September 25, 2020

Election: Athanasopolous

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2020
[5] Comments 

Here are the commitments made by Tony Athanasopolous’ for the 2016 elections in his candidate statement:

I believe in a council where your rates are low and you get proper service for your money. Cleaner streets. Well maintained footpaths and trees. And better local roads. I want our council to stand up for you to stop overdevelopment You deserve active representation. Your Councillor should be open and someone who fights for your equal share of our resources. I live in Carnegie and proudly run a family business, Liana James Hair & Beauty on Koornang Road. We have been in business in Glen Eira for 16 years. I am the Chairperson of the Carnegie Traders Association, I’ve worked closely with the Murrumbeena Scope House (disability support) and I’m currently the President of the Chrisalis Foundation helping people living with a disability. I’m passionate about our community and helping others. I will: fight to keep your rates low; stop over development; ensure maintenance of skyrail; provide more local parking; clean up shopping areas and be your strong voice on council. I would be honoured if you voted 1 for me and after that, consider two other outstanding candidates Jane Karslake and David Box.

Residents will need to decide how well these ‘promises’ have been carried out!

In the four years he has been on council, our reckoning is that he has missed at least 11 council meetings – that is almost a year’s worth of formal council meetings. Hence close to a 25% absentee rate. More importantly, he has voted in favour of the officer recommendations for all of the following contentious planning issues – many in the face of a huge community outcry (ie Elsternwick Structure Plan in particular):

Bentleigh structure plan

Carnegie structure plan

Elsternwick structure plan

Quality Design guidelines

Glen Huntly Structure Plan (both versions)

Parking Policy

East Village Structure Plan

Inkerman Road Bike Path

On individual planning applications, he has either moved or seconded the approval for permits on the following: (the dates indicate the respective council meetings)

1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie– Part three and part four storey building comprising of 38 dwellings above two levels of basement car parking (20/12/2016)

153 Poath Road, Murrumbeena – Four storey building comprising a shop and 10 dwellings above basement car parking (20/12/2016)

360 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Four storey building comprising ground floor shop and 16 dwellings (28/2/2017)

1254-1258 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – A 6 storey building comprising a shop, cafe and 79 dwellings above a basement car park. Resolution was for 5 storeys. (21/3/2017)

248 Jasper Road, McKinnon – Four storey building comprising a food and drink premise, four (4) dwellings and the waiver of the car parking requirement for the food and drink premise. (12/4/2017)

102 & 102A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North – Three storey building comprising 8 dwellings above basement car parking. (23/5/2017)

532 North Road, Ormond – Five storey building comprising a retail premises and six dwellings. (23/5/2017)

1A Kokaribb Road, Carnegie – Six storey building comprising a shop and 12 dwellings above basement. (23/5/2017)

16-18 Hamilton Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey. 29 dwellings (13/6/2017)

219 Tucker Road, McKinnon – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of five dwellings, a shop and basement carpark; reduction of visitor and shop car parking requirements. Permit for 3 storeys. 5/9/2017

48 Thomas Street, Brighton East – 2 double storeys. 17/10/2017

27 Draper Street, McKinnon – 3 double storeys 6/2/2018

11 Perth Street, Murrumbeena – Construction of five (5) triple storey dwellings above a basement car park. 27/2/2018

279-281 Jasper Road, McKinnon – child care centre. 20/3/2018

45-47 KANGAROO ROAD & 33 HOWE STREET MURRUMBEENA – Demolition of the existing three dwellings A total of fifteen (15) dwellings proposed including 10x three storey and 5x two storey attached townhouses   (22/5/2018)

1207 Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly – Construction of a part three (3), part four (4) storey building comprising a shop, office and dwelling (26/9/2018)

749-753 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield – Demolition of the existing building and construction of a 4 storey building on land within the Heritage Overlay, use of the land for the purpose of dwellings and reduction of the car parking requirement for a shop. (27/11/2018)

846-848 North Road, Bentleigh East – Construction of fourteen (14) townhouses and alteration to a Road in Road Zone Category 1 (30/4/2019)

317 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Construction of a five storey building comprising offices and dwellings and associated car parking. (13/8/2019)

456 Glen Eira road, Caulfield – 5 dwellings in NRZ (16/10/2019)

1 Foster Street, Elsternwick – To consider an application for the demolition of the existing building and construction of six double storey dwellings above basement carparking (12 OBJECTIONS) (9/6/2020)

 

September 22, 2020

Election: It’s Time For Real Change

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2020
[13] Comments 

For all of those residents who are seeking change in Glen Eira we are delighted to announce that only 4 incumbents have decided to stand again. They are:

Margaret Esakoff

Tony Athanasopolous

Ann Marie Cade, and

Jim Magee

This means that with the potential for at least 5 new councillors, things can change. Camden ward is now entirely open given the resignation of Delahunty and the fact that Silver and Sztrajt have decided not to run again.

Rosstown is still being fought for with two incumbents standing again, (Athanasopolous & Esakoff) whilst Tucker also has two councillors seeking re-election (Magee & Cade)

Please note the following:

Margaret Esakoff was first elected in 2003. That makes it 17 years straight on council. Residents should ask themselves: ‘what has she achieved’ throughout this mammoth time? If change is what people want, then in our view, 21 years should not be endorsed again.

The same could be said for Magee. First elected in 2008. What has he achieved in 12 years?

Ann Marie Cade is a third time council candidate having exchanged preferences over the past few elections with Hyams. Once more, what can she offer and what has she achieved?

Athansopolous is the most recent addition to council chambers. In his 4 years on council his voting patterns have been clearly aligned with those seeking more and more development and bike paths where they simply cause much angst and division.

Finally, we are truly delighted that Hyams has decided to call it quits. His run stretches over 14 years as a councillor and Mayor. His legacy will forever be the secret introduction of the residential zones, his support for the Caulfield Village, demolition of Frogmore, and in recent times his support for the 9 storey application for 7 Selwyn Street. All of these accomplished in the face of strong community opposition.

Unfortunately, we also find that the current crop of candidates feature more ‘faceless’ stooges standing NOT because they know a damn thing about council, and probably their community, but they are there simply to support one or other of the major political parties, or see being a councillor as the first step to a parliamentary career. We will comment on these individuals in the days to come.

What is absolutely clear however, is that the October elections are the first real opportunity for residents to voice their disapproval of what has been happening in Glen Eira for well over the past decade. So if you care about open space, overdevelopment, real community consultation, and actions that are in accord with the majority of resident wishes, then now is the time to vote out all incumbents and elect councillors who will truly represent us as ratepayers.

Below is the complete list of candidates in their ballot paper positions –

CAMDEN

ZYNGIER, David

GROSSBARD, Alan

GRAEVE, Harry

IAMPOLSKI, Rachel

KARSLAKE, Jane

MILEIKOWSKI, Ethan

ZMOOD, Simone

MANSFIELD, Jesse Dean

STECKOLL, Ricci

TEROLLI, Jon

SIMPKINS, Cameron

KHOROSHINA, Nellie

PARASOL, Sam

 

ROSSTOWN

OSWALD, Markus

PTOK, Gregor

ATHANASOPOULOS, Tony

HO, Kelvin

DARIOL, Jack

PILLING, Neil

ZOIS, Con

PENNICUIK, Sue

ESAKOFF, Margaret

OZA, Dev

SPAULDING, Robert

BALZER, Simon

VAN NOORDEN, John

 

TUCKER

BEILBY, Joanne

ZHANG, Li

BREWSTER, Neil

MAGEE, Jim

BACH, Joshua

DZIALOSHINSKY, Jacob

CADE, Anne-Marie

DE’ATH, Philip

MARTIN, Declan

SANTOS, Cristina

 

Source: https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/voting/2020-local-council-election/elections/glen-eira-city-council/nominations

 

September 21, 2020

Elections: Pilling

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2020
[6] Comments 

It’s somewhat of a surprise to read that a former councillor and Mayor, Neil Pilling, is seeking to stand for council again in Rosstown Ward. Residents may remember his far from auspicious departure in 2016 when he failed to gain re-election. Also worth remembering is the fact that when first elected, Pilling stood as a Green candidate. This time around he is standing as an ‘independent’.

Throughout his previous reign as a councillor, Pilling drew plenty of criticism for his stance on development, and repeatedly supporting the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff. In fact, he represented 25% of the four man panel that granted the MRC everything it wanted in regards to the Caulfield Village development. He was also part of the vote that decided to abandon an amendment to place the building at 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie under heritage protection thus ignoring over 1000 signatures that had been signed in a formal petition to council. His was the casting vote in this decision!

Here are some facts on how he voted during his previous time as a councillor. The majority of the following were either moved or seconded by Pilling.

1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD – application was for 12 storeys and 173 dwellings. Esakoff and Pilling moved motion for 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. The motion was carried on the vote of the chairman (Hyams). VCAT then awarded the developer the 12 storeys.

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH – 5 storeys, 12 units

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 40 dwellings

30-32 Ames Avenue, Carnegie – 13 double storeys

115-125 Poath Road Murrumbeena – 4 storeys, 33 dwellings

67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 5 and 6 storeys, 30 dwellings

401-407 Neerim Road Carnegie – 5 storeys, 57 units

144 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 6 storeys 40 dwellings. Pilling voted against refusing this application.

2-4 Penang Street MCKINNON – 3 storey, 24 units. Pilling voted against refusing this application

15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 52 units.

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 41 units

29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 42 units

168 Hotham Street ELSTERNWICK – application was for 7 storeys, 104 dwellings. Motion became 5 storeys and 78 dwellings

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON –3 & 4 storey, 31 dwellings. Pilling voted against refusal of permit

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 117 dwellings

27 and 29 Jasper Road BENTLEIGH – 3 storeys, 25 units

629-631 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – 4 storeys, 25 units

337-343 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH- 3 storey 32 units

1 WAHGOO ROAD, CARNEGIE – voted to abandon amendment to go to panel regarding Heritage protection. Pilling used his casting vote here.

5-7 Nepean Hwy ELSTERNWICK – part 4 and 5 storey, 53 units

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 34 units

670-672 CENTRE ROAD & 51 BROWNS ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – part 3 and 5 storey, 67 dwellings

There are plenty more, but what voters need to ask themselves is pretty clear – is this candidate worthy of your vote?

 

September 18, 2020

Spin & More Spin Plus Selective Editing!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

It has taken council no less than 4 weeks to fulfill its promise of answering ALL questions posed by residents at the 20th August Zoom meeting on planning.

What is concerning about the responses is:

  • The failure to answer some of the questions posed
  • The reliance on more and more motherhood statements that are meaningless
  • The unwillingness to engage directly (and honestly) with what the questions actually asked.

We’ve uploaded council’s version of the questions and their responses HERE.

Even more significant is the number of questions that remain unanswered. We list them below. We have edited out comments and only included what can be regarded as ‘questions’.

How many homes has the State govt required GE to provide over what period of time and how are we on track for that? At some point can we say ‘that’ it, we’ve built  our allocation and we can stop now’?

Can you define housing and how the current repeat building of shoe boxes is meeting the needs of older Australian’s or young families

Ron’s  photo with title”the right housing in the right place” is shops and apartments at corner of Glenhuntly Road corner of James St in Glen Huntly. But this development has a step at shop front doors and disabled access is only by pressing buzzer through apartment entry in side street. Does Glen Eira Planning Scheme now require universal access for all new shops and ground floor apartment ? Especially as Ron noted aging population wit likely greater accessibility needs.

How is planning going to fund adequate open space into activity centres, areas of need, increased population to ensure resident recreation, mental health and a decent Urban Forest policy as if 5.7% open space levy has not increased open space, 8.3% may well also be inadequate.

in regards to the Elsternwick Structure Plan, particularly as it relates to the Urban Renewal North Area. In Dec 2018 we were provided with a step-by-step process by the Mayor. Where are we at right now specifically in that  process that was presented?

How does bulldozing one heritage home after another present has proctection

In Feb 2018, Council endorsed max. of 5 stories in all Neighbourhood Centres as recommended by the Planning Officers.  To have made this recommendation Planning Officers must have undertaken statistical analysis that supported that decision.  Please advise when the Amendments supporting a request for interim height controls for 5 stories was submitted to the Minister

You mention diversity but there seems to be little diversity in  what’s being built that’s new… lots of tiny apartments.  What about townhouses, low cost housing, well equipped house sized apartments for downsizers …??

what is the status of the Caulfield North Activity Centre planning? has it been discussed with the community because the area is a real dogs breakfast at present

how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?

When will ESD LPP be introduced and when will Council include zero net emissions from buildings  and transport by 2030 in the Planning Scheme? Is Council considering water sensitive design and biodiversity sensitive design? How will council prioiritise active transport and reduce car-dependence and car-parking provision?

how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?

It sounds like the Planning team is under-resourced, having to put important work on hold while attending to other work – do you need more staff?

Sorry Matt but if the council isn’t listening to the community why spend money on so called “consultation”.

Caulfield South is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which, in the Glen Eira City Plan 2020, height limits of buildings in commercial zones are designated as 5 storeys.

 As we meet this evening there are 5 developer proposals heading to VCAT:  one of 9 storeys, one of 8 storeys and three buildings of 7 storeys in Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre. Caulfield South is not a Major Activity Centre. Developments of this nature will seriously impact the neighbouring properties and destroy the concept of what is presently a neighbourhood centre.

Residents should not be expected to fight these battles on their own. As there are no structure plans in place for Caulfield South, and there are currently no mandatory height limits for Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre, residents will struggle to win at VCAT.

Will Council commit to defending its City Plan by providing external legal representation to help residents oppose these developments when each of these proposals goes before VCAT?

CONCLUSION(S)

The questions that weren’t answered are important. Some seek information on status of policies and structure planning; others seek specific statistics that council should have at its fingertips. In terms of council’s needs is it really that difficult to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a straight forward question of ‘do you need more planning staff’?

Given the sheer number of questions that didn’t receive an ‘answer’, it is impossible to accept the possibility that missing all of these was nothing more than an ‘oversight’. So why weren’t they answered? And why does council keep promising things that it has no intention of fulfilling?

 

September 16, 2020

Council Elections

Posted by gleneira under Election 2020
[10] Comments 

With council elections looming fast, we will be presenting information on all candidates as this becomes available.

First cab off the rank is an interview conducted by Gary Max (“Talking to the Max”) on the local radio station J’Air (J’air.com.au). It features Simone Zmood who is standing as an independent in Camden Ward.

 

 

September 8, 2020

Public Question Responses!

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

It literally staggers belief how often public questions remain unanswered and unchallenged by our group of councillors. Last week’s council meeting was the perfect example of a council determined to deflect, dissemble, and refuse point blank to respond accurately and transparently to resident concerns. It remains one of the most shameful incidents of recent times.

There were quite a number of questions at this meeting. We will highlight only one of the responses  in this post – (they certainly do not merit being called  ‘answers’).

QUESTION: Can Council advise what is the number of additional dwellings that are possible under the current Planning Scheme and the total dwelling capacity of Glen Eira? 

RESPONSE: There is no prescribed limit to the number of dwellings that can be provided under the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. The Victorian Planning System is performance based, which means that every application requires analysis of its context and the application of policies and established planning principles. The planning system is designed to enable development while protecting amenity. 

As such, the total dwelling capacity of the municipality is not fixed. 

Council however monitors the number of new dwellings that have been constructed against State Government housing targets identified in Victoria in Future. Council has previously informed you that Glen Eira is on track to meet the State Government housing targets. 

COMMENT: The question was very straight forward – ie asking for the number of ‘possible’ additional dwellings given the current Planning Scheme. The response was a deft deflection through the use of the word ‘prescribed’. Yes, nothing much is ‘prescribed’ in the Planning Scheme, and ‘yes’ it is “performance based’ where each application is evaluated individually. Having said all that, what council has refused to acknowledge is that every single version of its structure planning is based on a ‘capacity’ or ‘opportunity’ analysis of the municipality’s housing.

In 2017 we got 2 versions of such documents as the  Analysis of housing consumption and opportunities. On top of this we also have: Planning Strategy Impacts on Housing Opportunity. This latter document included the sentence: Council should seek to demonstrate adequate Housing Opportunity to ensure that expected housing targets will be met. Thus available land, population, and residents per dwellings are crunched to envisage some kind of ‘capacity’ under different zonings.

Even in the documentation accompanying  the draft C184 Amendment for Bentleigh & Carnegie we also have the 2020 version from SGS entitled: Addendum: Updated Housing Assessment for Bentleigh and Carnegie Activity Centres. In short, every application for interim heights and/or structure plans has included data on the potential number of additional dwellings that can be crammed into the municipality.

Here’s a breakdown of the published data:

In October 2017, we were told that housing ‘opportunity’ was – Using various methodologies outlined previously, this report has identified opportunities within the City of Glen Eira to provide a net gain of 25,970 dwellings. At 2011-2016 rates of development, this represents approximately 36 years of supply. This figure was repeated by the authors in the December 2017 version.

What needs to be remembered is that this data was the ‘backbone’ for the introduction of the interim height amendments C147 and C148 that had discretionary 6 and 7 storeys for Carnegie and 4 mandatory and 5 discretionary for Bentleigh. With Amendment C157 (August 2018) this suddenly became 12 storeys mandatory for Carnegie. And now through proposed Amendment C184, these mandatory heights are to become discretionary, plus the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for properties proposed to be zoned GRZ5. NRZ2 will revert to pre 2004 site coverage of 60%.

What’s important is that the so called experts were telling us that with the first versions of structure planning we would achieve the potential of 25,970 net new dwellings – nearly 8000 more than required by Victoria in Future 2019. Hence, why is council prepared to accept even more and more rezoning and greater heights that destroy our neighbourhoods?

And why can’t council quote these very figures in response to a public question? Is it because they do not want residents to suddenly put one and one together and start questioning the very basis of all planning in Glen Eira? If in 2017 we had capacity for over 25000 net new dwellings, then surely we don’t need structure plans that allow developers to reach for the sky? Or is this simply another example of council’s pro-development agenda?

The refusal to provide a straight forward response to a public question, when all the data has previously been published, is inexcusable.

 

September 4, 2020

Open Space & More Secrecy!

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

Council’s penchant for secrecy and burying important news in its voluminous documentation continues with the release of the July 2020 financial report contained in the agenda for the upcoming Special council meeting (8th September).

We learn that $150,000 has been spent on the purchase of 66 and 66a Mackie Road, Bentleigh East. This is a 937 square metre property, that directly abuts Mackie Reserve. The property was sold on the 20th July 2020 for $1.605M. We can only assume the $150,000 is only the deposit and that settlement had not as yet occurred to warrant entry in the July financial report.

Why is there no open and transparent statement from council as to this purchase? Why is something as important as open space buried deep with two throwaway lines in a financial report that we doubt many people would bother ploughing through? Why the secrecy once the purchase has been made?

There are many queries regarding this purchase:

  • Does this constitute a wise decision given its 500 metre proximity to Bailey Reserve and the fact that at the back of this property sits Mackie Reserve? The following map illustrates other open space areas within walking distance.

  • Is it ‘beneficial’ to simply increase the size of existing open space when countless other areas are severely open space deficient – ie major activity centres?
  • Why was this land purchased when the Open space Refresh only graded its ‘importance’ as ‘medium’. And why was the land bought prior to the recommendations of the OSS, that a master plan be created for this reserve? As far as we know, no ‘consultation’ on Mackie Reserve has been done. Here are the ‘recommendations’ of the Open Space Refresh –

The following image from Google Earth shows why we have major concerns about this purchase and whether it is really ‘value for money’. Nothing however can excuse this council’s refusal to be open and transparent with its ratepayers.

 

 

September 2, 2020

Shameful!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

This is a very, very brief report on last night’s council meeting. It represents in our view one of the most shameful performances in living memory. Inconsistencies in argument abounded, as did the continuation of council policy in NEVER, but NEVER answering residents’ questions that are deemed ‘embarrassing’ to council. And God forbid that any councillor actually has the balls to criticise or even question such responses or the substandard officer reports that are continually tabled in chamber.

The true highlight is Athanasopolous’ comment that councillors should not appear to be in the ‘pockets of residents’. Esakoff and her cohort were guilty of this very thing – but only when it suited. On the one hand they supported the 9 storey development in Selwyn Street in the face of massive opposition, and then when it came to the Glen Huntly Structure Plan, the argument suddenly changed to we ‘have to listen to our residents’.

Each and every one of these councillors has failed the community time and time again. It is definitely time for change.

 

August 31, 2020

Caulfield South!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Featured below is an interview with a Caulfield South resident on what is happening to this neighbourhood centre. As we have stated numerous times residents have never been given a clear unequivocal answer as to whether or not Caulfield South, Bentleigh East and now Caulfield North will have structure plans with mandatory heights, or merely Urban Design Frameworks that are nothing more than ‘guidelines’. More to the point, even if structure planning is undertaken, it will still take years and years for these plans to have any legal effect.  In the meantime these suburbs will, and are already, having high rise plonked alongside one and two storey dwellings.

Council is of course playing the blame game – ie it is all the government’s fault. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had council done what every other council has for the past decade, such as structure planning, design and development overlays, and decent strategic planning, we would not be in the mess we are now. Residents are the true victims of this councils inaction and pro development agenda for the past 15 years!!!!!

Please listen to this interview since it reveals fully the impact on residents.

 

August 29, 2020

Going From Bad To Disastrous!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments 

At Tuesday’s meeting, council will consider an application for a 9 storey building opposite the Woolworths application for a 14 and 10 storey apartment/supermarket complex. The VCAT decision on the latter is imminent.

In regards to the current application the officer recommended a permit. Please note the following:

  • The application includes provision for a maximum of 600 people attending the building at the same time. Hours will be up to 10pm on most days
  • The parking shortfall is 231 and this is considered ‘acceptable’ given the availability of public transport. There will be NO ONSITE PARKING available.
  • The height of the proposed building is equivalent to what the Woolworth’s proposal is
  • Overshadowing and overlooking is ‘acceptable’ according to the report because this is an ‘activity centre’ and hence can’t have the same safeguards

The one sentence in this entire unbelievable report which is completely insulting and dismissive to residents and objectors reads:  Each of these matters (ie objections) have been considered in this report and there are no outstanding objector concerns to consider.

Our take on this report is that resident objections have NOT BEEN considered in any meaningful way. The entire report is designed to justify the unjustifiable. We do not deny the importance of a Jewish cultural precinct, nor the fact that both state and federal governments have provided millions to ensure this happens. What we do object to strongly is the failure to assess this application on pure planning matters and current council policies.

For starters the actual permit conditions concentrate almost exclusively on what most residents would regard as ‘minor’ compared to size, bulk, and traffic management issues. We get pages and pages about preserving the Kuldig stained glass windows and the bass relief. Pages and pages about ‘updated’ traffic and acoustic reports – but only after development has already been done! Of course there is the usual Construction Management conditions but hardly a word about setbacks, heights, etc. All of the latter remain ‘acceptable’ in this report.

Much is made of the current interim structure plan and the Design and Development Overlay No.10. Yet in this report basic features are easily pushed aside. For example: on street wall height the DDO requires 13 metres and upper level setbacks of 5 metres. The application is for A four storey, 17.39m high street wall is proposed along the Selwyn Street frontage. In determining that this is okay, we get this gem:

Whilst this is higher than that envisaged by the DDO, it is consistent with the recently approved street wall height of the Holocaust Centre immediately to the north at number 13-15 Selwyn Street. 

In the first place council granted the 13-15 Selwyn Street permit in June 2018. Amendment C157 was gazetted in 16th August 2018. That is two months after council granted the permit. Hence there was no DDO at the time of this decision. Also worthy of noting is that council’s structure plan had already been accepted with a three storey street wall height in February of 2018. Council’s incompetence at that time in ignoring its own structure plan and Quality Design Guidelines therefore paves the way for this application to get the nod and the pathetic argument is that because one building has a four storey street front it is okay for the entire street to look like this – ie. the podium is acceptable and will provide a consistent street wall character. 

We next come to the issue of overall height and again the variance with the current DDO –

The roof height complies with the DDO, whilst the architectural feature that serves to screen and integrate the plant equipment extends more than 4m above that the preferred height. It is important to recognise that the architectural feature is curved, so its encroachment is softened. It is considered that the curved design of this feature is an important design element as it not only serves to screen the plant equipment, but also adds visual interest and a more sculpture look to the tower 

Does this mean that anything that is of ‘visual interest’ or ‘curved’ can attain any height the developer wants – in spite of what planning law states?

One of the most questionable ‘conditions’ comes with the issue of overlooking. Instead of requiring the developer to alter his plans, council comes up with the following ‘solution’ –

To limit overlooking impacts from these areas, expanded metal mesh cladding is proposed to cover the entire windows of these areas. The cladding will only be 23 per cent visually permeable. This affords a higher degree of protection than if the Clause 55 overlooking standard was applied. 

So we get to the ludicrous situation that where ‘convenient’ for the developer, Clause 55 does come into play and is ‘improved’ upon – even though it carried no real weight given the proposed height.

The best part is the finding that a car parking waiver of 231 spots is just fine! Why? –

The proposal generates a requirement for 231 car parking spaces and 17 bicycle parking spaces based on the Scheme requirements. No car parking is provided as this is not achievable on this land due to both the shape and size of the lot, however 40 bicycle parking spaces are provided.  

And

It is recognized that there are no options for providing any on-site parking and this must be balanced with the broader benefit of the building. 

Really? So local residents are nothing more than ‘collateral damage’????!!!!!!! And since when are there ‘no options’. There are no ‘options’ only when it doesn’t suit council and the developer and the objective is to have a 9 storey building! 

Apart from this nonsense we also have to take the word of transport assessments that state:

Car parking surveys of the area demonstrate that throughout the day there are at least 100 spaces available with typical occupancy rates of approximately 20% at the busiest times which increases to approximately 50% outside of peak times. 

Even if this were true, it does not include the resultant traffic and parking issues created by the Woolworths development and the potential supermarket traffic and that of 173 apartments in the complex. More importantly, since this application wants attendances until 10pm at night then the argument about other developments wanting ‘long term car parking’ spots goes out the window. How many visitors attending a function until 10pm that starts at say 7pm will want to travel home by public transport – especially the elderly?

Basic questions have simply not been addressed or brushed under the carpet. The so called developer’s answer to traffic and parking includes a majority of ‘promote’ options with no empirical evidence provided that these have a chance in hell to be successful.

All in all, this is a deplorable officer’s report and should be condemned for what it really is – an excuse to give the developer everything he wants. This council is simply going from bad to worse in order to facilitate its pro development agenda!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »