Corner Kokarrib and Neerim Roads – taken today (6/12/2014)
December 6, 2014
How’s This For Pedestrian Safety?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
[10] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- December 6, 2014 at 7:48 PM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM
If you want a real mess the development of Emma and Glen Hunty Road in Caul, Sth, has been a pain for the best part of the year, with the footpath on Emma being blocked by the site office, skips and anything else deemed appropiate by the construction mob
December 7, 2014 at 6:19 AM
The construction workers park all day in the 2P Kookarib parking area, the Woolworth’s semi now has to mount the pedestrian safety island and as you can see there is no apparent reason for it.
December 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM
The footpath has been blocked off for over 2 weeks here at Kokarrib corner with Neerim. The blocked off area has not been used for anything though I did see a construction car parked in there on Friday. How can the safety of pedestrians be compromised because a developer wants to block off a footpath for no good reason?? This council is the most shameful, disgraceful bunch of people that do nothing, absolutely nothing to protect the interest and safety of ratepayers and the community. It is going to be long two years to wait before we can vote out the councillors and then get rid of this administration.
December 7, 2014 at 12:44 PM
And with the way this shonky mob operates, after the wait, there may little to save. After all the zones unleashed 85 years of housing supply – only about 4 times the norm.
December 7, 2014 at 4:27 PM
http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/murrumbeena-records-best-longterm-median-unit-price-growth-in-melbourne-20141206-1201yx.html
December 7, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Sure looks like a road closure and footpath occupation, without a clear footpath width of 1.5 metres being provided at all times for pedestrian use. Did they really expect pedestrians to cross the road twice in such a busy location, with poor visibility, and cars exiting Neerim Road at speed? Fortunately there will be a record of the council officer(s) who granted any permits without a satisfactory Traffic Management Plan. While not much compensation for compromising pedestrian safety, the developer should be up for a fee of around $300 per day for the occupation of around 125sqm. It’s been going on for at least 2 weeks.
December 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM
those complaining Glenhuntly isn’t big enough! this will tower over everything in the area
Site Location 1240 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163
Overriding Site Location 1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163
Proposal Construction of a six (6) storey building containing 118 dwellings, shop and home offices above a basement car park, use the land for dwellings, reduction of associated car parking requirments and waiver of loading bay requirements
December 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM
We remind readers that an application for 16 storeys in Carnegie has gone in – with no detail on how many proposed dwellings!
December 8, 2014 at 3:41 PM
Developers can apply for whatever their greed hearts desire, but in response the Planning Scheme says: “Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted”.
Theoretically the proposal is supposed to be assessed whether it will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of some nebulous “decision guidelines” that provide no guidance. As a result, Council has first crack at ignoring problems with a proposal, and VCAT gets a second crack if Council inexplicably insists on a proposal complying with amenity standards.
In the case of Glen Huntly Rd, Council has already decided that there shouldn’t be height limits at the fringes of the activity centre, and has expanded the commercial area to the east, over Grange Rd to abut residential zones. Since it chose C1Z, existing residents will be expected to tolerate a loss of amenity. That is the argument that both Council and VCAT have used historically to justify permits for poor proposals.
December 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM
The unsafe, unsatisfactory road closure at Neerim/Kokaribb cnr persists. It doesn’t provide the 1.5m clear footpath width required for pedestrian use, and doesn’t ensure safe pedestrian usage at all times. Maybe Council is relying on a loophole: that the “Notes” on the Permit application don’t match the conditions on the Road Closure Permit. What excuse will Andrew Newton offer this time? It was his policy and his lobbying that saw Council acquiese to closing the footpath at Queens Av adjacent to the racecourse, forcing pedestrians onto the roadway.