Well over 120 residents came out last night to partake in the Housing Strategy forum at the town hall. Our over-riding impressions of the evening are:
- Spin remains the modus operandi of officers
- Resident dissatisfaction and anger was palpable
On the first bullet point above, the audience was again assailed with the sheer nonsense of some of the statements made by the planners – the same individuals who featured in the previous disastrous zoom session. We were, for example, told that the aim of the housing strategy was NOT to encourage more development! How such a statement tallies with the fact that the proposals include new zoning for street after street to go from 2 storeys, to three or four storeys is laughable. And how more development won’t be the outcome of aiming for 3 or more dwellings on sites currently carrying 2 dwellings is even more laughable.
Slides were shown, and once again the ‘explanation’ of what was being proposed was through a very selective rose coloured glasses view. For example: much was made of the fact that the sites selected for increased dwellings per site were primarily along main roads. No mention of all those areas that would now have to cope with 3 or 4 storeys instead of their current zoning allowing only 2 storey heights. Nor at any stage was there any precise detail provided as to what might change. We were told that there was consideration to revert to RESCODE standards, but explaining precisely what this would mean was not done.
Arguably, the most revealing admission of the evening was the announcement that the officers’ presentations would be audio taped and presumably published on council’s website, but that the ‘audience participation’ would not be taped and made public. One resident responded to this by stating that such a decision goes against all tenets of transparency. We agree and as a result we invite all residents to listen to what the community had to say via the audio presented below.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 6, 2022 at 12:23 PM
You haven’t said that they tried to shut it down even though there were stacks of people still wanting to say stuff and that people wanted another forum without long speeches by officers. That didn’t go down to well with them.
May 6, 2022 at 2:53 PM
Not a lot of happy chappies judging by the audio. Some great comments about overdevelopment, parking, and waiting for census. All ignored and squashed by the bureaucrats. I’m looking forward to see how honestly this lot report back on the feedback.
May 6, 2022 at 4:08 PM
I didn’t go last night. The tape though makes for good listening. The one question that called a spade a shovel was “how can we trust you”. Not answered of course and based on past history and the autocratic power of the planning department, and backed by the ceo, I would doubt that their intentions are going to change. That leaves it in the court of councillors and what shouldn’t be forgotten is right from the beginning four out of the nine were opposed to this strategy. Pennicuik is now the new fly in the ointment perhaps. It will be interesting to see how she goes on this and other development strategies.
May 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM
If is not to encourage new developments, then it must be what we have had in the back of minds for years and years, (MODERATORS: rest of paragraph deleted)
May 9, 2022 at 5:25 PM
Sounds like the same modus operandi was used as all other sessions. That’s why I’ve stopped going. Over the years, I’ve seen people want Council to update the scheme to get rid of stuff that is hopelessly out of date. Didn’t happen. Now we have a proposal that Council claims is its own even though large chunks of it was dictated to it by the Minister and his department. The Minister doesn’t need Council to put up a proposal to make changes–he can do that unilaterally. What the government wants strikes me as corrupt. Weakening amenity standards so the development potential of land that the government acquired through its infamous “voluntary purchase scheme” increases is corrupt behaviour. Striking secret agreement with developers to help them make windfall profits provided those profits are shared with the government is corrupt behaviour. As for Council, who has gone along with this degradation of the planning system, shame on you. Before this went out to the public for comment, you should have provided a document that explained who wanted what and why. Stop undermining democracy.