The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –
- What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
- Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
- Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
- If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
- What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
- Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
- Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?
We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 12, 2016 at 6:32 PM
This unnecessary and stupid waste of money project is nothing new to the Council. They know GE Debates and GE residential group are paper tigers and not backed by any government organisations.
Venting frustration through this site without teeth or dentures is a waste of time, unless there is a force to bring the Council to questioning and jjustice. The organisations such as the Glen Eira Residents group and GE Debates need to have properly endorsed position to keep an eye on misuse and abuse of authority or else the existence of this site will remain as is and no one will benefit.The general public are in the dark compared to the huge knowledge that GE Debates has. Reach out to all the residents or your good work will, unfortunately have no value. Best wishes.
November 12, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Turn up next Tuesday and ask the mayor in question time. They will be reading this so no surprises .
November 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Excuse the off topic question, but maybe someone could also ask the Mayor why our last supposedly quarterly rate notice has been changed to 2 months. The last notice had a due date of late September. The current one has a due date of late November.
November 12, 2016 at 9:47 PM
I tend to agree with your sentiments. The real issue is to have an increased community and residents participation in Council affairs. In the latest Agenda there is an item on Community Consultation Committee. They decry the lack of participation and the reduced community dissatisfaction with the Council.
The new Council should develop that element that works much better in other Councils. Me hoping. At the same time residents and community groups should insist to participate on various committees to ensure a greater voice on Council matters, particularly plans for the future.
November 12, 2016 at 10:05 PM
It is worth pointing out a few things regarding the minutes of this community consultation committee. A report (noted as Attachment 3) is again not available to the public. Further, the summary of processes that other councils employ are watered down to an extraordinary degree in the subsequent ‘action’. Thus, instead of a ‘research and reference group’ of residents (where other councils attract up to 450 people interested in providing feedback on all issues) Glen Eira dismisses such options. Admittedly, these minutes are pre-election. Thus the new councillors now have the opportunity to keep to their platforms of greater community involvement and greater transparency.
We have consistently argued that:
1. community reps should have voting rights on all committees
2. Any papers distributed to these groups also be placed in the public domain. Only them can residents assess the feasibility of the recommendations and their justification.
3. All committees should be consistent in their processes – ie name the mover of the motion, the seconder, and the outcome of the ‘vote’.
4. Agendas be published before hand and committee meetings be open to the public. Residents can also request to speak at these meetings and/or ask questions.
Unless the above reforms are introduced then we are still in the land of arch conservatism, lack of transparency, and the deliberate attempt to sideline residents.
November 13, 2016 at 8:22 AM
Lets hope the Newton model of consultation left the town hall along with him.
November 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM
Not quite. Remnants remain via some councillors and directors.
November 14, 2016 at 9:58 AM
The overblown 389-page Open Space Strategy that few councillors have read does have buried within it some possible justification. The property is within gap area CS1, but is right in the middle of the area whereas the actual recommendations 6.8A-1 and 6.8A-2 are for two small local open spaces, one in the north and one in the south. Presumably the Strategy specified two spaces because of the 1.6km north-south extent.
The strategy treats major roads and railways as barriers to access open space hence Princes Park is not considered accessible due to Hawthorn Rd and I agree with that approach. $2.1M does however seem excessive for 672sqm in NRZ1. Still, paying a premium may be necessary to entice people to sell when they really don’t want to move.
Council hasn’t seriously tackled open space in areas it is targeting for higher density development. Even in Carnegie it has decided to create a new open space in NRZ rather than within the Urban Village where it is most needed. [Creation could be deferred for a decade or more too.] The OSS does list aspirational accessibility criteria for Melbourne, and Glen Eira in particular, but the recommendations fail to come even close to meeting those aspirations. The choice of 6 Aileen Av means properties will be up to 1.2km away from their small local open space rather than the recommended 300m.
November 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM
Main roads should not be seen as a barrier. Traffic lights are the answer – Bambra road to get to Princes Park, Hawthorn Road to get to Princes Park, Balaclava road to get to Caulfield park. They’ve all got them.
November 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM
I don’t accept that traffic lights are a solution. They don’t add 1 sqm of open space; they only marginally make existing open space more accessible; they reduce capacity of the road network at a time when politically powerful interests are demanding faster roads at the expense of residential amenity. Carnegie has traffic lights along Koornang Rd: at Dandenong Rd, Arawatta St, Rosstown Rd, pedestrian crossing, Neerim Rd. They haven’t made the place safe, and won’t for so long as there are motorists who refuse to believe roads are a shared resource.
I saw a motorist speed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing on Beach Rd yesterday, but I’m an adult and could tell from a distance they weren’t going to stop, so I waited. A child doesn’t have the same road awareness. Motorists don’t even stop for people on the pedestrian crossing outside Woolworths on Kokaribb Rd.
How many lights would you wish to have installed to service CS1, and how far do you believe it is acceptable for people to walk to reach public open space? What other changes do you want Council to make to the Open Space Strategy?