GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

March 28, 2019

Sale! Sale! Sale!

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

Council has published the agenda for next Tuesday night’s Special Council Meeting. The recommendation is to ‘sell’ by proceeding with the Expression of Interest process. What a surprise!

Issues invoked by the submissions are ostensibly ‘answered’. For example:

On the lack of community consultation, we are told: Officers have set out in this report the communication and consultation process conducted which included extensive advertising and opportunities to discuss the sale issues. The process undertaken also meets the statutory requirements for the sale of Land as outlined in the Local Government Act. Thus, no explanation, no apology, no justification as to why community consultation was not undertaken prior to any decision!
On whether the new owner will provide the same quality of care, we are told: Officers note in this report some of the constraints that are likely to impact on the future provision of quality care in Glen Eira’s aged care service. Officers are aware of many other aged care providers that provide quality at an equivalent or higher level than Council’s current service. Council’s commitment is that Council will only sell to a quality aged care provider that has a proven ability to provide quality aged care with high employee and resident satisfaction levels. In short, a regurgitation of previous generalities.
On the impact on current aged care residents, we are told: Officers are mindful of the potential impact on residents during this process. Council has committed to keep all 173 beds within the municipality and any new provider will be required to uphold the current residency agreement. Impact on residents can in part be mitigated by a strong transition process and the selection of a quality provider. In addition the option for staff to remain with the new provider may also assist in ensuring continuity of care. We note the lack of ‘guarantee’ on future staffing, nor how many current staff will be employed by the new owner. Also not a word about any new residency agreements.
On potential Royal Commission findings, we are told: Officers consider that while it is likely that the Royal Commission will publically identify poor performers, the quality of a rigorous assessment processes will ultimately provide Council with sufficient information to make a sound selection decision. Literally an incredible statement given that council has no idea what the findings will be and how these findings may impact on all providers!
On loss of community amenity and ownership, we are told: Officers are aware of the range of community views in regard to Public or Private ownership of many services. Officers note, however, that many submitters assume that Council will sell to a ‘for profit’ provider, however, many aged care providers are not for profit providers. The assessment panel will assess each provider against a comprehensive set of assessment criteria and choose the provider that most closely meets the criteria.The problem with this answer is that one single not for profit provider will not be able to afford to purchase all three facilities. That means that at least one, if not two, and probably all three, will go to those private FOR PROFIT businesses!
On including a ‘resident representative’ on the sale process, we are told: Officers have discussed with legal and probity advisors the potential of having a family or resident involved in the process or on the evaluation panel. Advice provided is that this will give rise to probity and conflict of interest concerns. This says it all, despite the possibility of including resident ‘expertise’ prior to the finalisation of the detailed assessment criteria. In other words, no resident in on selection and worse still, no ‘detailed assessment criteria’ still exists. If this isn’t putting the cart before the horse, we don’t know what is!

Following this attempted response/rebuttal to issues raised in the various submissions we get a long diatribe on current conditions in aged care. We are informed that:

Aged care will become increasingly more ‘complex’
There will be increased ‘scrutiny and regulation’ so only larger and ‘highly specialised’ carers can cope mainly because they have ‘economies of scale’.
Another ‘reason’ why council can’t continue is that they don’t have an aged care board or specialist aged care finance staff to assist in management and governance arrangements. Perhaps council could answer how an ‘aged care finance staff’ is different to the systems and financial oversight that currently runs open space levies for example? In addition council has risk management policies, fraud policies, etc.etc. How have they managed for 40 years? Besides, maybe if council wasn’t so top heavy with ‘directors’ and the public relations staff, then more staff could be hired in those areas that residents consider vital?

Basically we’re told that council doesn’t have this and doesn’t have that. Plus extraordinary claims are made for existing ‘specialist’ private providers such as: Many areas of research in palliative care including conducting translational research projects to embed evidence into practice, including the development of sophisticated pain guidelines, anxiety and depression pathways and advanced care planning. Of course not one such provider is mentioned and neither is the fact that dementia care research is, to the best of our knowledge, not the current or primary function of our three facilities.

