Tomorrow night’s agenda features Item 9.7 – Redan Road proposed ‘restructuring’ and the removal of 11 car parking spots; installation of a bike path, and preference for “landscaped kerbs”. We have been informed of the following:
- 92% of residents living in the street are NOT in favour of the landscaped kerbs since they argue that the street cannot afford to lose these parking spots. They are not opposed to speed humps, just the removal of invaluable parking spots. This has resulted in two separate petitions to councillors
- The plan provided to residents is factually incorrect in terms of its measurements according to residents. Council refuses to acknowledge this.
- Nowhere in the extant Bicycle Strategy is there any mention of the need to install bike paths in Redan St.
- Countless other streets throughout the municipality also have cars ‘speeding’ and are hence unsafe according to council’s definition. Yet, despite numerous and ongoing resident complaints regarding countless other streets with far higher volumes of traffic, these have remained untouched for years – so why the sudden interest in Redan St?
- Repeated letters and emails to individual councillors such as Delahunty have not been answered.
- Pilling appears to be content to sign off on faulty and inaccurate information – raising the question as to the quality of councillors’ decision making when the information they are provided with is highly dubious.
But there’s much, much more involved in this sudden need to change Redan St and we believe it fits in very nicely with the Caulfield Village proposal. The entire emphases of the Development Plan focuses on Caulfield Park as providing the necessary open space. (The Centre of the Racecourse barely rates a mention). Hence Redan St. as access to Caulfield Park becomes vital. More questions then become necessary – ie why ratepayers instead of the MRC/developer should be footing the bill for any works that ‘complement’ the Caulfield Village proposals? We’re already witnessing millions upon millions being spent on drainage in the immediate vicinity. Is this just another ‘expense’ that has been landed in residents’ laps via a fully compliant council?
Glen Eira Debates 
March 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM
No development contributions from the mrc and they get another gift handed to them with all the drainage and now this. Terrific job councillors in looking after my dough and amenity.
March 17, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Much of the content of officer reports remains evidence-free. Whether it’s Redan St or “visitor” parking or open space, officers have decided what Council’s decision should be, and Council is very unlikely to raise questions about the obvious gaps. Parking can be inadequate because of “market forces”; traffic treatments shall be imposed regardless of need or quantified risk; open space according to the draft report as rewritten by council staff is an unnecessary luxury with no increase in space considered necessary—but if Council really insists, then it should be “small”.
March 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Here’s a line from a recent VCAT judgement that would seem to support your thinking on Council’s attitudes re planning, open space, standards in general, etc. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/204.html
And the relevant sentence in the member’s decision reads – “With regard to site permeability, the development will retain 10% of the site as being permeable, which is less than B9 Standard that requires 20%. Council was not concerned with this issue……..”
March 17, 2014 at 11:01 PM
A lot of the time, reports are totally evidence free as they are deemed confidential. The reappointment of Gibbs and McLean to the Audit Committee for over the last 20 years could never be justified, so it’s best not to say anything and deem the matter confidential.
March 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM
Nah, that ain’t evidence free. That’s non existent and goes for Newton’s life time job. No evidence just a whopping pay rise and 5 more years of him.
March 18, 2014 at 9:01 AM
When you ask the question “why ratepayers instead of the MRC/developer should be footing the bill for any works that ‘complement’ the Caulfield Village proposals?” it is a valid question but an even more valid question is “why, when residents have voted 93% against a proposal, are their wishes ignored in favour of the MRC”.
Also you gotta wonder at
. how a pissy little 400 metre road forms a “missing link in the bicycle strategy” (another unsubstantiated statement) but only warrants now that the MRC’s development plans are in; development plans which focus on Caulfield Park for open space rather than the much close centre of the racecourse.
and
. how come the traffic analysis data collected late last year on other streets in the area is not being provided to residents. The only analysis even undertaken on local streets near the proposed Village and not a peep out of Council. All they have done is via the S173 agreement let the MRC have free reign (something history shows you should never do) and ignore the residents.
and
. mention of the LATM (local area traffic management) is a joke. The whole LATM concept recognises that traffic patterns should not be considered on a single road basis, the local road network needs to be considered.
and
where are the figures for the number of cyclists that use Redan Road and what is its accident history.
April 3, 2014 at 12:48 PM
[…] 92 per cent of the locals are not in favour of the proposed changes to Redan road. […]