July 12, 2012

Report On Community Forum

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

Approximately 50+ residents showed up to last night’s commununity forum to hear the latest on traffic management and parking. First cab off the rank was Dr. Bruce Corben who emphasised the importance of speed reduction in local residential streets and arterial roads and the health and environmental benefits this would achieve. Research revealed that pedestrians were at greatest risk even when cars were travelling at 30km per hour. He commented that the objective of all street calming projects was to lower car speeds and that roundabouts were the most effective in achieving this aim.

Cr Narelle Sharpe outlined the holistic 8 step program that Moonee Valley Council is employing. The beauty of this scheme was that it included in-depth research and analysis of entire areas resulting in 22 precincts that were ‘weighted’ according to various criteria such as traffic volume, speed, surrounding facilities, and most importantly, community consultation. The plan for each precinct cost in the vicinity of $45,000 and Moonee Valley had undertaken to complete 2 precincts per year. It was therefore a long term vision based on a thorough understanding of the needs of each local area rather than a single street.

Cr Serge Thomann highlighted Port Phillip’s approach and the pressures that this municipality faced in terms of incredible high density, tourists and visitors, as well as the ensuing parking problems. The strategy adopted by council was: (1) a hierarchical road strategy that placed pedestrians at the top followed by cyclists and then cars. (2) council’s refusal to issue residential parking permits for new developments; (2) extensive community bus services; (3) different street calming measures that varied across the municipality – ie raised pedestrian crossings in line with footpaths.

Whilst each municipality is unique, it is obvious that common problems exist. How these problems are approached by decision makers is what is important. We maintain that in Glen Eira the approach is haphazard, and lacks a truly integrated vision. If safety is the most important criterion then councils must be pro-active as both Moonee Valley and Port Phillip appear to be. It just is not good enough for residents to be told that your street is within the 85th percentile on speed and traffic volume so we won’t do anything! The old adage that prevention is better than cure certainly applies in this domain.

 

July 11, 2012

Media Release

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Zone reforms to return planning certainty

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

The Victorian Coalition Government’s sweeping reform of planning zones will return certainty to our suburbs and towns and in particular to councils, residents and the development industry.

“Planning zones are the greatest indicator of the style of development for any area. The Coalition Government’s sweeping zones reform package aims to give certainty for areas that deserve protection and those identified as growth nodes,” Mr Guy said.

“The Coalition Government’s zone reforms reflect what communities have been crying out for, for many years – clear identification of areas that can grow and strong protection for areas that are designed to be low rise, low density neighbourhoods,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what makes Melbourne great – our streetscapes, our amenity, our liveability, while encouraging density and growth in clearly defined areas,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s zones reform package features three new residential zones:

  • Residential Growth Zone;
  • General Residential Zone; and a
  • Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

“The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will be an instrument that can be adopted by councils to protect existing amenity of suburbs and towns.

“It will give many areas the protection they deserve and will be the strongest residential protection zone ever offered in the Victorian planning system,” Mr Guy said.

This zone will include a number of features including mandatory height controls, stricter regulations around subdivision and the consideration of minimum lot sizes. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone will also be able to protect existing streetscapes and amenity with clear guidelines on what can be supported by a planning permit application.

In order to support integrity of the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone the Coalition Government has also introduced a number of complementary residential zones that will support development of medium and higher density housing in appropriate locations.

The new Residential Growth Zone will provide for a clear level of growth and change in identified areas that have clear targets for greater density. Councils will be able to use this zone to provide a new incentive to direct density and built form change in areas that are well known and identified.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of the local councils. It will ultimately be the view of the community that will inform which zone best fits where,” Mr Guy said.

“Victoria’s economic integrity is at the forefront of its planning decisions and these reforms are no different. The residential zone reform package supports Victoria’s economy by clarifying where development can occur and what can be built,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, it returns a level of planning certainty that has been sorely missing for the past decade,” Mr Guy said.

Under the Coalition Government’s planning reform agenda, plans for new outer urban growth have been released as well as the identification of Australia’s largest inner city, urban renewal project in Fisherman’s Bend.

These projects, combined with planning law changes and planning zone reform represent a major overhaul of the Victorian planning system since the change of government in November 2010.

“The time is right for planning reform and the Coalition Government is getting on with the job of delivering it.”

The key features of the reformed planning zones will be issued for feedback for a period of 2 months from Monday 17 July until Friday 21 September.

