CLICK TO ENLARGE
January 5, 2016
The Zones Keep On ‘Giving’: East Bentleigh
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[18] Comments
[18] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- January 5, 2016 at 11:03 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates
%d bloggers like this:
January 5, 2016 at 11:15 AM
Where have you got your information on 6-8 May Street from? Nothing shows on the planning register.
4 Lilac Street has been rejected by VCAT
January 5, 2016 at 12:10 PM
A CLARIFICATION:
You are correct in stating that the Lilac Street application was rejected by VCAT largely on the basis of the developer’s greed we suggest. This will not prevent another application going in (as with Claire St., McKinnon) where the original application was for 35 dwellings and this was also rejected by council and VCAT. They now have a new application in for 33 dwellings. Other examples of this second bit at the cherry include Ames Avenue, Carnegie. Thus, in our view, the chances are that we will see in the near future another application that attempts to address the points made by the member. Thus instead of 10 dwellings, it might be 8 double storeys, etc. Our position is that a council refusal does not amount to much in these circumstances. When a developer has spent millions on land, then that in itself is an incentive to get something built that will recoup his money and make a profit.
Council has also refused permits for some other application listed here – notably the Hill St and Elizabeth St ones. As stated above, we do not believe that this will be the end of the story. These properties will be developed.
You are also correct about the May St application. That is our error – a mixing up of street names. We have double checked the others and they are correct. Thank you for bringing this to our notice. Ultimately residents should keep in mind that Bentleigh East is supposed to be a neighbourhood centre’ yet its rate of development is second only to Carnegie – a major activity centre.
January 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM
OMG!!!! And the above doesn’t include all those currently under construction and those that have been granted extensions.
I’ll bet that the parking and loading bay requirements were waved and, although this area is deficient in public transport, I’ll also wager that not once did the CK Obrien Staff say anything other than the road network can handle it.
January 5, 2016 at 1:15 PM
My guestimate is that all of these make up close to 600 apartments in a pretty small area. I doubt if it’s more than 20 or so hectares. Council has got it wrong in a major way. This is not sustainable in any shape or form. If any resident even considers voting for the current councillors again then they must be insane or developers themselves.
January 5, 2016 at 2:38 PM
Omg.
January 5, 2016 at 3:32 PM
This certainly brings things into focus. No longer can Glen Eira councillors ignore the voice of the residents in objection to this rampant development. It’s time to put a stop to this. Objections from residents and Council are not achieving anything. It’s just tokenism.
January 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM
I cannot believe that Councillors cannot see that it is time to make some changes to their approach before it is too late. How can this be appropriate development. This is changing the face of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh and Carnegie forever. It will not be a pleasant place to live as it is now. Something has to be done to stop this rampant development. Councillors need to take responsibility and make changes to stop this NOW.
January 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM
We need to give credit and thanks to Hyams for the shoe boxes
being built as a result of his residential zones in return for electing him to the Council in 2012. What a great service to entire Glen Eira.
January 5, 2016 at 6:33 PM
The three storey applications are destroying the city but so are the two double storeys on a single block. Narrow tiny streets are becoming double storey boxes and back yards are disappearing. As long as council doesn’t have a minimum size for subdivisions this will only get worse and worse.
January 5, 2016 at 7:20 PM
That is the way foward. Population is growing and is still family friendly this way
January 5, 2016 at 9:10 PM
Perhaps not the way forward if you allow every bit of vegetation to be removed and don’t care when the sizes of rooms are tiny. That isn’t family living in my books. It is a recipe for disaster that is made even worse because council hasn’t done anything about enough public open space. Kids can’t play in the streets anymore because of traffic and they haven’t got backyards.
January 6, 2016 at 11:36 AM
the apartments are not the way forward for us, but the subdivision of blocks should be encouraged city wide. (eg 2 side by sides)
January 5, 2016 at 8:24 PM
You forgot to mention 795-807 Centre Road and 150, 150A-E East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East. VCAT approved “Construction of a part three (3) and part six (6) storey building comprising up to ninety-six (96) dwellings four shops”.
January 5, 2016 at 8:35 PM
Thanks for this, but difficult to fit everything in on one map. We did focus on Centre Road a little while back and are confident that there have been plenty of further applications come in. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/east-bentleigh-going-quickly/
January 5, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Glen Eira, I get tired thinking about all then background work that you put into this site. You should be up for some Council award for your contribution to the City. Thx
January 6, 2016 at 8:32 AM
That’s right! on our public open space, there are two ways of measuring our opens space, static, which is just a measure of our open space in square meters, which continues to be nibbled away with access roads, car parking extensions and with new building footprints etc, the other measured as a ratio of open space per resident, this is going backwards quickly.
Our new open space strategy a few years old now, was a complete sham. Our Mayor Pilling sold it as being the solution to our open space problems, but in fact it will leave us with less open space in 2026 (the expected life of this strategy) than we have now.
January 6, 2016 at 10:12 AM
and one hell a lot more demand for open space for both passive and active residents by the residents of all this development.
January 8, 2016 at 3:13 PM
Council includes as open space land that the public is prohibited from eg the Caulfield depot, and land that the Government intends to redevelop [using the euphemism “value capture”] to offset the cost of level-crossing removal. The open space situation is deteriorating. While microparks are better than nothing, they’re not really adequate, and might not even be delivered over the next 15 years.