In the interests of factual reporting and honest communication with residents we highlight a comment put up by Hyams on the Residents’ Action Group Facebook page in response to the residents’ letter featured in our previous post.
I have a completely open mind about this, and I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the consultation, but it’s a great shame the anonymous authors of the letter chose not to mention the large areas where four storey development is now permitted that the proposed changes would reduce to two storeys or three storeys.
Now whether one believes that council has reduced the Residential Growth Zone in ‘large areas’ or not, the important considerations here are:
- How many 4 storey developments already exist, or are up for decision in these proposed 3 storey areas?
- What impact do the already existing 4 storey apartment blocks have on the street and is this merely a case of too little, too late – that the horse has already bolted?
- What Hyams does not address is how many sites have now been converted from 2 storey maximum height to 3 storeys? – much less the need for such changes given that Glen Eira is well and truly surpassing its housing needs for population growth.
As the perfect example of what we are on about, council is proposing to rezone the area north of Ward St along Bent Street from 4 to 3 storeys. There are 6 blocks of land in this area – 3 of which have already been granted permits for 4 storey developments. They are –
27 – 29 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 31 units
23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 29 units
Thus 50% of this small side of the street is already 4 storeys and 60 units! But it gets worse. The East side of Bent St is currently zoned for 3 storey (ie grz2). This is now extended to 6 properties further east along Vickery street which is currently zoned for 2 storeys.
Hyams of course does not mention any of this!!!!
Here is the map and again those sites highlighted in yellow already have permits for 4 storeys. The green markings indicate those sites earmarked for 3 storey development. This is not quid pro quo – it is an expansion of development potential throughout the municipality.
August 6, 2017 at 10:52 AM
I think council need to make these apartment streets one way. Absolutely impossible for 2 cars to pass with all the cars parked in the street. I know it is not solving the real problem
August 6, 2017 at 2:02 PM
They might as well take all the speed humps out while they’re at it, there’s no need for them any more…
August 6, 2017 at 11:02 AM
Cant wait to see IF he will answer?
August 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM
Over the years I’ve learnt to disregard anything that Hyams says. At the time that the zones were first introduced he spouted that they were fantastic. Now the reports implicitly acknowledge the poor planning they were based on. If they were so fantastic there would not be the need to change them now. His new found community sense of responsibility goes only so far as to weasel his way out of his role in their introduction.
August 6, 2017 at 12:02 PM
Thank you for pointing out the reality of what is happening. If any of this goes through it will be worse. Hyams can blabber on as much as he likes but he can’t disprove the facts.
August 6, 2017 at 2:57 PM
Community feedback has already highlighted views on development. For some reason he’s conveniently deaf from this though. No open mind there. Didnt want this process, took community to make it happen.Says it all about his agenda.Can only say trust me so many times.Community is onto it, enough of this rubbish.
August 6, 2017 at 4:14 PM
More more areas are becoming suitable for 3 storeys up from 2 than 4 storeys reduced to 3 storeys judging by the maps published thus far. Plus, the post shows how little impact reducing the rgz areas will have because they are already built up to breaking point. Only good thing is that council can save millions on speed humps as someone said earlier since no two cars can pass each other when there are cars already parked. Oops – still waiting for a decent parking precinct plan that was promised in 2003. Think Hyams was first elected in 2003. Has achieved plenty eh?
August 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM
It doesn’t matter how many places will be rezoned from four to three storeys alone. Not if they allow eight storeys in Bentleigh and twleve storeys in Carnegie and heaps higher in Elsternwick. The Pace 12 storey will have nearly 150 apartments in Carnegie. No big deal then to save half a dozen sites. Looks good but means bugger all. Naturally no reason given as to why these huge heights are even necessary.
August 6, 2017 at 6:07 PM
Look ! Hyam’s is Liberal Party through and through,He is a market driven free enterprise man. Developers are now and have be for a year or so; the biggest single donor group to both the Liberal and Labor Parties.
Hyams is just doing his job as a good little Blue Ribbon Liberal Boy and putting in place the smoke-screen needed to pull off this hoax. This will please the developers, and the donations will keep flowing. The take home message for developers is Glen Eira is open for business.
This is all legal and allowable under existing laws. If you want reform vote for a party that wants to ban donations. And people like Hyams will be out of a job.
August 7, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Reckon they’re trying to fix up the mess they created in 2013 and while they’re at it give more oopportunity to developers
August 8, 2017 at 11:18 AM
Now we know, due to some good reporting that Matthew Guy; Leader of Liberal Party opposition in Victoria, dines-out on Crayfish and drinking two bottles of Penfolds Grange, with a notorious Mafia crime boss.
You can add another few floors to your average local development/s if Hyam’s Liberal Party colleagues gain government.
Guys is using the Sergeant Schultz excuse ” I know nothing, I know nothing”
I betting he knows the price of the two bottles of Grange they all happily slurped down.
August 8, 2017 at 5:41 PM
So much of the “thinking” behind the planning scheme is in tatters. They’re abandoning the fiction of protecting the amenity and neighbourhood character of the municipality. The proposal is to expand the areas targeted for higher density development, including expanding commercial activity into surrounding residential areas. On-street parking is to remain a problem. Buses are considered acceptable for Virginia Estate, but not acceptable for people to access any other activity centre. Poor amenity is now acceptable. They couldn’t even be bothered providing strategic justification. It remains unfair, unpleasant, unsustainable, uneconomic.
August 8, 2017 at 8:11 PM
You’ve summed it up beautifully . Decideyou want to have grearer development andthen try to fool everyone including councillors that this is empirically justified.
August 8, 2017 at 11:14 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/it-was-all-kept-fairly-hush-hush-phone-call-transcript-contradicts-matthew-guy-on-dinner-with-mobster-20170808-gxrjox.html
Revealed are the strong ties with Guy as planning minister and organised crime donations to the Liberal Party. More lies from Guy as the Jorno’s leaks taped conversations that contradict his earlier statements.
You have to wonder if residents have any hope of untainted planning outcomes, with both major parties falling over themselves to get their hands on the proceeds of crimes to fund their candidates in Council and State elections.
Victoria Independent broad-based anti-corruption commission IBAC should investigate if there has any political interference with VCAT decisions and the rewriting of Victorian Planning Laws to cash in on their promises to their criminal donor mates.
August 13, 2017 at 3:38 PM
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.