Council has finally released version 2 of its draft structure plans – together with a bevy of other documents. The result is that residents are literally drowning in paper – much of it repetitious, uninformative, and still failing to present information that justifies what is proposed.
In summary, here is a breakdown of what was published together. The total number would apply to all of Glen Eira and not just the individual activity centres. If a resident wanted to glean what was proposed for the entire municipality then they would be facing the herculean task of reading all the documents.
Residents can make up their own minds as to why documents which carry dates of July couldn’t have been made public earlier but had to be consigned to this single inundation. We certainly doubt that many residents would have the time, energy, or even willingness to plough through so many pages. As for councillors themselves – our bet is that none of them would bother either! That perhaps is the plan anyway?
Bentleigh Concept Plan consultation responses – 85 pages
Draft Bentleigh Structure Plan – 67 pages
Bentleigh Draft Activity Centre Structure Plan – Background Report – 93 pages
Bentleigh Transport Analysis & forecasting – 61 pages
Analysis of Housing Consumption & Opportunities – 103 pages
Peer Review – Urban Design Guidelines etc. – 77 pages
Planisphere Urban Design Guidelines – 50 pages
Community Benefits Discussion Paper – 19 pages
Assessment of Economic Impacts – 58 pages
Planning Strategy Impacts on Housing Opportunity – 35 pages (no links on Bentleigh site)
TOTAL = 648 pages!!!!!!
CARNEGIE
Draft structure plan – 65 pages
Background report – 94 pages
ELSTERNWICK
Draft Structure Plan – 71 pages
Background Report – 100 pages
TOTAL 978 PAGES
Glen Eira Debates 
November 4, 2017 at 11:56 AM
978 pages and still no clarity about the building envelopes or how reasonable amenity will be provided to existing and future residents. Maximum heights should be measured in metres, not storeys, and it is extremely important to spell out the setbacks that accompany them. Tall buildings can be acceptable provided they have big enough setbacks that reasonable solar access is provided to other peoples’ private and communal open space; that habitable room windows are not overshadowed; that solar panels continue to receive sunlight. Much of this detail is missing. Worse, Council has ballsed up decision after decision, encouraging developers to demand waivers from compliance with ResCode.
November 4, 2017 at 12:11 PM
One of the Urban Design guidelines does include discussions on setbacks. We will need to go through this carefully.
November 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM
I’d also bet my life that not one of the nine councillors will read every word. They will rely on the bullshit told to them by staff.
November 4, 2017 at 12:41 PM
You can safely bet your life on that, when the time comes, up will go their meek little hands, followed by congratulations for all the staff for doing a first class job.
November 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM
Taylor a prime example last time. “Oooh, so much hard work has gone in to this. Ooh, look at all this detail. Ooh, so much more than I expected. Isn’t it wonderful. Well done class, I’m so proud of you. A+ for effort and have tomorrow off.
i.e. Who cares that it may be a load of bull, but look at all these pages. I’d tell you how many but I can’t count that high. I haven’t read it and wouldn’t understand it in any case. These work experience chaps really are clever aren’t they. They have put some lovely pictures in these draft concept plans. Pictures speak at least two hundred and fifty words and these random sketches and multi-coloured boxes look great for shaping the future of Glen Eira for the next 50 years. Come on everyone, please vote to adopt whatever this document is all about so I can get on with addressing the key problem in Glen Eira of lack of spinach and rhubarb growth on verges.
November 4, 2017 at 2:15 PM
All of this paper isn’t for residents. It’s for the planning panel so that council can illustrate that they’ve done their necessary work, albeit substandard, and that they have followed the law by “consulting”.
November 4, 2017 at 4:13 PM
Even BHP annual report is half the size of this report; its simply another example of “Bull—- baffles brains” in an attempt by council to pretend to be doing something whereas summaries speak volumes and are easily digested by the public…Councillors hang your heads in shame!!!! Councillors should be demanding that the CEO cut out all of this unnecessary dribble and speak succinctly to the facts so that it can be understood by the masses and we then can have a meaningful debate, but this is not about that, this it is about pulling the wool over the publics eyes.
November 5, 2017 at 12:02 AM
Yes! Summaries would do the job followed by a good debate. Not the crap of cuddling up round tables and focusing on what council wants to focus on. Language alone is spew worthy
November 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM
Right from the start people wanted to know what community benefit meant. Now there’s a “discussion paper” dated June. That means it’s been sitting on someone’s desk for 4 months and only now have they decided to make it public. I can’t find one single reasonable excuse for this except to agree with the post that it’s all deliberate. To swamp residents with so much paper that no one will bother to go through it carefully so council won’t be challenged on anything.
November 5, 2017 at 2:30 PM
Has the community benefit aspect justifying higher limits been removed entirely? Struggling to keep up with all the literature.
November 6, 2017 at 1:30 PM
It is past 12pm on the Friday preceding the next Council meeting and it is less than 1 working day until the meeting, and yet the Agenda still hasn’t been published on Council’s website. Fortunately there is no requirement on them to inform the public other than when and where the meeting is to take place.
November 6, 2017 at 1:48 PM
Yes, and despite an ombudsman’s report recommending that agendas be published at least 5 working days out of the prescribed meeting time.