October 15, 2013
Letters To The Editor
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
[5] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- October 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
October 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM
What happens to the thousands of people living in housing diversity has never bothered Newton. They are collateral damage to his schemes of development and more development. The schedules show this. If by some miracle there was real planning and concern then the schedules would have reflected this. They don’t and there was never any intention to use the full scope available. Mr Benham has nailed it in one. Council’s financial priorities over-ride everything else. That in itself is a black mark against the financial planning that has gone on in Glen Eira. When you owe millions and millions the only way to keep your head above water is to collect more and more rates and that can only be done when you permit unrestricted development.
October 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM
What happened to the public consultation on the new planning scheme, this is the place were Christopher Benham views could have been heard. Our compliant Councillors for some unknow or at least unexplained reasons choose to lay down and play dead. So it looks like the “Letters To The Editor” in the local newspaper is the defacto voice of public consultation after the fact in Glen Eira.
Just how many of the councillors ran on a platforn of better public relations and consultation only to dump this promise once elected?
October 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM
On the issue of consultation it’s very pertinent that:
1. it’s taken just on a year for the consultation committee to get its act together and appoint 4 new community reps. This is after they rejected the original applicants as not being ‘representative’ enough of the community. Now we have 4 new names listed in tonight’s agenda. Whether they are ‘genuine’ community reps or deliberately canvassed and selected by certain individuals remains to be seen. Lobo has registered his dissent from the recommendations. Interesting to say the least!
2. why has it taken a year – especially when so much could have been achieved by such a committee – ie zones, open space, community plan ‘review’, etc. etc.
3. We’ve previously highlighted the very narrow terms of reference for this committee – they will play no part in helping formulate, advise, assist on developing council policy. Consultation and its true meaning is thus stymied right from the start.
October 15, 2013 at 8:23 PM
On Koornang Road there is an application for yet another restaurant or coffee bar or whatever on the east side requesting remission from parking provision requirements. There are about a dozen restaurants already on eastern side between NEERIM Road and what was the blocked off street Jersey Parade about two hundred metres and not one metre of extra car parking has been required. As a fresh fruit shop and butcher supporter I find it extremely hard to find a parking space for my short weekly visits. How will it be when the units on Neerim Road, now in construction and the other 42 approved by council with retail on the ground floor too (with car parking concessions) and above the chemists shop are completed. Probably about one hundred and fifty people will occupy these “new dog boxes” and hey will probably own a car each. I end with WHAT HAPPENS THEN? The sums do not add up to my simple arithmetic… does anyone have a solution??????
October 16, 2013 at 6:56 AM
Council doesn’t give a stuff about heritage or about the character of areas, particularly when it comes to the former housing diversity areas. While the planning scheme is full of phrases re “the developments need to be sympathetic to the surrounding neighbourhood”, there are no guidelines for the subjective “sympathetic” decision – it’s a sounds good but meaningless statement. In fact Council’s continually states at VCAT that when it comes to the former housing diversity areas Council prefers to the let the character emerge. In other words let the developer decide.
I’d put money on the officers report for the pictured development including statements on architectural quality and good design elements.