Tag Archives: Flawed Planning


Those of you who have been following our previous posts on the 2013 Draft Open Space Strategy will be aware that GERA has been requesting details of the strategy’s reported 11.9 ha (119,000 sqm) increase in Glen Eira’s Open Space from that reported in the 1998 Strategy.  GERA’s initial (3/12/2014) and follow-up requests do not stem from a desire to  “nitpick” but rather a belief that the practice of “good governance” (and its principles of openness, transparency and accountability) requires advising the community when a change of definitions has occurred and providing an analysis of the impact of the definitional changes when presenting documents to the community.  The significance of Glen Eira’s well documented lack of open space* and the community’s long held and well expressed governance concerns adds emphasis to this requirement in this instance.

GERA received the requested details (ie. the 1998 Open Space Strategy’s Working Paper C – Public Open Space Inventory and Inventory of Buildings within Open Space Areas last Friday (7/2/2014) and has undertaken Council’s recommended D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) comparison/reconciliation.

The comparison/reconciliation results are very disconcerting due to the disparity of the results;  area differences are recorded for most parks (whatever the size) and those differences are often contrary to expectations.  The statement that “From these definitions it can be deduced that the 1998 strategy did not include Council leased facilities such as tennis courts, bowls clubs and croquet, etc.”  indicates a reasonable expectation of area increases in those parks with such facilities and a zero area change to  those parks without such facilities.  Yet surprisingly, and inexplicably, this is not necessarily the case.  For example, Bailey Reserve records an area decrease of 1.37 ha or 13,700 sqm, Duncan McKinnon Reserve records an area decrease of 0.27 ha or 2,700 sqm, and the Glen Rigney Memorial Reserve has doubled in area – 1998 0.03 ha or 300 sqm to 0.06 or 600 sqm in 2013.  There are numerous other such discrepancies. 

Such unexplained anomalies raise many questions re the detailed knowledge and management of Glen Eira’s extremely valuable open space assets and the validity of the data presented in both strategies.  While doubts may be readily cast on of the 1998 Strategy,  doing so legitimately raises additional questions related to the time elapsed (16 years) to identify the 1998 “errors” and the validity of park master plans (all based on the 1998 strategy and which Council indicates are strictly adhered to, eg. the recent controversial Caulfield Park tree removal).

With reference to our earlier posting querying the 11.9 ha (119,000 sqm) increase, please note the following results recorded in GERA’s comparative analysis of the 1998 and 2013 surveys

  • Mallanbool Reserve (2.21 ha or 22,100 sqm) was not included in the 1998 survey and is a valid addition to Glen Eira’s open space in the 2013 Strategy.
  • Even without detailed data,  a rough calculation that factors into the 11.9 ha (119,000 sqm) increase
    • the unexplained reduction in the Bailey (1.37 ha) and Duncan McKinnon Reserves (0.27) and East Boundary Road Reserve (2.46 ha), and
    • the addition of Mallanbool Reserve (2.21 ha), Booran Road Reservoir (1.7 ha) and Packer Park (1.99 ha**).

indicates that most of the net 11.9 ha increase is attributable to “definitional change” and  highlights the governance aspect raised above.

It also highlights GERA’s comment, included in our  submission to the 2013 Draft Open Space Strategy  that Council’s exclusion of the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse on the grounds of “restricted public access” is fundamentally flawed when the “definitional change” allows for the inclusion of leased facilities that cumulatively approach the Centre in size yet have more restrictions to public access than does the Centre.

**  the reported increase in Packer Park (1.99 ha, 19,900 sqm) includes the purchase of two house lots and the previously leased bowls club that Council proposed to sell to raise funding for the purchase and rehabilitation of the 2 house lots.  Generously assuming that the house lots comprised 0.4 ha (4,000 sqm), the remaining 1.5 ha (10,500 sqm) of the 1.99 ha increase constituted Council owned and leased land and as such is considered to be a definitional change.  Under the revised definition of open space, had the  Bowls Club remained it would have been included in the 2013 Strategy.  Council’s rehabilitation works changed public accessibility rather than the area’s definition status.

Packer Park labelled picture T

GERA believes that, as mentioned in our previous posting, in the 16 years since 1998 little has been achieved with regards to increasing Glen Eira open space and that which has been achieved has been primarily the result of government grants and which have not been augmented by Council actively seeking purchasing opportunities.  In the past 16 years, open space acquisitions (ie. “real” rather than definitional) have been limited to the

  • Mallanbool Reserve (2.21 ha, 22,100 sqm) – Crown land (State), management rights granted to Council
  • Booran Road Reservoir (1.73 ha, 17,300 sqm) – Crown land (State), management rights granted to Council in 2010 – rehabilitation works scheduled to commence in 2015/2016.
  • 2 Packer Park house lots of unknown area (assumed to be 0.4 ha or 4000 sqm – refer above) purchased in 2011 ($1.911m).

This limited achievement comes despite residents continually expressed open space long term goals, a rapidly rising population and Council statements recognising Glen Eira’s need for increased open space and promises of active acquisition (via purchase and government grants).  The 1998 strategy’s “suggested” expenditure of the developers open space contributions as 50% split between acquisition and existing park improvements has been ignored.  Aside from the Packer Park house lots, open space contribution ($12.8m for the period 2003/4 to 2011/12) has been spent on capital works in, or maintenance of, existing parkland.  This is an imbalance that needs to be rectified.

GERA re-iterates the points made in our 2013 Open Space Strategy Submission (insert link)

  • Increased frequency of Open Space Strategy reviews
  • Open Space Contributions to be held in reserve for the purchase and rehabilitation of the purchased additional parkland.
  • Regular reporting of open space contributions – revenue received and expenditures
  • Ensure that the current maximum open space contribution rate of 5% of unimproved land value to applied to all multi unit developments within Glen Eira as a priority.
  • Council should join with other Councils currently advocating to the State Government for higher open space contribution rates to apply to Commercial and Mixed Use Zones (currently exempt from open space contributions)

In addition GERA also advocates that, in line with good governance practices, Council advises the community when definitions change and provides an analysis of the impact the changes.



* Glen Eira has the least per capita open space ratio in Metropolitan Melbourne which, at 1.4 ha per 1000 population, is approximately half of the average ratio for Metro Melbourne.


In a previous post GERA raised the issue of planning permit extensions (for the construction of dwellings) and the failure to consider the flow-on impact of extended planning permits when reviewing applications for new planning permits.  As a result of  a public question* raised at the previous meeting, Cr. Tang requested a report be prepared by the administration**

Now imagine this scenario, a company director requests a report from management and that request receives a unanimous endorsement from the other directors.  Management produces a report which says

  • they don’t keep the data requested,
  • the data requested is not a legal requirement,
  • they have no intention of implementing system which keeps the data
  • that given the above,  the requested report would involve a costly exercise that management can’t see the point of.

This scenario happened at the last (12/6/2012) Council Meeting.  Cr. Tang’s request for a report on planning permit extensions (12 June, 2012 Council Meeting Minutes – Section 9.9) resulted in a 4 page report which, although more “sensitively” or “politically” worded than GERA’s above basic interpretation, very neatly fitted the above scenario.  Such a response would be both unthinkable and unacceptable response in a company – it is even more so when it involves a unanimous request from elected officials to an administration that is accountable to those elected officials.

Cr. Tang commenced the ensuing discussion by commenting that when the initial public question was asked he thought it was a valid question and that it was surprising to know that the statistics were not available in Council’s planning database.  He further commented that while Council keeps a number of statistics for statutory and operational reporting requirements, Council does not know if permit extensions are granted 5% or 95% of the time and also does not know how many extended permits exist with the municipality.  Without this information Cr. Tang said Council is unable to assess whether or not an issue exists.

The discussion that ensued was lamentable and is outlined below

  • Cr. Lipshutz  – Somewhat incredibly, Cr. Lipshutz’s comments went along the lines of “why do we want to know? Simply to know because we want to know is not an answer.”  He also expressed concern that Cr. Tang had identified that “now one of the problems is that we don’t know
  • Cr. Pilling adopted a narrow site by site view and said that details on individual permits could be found quickly and therefore he failed to see the effectiveness of collecting the data as “there was not much we can do with it
  • Cr. Hyams  – commented that he didn’t “see why you would go out there and get a planning permit if you don’t intend to use it” and collecting this data would be giving Council officers more work.

Cr. Tang’s closing comments were that he did not believe that the request was a large request, that the information may be useful to present to the State Government when it assesses planning reforms.  Cr. Tang’s final comment was “we don’t know what we don’t know”.

The motion was put to the vote and carried. (Although a division was not called for the gallery noted that Crs Pilling, Lipshutz, and Hyams voted against the motion).

As previously stated GERA describes the debate as lamentable and makes the following points

  1. Not one Councillor asked why the administration had not presented the information unanimously requested and had instead produced a document arguing against collecting the information.
  2. From the original request, the motion passed at this meeting was now to “commence” the collection of statistics on planning permit extensions – inherently this involves a four year wait for statistics.  GERA agrees with Cr. Tang in that the request is not a large one.  As per the State Government report on planning permit approvals included in the presented report, Council approves approximately 400 dwelling construction permits per annum.  Details on planning permits are computerised, therefore, it should not be large task to access and analyse the data from 4-5 years ago.  Why wait 4 years to identify a potential issue?
  3. Kingston Council did this analysis found that 60% of approved planning permits were given “rubber stamped” extension periods – no consideration was being given to what had been happening with applications for nearby residences since the original permit application.   It is reasonable to assume that Glen Eira will find a similar percentage.  The media has widely reported  that developers “landbank” (for future developments) or enhance the value of their property by obtaining a planning permit.  Additionally, a simple drive around the municipality provides the empirical evidence (which residents are well aware of) that this is occurring in Glen Eira at an increasing rate (no. of demolished or unoccupied homes that are fenced off or partially complete boarded up developments). 
  4. That Council (Councillors and Administrators) have adopted the attitude of unwilling to investigate, “extra workload” and “not much we can do with it” is yet another example of gap between Council’s words and actions.  Council’s claims that it gathers the relevant information and, based on that information, makes the best decision possible” .  GERA asks what is wrong with doing the analysis now? (it’s not a big ask), why the reluctance and why the wait?

And as for what to do with the information, GERA suggests that if Council identifies planning permit extensions are an issue, then Council needs amend it’s planning scheme to ensure that planning permit extensions are re-assessed taking into account developments approved since the original planning permit was granted.  Such an assessment should include additional conditions to be applied to the planning permit to be extended (eg, noise abatement treatments to be applied, screening to restrict overlooking, exclusion for the residential parking permit scheme – to name but a few)


* Council Meeting Minutes 22nd May, 2012 – section 11.4

Public Question

“Would Council please advise what percentage of Planning Permit approvals are extended because either

  • construction has not commenced within the two year period? Or
  • construction has not been completed within a 4 year period?

Since Council has previously advised that Council does not maintain specifics to this enquiry, could Council please advise what details/statistics it does maintain related to the extension of planning permits approvals.”

** Council Meeting Minutes – 22nd May, 2012 – section 11.1

Cr. Tang’s motion for a report

That a report be prepared for an Ordinary Council Meeting providing alternatives for the reporting of or referring to Council in relation to extensions granted or requested on issued planning permits in Glen Eira. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

+  Council Meeting Minutes – 12th June, 2012 – section 9.9

Cr. Tang’s motion –

“That Council;

1. Notes the report.

2. Notes the statistics that the planning department currently keep.

3. Commence statistic recording in relation to the request received for extension of planning permit. That the statistics should be recorded in at least the areas of;

(a) numbers of requests for extension.

(b) numbers of requests for extension granted.

(c) the average length for each extension granted.

(d) whether the extension has been granted by VCAT or by Council. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.”

No division was called for, however, the gallery noted that Crs Lipshhutz, Hyams, and Pilling voted against the motion.


At the last Council Meeting 22nd May, 2012, Cr. Tang foreshadowed a resident’s public question by requesting a Report from Officers on planning permit# extensions.

The public question submitted was (Council Meeting Minutes, 22nd May, 2012 – Section 11.4):

“Would Council please advise what percentage of Planning Permit approvals are extended because either

  • construction has not commenced within the two year period? Or
  • construction has not been completed within a 4 year period?

 Since Council has previously advised that Council does not maintain specifics to this enquiry, could Council please advise what details/statistics it does maintain related to the extension of planning permits approvals.”

Prior to the Public Questions agenda item (Council Minutes – Section 11.1b), Cr.  Tang Requested an Officers Report be prepared indicating the number/percentage of planning permits that are granted extensions.  While Cr. Tang accepted that Council did not currently collate these statistics (planning permit applications once approved are filed away and updated individually if an extension is requested) it would be useful to have the information.  Subsequent discussion related to Crs. noticing substantial delays between the granting of a planning permit and construction commencing or being completed – the report may indicate a need to review the planning permit extension approval process (in particular the delegations of authority).  The request for a report, which is to be presented at an Ordinary Council Meeting, was passed unanimously.

While giving Councillors credit for recognising the significance of the issue raised in the public question, GERA is concerned that this information is not readily available and that the process of extending planning permits is not integrated into the planning process.  Integration in this case means

  1. Before extending a planning permit, consideration is given to planning permits approved since the permit to be extended was originally approved, and
  2. When reviewing a new planning permit application, existing planning permits which have been extended, are taken into consideration – currently they are not considered.

Without this integration, the cumulative flow on impacts of development (traffic, parking, drainage, overshadowing, overlooking – to name a few) are not taken into account in the planning permit (new or extension) approval process – the process is flawed.

To highlight the significance of this issue, Cr. Rosemary West (Kingston Council) at the March, 2012, GERA Development Forum reported  that Kingston found only 40% of approved planning permits were built within the prescribed  period. The remaining 60% were given “rubber stamped” extension periods  – no consideration was being given to what had been happening with applications for nearby residences since the original permit application. Kingston Council revised their delegations of authority to prevent ‘rubber stamping’ ”.

It is reasonable to expect a similar percentage will apply in Glen Eira.

To illustrate the significance of the planning permit extension issue, imagine the following scenario:

 Some 6 years ago an application for a 4 storey  (shops at ground level, 12 two bedroom units above, reduced parking requirements etc.) planning permit was approved for the corner of your street.  Since approval no construction work has been undertaken on the corner block and the permit has been extended.  However,  other townhouse type developments (2 or 3 double storey units per lot) have sprung up along the street.  Traffic  volume has doubled, “rat runs”* and street parking have become major issues and many street trees have disappeared to make way for driveway crossovers.   Now the developer is ready and construction commences on the corner lot – what impact will it have on you?  What plans does Council have to address the traffic and parking issues which this development will only add to – the answer is probably none because the planning permit for the corner lot was not considered when all the subsequent nearby developments were approved.

Add to the above scenario, the cumulative nature of planning permit extensions (e.g. simplistically say, 50 extensions last year, plus 50 this year = 100) the implications of not considering extended permits becomes even more significant

GERA intends to pursue this issue with Council and awaits Tang’s requested report (which unfortunately did not limit the review to permits related to the construction of new dwellings or include a date for report completion).


# Planning permits and building permits are different – depending on the work to be undertaken one or both permit/s may be required.  In broad terms, planning is concerned with the land – the way it will be used (e.g. houses, shops factories, parks etc) and/or developed (e.g. size and type of buildings and landscaping) and what transport is needed. A  building permit is concerned with the actual construction – its quality and its safety.  While planning permits are required for a range of activities (e.g. fencing, signage, home extensions and construction of more than one dwelling on a lot),  the planning permit extension referred to in this posting relates to the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot.

*rat runs – vehicles using residential streets (frequently above the speed limit) to avoid congestion or shopping strips on main roads.