January 19, 2018
What Would 2018 Look Like?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
January 16, 2018
Still Heading The State For Over-Development!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[12] Comments
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
January 14, 2018
Look What’s Coming!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[8] Comments
Listed below is a sample of applications that have recently come into council. All are still awaiting decision. We have not included applications which are seeking amended permits for higher or more apartments, or any where decisions have already been made. Nor have we included the multitude of applications for two double storeys.
These few examples total well over 300 potential new apartments. Given council’s record at VCAT, and its pro-development agenda, we assume that the vast majority will be granted permits.
What these numbers call into question is the validity of council’s proposed structure planning and its claims about projected housing requirements that are supposed to justify the expansion of our activity centres and the rezoning of countless sites. Housing id forecasts tell us that McKinnon for example, is supposed to ‘average’ only a handful of new dwellings (18-27) per year over the next 20 years. In just a few months, McKinnon according to these applications is already up to 60 multiple dwellings. If the stats are so wrong, then it follows, that the planning is also way out of touch with what is occurring. What makes the situation even worse is that our neighbourhood centres, such as McKinnon, are still years away from having any structure planning completed!
Here’s the list –
15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East (nrz) – 8 STOREY, 106 STUDENT DWELLINGS – AREA 474 SQUARE METRES
43-45 Kokaribb Road CARNEGIE – 3 storey, 15 dwellings
32 Kokaribb Road & 259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 45 dwellings
331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 26 dwellings
82 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 6 dwellings
304-306 Koornang Road CARNEGIE – 6 dwellings
11 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE – 3 dwellings
7-11 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 4 storey, unknown no. of dwellings
4 Lake Street CARNEGIE – 3 storey, 8 units
38 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE – 4 x 3 storey
13-15 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 27 dwellings
17 Gilmour Road BENTLEIGH – 4 dwellings
1 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings
45-47 Kangaroo Road & 33 Howe Street MURRUMBEENA – 15 dwellings
81 Dalny Road MURRUMBEENA – 4 dwellings
18 Railway Parade MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 17 dwellings
11 Perth Street MURRUMBEENA – 5 dwellings
8 Elm Grove MCKINNON – 3 storey, 6 dwellings
23 – 27 Prince Edwards Avenue MCKINNON – 18 x three storeys
12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON – 3 x three storeys
16 Glen Orme Avenue – 3 dwellings
15-17 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 storey, 16 dwellings
27 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 4 x three storeys
40 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 dwellings
39 Lees Street MCKINNON – 4 dwellings
27 Draper Street MCKINNON – 3 dwellings
238 Booran Road ORMOND – 3 dwellings
3 Waratah Avenue GLEN HUNTLY – 8 dwellings
123 Kambrook Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 dwellings
204-206 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 5 storey meditation centre
1042 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH – 3 storey, 9 dwellings
56 Hartington Street ELSTERNWICK – 3 dwellings
1 Riddell Parade ELSTERNWICK – 3 dwellings
January 9, 2018
Glen Eira & Flooding
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning[8] Comments
Why is it that Port Phillip, Bayside and Kingston councils can publish the progress on the Elster Creek Catchment flooding mitigation project and Glen Eira is silent – apart from seeking councillor endorsement for the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding in June 2017?
These other councils have had no qualms in letting their residents know that:
- A community forum was held
- An action plan has been devised
- CEOs have met several times
In Glen Eira all of this remains secret. Since Glen Eira is the major ‘culprit’ as the Elster Creek Catchment covers huge areas of the municipality, one would have thought that Glen Eira residents should at the very least be kept up to date with what is happening. Yet, there was nothing up on council’s website regarding the recent community forum. There is nothing in the minutes regarding the proposed ‘action plan’. Why the silence and why when we have again had more recent flooding is there this reluctance to give this issue the attention it deserves?
Here is the link to the Port Phillip data – http://portphillip.vic.gov.au/E135525_17__Action_Plan_Elster_Creek_Catchment_-_FINAL_Oct_2017.pdf
And uploaded HERE is the report on the community forum.
January 2, 2018
New Year ‘Presents’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
The rush of multiple dwellings in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ) continues unabated with more and more applications coming in. We feature the latest below.
