September 5, 2017

Rhyme & Reason – Carnegie

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Here is council’s version of the relevant stats for Carnegie and the proposed structure plan – According to the above figure the residents of Carnegie are supposed to be better off in terms of the number of properties rezoned to a lower height. As with the Bentleigh figures, the reality is far different. One example is the rezoning of Elliott Avenue and Tranmere where seven properties on the east side of Elliott Avenue will go from 4 to 3 storeys, and both sides of Tranmere will also be reduced by one storey. Nominally, that should make it 21 properties that will have a reduction in height. Sadly, it is far too late for 14 of these properties which are already set for 4 storey development. (Please note – we are counting the consolidated lots as 2 properties).

This image tells the full story – post zones.

  • No 1 Tranmere has been to VCAT. Given developers’ past history, there is always the second bite at the cherry by simply reducing the number of proposed dwellings by a handful. It will be back again.
  • Nos. 3 -7 Tranmere are currently up for sale and will have their applications in well and truly before any amendments see the light of day from council! (See: – http://raywhitecarnegie.com.au/properties/residential-for-sale/vic/carnegie-3163/house/1709969 )
  • No.8 Tranmere sold in April 2016, No.6 Tranmere in 2015 & No. 11 Tranmere sold in November 2016. Whilst these properties could possibly remain as ‘owner-occupier’ we don’t like their chances of remaining so given what is happening around them and the potential to make some major profit.

Thus Tranmere & Elliott are GONE, GONE, GONE thanks to what happened in 2013 and no revamping of the zoning at this late point in time is going to alter this fact.

So that readers fully understand the above image here is the legend –

  • Yellow infill means that permits have been granted for 4 storey developments, or will soon have applications coming in for 4 storeys.
  • The dark blue in Jersey Parade is another application currently in for 4 storeys
  • The light green represents other applications and/or permits
  • The red indicates the upgrade from 4 storeys to a potential 12 storeys.

QUESTIONS

  • Given examples like this, how much faith should residents place in council’s figures?
  • What effect will rezoning have if nothing changes in the schedules to the zones and when will council get around to actually doing anything with the schedules?
  • The destruction of these streets has been known for years yet council has tried time after time to avoid undertaking a planning scheme review. This has only happened due to Wynne’s refusal to grant another extension and the order to undertake structure planning.
  • What is the strategic justification for any of these changes? Does it make sense to impose a 12 storey height limit on residents zoned for 4 storeys? We keep hearing the nonsense about ‘right buildings in the right place’ and maintaining a ‘balance’. The only ‘balance’ we can find is an open invitation for more development and the selling off of council land!

PS: we’ve received an email from a resident telling us that nos. 7-11 Belsize Avenue has been sold to a group of developers. Anyone want to take bets on what will happen to this land?

 

September 4, 2017

Resident Survey Results

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

We’ve received the results of a survey conducted by a resident. The findings provide plenty of food for thought that council needs to incorporate into its planning and thinking.

Our thanks to the resident for his time and effort.

Results are uploaded HERE

 

September 2, 2017

Harleston Park & ‘Consultation’

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

How much more public money is about to go down the drain because council refuses to accept the outcome of its first round of ‘consultation’ on the proposed redevelopment of Harleston Park? A million dollars was the original planned expenditure for this single park. We are now about to enter another phase of ‘consultation’ if the recommendations are voted through next Tuesday night.

We estimate that close to 90% of resident feedback was against the creation of a basketball area in the park. The vast majority of comments wanted to maintain the park’s passive atmosphere. So what does council do? Does it listen? It recommends a smaller ‘three point’ basketball court in a different spot. No dimensions are given and no comment is made on resident objections to the lurid blue originally suggested. Nor is there any evidence provided that a smaller court will create less noise or less conflict with passive areas.

This entire project raises innumerable  issues:

  • Why does every single park need to be a duplicate of each other – ie. some comments compared the proposals to what has been created in Booran Reserve. We also note that the Australian Standards do endorse that parks should differ and suit the local community. Glen Eira’s ‘interpretation’ of this comes via this paragraph – Public open spaces are a shared community asset. Living in proximity to parks does not afford residents greater rights over the use and development of these spaces than the wider community.
  • Why does council insist on spending a fortune on concrete plinths, so that again and again there is this ‘standardised’ look for all our open spaces?
  • Why can’t council publish concept plans that are legible and clear – which they certainly aren’t in the agenda papers?

We also challenge many of the comments included in the officer report. For example: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles do not suggest lighting necessarily improves safety, and in some cases it may attract people to use the park later in the evening and night. This is not an intended outcome of the project and as such lighting has not been included – consistent with the status quo. 

If this is indeed the case then why has council spent millions upon lighting in so many of our parks – ie Princes Park, Allnutt Park to name just a few. More importantly, both the Victorian Police and Planning Vic recommend park lighting – ie Proper maintenance of landscaping, lighting treatment and other features can assist in the prevention of crime. (http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=10444)

AND

OBJECTIVE 4.3

To ensure lighting is carefully integrated to further enhance visibility and natural surveillance of parks and open spaces. (https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/4631/Safer_Design_Guidelines.pdf)

The bottom line is that the community has been asked for its opinion and they have spoken. Council however is unwilling to accept the majority view based on this report. Possibly this will become another Caulfield Conservatory fiasco where 3 ‘consultations’ were undertaken.

Our position is: –

  • Allow diversity and uniqueness. Don’t clone each park into a pale imitation of each other
  • Give greater emphases to ‘passive’ and ‘green open space’
  • Stop spending a fortune for unnecessary works
  • Stop filling our parks with tons of concrete
  • Develop a playground policy that establishes expected work and budgets
  • And most important – listen to the community!
 

September 1, 2017

Disgraceful!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

PS: We are in error. The site is zoned Commercial so technically ResCode does not apply. However, this still doesn’t obviate the need to assess applications against Section 58 of the Planning Scheme.

Another mammoth agenda (in paper weight) of mumbo-jumbo that would fit exceedingly well into any episode of Utopia. Until officer reports become truthful and provide detailed justifications for all recommendations, then good governance in Glen Eira is well and truly dead.  Here is our first example of what can literally only be called devious or incompetent – the rest to follow in the days ahead!

Planning Report

One application is for 4 storeys in Tucker Road, McKinnon. The Tangalakis recommendation is to grant a permit but for 3 storeys instead of the 4. What is totally unforgiveable in this report comes from page 73, where we find this paragraph –

Amenity impacts

There will be overshadowing of the rear open space of the neighbouring property immediately to the south, however State Government requirements remain silent in relation to the overshadowing of neighbouring properties. They makes specific reference to overlooking impacts, but does not provide detailed requirements for overshadowing compliance

Apart from the shoddy grammar and lack of proof reading, this statement is blatantly untrue! ResCode via Planning Practice Note 27 does have very specific criteria for overshadowing as well as overlooking! (see below). Only two conclusions are therefore possible. Either the planner is entirely incompetent and does not know or understand the planning legislation, or this is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way, it is unacceptable.

 

August 30, 2017

Rhyme & Reason! – Bentleigh

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments 

According to council’s own set of figures for Bentleigh (presented below) the proposed changes basically maintain the status quo. That is, there is not too much difference between those properties in line for increased height limits and those areas where height has been reduced.

Adding up all the figures from the table we find that:

  • 243 properties are earmarked for an increase in height, whilst
  • 199 properties are supposedly going to experience a decrease in height

Leaving aside the question of strategic justification for most of these changes, we still ponder whether these statistics really reveal the true stor(e)y (pun intended!). A positive is undoubtedly the rezoning of heritage areas – which implicitly acknowledges the incompetence of what occurred in August 2013. However, the most important issue is whether all of these changes are in fact far too late and what they can achieve? This will of course depend on the resulting amendments and the strength of the long awaited Heritage policy.

A couple of examples should illustrate what we mean regarding the value of some of the proposed changes and how these examples throw some doubt on the figures provided by council.

EXAMPLE 1:

The intention is to rezone 11 properties in Mitchell Street from 4 to 3 storeys PLUS increase another 10 properties from 2 storeys to 3 storeys. But the sticking point is that Mitchell Street already has permits for 4 storey dwellings (nos. 79-83 and 82-84). Number 77 also has a permit for a 3 storey dwelling and no. 92 is probably geared for sale as a council car park. Hence of the 11 properties along this single stretch of road, 6 already are at 4 storeys and another one will go even higher. Thus council’s figure of 199 properties set for a height decrease certainly do not reveal the true storey since no account is taken of what already exists in these figures.

Further, what of the 6 properties going from 2 to 3 storeys in Mitchell Street?  Why are they being ‘upgraded’? What is the purpose, much less the strategic justification? If the intent is to draw a straight line that corresponds with the heritage overlays of Daley Street and Bendigo Avenue, then this hasn’t been achieved. We are still getting a zig-zag line of housing heights that make no sense and contradict council’s claims about trying to avert the radial configurations set in 2013.

EXAMPLE 2:

The same issues apply in Bent and Vickery Streets. Council proposes to rezone 25-31, plus 28 Bent Street to 3 storeys (ie 5 properties) and upgrade another 6 properties in Vickery to three storeys from the current 2 storey height limit.  No recognition is taken of the fact that permits for 4 storeys have already been granted to nos. 23,27-29 Bent Street for 4 storey developments. That makes it 2 out of the 5 sites that will be 4 storey. The blue markings in the image following are for the areas designated to now be 3 storeys, up from 2 storeys.

QUESTIONS

Residents really need to start questioning the efficacy, and strategic justification for some of these proposed changes. Is the solution to the current radial set up to simply increase height to the nearest bordering street? Does this really ameliorate the damage already caused or simply invite more damage to residential amenity? How much faith should ultimately be placed in the figures council presents – especially on the downgrading of heights in streets that are already chock-a-block full of 4 storeys. What consistency is to be found across all of these proposed changes? Why are some streets better off than others and why are upgrades along Centre Road so extensive? What does this augur for the eventual revealing of the plans for East Bentleigh? Will we now have entire activity centres blending into each other and stretching from Thomas Street to East Boundary Road? Remember that East Bentleigh is now also being ‘upgraded’ to a ‘larger’ neighbourhood centre – whatever that might mean!

 

August 29, 2017

The Figures?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

After some considerable pressure from residents, council has finally released its figures on the proposed zoning changes. We’ve uploaded the relevant document HERE.

The emphases remains on meeting government population growth – without of course any mention of current housing happening within Glen Eira. The enumeration of the hectares devoted to the various zones, both current and proposed, is also proffered without any explanation or clear definition – for example: do these figures include roads?

Council is clearly intent on maintaining the mantra that these changes are basically ‘neutral’ – that is, that the overall totals are ‘equitable’. We beg to differ! Once we’ve gone through all the details more carefully we will provide a commentary. In the meantime, here is council’s ‘summary’ –

 

 

August 27, 2017

Carnegie Survey

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

We’ve received an email from a Carnegie resident who has set up a thoughtful survey on the draft concept plans for this suburb. We urge readers to fill in the survey. Results will be published.

The survey is available from – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCW36FC

 

August 25, 2017

Orwell – Eat Your Heart Out!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

We are well and truly into the era of Orwellian ‘Newspeak’ or to put it more bluntly – weasel words that mean very little but sound mighty impressive to the uninitiated or brainwashed. After months and months of deliberation(s), the so called ‘expert’ advisory panel looking at ‘open space’ along Skyrail has come up with their report.  (UPLOADED HERE).

We find it amazing that any ‘expert’ panel can produce nothing more after months and months than what we find here. Jargon is paramount (ie ‘vibrant’, ‘sustainable’, ‘place making’ etc.) whilst no clear & precise recommendations are the outcomes for the purported 11 MCG’s of ‘open space’.  It’s waffle, generalities, with no definitive outcomes or justifications. Questions of who pays for what, and time frames are of course considered beyond the scope of this report – yet fundamental we suggest!

Below we feature just one page from this report and ask readers to consider what is actually recommended –

Surely it’s not too much to ask that government and council reports, that clearly cost tens of thousands, produce results that are devoid of bureaucratic camouflage, high faluting nonsense, and instead deliver what they are supposed to – recommendations in plain English, and which are all backed up by detail, logic, and ‘evidence’ of some kind of cost-benefit analyses!!~!!!!!

 

August 24, 2017

Caulfield Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Open Space
[7] Comments 

The Bill for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust is now available and uploaded HERE

A quick perusal of the Bill reveals:

  • The Trust is disbanded and a new ‘trust’ to be appointed
  • The Minister will appoint between 5 and 7 members to the new Trust – they can be members of parliament. Nothing is stated regarding community members or council members.
  • Current leases will remain until the Trust is operational and this could be in the latter part of 2018 when the Bill is enacted
  • Leases can now extend out to 65 years with Ministerial approval
  • The Minister can declare ‘event’ days (ie racing, circuses, etc)
  • One interesting section of the Bill – Subclause (7) allows the Trust to regulate its own meeting proceedings, subject to the provisions of this Bill. What this means in terms of reporting and minuting of meetings is anyone’s guess!
  • There will be ‘planning corporate documents’ as well as ‘management plans’. The latter to go out for public consultation.

How all of the above works out in practice is yet to be seen. Please read the proposed legislation and offer your thoughts.

PS: Today’s Hansard on the Bill is uploaded HERE

 

August 23, 2017

The Pollies

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[5] Comments 

AND FROM HANSARD – 22/8/2017

Southern Metropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER

(Southern Metropolitan)

— My constituency question is for the attention of the Minister for Public Transport and it relates to the proposed 13-storey sky tower development at Ormond railway station. This is another secret development being undertaken by Daniel Andrews that the community had no knowledge of . Many residents have contacted me to voice their concerns about the sky tower and are also now asking for updated information regarding this proposed development . The government has provided little to no information regarding this project since a public hearing was held in early February of this year .

Following that hearing a report undertaken by the Victorian Transport Projects Advisory Committee was submitted to the minister as it is obliged to within 20 business days of the last hearing . Well, that was months ago.

My question to the minister on behalf of the many anxious residents within the area is: can she provide an update to the house on the proposed development and the details of the report, so that the residents of Ormond and the surrounding areas of Caulfield and Bentleigh understand exactly what was recommended to the Andrews government at the Ormond sky tower site?

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

Plan Melbourne: Refresh

Mr DAVIS

(Southern Metropolitan)

— My matter tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and it concerns the City of Monash. On Saturday I was fortunate enough to attend a forum on planning in the City of Monash. A range of people were there who had very strong views about what is occurring in the City of Monash

. The recent changes that the government has made under Plan Melbourne: Refresh and the subsequent decision of the planning minister to put in place the VC110 planning scheme amendment have meant that a significant set of changes have occurred .

In municipalities like Glen Eira and neighbouring municipalities the increased density the government is pushing for very strongly — and that is its policy through Infrastructure Victoria and the stated comments of the Premier and the planning minister — will see neighbourhood residential zones with massive density occur on those blocks . The two -dwelling cap has been removed, and there can now be unlimited dwellings on those properties . But in the City of Monash there is less of that sort of planning overlay and protection, and it has mainly general residential zones . The government’s changes there have seen the increase in the minimum maximum height — if I can describe it that way— from 9 metres to 11 metres and an explicit allowance of  three storeys in the general residential zones

Some other municipalities face this challenge too . The Mornington Peninsula Shire and the City of Kingston are also areas where general residential zones predominate . There is a significant push now occurring, and a number of people related this to me closely at the forum that was held on Saturday of the weekend just gone . What we will see is a massive increase in density and a change to our suburbs.

What I am seeking from the minister is that he review VC110 and its impact and reverse some of these changes that he has put in place.

These changes clearly are going to change the nature of our suburbs . There is no sufficient planning behind it in terms of infrastructure, whether it is for traffic support, parking, schools, maternal and child health— I could go on.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »