Council has released the various documents it will be presenting at the upcoming panel hearing for the Ormond Tower project. The files are available at: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Copy-of-Ormond-Station-proposal
We wish to note the following:
- The only councillors to vote against the ‘official’ council position of a mandatory 8 storey height limit were Esakoff and Sztrajt. All others in our view adopted the spurious position of 8 storeys is better than 13 storeys. Hardly a convincing argument!
- The fact that the so called ‘evidence’ was released only AFTER the decision was made cannot be seen as transparent and accountable government. It reinforces our view that like so many other contentious issues in Glen Eira, first make the decision and then massage the ‘evidence’ to support that decision!
- ‘Evidence based’ is the latest jargon to infiltrate into polit-speak. Our understanding of ‘evidence-based’ is that it stems from medicine in the first place and involves data that is ‘scientific’, ‘objective’ and quantified through such processes as randomised clinical trials held over years and years. Individual ‘clinical expertise’ does come into it, but that ‘expertise’ is accorded the lowest rung on the hierarchy of ‘evidence’ and is measured against the overwhelming findings of the various data sets.
- We find no such ‘evidence’ in the Hansen report for starters. The term ‘opinion’ is used at least 11 times in the document, whilst ‘in my view’ occurs countless more times. Basically, this is nothing more than the ‘opinion’ of one individual – albeit the opinion of someone with great experience.
- We challenge anyone to find one single scrap of ‘evidence’ in the Hansen report that would justify the recommendation for an 8 storey building. There is absolutely nothing in this report that would indicate why 8 storeys is preferable to say 7, 6 or even 10 storeys!
- The traffic report is equally dubious. And why there is support for a reduction in resident and visitor parking is simply beyond us given that it does not accord with council’s own planning scheme! (see image below).
- The economic retail report is interesting for several reasons. It announces huge impacts on neighbouring commercial shopping strips if the project proceeds. Mention is made of Bentleigh and others. Yet when it came to the Virginia Estate proposed amendment, the initial officer’s report fobbed off the economic impact by stating that under the zoning of Commercial, the intent was to develop more ‘activity’ and ‘employment’ in these centres.
Thus we have to wonder – did each an every councillor bother to read these ‘expert’ reports? Did they ask some decent questions? When were they briefed on the reports? Or were they simply told by officers ‘this is what we think’ and you should abide by this? Finally, how much did all these ‘experts’ cost ratepayers?
We will report on the actual ‘debate’ in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM
Planning scheme says 1 visitor car park for every 5 apartments. They are looking at 220. My maths says that should be 44 visitor places. If they get their 0.04 as the maximum then that equals about 8 spots. Terrific news for locals.
February 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM
This type of detail is far too complicated for Councllors to understand. These 8 parking places will be occupied by people with two cars. Visitors spots = 0.
February 9, 2017 at 11:45 AM
Graig the expert shows the development (in red) coming to the edge of the North footpath so to speak. I thought the development was actually set behind the new station forecourt and entrance?
February 9, 2017 at 4:28 PM
It was a Labor Government who decided the Shard was too tall at the western end of Federation Square, replacing it with a squat fishbowl. Surely that would have been an evidence-based decision. Couldn’t expect a middle-ring municipality to host something Labor would reject in its Capital City Zone in such close proximity to a train station.
February 9, 2017 at 10:58 PM
Eight stories is fine in that area.
Let’s get on with it as the shopping plaza and accommodation have the potential to give a drab street shopping strip a lift.
February 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM
Not everyone would agree with you that 8 stories is ok and when nobody was asked or given a clue that this would be what council wants. How about working with people as opposed to doing stuff behind their backs.
February 10, 2017 at 11:09 AM
It would seem that more shops at the station would rob the existing strip of commerce just as the various “bigger better developments” in Geelong.
February 10, 2017 at 12:42 PM
An influx of residents and a more attractive shopping strip should attract people to well run local businesses.
February 10, 2017 at 2:54 PM
Great if it works. What about parking? overlooking on neighbours? next application for 15 storeys?
February 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM
Three storey units are already spread along the strip overlooking residences. The days of overlooking being a major impediment are sadly long gone. Anyway, the positioning of this build is less of an issue than many that presently exist.
February 10, 2017 at 8:29 PM
You guys don’t get it, do you? Councils are supposed to represent the community. No one has bothered to find out what the community wants on this. Some businesses might but there are hundreds and hundreds of residents who will be affected in terms of parking, overshadowing and so on. There’s also heritage all around. What gets up my nose is how council has acted. They make the decision first and then publish the reports that aren’t worth a cracker. How come these weren’t out before? They’ve picked a figure of 8 storeys again without knowing what the hell they are doing. Plus I believe that when dealing with governments if there is full community support then the chances are improved. This does not have full community support in any shape or form.
February 10, 2017 at 9:11 PM
No decision has been made yet as the Committee is still hearing submissions.
The proposal was on exhibition until mid December with the opportunity for any individual or organisation (directly affected or not) to make their case. There is a public hearing next week.
Interestingly, every person I’ve have spoken to who is anti the development when asked whether they had made a submission said ‘no’. Easier to bleat than make an effort I guess.
Unfortunately, there are professional naysayers either for political or anti progress reasons who will always whine like 40 yo differentials.
It isn’t as if the shopping strip has any major redeeming features. The drab shops and the approval of 3 storey units along the strip has made it an unattractive place to shop. A nice plaza with a good supermarket might just give it a lift.
March 5, 2017 at 9:30 PM
it`s about time to catch up with what the rest of the world is doing.
good idea!