Glen Eira Debates

April 7, 2016

8 Storeys For Centre Road Bentleigh

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[9] Comments

VCAT has granted a permit for the Centre Road development. It will be 8 storeys and 33 dwellings, plus car parking waivers. The original application was for 9 storeys and 40+ dwellings, but amended plans were submitted following the compulsory conference. PS: correction. Here is the link to the full VCAT decision – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/538.html

These extracts from the decision once again point out the deficiencies in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. As per usual, any talk of introducing height limits for commercial allotments is far too little and far too late. The horse has bolted! Council had a decade and more to act. It has steadfastly refused to do a single thing! This is now the result!

Some quotes –

The acceptability of the height of this proposal is influenced by the planning scheme’s policy framework as it applies to this locality.

The policy identifies three urban villages in the municipality (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) and no distinction is drawn between them in terms of the role and scale of each centre.

Significantly, there are no height controls applying to the Bentleigh urban village, or to any of the other urban villages.

The policy framework outlined above provides a strong level of support for a building on this site that is higher than the prevailing one and storey scale of development in the centre. The achievement of the Council’s urban village and housing diversity objectives will almost inevitably involve the introduction of buildings into the urban village that have a greater height than the buildings that currently comprise the Bentleigh centre.

In the absence of more detailed built form controls or guidelines than those currently in the planning scheme, our finding that higher buildings can be contemplated where the Commercial 1 Zone abuts the RGZ, does not greatly assist us in forming a view about the acceptability of an eight storey building on a site that has an abuttal to the GRZ and the NRZ.

In these precincts, developments of three to four storeys are emerging on consolidated sites in both the RGZ and the GRZ. That analysis demonstrates that the urban village designation and the associated policies are having a profound impact in changing the built from character of the Bentleigh centre in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of those policies

We commented during the course of the hearing that Clause 55 does not apply to the consideration of a building of 5 or more storeys. Consequently, reliance on Standard B17 is limited to its use as a guide only. In this case compliance with B17 up to level 3 (including the width of the lane) is of some assistance because it is these levels that will have the greatest visual bulk impacts on the immediate neighbours. Above level 3, the additional setback is significant. Having regard to the nature of the interfaces we have described previously, and having regard to the strategic context of the review site, we are satisfied that the interface treatment is acceptable.

We acknowledge that the building will be viewed from the wider residential hinterland to the south. The visibility of the building is not however an impact that is beyond the reasonable expectations that emanate from the Council’s designation of this locality as an urban village and a housing diversity area.

April 6, 2016

Claire Street – More Crocodile Tears To Come?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Readers will remember the saga of Claire Street, McKinnon and Magee’s crocodile tears of woe on the steps of VCAT. The street featured again at Tuesday night’s meeting with Magee jumping on the same old bandwagon – everything is VCAT’s fault rather than council policy, planning and zoning.

The only reason that the VCAT member knocked back the first Stellar application for three storeys and thirty plus units was that the developer was exceedingly greedy. No decent setbacks, and internal amenity suitable for a mole – ie subterranean apartments! Another application has now gone in for 33 units and will end up at VCAT again.

But things have now got even worse. There is another application in by the same company Steller, for 1-9 Claire Street that will see: ‘six, three storey townhouse and two three storey apartment (44 dwellings)”. Stellar has basically bought out the entire street and the sole remaining resident has decided that enough is enough and has put his property (4 Claire St) up for sale.

We have no doubt that both Stellar applications will be passed by VCAT. Not because they ‘ignore’ council policy, but because it IS COUNCIL POLICY TO ENCOURAGE 3 STOREY DEVELOPMENT ON CONSOLIDATED LOTS and the zoning is GRZ. When the VCAT member rejected the first application for 6-10 Claire St., he made it absolutely clear in his judgement that zoning and lack of preferred character statements make Claire St.(and much of McKinnon) a candidate for this kind of rampant (over)development. It is Council policy. Please note the number of times the phrase ‘policy’ or ‘planning scheme’ feature in the extracts from this judgement (below).

Magee and the other councillors can continue with their nonsense and the spurious blame game, but residents need to appreciate the truth. Any Planning Scheme Review that fails to address zoning and the limitations of the schedules is not a review – it is a whitewash!

The judgement below says it all in our view.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1762.html

These local policies strongly support the development of apartment style buildings in Claire Street , McKinnon, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by the Glen Eira City Council. It allows policies to also be implemented that reduce the ability for any meaningful level of medium density housing to be developed in the majority of other residential areas within the municipality. In other words, the Council has chosen to allow significant change in limited neighbourhoods, so as to preserve to a strong level the existing character of most of its other neighbourhoods.

While this individual proposal fails to address some important design matters, it is inevitable, in applying the local policies drafted by the Glen Eira City Council, that Claire Street, McKinnon will be subject to significant levels of change in the short to medium term.

Although townhouse developments of two and three double storey dwellings have started to appear in this area, the restrictions now in place over most of the municipality will act to focus more intensive development into areas such as this in McKinnon. It may not mean the whole street is filled with three storey apartment buildings but it almost certainly means that the existing single dwellings on a lot will be gradually replaced. It may take twenty or thirty years but, based on submissions and statements of grounds, I am not sure that existing residents appreciate the changes that will occur in response to development outcomes sought by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

In this proceeding, Mr & Mrs Menko lamented that most of the lots in Claire Street have now been purchased by developers, and are likely to be subject to forms of development like the one before me. They resist this level of change, and the likelihood that only two of the original single dwellings will remain. They also raise concerns about how this extent of development can be suitable for a dead-end street, with its only access point to McKinnon Road, and limited on-street car parking supply. They also question the ability of McKinnon Road to accommodate the additional traffic. I understand the frustrations and anger expressed by residents about the rate of change that might occur in Claire Street . However the extent of redevelopment that is likely to occur is a direct realisation of the very clear intent of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, in particular the local policies created by the Glen Eira City Council.

 That is, this form of development and rate of change, is consistent with the planning scheme that I am charged to apply. Further, it is not my role to review, on an ad-hoc basis, the suitability of this dead-end street to accommodate this level of change, nor the ability of McKinnon as a whole to accommodate additional population and traffic. The Glen Eira City Council has had the opportunity to carefully consider such matters, over an extended period of time, and has identified Claire Street McKinnon as an appropriate location for the placement of a housing diversity area, to take the additional housing demands of the municipality.

 The Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly supports substantial development in Claire Street McKinnon. This substantial development is not expected to imitate or reflect the style and form of the single dwellings that currently exist in this and other streets. Instead, a policy intent has been clearly been articulated for Claire Street by the Glen Eira City Council, that encourages more intense and more diverse housing forms. Invariably this means that apartment buildings are strongly encouraged in this neighbourhood.

It is clear, when taking into account the policy framework as whole, that apartment style development is the undeniable future for Claire Street , McKinnon, as clearly identified and articulated by the local policies contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, as drafted by the Glen Eira City Council.

the apartment building is excavated below natural ground level to the rear boundary, such that the ground floor level will be around 1.3 metres below natural ground level, and the ceiling height of the ground floor apartments will be roughly matching the standard fence height on the boundary.

The residents urged upon me that a more appropriate development will consist of two storeys in scale. I agree with their submissions that the two storey apartment building at 13 Claire Street represents a more successful integration into the surrounding context. Further, for the reasons set out above I agree that this proposed three storey building is too big and bulky, with inappropriate setbacks, for the review site. However I have not been persuaded that the site is unsuitable for a three storey apartment building per se. Given the extent of policy support for a significant level of additional housing in this location, and the vast size of this consolidated site, I am not willing to conclude that it is not possible for a well designed three storey apartment building to be found to be an appropriate built form response to this context

Mr & Mrs Menko also raises a concern with the potential increase in traffic in Claire Street and their difficulties in accessing McKinnon Road. I acknowledge that this proposed development, if approved, would have increased such traffic levels, and the delays currently experienced in turning onto McKinnon Street. However the traffic impacts of the proposal were considered by Council’s traffic engineers, and in their independent and expert opinion, the surrounding road network can accommodate the expected increase in traffic.

The policy framework of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme clearly articulates a future for Claire Street McKinnon that anticipates significant change and more substantial housing developments. The Glen Eira City Council has adopted such a vision as a means of protecting much of its other residential areas from even a moderate amount of medium density housing. That is the policy framework that has been adopted and applied to this municipality for over 11 years, and is the vision that I must have regard to and implement in my decision making task.

