The agenda set down for tonight’s council meeting illustrates once again how little has been achieved in a decade and how governance continues to fail miserably.
First off, we have the recommendation to create a heritage overlay on the former ABC studio site in Elsternwick. It currently has no heritage coverage. Originally zoned Neighbourhood Residential council decided to rezone it as Residential Growth Zone in 2013 and according to its draft structure plan, this became 8 storeys. Wynne’s recent intervention will make it 10 storeys.
Given all of the above, and considering that council knew in 2013 that the site was being sold, why has it taken 5 years at least to even start considering a heritage overlay? The property has now been sold and plans are surely on the drawing board for major residential development. This is made absolutely clear by council’s archaic planning scheme itself and their report into the studios in 2013 where it was stated – Given the size of the land (8000m2) and Residential zoning, it is likely that the site will be sold to developers for residential purposes.(Minutes of July 23rd, 2013). Why couldn’t council get off its backside in 2013 and initiate some positive action?
For more info, see our past posts –
https://gleneira.blog/2013/06/18/abc-studios/
https://gleneira.blog/2016/11/14/is-this-why-no-structure-plan-for-elsternwick/
The second issue, concerns the use of school grounds. Nothing new here since the minutes of 26th February, 2008 contained this resolution –
Crs Esakoff/Whiteside
That a report be prepared into any opportunities that may exist for Council in the provision of additional/improved areas of open space that could be used for both passive and active recreation within Glen Eira’s existing school network.
The resulting officer’s report was tabled on 20th May, 2008 and basically concentrated on all the ‘problems’ associated with sharing school grounds. The councillor resolution was watered down to ‘let’s write a letter’ –
Crs Esakoff/Spaulding
That Council write to all primary and secondary schools in Glen Eira along the lines of Attachment A and send a copy to the Victoria Department of Education The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
The issue popped up again 8 years later when there was another Request for A Report –
CRS HYAMS/MAGEE
That Officers prepare a report into the potential for Council to collaborate with schools in Glen Eira to utilise their open space and grounds for use by sporting clubs and the wider community.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Minutes of 19th July, 2016)
Thus history repeats itself. Motion after motion and nothing is done or reported back on. In fact this 2016 request for a report WAS NEVER TABLED AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING. The ghost of Newton is well and truly still alive in Glen Eira it would seem!
We therefore have 2 issues that have been on the cards for at least 5 and 10 years respectively and council has been satisfied to sit back, be reactive and achieve a big fat zero during this time.
Finally, we turn to planning and ask readers to consider the following officer’s comments for the planning application for Pearce St., South Caulfield. Is it really too much to ask that when plans come in, that council insists that they are accurate, and if it is impossible to ascertain whether they are, that they be referred back to the developer?
The plans will be required to demonstrate that the proposal provides at least 20% permeability across the site, as this is unclear when looking at the provided landscape plans.
In regards to site coverage, the proposal appears to come in above the required maximum percentage. To further assist the development to integrate better with the neighbourhood character it is recommended that the proposal does not exceed this maximum percentage of site coverage.
Incompetence, laziness, indifference? You make up your mind!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM
Re Pearce St, the officer report mentions the “deep soil” standard that was introduced in Amendment VC148 a few days ago, pointing out since the property is less than 750sqm the standard is zero. One could argue that maximizing deep soil implies more than zero, but that’s not what Table B5 specifies. Anyway it’s discretionary, as most standards are. Would be interesting to know what percentage of multi-unit developments are non-standard, as in failing to comply with one or more standards. After all they “should normally be met”. The lack of a definition for “deep soil” is problematic.
August 14, 2018 at 12:26 PM
For various issues to drag on for a decade or more is both unbelievable and unacceptable. Council is doing something now but it is far too late to have any real positive effect. If they can rezone a site that they consider to be heritage to 8 storeys says a lot about planning in this council. We’ve had the same reactive attempts on heritage countless times and most were sabotaged by councillors Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Magee. Wahgoo was the perfect example when they decided to abandon the amendment and not give residents the opportunity to present their case at the planning panel. Using school grounds is another instance where the public statements do not match the intent or subsequent action. Council has for ages known about the lack of sporting grounds and lack of public open space. Bringing this up again after ten years is shameful when something could have been done way back then.
August 14, 2018 at 5:20 PM
I am convinced. We have incompetents running the joint and councillors who care more about making the right noises instead of doing a single thing.
August 16, 2018 at 4:01 PM
It has always been a “given” that when the site was no longer needed by the ABC the replacement building would be at least as high as the current transmission aerial. The tower was designed to have a line of sight view to Geelong and Mt Dandenong. Going to make a nice penthouse for some one. This argument has been going on since that land was carved off from the Rippon Lea Estate. Many planning ministers have come and gone since it was built to the outrage of all the residents in the surrounding homes.
August 17, 2018 at 6:41 PM
“carved off” ==> forcibly removed. And Louise Jones had to fight very hard to cling on to the remainder of her property. While it was a different era, there is still an attitude in government that they should be able to do whatever they want.