 

July 10, 2012

Letters To The Editor

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[11] Comments 

Council policy detrimental 

IT’S no wonder the blocks in Glen Eira get smaller and the growth gets higher. Glen Eira Council continues to operate planning policy to the detriment of residents.

It will soon get to the point where there are as many amendments to their scheme as there are applications.

A number of voters are calling on the council to review its entire planning scheme and introduce structure plans that can identify density and heights before applications are received.

Newton Gatoff

++++++++++++++++

Bitter blow to residents  

NEWS of the Caulfield racecourse development proceeding is a bitter blow to local residents.

While the development will be almost a billion dollars itself, little, if any, infrastructure will be provided to cater for it. This will see both road and rail networks overwhelmed, along with drainage and parking. Open space will also be reduced. Given the chorus of community opposition, you really have to wonder if we are living in a developers’ dollar-dazzler democracy.

Matthew Knight

 

July 9, 2012

GESAC: Traffic & Parking Mayhem

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments 

Today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly –

Sporting chance for parkers  

bridget.fitzgerald@fairfaxmedia.com.au  

A SHORTAGE of car park space at the new Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is causing problems for users of a neighbouring sports ground.

Soccer club members who use Bailey Reserve, on East Boundary Road, are being forced to park in neighbouring streets because of a lack of spaces.

Glen Eira Moorabbin Softball Association president Ian Bahn believes the problem will worsen when the softball season starts in October. “Our season hasn’t started yet, but we have been down to Bailey Reserve to have meetings, and seen that it [parking] is going to be a problem,” Mr Bahn said. “Come summer, when it gets busier with people using the pool and the ground, it’s going to be very interesting.”

GESAC opened on May 7. Despite opening four months late because of building delays it reached a membership of 4000 on its first day. Glen Eira council spokesman Paul Burke said limited parking was proving to be an issue. “We now have about 5700 members. The problem is that these members are still getting used to how they use the facility and are still creating a routine,” Mr Burke said.

Adding to the shortage, some Bailey Reserve car park spaces were lost during construction of the new facility. East Bentleigh Soccer Club is the primary winter tenant of the ground. Club secretary Chris Loose said parking was an issue. “We have had members of our club making other arrangements, parking in surrounding streets, on East Boundary Road, or walking – but that is obviously not so desirable in winter,” he said. Mr Loose said the club had notified the council of the issue and believed GESAC and Bailey Reserve tenants could work together to find a solution.

 

July 7, 2012

Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[13] Comments 

The Glen Eira Residents’ Association has organised its second community forum for the year. This time on something we know is dear to all residents’ hearts – traffic and parking. It looks like they’ve got a handy group of speakers as well. An academic and two councillors from different municipalities. Should be interesting to hear how other councils approach these issues in contrast to our lot. See their website (http://geresidents.wordpress.com), or the details are:

WHERE:         St Mary’s Anglican Church, 281 Glen Eira Rd.

DATE:            Wednesday, 11th July

TIME:             7pm for 7.30pm start

SPEAKERS:      Dr Bruce Corben (Monash University)

Cr. Narelle Sharpe (Moonee Valley)

Cr. Serge Thomann (Port Phillip)

ENTRY: Free for members; others, coin donation at door.

 

July 6, 2012

VCAT: Telling It Like It Is!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[10] Comments 

Tuesday night’s ‘discussion’ on the VCAT results for the Rosstown Rd application were full of the usual handwringing by several councillors – Esakoff, Hyams and especially Magee. In the end they all continue to miss the point and to parade themselves as concerned, indignant, and outraged residents lambasting VCAT for all of council’s planning ills. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth. In essence, what the member concluded in the Rosstown Rd judgement was clear and unavoidable – if Council can’t apply their own policy, then VCAT would do it for them! And what is this policy? Major activity centres should have up to 10 storey developments according to the ground rules laid down by council and supported year after year by councillors!!!

We’ve said this time and time again. Glen Eira Council’s Planning Scheme is manna from heaven for developers. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, without explicit parking precinct plans, activity centres and their residents have been sacrificed on the altar of greed. The arguments that VCAT is totally to blame remains a nonsense. Magee’s claim ‘I hate VCAT’ is even more insulting in light of his and other councillors’ total inaction. We even are left to wonder if:

  • Councillors have ever read the planning scheme?
  • Do they really understand its full implications?
  • How many of them go back and read the actual VCAT decisions?
  • How do they explain the fact that this council has NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED to gain formal height limit restrictions?

Tang now talks of ‘ideology’. Rubbish we say! Ideology which is quite prepared to inflict such pain on residents has no place in any planning scheme. Councillors who continually ignore the root cause of a major problem have no right to claim to represent residents. And councillors who continually trot out the bogey-man excuse of VCAT have no real understanding of what is going on.

We urge all readers to carefully consider what the member actually stated. Below are extracts from his judgement and from other judgements that he quotes. Newton and Akehurst have set the agenda via their planning scheme. This is the future, unless the ‘revolution’ continues!

“The Council conceded that the site is located within the Carnegie Urban Village, identified as a Major Activity Centre, and therefore in a higher order activity centre where Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement encourages significant urban consolidation.

Carnegie is identified as a Major Activity Centre and therefore is identified as an appropriate location to achieve more intense forms of urban consolidation than would be expected in the residential hinterland, and in lower order activity centres.

the central area of these type of urban villages can be expected to attract redevelopment proposals involving at least 5-10 levels of proposed built form, or even possibly more (recognising however that each application must be assessed on its own merits)

It is clear therefore, from the analysis of policy, that more intense building forms are anticipated within these urban villages, increasing in intensity as one draws closer to the core of these centres.

The review site is therefore firmly entrenched near the core of the urban village. This has implications due to the local policy as to the intensity of development that is encouraged on the review site.

I therefore find that both state and local policy encourages an intense form of residential development to be achieved on the review site, which would represent a significant degree of change from the traditional housing stock. Policy does not anticipate that the form and scale of development will respect the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as would be expected in a location outside of the activity centre. Instead, in this location developments that are more intense than the surrounding character are firmly encouraged.

Both the Council and Mr Dyer demonstrated that the existing approvals for development within the Carnegie Urban Village currently peak at four storeys. However I do not draw the conclusion urged upon me from that analysis, that four storeys should be, or is likely to be, the ultimate height for future development in this activity centre. More to the point, if indeed this Major Activity Centre were limited to four storeys of development in the future, it would represent a significant under-realisation of the expectations of this centre from both State and Local policy. If Carnegie were to develop to a maximum of four storey forms, it would amount to a failure of policy to achieve the outcomes that it so clearly seeks to achieve.

I therefore do not accept the submissions made that four storeys is an appropriate limit for development generally in the Carnegie Urban Village.

In my view it would be absurd to require development on the review site to transition to the existing single storey housing stock, when that housing stock is encouraged by policy to be replaced by more intense building forms.

Having regard to the whole of policy that is before me, it is therefore entirely clear that a five storey development would be entirely consistent with the strategic objectives for this locale. Indeed, from my analysis I conclude that policy supports a building greater than 5 storeys in height in this location, but a five storey development is what is before me, and it is clear that has policy support.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To make matters worse, below is a photograph (taken earlier this week) of ‘traffic management’ in Rosstown Rd!

 

July 5, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #3

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

The third ‘whiff of revolution’ concerns a request for a report originally moved by Lobo and Pilling concerning the flying of the aboriginal flag atop the council building. Paul Burke’s name is attached to the report. The Lobo motion in part, asked for: “What would be the cost for an additional pole and how do we go about achieving this”. Like so many other officer reports, this part was totally ignored and the stock answer of ‘no’ provided.

It was therefore somewhat surprising that the following occurred at Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOBO:  wanted the item ‘deferred’ until the next council meeting and that ‘further information be provided in relation to costs and options’. Pilling seconded.

Lobo thanked officers but also said that the report ‘outlines mainly the policies’ of council ‘but as I earlier requested it would be great to see’ whether there could be a second pole and its cost.

PILLING: said it was a ‘fair and reasonable ask for more information in line with the original motion’ about costs.

Motion was put and accepted unanimously.

COMMENT

What the catalyst was for this sudden flexing of muscles by Lobo and the other councillors we can only guess at. The item itself is arguably innocuous. But it does represent a definite chastisement of Burke and his colleagues. The great pity, as we have previously remarked, is that this does not happen often enough in council. Shoddy reports that lack detail, do not answer the requests, and basically tell councillors ‘no it can’t be done’ are accepted without blinking. Perhaps in this case political mileage for the upcoming election may have been a factor? Or again, given that a public question had been asked, the issue was up front and in the public domain. We’ve copied the question and the response below.

““Is Council satisfied that having requested a report by a resolution of Council and having specifically asked that a cost be provided for an additional flagpole at this building, that not only were no costs provided in Item 9.7, but that Officers are recommending not to erect a second pole at Glen Eira’s Town Hall? Furthermore is the Glen Eira Council satisfied that when requested by government offices, such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet-Victoria, to fly the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders flag, (for days such as National Sorry Day May 26th and National Reconciliation week 27th May to 3rd June), Council is only able to do so by fixing such flags below a portico? If flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags is seen “by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive”, they can be directed to the Premiers Office who has sought Council’s assistance. And finally does this Council consider it is time to review its Policy 1.7 “Australian National Flag” and consider perhaps the erection of a second and third pole to be located at an appropriate site on the ground? This will enable Council to fly the National Flag on number one pole atop the clock in addition to occasionally flying the Aboriginal Flag and Torres Strait Islander Flag or the State of Victoria Flag at grade.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “This item was listed on tonight’s Council Agenda as Item 9.7 so it has not been possible to provide a response prior to the debate. However, you will be able to read Council’s resolution on this matter in the Minutes of the Council Meeting which will be available on Council’s website later this week and which show that this item was deferred and more information was requested. I would, however, point out by way of clarification that the report does not say that flying Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is ‘seen by some members of the community as inappropriate or divisive’. It states that flying those flags may lead to requests from members of the community for Council to fly flags that would be seen in this way.”

 

July 4, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution: #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

Before we report on the second ‘whiff of revolution’ regarding sporting allocations, a little background is required. We’ve spoken to quite a few people today trying to get to the bottom of this latest fiasco. Our understanding is: The Ajax Junior Footy Club is about to celebrate 40 years of existence. They wish to play one game at Princes Park in September and also turn this into a ‘community event’ for the wider municipality. It would involve some ground changes with the Caulfield Bears club. They approached the Sports & Rec department of council (Linda Smith who booted the request up to Paul Burke). He refused to accommodate their wishes. There was then the appeal to councillors. We therefore can only assume that the following motion from Tang is a result of this direct lobbying to councillors.

TANG: asked for a report ‘detailing the activities’ that would be put out on September 1st 2012 and ‘terms of allocations and access including times’ that Caulfield Bears have in Koornang Park for 2011 and another cricket club for ‘the same ground’. He also wanted information on any ‘understanding’ that the two clubs had ‘entered into’ and that the report be ‘presented to the next Ordinary Council Meeting’. Pilling seconded, after a somewhat lengthy delay.

Said that his request ‘tries to bring to a head some significant correspondence which council has been receiving….(from both Ajax & Caulfield Bears). The former want ‘the use of an oval at Princes Park’ to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Junior club that ‘already has tenancy at Princes Park’. The Bears meanwhile ‘have been requesting access to the pavilion at Koornang Park’ until midnight on Saturdays to fund raise. Tang said that they claimed that permission had ‘previously been granted’ for such activities. Went on to say that there’s been a reported ‘deal’ between the clubs ‘to leave Princes Park and return to Koornang Park’ and for the seniors to ‘seek an allocation at Princes Park’. Continued that the clubs had changed their ‘representations over time’. Also reported that the Bears were thinking of leaving their ground to meld with their junior club and that they were offered money to ‘upgrade their capital works’….’we need to get to the bottom of it; we need to thrash out these issues’ because ‘I don’t think we should have council facilities available to the highest bidder’. Claimed that they were there for ‘all of the community’. His other reason for requesting the report was that clubs shouldn’t  take matters into their own hands in trying to secure their own best interests since this would ‘affect every activity that they run’. Finished by saying that he hoped that once council got to the bottom of this alleged ‘deal’ that everyone could work productively together. All he wants is to ‘get these facts out into the open’ so that council can ‘deal adequately’ with the requests.

MAGEE:  Said that ‘up until this afternoon’ he didn’t have a problem but now since ‘all this other stuff is coming into it’ (financial offers) it sounds as if Glen Eira is being turned ‘over to the highest bidder’. Didn’t agree with a report but thought that it should be a ‘council investigation’. ‘I’m very very uncomfortable in calling for a report to see what actually happened’. Said that when all this began he would have thought that ‘council would automatically start an enquiry’ or ‘investigation into this’. Worried that ‘money seems to be offered’ and asked ‘how long has this been on the table?’ who is involved or knows about it?  And ‘why have we not been told about this offer?’….’Glen Eira is not open to the highest bidder’. Said that if people wanted an allocation then council has an ‘intricate system’ that helps clubs grow and ‘if they need grounds they get grounds’….’this worries me’….’and I don’t know if calling for a report is the right way’…

LOBO: ‘I’m afraid that the ombudsman has made it clear ……that any allocation of grounds is the responsibility of officers, similar to GESAC allocations’….finished by saying that ‘we need to be very careful and not impinge on the responsibility of the officers’.

