Glen Eira Debates

Source: https://www.monash.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Euneva-car-park-update

The following screen dumps and quotes all come from council’s consultant’s report – Glen Eira Transport Analysis & Forecasting. (Uploaded HERE).

The examples we’ve chosen whilst concentrating on Bentleigh apply to all centres and make it absolutely clear that:

• Council intends to flog off public land for multi-storey parking lots
• Traffic management/parking plans will see a reduction in the current regulations for both commercial and residential development in our activity centres (more on this below)
• The agenda has always been, and remains more and more development and less and less car parking and decent development levies.

Currently the State Government ‘standards’ are clear (ie 1 car space for single bedroom, 2 car spaces for 3 and more bedrooms, plus rates for commercial enterprises depending on their nature and floor size). Council has the right to introduce what is known as parking overlays and thus change these requirements. Currently Glen Eira’s handful of parking overlays only concern student accommodation. We do not have any that control the commercial areas, or our activity centres. Council is now set to introduce such overlays.

We certainly have no objections to fostering greater ‘walkability’ or increased use of public transport. Our concerns relate to what is currently proposed and the spurious arguments that accompany these proposals. The central issues are:

• Parking overlays that include MAXIMUM rates instead of the current MINIMUM rates. If a maximum rate is imposed that means that developments can supply anything up to the maximum – ie a lot less! By contrast a minimum rate sets out the standard that must be met!
• Introducing a levy on developers for car parking waivers is fine in theory. It is not ‘fine’ however when the recommendation is a ‘reduced’ waiver so as not to deter development!

When for year after year residents have complained about the lack of adequate parking provision for residential and commercial with shop-top housing, then the intention to further reduce the meagre current demands is totally unacceptable.

We urge readers to carefully consider the following and what they could mean for Glen Eira!

Here are some quotes from this ‘discussion paper’. Again, please carefully note the implications and how some of these comments even contradict what is in council’s ‘Parking Analysis’ paper for Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick!

While this analysis suggests parking is sufficiently or perhaps slightly undersupplied in Bentleigh, consideration of some additional best practice benchmarks for parking supply is instructive, and highlights the extent to which parking may in fact be oversupplied in Bentleigh (page 18)

the Bentleigh activity centre has a significant oversupply of car parking, relative to best practice guidance on appropriate parking supply for centres well-served by public transport (page 19)

The expanse of parking to the north of Centre Road, however, has a much greater negative impact on the public realm, as shown in Figure 4-8. The space allocated to parking is disproportionate to the size of the public space available on Centre Road, and significantly reduces the potential residential catchment within a walkable distance to local retail, restaurants and public transport. Additionally, the large carpark dominated environs lack quality shaded footpath links, ‘eyes on the street’ and visual variation, further reducing the safety and appeal of active travel (page 25)

Cl. 52.06 rates are designed to provide parking supply that matches demand, essentially ensuring parking does not become a scarce resource. This however removes a potential signal to encourage people to alter parking behaviour and travel choices. The unintended consequence of this is that the extent of parking supplied in adherence to minimum parking rates significantly detracts from the vibrancy and quality of the public realm, and excessive space allocated to parking can crowd out the potential for greater active travel participation. (page 28)

As intensification and redevelopment of the activity centre occurs, there is likely to be some demand for car-free housing options. Planning policy that does not cater to this demand will impose unnecessary costs on housing provision and may encourage higher car ownership and usage (Page 29)

The substantial drop in population density with a 5-minute walkable catchment in comparison to a 10-minute catchment is also of concern, and suggests some additional main street shop top housing options would be welcome, as well as some infill development of existing surface car parking sites. (page 31)

Ahead of development of multi-story parking buildings or other replacement uses, Council should improve its understanding of the current use of existing parking facilities. Replacement of parking spaces on a like-for-like basis may not be required, depending on occupancy of current facilities and the future use of management tools such as pricing that may reduce parking demands. Benchmarking of parking supply at Bentleigh against best-practice guidelines (see Section 4.3.1) suggests parking supply may be significantly higher than levels that are appropriate in locations such as Bentleigh with high levels of public transport accessibility. Review of occupancy data further suggests that like-for-like replacement of parking spaces would be unnecessary and probably inappropriate (page 45)

There are many questions/issues regarding the so called structure planning for Virginia Estate that residents have been left in the dark about.  Unfortunately, the 9 documents released by the VPA provide few answers. It should also be noted that three of the most important documents only made their appearance following the closure of ‘community consultation’!!!!!

What we still don’t know and what will have a major influence on the final development plans are:

1. Will the entire 24 hectare site be rezoned to Commercial 1 or a Combination of Commercial 1 and Mixed Use. If this occurs then the entire site will be available for residential development. Or will we have a rezoning that makes this site a Priority Development Zone akin to Caulfield Village and thus opens up a completely different kettle of fish?
2. If there is to be ‘office’ accommodation (ie a zoning of Commercial 2) then how much of the land will carry this zoning and therefore prohibit residential development?
3. Will we have MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMITS or discretionary height limits?
4. Will we have height according to Australian Height Datum (AHD) as with the Caulfield Village instead of a fixed number of mandatory storeys?
5. Will the existing Schedule which states that any development plan SHOULD be exhibited be replaced with MUST BE EXHIBITED? If this isn’t changed then residents need to be aware that legally this means there are no objection rights once the plans come in and council doesn’t even have to exhibit the plans!
6. Thus far nothing has been released about traffic, drainage, and levies payable by the developers. Reading between the lines it appears that council will be quite prepared to accept a meagre acre and a half for open space instead of exacting either a decent allocation of open space or some major financial payment. As for traffic and drainage, all we get are admissions that these present some major problems and will be attended to further down the track!
7. We also are very sceptical regarding the stated number of ‘preliminary dwellings’ – 3000. When the site was 12.5 hectares Gillon proposed over 4000 dwellings (see below). Now that the site has literally doubled in size and there are two new ‘partners’, we are told that with a doubling of land size available the owners have magnanimously decided to only erect 3000 dwellings! The ‘escape clause’ is of course the word ‘preliminary’!!!!!! Beware we say!

What is even more disturbing about some of the documentation provided is to be found in the following:

As far as we know, the criterion of ‘net developable land’ is used only as part of calculations for open space levies/developer contributions – and not for ‘structure planning’ per se. Its inclusion here raises countless questions.

Further, if we look at ‘land use outcomes’ then a mere 4.7% as ‘residential’ is really pushing the limits of credibility. As it stands all of these categories (ie Commercial, Mixed Use and Retail) can allow residential development. A lot more clarity, precision, and less sleight of hand by the VPA, council and the developers would be highly welcomed!

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has released its latest figures for building approvals in local councils. The numbers are for a six month period – July 2017 to December 2017. As can be seen from the table below, only Monash has had a greater number of permits granted. However, once we take into account Monash’s size (81 square km) and its proportion of houses to apartments, then Glen Eira still leads the pack in terms of increasing density, lack of open space, minimal single house replacements, and most mind boggling is how our ‘neighbours’ can have less than half of the developments that are occurring in this municipality.

Given these figures it is unbelievable that our council is paving the way for more and more development via its current planning strategies rather than attempting to seriously curb this growth.

PS – WE’VE UPLOADED THE ABS DATA HERE