Tag Archives: glen eira planning

Caulfield South – Planning Conference Abandoned

A remarkable turn of events at last night’s (2/7/2018) Planning Conference for a development at 2 Pearce Street, South Caulfield*.   Before the standard preliminaries were completed, the South Caulfield Action Group (SCAG) and residents requested and voted to abandon the Planning Conference  with  Council agreeing to re-start the planning permit approval process.**

The major sticking point being that just prior (hours) before the Conference commenced, SCAG learnt that amended development plans had been submitted to Council (29/6/2018) and residents had not been advised of either the amended plans or their content.  Consequently, SCAG and residents objections would be based on plans that were no longer applicable.

Cr. Hyams (the Conference Chair), after advising that the changes were not considered significant, asked the Planning Officer to outline the changes.  The changes being

  • The basement car park had previously “protruded” (no specifics provided) into the garden area due to an interpretation of the Planning Minister ‘s garden area requirements by the developer. Clarification had been sought  from the  Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and resulted in changes that removed the protrusion.
  • Since the area is subject to an SBO, Melbourne Water had requested an increase in building height of 300mm/30 cm to elevate the ground floor level for flood mitigation purposes. Despite this height increase, the building height remained below the maximum height limit (11m) for the General Residential Zone (GRZ).

Summarised residents comments are

  • that the area, originally developed for workers cottages, is typified by lot sizes of 750 sqm resulting in approx. a metre separating individual dwellings.  The proposed changes could have implications for more properties than those immediately abutting the development.
  • residents had, in a short time, undertaken a very steep planning learning curve to come to grips with both the GE’s planning scheme and the plans presented. They should be given sufficient time to review the changes and assess their implications – to ask them to do so based on the scant information presented  was to ask them to make a compromise they should not be asked to make.
  • Given that the planning permit application was lodged with Council 25/01/2018, their request for time to review and assess the implications of both changes (drainage and already significant overshadowing on adjoining properties) was in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 (Part 1 a – Local Government Charter, Section 3c – e & g) and reasonable .

GERA congratulates SCAG and residents for their well presented arguments and maintaining an amicable meeting.   We also congratulate Council for acceding to the residents request.

As an aside, after the decision to abandon the Conference had been made, discussions continued.   SCAG members,  commented that very few of the approx. 300 local residents they had contacted were aware that in 2013 their area had been zoned GRZ1 or GRZ2 (ie. suitable for 3 storey multi-unit developments).    This discussion between the residents and Cr. Hyams will be the topic of a subsequent post.

The South Caulfield Action Group (SCAG) can be contacted via email:  scag.sthcaulfield.action.group@gmail.com

 

************

Footnotes:

*3 stories, comprising 5 dwellings above basement car parking and waiver of visitor car parking.  Lot size is 750 sqm and the lot is subject to a Special Building Overlay (SBO – area prone to storm water overflow and flooding)

**  Since the development is not considered to be “major”, the 60 day time Council decision time line is not applicable, hence, Council can “re-start” the approval process.

Advertisements

Caulfield South Activity Centre – Community Gathering 27/06/2018

 

IMPORTANT MEETING

7 pm tomorrow, Wednesday 27/6

The South Caulfield Action Group (SCAG) have invited our State MP, Mr David Southwick, together with our Camden Ward Councillors,  Joel Silver and Dan Sztrajt, to hear our stories. They need to understand why we signed the petition.

Now is the time for our voices to be heard. We need to demonstrate that there are many people concerned about the future of Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre.

For further information and meeting details please email:  scag.sthcaulfield.action.group@gmail.com

**************

GERA was recently contacted by residents opposing a 3 storey (5 dwellings above basement car parking) development proposal in Pearce Street, Caulfield South.  However, as they “dug deeper” the residents not only learnt a lot about GE’s Planning inadequacies but also became increasingly concerned about

  • the lack of residents awareness of planning issues,
  • Caulfield South’s current and future development proposals and
  • possible upgrading of the Caulfield South Activity Centre from being a Neighbourhood (“lesser”) Centre to that of an Emerging Major Activity Centre.  SCAG feedback indicates that planning officers believe the upgrade has already occurred.

The South Caulfield Action Group’s formation has been highlighted by

  • lodging of a petition with Council for the implementation of a 2 storey height limit on small lots – 293 signatories and growing. A flyer depicting potential developments is attached.
  • Organizing the above meeting, to raise residents’ awareness of proposed planning changes and give the residents the opportunity to voice their views to those they have elected.
  • a determination to see residents views are duly considered with decisions that impact the South Caulfield Activity Centre are made.

Additional information prepared by SCAG

Comparative graphical presentation of ABS 2017-2018 Building Approvals – Glen Eira and other Metro Melbourne Councils.

GERA encourages residents to support this group and to attend the meeting.

 

REQUEST TO DEFER THE PROPOSED 27/2/2018 STRUCTURE PLAN (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) DECISION

Since Council’s early (ie. 1 day) release of the above Structure Plans to be submitted, for approval, to the 27/02/2018 Ordinary Council Meeting, GERA and residents have struggled with reviewing the volume of information released (approx. 500 pages of Agenda Items and 14 support documents) within an extremely tight timeframe. (5.5 days  vs. a planned 4.5 days).

Clearly, despite the magnitude of the proposed changes and claiming a real improvement to past substandard consultative practices, Council’s message is that residents’ complaints to the contrary,

  • that Officer’s have taken residents’ concerns into account in the Final Version of the Structure Plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick and Quality Design Guidelines and
  • that sufficient information has been presented to residents in a timely, readily accessible and understandable manner.

Additionally, feedback received by residents and GERA indicates that these is little point in residents undertaking or presenting any analysis as the Councillors are going to approve.

Given the recent granting of 12 month time extension for the completion for the development of Structure Plans for Glen Eira’s 3 major activity centres we believe that Council should defer making any decision on these plans at this stage.  Hence GERA has emailed to Council (all Councillors and Key Administrators) the following:

GERA believes that

  • Council should defer voting on the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick Structure Plans and Quality Design Guidelines included as Agenda Items 9.1 – 9.5 for the 27/2/2018 Ordinary Council Meeting.
  • The “Deferral Time Period” should that deemed sufficient to enable residents to provide informed feedback on the Structure Plans and for Council Officers to review and assess that feedback before a Council decision is made.

This would be in line with the Minister’s direction that states “Council needs to exercise it’s responsibilities under the Act and review and strengthen it’s scheme in consultation with the community”.

  • Council should remove from Officer’s Report Recommendation – Point 3 the wording “in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987”. This removal is to apply to all Structure Plans and Quality Design Guidelines presented to Council – currently or in the future.

As you should be aware, Planning Amendments are the mechanisms for changing the Planning Scheme.  As such, Planning Amendments are the planning tools that will ensure future developments comply with the desired outcomes of both the Structure Plans and Quality Design Guidelines.  To invoke Section 20(4)

– Is to deny residents input into the decisions making processes related to the preparation of the planning amendments and restrict community comments to the “end product” i.e. a planning amendment that has already received “Exhibit” ministerial approval. Council has a well established track record of refusing residents requests for changes to amendments approved for Exhibition (ie. community consultation)

– Does not align with the principles of good consultation or Council’s proclaimed goal of improving community consultation practices.

A question asked at all community consultations related to the Structure Plans residents have asked “what are planning tools (eg. overlays, zones etc.) are you proposing to incorporate into the planning scheme to ensure that these desired outcomes are achieved” and the answer has always been “we don’t know”.    Residents understand the significance of Section 20(4) and find it’s application totally unacceptable – a hard lesson learnt from the 2013 Zone Implementation

Feel free forward  a copy (or an amended copy) of this email to Councillors  – just made sure you include your name, street address and telephone/mobile contact details.

Councillor and Key Planning Officers email addresses are

MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

JSilver@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

DSztrajt@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

NTaylor@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

JMagee@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

Deputy Mayor – JHyams@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

Mayor – TAthanasopoulos@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

MEsakoff@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

CDavey@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

RMcKenzie@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

cityfutures@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

RTorres@gleneira.vic.gov.au

 

 

HOT PRESS –

Just received from the Elsternwick residents

Glen Eira Council will vote on the Elsternwick, Bentleigh & Carnegie structure plans on Tuesday night from 7.30pm at the Glen Eira Town Hall.

Elsternwick residents will be WEARING BLACK to signify the massive overshadowing of the proposed 12 storey highrise city in Elsternwick.

If you are opposed to the highrise elements in any of these plans, you may like to join the Elsternwick residents and wear BLACK on the night to show your support.

ELSTERNWICK URBAN RENEWAL AREA – Option 3 Revisited

Following our recent (20/2/18) posting “Where is Option 3 for the Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area?”, GERA was contacted by Council.   Councillors had been advised by the Planning Officers that Option 3 did not exist and that Council was receiving numerous emails, asking for Option 3, which Council was unable to respond to as there was nothing to provide.

It appears semantics have entered the picture – various alternate terms (eg. Iteration 3, Version 3, Agenda Item, not one or the other) have been used by Council when communicating with residents requesting updated EURA information.   On the other hand, the residents have retained the terminology (ie. option) included in the Draft Structure Plan for Elsternwick.

The Officers Report, related to Agenda Item 9.3 – Elsternwick Structure Plan, discusses the Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area (p. 6-8)

  • Officers have undertaken a significant review of the urban renewal area in order to address the various issues raised by the community….”
  • “Officers have therefore undertaken a comprehensive update to the urban renewal section …..”
  • “Officers consider that the new plans ….”

We leave it up to readers to decide

  • If what looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a duck, and
  • How the Duck Test results align with the concepts of good community engagement and open, transparent, accountable and representative government, and
  • If Council should defer making a decision on Tuesday to give residents time to review and provide feedback (for all three centres) on the deluge of information provided.

Below are the schematics of Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area which, if available, would have appeared in our previous posting as Option 3.

We also advise that a change.org petition, opposing high-rise development in Elsternwick, has been initiated by the residents.  Feel free to read and sign if you wish.

 

 

Updated Structure Plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick Published

Council has just published the Agenda for Tuesday’s (27/02) Council Meeting.

Included in the Agenda Items are Updated Structure Plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick and also the Quality Design Guidelines which apply to these and future activity centre Structure Plans.

Although we have yet to review these documents in detail (look for subsequent posts), their publication represents a major milestone towards completion of the Structure Planning exercise ordered by the Planning Minister.

Based on GERA’s involvement in this exercise, we urge all residents to review and assess these documents as we believe the planning outcomes (eg. expanded boundaries, height increase, rezonings, urban renewal areas and strategic sites etc.) for these 3 centres are likely to flow down to the Glen Eira’s emerging major activity centres and lesser activity centers.

Source: Quality Design Guidelines – Documentation:  City of Glen Eira Analysis of housing consumption and opportunities 2017 (p 101)

 

We also encourage residents to attend the Council Meeting (if unable to attend,  view the meeting via Live Streaming).

 

 

WHERE IS OPTION 3 FOR THE ELSTERNWICK URBAN RENEWAL AREA?

GERA has been advised that Glen Eira Council has now developed and completed a third plan (Option 3) for the Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area.

For those not aware,  the  Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area is bounded by the Nepean Highway and the Sandringham railway line.   The proposal involves rezoning much of the area from 2 storey residential to 8-12 storey commercial/residential that

  • is serviced by a convoluted street network that is ill-equipped (limited through access, dead ends etc.) to service anticipated traffic movements  (vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian) or parking demand, and
  • is located away from the retail core of the Elsternwick Activity Centre,
  • lacks accessible open space
  • lacks any response to basic questions re retention of neighbourhood character or heritage, overshadowing, privacy, traffic management and parking provisions etc.

Options 1 (the original proposal) and 2 (prepared to address the concerns raised re Option 1) have been resoundingly criticised by residents (see above), hence option 3 was prepared.

Options source:  Elsternwick Draft Structure Plan

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 3 has yet to be released for residents review, residents requests for its early release have been denied.   Option 3 details are scheduled for release at noon on Friday (23/2/2018), as part of the Agenda papers for Tuesday’s (27/2/2018) Council Meeting where it will be voted on by Council.  Apparently Council has decided that, if Council’s Planning Officers are unable to achieve community consensus after two consultations (with limited Councillor attendance),  it is considered acceptable not to present a 3rd option (or any 3rd option details) to the community any earlier than Council’s self mandated ruling of 4.5 days prior to a scheduled Council decision (which in this case is Option 3).

 In our view, releasing Option 3 with only 4.5 day window (which includes Saturday and Sunday) in which

  • Residents can assess, question and pass on comments (individually to each Councillor and key Admin. Staff) re a proposal that will significantly adversely impact their amenity, and
  • Councillors and Council Planning Officers can duly assess residents’ feedback for possible inclusion in the final Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area Structure Plan

is not only inadequate but also contrary to the principles of open, transparent and representative government.  Principles which Council statements acknowledge and actively promote.
Given Council’s acknowledged poor consultative performance on the Elsternwick Urban Renewal Area, residents are simply not “buying” into comments that adequate consultation has occurred or that Option 3 addresses the residents’ concerns.  As they are the ones who have to live with the outcome of Council’s decision, they are demanding the opportunity to review and have their say.  It is their right.

The Elsternwick residents and GERA urges residents to email all Councillors and key Council Officers A.S.A.P.  Don’t forget to add your name, street address and telephone contact no.

“I ask that Council defer it’s decision on Elsternwick’s Urban Renewal Zone Option 3 until community consultation has occurred”.

We know it’s a royal pain in the proverbial to be constantly emailing Councillors and Officers (if you can only send one email – send it to the Mayor).  However, it is important and is necessary to ensure due consideration is given to resident input into Council’s current and future decision making processes.

Both GERA and Council encourage resident attendance at the Council Meeting (7.30 p.m. Tuesday, 20th February, 2018 at the Glen Eira Town Hall).

As always feel free to comment on this posting via GERA’s facebook page.

***********************

Councillor and Key Planning Officers email addresses

MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

JSilver@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

DSztrajt@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

NTaylor@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

JMagee@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

Deputy Mayor – JHyams@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

Mayor – TAthanasopoulos@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

MEsakoff@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

CDavey@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

RMcKenzie@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

cityfutures@gleneira.vic.gov.au;

RTorres@gleneira.vic.gov.au

DEVELOPMENT INROADS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (NRZ1) – PART 2

The Officer’s Reports for the Rigby and Newman Avenue proposed developments  (19/12/2017 Agenda – Items 9.2 and 9.3) recommend approval at the next Tuesday’s Council Meeting subject to conditions.  The conditions listed are basically those agreed to by the developer at the belated Planning Conference or the stock standard conditions.

We can expect a lot more of these applications for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (a reported 80% of Glen Eira’s residents areas) as

  • any lot size over 700 sqm now is considered larger than conventional lots for the NRZ (as per the Officer’s Report) which
  • combined with VC110’s
    • removal of the mandatory 2 lot subdivision cap and the zone’s purpose of ”To limit opportunities for increased residential development” and
    • introduction of the 35% garden rule and
  • the use of basement car parking to increase dwelling yields and investment returns.

All open up huge development potential within the NRZ.  The NRZ  will now provide the diverse housing options the General Residential Zone (GRZ – 3 storey height limit) promised but failed to deliver.

If these two lots  (1,100 and 976.3 sqm to comprise 5 townhouses each with new lot sizes approx. 200 sqm)

  • that are distant from the services and facilities offered by (and used to justify the creation and proposed expansion of) activity centres.
  • can result in can result in a density increase that exceeds that originally predicted for the GRZ

then rocket science is not required to foresee the future of the many NRZ lots that exceed 700 sqm (or the 650 sqm as per VC110’s schedule for determining garden space requirements).   Adverse impacts expected will be reduced amenity, livability and sustainability in the zone previously identified as the “more sensitive residential areas”.

To support this we refer to an  article commenting on Amendment VC110 impacts (published by Maddocks  – legal planning law specialists,  frequently consulted by GE Council).

 “The change creates the potential for greater densities in the NRZ, while noting that development will be subject to the minimum garden area requirements in conjunction with maximum building heights and existing local controls.  Presumably, if the aim is to increase the number of new dwellings within the NRZ areas, those developers who have pleaded for greater intensity of development in the other residential zones and in activity centres to ‘compensate’ for the constraints of the NRZ, will now temper those pleas.”

GERA has is unable to predict how quickly development will occur in NRZ.  We do, however, note that

  • the “compensation” has started
  • Glen Elira’s current rate of building approvals is 2,000 pa. and
  • Glen Eira’s 2016/17 Annual Report now expects a 50:50 split between development in Activity Centres (high density areas) and the NRZ (formerly minimal change areas).

With regards the above article’s reference to “existing local controls”,  GERA has a major concern re Neighbourhood Character.  While it has huge significance in the assessing of, and the objecting to, planning permits, unlike Heritage it’s planning provisions are not well known to residents.

Briefly, the GE Planning Scheme Neighbourhood Character Provisions are

  • Overlays – widely accepted as being the most effective planning tool for defining and preserving neighbourhood character for specific areas. Relevant overlays are
    • Clause 43.5 Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) – Glen Eira has 6 overlays .
    • Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlays (DDO ) – Although, other Council often use DDO’s in conjunction with NCO’s, Glen Eira rarely does.
  • Policies – widely accepted as carrying less weight than Overlays. These policies include character statements for areas not covered by an NCOs.
    • Clause 22.7 Housing Diversity Policy
    • Clause 22.8 Minimal Change Area Policy

GERA strongly encourages readers to research and assess the character statement applicable for their location.  VC110 also removes the purpose of “To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines” presumably because they are now to be included in the zone schedule.  Contact Council with any proposed changes and request they be included/excluded.   Applications for a Planning Permit are assessed against the Planning Scheme that exists at the time permit was lodged – subsequent changes to the scheme receive little consideration.

 Following the release of the Officers Report, residents objecting to these development applications have forwarded a response to all Councillors.   This response challenges many matters raised in the Officer’s Report.  Again, the objectors intention in publishing the report is to assist residents objecting to similar inappropriate developments in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Residents Response to Officers Report