The image above comes from Council’s summary of community responses to the Bentleigh ‘shopping strip’ online survey. According to the ‘facts’ presented here we are meant to believe that 65% of respondents are in favour of ‘private development’ (whatever that means!) – but with some constraints on height and ‘character’. Please note that of the valid 248 comments included in the document, the claim that 65% are ‘supportive’ does indeed represent an entire work of fiction. What is most disappointing about this report is:
- The failure to acknowledge the countless comments that specifically referred to overdevelopment in the various side streets of Bentleigh – ie the damage done via the zones
- The exclusive emphases on the ‘survey’ comments rather than the opinions expressed via the forum PLUS the apparent ‘editing’ of the forum comments themselves – ie not every comment made online is included in the resulting ‘summary’. Here is one example of what’s been omitted – The critical and major issue is the urgent implementation of height and appropriate building form controls. Interim measures are required immediately to ensure a planned future for the shopping precinct. The inappropriate and unplanned overdevelopment must be stopped now to ensure that structure planning results in long term plan
- The total inconsistency in the reporting across all suburbs. Surely a report on community responses to one issue should include identical categories in the respective pie charts?
- Could this possibly be another example of ‘community consultation’ designed to ‘endorse’ the decisions that have already been made behind closed doors?
Presented below are the pages that are council’s version of the online forum comments plus another graphic displaying what has been happening south of Centre Road Bentleigh since the introduction of the zones!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 21, 2017 at 10:14 AM
People are screaming about what’s happening in their streets. They want this stopped and until these councillors get it through their heads that the zones are the cause then structure planning that doesn’t consider the zones is useless. Ruining suburbs because Hyams and planners won’t admit they stuffed up badly is no excuse to continue along the same route. Apologise, say sorry and do something about the zones quick smart.
March 21, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Glen Eira has trouble with public consultations would be a humongous understatement, just look at EE Gunn reserve, that is open for public consultation now.
We have been given one very poor option to choose from, with all other major options already locked in, because the work to achieve this has been in progress in the reserve for months
There is no indication of what trees will be removed to implement this anti open space development
The plan caters almost entirely for the minority sporting interest, passive users get some new concrete paths and little more.
Large increases in car parking inside the reserve
Another large 2 storey expensive pavilion to be built
No mention of permeable surfaces in the plan
Strong possiblity that the mature gums in Foch St, being removed to make way for more cars to park.
These are just some of the deep problems and issues in this Sham Plan to consult with the public.
March 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM
In response to this comment, we proffer the following observations:
1. There are various ‘reserve advisory committees’ that are continually mentioned in council officer reports. At no stage have any of these ‘committees’ or their ‘terms of reference’ or their membership ever been disclosed.
2. No agendas or minutes of such committee meetings have ever been published
3. They therefore operate in secret and are far from representative of the wider community – since we assume that they consist entirely of the relevant sporting groups.
If council is really concerned about governance and transparency then the above matters need to be addressed and made public. If they are in fact truly ‘advisory committees’, then their dealings need to be on the same footing as other advisory committees with ratified terms of reference and roles. Otherwise this is just another example of woeful governance and abuse of transparency.
March 21, 2017 at 3:56 PM
Very interesting indeed, this makes one wonder.
March 21, 2017 at 3:41 PM
No costings on anything. How about some figures so we can decide if the plan is worth spending all this money on. The same goes for the structure plans. No clue on how much all will cost and when its likely to be finished.
March 21, 2017 at 11:40 AM
More lies, deceit and fabrication.
March 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM
Council Meeting Minutes 30th August 2016
As a result of community consultation carried out for the recent Planning Scheme Review, overwhelming feedback was received indicating that that there was a sense of overdevelopment within Glen Eira’s activity centres leading to a loss of character and subsequent amenity impacts on surrounding residential areas. This feedback has led to …… proposed structure plans for activity centres.
March 21, 2017 at 12:16 PM
I would like answers to some pretty basic questions. The activity centres “visions” that feature are Bentleigh, Carnegie, Elsternwick, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale only. I can understand Bentleigh, Carnegie, and Elsternwick as the urban villages. I don’t understand why Murrumbeena and Hughesdale can be considered before Ormond or McKinnon or even Caulfield park area. If council’s reasoning is that this is the result of the LXRA activity then that should also apply to Ormond and North Road. The shopping centre in Ormond is a lot bigger than Hughesdale, it carries far more traffic and has a lot more of its area marked down for higher density development. Whatever deal council has made with LXRA then they should come clean and let ratepayers into the secret. Otherwise they should work like demons to make sure that Ormond and the other centres also get top priority.
March 21, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Councillor residential address?
March 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM
The planning scheme provides the following information on “Regional Retail Hierarchy and Estimates of Existing Floor space”
Caulfield South 10,800
Bentleigh East 8,850
Ormond 8,800
Glen Huntly 8,150
Caulfield Park 4,450
McKinnon 4,100
Murrumbeena 2,300
Hughesdale 2,250
Moorabbin 2,000
Alma Village 1,950
March 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Doesn’t make sense then if seeking a logical explanation.
March 21, 2017 at 1:03 PM
I don’t believe any number that comes from Council unless it can be independently verified. That have been caught out on more than one occasion just making shit up.
March 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM
The debacle reminds me of a Yes Prime Minister episode in which Sir Humphrey demonstrated how by using leading questions a skilled interviewer could get the outcome they want. I provided my feedback despite the survey attempting steer me along a particular narrative. I spoke up about the parlous state of the Planning Scheme—how out-of-date it was; the lack of guidance to decision-makers; the gaping loopholes; the failure to provide strategic justification; the long list of actions that Council had promised to do but had failed to deliver after 15 years. And now it seems Council is determined to do whatever it wants by wilfully misinterpreting the feedback it has received.
March 21, 2017 at 1:13 PM
Councillors are you listening? cos you would have to be deaf blind and dumb not to see that you need to pull your fingers out and get a new planning department and public relations department that is competent and honest. Stop the crap and do what residents are telling you to do.
March 21, 2017 at 1:42 PM
Very good suggestion, the rot runs deep.
March 21, 2017 at 1:43 PM
At least be honest
March 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM
Who wrote the crap report?
Who approved it?
How much did it cost?
Did councillors read it?
Did councillors complain?
Do councillors care?