Council’s Media Release –
Please pay careful attention to our highlighted sections given that:
- No mention is made of the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of current properties will be upgraded from 2 to 3 or 4 storeys when the final amendment sees the light of day
- ‘Discretionary’ height limits basically mean nothing when challenged at VCAT
- Exactly what are the ‘positive outcomes’ and what is the data to justify 12 storeys?
- Amenity is defined in the dictionary as – “any feature that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure”. We doubt very much whether increased traffic, increased shadowing, decreased open space per resident qualifies as providing ‘comfort, convenience or pleasure’ for the vast majority of residents.
- As for the ‘shared vision’ bullshit we suggest that councillors go back and read residents’ comments about what they wanted for their activity centres! These documents are anything but a ‘shared vision’ – they are the vision of a council determined to progress its pro-development agenda at the expense of ‘amenity’ and community representation!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 8, 2018 at 4:57 PM
Yup these sure are groundbreaking controls going from 7 storeys to 12 in Carnegie. 7 was supposed to stop inappropriate development. 12 will really do the job.
August 8, 2018 at 5:18 PM
What a great piece of self patronising- look at me I’m good; because I said so. Don’t they call it FIGJAM? I have not heard one resident say they want 7 or even 12 stories anywhere in Glen Eira….and that’s the TRUTH something our council/councillors have a problem with.
August 8, 2018 at 6:14 PM
The cover up is in full swing, what on earth have these bureaucrat whipped councillors done to achieve any of this mixed bag of so called temporary reforms.
The truth is once again our councillors stand lock-step behind the bureaucrats covering their bottoms, whilst pretending to be supporting the residents.
Remember it was only just a few months ago our councillors unanimously voted through this rubbish masquerading as a the activity centre plans without the slightest a whimper. Spending more time thanking the bureaucrats for such fantastic work than actually commenting on the documents before them.
Honestly is it possible for our councillors to have any less credibility and dignity now this rolling debacle has laid their tactics bare. They are on record for wholeheartedly supporting this bureaucratic fictitsih rubbish by voting it through, whilst throwing any criticism back into the face of concerned residents that dared to make submissions and ask the questions they should have been asking all along, but to a person didn’t have the guts to.
They are truly a despicable bunch of two-faced opportunist masquerading as community representatives.
August 8, 2018 at 8:52 PM
Here here
August 8, 2018 at 11:05 PM
Glen Eira has set a new dwelling target of 28,000 new dwellings to meet objectives in Plan Melbourne – just over a quarter of the target dwellings for the Inner South East group. Glen Eira council is well on track to meet these targets and as a result, residents feel the excessive heights are completely unjustified given Glen Eira now only needs to approve 522 new dwellings each year for the remainder of the Plan Melbourne timeline.
Since 2015, Glen Eira approved 5,318 new apartments (ABS data). Last year alone Glen Eira approved 2,329 apartments, additionally, Glen Eira council plans an additional ~6,000 apartments in East Village and Caulfield Village. And the above figures do not include new dwellings created by dual occupancy applications which will make the target even less.
So WHAT is the justification for more? – is it just because the Glen Eira planning officers think it is a good idea? Because there has been NO justification other than to meet future growth predictions – and that is being met more than adequately!!!!!!
August 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM
The State Government claims: “Projections provide information about population change over space and time, but they are not predictions of the future. They are not targets, nor do they reflect the expected effects of current or future policies.”. Yet those same “non-targets” have now morphed into targets in the hands of Council. It has deliberately encouraged a rate of growth for which it cannot maintain service levels. It is especially egregious that it has few standards, is prepared to waive compliance with what few it has, and has actively encouraged development at a rate four times higher than its aggressive targets. When Wynne lectures residents about “working with Council” he demonstrates how little he understands the dynamics of Councils.