Readers should remember the following:
- Council’s housing report fails to take full account of this rush given that the ‘estimates’ are for an additional 0.6 dwellings on lots over 700 square metres in size. The reality is that sites well and truly below 700 square metres are averaging an additional 1 to 2 dwellings per site.
- Since the introduction of Wynne’s VC110, councils have been given the right to include mandatory lot subdivision sizes in their schedules. Not a word has come out about this provision from council!
Assuming that the applications below will gain their permits, that means a NET GAIN of 9 dwellings in just these few sites. What this does to council’s overall ‘calculations’ and structure planning has not been realistically addressed. If the NRZ is now a defacto General Residential Zone and more and more development is occurring in the NRZ, then the crucial question is – why do we need to expand the activity centre borders? why do we need to ‘upgrade’ so many properties for higher density? why do we need 12 storey residential towers throughout the city? and why oh why is council so hell bent on facilitating more and more development?
December 27, 2017
The Year In Review!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
2017 has been interesting to say the least. 5 new councillors elected in 2016 brought hope that much which was amiss in Glen Eira would finally be rectified. Alas, whilst there has been some ‘progress’, there is still a long, long way to go.
Our ‘summary’ –
The Positives
- Telecasting of council meetings – finally
- The promise of a tree register – finally (although this could go much further and be part of the planning scheme rather than the Local Law)
- ‘Community participation’ sessions at council meetings
- Ostensibly, increased ‘community consultation’
- More concrete action on heritage – ie application for Dandenong Road property
The Negatives
- The (deliberate) drip feeding of information on structure planning
- Extension of one year on work completion resulting in more opportunity for inappropriate development
- The refusal to listen to the majority of community views – ie Harleston Park basketball court; height limits for Carnegie, Elsternwick; Virginia Estate, etc
- Inundating residents with masses of documents released simultaneously
- Lack of detail and justification in these documents – ie no ‘discussion papers’ that objectively present the pros and cons of each issue
- No explanation as to why the Local Law has to wait until 2019 for review & no mention of notice of motion
- Support or silence on State Government’s so called ‘reforms’ on planning
- ‘Consultations’ that fail to ask the ‘right’ questions
- Repeated refusal to answer why, when Glen Eira is exceeding its housing ‘quota’ by miles, this council is determined to facilitate more and more development
- Continued and significant decline in ‘community satisfaction’ surveys and yet no action on the perennial problems – ie parking, traffic management
- Majority of open space levy goes to existing open space and NOT THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. Plus the recent change to reporting on open space expenditure where monies spent on ‘improvements’ no longer feature together with the levy income.
The ensuing months should reveal whether or not these councillors are prepared to listen and then act on what the community has so emphatically stated in regard to structure planning and what their priorities are.
We would also like to thank all our readers for their support and wish everyone a fabulous 2018!
December 21, 2017
A Further Year For Developers To Make Hay!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[4] Comments
December 20, 2017
At Last!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
Finally, after years and years of naysaying, council had the first live streaming of its meeting last night. It went well but does raise some questions in relation to its Local Law. For example:
- Given that presumably more residents can now see who votes for what, couldn’t the minutes reflect this vote instead of simply having ‘carried’, ‘unanimous’ or ’lost’?
- The ‘public participation’ segment is now also available. These ‘questions’ and ‘responses’ could therefore also be included in the minutes.
- Since these recordings will be ‘archived’ and available for viewing at any time, surely it makes no sense to have the official paper record (ie the minutes) not in line with what can be watched over and over again?
As for the meeting itself and its contentious items, not much has changed. Early on it was the Esakoff and Hyams show on the Rigby and Newman Avenue multiple dwelling applications. The ‘solution’ as moved by Esakoff and seconded by Hyams was to grant a permit but instead of 4 out of the 5 dwellings being double storey, the permit now states that 3 out of the 5 be double storey. No other councillor spoke on either of these items. Hyams did refer to Wynne’s VC110 amendment but neglected to also say that according to the Planning Scheme large size lots in the NRZ have, since time immemorial and not just since 2013, had the potential for multiple dwellings! More dubious was Hyams’ subsequent comment that because of the introduction of the zones in 2013 no such applications ‘would have been attempted’. He neglects to mention of course that council’s position to the department was that the ‘hurdle’ of 2 dwellings per lot could be overcome by subdividing first and then submitting an application!
