This post attempts to tie together 3 consistent themes and to ask the basic question: are pavilions that cost millions a greater priority in Glen Eira that the creation (and preservation) of open space?
This question is the result of MP Miller’s announcement in Hansard (29th November) that a $500,000 grant has been awarded by the State Government for the development of a ‘brand new pavilion, including changing rooms and clubhouse facilities” at Centenary Park. In 2007, according to the ‘Priority List’ established for pavilions, the estimated cost was ‘more than $2,000,000”. The Duncan McKinnon development at the time was listed as ‘more than $6,000,000’. That means that council will be forking out at least a few million for another pavilion!
Let us state clearly that we are not against the (re)development of existing pavilions. What we question are the priorities of this council when literally millions upon millions are poured into very questionable taj mahals and practically nothing is spent on what residents and some councillors have identified as a major need in Glen Eira – the acquisition of more open space.
Opportunity after opportunity to acquire more land has gone begging. Even when land is available council does nothing about it – ie. the Booran Rd Reservoir will stand untouched for another 4 years. What a disgrace that no funding has been allocated to this important potential source of open space when the issue has dragged on for nearly 10 years. We also remind readers of the recent debacle over the Alma Club when for $3 million council could have acquired property that eventually sold for just under $8 million.
Now there is another opportunity – the sale of 487 Neerim Rd. The real estate advertisement (below) shows that it is right in a reserve. Why can’t this be purchased? Why must new pavilions be built year after year (rather than upgraded) at the expense of what residents have repeatedly highlighted as one of the three major concerns – overdevelopment, consultation and lack of open space. Why must this perfect potential for more passive parkland be ignored so that more units, and cars can clog Neerim Rd which is already a disaster? Why has nothing been done about the Open Space Levy and its ridiculously low cost to developers – especially since this was mooted to be ‘looked at’ nearly 3 years ago and especially since other councils are applying a 5% levy across their entire municipalities? And why, oh why, aren’t the funds collected from this levy used in the manner that the legislation primarily intended – the acquisition of public open space?
Finally, we wish to point out the obvious. The delicate position of MP Miller in Bentleigh leads to all kinds of pork barrelling by the Libs. But $500,000 doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It has to be asked for, and a project nominated. Council obviously asked for the Centenary Park funding. They could just as easily have applied for anything else. The priorities of this administration and some of its councillors needs to be questioned and they need to justify why sporting facilities are continually more important than plain old open space. And open space that is likely to shrink even further once the footprint of these pavilions encroaches on parkland, car parks are extended and concrete, yellow brick roads continue to overtake green parkland.
PS: We’ve done some further homework on this site and there’s a long history associated with 487 Neerim Rd. None of it flatters our administration! Here are the facts:
- In 1985 there was a subdivision for 2 houses to be subdivided
- In 2005 an application went in for 9 double storey dwellings (refused)
- In 2008,3 storey dwelling; 26 dwellings (refused)
- In 2009, the officers recommended a permit for two storeys and 23 dwellings. Councillors refused a permit
- In 2009 VCAT (on amended plans) accepted 3 storeys and 28 dwellings (See:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/2529.html)
- THE AREA IS MINIMAL CHANGE!
So what does all this mean? First off, it tells us that the saga of 487 Neerim Rd. has been on the horizon for nearly 20 years and not once has council apparently thought of purchasing the land even though it has a Special Building Overlay and is prone to flooding. Secondly, if officers recommended 2 storeys eons ago, the likelihood is that this will now occasion at least a 5 storey development. Thirdly, given this history, it is most likely that there is an existing permit on this land – something council clearly would know about. Again, they have been quite content to sit back and allow it to go to developers! So much for the empty refrain of lack of open space, the protected nature of minimal change areas, and the danger of flooding. What should be open space will likely become a living nightmare for residents of Murrumbeena.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Good suggestion. only thing is that it is in a place where there are a few parks. Really need it in Cambden. Maybe the MRC might let us use the centre of the racecourse or the park they gave us. Also why cant the Booran road reservoir just be opened up to keen gardeners to grow food. Doesnt really need anything but a hole knocked in the wall.
November 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM
There might be parks nearby as you say but that shouldn’t be the only thing that determines whether land is bought by council. The areas around this are already overdeveloped. Get another 30 plus apartments in and then Ella st alongside will be swamped. These are the other considerations that should be looked at too. Murrumbeena may have more parks than Camden but they are being slaughtered by high rise developers and council just gives them their blessing. Mind you, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about Camden. I’m only suggesting that the number of already existing parks shouldn’t be the only criteria looked at.
December 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Agree with you that Camden Ward desparately needs more open space but do no accept that that is an argument for Council not acquiring this rare sizeable piece of land that can be readily combined into an existing park for minimal cost (the land has already been cleared – minimal landscaping and planting required).
Take a look at where the land and exisitng park is – on Neerim Road within easy walking distance of both the Murrumbeena Railway Station and the Hughesdale Railway Station. The areas surrounding both stations are defined as housing diversity areas and in both areas, significant construction is currently occurring and Council is busy passing more high rise planning permits and planning scheme amendments that will allow further future high rise developments. Not to mention the high rise thats appearing, and being applied for, along nearby Dandenong Road. Add to this mix, that the currently proposed planning reforms will allow building heights of 6-8 stories within these areas.
Given, the well known lack of open space in Glen Eira, the very vocal concerns on residents on this lack and this Council’s self proclaimed brilliancy at planning (which should include a fund especially set up to enable Council to take advantage of such unexpected opportunities) steps to acquire this land should already be underway. But alas, as Councíl is busy increasing the areas demand for open space, I’ll wager the only planning this Council is doing is related to installing concrete paving and plithning in the adjacent parkland.
November 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM
If this council is going to keep packing them in then open space becomes the no 1 priority. They’re going to spend 10 million on Mackinnon and that doesn’t include changing the roads and carparks there. Centenary will end up costing much more than 4 million on the history of project blowouts in this council. All they’ve spent on open space in the last ocuple of years was 2.2 million for 2 houses in Packer park when they were wanting to sell off land that was 5 times this size. It was forced on them and not their first priority. The totals are all in favour of pavilions and practically zero in favour of buying land and turning it into passive recreation areas.
Watch out for carnegie swimming pool. That will go next becuase they’ll let it deteriorate and then use the argument that it costs too much to maintain. They’ve cut funding to this already in the last two years. Next year will be even less.
November 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM
I recall Bentlileigh Secondary College getting a new basketball stadium which cost alot more than $500 k. Bob Hudson was going at it pretty hard. It is natural for political parties to do all they can to maintain office.
November 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Glen Eira Council is struggling to pay its bills when they fall due, let alone be able to stump up millions for more open space. The Racecourse agreement has fallen over because Council cannot afford to pay the MRC for its share of the fence. GESAC has sent Glen Eira broke.
December 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM
Why does Council need to pay for the fence? Did Hyams, Pilling, Esakoff and Lipshutz sign off on that deal? If I replaced my street fence, I would not expect Council to pay anything. Why does the MRC get special treatment?
December 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM
The Melbourne Racing Club gets no favours from Council, in fact it does more than it needs to. Contact Council if you have a problem. The Racecourse provides much needed employment for the people of Glen Eira. Fools.
December 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM
Subsidised rates, gifts of public land for development, special mates deals on planning, lack of follow up on the racecourse agreement, maintenance of Queens Avenue (albeit of poor quality) – the MRC gets heaps of support from this Council, especially Newton, Burke, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Hyams. Unhealthy support. Very few local jobs are at the racecourse. Time for some truths to come out, perhaps Delahunty can act on her pre election promises.
November 30, 2012 at 7:14 PM
Once again we are faced with an adhoc decision. The subject land is close to both Murrumbeena and Hughesdale “Neighbourhood” Centres and fixed route transport, so the area will suffer the depredations of Council and VCAT over time. I doubt it could honestly be described as overdeveloped though, not compared to the sorts of densities being sought for Elsternwick, Bentleigh and Carnegie where there is much less open space. If anything, our idiot planners have over-emphasized fixed-route transport and under-emphasized open space as a basis for increasing density. But then, most of planning policy doesn’t bare close scrutiny.
All opportunities to expand open space should be carefully considered, but I am mindful of how unevenly distributed it is in the municipality. Worst of all though is that Council has a) got itself into a financial position where it has to use “caution”, meaning underinvest and b) lacks a consistent vision about future urban living and what is needed to be done to support its vision. Everything is geared towards maintaining amenity for a privileged subset of the municipality at the expense of everybody else.
Under the Magee/Sounness agenda, there isn’t a need to provide open space anywhere outside of their Ward, or to provide habitat or trees, or to lower speed limits so pedestrians can walk relatively safely to their designated “open space”, or to be screened from traffic noise, or to have public transport to their places of work, or even to have employment close to where people live. Cr Esakoff has gone further and outlined her wish that the one parcel of open space (but not public open space) remaining within Carnegie Urban Village be redeveloped similar to Camberwell Station [14-storey tower].
Are people prepared to pay higher rates so that a higher standard of amenity can be offered to all residents, or is the general view that rates are already too high? I wish I could direct my rates to improved amenity rather than to the salaries of bureacrats so determined to thwart all our efforts.
December 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Reprobate, what exactly is the open space in the Carnegie Urban Village you are referring to, in relation to Cr Esakoff’s wish? The land next to the railway station? Is her wish a matter of public record?
December 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Yes, I am referring to the railway land that Carnegie Station sits in. Cr Esakoff advocated the State Government eliminating the level-crossing, using a redevelopment similar to the one targeted for Camberwell Station to ameliorate the costs. As best I recall the statement was contained in an article published in the Leader about 5 years ago concerning removal of the level-crossing. The land is not subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay, and it will disappear if tentative plans for quadruplication ever materialize…although a Plan B has been floated, in which the route is relocated under Dandenong Rd via cut-and-cover so as to pass close to Chadstone.
Its ironic to note the value suddenly being place on fixed-route high-capacity transport, since the area once had both the Rosstown Railway (constructed by a William Ross!) and Outer Circle Railway. At least the elements of the Lonie Report advocating closure of 9 suburban rail lines have been consigned to the dustbin of history. [The Lonie report was written by people with a vested interest in increasing road transport, and that should be born in mind when studying all its recommendations.]
November 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Mary Delahunty’s Facebook page has an item about another 8 storey application for Glen Huntly Rd, next to Bumps the ski shop. It’s for retail and residential.
I’m encouraged that Delahunty sees fit to publicise this and to seek community feedback which is more than this administration sees fit to do. They’ve obviously only alerted a minimal number of neighbouring properties and there’s nothing on their website to inform the population at large.
We’ve just had a report to council on how wonderful the information provided to applicants and objectors is on the planning processes. Here’s the ideal example to reveal everything that’s wrong with the process. It’ll go to the planning conference where Lipshutz won’t allow objectors to voice their views or ask the developer too many questions – that’s if he even bothers to show up. There will be no record made of the night and definitely nothing made public. Objectors won’t get a chance to see the officer’s final recommendation until 3 days before it just might go to council for a decision. If it does get to council then the pro developers will wring their hands and blame vcat for allowing 10 storeys. The argument will be that we will give them 6 storeys just to save face with electors knowing full well that they can then blame vcat.
Delahunty’s comment was too late of course to really get people involved since she’s announced that the planning conference was due that day. Maybe even councillors didn’t get to know about this until the last minute? I hope so because if councillors knew about this weeks and weeks ago then they should have spoken up right away. If they’ve only found out in the last couple of days then this is another indictment of a lousy planning department that doesn’t give a stuff about informing the public.
December 1, 2012 at 8:32 AM
What is wrong with an 8 storey building in Glen Huntly Rd? Where do you think a growing population will be living? They only listen to objectors that will be affected by the proposal. That will probably exclude yourself. They also only take notice of people that have legitimate planning grounds on which they base their objection. They do not take notice of people that are anti development. That opinion can only be satisfied through the ballot box at a election.
December 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM
I am not anti development – a growing population needs accommodation. However, I am against development without the accompanying infrastructure (such as public transport, open space, appropriate traffic management, drainage) and shonky developments (lack of natural ventillation and light, limited access and visual bulki). I have not reviewed the plans so will let others more qualified to comment on the design aspects of this application, however, the lack of appropriate accompanying infrastructure is definitely applicable in this instance. And I object to this development on this basis – the current transport system, existing parkland and road network is already operating at over capacity and when was the last time the drainage/sewerage network was upgraded.
As for your comment on who they listen too – BULLSH*T – they listen to no one. Go to a planning conference, they openly state that once an issue has been raised, eg traffic, by someone it cannot be raised again by another person. What a great way to stifle people and avoid residents emphasising an issue (only one comment on traffic even though 100 others would mention it if they could).
December 1, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Plenty of public transport in Glen Huntly Rd. Short tram ride and the residents will come across Elsternwick Park. acres of open space. The sewage and water supply are easily up to capacity. When they built the sewage they took into account that there would be at least 6 people in each residence. Now that is less 2. Melbourne Water are quite comfortable about high rise development. Visual bulk will not be taken into account.
Traffic jams are going to happen until people work out what tgheir legs are for and it is a good thing to walk instead of driving 200 metres to the shops. In the end people will walk as they will work out it is stupid to sit in traffic jams
December 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM
. Yep plenty of public transport – trouble is getting access to it in peak periods.
. 6 people in each residence – doesn’t equate to 57 dwellings (each with own laundry facilities, kitchens and bathrooms) with say 2 residents per dwelling. Also ignores change in hygiene standards that has occurred since sewerage network was built.
. No mention of the stormwater runoff issue (flooding) that arises from the increased site coverage of high density developments
. Not much point realising what legs are for when traffic congestion creates rat runs and basic safety issues for pedestrians.
December 1, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Its not baout morexdevelopment gto fit growing population numbers- its about is an effective integrated planning approach.
I live just down from that spot in Glenhuntly Rd & I can assure you that traffic problems, speeding cars diverting from main drags & trurning our residential streets into major speeding rat runs is what will happen more of…
So think before you speak- how about some implications analysis…
And re your comment at the ballot box – thats just happened hasnt it & the sad resounding result is more of the same councillors & their crappy incompetent leadership…
So we need to educate the ‘uninterested’ community, so that they can be well informed & take the oppourtunity to vote well & with enthusiastic!