One component of this strategy has been the review of the current open space contributions program. Areas for improvement that have been addressed in the review include simplifying the schedule of rates, broadening the contribution requirement to all development in the City of Glen Eira, providing direction on when a land contribution should be required, and re-calculating the rate based on the projects included in this strategy and linked to population change in the municipality during the strategy planning period. The strategy establishes the need for all subdivisions to contribute to open space and the type of contribution required, whether as land or equivalent value in cash.
A new schedule is proposed for Clause 52.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme An averaged rate to apply across the municipality would replace the schedule of multiple rates currently in the planning scheme. This would simplify the percentage rate calculation for open space contributions and link the funds collected to the open space projects contained in this strategy. Based on the projects recommended in this draft strategy, it is anticipated that this rate will be in the order of 4 to 5 per cent.
Thus sayeth the consultants in the draft Glen Eira Open Space Strategy. How they justify the recommended 4 to 5% flat rate is anybody’s guess given that:
- No figures are provided on anticipated costs of acquiring new open space
- No figures are provided on anticipated necessary expenditure – for example on pavilion ‘improvements’
- No figures are provided on what income is expected from a 4 to 5% increase and to what extent this meets the anticipated costs.
More important is the fact that this draft strategy TOTALLY IGNORES the possibility of levies higher than 5%. Stonnington for example is currently seeking an 8% levy across its municipality largely based on the fact that it has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state. If Glen Eira has the lowest, and is facing major residential development everywhere, then even a 5% levy is a joke!
We cite the following from the Stonnington review of its open space levy strategy and have uploaded the full document HERE. What is most impressive is the detail, the financial analysis, and the correlation between all of Stonnington’s policies – ie Public Realm, Pavilion Strategy, etc.
For starters, here’s what is not revealed in the Glen Eira version –
Clause 52.01 of the VPPs expressly recognises the power of councils to obtain open space contributions under the Subdivision Act, and provides a mechanism for councils to amend the provisions to suit local circumstances.
The Schedule enables a council to set its own contribution rate(s) subject to strategic justification. This can exceed the 5% limit of the Subdivision Act. The percent contribution can be tailored to meet the specific needs of areas and sub-areas, subdivision types (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial) and method of contribution (i.e. cash, land or both). Details of liability can be more clearly defined to suit local conditions. Councils are effectively immune from challenge to the contribution if a Schedule to Clause 52.01 is incorporated into the Planning Scheme and it is unambiguous and applied appropriately. Implementation of a Schedule to Clause 52.01 requires a Planning Scheme amendment. (page 4)
There is then an overview of the various levy approaches that could be taken by councils. For example:
The main advantage of this is its simplicity, clarity and certainty for subdivision proponents and council. A rate around 5% can deliver a significant income stream to council for open space.
The main weakness or disadvantage of this approach is that the nexus between who pays and who receives open space investment benefit – by area – can be weak. As such, it may be difficult to justify a rate higher than the Subdivision Act benchmark of 5% in using a flat rate even if some parts of a municipality would justify this due to high development pressure and open space need. (page 7)
Precinct Based Fixed Rate
The precinct based levy approach differs from the flat rate in that it seeks to provide a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment. The upshot is that areas with more open space investment will pay a higher contribution, all other things being equal.
The approach links planned investments in an area to the contribution requirement. If an area is to receive no open space investment, the contribution in the area will be zero. The basis for the levy is therefore the planned investment as follows:
Strategic planning work is undertaken and this identifies infrastructure and open space projects that are required or desired for the planning area. This can be documented in a specific open space strategy or plan or a structure plan
The open space projects are identified and costed from this strategic base. The cost of each project is apportioned to subdivision over the life of the funding plan.
The strength of the precinct based approach is that it provides a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment
The main weakness of the approach is that more justification may be required to support the Planning Scheme amendment process compared to a simple model. The validity of the approach may be based on the rigour of the supporting strategy and information inputs. (page 8)
The report then goes on to provide the necessary financial framework for the final recommendations-
Across the City as a whole, the current levy schedule has delivered about $3.3m per annum on average over the last four years and $6.2m in the latest full financial year.
If a 5% flat rate levy was used instead of the sliding scale over the last four years of levy operation, the income to Council would have been $15.0m over four years at an annual average of $3.8m (instead of the actual $13.2m at $3.3m).
The 5% flat rate would have delivered $6.8m in the 2011/12 financial year (instead of the actual $6.3m). This marginal change is explained by the fact that in that year most subdivisions applied a rate at or near 5%.
Various scenarios using 5% to 10% flat rate levies are shown in Figure 19 below. These levy rates are applied to:
The four years of levy collection from 2008/09 with an average per annum figure produced
The last financial year of levy collection 2011/12
The figures are extrapolated over 20 years to gauge what might be required to achieve approximately $314m in income to cover the cost of proposed open space works via this tool.
The four year data suggests that a flat rate of well over 10% would be needed if planned open space expenditure were to be fully funded from this levy over 20 years. Using the latest year data, projected revenues would be significantly greater, but even at a 10% levy rate, this mechanism would only collect 87% of projected expenditure.
In terms of the Chapel reVision area the levy would need to be set at 8% to fully recover the cost of acquisition and works planned for the area.
CONCLUSIONS?
- Stonnington has decided that 5% is far from adequate. We suggest that the same holds true for Glen Eira.
- Is Glen Eira Council capable, and/or willing, to do the necessary analysis that will provide the detail for any amendment that has a chance of getting up? Or is it easier to take the simple path and just pluck a figure from the air without really knowing how far this will advance the acquisition of more open space in the municipality?
- Is 4 to 5% seen as the secret threshold that will not put off too many developers – even though these extra costs will undoubtedly be passed on to eventual purchasers.
- And the perennial question is: why can one council do all this work, be upfront with their strategic planning, and our glorious council persists in waffle, lack of detail and financial justifications, and misinformation!?
Glen Eira Debates 
January 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM
There’s been a huge difference in the revenue collected by Glen Eira and Stonnington over the last 4 or 5 years. That’s inexcusable considering that the rate of development has been growing and growing in Glen Eira and the cry of lack of open space is like a broken record. How many developers have got away without paying a cent or contributing any land? The amendment to increase the levy should have gone through years ago and council has done nothing. It will still be another year until anything gets up and my bet is that all that will happen is maybe 4.5% and nothing approaching what is necessary or what Stonnington are trying to do. Newton’s view would be that 8% would put a brake on development to a major extent and in Glen Eira that’s not an option.
January 8, 2014 at 2:40 AM
Residents must note that the only new space purchased in the last decade has been two house blocks after a formidable protest by residents in the Packer Reserve area. Council now rests on this achievement!!!!
In many ways the so called levies have onlty caused more closed space as there have been far too many buildings constructed in parks with this so called cash and then car parks and accompanying roadways thus only producing less space for residents to breath in fresh air and walk on green gr ass as an added consequence of more development.
Then there is always the yellow brick road, the car parking in parks sometimes with metres (which should pay for other space regardless of new developmwnt) and the other pieces of concrete which are creeping around our parks at the rate at a rate of kilometre after kilometre. These are replacing perfectly superior iron fencing.
I supppose this philosophy cash also caters for the axemen too … unfortunately to make areas far more open and ugly.
Then there are the openings for the professional park advisors who all take their kick out of advice and survey expenses at the rate of knots and then there are the multiple council decisions which are continually revised if the wrong answer comes up. it costs money to have all those officers, councillors and whoever who continuallytalkandtAKE NO ACTION APART FROM PRODUCING STORY TELLING MINUTES AND STATISTICS.
THEN THERE’S THE TENB YEAR OF DUCUMENTS AND PLANS DRAWN UP WITH THE MRC, QC OPINIONS ABP\OUT THIS AND THAT ALL SECRET OF COURSE , THE SECRET CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUST MEETINGS … OH THE LIST IS UNSURMOUNTABLE BUT FUNNILY THE AREA FOR THE MELBOURNE RACING CLUB ALWAYS GROWS AND COUNCILLORS SEEM TO SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS AND SAQY THERE’S NOTHIHNG COUNCIL CAN DO!!!!!! WHAT A JOKW IT ALL IS … ONE MUST QUESTION WHO COUNCIL WORKS FOR.
COUNCIL MUST RENOVATE THE CONSERVATORY IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!
Maybe the wordpress could open a document which invites readers to list all the open space they know which has been sold off, used as car parks or desicrated as a place of recreation in this city… even the drains and laneways which have been sold and put into consolidated revenue. The acreage would be astounding.
We desparately need a new group at the top. .
January 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM
I agree with this post, it has hit the nail on the head
January 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM
My guess is that part of the purpose of the open space draft is to lull everyone into a sense of false accomplishment. Five percent will sound like a major increase on the pitiful sums that council has collected over recent years. Having raised the figure of 4 to 5 per cent the upcoming amendment will stick to this range without any genuine analysis or any attempt to raise the rate any higher.
I would also agree with the post that for a municipality with so little open space, and such grandiose plans for more pavilions and other infrastructure, and ever increasing population density, that there has to be some quantified financial analysis of projected costs against projected income. A 5% levy may be above required needs although I seriously doubt this. Some real work has to be done and residents provided with the figures that will endorse any proposed levy. If not, then open space in Glen Eira will never increase and the old catchcries of the least open space in the state will continue. My fear is that the draft strategy is a “softening up” process and nothing more. The other fear, given recent history, is whether this new amendment will be open for consultation and submissions, or whether Newton will secretly ask the Minister to intervene on the grounds that there has already been “extensive consultation” on the draft open space strategy?
January 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM
The main weakness of Glen Eira’s open space levy is how it spends it – despite promises of spending it 50% on acquiring new parkland and 50% existing parkland maintenance it has predominantly (90%) disappeared into a general parkland funds that is also used for pavillion building.
Not only does the rate need to rise but it also needs to be spent on acquiring additional parkland.
January 9, 2014 at 9:04 AM
The current Glen Eira Open Space Levy rates involves differential rates across the municipality and is complex to administer. While I welcome Glen Eira adopting a flat across the board rate (something other Council’s have had for years eg. Port Phillip a flat 5% since 2002), I agree that with the above posters that the proposed 4-5% falls way short of the mark and it’s determination is fundamentally flawed as it is unrelated to the type of development or available open space in the locality.
Some Open Space Levy basics. The open space levy is payable, on the value of the land (only) at the time of subdivision, on developments located within the residential zones, ie. it is not applicable to commercial or mixed use zones which do not have height limits and provide for above ground floor high rise residential unit developments.
So when considering Council’s proposal take a look around your area and don’t take into account the building, only consider land value and zoning. A 10 storey 50 unit development in Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick pays no open space levy. The 3 storey 20 unit building in any residential growth zone and the 2 storey, 2 unit development in the neighbourhood residential zone will only pay a paltry 4-5% levy based on the land value if and when it is subdivided.
Aside from asking how the value of the land is determined, ask yourselves if this is appropriate – which development will place the highest demand on open space and therefore should pay more.
January 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Some of the above appears to conflict with GEPS 52.01, which states “A person who proposes to subdivide land must make a contribution to the council for public open space in an amount specified in the schedule to this clause (being a percentage of the land intended to be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, or a percentage of the site value of such land, or a combination of both).”
GECC, through the Schedule to 52.01, limits the application to residential subdivision, which is almost orthogonal to the zoning of the land. “Commercial 1 Zone” for example is now being used primarily for higher density residential development [without the need to consider any residential amenity standards].
January 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM
Was in Port Phillip this morning… People everywhere and many areas for residents and visitors to relax all looking clean, green and inviting unlike the tired looking mulch on Elster Creek walking track! Our landscapers should go to St. Kilda and see what can be done! It would be good for their eyes to behold!
January 9, 2014 at 6:49 PM
Despite its size at ~300 pages, the Strategy appears short on strategic objectives. It also appears to be a rather political document, written not so much for where GECC should aspire to be, but for what might be able to be done with the inadequate resources likely to be made available.
Here’s some of my criticisms of the “Draft”. It lacks measurable targets for quality and accessibility of open space. It doesn’t relate population density to open space needs. It therefore can’t explain how any particular open space contribution percentage is adequate, and it doesn’t explain how the past 15 years of failure will not be repeated. It proposes lowering the Open Space square metres per person in Glen Eira, which is already 40% lower than the next lowest municipality in Melbourne. It relies on a pedestrian linkage [not even a small open space] as being adequate for people within a 200m radius.
It treats railway land as open space while knowing that land will disappear if either major political party eliminates the nearby level crossing, through “value capture”. It uses suburb names as a means of describing distribution of open space. This ignores or overlooks the huge disparity in suburb sizes and in particular that Carnegie has all its open space in the southern half, over a kilometre away from the blighted “Urban Village”. It proposes a tiny amount of open space for areas targetted for 1000% population increase. It fails to address the gap that GECC admitted when declaring that no open space in the municipality was suitable for activities like “Humans vs Zombies”.
In the meantime Council, how about fixing up the Planning Scheme, and at least accurately state that Garden Avenue Park is in Glen Huntly rather than Carnegie. And explain how open space in Jersey Parade has been suitably replaced in the development of a community centre [sic] in Shepparson Avenue.
January 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM
Clearly a political document doing the bidding of Burke and Newton. Here’s why I think this is the case and comes from the draft strategy – Allocate open space contributions for land
acquisition or capital works depending on the
purpose for which the monies were collected. The
proportion of project funding should be
commensurate with the use by the new population
on whose behalf the contributions are collected.
Buildings on public land should not come out of the levy. The funds for this should be capital works budgets and not open space. Since this council is red hot on more building, more road incursions into parkland, and never the increase of open space, then my guess is that most of the money collected via the levy will end up being spent on bricks and mortar and bitumen.
Another “independent” consultation that has ended up being ghosted by officers in my view.