Our last two posts have featured what may appear to be separate issues – Caulfield Racecourse planning and childcare centres and kindergartens. In reality they are intimately connected. Strategic Planning must incorporate all aspects that are likely to impact on the local community. It must also “focus on what the customer wants rather than what the appointed and elected officials think the customer needs.” (Dave Fountaine, AQUEST Consulting LLC) In Glen Eira, the ‘customers’ are mostly irrelevant. A glimpse at the recent Community Satisfaction Indicators reveals that on the criterion of ‘engagement in decision making’, Glen Eira ranks 63rd out of the 79 Councils in Victoria with a bare pass mark of 58.
Yet, we are a municipality with a growing population, an unprecedented spurt in residential development, traffic and parking nightmares, and an increasingly ageing population. Open space remains limited, yet we insist on either selling it off, or privatising this valuable resource. Aged and child care facilities barely get a look in. And all through this, real public debate is absent. Without a comprehensive and detailed strategic vision, drafted in direct consultation with residents, this municipality will continue to waste resources and alienate its community.
Given all this, there are some vital questions to ponder:
- Why is Glen Eira the only metropolitan council without formal structure plans? Such plans could: introduce strict height limits and overlays through properly executed community consultation processes. Perhaps then we could avoid the angst of Elsternwick, the Racecourse, Centre Road, Hawthorn Road, and others yet to hit the drawing boards.
- Why is Glen Eira focussing on 3 ‘activity centres’ when other neighbouring councils have double this number? Surely the role of council is to support local business and breathe life into strip shopping throughout the municipality with more retail, commercial and community services to reduce travel, pollution and increase employment? The planting of a few tawdry trees is not an answer!
- Why is Glen Eira being treated by developers as an inner ring municipality with high-rise (over 5 storey buildings) housing developments circumventing Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme? Why is this being allowed to continue – or is it in fact ‘encouraged’ ie. Zoning/amendments at developers’ requests?
- Why has Glen Eira failed to address its child care and kindergarten shortage which it has known about for at least a decade? Is this what the community wants? Have they ever been asked for their priorities?
- Why is public open space dwindling and being sold off or leased to private interests with fences to ensure exclusive use (de-facto privatisation) on a regular bases?
- Why is there never any substantive change in budget allocations that take into account community submissions?
- Why can other councils such as Bayside institute a 13 member community consultation panel for its community plan as a formal, prerequisite component of its Council Plan? Why can other councils actively seek and achieve direct community input and involvement? (See: http://planforbayside.wordpress.com/)
- Are councillors prepared to explain why they blithely endorse the expenditure of $7-9 million to demolish and then rebuild the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion and grandstand, and yet will not spend a fraction of this on child care centres?
- Why does Glen Eira Council does not conduct regular expert economic analysis as the fundamental basis for information and decision making processes that set the parameters for social, environmental and financial triple bottom line accounting?
Honest answers to all of these questions would tell us a lot about the lack of consultation, vision, and planning of this administration and its ‘yes men’.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 21, 2010 at 9:15 PM
[…] can also be seen in the broader context of planning in the City of Glen Eira more generally. Glen Eira Debates has an interesting post up about the current state of planning in Glen […]
July 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM
All of this planning stuff is confusing but I know it has dramatically affected my street and suburb. I’ve therefore decided to do a bit of homework and try to make sense of this area. I’ve read the Glen Eira discussion paper on their planning review and note that under Theme Four they state that “Should a more effective planning tool, eg. the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, be introduced as a higher form of protection?” What worries me is, how true is this? My doubt is based on what I’ve just read from the Bayside review, where Bayside argues –
“At the moment, Council has a Neighbourhood Character Policy which attempts to do a similar thing to an Overlay. However, this Policy can only be used as an assessment tool where a planning permit is required, such as a multi-unit development or where variation to siting controls under the
Building Regulations is required. In other instances, the Policy cannot be applied because there is no permit trigger. An Overlay will trigger the need for a permit in most instances”
I can only conclude that Bayside are really out to protect residents, whereas Glen Eira’s protection is probably all smoke and mirrors and will still enable heaps of inappropriate development.
July 22, 2010 at 5:41 PM
How Planning Scheme is being reviewed
Glen Eira Council is in the process of reviewing its Planning Scheme. That is a big job and if the public is to be involved then it should take 2 years. Here, they started in April and the Report is to be finalised soon. Most interesting though is that the Review does not ask what people want or need. Or why they may want or need certain things? All that is being asked is how to test Council plans. So there is no need to change plans, but help the professional staff? I think that the first task is to ask the community what it is that the community needs and wants. Than a debate should take place to establish priorities. The staff should do what it is engaged to do. Implement policies, strategies and projects. What is also disappointing is that Councillors debate issues privately and the community knows very little about it until the decision night. There is no way of influencing a decision. Is that what a local Government is about? A private club!? All done behind closed doors.
Below are the issues identified by the Council. Is this how residents see it?
“The Review in its broadest sense aims to test the continued relevance and applicability of all Council planning policies, strategies and controls.
The question is — how?
This Review will involve an assessment of issues within Council’s ambit of responsibility* such as:
• the performance of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) in setting policy direction in relation to planning outcomes for Glen Eira;
• the continued applicability of Council prepared local policies;
• any zoning or overlay inconsistencies;
• the effectiveness of having Significant Character Areas;
• the use of Structure Plans for Activity Centres;
• transitioning from Housing Diversity Areas to Minimal Change Areas; and
• emerging issues such as:
°° the relevance of and need for master plans by institutions in the municipality;
°° use of development contributions, eg. open space, drainage, etc.; and
°° possible policy/control gaps.
This is an opportunity to review how effective Council’s policies, strategies and processes have been and to recommend possible improvements.
The above dot points are discussed individually in this document.
* Note: Council’s ambit of responsibility represents approximately 25 per cent of
the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.”
Two comments spring to mind reading this stuff. Firstly, it is all about housing and very little else, and secondly that Glen Eira Council has a minor role in the governing of its area. This is just not true. On housing alone the Housing Diversity Area work has contributed to a residential explosion of Glen Eira housing, where 20% of the area can be built up. No other similar Council has had so much of its land allowed to be built on. State Government reports show that only 8% of Glen Eira needs to be built up to satisfy its additional population quota. Why did we do that? Shouldn’t we scrap the Hosing Diversity Area scheme and do Structure Plans for Activity Centres to satisfy the housing, economic and community needs? That will require only 10% of land use planning. Most importantly, this type of forward planning should consider the Public Realm on behalf of all users first and foremost, and not just private developers’ wishes.
July 23, 2010 at 12:02 AM
On Page 750 of the minutes for July 20th Council Meeting there appears the following nonsense: “Town planning is an issue but the sorts of concerns which residents raise are
almost wholly the responsibility of State rather than Local government.”
Nothing could be further from the truth that such a claim. Numerous VCAT decisions make this abundantly clear. We suggest that those interested read in its entirety the following judgement – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2008/1827.html
The following paragraph in particular should be noted –
“The first thing to be noticed about this is that a minimum change area policy is a policy, not a prescriptive law that has to be applied. On the contrary, a policy, where relevant, has to be taken into consideration as a guide to the exercise of discretion, but not as determining what the outcome of a particular proposal should be. A policy cannot be turned into a prescriptive law that prohibits something merely by adding reference to it in a schedule to zone provisions.”
We are continually led to believe that VCAT is the bad guy; that council/lors hands are tied. Untrue!!! The problem is not VCAT, but a set of planning documents that fail to protect the municipality and play right into developers hands.
There are many, many questions that must be asked and answered. For example, on the Elsternwick 10 storey development – Who knew what, when, and how? It is beyond belief that when rezoning or amendments are brought up at the behest of developers that nobody knows anything about the intentions of these developers. Surely some plans must be submitted? If so, is this kept secret – the domain of officers? Or do they tell councillors, or only some councillors? The questions remains – who knows what and when?
July 27, 2010 at 2:07 PM
FRONT PAGE OF TODAY’S CAULFIELD LEADER
Residents to sell out if tower is built
RESIDENTS are threatening to leave Elsternwick if a 10-storey apartment and retail tower is built on Ripon Grove.
Contour Consultants have lodged plans with Glen Eira Council for 150 apartments, seven shops and a two-level underground carpark at 233-247 Glenhuntly Rd and 12-14 Ripon Grove.
The plans include converting a historic church into 21 units and constructing a three-to 10-storey building at the site to house the remaining apartments and shops.
Peter Wait has started an action group for Sinclair and Gordon streets residents opposing the ‘‘repulsive eyesore’’.
The Sinclair St resident of 16 years said he and a neighbour of 25 years woul d move if the project was approved. ‘‘We’re getting together to object to this; it’s an absolute joke,’’ he said.
‘‘Everyone is saying this is absolutely ridiculous. It will directly impact on our privacy.’’
Glenhuntly Rd resident Kirsten Wright said the development, double the height of other buildings in the area, would block views and sunlight and affect traffic and parking. ‘‘It will be so much higher than anything else in the neighbourhood,’’ Ms Wright said. ‘‘It will dominate the area.’’
Glen Eira Council has received 11 objections.
The church on 12 Ripon Grove, used by Buddhist organisation Soka Gakkai, is listed with Heritage Victoria for its architectural importance. The group sold the building two years ago. It will move to new premises in Maribyrnong.
Contour Consultants, working for the same developer behind the proposed $45 million Coles redevelopment in Elsternwick, did not return Leader’s calls. Is Elsternwick the right suburb for a 10-storey apartment block? Tell us at caulfieldleader.com.au