared for most centres

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The contrast between Glen Eira Council’s secrecy, lack of up-to-date planning, and total disregard for residents is becoming more and more evident when compared to what lengths other councils are going to in order to both INFORM and CONSULT with their residents on the residential zones. Below we feature two screen dumps from the Boroondara Council’s website on the issue. Please note that their draft document is:

  • Going out to full consultation
  • Is based on years of local analysis (Neighbourhood Character Study) and research where their municipality was divided up into 75 individual precincts. The document was only finalised as recently as this month. When did Glen Eira last perform such a study that covered the entire municipality?
  • The expense and technological wizardry that Boroondara has gone to should be applauded. Residents are able to use the ‘interactive’ maps to locate their homes and immediately see the proposed zoning, and the statements on ‘preferred character’ for that area, as well as the related schedules. Glen Eira in all its documents has no ‘preferred character’ statements for ANY of their zones – that would only handicap future development if actually expressed in black and white.
  • We’ve already noted the schedules and how vastly different they are to the Glen Eira ones in an earlier post.

The Boroondara effort can be viewed in detail at: http://www.boroondara.characterstudy.com.au/

boroondara

boroondara2

 

October 9, 2013

How To Make A Fabulous Buck

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

There appears to be a new game in town for developers. First you get a permit for some monstrosity somewhere – either through a council permit or VCAT. Once signed sealed and delivered you then flog the property with the permit. If the land is large enough and if the permit grants permission for high density, then you’re home and hosed. The other advantage is that with the recent residential rezoning so kindly and quickly implemented by Glen Eira Council, the profit margins are likely to be even bigger if any new application for even greater density is considered to be post August 23rd when the zones were gazetted and became L-A-W.

Two recent examples are worth noting:

  • The 12 storey, 173 apartments on Dandenong Road is on the market again – with permit of course. Rumour has it that the asking price is around $7 million dollars. Not a bad little profit we say!
  • The Alma Club which recently underwent ‘mediation’ is back on the market. We can only guess whether or not the $7.9+ million originally paid will now, with carte blanche for 3 storey development (thanks to the rezoning) suddenly make this land swell from 69 units to 80+ and the profits escalate astronomically.

Whilst perfectly legal we do question lots of things. Perhaps the developer has gone broke and cut his losses? Perhaps it was nothing more than a short term investment for long term gain? Did Council have any inkling? And will residents be the outright losers in the end with more and more higher density on their doorsteps?

 

October 8, 2013

Do You Want This Man?

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

The Local Government Act requires that if a council intends to advertise its CEO position then that must be done 6 months prior to the termination of the current CEO’s contract. Newton’s contract expires in early April 2014. As far as we know, council has not placed another miniscule advertisement in The Age, nor have they made any public announcement on their website. We can only conclude, since the 6 month deadline has passed, that once again this group of councillors have decided to renew Newton’s contract without advertising his position. What we don’t know is whether they have handed Newton another 2, 3, or the maximum 5 year contract.

That will make it contract after contract that has never been advertised; contract after contract where we, the salary paying public, have no idea of Key Performance Indicators, no idea of the voting figures, and no idea of how Newton measures up against any standards. All we ever get is the party line that he is doing a good job so why look elsewhere. The simple answer to this is: how do you know that someone else might not do a better job if you don’t even bother to look and test the waters? In our view, no position anywhere should be for life. More importantly, best practice dictates that there is a ‘time limit’ for CEO’s in any major organisation. Newton has been there since 199/2000. During this time his rule has been mired with controversy after controversy; legal threats; and let’s not forget the sacking of council. We know of no other council that has had to endure 3 formal Municipal Inspector Investigations, and heaven knows, how many ombudsman official and ‘unofficial’ investigations. Coincidence? Perhaps, but possibly also a reflection on the one constant throughout this entire time – Newton.

More importantly from residents’ points of view, under his stewardship, every vestige of real transparency and accountability has been eroded and reduced to nothing – secrecy and a culture of ‘we are right’ over-rides every facet of good governance. Oh, we acknowledge the puerile argument that officers do not vote and that it is councillors who make resolutions. However, what pressures are brought to bear? What tainted information is provided upon which to base such decisions? And why on why are certain councillors continually voting en bloc for the vast majority of Newton’s anti community recommendations?

Several years ago, 586 residents signed a petition requesting that councillors advertise the CEO position in order simply to ‘test the waters’ and see who else is available. We remind readers that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz voted against the acceptance of such a petition – a first, we believe in Glen Eira – and hence emblematic of the undemocratic culture that now rules Glen Eira Council.

 

October 7, 2013

Trees V’s Concrete: Guess What Wins In Glen Eira!

