Well, the doors were unlocked tonight! However, strange things always seem to be going on – ie. two page 51 of the hard copy agenda items – and with different in camera items included on each! We’ve also learnt that several public questions that had been (a) hand delivered, and (b) emailed were simply not read out. Another ‘clerical error’ perhaps?

We highlight below the discussion on Item 9.1 – the 5 storey planning application and the resulting lack of consensus, vision, and we suggest, clear planning policy.

Motion: instead of 5 storeys, 4 storeys, 1 shop (with loading bay) and up to 30 dwellings instead of 42  (HYAMS/PILLING)

HYAMS: ‘appropriate site for large development’ because in Urban Village….’question is ‘how large?’….(busy area, single storeys across road)…’it will be the highest building in Carnegie…(supermarket carpark available but not for) ‘developers to take advantage of so I would support reducing that requirement….(shops should have loading bays)…’visually I don’t think it’s such a bad development…(conditions will add trees)…’one per 5 visitor (car parking) spaces’….’taking into account the nature of the site and the nature of the surroundings…appropriate compromise (in what’s been asked) and what residents might prefer….

PILLING: Supports motion…’good size development’…’large site, corner site…addition of loading bay…(no 5 storeys in Carnegie, 4 storeys approved before, so ‘appropriate’ (and this is what the) ’emerging streetscape is’….very busy site, very busy intersection…(the motion goes)’ some way to solving some of the issues raised…

PENHALLURIACK: (against and foreshadowed alternative motion)…Argued for 5 storeys because ‘we do need to provide accommodation’….’this is one of the better sites in this area…good off street parking…..I think this would be a good site for development….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports Penhalluriack since ‘ordinarily …I would not support a 5 storey development in this area….5th storey is recessed back (and looks like 4 storeys from street)….’if anywhere else …I would say ‘no to this’…it’s a unique site, it’s a large site….(carparking) there is a supermarket car parking….(and not every space there is going to be used especially on weekends) ‘reality is there will be some visitors….so for that reason I doubt that is an issue….(supported loading bay area)….(will go to VCAT and developers will get what they want) ‘I would have thought this is a perfect site for 5 storeys…If this doesn’t get up I will support
Penhalluriack’s motion…..

FORGE: supports Penhalluriack’s alternative. Spent time ‘wavering between 4 and 5′ (must look at future and how railway lines develop)….’there will be increased traffic to some point’…(in a couple of years down the track more development sites will be put in)…

LOBO: Supports Hyams’ motion which will help ‘reduce traffic and allow people to park quite easily’. Esakoff asked what he’s supporting – the 4 or 5 storey. LOBO: ‘4 storey’.

MAGEE: ‘2 storeys becomes 3, 3 becomes 4, and 4 becomes 5 and on we go’…(Argued that the city is unique and that its incumbent on councillors to try and maintain this uniqueness. When looking into the future and people ask ‘where will Glen Eira be I’d like it to be much) ‘like it is today’…(Hoped that minimal change areas remain as they are today)…(If someone can build 5 storeys then next person can ask for 6, ‘maybe 7’….’we have to be consistent’…’I’m not particularly happy with 4 (would prefer 3)…

TANG: ‘My position was one in favour of refusal…(but recently seen amendments made to planning and then done away at VCAT) and ‘leads to confusion in minds of councillors….and bad planning decisions….particularly around the elsternwick area where we’ve been looking at 14 storey applications….(with) some councillors supporting 14 storeys, some supporting 10, some supporting 7….what’s scared me is if I knock back the proposal (then there’s Penhalluriack’s 5 storeys) ‘which is even worse’….(outlined history of area and)’whilst there is some policy support for higher density areas…I found overwhelming reason to support a refusal…(urged councillors to knock back this motion and) ‘see if we can put together a motion of refusal’…’no less confusing but it’s the best outcome that I can see’….

ESAKOFF: Supports motion (for 4 storeys)…My preference is not for a 5 storey building…..doesn’t abutt other residences….it doesn’t overshadow other residences…it’s an appropriate site for a building of this size….

HYAMS: Size is ‘two or three blocks’…I wouldn’t be supporting a refusal and if I had to choose between (a refusal) and 5 storeys I’d probably go with 5 storeys….’so councillors might want to take that in mind when they’re considering how they might vote on this motion’….(spoke about full supermarket car parking; if it goes to VCAT and the argument that the loading bay would be lost that council has to) ‘stand by principle’….I don’t think this site is worthy of a refusal….(and if it came to a choice between refusal he would go for original recommendations).

MOTION CARRIED 5 to 4

COMMENTS:

• 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys, 10 storeys, 14 storeys, ‘compromise’, ‘refusal’ etc. etc. etc. This is not the first time, nor the last, that the arguments will continue on height limits and parking. Once again this ‘debate’ highlights the arbitrariness of decision making in Glen Eira. With no attempt to achieve interim or permanent height controls for certain areas within the municipality, we can only expect more of the same! Piece meal decision making!

For years now the question of how to protect residents living in Minimal Change Areas that just happen to be near, or abutting activity or neighbourhood centres has been occupying the minds of many ratepayers – if not all councillors and planners! Listed for decision this coming Tuesday is the latest version of  Council’s vision for ‘transition zones’. We urge all readers interested in how this Council approaches planning to pay particular attention to this Item and to ask themselves whether the proposed ‘prescriptive guidance’ will achieve any positive outcomes for residents living in both Minimal Change Areas and in residential areas within Activity Centres.

We’ve received one email on this matter already and publish an edited version of it below:

“The new guidance applies very narrowly and specifically to properties on the Housing Diversity side of a transition boundary. It doesn’t address all the single-storey dwellings inside Housing Diversity areas who are repeatedly having their amenity trashed. It is (to me) blatantly unfair to expect these people to have their amenity trashed by allowing non-compliant developments next them that Council and VCAT refuse to allow elsewhere. In the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 s8 “Recognition and equality before the law”, protections of amenity should be more equal than that. “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” [Not saying developers are animals mind you…]

Council really should be more explicit in saying what the minimum standards of protection are for *all* dwellings in Housing Diversity areas, and publicly justify why lesser protection is appropriate for people who inconveniently get in the way of developers’ profits. I’d go further and include explicit words in the document to make it clear that there are universal human rights and that Council’s policy is for all people to be treated equally–that relaxation of standards are dependent on a development not being sited next to an existing low-rise dwelling. These dwellings provide sensitive interfaces too.

If I was a Councillor I would be looking for a summary covering each proposed development of what standards are being violated, and an explanation provided of why it is appropriate. Helping a developer make more money isn’t good enough … I’d love to hear Councillors explain why the protection proposed is not appropriate for properties inside but not on the transition boundary.”