Whilst there are undoubtedly some improvements to version 2 of the Bentleigh Structure Plan, it is still a long way off from meeting residents’ expectations and previous feedback. Council is now conducting another ‘survey’. How valid any results gleaned from this latest ‘consultation’ is definitely open to question, especially when only half the story is revealed to residents.
Here’s the first part of the ‘consultation’ and residents are then asked to rate council’s proposed actions based on these select statements:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Glen Eira Debates 
November 8, 2017 at 2:35 PM
The Carnegie version consists of a similar bunch of dubious statements. “Decrease growth in residential areas by focusing development north of the railway line”— except that they’re proposing rezoning NRZ to RGZ by expanding the size of the activity centre [and still without justification].
Nowhere in the document does it specify height limits, whether mandatory or the laughable “discretionary” kind. There are no setbacks specified. There are no amenity standards of any kind mentioned in the summary document.
The document I received gives every appearance of representing what council officers want. Meanwhile our councillors are silent. It annoys the hell out of me that they are asking for feedback when they have failed to respond to the feedback that they have already received. Another disgraceful effort.
November 8, 2017 at 3:36 PM
Disgraceful isn’t enough. Disgusting is a better word. Time that councillors got this through their thick skulls. No one wants 12 stories anywhere. No one wants public land sold. No one wants to wait. No one wants bigger activity centres that will mean more development. No one wants the continued bullshit that costs a fortune to be sold to residents and everyone wants council to listen and act on what the community is telling them.
November 8, 2017 at 3:11 PM
The whole south side of the commercial sites in Centre road have gone up from either mandatory or discretionary four storeys to five storeys. Tell a developer that he can build up to five storeys and he will. Wynne gave some places four storeys. Council now wants five without a single word of explanation anywhere that I can find.
November 8, 2017 at 3:36 PM
I went to the council run sessions and I quiet clearly remember that NO ONE in the public agreed to multi storey car parking; quiet the contrary, rate payers were against it, but now we see council once again pushing their own agenda. So much for public consultation? Its going to happen because some council worker wants it and its highly probably that they don’t even live in Glen Eira. What are our elected councillors doing?…..nothing.
November 8, 2017 at 5:15 PM
We as resident might be able swallow this planning, if, and only if we could see a sustainable living plan put forward. I would personally know if settling more people ie. higher density living actual make rates less in both the short term and long term. If it doesn’t why are we bothering, with all this wooha.
I really get the feeling these young planning turks fresh out of their indoctrination courses have a very tunneled vision of what community and community amenity is. And why would they; as many of problems they create will not be theirs to share. If this type of thinking was the basis for most of our decision making why would anyone care about anything. This whole planning exercise smacks of self interest among the people who are supposed to be managing our welfare and future amenity on our behalf. It increasing looks like they are there to serve their careers the system and not the residents that actually pay their wages. Their communication of their reasoning is poor or cryptic at the best, or at its worse a deliberate hoax on the residents.
If it was up to me I would sack the whole planning department and replace them with people that understand what a sustainable future and community amenity means and can communicate why we are heading down this path and not another. If they cannot spell-out a sustainable future, they shouldn’t be in the job of planning.
November 8, 2017 at 5:35 PM
My consistent worry with the entire way consultation has been handled is that there is nothing in one single document that makes it clear what the future plans will be. Everything is all over the place in separate documents and not condensed into one informative couple of pages. Bits and pieces have dribbled out over months and months so what we get now is 50% repetition.They should include setbacks on the same maps that outline heights. The same goes for things like open space per zone coupled with parking. They have to address the basic questions that people keep asking in a forthright manner. I can’t find anything that says why there is a doubling and more for each activity centre or why we need to cater for so much more development when we’re already getting over double what is required according to the stats.
November 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM
What sums up this whole “consultation” process is that the Council have heard that eight storeys is too high.and amended to five storeys. I say this because for the last five years community has been saying that eight storeys is too high yet it gets into the first cut of the plan. Disgraceful. A Clayton’s consultation process with a predermined outcome. Absolute sell out of residents for developers.
November 8, 2017 at 8:52 PM
8 storeys was supposed to be necessary to get all the required housing or offices in right? Now we can manage with 5 storeys if you believe them. How come? Where’s the figures that show this? The biggest con job they’ve ever done.
November 9, 2017 at 12:35 AM
In VCAT permit refusal of aqpplication for 18 storey building on the 9-13 Derby Road, Caulfield ,mini site the members commentated that it was hard to refuse beacause the aurhority had no predetermined guidelines. Strangely enough the body to oppose the application most fiercly was Monash University for many well thought out plannning and student welfare reasons and not our GECC solixiror rep.. The original application to part demmolish a building when at VCAT the developer intended completely demolishing one of the buildings of this very significant heritage precinct.