The so-called ‘Tranformative Concepts’ for dealing with the issue of parking to in our activity centres basically proposes
- To flog off to private development as much of council owned car parks as possible – the terminology became ‘repurposing’!
- To replace these car parks with one single above ground car park of at least 2 or 3 storeys.
One Mile Grid was then commissioned to survey ‘traffic’ flow in various streets. Their brief is defined as
Without stating the obvious, traffic flow and parking should be two distinct areas. It appears that council is determined to conflate both issues in the attempt to provide support for its highly questionable recommendations! Not surprisingly, the results of the One Mile Grid analysis for Elsternwick, Carnegie, Bentleigh concluded that – The results show that all intersections analysed are currently operating under ‘excellent’ conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours with minimal queues and delays experienced by motorists. Only Orrong Road brought up a ‘good’ condition report rather than ‘excellent’. Many residents travelling along these roads/streets would beg to differ!
We are not traffic engineers. We are simply residents attempting to understand how such results can lead to the recommendations when:
- No account has been taken of anticipated residential developments in the area
- No account has been taken of car parking spots in nearby residential streets
- No account has been taken of council car park occupancy rates
- No account has been taken of occupancy rates in surrounding streets
- No account has been taken of car ownership in the area
- No account has been taken of parking restrictions in the area
- No account has been taken of ‘through’ traffic – ie not remaining in the activity centre itself but just passing through
If council is indeed sincere about providing adequate car parking in its activity centres, then one must expect far more than a highly suspect report that does nothing more than focus on ‘traffic flow’ at certain intersections and concludes that all is hunky dorey for the most part and that public land can be flogged off for more private development.
By way of contrast we urge all residents to read the following that comes from Moonee Valley council’s amendment seeking to introduce both a parking overlay for the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre and a developer contribution of up to $13,000 per each car parking waiver. Then ask yourselves would Glen Eira ever attempt something like this given its pro-development agenda? We’ve uploaded the Moonee Valley traffic analysis, (a 175 page document) HERE
Glen Eira Debates 
April 24, 2017 at 4:52 PM
Difficult to fathom what is really going on. So far, not very impressive documentation and certainly not any accuracy in reporting of resident views. I don’t believe that any resident would support the sale of public land for more residential or commercial development.
April 24, 2017 at 5:45 PM
It’s obvious whats going on here. The aim is to repurpose (hate the word already!) existing car parks to help develop the crap out of activity centres. To justify this development, Council is going to use Plan Melbourne as an excuse. With 80% of Glen Eira “tied up” with NRZ, Council is proposing to use these activity centre locations as a huge dumping ground for its poor planning.
To suggest that the Transformative Concepts respond to community feedback is load of codswallop. The direction is about other agendas and Council is not being honest or transparent about them.
Why no explanation anywhere of what repurposing involves? Why no mention of genuine Open Space provision? Why no mention of the high density developments already occurring? Why no proper Parking Plan like Moonee Valley? Why questions only about shopping strips and not activity centres?
STOP TREATING US WITH CONTEMPT CITY OF GLEN EIRA
April 24, 2017 at 7:54 PM
A great comment and I agree entirely. We are being hoodwinked and treated like morons.
April 24, 2017 at 10:13 PM
Open space provision, ha ha – they are busy bury that under yellow concrete, although recently they have found a whole new range of bright colours, you can have green, blue or red now.
The is motto is destroy, devalue, and divest. That way we residents get the most rock bottom sale prices possible, it’s happening everywhere.
April 24, 2017 at 10:53 PM
From what I’ve read the overwhelming feedback from people is stop the crazy over development everywhere. I don’t see this being truly represented in any of the reports I’ve read. Quite the reverse in fact. The message being given out is that a good proportion of residents don’t mind development as long as it sticks to certain heights that I assume council alone will decide upon since they’ve never bothered asking what we think. Height is only one aspect and if this isn’t accompanied with proper setbacks, open space, permeability and so forth it is useless. Overall I honestly believe that all of this “consultation” is a farce. The questions were a farce and the way this is progressing is an even greater farce. How can rational decisions be made when all the necessary ground work hasn’t been done or not revealed to residents?
April 25, 2017 at 8:38 AM
The main problem is pure and simply talent. The Glen Eira Council is staffed “B” and “C” graders. To be a successful administration you need some smart people. The old gaurd made sure they never employed anyone smarter than themselves. Many of the people that contribute to this blog have more insight and knowledge than the people we pay to carry out the work. Many other municipalities seem to do a it better.
April 25, 2017 at 10:21 AM
anon you’re too kind, I would never dismiss corruption as a possible prime reason for delivering perverted outcomes. Corruption is being exposed everywhere these days in levels of government and bureaucracies.
Developers are now the largest single donor group to politicals parties, money speaks and buys decisions. In Glen Eira’s case the scenario is likely to be something like private meeting with industry groups and peak-bodies, long before the process is open for public comment.
Otherwise why would you bother to donate.
I saw the complete unashamed perversion on the reporting of the facts when in came to the analysing of the residents opinions opposing inappropriate development in McKinnon (a few blog post ago)
False Truths, alternative facts, false news, when Kennett corporatized councils he set in place the structures that would inevitably disenfranchise residents. The bureaucrats like to tell you, you live in a community, the truth is you now live within a corporate structure, that largely acts in its own interest not yours. There may be mutual overlapping of course but that incidental.
Only the fairies at the bottom of the garden fantasize that corporations believe and act democratically. The word does not exist in their lexicon.
April 25, 2017 at 12:39 PM
B grade for sure. If they are any good they go off and join or start their own consultancy and have all the contacts already inside council. No conflict of interest of course and doesn’t matter if yesterday they worked for the developer and today for council. Hired guns that make a packet. Bowdens the best example.
April 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM
Some very talented people work in some areas for the City. Problem is that Councillors continue to impose old views and not appropriately resource important areas.
April 27, 2017 at 12:26 PM
Both developers and council research is biased towards the outcome they have already decided to implement. East Village (Virginia Park) was a good example of this. Thanks to the support of Ritchies and a small group of residents the group was able to counter argue and refute ridiculous statements made by the developer.
April 27, 2017 at 5:32 PM
Traffic management and parking management in Glen Eira are pretty poor. Council has no standards for either. I reported in great detail a dangerous and substandard parking arrangement in my local street. The response was underwhelming, alleging that Australian Standards [AS 2890.5] were too generous and that 7 casualty accidents over 5 years in my street was evidence the road was operating safely.
They completely ignored the number of non-casualty accidents [they had no idea how many there were] but did reveal they had a budget problem and wouldn’t rectify their past stuffup other than to paint an extra white line. Even that token effort hasn’t happened.