Council has finally released its draft Activity Centre Strategy. We are left speechless at both the quality and the deliberate camouflage of council’s intentions. Not only is the document a vapid, repetitious , and totally uninformative vision of the future but it lacks everything that an Activity Centre Strategy should include. For example:
- No detail on proposed height limits
- No detail on proposed building form
- No detail on proposed open space requirements
- No definition as to what ‘urban renewal’ really means
- Plenty of promises that largely repeat the promises made in 2003/4 but without any timelines
- Statistics that are wrong, wrong, wrong!
Worse still is the tone! Lack of detail is one thing, but when a strategic document of this importance includes the following rubbish it is totally unacceptable. We quote directly from the strategy and invite ‘interpretations’ as to the true meaning of any of these sentences –
As our local centres become more affected by globalised and mobilised markets, it becomes more and more important to create community rich experiences within these centres that cannot be bought online
Explore opportunities to facilitate local flexible working opportunities such as co-working spaces or expanded library areas.
Strategically locate future parcel pick-up stations and other digital transactions facilities within activity centres that encourage community interaction
Strengthen the heart of the community
Foster ‘bottom-up’ change through a focus on place-making.
Ensure key community needs are provided in each centre (such as banks, post office, grocers, butchers and bakers). (Please remember that council has no control over banks, post offices, nor private retail!!!)
Housing capacity and building scale can be separated from activity centre hierarchy by clearly identifying housing typologies that can accommodate growth in strategic locations that respond to their immediate context and neighbourhood character, and also reduce impacts on amenity.
We also have succinct vision statements for each centre that belong to the world of Forrest Gump or the Wizard of Oz, rather than a local government strategic document. Here is the ‘summary’
We acknowledge that Plan Melbourne has foisted some conditions onto council – ie Caulfield Junction as a Major Activity Centre, plus Moorabbin, etc. However, this does not excuse the production of a document that is full of meaningless waffle and motherhood statements, plus similar promises to what has been made and not been acted upon in the past 15 years! It is surely time that council comes clean and informs its residents in a straight forward and honest manner exactly what it proposes! We would also welcome a submission period of longer than the 3 weeks indicated.
Finally, by way of contrast, we have to again bemoan the fact why other councils can do things so much better and with so much more clarity, and dare way say, honesty! Here are a couple of Activity Centre Strategies from other councils. Please compare and contrast!
STONNINGTON – UPLOADED HERE
MORELAND – UPLOADED HERE
Glen Eira Debates 
May 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM
My “interpretations” – turn libraries into commercial centres; invest millions more into technology that does nothing; more and more and more development.
On another issue about “village feel”. It was made very clear a few posts ago that the good people of this city didn’t buy the jargon of “village” too well since they were already surrounded by multiple high rises. The draft strategy has ignored this and still continues will the crap about village feel. By the time they get around to doing anything the term “metropolis” would be far more appropriate.
May 19, 2017 at 6:09 PM
Our Council must be smoking to much of that green vegetable matter!! what a load of absolute CRAP! What village feel? is this what they call 9 story high rises? i think the only ones high, are the council members and the muppets who write this rubbish. God these people could out BS a used car salesman.
How about for a change “THE TRUTH?”
May 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM
You have to laugh,
“As our local centres become more affected by globalised and mobilised markets, it becomes more and more important to create community rich experiences within these centres that cannot be bought online”
in the context of Glen Huntly, this means more Massage Parlours for the growing population of Indian men. one sign says “European Massage here”
Just like Council unsubtle jargon with its hidden meaning,
“European Massage” means have sex with a white woman here
And in a similar context we pay our rates to pay the bureaucrats, and we get screwed.
May 19, 2017 at 10:45 PM
We’re paying heaps for this rubbish. I want my money back.
May 20, 2017 at 9:33 AM
After all the promotion this is the hot air that is delivered, an absolute embarrassment that this rubbish can be recommended. Just a tick box process with local and state govs working in tandem at our expense.
May 20, 2017 at 10:22 AM
I have to agree with you Anon. The deals have already been made and signed off on. Only ratepayers aren’t being let into the secrets until it is too late. I would bet that’s been the plan all along.
Everything about this process from day one is wrong. Three weeks to provide feedback on no information is not my definition of “consultation”. We will then get version 2 that won’t be changed and that one will have all the important info like heights and borders.
The stink of politics is written all over this. Bentleigh is suddenly downgraded from a major, major activity centre. Maybe because it’s already been ruined. More likely because this is payback to Staikos and Wynne and it’s a marginal seat and all the level crossing areas will be packed with high rises as a result.
May 20, 2017 at 5:02 PM
Worst piece of crap they’ve ever done. Tons of comments on overdevelopment and doesn’t even get a mention anywhere except saying there will be more in places. Great listening council. How about spending more of our dough on lousy planners and experts to do your bidding
May 20, 2017 at 9:15 PM
Jargon and more jargon. Only certainty is more development. Gutless wonders who chicken out of putting out a real plan that people can get their teeth into. This is more than crap. It is devious, deceptive, and dishonest.
May 20, 2017 at 10:37 PM
For the sake of argument I will accept that we are going to need 9000 new homes in the next 15 years. Average per year is 600 so why are we getting double or triple that for the last 5 years? Every comment I read was screaming about over development and that doesn’t get a look in in the strategy. The opposite is true. More and more centres are ear marked for more development. It doesn’t make sense. Worse even is that I don’t think they have an idea of what they’re doing or they want the rates income so they can waste more of it.
May 20, 2017 at 11:29 PM
I liked this part::
“Glen Eira has recently seen strong growth of young families, welcoming 1,700 new young families between 2001 and 2011, while single parents with young children saw a decline of five per cent in that same period. Glen Eira’s schools, parks,community services and close-knit neighbourhoods make an attractive place to raise a family, however, there is currently a supply shortage of available and affordable
family homes.”
I wonder if any members of those young families have aged in the last 16 years?
May 21, 2017 at 9:28 AM
Look it does make sense if corruption is involved, what do resident pay the politicians and bureaucrats under the counter to get what they want.
Nothing.
They know when it come election you’re either going to vote Lib or Lab, and they are very happy with this shared power power arrangement.
Remember developers are the now the the largest single donor group to the two main political parties, they do not do not hand over cash because they are generous people, because we know they are not.
Lis and Labs have been selling out Australia for decades to anyone with the hard cash to buy it. We are now on par with the third world when it comes to the race to the bottom. It has nothing to do with housing affordability or future security, it’s all about a dash for the cash.
In Glen Eira case most of our councillors have direct links to political parties and the members, and they chosen to run as a councillor and are often financed through the member’s offices. Residents come last in this process. With this corrupt system in place, should anyone be the slightest bit surprised with the planning outcomes in Glen Eira, the whole system is being manipulated and rorted to suit the political parties election chances and the developer back pockets.
May 21, 2017 at 9:07 AM
They are going to develop every square inch of land they can and it won’t be 3 stories. Reckon you need to be an Einstein to figure out any real facts and that’s why it’s written like this. “Strategic sites” are everywhere depending on how that’s interpreted and that could mean anything from 1000 square meters to east village.
May 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Strategic sites = lets develop the crap out of them and don’t worry about the future.
May 22, 2017 at 10:34 AM
State Government used to define strategic development sites to be ones that were able to provide 10 or more dwelling units. That’s just about every property in Glen Eira, particularly if you remove the need to comply with any residential amenity standards. Amendment VC134 changed the criteria but still has the strategic goal of ensuring people live a long distance away from their place of employment.
May 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM
Can someone please clarify the origin of “Glen Eira is forecast to grow by 22,000 people, 9,000 dwellings and 9,500 jobs over the next 15 years”. It is an underlying premise for the strategy but the source is not referenced anywhere.
May 21, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Half of the figures come from Victoria in Future, 2016. Please note that these figures are not ‘forecasts’ – they are projections. See: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/land-use-and-population-research/victoria-in-future-2016/victoria-in-future-one-page-profiles and then select the Glen Eira one.
What is of far greater concern is the development rate in Glen Eira compared to other councils. Plus, that Victoria in Future for the period 2011 to 2031 proclaims that 13,000 households are required. Glen Eira in the years from 2011 to the current period has had over 8000 building permits approved and is averaging over 2000 net new dwellings per year. At this rate, the supposed 9000 needed new dwellings will be achieved by 2021 – ten years earlier! That raises the question as to what council is doing to HALT development rather than facilitate it to the extent that this document suggests!
May 21, 2017 at 7:42 PM
Had a quick look at the Victoria in Future 2016 document and as you mention populations and dwellings are projections only and are based on current trends. They are not defined as a population goals.
The background detail regarding current approvals that you refer to is not included in the Glwn Eira plan. Surely this is important data to inform the plan, it seems to be included in the structure planning for other municipality.
May 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM
How’s this?
The major shift in policy, recommended in the Draft Strategy, is the identification of new urban renewal areas along arterial roads where greater population and employment growth can occur with limited amenity impacts on these existing neighbourhoods.
That to me means high rise along all major roads and many of them are surrounded by 2 story places. Canyons, wind tunnels, shadows everywhere. Terrific planning.