GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

September 9, 2015

Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –

  • The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
  • After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
  • Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
  • Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!

Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –

sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities

The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees

Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.

Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-

Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira.  It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.

Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.

 

September 9, 2015

The ‘How To Fob Off Residents Handbook’!

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

A resident wrote to all councillors complaining about the lack of adequate parking in the Carnegie shopping centre. Issues highlighted were:

  • Use of car parking spots by tradies and developers thereby reducing those areas available for shoppers
  • Increase in restaurants thus bringing in more people and more cars
  • Traders’ concerns about lack of sufficient clientele parking which is therefore impacting on their businesses.

Council, via Mayor Magee, provided the following response. Please note carefully:

  • The ‘solution’ that shoppers should resort to walking, cycling, and car sharing! Too bad about all the elderly who are unable to walk, cycle, or car share!
  • The woeful self promotion instead of responding directly to the resident’s claims
  • The failure of councillors to initiate any positive action and their abysmal willingness to sign any crap that is put under their noses!

Some other considerations:

  • How many parking fines have been issued to developers in this area?
  • When was the last time a ‘traffic survey’ was undertaken and why, oh why, is it ‘traders’ responsibility to work out ‘solutions’?
  • When was the last time any decent statistics were published by council on parking in general?
  • Why, when the planning scheme states that property will be bought and turned into car parks council has failed to purchase one single property. Rather they have granted council car parking land to developers in exchange for a toilet which is still not there (ie Centre Road, East Bentleigh)!
  • Readers should also note how this response typifies the modus operandi of this Council – how to fob off residents with what can only be described as total and insulting nonsense.

Council Response0001_Page_1Council Response0001_Page_2

 

September 1, 2015

Racecourse, Governance & Council

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

The latest announcement on the Caulfield Racecourse raises a myriad of questions:

  • If the MRC is so very committed to comprehensive ‘public consultation’ then why is there no widespread advertising of this? A tiny paragraph was all that was in today’s Caulfield Leader and there is nothing up on Council’s website. In the past, Council has notified readers of Trustee Meetings. This time – nothing!
  • The announcement states that the Trustees have appointed Patrick Pty Ltd. Thus, has there been a Trustee meeting to ratify this appointment? If so, where are the minutes?
  • Was this appointment tendered?
  • What are Patrick’s terms of reference? Who determined these?
  • Who is paying John Patrick – the MRC, or the Trustees? How much are they paying?
  • Is it sheer coincidence that the consultant just happens to be the same consultant who has worked extensively for Glen Eira City Council? (ie Caulfield Park pavilion, Centenary Park pavilion, Booran Road Reservoir, etc)
  • What role, if any, will council have in the final decision making? Does a Land Management Plan require formal council approval as any development application might?
  • Exactly what does “inner landscape portion” mean? And what is the SIZE of this ‘inner’ section? Does it assume the current size, where fences have persisted in their relentless encroachment onto public land?
  • Will the mushrooming fences in the centre now be removed?
  • Is the removal of training now a forgotten item?
  • Is the creation of sporting fields in the centre dead and buried? Was it ever feasible and likely? Will we see one token soccer pitch and that’s it?
  • What does ‘Strategic Land Management Plan’, really mean? Are we talking buildings? Does this cover freehold as well as crown land?
  • Is it the MRC’s intent to finally ‘solve’ the ‘park issue’ at the top of Glen Eira Road by turning it into a multi level car park? Will this ‘plan’ indicate this?
  • Is Monash Uni and Stonnington involved in this plan? If not, why not, given the intensity of proposed residential development in the area?

A year has now passed since the Auditor General delivered his report. The creation of the Land Management Plan was one of his recommendations. What of the others? What is happening regarding:

  • Lease negotiations
  • Governance
  • Resolving conflicts of interest
  • Regular Trustee meetings that adhere to governance practices
  • Why has no parliamentarian (apart from Sue Pennicuik) raised these issues in parliament?
  • Why have our council representatives also been silent?
  • Given the failure to implement the vast majority of the Auditor General’s recommendations, why has the Minister not dissolved the trustees and appointed a Committee of Management?
  • Why has the Department continually rubber stamped the MRC applications in agreeing to a 4 storey screen on crown land, a cinema and now 31 antennaes that will be over 15 metres high but deemed as not ‘visually obtrusive’?
  • And why oh why have our councillor reps (Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff) been utterly silent on what is going on when it is council, on behalf of the MRC and John Patrick, who emailed sporting groups about the ‘consultation’. If Council knows and is acting as the ‘middle man’, then why haven’t our illustrious reps spoken out and informed their constituents of what they know. A fair question might also be – have they even bothered to inform their fellow councillors? Do all councillors know what is going on with the ‘consultation’ and council’s role?
  • All of which leads to the even broader question of what proportion of resident and sporting group ‘suggestions’ will be taken up by the MRC? And what recourse do residents have if the hired help (Patrick) comes up with a ‘design’ that continues to exclude and ignore the ‘public park’ aspect of the racecourse but continues to allow the MRC to reap millions from Crown land?
 

August 27, 2015

Movement At The Station – But Where To?

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

Our thanks to an alert reader for notifying us of the following. For the full statement, please see: http://www.crrt.org.au/Notices/Upcomingmeetings.aspx

15-353 PR -Community Consultation Caulfield Racecourse

 

August 19, 2015

A Quiz On The Zones!

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

Glen Eira has designated Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie as Urban Villages where the majority of new development is supposed to go. All the rest are either Neighbourhood Centres or Local Centres. There are ten Neighbourhood Centres and 23 listed ‘local centres’ in the Planning Scheme. The Phoenix Precinct has its own category as a Priority Development Zone.

According to the Planning Scheme, residential development in Neighbourhood Centres, is meant to adhere to the following:

Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.

AND

Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.

Thus, according to this prescription, multi-unit development is only to go into those areas “IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS”. Then why oh why has so much of these neighbourhood centres been zoned as GRZ1 – ie three storeys?

It is obvious that the zones do not match what is stated in the Planning Scheme, with the result that huge swathes of McKinnon, East Bentleigh, Murrumbeena, Ormond, Caulfield South and others, have been all given the green light for 3 storey multi-unit development.

Local centres are even worse off since these are pockets of land zoned commercial that more often than not, directly abut neighbourhood residential zones. The Planning Scheme states:

Recognise the minor role that local centres will play in providing for housing diversity by encouraging development limited to low density shop top housing

AND

Ensure that residential development (except in Patterson and Gardenvale local centres) does not exceed two storeys in height

Since there is no height restriction on land zoned commercial, this is indeed pie in the sky – as recently proved with a three storey development at 251 Koornang Road (zoned commercial 1). Why such errant nonsense still remains in the planning scheme is beyond us. Nor has Council even attempted to introduce any restrictions on its small shopping strips as Boroondara has had success with. Nor have they introduced any Design & Development Overlays as this comprehensive document from Bayside demonstrates (uploaded here). Council has done nothing except slap Commercial zoning on a handful of businesses without due regard to the fact that many of these ‘local centres’ are surrounded by residential, low rise single dwellings – all zoned Neighbourhood Residential zone.

Once again it is inept planning and a bonus to developers.

So here is a quiz on the zones that readers might like to have a go in responding to. We would bet that councillors and even officers wouldn’t know the answers to most of these queries!

  • Which suburb has the largest Commercially zoned area?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ1?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ2?
  • Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned RGZ1?
  • Does Glen Eira really have 78% zoned NRZ1?
  • What percentage of residential land area in Carnegie is geared towards medium and high density development because of its zoning? How does this correlate with the nonsense of 80/20 – ie minimal change versus housing diversity?
  • How many streets in Glen Eira have multiple zonings (which was advised against by the C25 Panel Report)? – ie RGZ, GRZ, NRZ, MUZ, C1Z?
  • How much ‘infill’ has occurred in Neighbourhood Residential Zones – ie two double storeys per block?
  • How many sites in Glen Eira are over 1000 square metres, larger than their neighbours, and according to the planning scheme, capable of accommodating more than two dwellings – regardless of them being in Neighbourhood Residential Zones?
  • How many amendments has Council pushed through to rezone land to Mixed Use since the introduction of the zones? How does this compare with other councils? Please remember that Mixed Use has no height limits, no open space requirements, etc.
  • How many VCAT decisions that overturn council are largely due to the ‘policies’ contained in the Planning Scheme?

These are the questions we believe that residents need answers to since they go to the heart of sound strategic planning. If this council is so confident that its planning is ‘perfect’, then they need to be able to justify their planning decisions. Thus far, all residents have received are shonky figures, complete failure to fulfill the ‘promises’ of a decade ago, plus execrable statements that consulting with residents would result in worse outcomes. For any council to hold such a view is utterly abhorrent.

 

August 7, 2015

Fences: A Microcosm Of The Rot!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

In the great scheme of things, Item 9.10 of the current agenda is trivial and far from earth shattering. Yet, it is a microcosm of the rot that distinguishes this council and its administration. The report is about fences on borders and whether Council should include information on its website that residents can access. Hardly revolutionary, hardly controversial and hardly likely to bring down the citadel. Yet the report (written once again by Mr Anonymous!) recommends the usual – do nothing!

Even with something so basic, the report is skewed and peppered with woeful logic, plus a disdain for residents that comes through strongly and clearly.

The arguments for doing nothing are quite literally appalling, childish and contradictory. There’s no need for council to do anything because residents can use ‘Google’ to get the required information, plus –It would be uncommon for members of the public to go, in the first instance, to the Glen Eira Council website to search for information on boundary fences. Really? Then why claim a few sentences later that council is frequently called by residents on such matters as gas, transport, centrelink, etc. If residents don’t know who is responsible for these latter areas and call council, then why should they have any more ‘legal’ knowledge about fences?

We’re then told that the job of council is to direct callers to the appropriate authorities. All well and good – but residents might not call – they might simply go to the website looking for information!

The final kick in the guts to residents comes with these gems of paragraphs –

The purpose of Council’s website is to provide residents with information about issues that Council can assist with. It is not to provide them with information on every issue that may affect them, such as dividing fence issues.

If residents were to see information on issues that Council has no control over, such as dividing fences, then it may lead to the question – “If Council can’t help me then why do they have information about it on their website?”

It follows that placing information on Council’s website about boundary fences warrants placing information on the website about other non-Council controlled matters. Taken further, it could be argued that Council’s website should include information about income tax returns, or passport applications; matters which are also important to the community.

Of course, nowhere in this mass of puerile logic will readers find one statement about fences that sit on the border of council and private land and council’s responsibility to pay for half, or to compensate owners when their trees damage private fences. That aspect of important information for residents does not rate a mention. Search the website and all that one can find relates to the mandatory fences around swimming pools.

How such drivel and disdain for the public can be allowed into the public domain is beyond belief. It is arrogance of the highest order that in our view even surpasses the arrogance of the Melbourne Racing Club. In Glen Eira, residents simply don’t matter except as the permanent cash cows to keep such anonymous authors in a job!

And what on earth is the problem with putting up a single webpage? Surely this could have been done much cheaper without a ‘request for a report’ and some bean counter spending an hour or two devising a way to say – get stuffed? How much did his time cost ratepayers?

Thankfully, not every council is so toxic and anti-community as Glen Eira. After a perfunctory search, here are the URLs for information on fence borders that all these other councils think is worthwhile to put up on their respective websites.

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/residents-and-services/building/homeowner-and-tenant-information/fences/side-fences-and-neighbours/

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/building_in_bayside.htm#Fences

www.kingston.vic.gov.au/…/Fences_Boundary_Rules_Info_Generic.pdf

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Building/Fences/Dividing_Fences

http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Building/Installations/Fences

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Fence-Requirements.html

http://www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=931

http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Planning_Building/Building_services/Around_the_home/Fencing

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/FencingRegulations.aspx

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Planning–Building/Building-services/Fences/

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/fencing/

http://www.melton.vic.gov.au/Regulations/Rates_and_payments/Fencing_information

www.buloke.vic.gov.au/neighbours-the-law-and-you

http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/fences

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/fencing.htm

http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Council_the_Region/Laws_Regulations/Fences

https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/building/fences

http://www.corangamite.vic.gov.au/index.php/council-services/building-a-planning/building/fencing

http://www.latrobe.vic.gov.au/Search?keyword=fences

http://www.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/Building_and_Planning/Building/Fences

http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=8602

http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Neighbouring_Fences

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Property-owners/Owner-Responsibilities

http://www.alpineshire.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1922

http://www.hrcc.vic.gov.au/building-services/fences

https://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Services/Building_and_Property_Services/LandProperty_Enquiries/Fencing_Details#.VcRwcvkXdEM

http://www.colacotway.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=4762&h=1

 

August 5, 2015

McKinnon – Definitely Gone!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

PS: We’ve received the following email from a resident and believe it needs highlighting. We have edited out the address.

Dear gedebates.
Our street, Elliott Ave Carnegie has now lost 8 houses, between Neerim Rd and Jersey Pde (railway end) not including the corner blocks on Neerim Rd to the rampant development.  We were rezoned 2 years ago to RGZ1 and there are only 7 out of 15 remaining. We live at XXXXX Elliott and have found out the three houses next to us, to the north have been sold. We will also be facing 5 houses opposite us, all of which will be 4 stories, in a street of single dwellings. The dramatic increase in traffic, people and loss of our community is devastating after a peaceful and lovely 35 years.
I know this is happening everywhere. We feel helpless and incredibly angry with the council.
where to from here?

We featured Elliott Avenue several months ago – a street that was full of beautiful well kept homes that has now been sacrificed like much of Carnegie. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/

Six McKinnon neighbours sell combined residential development site for $8.88 million

Untitled

Six home owners at McKinnon in Melbourne’s south-eastern bayside, have reaped a $8.88 million, off-market sale of their residential development site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich brokered the sale of the 3 to 9 Claire Street offering.

Sold at what is believed to be a record $2913 a square metre for the area, six neighbours came together with the common aspiration to create a one-off opportunity by combining their properties to form an attractive development prospect.

“Six home owners have reaped a circa 40% price windfall,” Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich said.

The property, comprising four residential sites totaling 3049 square metres and six individual properties (six owners), is zoned General Residential, has 60 metres frontage to Claire Street, minutes walk to McKinnon Road retail strip and railway station.

Source: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-investment/reits/44120-july-15-comm-prop-six-mckinnon-neighbours-sell-combined-residential-development-site-for-8-88-million.html

COMMENTS

  • How many dog boxes will the developers have to build in order to recoup their money and make a profit? 60? 80? 100? All feasible on 3000+ square metres zoned for 3 storeys!
  • How much longer will council continue with their bullshit that the zones have nothing to do with this rampant over-development?
  • What is ‘capacity’ for a dead end street that contained 10 lots (two of which each contained 2 single storey units) making a total of 14 dwellings in the street not so long ago.
  • Since the zones have come in, this has all changed and the population of this street is set to increase by at least 1000%. That’s right – 1000%! Here’s why –

1 Claire St (with land size of just under 800 sq metres has recently been sold). A permit has been granted for 3 double storeys

6-10 Claire St is now heading to VCAT for an adjudication on a three storey development consisting of 36 units and a reduction in visitor car parking. Council refused the permit.

Then there’s 11 Claire St, with a permit for a two storey dwelling and 9 units – achieved after three VCAT visits. The first two refused permits for (a) 4 two storey dwellings in June 2012; (b) 2 storeys with ten units (October 2012) and finally in August 2013 a permit for 2 storey and 9 units. When granting a permit for this last decision the member stated – I am similarly satisfied that the design and scale of the building generally represents an appropriate response to the existing and envisaged character of the area in that the two storey scale ensures the development does not dominate the streetscape. The building includes elements that sympathetically respond to the prevailing architectural typology. These elements include wide eaves, pitched roof forms, good fenestration, basement garaging, and (subject to conditions) reasonable front, side and rear setbacks in order to provide for appropriate landscaping.

So now we’ve gone from two storeys to the blank cheque handed to developers for 3 storeys – all with flat roofs, removal of every single tree and vegetation on site, and setbacks that are a joke! And the total number of dwellings in a street barely 50 metres long has gone from 14 to possibly 130-150 dwellings. Thus hundreds of cars and all having to enter and exit onto McKinnon Road!

This is planning madness for sure and the blame must be laid at the feet of this council. The inconsistencies, the contradictions and the lack of justifiable strategic planning is unforgiveable. And what must never be forgotten is the simple fact that residents were the last to know about the zones. Like mushrooms we were kept in the dark – not worthy of being ‘consulted’, and not worthy of anything except paying rates that have been going up year after year by 6.5% – all needed to pay for increased staff and huge pay rises to the CEO! That’s the culture, the ethos, and the ethics of this administration and its lackey councillors!

 

July 29, 2015

What Pro-Active Councils Do!

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

Bayside council is currently undertaking community consultation on its draft C140 Amendment which will apply to areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Aside from the content, the methodology of this consultation stands in stark contrast to current practices in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • An online survey
  • An 8 page explanatory booklet in plain English
  • Clear explanations on the website – Glen Eira residents have to be ‘satisfied’ with the regurgitation of incomprehensible jargon contained in the public advertising and with only a link to the department as follow up!
  • Formal submissions
  • Links to documents

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/caring_for_bayside/6801.htm

This amendment seeks to:

  • Limit subdivision size to 400 square metres. Glen Eira has no minimal subdivision size. In fact, Council granted 487 Neerim Road permission for 8 subdivisions. These all ranged in size from 199 square metres to just over 200 square metres! With no minimal subdivision size, this means that it is hypothetically possible for landowners and developers to subdivide and then subdivide again. In other words – 4 dwellings on a lot instead of the much vaunted 2 dwellings per lot. We expect developers to cotton on to this loophole very soon.
  • Permeability of 35%. Glen Eira prides itself on achieving that massive percentage of a piddling 25% which has been in place since 2004 and we wonder how hard our ‘negotiators’ really tried to increase this quotient! Please remember that there are other councils with as much as 40% permeability requirements!
  • Private open space to equal 75 square metres – a minimum of which must be 60 square metres and 5 metres wide. In Glen Eira, residents are stuck with – “An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 4 metres and convenient access from a living room”.

Bayside is also basing its draft on a 2012 Housing Strategy and is currently reviewing its Planning Scheme. Again, compare and contrast with what Glen Eira is doing!!!!!

 

July 27, 2015

Lipshutz, Hyams & Pilling – Their Handiwork!

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

Carnegie’s 1880s Frogmore House tower demolished after being deemed unworthy of heritage protection

  • Andrea Kellett
  • July 25, 2015 12:00AM
The historic Frogmore House tower in Carnegie has been demolished. Picture: Valeriu Campa

The historic Frogmore House tower in Carnegie has been demolished. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

THE tower at Carnegie’s historic Frogmore House has been demolished.

The 1880s feature has been bulldozed six weeks after Glen Eira Council deemed the property unworthy of local heritage protection.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Bette Hatfield said it was “an absolute disgrace”.

The bulldozers were sent in after an unusual, split council vote was won by just three councillors.

Crs Michael Lipshutz, Neil Pilling and Jamie Hyams voted to abandon plans to protect the property.

The site post bulldozing. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

The site post bulldozing. Picture: Valeriu Campan.

The Frogmore House site when demolition began earlier this month.

The Frogmore House site when demolition began earlier this month.

Councillors Thomas Sounness, Oscar Lobo and Karina Okotel had wanted other options explored; Mayor Jim Magee was absent and Crs Mary Delahunty and Margaret Esakoff declared conflicts of interest and did not vote.

More than 1000 residents had petitioned the council to save Frogmore House.

New owner Jewish Care will now redevelop the 7,917sq m site into a 120-bed Jewish aged care centre.

++++++++

And the current online comments –

The Glen Eira City Council are a disgrace. In our residential street we have an 8 storey apartment block being built in an area where the highest building is two storeys. The crane is up and when the sun pops out you can clearly see the over-shadowing of all the houses across the street. During winter none of these poor people will get any sun. To rub salt into their wounds – the apartment developers applied for and won dispensation from providing the minimum required of car-spaces per apartment – citing that because the building is across the road from the railway station they do not need to provide as many car spaces. So our street will now be over crowded, over shadowed, over developed with an ugly apartment block the Council sat back and allowed to happen. Money talks and politicians always yell “How High?” when developers throw cash at them. This country has become a disgrace. All politicians care about is getting voted in and squeezing as much cash out of us and helping their buddies at the top end of town. When will enough be enough?

Two of the councillors who opposed the heritage listing appear to have Jewish surnames?

How is it we live in a world where 1000 people want this historic 1880 building saved and it is not considered worth saving ? We have so many conflicts of interest and back room deals going on and the end result is another piece of history gets bulldozed

Really poor form by this council who have failed their residents

what no Australians allowed what a disgrace

A disgrace. We have sold our souls in melbourne. Anything can be demolished.

Yes i wish they would demolish councils full stop

 

July 23, 2015

A Clayton’s Council With Clayton’s Resolutions

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

The last Planning Scheme Review was conducted in 2010, with a Discussion Paper, that was anything but a genuine discussion paper. Crucial issues were ignored; information was scant and skewed; and all subsequent actions were to be done ‘internally’. That is a euphemism for non-community participation! When the ‘review’ finally made it onto the council agenda, the resolution endorsed the ‘action plan’. Of course, barely a fraction of what was promised 5 years ago has been done. Now we have the situation that this out-of-date Planning Scheme will not be ‘reviewed’ for at least another 18 months – and that’s on top of councillors knowing full well that there are so many deficiencies that the whole scheme requires immediate attention and amendment. But what has Council done? Asked the Minister for a two year extension on having to review the scheme. The Minister agreed to a one year extension. Thus residents have seen their suburbs destroyed because of the failure to act and close off the countless loopholes that ensure developers will get what they want.

Below is a page taken from the 2010 item on the Planning Scheme Review. It illustrates perfectly how resolutions in Glen Eira mean absolutely nothing. They are continually ignored and consigned to the dustbin of history, or overturned when it suits those with vested interests – ie removal of the conservatory in Caulfield Park; heritage protection for Frogmore; creation of a significant Tree Register. But none of these betrayals equals what has been happening (or more correctly, not happening) in the domain of planning. The highlighted sections of the image below indicate what was promised 5 years ago, and many even repeat what was stated as ‘action items’ from 2003! That’s what resolutions mean in Glen Eira – bugger all. Please remember this when you vote next year!

Pages from 2010August10-2010-MINUTES

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »