Dear Mayor Mary Delahunty,

Re C143 88-100 McKinnon Rd McKinnon

We understand that in the next week you will be making a decision regarding C143 and that GRZ 2 has been recommended by the Planning Panel.  We would like Council to consider another option based on the following points. Council recently published strategies including the following vision statement: 
​

• That McKinnon will be an accessible centre with a strong village feel, which recognises and celebrates its heritage, art and local history.  
• Jacqui Brasher stated in her submission to the Planning Panel (Page 6) Given the amendment site is located at the very edge of a neighbourhood centre, policy encourages a town house style development as opposed to apartment style development. 

This is supported by Council’s current strategic planning and the effects on Amendment C143:

• Vision statement - Family Town houses are noted as the highest focus development type in residential areas of neighbourhood centres. (Page 9 - Council's Draft Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy) 

 
In the light of the size and location of this land, i.e., the biggest development site in McKinnon Village, surrounded by zones NRZ1 and GRZ2 (approximately 50% of houses adjacent to this land on the southern and western boundaries are NRZ1), we request that you consider proposing a DDO that would:

• Ensure a townhouse style development  
• Promotes the Village feel and emphasises McKinnon’s heritage, local history and art (may require inclusion of an NCO as well as a DDO) 
• Ensure that any underground car parking would not exceed the above ground building envelope to ensure landscaping includes growth of canopy trees and, 
• Mitigation of storm water flooding (the site is subject to a SBO).

Again, we draw your attention to the lack of real consultation with the community regarding the proposal of a GRZ2 zoning.  

The following statement confirms our concerns: 

Ms Brasher admitted that the MUZ1 / DDO6 was exhibited to “test the waters” (Council’s words).

This is not consultation. 

regards,

Residents of McKinnon

Bette Hatfield from the Glen Eira Residents' Association attended the planning conference on 5 July, 2017, for this planned development at 240-250  McKinnon Road. Some thoughts are as follows:

Only Eight objections were received! That's right. Eight. 

In attendance were two councillors, two developers and one resident (Bette).   

This is EXTREMELY disappointing - residents need to be aware that making a post on the Glen Eira Residents' Action Group Facebook page does not equal job done. 

The conference lasted all of 30 minutes.  A Council decision is scheduled for 25 July meeting. It was chaired by Jim Magee and aided by Madeleine Snell.  Developer representative was Urbis. (This is the same company representing the developers for 88-100 McKinnon Road rezone application).

Points of interest Bette stated at the meeting included:

• Council, rather than summarising GERA's comment re a 3 storey interim height control on Centre Road major activity centre vs. a proposed 6 storey in McKinnon Road (a lesser activity centre) as "excessive height", should give it the emphasis it deserved in the forthcoming officers report.
• Developers commented that a car parking waiver was sought (2 spaces) and was supported by development's removal of 5 currently existing crossovers was apples and oranges.  The additional onstreet parking provided was time restricted - it did not equate to providing non time restricted on site visitor parking.
• Lane way access was not supported by Council policy and failed to account to current laneway by existing businesses and likely future development.   
• Council is required to do more that consider each development in isolation, it was also required to consider cumulative impact - resulted in Magee (Chair) finally agreeing that Council's legal obligation/responsibility included both
• request for site size (1100 sqm) required both Council and Developer reps to do a file search

The developer's representative noted that as they are the first development in that area, they therefore, don't need to consider the cumulative impact of the development. 

We’ve been contacted by a resident who is concerned that Glen Eira is again likely to lose forever a property of historic and architectural significance.   As per the below Domain article Council has applied to the Minister for Planning for an Interim Heritage Protection Order for the property – GERA applauds Council’s action and hopes that Council has also sought Heritage Victoria’s involvement.

Documentation and pictures supporting the significance of the “Lind House” and Designer Anatol Kagan are presented in article published on the Australian Modern website.
We encourage residents to show support for the preservation of the “Lind House” by emailing the Mayor (MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au) re Planning Permit GE/PP-30607/2017.

The planning panel's report for C143, just in, from Glen Eira Council...

"The Recommendation of the Panel is to: "Adopt Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C143 in the form as put to the Panel; with the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 and the Environmental Audit Overlay applied" - Jacquie Brasher

Find the report here: Planning Panel Report

More to come.

Take a look at the proposed car parking and the number of proposed three-bedroom apartments. Below are proposals for MUZ, which will be on the table at the Planning Panel. The development is surrounded by mostly single storey dwellings. 

​

C143 / 88-100 McKinnon Road, McKinnon

From: Ann G
To: "MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au" <MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au>

Dear Mary,
 
We refer to our emails dated 19th March (prior to the Council meeting on 21st March) in which we requested that you “vote to abandon this amendment in its entirety and request that residents be consulted on the proposed re-zoning BEFORE any new amendment for this location is submitted to the Minister for exhibition”.
 
Having attended the Council meeting on 21st March, we were very disappointed that with the exception of Cr. Athanasopoulos  the entire Council voted instead to abandon proposed MUZ & DDO, replace it with a GRZ2 and refer the matter to an Independent Planning Panel.   We, and we believe all other objectors left the Council meeting on the evening of 21st with the clear understanding that MUZ & DDO were off the table for this amendment (and indeed the letter received from Jacqui Brasher dated 4thApril seemed to confirm this understanding, despite the fact that there was a disparity between Planning Panel's letter i.e. MUZ and her letter)
 
We have now been advised that  the Planning Panel is in fact considering MUZ as this is the exhibited Amendment, as well as GRZ2. – and that at the Panel Directions hearing when the planning panel asked Jacqui Brasher why Council had not chosen to formally abandon C143 and restart the amendment process for the change to GRZ2 - her response was Council supported what was exhibited – which is MUZ!)  
Can you please advise if you aware that this is the case, and if so can you please explain to us why this has happened – and more to the point why were objectors advised that the Council resolution "abandons" the Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay when in fact Council had merely changed its position and added GRZ to the Panel's review.
Yours faithfully

Ann G & Natalie V

 C143 / 88-100 McKinnon Road, McKinnon

Cr. Mary Delahunty <MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au>8 May 2017 at 14:13
To: Ann G & Nat V

Councillors <Councillors@gleneira.vic.gov.au>, Executive and Councillor Support <ExecutiveandCouncillorSupport@gleneira.vic.gov.au>
​
Dear Ann and Natalie,
 
Thank you for your email on Tuesday 25 April, regarding the McKinnon Road Planning Scheme Amendment, my apologies for the delay in responding, I wanted to make sure I had a clear understanding of our position.
 
Firstly, regarding Council’s resolution which you are familiar with, Council resolved that it

• ‘abandons the proposed Mixed use Zone and Design and Development Overlay,
• endorses a General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) and an Environmental Audit Overlay; and
• refers submissions and the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) and an Environmental Audit Overlay to an independent panel in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.’

 
As you know, Planning Panels Victoria are an advisory body and not a decision making authority, as such they make recommendations to the Responsible Authority, in this case Council. As part of their assessment of the amendment they are required to turn their minds to the amendment process, the exhibited documents, the Council resolution and most importantly the submissions received.
 
They are not able to reinstate the Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay to the amendment process, however they are entitled to consider its merits and if choose to, they are able to recommend that the Council reconsider the MUZ and DDO. However, as previously stated the Panel is only a recommending body, Council is the Responsible Authority which has recently resolved to abandon the MUZ and DDO, following community consultation.
 
Once Council receives the Planning Panel’s recommendation, the Council will decide whether to adopt, modify or abandon the amendment in its entirety.  If Council decide to adopt the amendment, it is then referred to the Planning Minister for final consideration and approval.  I should note that the Planning Minister also has the right to approve, modify or abandon the amendment at the final stage.
 
I am advised that at the Directions Hearing, Council Officers were questioned as to why Council exhibited the MUZ when the GRZ2 was available from the beginning of the process. In responding to this question, Council’s representative simply stated the facts that Council resolved/supported to exhibit the MUZ to seek community consultation.
 
As Mayor, I can say that after considering the community's submissions, the Council resolved that MUZ is not the right zone for this site. As such, Council has referred the GRZ2, which is a less intensive zone, to the Panel.
 
If you have any further queries please feel free to contact me or go directly to Aidan Mullen, Manager City Futures on 9581 4538.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Mary
​

As we previously advised there is an Independent Panel hearing relating to this amendment on 25th May.
 
At the recent Panel Direction Hearing we became aware that the Independent Panel is legally required to provide a recommendation on MUZ & DDO (as this is the exhibited amendment), as well as GRZ2  - so will therefore be reviewing both options.
 
Obviously this information is completely at odds with the information provided by the Council Strategic Planning Department which sent a letter to objectors on 4th April confirming the council resolution which “abandons the proposed Mixed use Zone and Design and Development Overlay, endorses General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) and an Environmental Audit Overlay”
 
We have contacted all council members (via email on 25 April), and are awaiting clarification from the 8 councillors who voted on the night to refer the matter to an Independent Panel.
 
We have also become aware that not all objectors may have received the notification about the Independent Panel, or the letter from the Council Strategic Planner – we have brought this to the attention of the council
 

Those who submitted objections will by now have received a letter from Planning Panels Victoria in regard to the hearing dates.

Stage 1 will be the Directions Hearing.

10.00am, Wednesday 19 April, 2017
Glen Eira City Council, Caulfield Cup Room
Cnr Glen Eira and Hawthorn Roads, Caulfield

Stage 2 will be the Public Hearing

This is the big one. This is your opportunity to voice your objections, again, and bring in experts. 

Wednesday 24  - 26 May, 2017

It will take place over three days.

You must RSVP to attend. The deadline is 12 noon, Tuesday 18 April 2017.

You must fill in  the Request to be Heard Form. You can do this online. Click here to fill it in.

Again, numbers count in this process so please, if you can, fill in the form and attend the Public Hearing in May.

​

• Council confirmed that 90 residents were notified of the amendment

 

• Overwhelming response were objections (177 objections / 5 in agreement)

 

• A number of people mentioned that given these numbers was not sure why the conference was required as the number of objections indicate public feeling about the amendment.

 

• Meeting was very well attended with more than 30 people in the theatrette and almost all those who attended spoke

 

• Residents at the meeting respected the applicants right to seek re-zone of their property but that the incorrect rezoning/redevelopment was being sought.

 

• Meeting went for approx. 3.5 hours

 

• Objectors agreed that this proposal had been rushed through with undue speed and without public consultation given the significant impact the application will have on zoning/height limits, going forward. Concerns were also brought up about the timing of the notification & the objection deadline just prior to Christmas, when people are on leave or on vacation etc…

Lack of transparency
There was concern and frustration about the lack of transparency relating to this proposal and general disbelief when the applicant mentioned toward the end of the meeting that a sight line/building envelope plan existed but had not been made available and were not made available during the conference.  Jacqui Brasher, Principle Strategic Planner, advised it would be made available on the website, the day after the conference.
Aidan Mullen tried to clarify that the envelope details are on the website in word form… but objectors mentioned a number of times during the night that it would be good to see what the development would visually resemble
Note:  plans were made available on the website the following day, but does not include any information about property on the Eastern Boundary directly abutting site which will be significantly impacted by any development on the site.
 
Site coverage explained at conference
Aimee Dash stated that the building would only have 60% site coverage, however the site line/building envelope plans provided the day after the conference suggests boundary to boundary coverage. Even the 3rd floor (top) storey appears from a visual inspection to cover at least 80% of the site. She was also unclear about set-backs on the property – first stating that the front boundary would be in line with existing houses in the surrounding area, and then later stated that the front boundary would be at footpath.
 
Village atmosphere
General sadness about how this will impact the Village feel, which is the reason people chose to live here. Fear that if this is approved it will just allow high density development to “spread like a cancer” and before long, McKinnon will be devoured by developers with wall-to-wall high density apartments.
 
A number of objectors stated on the night and via their written objections  that a more appropriate height limit for this site would be double storey town houses, given the predominant building height currently in the area is one/two storey buildings.
 
Privacy and sunlight and decrease of quality of life
Concerns about privacy & overlooking, and impact on sunlight in neighbouring properties. Properties abutting the development have a right to privacy, a right to quiet enjoyment and a right to sunlight. This development will take that away. 
​
Gateway
The concept of a gateway building was discussed. One objector suggested that McKinnon currently has a Gateway Building, the McKinnon Hotel, which has been recently renovated. Also the site at the corner of McKinnon & Jasper roads, which is currently in the process of redevelopment, are gateway buildings. If a “Mixed Use” development is required, the commercial area of the village would be a more appropriate location.  There is no requirement for a “Gateway” building at this end of McKinnon Road as it is a residential area.
 
Drainage
Concerns about impact on drainage & sewage systems and flooding were brought up. This was a big concern for a number of residents, and some gave examples of recent flooding. There is a belief that any basement car parking in a flood plain area will impact the surrounding homes.
We are sitting on a flood plain and residents voiced concerns about previous floods and the inadequacy of the drainage, which has come up numerous times at council meetings over the years and has yet to be fixed.  
 
Traffic
There were concerns about impact on traffic & parking. A number of objectors pointed out how difficult it is to currently navigate the roundabout at Wheatley Road without the impact of a major high density development.  Also concern about the proposed entry point to a development which would be via a narrow rear lane 3.5m wide – barely wide enough for a single car width, and currently a blind entrance, and also located near the Roundabout. Also of note: no clarification was provided on exactly what the new tender advertised by the council entails for this roundabout.
One objector who takes their children to Ormond Primary school stated that they avoid the Wheatley Road McKinnon Road roundabout at the moment as it is already dangerous and she has witnessed many near-miss accidents.
One resident who lives near Ormond Primary noted that during school hours he couldn’t get his car out of the driveway. An increase in school population due to increases in population of the suburb will have a detrimental affect on residents surrounding the school.
Ann brought up that only recently, the large service station had a ‘petrol sale’ on a Sunday. The traffic chaos that ensued was dangerous. The traffic was piled up all the way down McKinnon road.  Many impatient drivers overtook the waiting cars to avoid waiting for traffic to move. The neighbour witnessed a car accident. And this was just for a few hours.
 
Does McKinnon need more shops?
Given that many of the shops in the Village (in the commercial zone) appear to be vacant and already suffers from lack of parking will only make it more difficult.
Note:  the report prepared by Aimee Dash for the applicants also points out that the location currently “does not enjoy good exposure to passing traffic”, so why would a new development with limited parking options be viable)
 
Ploy to introduce a four level residential development
Concern that this is just ploy to introduce a 4 level development, which will then become totally residential. This question was put to Jacqui Brasher, who on pressing, responded that “potentially this could happen” due to the economic viability of the current shops in the area.
  
Question of how this amendment got through Planning Department and then through council, given it is seeking to impose a new height in a clearly residentially-zoned area – this question was asked a number of times but not answered
 
Landscaping and front gardens
Concern was raised about gardening and landscaping around the building. A current development on the corner of Bent Street and McKinnon Road had overgrown grass and nature strips for months, creating an ugly view from the street.
 
Visual bulk
A three or even four storey building will dominate the landscape, its visual bulk will be seen from the top of McKinnon Hill. Concerns about scale-down, that is, the surrounding properties are predominantly one-storey homes.
 
Waste management
The issue of waste disposal was brought up. Potentially 50 apartments on that block. How will that affect the surrounding area in terms of elimination of waste and waste pickup?
 
Setting precedence for future development
Putting this proposal through will create a precedence for other money-grabbing developers to impose new heights in the area. What is to stop them building four storeys in other non-gateway residential areas?
 
Population
Many buy into the McKinnon Secondary School Zone (which this development is part of) in order to send their children to McKinnon Secondary College. It is already at capacity. It has already been stated by the principal of this college that developments are increasing enrolments and they are already at capacity. This will burden the high school and as a result, will affect their standards of education.
 
Not a major retail strip
McKinnon road is not a major retail strip. Nor is it a major road compared to Centre Road or North Road. Parking is already at capacity. Traffic is already at capacity.
 
Surrounded by residential zones
The area is surrounded by GRZ and NRZ. It’s a residential zone.
 
Decrease in property values
Properties abutting development will be immediately affected with a decrease in property values. Combined with the affect a four storey development will have on their right to privacy, sunlight and quiet enjoyment on the surrounding residents’ properties, residents will have no choice but to sell up to developers. Which is great for developers who then leave the suburb with their millions lining their pockets but what will happen to residents left to live amongst unsustainable density?
 
Neighborhood character
The look and feel of the neighbourhood is already changing. Residents moved here because of the character of the neighbourhood and the pride residents take in their properties of character – Californian Bungalows, Art Decos, vintage cottages. A development like this will start a precedent for further developing and subsequently ripping the heart and character out of the suburb.
 
Restricted parking permits
In line with other developments happening in the area, restrictions to parking permits and visitor parking have been granted by council in the past. The cumulative affect will be that the traffic will become gridlocked.
 
Increase in population and increase in crime rate
It was brought up that an increase in population will increase crime rate in the area, as properties are being snapped up as investments and rented out. With an increase in transient populations, studies have found a link to an increase in crime as temporary residents don’t have an investment in the community compared to home owners.
 
Footpaths and roads blocked during developments
With the scale of developments already happening in a small area, streets and footpaths are blocked off by developers. Trucks crowd small streets. Increasing densities also create a lack of parking with high number of vehicles parked out on the street. This combined creates traffic chaos as well as danger to pedestrians.

Opposite McKinnon Village I found this sign for this proposed development, which has been in planning mode for some time, ever since these three properties sold together some years ago.

Twenty-one flats is what is being proposed here. Can you imagine the traffic chaos, especially being close to shops and the train station? 

Last Sunday, the large petrol station at 100 McKinnon Road decided to have a massive fuel sale. They were selling petrol at 84c per litre. The resulting traffic chaos that eschewed cannot be underestimated. I posted a video of it on the McKinnonregrets instagram feed.  I even witnessed a car accident because of frustrated drivers who were trying to avoid the traffic standstill. This lasted most of Sunday on McKinnon road, a day which is normally quiet. I didn't dare drive out of my own driveway.

So, imagine what McKinnon Road will be like as more apartments are packed into these small blocks?

You will see that the developers are applying for a reduction in the statutory car parking requirement. Reducing car parking requirements is fine if there was a cultural shift in how Melbourne residents travel. But that hasn't happened yet. According to an ABC article from 2014, two out of three Australians drive to work and only one in ten rely on public transport. Those figures would not have changed much since 2014. And as teh construction begins on the corner of Bent Street and McKinnon Road traffic chaos and  congestion is only going to get worse.

And forget about trying to find a parking spot around this area. All you have to do is take a look at Bent Street and the parking mess there.

Let's also take a look at the motor vehicle statistics here, conducted by the ABS on 31 January 2016. As a member of the Glen Eira Residents Action Group on Facebook pointed out, there are 18 million vehicles in a population of 24 million. That is, 3 vehicles for every 4 Australians. When you take out the too young and too old from the equation you are left with a question of, how many people who live in a 2-bedroom apartment have a vehicle? If we factor around 1.5 vehicles for a 2-bedroom home, then it raises the question of how many vehicles will spill out onto the street? From the plans, which you can download below, there are 3-bedroom apartments included in this planning permit. And with the developers requesting reduced parking as part of their submission, my guess is there will be a number of cars spilling out onto the street. 

Buried in the Glen Eira Council website are the plans for this.
You can download them here:
​