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

Storms are an act of god. Falling tree limbs may also be an act of god. What is not an act of god is ensuring that large, mature trees become unstable because you have hacked their root systems to pieces so that any breath of wind is likely to topple them over. That is not an act of god – especially when you have been warned that this could happen. That’s the story of the GESAC car park extension in Gardener’s Road. Council killed off one huge gum almost immediately; last week’s winds completed the job with the remaining 2 huge gums being downed.

Council should be mightily relieved that no-one was killed or injured and that cars just happened NOT to be parked directly under these massive trees. We’ve previously shown photos of the damage done to the roots. Here are the latest shots of the downed trees. Residents may well ask why trees are always second to concrete in Glen Eira and whether or not indifference, if not straight out negligence, ensured the demise of these particular trees.

downed 4

downed1  downed3

downed5

 

October 4, 2013

Collusion & Deceit?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments 

It is our firm belief that further consultation (on residential zones) could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community. (13th August, 2013)

Thus spoke Council as part of the answer to a public question! The villainy is further compounded by the Minister’s mandatory release of his ‘reasons’ for approving Amendment C110 under Section 20(4) – that is, without public consultation. We’ve uploaded the complete Ministerial statement here and highlighted some choice sections below. What is absolutely clear is:

  • Council’s continued responses to public questions were at worst entirely dishonest and, at best, deliberately evasive and disingenuous
  • ‘Negotiations’ between the department, minister, and Council had been ongoing well before the announcement of August 5th 2013
  • The Minister’s statement reads exactly like something that would have been composed by the public relations arm of Council and he merely signed off on it.

Here are some extracts and residents should question the failure of governance that has spawned this amendment  –

The Glen Eira City Council has requested that I prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C110 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, with exemption from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

The Glen Eira City Council gave effect to its Housing and Residential Development Strategy (Strategy) with the introduction in 2004 of Amendment C25. Work on the Strategy commenced in October 2000, and included a community notification and consultation process. Nine community workshops attended by approximately 50 people also contributed to the development and refinement of the Strategy. The Strategy was adopted by the Council in 2002.

Exemption of the amendment under section 20(4) will enable a prompt decision on the adoption and approval of the amendment and will allow for the orderly application of residential zoning controls for this planning scheme, based on previous strategic work. It will avoid the need for a further notification, exhibition and consultation process, which is considered unnecessary given the strategic basis for applying the new zones can be found within the existing planning scheme.

As the Glen Eira City Council has requested the amendment, the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.

I consider that further notification through the formal statutory process is unnecessary. Consultation has been conducted during the development of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy and in relation to Amendment C25, which introduced the local policies upon which the application of the new residential zones is based.

 

October 3, 2013

How Do You Like Them Apples?

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

We urge readers to carefully consider the following map which reveals in all its gory details the consequences of the new residential zones. Please keep in mind the following:

  • All white areas here are Commercial – meaning that there are NO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER
  • Brown areas are 4 storeys
  • Blue areas are 3 storeys, and
  • Green areas are supposedly eligible for only 2 storeys

zones

What this carving up of the municipality, plus the addition to both the brown and blue zones, actually means is that residents living alongside, behind, or opposite certain streets will now be confronted with the view of 3 storeys hovering near, over, and around their properties. Council’s so called ‘transition buffer’ is nothing more than spin and semantics. There is no ‘buffer’ unless you consider that recessive storey setbacks even come close to any form of ‘transition’ that will not impinge on the social, and environmental amenity of neighbours.

Adding to the sheer lunacy is that council, for whatever arbitrary reason has decided that it is okay for the 11th house on one side of Mahvo street to be 4 storeys, the 12th house 3 storeys but the 13 house can remain as the equivalent of minimal change. To compound the stupidity, we then have on the opposite side of the street, only the first 8 properties that are deemed suitable for 3 storeys! This same outcome is evident for all of the areas marked in blue – ie Oak St., Loranne St., Burgandy St., etc.

This pattern is continued throughout Glen Eira. No real strategic justification has been provided for such decisions, and certainly no real safeguards accorded to the 13th and 9th house in Mahvo street. No everyone from the 13th and 9th property will suddenly decide to subdivide and build 2, two storey units. Hence it is conceivable that all such streets will have 3 storey and 4 storey apartments towering over single storey homes. All that has happened is that a magic wand has been waved across Glen Eira and the past policies transferred holus bolus into the new zones (plus some major additions and all without major and long overdue review). And we again remind residents that councillors allowed this to occur in secret, and without proper recourse to the community itself. That is definitely NOT ‘representing’ one’s constituents.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »