The State Government’s latest report Victoria In Future 2012 has been published. (Uploaded here). The report contains population projections for the next 20 years, however it is important to note that these are ‘estimates’. Hence it will be interesting to compare with the ABS census figures due to come out later this year and their projections.
The figures for Glen Eira (featured on page 10 of the report) are:
- A population increase of 18,000 people
- A household increase of 9,500 residences
- An increase of just under 4% for residents aged over 65
- Bayside, Kingston, Stonnington, Booroondara, Manningham all have lower projected population figures!
How reliable these figures are remains to be seen of course. What it does indicate is that it is now incumbent on Glen Eira to ensure that its Planning Scheme is totally overhauled to ensure the greatest protection possible for residents.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM
depends the way you look at it. In % terms the councils you mentioned are all projected to grow at around the same rate. Absolute numbers might be different, More concerned with MRC developing crown land car park into apartments and then taking more crown land public park to car park. Every green field site has to be protected. Other examples include Tennis centre taking all that park land to Richmond Station. Collingwood forcing Athletics out to Albert Park. Loss of more parkland there adding to the aquatic centre loss of park already
April 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM
I’d say its numbers that are important since percentages don’t tell you a thing about the required infrastructure and you also have to take into account the size of these other councils compared to Glen Eira. We’ve got about 40 square km. So load that up with another 18000 people which can only mean more high rise and more pressure on drains, roads, environment and so on.
April 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Not only the planning scheme but it had also get out there and create new parks. It’s time to stop spending bulk dollars installing mega pavillions that shrink existing parks. These mega pavillions and associated expanded car parks are white elephants that do not live up to Council’s promises of revenue returns.
April 24, 2012 at 9:41 PM
There’s a saying from the investment community, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”. As the DPCD report spells out, its making projections, not predictions. The projections depend on the models used and assumptions made. In this particular case, there is no attempt to model the impact of technology for example on the nature and location of jobs, or climate change, or global conflict, or social disruption. Future reality *might* be quite different.
If however the projections are reasonable, then Council’s policies need substantial change. At the moment, the only strategy is to herd people into urban ghettos, the so-called “Urban Villages”. There is no attempt to ensure a healthy mix of accomodation in each area, or to ensure that there is open space for active and passive recreation within safe and easy walking distance of the ghettos. There is no attempt to distribute services, or to boost public transport coverage and frequency. Now that GESAC is nearing completion, Council’s reaction was to pave over more parkland for carparking, not to provide a more frequent bus service that services GESAC.
The DPCD report predicts a substantial increase in the number of families to be accomodated. Our Council reacts by selling off land, and bulldozing children’s playgrounds. It spends what money it collects from developer open space contributions not where its need, in and around the ghettos, but where there is already open space. The current Council won’t even establish pocket parks, a concept that DPCD is familiar with.
Reading the Planning Scheme makes clear why. Its so that the amenity of people who live in Minimal Change areas can be protected–and to hell with the rest. On the one hand they claim they wish to discourage car use, but don’t consider the source, destination, and time of day of people’s travel needs. We have developments without visitor parking, so cars park on the road. Council paints white lines and calls them bike lanes, knowing that cyclists are likely to be injured by car doors from the cars they are encouraging to park on the street. Cyclists and pedestrians in densely populated areas have to contend with 50 or 60 kmh speed limits.
We’re now entering an era in planning where the “Standards” in ResCode are being ignored or rejected so as to help developers squeeze in 1 or 2 more dwellings on a site. Its an era where even 100% overshadowing is considered acceptable by the decision-makers. Provided its in Melbourne. Elsewhere in the State, there are people we force to apply for Planning Permits simply because they are within 100m of a road.
Council has received plenty of feedback from its efforts at consulting the community, yet the Planning Scheme doesn’t reflect it. Instead it pursues sideshows such as C87. The honest thing for Council is to paint a vivid picture of the future that it believes it is working towards, and to respond to people when the picture is either unattractive or unbelievable.
April 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Today’s Caulfield Leader featured a thin column advertisement by Council announcing a Special Council Meeting for May 8th. Business of this meeting is to advertise the budget! Of course there will be the compulsory “consultation” of about one month and then voted in. We note that the budget has obviously been set BEFORE the finalisation of the much vaunted Community Plan. It strikes us as the height of hypocrisy since:
1. The community plan whilst “aspirational” has been touted as setting the priorities for this council for the next decade at least. Priorities require funding in line with these aspirations and objectives. Either this is a case of putting the cart before the horse, or what people say they want doesn’t matter.
2. As stated in our previous posts (and even Hyams in his past submission) there is no good reason as to why the Community Plan should be finalised several months before the upcoming October election and the possibility of an entire new flock of councillors coming in.
3. Reprobate’s comments are pertinent to the above points. Budgets need to provide for extensive consultation and planning change within the municipality according to the community’s aspirations. Budgets also need to be transparent and accountable so that residents know that their money isn’t being wasted. Budgets shouldn’t work on the premise that continual rate hikes are acceptable. Cost cutting should be the first priority when facing both cash flow crises and being classified as “high risk”.
We look forward to both the draft Community Plan and the Budget in order to see the extent to which they are correlated and reinforce each other. Our expectation is that we will be dealing with two totally alien documents that have nothing in common!
April 26, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Why go banging on about the “Community Plan”. The Glen Eira Council should have a Council Plan. It should be done within six months of a new Council being sworn in. Having a community plan and updating it is simply a way of keeping the councillors confused and wasting thousands of dollars on public servants devising the plan. It is a sideshow. One of the reasons for moving the election date to October was to give the Council a fair go at agreeing on a new Council Plan by the end of May 2013. There should be no Community Plan with any budget. A new Council can soon have that shredded.
April 24, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Asking this council to “paint a vivid picture of the future” will never eventuate for the simple reason that councillors basically have no vision and administrators are primarily peanut counters intent on ensuring more and more development within Glen Eira. Reprobate’s claim that C87 is a “sideshow” is entirely accurate when you consider that it will cover less than 2 to 3 per cent of the municipality. I know plenty of streets that would fit the criteria stated by Planisphere – but they’re not listed! I guess it wouldn’t look too good if there were suddenly another 50 or so streets that could qualify.
For years and years we have had piecemeal and ad hoc planning. Nothing as far as I can see has been integrated. No policy really takes into account other policies to ensure the best possible outcome. Even the policies that do exist are so out of date that they belong in archeological museums.
I’m not even so sure that those people who live in Minimal Change Areas can afford to feel safe anymore. Statistics need to be provided so that we know exactly how many developments have occured in such areas as opposed to Housing Diversity and the nature of these developments.
April 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Glen Eira council must begin to collect the fees for “open space” every time a developmentr covers more open space whether it is privately or publicly owned. THIS MONEY MUST BE USED TO PROVIDE POCKET PARKS NEAR DEVELOPMENTS SO RESIDENTS CAN TAKE UP 15INUTES OF SUNSHINE EVERY DAY AND REFRAIN FROM BUILDING AND PAVING THESE AREAS.
April 26, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Good idea. The old City of Moorabbin has a few pocket parks. Newton sold off alot of them. They needed the money to pay the staff wages.