For any Doubting Thomas we’ve gone back to the stats and looked at cumulative figures over the past decade. The definition supplied by the Community Profile website on housing states: ‘A dwelling (or residential building) is defined as: A residential building is a building consisting of one or more dwelling units. Residential buildings can be either houses or other residential buildings’.
We repeat: Since Newton took over the reins, development in Glen Eira has increased dramatically. The figures tell their own story. We are simply taking issue with the statement that Glen Eira “has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality”. We haven’t gone through every single council as yet, but the table below reveals that there are AT LEAST 6 other councils with LOWER increases over a ten year period than Glen Eira. We’ll follow up with the rest when we get some more time!
| Municipality | Cumulative Approvals (2000 -2010) |
| Glen Eira | 6653 |
| Bayside | 5575 |
| Stonnington | 5840 |
| Banyule | 5309 |
| Yarra | 5004 |
| Greater Dandenong | 5176 |
| Hobson’s Bay | 4697 |
PS: Here are a few more municipalities that we’ve looked up – plus their stats:
Manningham – 5000
Marybrynong – 6383
Moonee Valley – 5919
Glen Eira Debates 
December 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM
That is quite interesting. I think you have posted similar stats previously on population increases, which of course these stats confirm. I would suggest few points for future: 1. Consistent comparisons to neighbouring Councils: Stonnington, Monash, Kingston, Bayside, Port Philip, and with Glen Eira makes up 6 in all;
2. Provide percentages from the baseline of year 2,000.
Great work. I enjoy reading this blog as this Council’s performance is relevant to what I do here and I would like to see the quality of life improved here.
One more thing, I have not seen at all from this Local Government any Economic Analysis of how we are doing! The impression I get is that in spite of the greater population, increased density and more housing, the residents and ratepayers do not get much better value, just congestion, less variety of shops and a changing demographics, with dubious economic value.
I am really curious what we have this government for? Elected representatives cannot tell us! And the bureacrats tell us how wonderful Glen Eira is choosing selectively criteria they want to be judged on. I do not feel any better and the arguments just do not stack up. Can anyone tell us how the Glen Eira economy is doing?
December 12, 2010 at 4:40 PM
What we’re also not told Curious, is how much all this development is really contributing to the local community. Where are the statistics to prove any of the claims – or has this council even bothered to do its own analysis? For example: do people consistently shop in the area, or do they go off to Chadstone and other centres? Do local businesses actually employ local people? etc. etc. etc. It’s easy to claim that planning schemes improve the ‘social, environmental and economic’ status of an area – but hey, let’s see the figures that might actually support such a claim!
December 12, 2010 at 4:34 PM
For a municipality with such a small area, 38 square km, this is a disaster. No trasport plan, no regulations that insist on proper environmental building specifications, no linking to issues of public realm. The most damning characteristic is the failure to adequately consult with the community and to implement their objectives. More to the point, all planning is based on documents that are almost antiques – open space, is just one example. In the latest agenda we get some pathetic lip service about the need to review this policy because the VEAC submissions are due. Too, toooo late Glen Eira. This should have been done eons before there was the planning scheme review and its hasty adoption. All is just tinkering with the edges, cosmetic touchups that in no shape or form address the real problems that Glen Eira is facing under this administration.
December 12, 2010 at 5:55 PM
In response to comments by Glen Eira I would like to pass on a comment made to me by 2 retailers in Carnegie, one whose shop has since been closed, that the impact of multi unit developments in Carnegie has had a detrimental impact on the viability of retailers because the bed sits and small flats being constructed around this neighbourhood respond to the developers desire to construct ‘student’ type accommodation – we now have many students living around here who have very little disposable income – with a direct negative impact on retailers
December 12, 2010 at 5:55 PM
How can you compare raw figures knowing that some of the other Municipalities listed only have 60% to 70% of Glen Eira’s population and are significantly smaller in area. In some examples if you adjust for, per head of population,you would not reach your conclusion.
December 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Population isn’t the Key – it’s surely size! When you cram over 6000 new developments into a tiny area such as Glen Eira, then the impact is far greater than if you cram 6000 new developments into Kingston for example which is more than double the size of Glen Eira. To make matters worse, in glen eira, the vast majority have gone into those suburbs which have been sacrificed to the alter of ‘progress’ – namely Carnegie and surrounds. The only suburbs which are comparable in size to Glen Eira are Port Phillip and possibly Bayside and they’ve both attempted to put a stop to inappropriate development through their planning schemes and structure plans. Needless to say Glen Eira has not, and therefore continues to encourage rampant development and to hell with certain suburbs.
When the C60 goes through we can welcome another 1200 units and probably 3000 people. According to the agenda report this won’t have much impact on retail, traffic, or other infrastructure. How wrong can you be.
December 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Anyone who doubts the ability of our Council and the Administration should read the Independent State Government Community Survey.
December 12, 2010 at 6:19 PM
a great survey that suits the propaganda of this and every other council. Look at how many people were actually surveyed and how many offered any response to the questions. The various categories had responses ranging in number from 20 to 98. Sure gives us an indepth, comprehensive survey! What a total waste of public monies.
December 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Anyone who has any doubts concerning the performance of our CEO and his staff needs to read the section on External Reporting on the Councils home page.
December 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM
let’s not get too carried away by the spin department’s self promotion anonymous. Most of this is pure bullshit – awards for presentation/communication – rather than substance as the Auditor General has recommended. Then there is this little tit-bit -“Cumulative rate increases from 2004–05
and 2010–11 are eight per cent lower than the average of benchmarked councils.” Why not be honest and take the figures from 2000 rather than the last 5 years, and do a straight comparison rather than ‘average’. Average means bugger all, and if we go back to 2002, then newton introduced rate increases of 16% – THE HIGHEST IN THE STATE!!!!! How about we include this in the average and see what figures we come up with then!
I could go on and on of course. The lightglobe exchange program was simply to lend a logo to the company and to beat off Kingston’s imminent entry into the field. Even with this, there has been no information about how to get rid of the mercury filled globes – just self praise!!
Also, half of the awards, come from organisations/groups/ that council are members of – that is, you have to be a member to be eligible. That’s really ‘independent’ assessment isn’t it?
Wake up anonymous! You’re flogging a totally dead horse that is about to be buried I suspect.
December 12, 2010 at 7:01 PM
We are only 24 hours from one of the most important meetings in glen eira planning history, the administration has provided one statistic that suits them, this website has shown a number of even more interesting statistics that question the racecourse development. Which way will the councillors go? The sad thing is it doesn’t matter what you and your contributors post on this website, the decision has been made and that is C60 will be approved. We live in a dictatorship where 4 councillors who each scraped through in their wards dictate while the councillor with the most votes by far, Frank Penhalluriack, has been forced by the administration to sit on the sidelines. Democracy has died in Glen Eira and we are less of a community as a result.
December 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Couldn’t agree more. It says a lot about a council I think, when there still is not one scrap of information on council’s website (apart from agenda) about this Special Committee Meeting. Not on the homepage, and not under their Public Notices link. This meeting should be screamed from the rafters if it were a genuine attempt to inform and engage the community. Full page ads needed to be taken out. Instead we have silence and deliberate downplaying of significance, if not worse. I conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to make sure that as few people as possible know about the meeting. I also conclude that this is typical council behaviour for much of what they do. Secrecy is their mantra.
December 25, 2010 at 5:26 AM
The development is seen as an “easy” way to bring more resedences into the area. The former minister for planning only expected an eight per cent population increase throughout Melbourne… the powers that be in Glen Eira have set their stupid goal at twenty per cent and of course East Caulfield increase will be about four hundred per cent if the plan as tabled is carried out. NOt one square metre of open space for two thousand residences maybe accomodating six thousand people …what a debarkle of a ghetto it will be!!
We maybe too scared to walk to the station as the footpath will be crowded with disturbed residents who need a breath of fresk air on the ground and our footpath will be their only option!!!
The benefit for the planners in our council will be that each of the flats will provide another rate fee and council will not provided the infrastructure required — one may need to leave the area.