We remind readers of several past VCAT decisions, where the member made it absolutely clear that large size lots can hold multiple dwellings because that is council’s ‘policy’ and is enshrined in both pre and post introduction of the zones. One such application was in St Aubins Court, Caulfield North. Even though the application came in prior to the introduction of the zones in 2013 and thus had the advantage of ‘transitional’ provisions, the outcome was still a 2 storey development of 22 units – based almost entirely on council’s ‘policy’. We quote:
However in this case there remains, even post the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, strong and clear local policy support for the development of large sites such as the review site with medium density development……. While this policy intent has always applied to the Minimal Change Areas, we note that this policy statement was amended as part of the application of the new residential zones into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. That amendment provided for the potential to rezone large sites with the Minimal Change Areas, so that they could continue to provide opportunities for medium density housing, despite the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. We consider such an amendment to affirm for us the continued role expected in policy for large sites such as the review site, despite the applications of the new residential zones to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. (http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/664.html)
Wynne’s introduction of VC110 has major ramifications for Glen Eira and other councils. The 2 applications decided last night might be an anomaly because of their size. Thus far we believe that 14 applications have come in for multiple dwellings. Not all are large sites. The latest application for 3 double storeys is a mere 585 square metres (see below). Worth remembering as well is that according to the Housing report they accord only 0.6 net new dwellings in the NRZ and this is for sites over 700 square metres! Such applications show how far out council’s maths on dwellings truly are.
Whether or not this application receives a permit, or ends up with a permit from VCAT will reveal much about council’s agenda in relation to the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. The ‘requirements’ for this zone has remained unchanged since 2004. The Schedule introduced in 2013 simply incorporated what was already there. No new work was done. Now work is desperately required. Other councils managed to have schedules that had greater permeability, less site coverage, and subdivision sizes included in their schedules. Council has the opportunity to amend the schedules. But will they do this or remain content with facilitating more and more development in the NRZ?
PS: FYI, council has granted a permit for 6 Hudson St., Caulfield North for one double storey apartment block with 8 dwellings. The land size is approximately 1300 square metres. Please note this was not decided at council level and it shows that there is nothing to stop apartment blocks from now being constructed in the NRZ as opposed to ‘townhouses’ etc. The flood gates are well and truly open across Glen Eira!
December 16, 2017
Now For 13 Storeys In Elsternwick!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
PS: Here’s a photo sent in by a resident to show what happens when loading bays are waived. (1) truck parks in ‘no standing zone’ (2) parks next to white line forcing other cars into oncoming traffic (3) no safe ‘sight lines’
An application for a 13 storey, 115 or 117 unit development at 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 14 Rippon Grove, Elsternwick raises innumerable questions about ‘consultation’ within Glen Eira and the quality of officer reports.
The recommendation is for a 12 storey building and the reduction of units to 111. VCAT has already approved a 10 storey development.
Below is a screen dump of the current zoning. What this means is that there is the potential for a 13 storey development sitting alongside 4 storey developments, according to the zoning. Council sees no problem with this – in line with some of its current ‘structure plan’ for Elsternwick! Readers should note that the officer report does NOT include this map, rather it is an aerial shot that reveals nothing about zoning! Deliberate?
The vast majority of the proposed dwellings are 2 bedroom. On page 11 of the officer’s report we find this bullet point:
High density residential development is acceptable at this location; however the building should incorporate a more diverse mix of apartment sizes. The design is overly dominated by two-bedroom dwellings and does not contribute adequately to diversity in the centre.
Then on page 17, ‘compliance’ with the Planning Scheme on housing diversity is listed as – The application consists of a good mix of dwelling sizes’. The point here is that this is supposed to be a response to DWELLING DIVERSITY, and not simply DWELLING SIZE! When the proposal is for 2 one bedroom, 4 three bedroom and 111 two bedroom dwellings for a total of 117, then what ‘diversity’ is achieved? It’s also unclear as to whether we are talking about 115 dwellings or 117 dwellings since this number alternates throughout the report.
On parking we find council is again very generous in what it is willing to waive.
The most disturbing aspect of this report however is the following –
Council is in the process of preparing a Structure Plan for Elsternwick and Quality Design Guidelines that will potentially inform future planning controls such as local policy, zoning and overlay provisions for the area. These are currently undergoing the second of two phases of consultation before going to Council for adoption in early 2018. In these plans, the site is designated within an area that is identified as being suitable for 8-12 storeys in height.
Whilst the Structure Plan is not at a stage that can influence the decision making process for this application, the recommendation to delete one floor will result in a building height in keeping with the expectations for this area. Notwithstanding, based on the existing character and built form outcome in the area, a building at 12 storeys is considered appropriate.
Everything in the above suggests that council has already determined that 12 storey height limit will remain in its structure planning and that for all the guff about ‘consultation’ and listening to the community, this aspect is set in concrete and will not change.
Finally, we repeat that council’s record in lopping off one or two storeys for cases that end up at VCAT is appalling. They have not been successful in even one such instance that we are aware of. Thus get ready for 13 storeys in Elsternwick and others that will be even higher given this precedent!
December 15, 2017
Agenda: How ‘Honest’ Is Council?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance1 Comment
PS: We’ve done some double checking. According to the Minister for Planning’s Amendment VC104 and dated 22/8/2013 the maximum height limit in the NRZ is 8 metres if there is no height limit in the associated schedule. On the very next day, council’s Amendment 110 was gazetted. There were mandatory height limits in the schedules for the General Residential Zone (10.5m) and for the Residential Growth Zone (13.5m). Council relied on VC104 for its continuous claims about ‘introducing mandatory heights for all residential land’. Strictly speaking this claim, made time and time again, was and is untrue. The Mixed Use Zoning (considered ‘residential’) did not have height limits imposed – and neither did the schedule to the NRZ. On 23rd March Wynne gazetted his VC110 which has the effect of over-riding VC104 and the height limit there is 9 metres. Thus Glen Eira is now stuck with a 9 metre height limit in its NRZ and even higher if the land slopes. Readers should also note that Wynne has carefully refused to consider ‘basements’ as part of the 2 storey limit and allows basements to protrude up to 1.5 metres above ground level. This has the potential to therefore yield a three storey dwelling in the NRZ!
Two incredible officer reports feature in the agenda for Tuesday night. Both are examples of what lies in store as a result of Wynne’s VC110 and the removal of a 2 dwelling maximum for the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. The applications are for 2 Newman Avenue and 3 Rigby Avenue, both in Carnegie and practically abutting each other. The officer recommendations are to grant permits for both with some minor tinkering on conditions.
The details of the applications are:
Rigby Avenue – 4 double storey, 1 single storey
Newman Avenue – 4 double storey, 1 single storey
What is literally astounding about these reports is the failure to even mention Wynne’s VC110 and its ‘requirement’ for the mandatory ‘garden area’. Instead, the reports focus exclusively on the existing planning scheme where large allotments MAY be considered for more than 2 dwellings per lot.
So, if council is determining applications based on its CURRENT PLANNING SCHEME, then the following is unlawful, devious, and inaccurate! BOTH applications exceed the current 8 metre mandatory height limit. VC110 specifically stated that if councils have different heights included in their schedules, then the schedules apply – at least for the next 3 years! Here is a screen dump of the legislation. Please note: ‘must’ and the fact that Glen Eira does have a schedule!
Instead of honouring its own planning scheme, these reports state –
Rigby Avenue – The maximum overall height (at 8.4m) is well within the 9m height limit of the zone.
Newman Avenue – The maximum overall height (at 8.8m) is within the 9m height limit of the zone. There appears to be a minor encroachment to the apex of the roof, which can be addressed by conditions.
Adding salt to the wounds for the Newman Avenue application is the recommendation to waive one car parking spot with this nonsense – The requirement for one visitor car space is proposed to be waived. This is considered reasonable given there will be one on-street car space maintained at the front of the site.
There are plenty of other dispensations provided that reveal the inconsistency of this council’s application of its own planning scheme. More to the point, we find it reprehensible that a report can be written which deliberately includes false and misleading information!
Glen Eira Debates 