Council has this afternoon published its draft structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick. The East Village plans are yet to make an appearance. A quick summary of what is now proposed includes:
- Bentleigh’s 8 storeys is now reduced to 5 storeys – although areas that were previously earmarked for a MANDATORY 4 storeys can now rise up to 5 storeys!
- Carnegie and Elsternwick are still in line for 12 storeys but these areas are reduced.
The most disappointing aspect of these new plans is that residents are still to receive any details on:
- Potential costings
- Strategic justifications for heights proposed
- No mention whatsoever of Caulfield Village and Virginia Park developments and how these might factor into council’s figures for meeting projected housing needs
- Continual reference to ‘minimal change’ (ie NRZ) as containing 1 or 2 dwellings when council is already facing a dozen applications for multiple dwellings in the NRZ!
- No real explanation as to why the borders of the activity centre, especially Bentleigh, has to double in size.
What irks us the most however is the question as to whether council is really committed to genuine consultation. If so, then perhaps they should explain why this advertisement appeared in Saturday’s Age on page 22 of the classified section, when we are being told that nothing is as yet set in concrete. It would appear that much is already predetermined – otherwise why spend a squillion on a tender before residents have even had the opportunity to consider much less comment upon the proposal?
We will comment in greater detail on these new plans once we have fully digested the content.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 30, 2017 at 10:33 PM
I’m glad the eight stories is gone but it’s madness to have five stories allowed to back onto heritage.
October 31, 2017 at 8:51 AM
Did i read right!
“eat street”
“team of consultants”
Eat Street, that will be right, watch this smoke screen eat ratepayer money
October 31, 2017 at 10:02 AM
On the plus side, at least this and other undeliverable concepts can’t do too much damage to the “village” so should arguably be encouraged.
October 31, 2017 at 1:08 PM
You only put out a tender once you’ve decided that this is what you are going to do. This is the first I’ve heard of “eat street” and council hasn’t got a clue what I think about it. Not that they care. They’ve already decided to go ahead.
October 31, 2017 at 4:43 PM
Good point Jeff
October 31, 2017 at 2:10 PM
Any eat streets as the one in Carnegie has closed most established Ausie bisinesses… clothing shops, many butchers, an opticians because car parking is not required even if 100 seats are applied for and neither are foot paths available any more as the footpaths are needed for restauranters’ tables and chairs. People in wheel chairs no ;onger use the shopping strip.
October 31, 2017 at 4:59 PM
The indian cafe in Glen Huntly had a planning notice in the their shopfront window last week, saying they want to move from a present 30 seat cafe to 50 seats, and increase staff from 2 to 3. I’m in there a lot, there was 5 staff there yesterday evening, and i never seen 2 staff there ever. I also asked the young girl her hourly pay rate, she is being paid way below the minimum rate. The whole of Glen Eira become one big racket.
The Independent Commission Against Crime in NSW said today, any organisation that will not answer a simple questions, is an indication of criminal activity. I would add, any organisation ie council, that will not ask simple questions, this is also an indication of crime.
October 31, 2017 at 6:23 PM
Two high rise car parks this time round instead of one. More concrete.
October 31, 2017 at 7:32 PM
I cannot locate any information or reference in anything that council has produced that analyses and includes figures for Virginia Village and the remaining precinct of Caulfield village. They have simply disappeared from the map and from all current planning statistics. The probability of another 3 to 5 thousand new apartments does not figure anywhere in the necessary calculations. Didn’t council promise that they would address this “oversight” in the next release of plans?
November 1, 2017 at 8:35 AM
Despite hundreds of pages of gumph, there is still a noticeable lack of strategic justification for their plans. I did ask a series of questions to a council officer to fill in the gaps. What surprised me is he didn’t want to defend the proposal, just explain how he believed Council had arrived at what they were proposing.
As I walk around talking to residents of Carnegie, universally there is anger at the extent of change that Council has decided is appropriate. It’s not just change though—it is also the loss of amenity such as massive buildings sited next to single-storey dwellings. Solar access is given so little consideration. The alleged Apartment standards are so weak the development industry accepted them. Weak as they are, Council weakened them even further by categorically stating that poor amenity isn’t a ground for refusal [of a planning permit].
November 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM
Good questions raise about public consultation, it looks like Mary Delahuntly as Mayor has moved far to close to the CEO and now see her job as covering the gaping gaps appearing in the bureaucrats PR wallpapering.