As everyone has known for years, Glen Eira has the least amount of public open space per capita in the state. We also lay claim to the 5th densest municipality behind Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and Stonnington (all of these being ‘inner municipalities’). Our rate of development continues practically unabated and lest we forget, East village and Caulfield Village are waiting in the wings for at least another 7,500 residents. Given these facts, it behooves all residents to ask some basic questions of their council – namely:
- Why can Darebin, Monash produce current amendments which seek a 10% open space levy?
- Why can Yarra produce a current amendment which seeks a 10.1% open space levy?
- Why is Glen Eira ‘satisfied’ with a 8.3% levy in the face of its rate of development and lack of existing open space?
- Is the Open Space Refresh document a valid strategic justification for this 8.3%?
Residents have until late December to provide a submission to this latest proposed amendment. We urge all readers to compare what other councils (with far greater existing open space) see as required compared to what Glen Eira proposes. Until a decent levy is imposed, Glen Eira will continue to see a decrease in its open space requirements.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 2, 2021 at 9:52 AM
8.3 is so developers don’t scream too much and keep developing
December 2, 2021 at 10:47 AM
I bet mrc don’t pay 8.3%.
December 2, 2021 at 11:05 AM
Correct! They pay 5% and 4% for the various precincts. Courtesy of Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff!
December 2, 2021 at 11:42 AM
Wonder if they will end up paying land windfall tax on sale of sandown which will pay for night racing track at Caulfield?
December 2, 2021 at 11:51 AM
https://www.racing.com/news/2021-10-18/news-industry-key-ruling-made-over-sandown-future. Yep another 250 million gift
December 2, 2021 at 11:34 AM
Totally agree. The space once taken is a loss usually for the future.
As an aside to this issue. information was passed to me that certain apartment construction in Glen Eira had allocation to Victoria Government Social Housing of 25% apartments in those blocks. While I am not an opponent of social housing needs, it does beg the question of whether Glen Eira residents ever knew or had any consideration in decisions, regardless of strong reasons for their reactions. I would like to be proved incorrect.
December 2, 2021 at 11:40 AM
One site in Egan Street, Carnegie has already been announced for social housing. The announcement is from government and not council.
December 2, 2021 at 2:16 PM
What’s more is the CEO doesn’t spend the collected open space levy on acquiring new open space. The monies raised just disappear into consolidated revenue and off the bottom-line to help balance expenditure, so the CEO looks like good manager. The truth is willful community neglect.
December 2, 2021 at 2:24 PM
A correction FYI. Open space levies remain in the reserve fund. What has been occurring is that over 85% of this fund in the past decade has been used for ‘development of existing open space’ and NOT the acquisition of new open space. Even now, the current budget and SRP only provides for a $7M allocation to new open space and over then next 4 years the expenditure of $26M. That should be enough to purchase about 3 600 square metre blocks. This would hardly make a dent in what’s required.
December 2, 2021 at 10:20 PM
What’s a reserve fund is that like a slush fund?
Developing existing open space usually mean bigger pavilions more infrastructure, more concrete in our parkland. Of coarse all this leads to a net loss of our open space. This loss always happens in our passive open space areas. We are seeing huge land grabs happening to our already very fragmented passive areas to build more active infrastructure as we speak.
So in effect more often than not we are spending our open space levy money to decrease our open space aren’t we?
To be honest we should have a no net loss policy of open space with all developments taking place within our parkland areas.
Lets see if the CEO and Magee are hoarding that open space levy money for a huge sporting infrastructure cash splash at the racecourse when the stables in the south east corner get removed, this could happen as soon as next year. My bet we’ll get railroaded into a huge spend on that proposed 4 to 6 story sporting complex building/s along with accompanying huge car parking areas and enough concrete that would make Bruno Grollo jump for joy. Say goodbye to most of existing trees there, toodaloo to our zero carbon targets and any hope of any quality passive use areas there.
December 3, 2021 at 3:11 PM
Council not involved in the racecourse. That land is manage by the crrt. Although I agree with you it would be great if the trees could be saved. They are magnificent
December 3, 2021 at 3:47 PM
Council is involved at the racecourse. They are on the corporate consultation group. And have handed over a considerable amount of funds to go towards the Financial Planning that’s in progress now. They are positioning themselves to be one of the main users of the developments when it happens, and therefore more than likely to kick in millions of dollars to make sure they get a fair share of the land use. The CRCT do manage the public land that’s not leased to the MRC, and will likely appoint managers for certain activities, when it happens.