ESAKOFF: asked Burke if he thought that the request for the report was ‘interference’?

BURKE: ‘At this stage what I’m hearing is a request for a report’

HYAMS: wanted to ‘clarify’ what Magee said in that as far as he knows no officer, councillor was offered any money. Said that allocations are the responsibility of officers

TANG:  Affirmed Magee’s comments that ‘no, you can’t buy your way into an allocation….it is not uncommon for municipalities to prioritise pavilion upgrades’, where clubs contribute funds. Gave examples of Stonnington and Yarra. In this case the suggestion that ‘capital works upgrade is a Council decision’. Said that when clubs ‘try to get around the allocation system’ and ‘get it wrong’….how does that impact on our community’s enjoyment of facilities’….’what we need to do is get these issues out there….so it can be dealt with quickly…..no allegation …that any allocation went to a club because of financial inducement’. Went on to explain how allocations are done.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LOBO AND MAGEE VOTING AGAINST.

COMMENTS

We find it extraordinary that councillors can get up and claim that ‘you can’t buy your way into an allocation’. We remind readers of the McKinnon Basketball versus the Oakleigh Warriors basketball allocation at GESAC. The minutes of December 14th 2011, written by Paul Burke, state: “There was a difference of $95,000 pa between the two EOIs.” If that’s not buying your way into allocations, then we don’t know what is!

Lobo’s warning about the ombudsman and the role of officers in sporting allocations is also of concern. Either he has absolutely no understanding of Delegations, or his support for Burke has clouded his judgement. Officers act under delegation given to them via council resolution. All it takes to remove the ombudsman from the equation is a simple resolution along the lines of – ‘all sporting allocations are to be made via formal council resolution’.

This is now the second time that the question of allocations has caused angst out in the community. How many more times will decision making on such important issues be left to officers and councillors find out what is going on when it is far too late?

PS: Evidence that many courts are still standing empty at GESAC was serendipitously supplied by today’s Moorabbin Leader with the following story. Readers should also note that Council has been placing full page colour advertisements to “Enrol” for basketball, futsal, etc. in all local papers, plus the Bayside Leader. If the courts were fully booked, then surely such extravagance is not warranted? The story is below. Again simply click on the picture to enlarge.

 

July 3, 2012

The Whiff Of Revolution?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[6] Comments 

Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!

The issues we are referring to are:

  1. The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
  2. The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
  3. The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.

It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.

Amendment C102

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

July 3, 2012

What Is Safety Worth?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Community safety is supposed to be the bedrock of many Council policies – especially road and pedestrian safety. That’s why the following Leader  article caught our eye. It says a lot about the gulf between rhetoric, spin, and public relations compared to the realities which confront residents on a daily basis. Council’s response is woeful. When safety is an issue it should not take 3 years for any responsible action. We remind readers that when it was deemed necessary (as an afterthought) to extend the GESAC carpark and relocate a playground, nearly $1 million dollars was found overnight! This tells us plenty about the priorities of this administration.

McKinnon residents’ fears over traffic black spot

3 Jul 12 @  05:05am by Jessica Bennett

MCKINNON residents fear someone will be killed if Glen Eira Council does not act on a traffic black spot.

Andrew, who did not want to include his surname, and neighbours have been rallying council to improve safety at the corner of Lindsay St and Balmoral Ave.

He said there had been at least six incidents over the past eight years with drivers losing control around the sharp, narrow corner and smashing through residents’ fences – which happened again on June 6.

“This one is more serious in that the whole car came off the road, mounted the nature strip and smashed into a tree before driving away,” he said.

Resident Richard Kellaway said locals feared someone would be killed at the corner, a popular route for children walking to school, if council did not act.

In a letter to Andrew, council’s transport planning manager Matthew Harridge said a road safety auditor recommended resurfacing/reconstruction of Lindsay St within three years.

He also said the installation of a high-friction surface would be brought forward in the 2012/13 financial year.

PS: A reader has sent us the following. This Council’s ‘proactivity’ needs comparing with the innovation of others.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »