There are several important planning applications up for decision next Tuesday night. The Officers’ recommendations are as follows:
- 441-461 Glen Huntly Rd. – This involves 3 buildings; 7 storeys, and 137 units. Approve amended application
- 141-141A Kooyong Rd. – Residential Aged Care – 115 beds. Approve application
- 12 Larman St. – 3 double storey dwellings – Approve application
- 11 Rosanna St. – increase of time for lighting of tennis courts; increase of licensed area. Approve application
Readers should once again note that NOTIFICATIONS follow the usual pattern – ie. the greater the likely objection, the less notification is posted out to neighbours and surrounds. For example:
| Tennis Club extension of time and area | 53 properties & 80 notices (1 objection) |
| 3 double storey buildings | 6 properties & 8 notices (15 objections) |
| Residential Aged Care | 25 properties & 28 notices (5 objections & petition of 5 signatures) |
| Supermarket – Glenhuntly Rd | 71 objections at first council decision |
OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE:
- Mr. Varvodic continues to be a topic of conversation in assembly of councillor records
- The Pools Steering Committee minutes are as taciturn as ever. 10 words are all that’s there!
- The Assembly of councillors continue to discuss the Elsternwick Childcare Centre
- The recent flooding has prompted some action it seems – ie plea to Melbourne Water. Needless to say, no report on how many of the affected properties come under the maintenance of council, rather than Melbourne Water! And to top off the agenda, there is a ‘review’ of the Emergency Plan.
- In camera items continue again on ‘personnel’ and contracts – CEO we wonder?
- ‘reimbursement of legal fees’ – again and again!
Summing up it looks like all steam ahead for rampant development, inverse ratios for notifications, and continuing sagas with Frisbee groups, councillor expenses, and CEO contracts.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 18, 2011 at 8:08 PM
The Glenhuntly Road supermarket is a development that should be approved provided council takes measures to alleviate potential impacts on local residents.
I believe that the development has the potential to have a positive impact on the Elsternwick shopping centre. One only needs to visit the Elwood shopping centre which contains a number of 5 and 6 level residential buildings to see how this has contributed to a vibrant precinct.
The two major issues which need to be addressed are parking and traffic flow. The application provides for minimal parking – note that the spaces are substantially below that normally required. Parking at the Coles supermarket is currently inadequate for peak demand and needs to be expanded significantly. Council officers have acknowledged this is an issue but have inexplicably discounted it.
The issue of traffic requires some action from council. Local residents are justifiably concerned about traffic feeding back through residential areas. But this could be fairly simply addressed by council introducing traffic measures which feed all traffic back into Orrong and Glenhuntly Roads.
Unless council shows some vision and is prepared to set down standards we’ll still be left with the tawdry situation we have now.
February 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Glen Huntly, I’m not sure you can compare Elwood with Elsternwick. The Elwood village first of all does not have trams running down the middle of the street. It also has many side street shops, cafes etc. Glen Huntly Rd. is essentially one long strip and that’s it. I agree with the traffic and parking problems however.
February 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM
“The Glenhuntly Road supermarket is a development that should be approved provided council takes measures to alleviate potential impacts on local residents” and “Council officers have acknowledged this is an issue but have inexplicably discounted it”. Having had experience with development and GE Council the two quotes above show that Council is behaving true to form … ignore the known issues and approve the application. If and when the residents get so irate that Council is finally forced to address the issues (and this will be a long frustrating process) then ratepayers, not the long-gone-developers, will pick up the tab.
February 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM
The justification for approving this appeal is extraordinary. In the first instance there is the issue of height – 6 stories, instead of the original 7. Council’s response is staggering –
“The 6 storey overall height is considered to be consistent with the emerging scale of
new development in the Urban Village, whilst the 2 storey podium level respects the
existing built form. In this regard the development provides an appropriate balance
between the existing and emerging built form character. It is noted that further west,
Council recently approved an 8 storey building at 233 Glen Huntly Road, west of the
railway line.
The fact that council has already approved an eight storey development is no justification for that building nor for this proposed one. There is no discussion about height limits. The argument could be put that if council had previously approved a 20 storey building, then that would make an 18 storey building now okay. The real question is what residents what the neighbourhood to be like and what is the ‘emerging built form’ based on community expectations. This has never been assesses, quantified, or even brought up in any activity centre planning. To then turn around and say just because we’ve accepted 8 storeys before, then this is okay is laughable.
The rationale for allowing reduced car parking spaces is also suspect. In the first place, this supermarket was revealed to be the busiest in Melbourne a couple of years back. Therefore the demand for parking is not your ordinary supermarket one. I’d like to know where this has been taken into account and on what basis the Traffic Engineering Department worked out their figures. This isn’t revealed in the officers’ report. All that’s stated is –
The Planning Scheme technically requires 506 car spaces for the supermarket and
residential uses. However, the Planning Scheme requirement is not considered to
be reflective of the ‘real’ demand for car parking generated by the development.
Councils Traffic Engineering Department anticipates a peak car parking demand of
311 car spaces to be a more accurate indication of the parking demand generated
by the development. Therefore the onsite provision of car parking has an overall
shortfall of 20 car spaces in respect to the likely maximum parking demand.
There’s also this sentence – The car parking ratio for the proposed supermarket is 4.9 spaces per 100sqm (it is noteworthy that the existing supermarket provides on site parking at a rate of approximately 4.2 car spaces per 100sqm).” Anyone who has ever shopped at this place knows that carparking is inadequate, so to use the current allotment as justification for further reduction is absolutely ludicrous.
February 19, 2011 at 7:16 PM
What does the author of this piece of fiction get paid – $200,000+ per annum? Full marks for inventiveness, creativity, and bullshit.
February 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM
The planning scheme technically requires 506 car spaces but Traffic Engineering, for reasons best known to themselves, says 311 or a decrease of approx 40%. This is way too big a difference – something is drastically wrong here. If this development is approved without a review of parking requirements then Council has yet again failed the residents.
By the way, the infamous C60 overdevelopment, has 5.5 car spaces per 100 sqm of supermarket space. Page 76 of the Planning Panel Report.
February 21, 2011 at 9:46 AM
Still no mention about the councilors self confessed, “embarrassing situation at Victory Park”.
February 21, 2011 at 10:56 AM
You can’t be serious. The situation at Victory Park hasn’t yet been addressed?
What are we paying the Council and Councilors to do?
From what I understand the young ladies playing at the club haven’t had change rooms for over six years and still the council is doing nothing.
I suggest we close off all the female toilets at the Council and see how they like it.
February 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM
It amazes me that several months ago Magee and Hyames admitted to having prior knowledge of this appalling situation at Victory Park and yet they haven’t even been able to table it as a discussion point in any of the agenda items in any council meeting since it was brought to my attention.
It’s obvious that they are not the correct people to have been elected as representatives of the Tucker Ward. For such a disturbing situation as that faced by the people and children at Victory Park, one would assume would have had some discussion time placed towards it.
All I can say is bring on the next elections.
February 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM
It’s a sad, sad world when we are distracted with talking about developments, open space and the racecourse and Frisbee clubs.
Yet a more pressing matter such as Victory Park gets no attention what so ever.
As a father with daughters (not involved at the club), I am disgusted that nothing has been tabled and a resolution found.
Glen Eira Council has not treated this with the URGENCY it deserves.
I have been quietly following this matter and I am astounded that people talk about everything else but what really needs to be addressed and resolved immediately.
What are the council, councilors, officers and CEO responsibility and priority?
February 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM
I agree that Council has been severely lacking in not putting Ladies Toilets in Victory Park. However, to suggest that Ladies Toilets are a more pressing matter than developments, open space and the racecourse suggests a lack of awareness on the appalling focus of this Council (primarily the administration) of screw the residents, development full speed adhead.
To label as distractions developments (traffic impact, lack of parking and open space) and the racecourse (the centre of the racecourse is a public park yet contrary to the reservation trust deed the park is not maintained and residents are continually denied access) and the horrendous C60 racecourse development (upwards of 2000 residences,retail complexes and a 23 storey commercial building dwarfing Caulfield Station – with no open space, minimal parking and scant considerations for traffic) are major issues.
Focussing on the lack of a Ladies in Victory Park only aids the GE Administration agenda of developers at the expense of residents – switch the focus to Victory Park and it’s a free for all elsewhere. And you still won’t have the required ladies
February 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM
The issue of Victory Park has been brought up several times by numerous commentators. It is an issue. However, it also points to an even larger issue – how funds are allocated and distributed; how priority lists are determined and the central question – who determines such priority lists? Who is behind the idea that Duncan McKinnon should now be allocated 6 to 8 million dollars for a grandstand and new pavilion? Where is the cost benefit analyses in this? How many sporting fields and other pavilions could 6 to 8 million dollars pay for? How much could be saved through simple renovation and restoration? How many kindergartens could be built? These are not rhetorical questions per se. They point to what we consider is the fundamental disease that exists in Glen Eira. The simple fact that RESIDENTS HAVE NO SAY as to how their monies will be spent and on determining the list of priorities!!!
February 22, 2011 at 1:17 PM
The same person that is now pushing for the Baseball Facilities.
Remember that Duncan McKinnon was a political promise by this individual and all that he is interested in is his ward.
February 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Can anyone advise as to whether there are any legal implications against the council/councilors for not addressing the nonexistence of female change rooms at Victory Park?
February 21, 2011 at 3:30 PM
I think it’s a matter of decency not legally.
How can anyone say that this neglect Glen Eira Council has placed upon the children and parents at Victory Park for so many years can be seen as anything but neglect?
Time to lift up your socks Council and Councilors. This is where your priorities should lie.
Good old fashion “caring for the people” in your municipality.
February 21, 2011 at 8:16 PM
Any truth to the rumour that council is going to quietly push the caulfield racecourse development through. It’s not on the agenda but the gang of four are fearfull of a resident backlash so they are now trying to approve it without notifying residents. Sneaky sneaky Newton but you have been caught out!
February 21, 2011 at 10:14 PM
If this rumour is true then it’s hello ombudsman and goodbye Glen Eira Administration and Council.
February 21, 2011 at 10:42 PM
Hey Anon – you’ve sparked my interest. Please do tell!