There are several important items up for decision next Tuesday. Here is the first one –
Item 9.1 – Public Acquisition Overlay on 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale
Purchasing land to expand public open space is commendable. In this instance we can only shake our heads in bewilderment at the continual inconsistency and contradictions that are the hallmarks of planning in Glen Eira. Please note:
- 53 Magnolia Road had a public acquisition overlay. It was removed in January 2008 (process for amendment started in 2007)
- At the time the following statement was made in support of removing the overlay – Gardenvale Park is a small neighbourhood park. The addition of this small house block (497m2) will not greatly increase the park’s size. Gardenvale Park, as it has been developed, serves the needs of the local community and does not need to be extended in area. (Minutes of 27th November 2007)
- The decision to proceed was made in camera on the 1st May 2007. The formal resolution read – Crs Robilliard/Lipshutz – That Council – a) Seek authorization from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment to remove the Public Acquisition Overlay from 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale.
- Now in 2015 we get the story of how deficient in public open space Glen Eira is, and how this amendment fulfills the Open Space Strategy. Forget the fact that Council and residents knew in 1987 and again with the 1998 Open Space Strategy that Gardenvale was lacking in open space. The 1998 Strategy went even further in specifically recommending that Council maintain the overlay on this property.
There were two submissions at the time of the proposed removal. One of the submitters included the following comments –
Procrastination by the Council over more than 10 years has seen the building deteriorate to the extent that the only likely course of action for the current owners or any near future owners would be to demolish the building. It is barely habitable. Whereas, if a decision had been made by Council earlier, the building may have been saved and the streetscape and entrance to the Park left relatively unaffected. The Council has also missed the opportunity to acquire the property at a reasonable cost and thus expand the park.
Now, 8 years later, Council decides that it does need to reimpose the public acquisition overlay. Of course, Council will now have to pay 2015 prices and not 2008 prices. Further, why couldn’t this proposal have been included as part of Amendment C120 (open space levy) as other councils have done given the very short time frame between the two?
House prices in the area are well over $1,000,000. What were they in 1987 and again in 2007?
Glen Eira Debates 
January 30, 2015 at 3:57 PM
may be it’s jim magee action?
January 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM
Lipshutz’s fingerprints all over another balls up
January 31, 2015 at 9:19 AM
From 1998 till now there is only one set of fingerprints that have prevailed.
January 31, 2015 at 12:21 PM
Strange how during the 2000s Council was busy selling land to prop up its shaky budget position, not acquiring it. Of course the 1998 Strategy identified the key problems with open space being primarily the poor distribution affecting accessibility, with other factors being the limited size and quality of the space. Having achieved very little over the 16 years of the previous Strategy, we have a new one that makes similar comments about the problems, but oddly lacks strategic justification for many recommendations.
Expanding an existing space doesn’t address the issue of poor distribution. It might still be desirable, but it is only a second-order or third-order goal. If 53 Magnolia was part of the original plan, I’m curious why the original plan wasn’t included in the Report. For that matter, why isn’t 51 Magnolia also being subject to a PAO? And does Council actually intend to acquire the property? I’m not convinced it is obliged to buy the property because of a PAO either, but compensation would be payable if Council refused a planning permit because of it.
The new OSS is not off to a good start if the first application of it is not to address the gaps. I don’t see how the report can claim that the acquisition would reduce Gap area E4 since it isn’t in E4 and it abuts existing open space. Council didn’t want to buy land to improve public open space for areas targetted for higher density development in Murrumbeena, and here it is proposing to expand a park surrounded by NRZ. Makes it hard to fathom their priorities.
January 31, 2015 at 4:05 PM
I can’t see that council is doing much to improve open space in the city. They have flogged off all what’s possible and the focus now is on redeveloping what’s already there. Even if they buy the Magnolia road property that would make it a bare 1500 square metres of new open space in the last 15 years. Most of the money is going on infrastructure like pavilions and not the purchase of plenty of new open space. Dropping the policy that would give some assurance that open space levy would go on the acquisition of new open space means that the status quo is protected – more concrete and more millions on white elephants and less and less open space as a result. If they want to keep building then that shouldn’t come out of the levy but out of the capital works budget.
January 31, 2015 at 7:35 PM
Anyone notice a similarity between this Council and Mathew Guy’s handling of Fisherman’s Bend. Just like Guy this Council had the opportunity (over 15 years worth of opportunity vs Guy’s 2) to acquire open space but didn’t (even though their own strategy urged them to do so). Now just like Guy, as a result of their rezoning, Council has priced themselves out of the market.
Oh and by the way Council’s parkland acquisition overlay doesn’t have a great track record (unless you are the owner of the property). Last time (2010) Council used it to acquire the two house lots in Packer Park they paid a way over the top $1.92 million for 1377 sqm (or $1394 per sqm). Compare that with the Neerim Road property (no PAO, vacant land that would have doubled the size of an existing park and residents were advocating Council acquire) which Council didn’t buy in 2013 (3142 sqm for $2.7 million or $859 per sqm).
February 1, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Oh yes, Council has been negligent, reckless even, in failing to plan for the pattern of growth it has encouraged. But the rot did start with State Government when it published a list of suburb names in Melbourne 2030 and called them “Activity Centres”, without doing due diligence. I was incensed when I read that Council considered the northern half of Carnegie to be well-served, when it admitted there was no land zoned PPRZ within 1km, and thought it appropriate people should have to travel 1.4-2.5km across state arterial roads or railways to access a park. And if you do make the 15-20min walk [each way], you can find yourself locked out.
February 1, 2015 at 7:08 AM
Hi guys this is a open space strategy, not a open space policy, it can be ignored , changed, or just forgotten