Council never fails to disappoint with its latest planning effort – the release of the Urban Design Frameworks/Guidelines for Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, and Bentleigh East.
Once again we have 3 documents short on detail, statistics, and images that are barely legible or comprehensible.
As per usual, we find adopted policies such as the City Plan being completely ignored when it comes to the latest recommendations. The City Plan specified a 5 storey height limit for its neighbourhood centres. The latest documents recommend a discretionary maximum height of 6 storeys for vast stretches within all of these centres. Why the inconsistency and how is this height increase justified when not one single piece of data is presented to account for this divergence?
Even more disappointing is the inclusion of currently designated ‘local centres’ into some of these frameworks and the recommendation that they can also reach for the skies.
We have already commented on the consistent failure of this council to conduct its consultations in an appropriate and meaningful manner. We ask:
- Why is there no mention of this ‘consultation’ in the April edition of the Glen Eira News?
- Why is there no Discussion Paper listing all the relevant concerns, and the potential pros and cons?
- Why is there this insistence on a top-down approach to consultation instead of first asking residents what they want and then producing the draft documents?
- Why is the consultation period a short 4 weeks, in contrast to some other councils that instituted an 8 week period?
- We have not as yet seen the ‘Have Your Say’ version of the consultation, but aren’t holding our breath that the questions will elicit too many decent responses.
For all those residents living in, or near, these neighbourhood centres, we invite you to peruse these maps so that you know what this council is planning for your area and its likely impact on your neighbourhood. Needless to say, there is barely a single word about how this council will deal with: open space, infrastructure, parking, traffic congestion, etc. In conclusion, another set of documents that do nothing to instill any confidence in this planning department and an administration that is not prepared to listen and genuinely consult with its residents.
We will comment in greater detail in the days ahead.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 2, 2021 at 7:25 PM
If this comes in we can kiss goodbye to Hawthorn and Glen Huntly roads. They will be turned into concrete canyons with wind and no sunlight for most of the day. I feel very sorry for all those people living directly behind these monstrosities. 6 stories will end up being 8 or higher.
April 2, 2021 at 9:11 PM
Yes and the difference for those backing on to these high rise means that two or three storeys could be facing six, seven or even higher. Its a joke.
April 3, 2021 at 10:43 AM
Thank You Jeff, you always have a clear eye.
Isn’t that the plan, destroy, degrade, and grab more and more. That our town planners a complicit in this rort raises the questions of who benefits and how this wealth is shared. Looks and smells to me like Casey City Council with a twist.
April 3, 2021 at 8:30 AM
They are learning, to use a cool blue on the map instead of that alarming red they have used. Why the CEO hasn’t gone through the planning staff with a big broom is beyond belief. In the end the buck must stop with her. Her inability to understand planning and make sure a decent public consultation model is followed must be her biggest failure as a CEO.
April 6, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Very distressing to see our beautiful suburb being destroyed by greed and high rise development. Surely COVID has shown us that this is not the way forward for mental and physical good health. Many young people fleeing to rural areas so why do we have to continue with this?. State government and Council need to have a complete rethink on looking after Glen Eira residents. Glenhuntly road already has high buildings very close to the road. What happened to the importance of trees, and green areas. It will just create wind tunnels like the city. Do I need to go on……
April 6, 2021 at 1:31 PM
What we have in these proposals is a capacity analyses and not a housing needs analysis. For the sake of argument, let’s say that a specific area has the capacity to fit in another 1500 dwellings. This does not mean that 1500 new dwellings should be built in this space surely? Capacity must be correlated to projected need. Council has not done this and they intend to plough on and produce policy after policy with no connection whatsoever to projected population figures (and that’s without taking account of Covid) or projected dwelling requirements. Until council produces a housing strategy that looks at the entire municipality, and the current zoning everywhere, everything they are doing is invalid and a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultants and staff time. We have endured 5 years of stasis with nothing to show for the continued expenditure.
Personally, I don’t lay all the blame at the planning department. The blame lies with the ceo and the direction she is required to give to her officers. As the saying goes – the buck stops with her.
April 6, 2021 at 2:39 PM
Thanks for clarifying all this complicated stuff. I think your point on looking at the entire council area is very important. They’ve already ruined so many suburbs we can’t afford to lose any more to this development frenzy.
April 6, 2021 at 5:37 PM
They want revenge on the ungrateful residents, they not finished with their evil deeds yet.
April 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM
A review of last night’s council meeting showed Pilling absent again and also as usual Tony Athanasopoulos our would be councillor in name only was absent also. Has Rosstown Ward been abandoned by these two. I must admit council really doesn’t needs this dead wood duo, it’s works very well if not better when these two stay home.