We’ve commented numerous times on the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and its deficiencies and loopholes. In this post we pinpoint exactly why the scheme fails to do what it is supposed to do – ie provide a detailed and comprehensive blueprint for the future – a vision that has been developed in CONJUNCTION with residents and which has the full support of the community. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme is ill conceived, poorly articulated and does not benefit the majority of residents. As an integrated planning (as opposed to town planning) document it is a shambles. Here are our reasons why –

Quote from Ian Wood, President Save Our Suburbs:

“Found this recently: The Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy 2005 was endorsed by Council in March 2005. This strategy is yet to be incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. [http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1641&h=1] [last updated 7 Sept.2010]!!!!! How bloody long does it take DPCD [Department of Planning & Community Development] to approve this stuff????”

COMMENT – If this is true, here are the likely reasons for the Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy (GEACS) not  being incorporated i.e. not accepted by the Planning Minister:

• The 2005 Strategy is inconsistent with Melbourne 2030 on the status of Glen Huntly;
• The 2005 Strategy proposes no Structure Plans;
• The 2005 Strategy has no impact statement on Centres due to population and housing growth;
• The 2005 Strategy has no relevance to transport issues like congestion and level crossings;
• The 2005 Strategy has not worked through its implications for the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Glen Eira PS) and Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) established prior to 2005;
• The 2005 Strategy identified 52 shopping centres, but the MSS mentions only 17 centres;
• In March 2005 Councillors who endorsed the GEACS were – Bury, Erlich, Grosbard, Hyams, Martens, Marwick,  and Sapir.  Esakoff, and Goudge opposed it.
• In July 2006 the issue of the Glen Huntly status was deliberated and Councillors voted against developing a Structure Plan to determine its status. Councillors that unanimously rejected the Planning Minister’s suggestion were: Ashmor, Esakoff, Feldman, Lipshutz, Robilliard, Spaulding, Staikos, Tang, and Whiteside;
• LPPF Section 21.03 Vision Strategic Framework states – “The Glen Eira Community Plan identifies the corporate direction of Council over a 3 year period (2001-2004)” and from 1996 “Glen Eira 2020 identifies a long-term vision for the municipality over the next 20 years. Glen Eira 2020 identifies a desired future for the City and was developed through analysis of trends and consultation with the community”. This is a back to the future Vision. Where is the new updated and accepted by the community, Community Plan?;
• LPPF Section 21.04 Housing & Residential Development – extensive & detailed to develop 20% of Glen Eira, whereas only 8% development is needed. No justification for this course of action is given;
• LPPF Section 21.06 Business – policy focus to improve Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie and nowhere else. That is in spite of the population and housing growth everywhere in Glen Eira;
• LPPF Section 21.08 Institutional & Non-residential uses in Residential Areas – policy focus only on schools/hospitals. Nothing on “medical centres, churches, childcare and kindergartens”. Purpose of this policy is to “encourage uses that retain housing stock”;
•  LPPF Section 21.09 Public Uses / Community Facilities – general and non-specific with this telling statement “With the corporatisation of a number of government utilities it is no longer necessary for sites owned by private utility company to be included in a Public Use Zone”. MRC was structured in 1990s to utilize this argument admirably;
• LPPF Section 21.09 again “The plan also examines properties that are Council owned or zoned for public uses in order to determine the opportunities for each property to maximize the potential return to the community.” Can anyone explain this gobbledygook?
• LPPF Section 21.12 Transport – Short and sweet. No problems. Forget about complaining;
• LPPF Section 21.13 Open Space – states the shortage of Open Space. No mention of the Crown Land provisions at the Caulfield Racecourse and no strategy to increase the amount of Open Space. Accept the reality!
• LPPF Section 21.14 Monitoring & Review – “A review of this planning scheme will be undertaken at least every three years”. The last Review accepted by the planning Minister occurred in 2004, gazetted with permanent control 27 May 2004. No acceptable review has taken place in 2007 or 2010;
• LPPF Section 22.02 Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy – extensive & detailed description of how “medical centres, schools, parks, churches, childcare, and kindergartens [are placed and located] within residential areas”. No objective or policy analysis as to whether we need more or less of such community facilities and why we may need it. No factual information and data to support the objectives and policies. One of the objectives states “To encourage proposals that retain the existing housing stock within the municipality”. Increasing the stock is certainly retaining it;
• LPPF Section 22.04 Commercial Centres Policy – Deals with Business Zone. Short and sweet. Only Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie are to develop their retailing space. The following telling statement summarises the Policy “Retail and commercial floorspace is at a level that currently serves the needs of the community. Additional floorspace must be closely monitored ensuring established centres are not weakened”. Can anyone explain how does the support of Caulfield Village with its proposed 35,000 square metres additional commercial floorspace maintain consistency with this Policy?
• LPPF Section 22.05 Urban Villages Policy – Deals extensively and in detail with the 3 Urban Villages of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, whose Structure Plans were developed in June 1999. However, they never followed the guidelines of Melbourne 2030, in particular in regards to Community Consultation Process. For this reason those Plans are described in Structure Plans Status document as Other Spatial Plans. Essentially those plans have never had even a modicum of acceptance by the residents of those Villages. Each one of them has now got Residents Groups up in arms as to the way those areas are being developed 

All the information on LPPF and the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is available on line www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/gleneira/home.html . 

The question arises what makes for a good Planning Scheme. The answer is very simple. Any area plan affecting residents should have a modicum of support from people living in those areas. There is not one shred of evidence that this has happened in Glen Eira. The six point Community Consultation is a tick the box approach to satisfy the legislation and nothing else.  

Yet some stakeholders have benefited from the great development that has occurred in Glen Eira. The question arises who are those beneficiaries and who on the Council has also benefitted if there is no general support from the community?