Below we feature two pages of meeting notes that occurred between the Minister, Newton, Hyams, and department reps. We urge all readers to pay particular attention to the last 5 paragraphs of Page 2. These paragraphs reveal plenty about the manner in which this council operates and its hidden agendas!
September 1, 2014
August 30, 2014
Item 9.2 of the current agenda features an application for a 7 lot subdivision on land that is over 3,000 square metres. This property was up for sale just on a year ago and provided council with the perfect opportunity to add to the open space next to Riley Reserve. Of course, this was not even considered. Now there is this application to subdivide the land into seven lots on proposed lot sizes of – Lot 1 is 304 square metres in size, whilst, proposed Lots 2-7 (inclusive) range in size from 199 square metres to 238 square metres in size. The area is in Minimal Change/Residential 1 Zone. Readers should remember that Council’s proposed C115 Amendment for larger size blocks has not been given the green light for exhibition 9 months down the track. Even this application for subdivision dates back to March!
In a wonderful sleight of hand exercise, the officer’s report would have residents believe that The policy (ie the planning scheme) also recognised ‘larger sites’ being those lots greater than 2,000 square metres.
No it doesn’t! ‘larger sites’ are NOT DEFINED in the planning scheme. They never were. In fact, any size block that is ‘larger’ than its neighbours or the ‘conventional’ size can have more than 2 dwellings built on the land in minimal change. If we take ‘conventional’ to mean 500 square metres, then hundreds upon hundreds of properties fit into this category. Here’s what the planning scheme actually states:
Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone have been met. Circumstances where more than two dwellings may be achieved could include any of the following:
Where the site is in an area characterised by larger than conventional lots.
Where the site is significantly larger than the majority of properties immediately abutting the title boundary and the properties directly opposite.
Where the prevailing development in the street and neighbouring streets is predominantly characterised by multi-unit development.
Ensure that the existing neighbourhood character and subdivision pattern are maintained by discouraging the consolidation of sites.
Recognise that key pre-existing development sites over 2000m2, including transitional sites (eg sites once used for industry or other redundant uses) and existing residential sites, may be rezoned and developed in minimal change areas:
With a higher development yield than would normally apply in minimal change areas.
Incorporating a range of multi-unit developments.
Ensuring that any multi-unit residential development is consistent with the prevailing streetscape scale, especially along the perimeter of sites.
What makes the above even more ludicrous and unforgiveable is that the PLANNING SCHEME CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Another example of the complete ineptitude and incompetence of both the planning at local level as well as the the department. Why? Because at Section 22.08 -3.1 it states:
Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone have been met.
Hence what we have here is a total schemozzle and as we’ve indicated in a previous post, developers are quite legally entitled to argue that if they own a large lot in a minimal change area that the GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE standards apply rather than the MINIMAL CHANGE AREA standards. Whose heads should roll for this gross incompetence? How on earth can something as significant as this get through unchecked? How many staff are in planning? Why are we paying exorbitant costs for what must be seen as sheer incompetence?
PS: we are in error with the above by inadvertently looking at an older version of the Planning Scheme dating from 2013. However, this still does not invalidate our view that by designating the standards for larger lot sizes as General Residential Zone, instead of those that applied to Minimal Change, the community is far worse off and the ‘translation’ has been far from ‘neutral’. It also does Council no credit when this change was picked up weeks after the new zones were gazetted!
There’s also another item that was decided last council meeting and features in the Records of Assembly. The ‘reconstruction’ of Fosberry and St Aubins Avenue at at cost of $908,000. We have to wonder whether all of this ‘reconstruction’ (ie drainage) is merely another subsidy going to developers. Recently a large development received VCAT approval under the ‘transitional provisions” for two buildings of double storeys and 22 dwellings. The land is 3934 square metres.
Another opportunity for council to purchase land in an area bereft of open space. Once again, no purchase. And once again major ‘reconstruction’ of areas surrounding large development sites. The hive of such activity around Caulfield Village, and now St Aubins may be coincidental. We leave that up to readers to decide – but there appears to be a definite pattern. Considering that Glen Eira has dumped its development contributions levy, what a wonderful present this is for developers when ratepayers are forking out the money for their drainage!
August 26, 2014
- It is estimated by some that up to 12000 dwellings in Glen Eira are subject to flooding. Many of these properties are in the housing diversity areas
- Large areas of Glen Eira also sit on a water table
The significance of the above is magnified when applications such as the following appear –
Address: 15-17 Belsize Avenue, Carnegie.
Proposal: Construction of a four storey building comprising fifty two (52) residential apartments above two levels of basement car parking
We are not structural engineers. Nor are we hydrologists. But given the prevalence of more and more basement excavation in built up areas within the city, we are starting to wonder what LONG TERM impact such excavations have on water tables, drainage, flooding, and neighbouring properties? Also worth asking is the following:
- Does council have the necessary ‘expertise’ to adequately assess such an application or will they simply rely on the developer’s paid ‘experts’?
