Council is proposing a new Open Space Refresh strategy. The questions residents need to consider are:
- Does this latest version successfully address the lack of open space in Glen Eira?
- Is the proposed increase of the developer levy sufficient?
- How well is council utilising the revenue collected?
In order to determine resident views on these issues, we have designed a short survey which will take about one minute of your time. It also seeks to ask the questions that council doesn’t want asked. Please forward this link on to all of your contacts.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 5, 2020 at 1:46 PM
Really good questions. Stop spending on useless stuff and start buying more land.
March 6, 2020 at 7:30 AM
With so much development open space and different types of open space are very important to the amenity of the area
March 5, 2020 at 1:53 PM
Nice clear survey questions – one of the better ones!
March 5, 2020 at 3:47 PM
Yes indeed. For full transparency residents should be given the run down on what is spent where and how much goes to buying new open space compared to “redevelopment”. My bet would be that the areas such as Carnegie which need it most are the ones left in the lurch.
March 6, 2020 at 10:36 AM
I have not been able to complete your survey.
Your pointed survey does not address a community concern that the environment and development generally are not in step with the existing residential usage which has features that you are destroying at a pace. Whether you buy more sections of ’empty space’ using the funds obtained from developers side steps the issue that the destruction incurred over time is an outcome residents abhor.
March 6, 2020 at 10:55 AM
We agree totally! Yet both issues are interrelated. With the huge amount of development, surely it is incumbent on authorities to ensure that the environment in all its facets, is protected. This council does not come close to achieving this. We do not have:
1. Any water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in our planning scheme
2. Any ESD in our planning scheme
3. No tree register or protection worthy of that name
4. No developer contributions for drainage, etc
5. Paltry permeability requirements compared to other councils
Plus, given the increasing population density of this municipality, then the provision of sufficient and accessible open space is crucial.
March 6, 2020 at 12:06 PM
Why didn’t you provide the option for 100% of the developer open space levy to be directed towards purchasing land for NEW open space?
March 6, 2020 at 12:19 PM
The issue is possibly a complicated legal one. When Council adopted the 2014 Open Space Strategy, they resolved that all of the money collected from developers would go for the purchase of new open space. This resolution was then affirmed and voted in again later. However, by the time the proposed amendment got to the Planning Panel stage, council had rescinded this resolution. They claimed that the money also had to go towards redevelopment. It is true that the legislation and the practice notes include both the purchase of new open space and the development of existing open space. Our view is that this should not preclude a council deciding that it will use the funds ONLY for new open space. However, this has not as yet been legally tested. Currently council is spending over 70% on ‘development’ rather than adding to the open space area in the municipality. Our survey has therefore taken the conservative approach and listed up to75% for new open space.
March 6, 2020 at 3:23 PM
All true, and add nothing on environmental open space as well.
I believe it’s about time to rebalance how our public open space allocated and start taking back some of these sporting fields and repurposing them to high quality passive open space. High quality passive open space will be enjoyed and will be used by more residents than the current weekend ball chasers. The benefits to our city will by far outweigh the loss of sporting clubs.
This kind of thinking is of course far beyond the scope of our open space planners that seem to be happily hock-to-the-hilt to the big and powerful gambling and alcohol fueled cash splashing companies. There two mega industries have maneuvered themselves into the prime position of recruiting our young into using their life destroying products via sport and by perverting sporting club culture to meet their own means and financial longevity .
This is a very sad indictment of our present society and planners that this can be allowed to happen, we should be protecting our children from these predatory tactics no matter what their vehicle is. Our open space planners shouldn’t be playing-ball with these immoral machines and giving them everything they want. There are alternative activities for children and families that could be happening right now in GE. if they were provided.
March 10, 2020 at 8:57 PM
There is a giant opportunity staring us all in the face but we suffer too much unconscious bias to acknowledge it. Our streets are the public place – we need to start designing our streets for humans not cars – walking, cycling, playing in street designed for people with street trees and all other good things.
Open space doesn’t need to be only formal green grass / wooded walks (although super important and we need more)
But we need to commit reducing our car travel / slowing movements and having more public lives.
Get it done.