Item 9.12 deals with the proposed closure of Fosbery/St Aubins Avenue to create open space. What will be fascinating is to see whether resident concerns are acted upon by councillors or ignored entirely.
The report states that for traffic in Kambea and Otira Road – The majority of the feedback was strongly opposed to the proposal based on concerns around traffic volume, congestion and vehicle movement. Responding to this opposition we have –
The analysis of this data indicates that:
Σ There would not be any noticeable change in the daily traffic conditions in Fosbery Avenue (north of St Aubins Avenue) and at Otira Road.
Σ Daily traffic volumes in Fosbery Avenue, south of the proposed open space area would decrease by approximately 70%.
Σ Traffic volumes along St Aubins Avenue are also expected to decrease.
Σ Traffic volumes at Kambea Grove, west of Fosbery Avenue would be expected to increase by approximately 219 vehicle movements per day, and up to 44 vehicle movements in the AM peak hour.
Σ The traffic volumes are considered appropriate noting the acceptable threshold volume for a local street under State Government planning guidelines is variously 2,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.
The most incredible paragraph in response to the potential speed of cars reads –
The location of the proposed open space was not identified in order to address a specific traffic concern, although wider streets like St Aubins Avenue and the southern section of Fosbery Avenue (south of the dogleg) can attract more traffic ‘cutting through’ and travelling at higher speeds, due to ease of access.
Surely when up to half a million dollars of ratepayer funds is about to be spent on a project, all aspects should be considered and fully investigated. We also remind readers that less than 2 years ago a tender was granted for the ‘redevelopment’ of this site for approximately $930,000. We have wondered whether this means that work previously done will now be ripped up to make way for this project?
Some further information on open space
Page 212 of the agenda states – Purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue for a potential new open space opportunity in Caulfield South.
We assume that this relates to some recent in camera items and the resolution to ‘accept’ the officer’s report presumably for purchase. Readers should note:
- Recent sales in Aileen Avenue are listed as over $2 million
- Council’s purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue repeats the ongoing trend of concentrating on Camden ward to the exclusion of the far more ‘high priority’ recommendations from the Open Space Strategy for the Carnegie area. Why?
- And why oh why is council continuing to spend valuable money on new open space that is literally a stone’s throw from existing open space? – ie Fitzgibbon/Eskdale (Caulfield Park); St Aubins/Fosbery (Greenmeadows)? And now Aileen Avenue – Princes Park?
Glen Eira Debates 
September 18, 2016 at 1:00 PM
This area of Camden is Liberal Party heartland, and Carnegie is not, so the Libs plus Pilling use their numbers to bang this tripe through.
This highlights Pilling roll as a traitor, as he sells out Rosstown Wards residents needs and collects his quid-pro-quo as being appointed Mayor twice by his Liberal mates.
Local politics is a dirty game in Glen Eira and it’s enlightening to see Pilling rise to the very top of this filth politics
The sad thing is none of this will do anything to help along our open space needs. It’s all smoke and mirrors
September 18, 2016 at 8:11 PM
Everything’s going into Camden for sure and nothing for Carnegie. Thank Lipshutz for that and his buddies voting for it.
September 18, 2016 at 9:40 PM
Lipshutz is doing a great job in Camden, if he has to use a sucker like Pilling to get across the line so be it. Sell-outs like Pilling do not come your way every day.
September 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM
Interesting on the agenda about the racecourse. It mentions a park im the nw corner i imagine it is talking about near station st. Interestin it says no new trainers but in the sun this week some trainer said he was going to talk to mrc about taking up residence in moodys stables
September 18, 2016 at 3:52 PM
The MRC have no plans to go anywhere. They have a huge investment in the facilties they have built up over the years. The cash flow from the pokies and the regular cash from renting car parking space to uni students will not be given up easily. The pokies rely on easy parking. The MRC need plenty of cash to boost stake money for the races. Sponsers cash is OK but they need to fund prizemoney down to 5th spot to get people to race their horses.
The MRC hope to be around for another 100 years. Expect a soccer pitch come cricket ground suitable for juniors and a couple of netball courts. Don’t expect any change rooms or lights.
September 18, 2016 at 7:24 PM
Lights will come if there is night racing and you can bet there will be night racing. That’s the govt pay off.
September 18, 2016 at 8:58 PM
Meant lights for community sports facility. Like netball courts or soccer training lights. Definitely night racing. 100%
September 18, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Night sport at the racecourse would be a really bad idea, there are lots of birds sheltering in and around the lakes at night. Sport should not take a dominate role as they the clubs etc. rarely if ever think of anything other than their own obsessions of running around making as much noise as possible and guzzling energy that all ratepayers have to subsidise.
September 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM
Successive Labor and Liberal governments, in a rare show of bipartisan support, have decided that open space is NOT important. It’s not part of the “decision guidelines” for higher density development. In both M2030 and PlanMelbourne open space ignores the problem that higher density development is being encouraged in areas that do not have open space in close proximity [meaning comfortable walking distance, defined as 400m].
The utterly disgraced DELWP, who is responsible for the lack of planning, nominated entire suburbs for higher density. In Glen Eira, they were Bentleigh, Carnegie, Caulfield, Elsternwick, Glen Huntly. That was the extent of the strategic work done. They refused even to distinguish between the commercial cores and surrounding residential areas of its “Activity Centres”.
Sixteen years ago GECC identified that open space was poorly distributed and did nothing about the problem. We now have thousands of people living in apartments without nearby open space. Cr Hyams on behalf of Council redefined “close proximity” to mean 1.4 to 2.5km. VCAT’s contribution has been to claim 8sqm for a balcony is excessive, proposing 6sqm to be more acceptable. Proposed apartment standards from State Government suggest 10sqm, up from current 8sqm, but proposes no changes to the planning regime that ignores the current ResCode “standards”. They are to continue to be discretionary and hence able to be ignored.
September 19, 2016 at 9:12 AM
well said reprobate, you put your points forward without any insulting comments, keep it up
September 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM
There’s a pair of items tonight that appear to be inconsistent with each other yet have the same author. Item 9.1 proposes rezoning former industrial land to MUZ with a DDO specifying mandatory maximum height of 14.5m which is claimed to be 4 storeys; while Item 9.2 proposes rezoning GRZ to C1Z with mandatory maximum height of 16m. Historically Council has argued AGAINST height limits and AGAINST rezoning industrial land to MUZ, preferring C1Z. As a consequence it has had its decisions set aside at VCAT.
Now Tracy Mihalos is arguing for a new planning principle, which is that if one side of the street is zoned C1Z then so should the other side. Will be interesting to see if Council embraces this argument, given just many other properties would be affected if Council applied this principle everywhere. Secondary argument used is that Council should expand the size of neighbourhood centres to support their “long term viability”.
The report doesn’t discuss why other zones/schedules have been rejected. It is currently zoned GRZ, has a non-conforming use, and abuts residential areas to east and north. While rezoning to C1Z makes the land much more valuable, is that a good enough reason? Responding to existing or preferred neighbourhood character of an area is not a purpose of C1Z but is a purpose of MUZ, and that seems to be the strategic justification for wanting a DDO. Of course, if 5 storeys is the preferred neighbourhood charcter, the schedules of the surrounding GRZ should reflect that too.