Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 12, 2014

Here We Go Again!

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

PS: Glen Eira councillors should be exceedingly pleased with themselves. In the space of this year alone (ie January to December) they will have granted permits for 1144 new dwellings. When we consider that only about 2% of applications arrive for Council consideration as opposed to the hired help (ie officers) then councillors are certainly keeping up their end of the bargain. To the best of our knowledge, only one application – Penang St. – has been refused. Thus councillors alone are responsible for a doubling of the average new dwellings per year in Glen Eira! Include what officers rubber stamp and the number is quadrupled at least. None of this of course is the result of the new zoning!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday night’s council meeting is set down for another marathon and, in line with the usual tactics, major development applications are all crammed into this one single meeting – regardless of the fact that some applications go back as far as the 17^th July 2014. So much for the 60 day decision time limit!

We wish to draw readers’ attention to the following:

Officers recommend another 149 dwellings to be granted permits
The trend of minimal notifications continues
Comments on internal amenity are practically non-existent. Where they do occur, readers will be amused to note that balconies count as part of ‘internal amenity’.
Not all applications provide information on the number of single bedroom and two bedroom dwellings. Consistency is non-existent throughout the reports.
Officer comments are repeatedly bereft of detail, statistics, or in fact logical consistency. Instead residents are assailed with waffle, and unsubstantiated claim after claim.
Waiving of car parking or loading bay requirements continues unabated.

We regard each and every one of these reports as not only sub-standard but more importantly, non informative and certainly not the basis upon which informed decision making should take place!

Here are some of the ‘low lights’ and please note the insipid and facile jargon used repeatedly –

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking). 19 properties notified, 5 objections.

The proposed building has a street setback of 6.4 metres at ground floor, gradually increasing to 9.8 metres at the uppermost floor. Greater street setbacks will be required to ensure that the development maintains the built form rhythm of Bent Street.

Internal Amenity

To ensure the usability of balconies, a condition will require 8m² for each balcony that is clear of obstructions such as air conditioners.

Each unit is afforded storage space within the basement level. However, the storage capacity is below the required 6 cubic metres. A condition of approval will be require 6 cubic metres of storage space for each dwelling.

A number of ensuites and bathrooms are not afforded any daylight access and are sited internally within the building envelope. Where opportunities exist, a condition of permit will be included within the Appendix to require the provision of a skylight to improve the internal amenity of the dwellings.

++++++

14-16 Elliott Avenue – 4 storey, 21 dwellings, reduction in visitor car parking . 11 properties notified, 10 objections

Availability of on street parking, based on the conclusions of the parking and
traffic report prepared by the permit applicant’s traffic engineer…….

++++++

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 35 dwellings. Officer recommendation – 30 dwellings and increase in visitor parking to 4 spaces. (note 6 is the standard for 30 dwellings!) (20 properties notified – 35 objections)

A recommended condition is included to increase the front setback by 1.5m to bring the proposal closer to compliance with ResCode and improve the streetscape appearance of the proposal.

The recommended increased setbacks will reduce the overshadowing impacts and allow more daylight and sunlight to reach the adjoining dwellings and their rear yards.

Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the current operation of Belsize Avenue or the surrounding road network.

++++++

1A Orrong Crescent and 632A Inkerman Road CAULFIELD NORTH – (19/8/2014) A four (4) storey building comprising three (3) shops and eighteen (18) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements. 13 properties notified, 10 objections. Recommendation is for 2 visitor car parks – standards require 3.

The subject site is zoned Commercial 1. All surrounding properties are located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone…..Subject to conditions, the proposed development is an acceptable response to the zoning, the site context, and will achieve an acceptable degree of fit whilst ensuring the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Given the Commercial Zoning and presence of only one residential abuttal, it is considered that in principal a four storey building is acceptable on the site;

The architectural style of the proposal is considered acceptable as the façade incorporates a reasonable level of visual interest through articulation of the elevations using balconies, architectural features and a contemporary style of architecture. Dwellings at ground floor fronting Orrong Crescent will provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding residential properties.

+++++

482-484 North Road ORMOND – (17/7/2014) A four (4) storey building comprising twenty-four dwellings (including a caretakers dwelling). Recommendation – 4 storey, 21 dwellings, Car parking at a rate of one per dwelling, 4 visitor parking spaces and 1 shop/caretakers dwelling parking space. 14 properties notified and 6 objections.

Given the context and emerging character of North Road, it is considered that a four storey building is generally acceptable on the subject site.The proposal will be taller than the adjoining single storey dwellings to the west but consistent with other four storey buildings in the area.

Council is aware that a tree was removed from the subject site prior to the lodgement of the application. Councils Landscape Assessment Officer has advised the removal of this tree is of no real concern. Future landscaping can be provided around the building. This is recommended

The most sensitive interface is to the south. This property contains a single storey dwelling with a driveway along its northern boundary. Whilst it is within the General Residential Zone, Anthony Street is also within the Ormond Precinct Heritage Overlay which could reduce future development expectations.

With this in mind, additional setbacks from the south are recommended as a condition of approval to respond to the interface. Inevitably the proposed building will continue to be visible from Anthony Street (and the surrounding area), however additional setbacks proposed will ensure an appropriate transition is achieved.

++++++

477 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – A four storey building with five dwellings and a shop. 7 properties notified and 2 objections. Recommendation – reduction of the car parking requirements for the shop use and waiver of loading bay requirements.

++++++

188-190 Tucker Road, BENTLEIGH – A 142 place Child Care Centre with a basement car park. Recommendation – 132 children. 14 properties notified, 15 objections and petition of 88 signatures.

By encouraging corner sites on secondary roads as preferred locations, policy anticipates side street access is likely and reasonable.

Familiarity of parents with the basement would occur over time and would be a normal part of orientation and induction for new parents. A Parking Management Plan which is recommended as a condition will require the education of parents and staff of the centre about the basement.

Council’s Transport Planners have indicated that the traffic generated by the proposal would have a minimal impact on both Tucker Road and Ellen Street.

Σ An average peak hour rate of 0.91 trips per child is estimated which accords with the rate prescribed in the Policy. Whilst this represents a noticeable increase in traffic volumes, it will not have a significant adverse impact on the operation of the local road network.

December 10, 2014

Your Rates At Work!

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

We are being inundated with photographs and comments about what is going on in Glen Eira streets. None of them is complimentary and each highlights the incompetence, stupidity and failure of this council to ensure safety within the public realm. We remind readers that council’s Road Safety Policy expired in 2012. Two years later, we’re still waiting for its reincarnation.

In this post we feature signage that is meant to warn drivers of road works – except that the genius who erected the sign ensured that it was hidden behind a tree making the warning invisible. When this resident notified Council (and we quote from the email) – The response was simply (without explanation) we won’t be moving it. I really do worry that our ratepayers dollars are being wasted on morons like the officer who is either mind blowingly stubborn. Or just plain stupid.

The second set of images belong again to the corner of Kokarrib and Neerim Roads. The accompanying comment read – It forces people onto roads unprotected, with poor visibility, at a very busy place that services a supermarket. If this is “to the satisfaction of the responsible authority”, then GECC needs a boot up the arse.

December 10, 2014

A Resident’s Plea

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

We’ve received a copy of a letter written to all councillors from one Carnegie resident. It is published below – minus identifying material. The epistle has also prompted us to investigate more closely what is happening along one major street – Neerim Road. As with Bent Street, the juggernaut of over development is destroying street after street. We repeat that:

When no consideration is given to the cumulative effects of countless developments, then this is sub-standard planning
Council can repeat and repeat its mantra that the zones have nothing whatsoever to do with this over-development. Those living in these streets and who are regularly accosted by developers beg to differ.

The Letter

I am compelled to write to you regarding the development that is occurring in Carnegie. In the last 12 months, at least 25 houses have been sold to developers and 4 storey buildings are being built and are proposed for these sites totalling at least 200 apartments heralding a dramatic increase in people and traffic. These sites are all within 150 metres along Neerim Rd between Tranmere St, Elliott Ave and Belsize Ave, and continuing into Elliott Ave and Belsize Ave. There are at least 5 more sites proposed in Jersey Pde, between Elliott Ave and Tranmere St on the north side.

This pace and size of this development is unprecedented and the consequent loss of living standards and future livability for existing, and proposed residents is causing severe stress and alarm. Loss of neighbourhood character, garden space and privacy is a major concern.

Traffic is already an issue as this area attracts overflow from the station and exiting the side streets into the main arterial streets is hazardous. The increased number of people living in this confined area can only exacerbate an already difficult situation.

In the Glen Eira News, (December, 2014) newly appointed Mayor, Jim Magee stated that the “Council is undertaking a series of major projects to provide improved facilities for residents” He stated that these include some open space projects. These are to be commended. However, I believe these public projects ,albeit important for outdoor leisure and recreation cannot compensate for the losses being experienced with the massive development that is occurring. He also said “I love living in Glen Eira and want everyone who lives here to feel the same”. I can assure him that everyone would want to share that sentiment. Unfortunately, this is being translated into shock, horror and despair.

I would like to invite you to come and view these developments and stand on the corner of Elliott Ave and Neerim Rds. I am happy to meet you there. Please come and see for yourself and reassure the residents that Glen Eira Councillors are aware of this juggernaut that is overwhelming our suburb.

++++++++

The Sad History of Neerim Road

212 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a double storey dwelling at the rear (NRZ1)

487 Neerim Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Developement Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO) (NRZ1)

322-326 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking (RGZ1)

332-334 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising twenty six (26) dwellings above a basement car park; Reduction of the requirement for visitor parking; and Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1)

365-367 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a Multi-Storey Building Comprising Dwellings and creation of access to a road in a road zone Cat 1(GRZ1)

276-280 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a five storey building with retail premises at ground floor, up to forty two dwellings and basement car parking, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements and waiver of a loading area (MUZ)

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising thirty-five (35) dwellings and a basement car park and reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (rgz1)

17 Neerim Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (including a first floor addition) and construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling – Amended (permit) (NRZ1)

401-407 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a five storey building comprising of shops and dwellings above basement car park, a reduction in standard car parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (MUZ)

135-137 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising of up to forty (40) dwellings above basement car park and waiver of visitor car parking requirements (refusal) (GRZ1)

286 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The use of the land for the purpose of two (2) shops and development of the land for the purpose of a four (4) storey building including ten (10) dwellings, two (2) shops, waiver of car parking requirement for the shops and visitor car parking and for a loading bay – Amended (permit) (MUZ)

167 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (permit) (GRZ1)

149-153 Neerim Road & 4 Hinton Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of up to seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 – Amended (permit) (GRZ1)

212 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a double storey dwelling at the rear (NRZ1)

328-330 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, the waiver of three visitor parking spaces and alteration of an access way to a road in a Road Zone Category 1(RGZ1)

479 Neerim Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings – Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings (including removal of existing trees) on land affected by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (permit) (GRZ2)

179 – 181 Neerim Road, CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 19 dwellings and basement car parking. Amended Application. (permit)

259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings, associated car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and Parking Overlay (permit) (RGZ1)

253 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings with associated car parking at basement level and creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (refusal) (RGZ1)

46 Neerim Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 – Construction of two (2) dwellings (double storey to the front and single storey to the rear) (permit) (NRZ1)

172B Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Use of the land for accommodation (retirement village), construction of a three (3) storey building comprising thirty (30) independent living units with basement parking, reduction to the parking requirements (dwelling) and waiver of visitor parking under Clause 52.06 and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (refusal) (NRZ1)

Whilst some of these applications do not reveal the number of proposed dwellings, residents can be assured that in the space of 12 months, Neerim Road will have on its books permits for over 400 new dwellings – at least! Residents can also be assured of the following:

Residents will be subsidising developers for drainage
The vast majority of these apartments will be single and two bedroom units – so much for ‘diversity’ and family living!
Car parking, loading bays, will be waived so traffic will become even more of a nightmare
And what will councillors be doing about all this?

December 9, 2014

On The Nose

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments

+++++++++

A few points on the following image:

1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?

2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?

December 8, 2014

487 Neerim Road – Again, and Again and Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.

Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:

Abuts Riley Reserve and should have been bought and added to open space in the municipality. The land was eventually sold for just over $2m about a year ago.
Land is over 2000 square metres and includes many significant trees
In September 2014 council granted the applicant a ‘building envelope’ (ie the equivalent of a C60 Incorporated Plan which means no third party objection rights!). The land was then subdivided into 7 lots – some the size of 199 metres and only one lot of anywhere near 400 square metres.
A Section 173 agreement was put in place to enforce tree protection and to include a ‘tree management plan’.
Residents at the time objected that this was all very vague.

Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –

Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Questions galore arise as a consequence:

How does a child care centre fit into what was supposed to be 7 double storey dwellings alone?
Have the lots been further sold off and residents can expect application after application for something entirely different to what the subdivision and ‘envelope plan’ permitted?
What does this say about any ‘agreement’ that is signed off by council?
Why was this ‘building envelope’ process even entered into by council instead of a normal planning permit?
What of all the other so called ‘conditions’ imposed by council (ie noise reduction, drainage) – will these now also bite the dust?
How many childcare centres are needed? – our count is 17 already within a one square km radius

And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!

December 6, 2014

How’s This For Pedestrian Safety?

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

Corner Kokarrib and Neerim Roads – taken today (6/12/2014)

December 4, 2014

A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

What is troubling racing at Caulfield? Why is a prominent trainer like Rick Hore-Lacy packing up his swag and walking? Rick is a brilliant trainer, and a real gentleman. He is still a young man; surely he doesn’t desperately need the $585,361. Wither thou goest Mr. Hore-Lacy?

Rick’ loss to Caulfield will leave an immense hole in training that will be very hard, nigh impossible, to fill.

The question remains — what exactly is for sale? Land Victoria indicates 20 Booran Road, Caulfield East, is a large allotment immediately south of the land given to the Crown in exchange for the infamous “triangle”, which was part of Queen Victoria’s Crown Grant, but which is now set aside for the MRC’s high-density commercial development on the corner of Station Street and Normandy Road – directly over the road from the Caulfield Railway Station. (Worth a damn lot more than Rick’s stable complex).

The Victorian Land’s Department also seems to think his stables are within the land controlled by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. It’s my opinion that the land to the east of Kambrook and Booran Roads is freehold, and includes what was originally an extended Bond Street.

You can see the Land’s Victoria map:

However 20 Booran Road it is further south than indicated on the Government’s map. It can be positioned by a sign on the fence indicating that it is a “Community Stable Complex — 20 Booran Road”. Furthermore there are seven letterboxes in the fence, so exactly what did Rick Hore-Lacy’s “Australia-wide firm of valuers” value? It can’t be his goodwill, because that would have only a negligible value after he departs.

It seems Rick Hore-Lacy’s departure is yet another sign that we are watching the slow, painful death of racing at Caulfield. The MRC is now too embarrassed to publish crowd numbers, even for the Caulfield Cup. Please don’t go Rick, Caulfield needs you.

A rich and magnificent 150 year history of racing and sharing with the public is slowly being desecrated by an incompetent and avaricious Racing Club, while the inept Trustees waffle about the 65 hectares of “public recreation ground and public park” which they, in theory only, hold in trust for all members of the public.

December 2, 2014

Calcutta Is Here!

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

PS: BREAKING ALL RECORDS, HERE’S THE LATEST APPLICATION FOR EGAN STREET, CARNEGIE. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THE DEFICIENCIES OF COUNCIL’S PLANNING REGISTER WHEN REAL DETAILS ARE NOT PUBLISHED.

Construction of a 16 storey mixed use development (shop and dwellings); waiver of loading bay; reduction of car parking

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

The total devastation of local residential streets is nowhere more evident than in what has been happening in Bent Street since the introduction of the new zones.

No account has been taken of the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on neighbourhood amenity, much less parking, drainage, open space, overshadowing and so on. For example: Bent Street comprised approximately 70 lots of land. The overwhelming majority of these lots contained one house – many of them stunning Californian bungalows. In the past 15 months permits have either been granted, or awaiting decision for an additional 178 dwellings. In other words, the potential rise in dwelling stock is to the order of 300%.

Below we feature the sad history of this once lovely street –

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking) (up for decision)

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a part three and part four storey building comprising 31 dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor car parking (up for decision)

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four storey building containing up to 36 dwellings above a basement (permit)

15 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings and a basement car park (permit)

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to 27 dwellings with basement car parking – Amended (permit)

67 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of two double storey attached dwellings (permit)

TOTAL = 178 dwellings

What is unclear is how 64-66 Bent Street’s application wasn’t rejected outright since it is our belief that this part of Bent Street is actually zoned as General Residential Zone 2 – ie supposedly 3 storey dwellings. What makes this application even more interesting is that both 64 and 66 Bent Street went up for auction on this weekend (according to the Age’s Auction results) selling for $1,750,000 each. Thus with an ‘investment’ of $3.5 million we can be assured of one thing – the developer(s) will attempt to squeeze every ounce of profit they can from this land and it’s all thanks to the zones in our view.

Unless this council starts taking account of the CUMULATIVE impacts of its permits then hundreds of streets in Glen Eira will go the way of Bent St. A five fold increase in dwellings in a previously quiet residential area of several hundred metres is not sound planning. It is destruction on a major scale that is not in accord with any planning document or concern for residents.

December 1, 2014

The MRC Juggernaut Continues & Council Does Nothing – Again!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

We’ve received the following images from a resident. Once again they raise serious questions about the pathetic ‘Agreement’ that was signed off by Council. We maintain, that you can have all the ‘agreements’ you like, but unless they are enforced, then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

The photos below reveal how this ‘agreement’ has been ignored once more – by both Council and the MRC and by implication the Trustees.

The centre of the racecourse is only to be used for MAJOR RACE DAYS OR EVENT DAYS. We do not believe that today’s event fits into these descriptors.
We are very concerned about ‘safety’ when cars are parked so close to barbecues and the euphemistically called ‘playground’.
Residents were not provided with any warning – again traffic problems
Was a traffic management plan submitted to Council and was this approved by Council?
As one reader commented a little while ago on the previous post – the noise emanating from the course can be heard 300 metres away!
And while we’re at it – we remind readers that the fences that were supposed to be gone years ago are still standing – which leads us again to that old question of WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COUNCIL?

PS: It is also worth pointing out that the case for the yellow brick roads right around and through the course was that the MRC and Council argued that it is necessary for ‘disability’ access. Bunkum, hogwash, and double this. The photos show that concrete was required so that cars could be parked and work vehicles could traverse the area. Disability would come very, very low on the list of priorities. More spin, more deception, and more pathetic governance.