- Will council consider the cumulative effect, or simply go by its site by site application philosophy?
- Can council guarantee that neighbouring properties will not be impacted by this proposed deep excavation? What recourse do residents have if things go awry?
We’ve uploaded (HERE) a fascinating report from England which addresses some of the dangers of widespread excavations. Admittedly, conditions in England may be vastly different. However, the warnings they issue are universally applicable. Here are some quotes:
The Report identifies some of the considerations in relation to the effect on the surrounding buildings and areas where the risks may be higher. It also emphasises the need to consider attached properties as part of the same overall structure rather than treating a property in isolation.
Basement construction involves significant engineering structures, which create a permanent irreversible change in ground conditions. The complexity increases rapidly with the depth. This can have a long term impact on the future planning and development within the City of Westminster.
While an individual basement is unlikely to cause any significant change in groundwater levels, the long term cumulative effects need to be considered. In reality potential cumulative impacts will increase as more basements are constructed.
And for a closer to home example there’s this from Adelaide (7th May, 2014) –
DEVELOPERS of the controversial Baju Apartments at Henley Beach could be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix their handling of groundwater at the site.
According to a Charles Sturt Council report, developer Bayspring Pty Ltd has been removing groundwater from the Seaview Rd site without approval from the Environment Department and is in breach of the Natural Resources Management Act.
The basement of the four-storey apartment building, which opened in 2011, sits below the water table, making it susceptible to flooding. Since the apartments were built, groundwater around the basement has been collected and pumped out to sea.
However the Environment Department has told Bayspring the water must be returned to the aquifer and has been in talks with the company to find the best way to comply.
Residents are worried removing the groundwater would allow seawater to seep into the aquifer and change the make-up of the underlying soil, potentially causing cracking in their homes.
A council report has shown more than 134kL of water – the equivalent of one swimming lane of an Olympic-sized pool – is being pumped out to sea each day.
Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association president Jim Douglas said removing that much groundwater could affect the water table. He said buildings close to the beach could be at risk of cracking or losing stability and the Baju Apartments would likely be the worst affected.
“The people there ought to be concerned about it,” Mr Douglas said. “Its bloody scary…and it is right under their floorboards.”
North St resident Lara Hollamby said the process to fix the issue was taking too long and closer monitoring was needed to reassure residents that damage had not already occurred.
She feared properties in and around Henley Square were at risk of becoming unstable if the removal of groundwater continued. “It’s not fair for residents and the people who live so close. “What recourse can they have if they do suffer damage? They deserve some peace of mind. “The removal of this groundwater has now been going on for years and there has been no meaningful monitoring during that time.”
Reinjecting the water into the aquifer or waterproofing the building are both being considered and could cost anywhere between $300,000 and $700,000.
A spokeswoman for the Environment Department said the practice of removing the water posed “no risk in the short-to-medium term to the integrity of the underlying aquifer”.
The department did not respond to questions about whether Bayspring would be fined for breaching the Natural Resources Management Act.
Colton State Labor MP Paul Caica said the Department had made it clear no damage had yet been done to the aquifer.
However the water needed to be returned to ensure there were no long-term problems.
“It has gone on far too long and it would be nice to have a speedy conclusion,” Mr Caica said.
Bayspring owner Richard Antunes did not respond to queries by press time.
PS: WE’VE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING PHOTO BY A RESIDENT OF A DEVELOPMENT IN GLEN EIRA WHERE THE DEVELOPER IS CLEARLY PUMPING WATER ONTO THE FOOTPATH AND INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM – TOGETHER WITH ALL THE DEBRIS FROM THE BUILDING SITE!
August 25, 2014
August 20, 2014
Set down for tomorrow – 21st August – under ‘Mediation’!
Room 2.6 – Member S. Cimino
1:30 PM P930/2014 BPG Caulfield Village P/L v Glen Eira CC
Caulfield Mixed Use Area – Land bound by Kambrook Road, Station Street and Normanby Road, Caulfield
PS: for a VCAT ‘Fact Sheet’ explaining mediation, see – https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/system/files/mediation_factsheet.pdf
- the secrecy involved
- question whether any potential ‘outcome’ is sanctioned by councillors/Council or are ‘compromises’ to be the exclusive task of officers?
- Why has there been no public announcement of this ‘mediation’?
- What, if any, private deals have already been arranged? (forgive our cynicism!)
August 19, 2014
Below is part of the correspondence between Council and the department. The date of this correspondence is very important – well and truly AFTER the ‘reformed’ zones were introduced. Why wasn’t this glaring and detrimental change picked up earlier? Why hasn’t council done a damn thing about it in the past year? Why was there such indecent haste and secrecy to begin with? And why are we paying large sums of money to Akehurst and his planning department when clearly they can’t get things right? Either they are not doing their jobs adequately enough or are entirely indifferent to the repercussions of their decisions. Whichever, the result remains poor planning and the continued erosion of residential amenity.
Perhaps confusing at first sight, but nonetheless of major significance. Here’s why!
Do you, or any of your neighbours happen to live in a Minimal Change Area? (ie NRZ1)
Does your or your neighbour’s land happen to be larger than its surrounding properties? (say 700+ sqm)
Does your property happen to abut a General Residential Zone? (GRZ1, GRZ2 OR GRZ3)
If you’ve answered ‘yes’ to all of these questions then we regret to inform you that you are in what is colloquially termed, ‘deep shit’. Why? Because this planning department and its ignorant and compliant councillors have overlooked another basic flaw in the current planning scheme. The relevant clause that gives developers the right to erect more than two dwellings in minimal change on larger size blocks just happens to read:
Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly:
- demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone have been met.
In other words, if the land happens to be larger than its neighbours, and if you are on the border of GRZ zones (but still in minimal change), then it is the GRZ ‘standards’ that apply AND NOT THOSE DESIGNATED FOR MINIMAL CHANGE!
There has already been one VCAT decision where the applicant argued along this line. Thankfully the member rejected the application because countless other standards such as setbacks, etc. were not met by the application. However, there was plenty that this member had to say about council and its planning scheme. We quote:
Mr Clarke (for applicant) urged me to apply the GRZ standards because the policy is clear as to its terms and it is sensible to do so when the intention of policy is to allow consideration of more intense development than two dwelling.
I find neither Mr Sissons’ (for council) submissions nor Mr Clarke’s opinions compelling as to what standards should apply for the purposes of applying the policy. The policy is poorly drafted and they have understandably struggled to find a coherent path of reasoning. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/969.html)
This entire episode does not only reveal the ineptitude of Council, but the continual mistruths that are allowed to go out in councillors’ names. Applying GRZ standards to minimal change areas IS NOT A ‘NEUTRAL TRANSLATION’ of what came before. Minimal change stipulates 25% permeability – GRZ 20%; site coverage in minimal change is 50% – in GRZ IT IS 60%; setbacks, and heights also differ markedly.
There are countless large blocks in minimal change that abut GRZ zones. A few examples can be quickly found along Orrong Crescent, Inkerman Road, Angdon road and Craddock Avenue, just for starters. If any of these properties were to come up for ‘redevelopment’ then the applicant has every right to argue that more than two dwellings are applicable and that the standards for GRZ zones should be applied. Not minimal change, we repeat, but the watered down ‘standards’ for the General Residential Zones.
It’s probably taken a year, but residents are finally get a true inkling of what bastardry has been perpetrated with the introduction of these disastrous ‘reformed zones’. Determined to be ‘first cab off the rank’ residents are now paying the price for planning that is not only inept, but constitutes a further erosion of all amenity and common sense. For this we must thank Newton, Akehurst and a band of councillors who simply do not have a clue, or don’t care!
August 18, 2014
Less than 3% of Glen Eira is currently zoned as Commercial (C1Z). Not a huge area compared to say Stonnington’s 6.22% over a much smaller land area. One would expect that with proper, competent planning Council should have done everything in its power to ensure that properties in the immediate surrounds were protected from the possibility of innumerable high rise buildings sitting right on top of a single storey dwelling.
But that’s not the way this Council works. Other councils for example have 3 Neighborhood Residential Zones – Glen Eira has lumped everyone into the same basket with just one single zone. As for General Residential Zones others have up to 10 or 12 areas carefully selected. Glen Eira has a pathetic two zones – we discount the Alma Club fiasco as a ‘zone’. What this basically means is that other councils did their homework. They dissected their municipalities and consequences and then decided on appropriate zoning. They even had the temerity to revisit their housing strategies!
None of this occurred in Glen Eira. In their sloth, haste, and plain old incompetence Glen Eira has tried to sell the furphy that their new zones are a simple ‘translation’ of what existed before August 23rd, 2013. Apart from the fact that these old zones were based on a Housing Strategy dating back to 2002 (and which hasn’t been touched since) the ‘rules’ have changed – especially in regard to commercial zones. But did council take any of this into account? Did they do the necessary research? Did they, to put it bluntly, have the skill, will, and plain old competence to at least try and achieve the best results? Or is it, that they couldn’t give a stuff and were reluctant to put in place any restrictions on development?
Below we feature a mere small selection of the appalling potential results of such indifference and incompetence. There were many more examples we could have selected – but these should suffice. The point we make is that in all of these maps the commercial zones are sitting smack in the middle of areas zoned ‘residential’ – yet there is no appropriate zoning around these areas to provide relief to residents. With no height limits, no real setbacks, no parking plan overlays, and no open space, residents can look skywards and see only concrete and overhanging balconies. Our sincere commiserations to all residents living within cooee of these commercial zones!
PS: we forgot to mention that in Commercial Zones and Mixed Use Zones there are NO HEIGHT LIMITS! We also note that there is a wonderful letter from residents put up on the GERA (Glen Eira Residents’ Association) website.