April 5, 2016

Item 9.2 – Planning Scheme Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

NEWS FLASH: KELVIN HO IS COUNCILLOR ELECT

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that one of the ‘requirements’ for councils is to regularly review their planning schemes and this was last done in 2010/11. People then told council that they ‘wanted mandatory heights’, ‘transition zones’, and ‘better protection of neighbourhood character’. Council therefore ‘implemented neighbourhood character overlays’, plus the new zones ‘had height limits’. In regards to Commercial zones then VCAT ‘disagrees’ with officers who believe that ‘our policies should protect’ against ‘this type of height that VCAT has been allowing’. Said ‘I don’t have a lot of faith in VCAT’ but they make the decisions and this is ‘binding’ so it’s ‘something that we need to look at’ in order to give Commercial zones ‘greater protection’ in regard to heights. The government is now looking at the residential zones, so ‘it is good’ that the discussion paper ‘doesn’t focus directly on those’ because ‘whatever we decide’ can be over-ridden by the government. Stated that the original Plan Melbourne talked about 60% of development going into established suburbs, but with the new Plan Melbourne Refresh the figure is no 70% of development in established suburbs so that means ‘cramming more dwellings into established suburbs’. He hoped therefore that the ‘protections that we do have aren’t diminished by Plan Melbourne Refresh’.

Claimed that ‘community consultation’ is very important and that ‘what the community tells us’ from the review ‘will guide us’. Went through the various scheduled meetings and the themes of the discussion paper. Said that council would collate all the information and then send it off to the Minister in August. Changes ‘will require a formal planning scheme amendment’ so this will ‘need to go through a lengthy process’ of consultation, planning panels and then council’s position sent off to the Minister. So even if ‘we all agree’ about height limits in commercial zones, and other things, it will still depend on the Minister.

LIPSHUTZ: planning schemes are ‘integral’ because it ‘certainly affects everyone’ so it is ‘important that the community be involved’. Agreed with Hyams that it’s important that people are involved and they come to the meetings and ‘present their views’ because they can then ‘go to the government’ and say that ‘we’ve listened to the community; we actually know what the community wants’. Said it’s not 9 councillors saying this is what we like, but the ‘community saying this is what we require’. With the new zones people were saying that there is now development that ‘wasn’t allowed before’ well, ‘no one can build anything now that they could not before’. People can ‘twitter’ as much as they like and use other social media but ‘at the end of the day’ it’s ‘so important’ that people come ‘to these meetings and put your views’. Thought that the ‘zones are working well, but they can be improved’. Problem is VCAT because ‘they allow one thing in’ and the ‘next development comes along’ and they say ‘it is a street that is changing, therefore we will allow a second one’ and this ‘opens the floodgates’. Welcomed the review and wanted community ‘answers’ to take to the government’.

MAGEE: said he welcomed the review and that he wrote to the Planning Minister ‘last year asking for various types of reviews’ especially on the commercial zones and imposing overlays. ‘We had already commenced those discussions with the Minister’. So it is good that the ‘MInister is now formally requesting us to do what we were asking the Minister to let us do’. Said that ‘we can change our planning scheme, we can change our zones’ but this ‘won’t make one iota of difference’ if the Minister doesn’t also review VCAT. VCAT must ‘apply’ the planning scheme and shouldn’t be able ‘just to consider’ it. So council ‘can do all this work’ which they have done in 2002 and in 2010 and the ‘community told us’ what they wanted. ‘We knew street by street’ what people wanted through the minimal change areas. This was then changed into the new zones and ‘there were still problems’ because those problems are due to VCAT. Perfect example is Claire Street, McKinnon where there was a ‘totally inappropriate’ application. The ‘applicant lost at VCAT and came back to us a few months later’ with a new application which is ‘very little difference’. ‘So if there is no clear guidance from the Minister to VCAT’ then this planning scheme review is just ‘window dressing’. ‘It looks good, it sounds good, we’re all happy’ until the first council rejection goes to VCAT and ‘they disregard our planning scheme’. ‘You’re in the hands of an individual at VCAT’. Welcomes community input and ‘that will be what this council puts forward’ but unless the Minister looks at VCAT then ‘I worry that we are doing all this for no reason’.

ESAKOFF: said she was looking forward to community views and that ‘it is hard to imagine that anyone would want more’ development. Thinks that people will say that they want ‘less development’. Said she remembers community forums in 2002 where people were ‘horrified’ at the thought of 3 storey shop-top housing. For Council ‘to put forward what our community says’ is ‘going to be a difficult one’ because for ‘us to go back with a lesser footprint if you like’ that what is there now, ‘we know where that is going to be put’ and ‘it won’t be accepted’. ‘Anything other than more won’t be accepted’. Hoped that she was wrong in this forecast. What the community has got to say is ‘important’ because they might come up with ‘ideas’ that council ‘has yet to hear’ so this is ‘well worth listening to’.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got some experience in planning elsewhere where height and density is combined in other states. Victoria is different and complex and hard for people to understand. Said that the themes are good and people should respond not with planning language but with ‘your vernacular’. Thought that the 3^rd theme on environmental sustainability was ‘vital’. Said he’s got a major concern about climate, and how ‘we adapt and manage’ these changes. Temperature increases mean less water and impacts on farming and food production.

LOBO: said he would try not to be ‘controversial’. Said he forecasts that the zones could ‘remain the same’ but people will have the opportunity to voice ‘their concerns’ and ‘what they have lost and hopefully what they will not lose in the future’. Said that the repeated ‘sentence’ that you can’t do now what you could do before’ is true, but the ‘zones’ have given ‘authority to builders to open up the floodgates’. Council can’t stop this or stop VCAT. So council is insisting on ‘democracy for Skyrail’ and ‘in this case we may have overlooked the democracy of asking the residents to comment’.

PILLING: said that Carnegie and Bentleigh East were ‘the real hotspots’ where residents ‘are concerned’ as well as the activity centres. ‘This is a chance for residents to get involved’. Thought this would be a ‘really valuable exercise’.

HYAMS: commented on the consultation on the zones and the consultation on Skyrail that Lobo referred to. The zones ‘were a direct translation’ from minimal change and housing diversity areas. The difference was that ‘in each of those zones we actually put more restrictions on what could be built’ and put on mandatory heights and increased setbacks. ‘So we actually did provide better protection right throughout Glen Eira’ and that’s why ‘we didn’t feel it was necessary to consult because’ it was basically a ‘transition’ and they were only ‘implementing the findings of the previous consultation’ where people wanted height limits and transition zones which ‘came with the’ new residential zones. But with Skyrail the government is ‘proposing to put in something that completely changes the neighbourhood amenity’. Didn’t think there was ‘any valid comparison’ between the two examples. Urged people to ‘take advantage of the opportunity’ to comment and let council know ‘what they are thinking’. Said there’s a ‘tension’ between the need to ‘preserve neighbourhood character and residential amenity’ and to cater for a ‘substantial population growth’. This is what they tried to achieve with the zones by directing growth to transport corridors, ‘closer to shops so there would be less driving’. Not everyone’s going to ‘get what they want’ but important that people have a say.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

NOTE: DELAHUNTY WAS ABSENT

April 5, 2016

Skyrail

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous
[3] Comments

April 1, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

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

We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.

Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.

March 31, 2016

Lest We Forget!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

In 2010 Council went through the motions of a ‘review’ on its planning scheme. The councillors who partook in this ‘review’ and remain on council are: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Lobo. They resolved to pass the ‘action plan’ that is pictured below (from the minutes of August 2010).

We urge readers to note the following:

Items highlighted in YELLOW have not been completed or even attempted as far as we know
Time frames (ie the ‘when’ sections) mean absolutely nothing.
All initiatives to be done ‘internally’ – very few reported on!

Thus, these images stand as a damning indictment of these councillors and administration. A repeat of this sham must not be allowed to happen with the current ‘review’.

March 30, 2016

News Flash: Wynne Orders Review

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

It is our understanding that Minister Wynne has ordered Glen Eira to finally undertake a Planning Scheme Review. He has also rejected we believe council’s attempt for an extension to the deadline he set.

March 29, 2016

The Zones ‘Review’ – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

What stands out like a sore thumb in the Glen Eira submission is:

the lack of detail and justification for the various positions – ie of the 72 ‘recommendations’ made by the committee, council does not provide any comment for 44 of these.
The hypocrisy is literally astounding when we find that for some recommendations (ie inclusion of structure plans, urban design frameworks, etc Council is in agreement! Pity that this ‘agreement’ has not seen any action for the past 14 years!)
Even more hypocritical is the repetition of this sentence – Boundaries should be based on housing policies and community consultation.
All in all, council’s submission is another attempt to justify what it has done and to maintain the status quo. Developers should be very pleased with Council’s set of responses!

The ‘evidence’ for these claims is obvious once we compare Council’s stated position with some of its neighbours. Below is Glen Eira versus Bayside. Whilst these two councils do agree on numerous items, their differences are what is most telling. We focus in this post on the recommendations for the Residential Growth Zone only (RGZ). A quick summary –

Recommendation #20 – Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of the zone.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – The purpose of the RGZ is to enable new housing growth and diversity in locations that offer good access to services, transport and other infrastructure. In developed areas, a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth is required. A four storey development outcome will be appropriate in these circumstances and therefore it is recommended that the current reference remains in the purpose of the zone.

RECOMMENDATION #21 – Amend ResCode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within the RGZ contradict that of ResCode.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – ResCode was not intended to provide direction on apartment typology. It is recommended that the Better Apartments tool be implemented as the new assessment mechanism for apartment’s development of any scale.

RECOMMENDATION #30 – Apply Clause 55 to multi dwellings greater than four storeys.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – ResCode should apply to all forms of multi-dwelling residential development. The lack of prescription in the State Government’s Higher Density Design Guidelines (6 storeys and above) creates uncertainty

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – Rescode was not designed to assess multi storey building typology. A more appropriate tool such as the Better Apartments should apply for multi dwellings greater than four storeys

RECOMMENDATION #41 – Under Clause 32.07-9 Application requirements, delete: For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35.

GLEN EIRA – AGREE – Agree subject to ResCode applying to multi-dwelling residential developments of five or more storeys

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – An urban context report and design response are required to ensure that the purpose of the zone, the future vision of the area and any sensitive interfaces are taken into consideration

RECOMMENDATION #42 – Under Clause 32.07-11 Dwelling and residential building, delete: For a development of five or more storeys,excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment or explanation provided)

BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – In the absence of a more current policy to guide Higher Density Residential Development it is considered that the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential should remain. It is recommended that it be replaced with the Better Apartments policy once it is implemented.

March 24, 2016

The Zones ‘Review’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Glen Eira has finally published (without a formal council resolution and after the fact) its submission to the ‘review’ of the residential zones. This post is the first in a series where we will analyse this submission and highlight its incompetency, hypocrisy and once again council’s determination to insist that it got it right in August 2013.

Council’s incompetency and attempt to mislead is clearly shown in the following statement which comes from page 12 of its submission. (please note that the actual submission is really only a page or two since most of the 19 pages consist of regurgitating previous submissions and then tables from the committee’s recommendations).

Council writes –

Glen Eira will need to provide 800 dwellings (red line in Figure 1) each year to cater for the increase of 12000 households over the next 15 years.

Wrong on all counts!!! In the first place the figure of 12,000 households does not originate from 2016, as this sentence implies, but from 2011 as calculated by data from both Victoria in Future 2015, and profile.id. Thus what council has done is divide 12,000 by 15 years, instead of the 20 years specified by the government. That brings the average required addition of dwellings to 600 per year and NOT the claimed 800 per year.

Yet Glen Eira has over 2000 net new dwellings going up per year ever since the zones came in thus tripling its required net new dwellings in order to meet population growth. Nowhere in this submission will residents find any statement to this effect – unlike other councils’ submissions. In Glen Eira it is a case of the more the better, but without any thought given to ensuring that residential amenity, open space, infrastructure is capable of meeting this 300% over supply.

We urge all residents to read this council submission (uploaded here) and to ask themselves:

How can such poor quality be produced time and time again?
Why are residents deceived time and time again with faulty and incomplete data?
Why is there no formal resolution by COUNCIL?
Why can other councils produce pages and pages of well argued submissions, table their documents in council, and seek a formal resolution and this council can’t?

March 23, 2016