Nor do the financial stats provided tell even half the story. It is significant that this section of the report is a bare 2 sentences and the figure of a $1.88 million loss in 2017/18 is only the tip of the iceberg, since this figure EXCLUDES on costs such as corporate overheads. Nor does it tally with the Annual Report where a loss of $3.1 million was cited. Our belief remains that the sell off is nothing more than a cash grab.

If as certain councillors have argued, no decision has as yet been made, then why have legal and commercial firms already been appointed?

Finally, the listed criteria is a hodge podge of jargon and generalities. Residents still do not have a clue as to what these conditions will be, nor in fact, the real reasons behind the decision to sell.

In the end we still have no answers to the following:

What guarantee can council give that all staff who want to remain will be able to do so?
What guarantee can council give that in 5 or 10 years time these properties will not be turned into apartments?
Will the criteria and the tender offers be made public?
How much of the sale monies will go into general revenue and how much will actually be spent on the ‘disadvantaged’ in our society?
And the most crucial question: Why can’t the community decide whether or not it wants to subsidise aged care? When other councils now include resident juries in determining budget priorities, Glen Eira remains determined to exclude and ignore the community as much as possible.

We urge everyone to read this document since it encapsulates everything that is awry in Glen Eira.

March 25, 2019

Question(s), But No ‘Answers’!

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

This isn’t the first time that the issue of overshadowing of residential properties, especially during the winter months, has come up. Council’s Planning Scheme Review of 2016 acknowledged that this was a major concern for residents and is only exacerbated with council’s decision to seek approval for 12 storey apartment blocks in both Carnegie and Elsternwick.

One public question from last week’s council meeting, returned to this question of what council intends to do to ensure that adequate controls are implemented. Below is the query and the response.

In the above council claims to have “proposed winter shadow controls” for public open spaces. Not a word about residential sites! One must also wonder exactly how the following may be interpreted as ‘controls’.The only mention of overshadowing in the Design & Development Overlays that relate specifically to the 3 activity centres are:

Buildings should minimise overshadowing impacts on existing and future open spaces, commercial footpath-trading areas and existing residential sites.

AND in the decision guidelines we get this ‘criterion’.

The impact of overshadowing to the public realm.

None of the above are ‘controls’ in any shape or form. Nor do they even mention the winter solstice. The emphases remains firmly on public open space.

Even in the adopted structure plans there are not ‘controls’ mere motherhood statements such as:

Ensure overshadowing from new buildings and works does not result in significant loss of sunlight to future and existing public open spaces.

Ensuring adequate sunlight provision and minimising overshadowing of future plaza space.

Consideration of Council’s Open Space Strategy in the design and function of the new park, including minimising any overshadowing.

The Elsternwick Structure Plan sets out clear key design principles, including:

Σ minimise overshadowing to existing residential sites

ensure no overshadowing of residential areas between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox,

Minimise overshadowing to existing residential sites

The form and scale of new development must be guided by minimising overshadowing impacts on existing residential sites. Development must satisfy the overshadowing objectives and standards of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and may need to step down in scale towards residential sites in order to minimise overshadowing impacts

Principles have also been included in the new Carnegie Structure Plan that address concerns such as overlooking, overshadowing and traffic impacts on existing residential areas.

Protect the future open space at Egan and Woorayl Streets, in accordance with Council’s Open Space Strategy, with no overshadowing for a minimum of 5 hours at the September Equinox (9am to 2pm achieved) and 3 hours at Winter Solstice (11am to 2pm achieved).

Ensure no overshadowing of residential areas between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox.

As can be seen from the above quotes, the only time that the winter solstice is specifically mentioned relates to Egan & Woorayl Streets in Carnegie, and even this does nothing to extend the hours. Further, given that this section of Carnegie is now geared towards highrise, then why oh why wasn’t the same consideration given to Elsternwick?

Telling residents to go off and advocate to the State Government does not abrogate these councillors’ responsibility to do everything they can to implement adequate controls. Given the history of this issue, council has not even been able to come up with official support for Melbourne City Council’s proposed amendment that would extend the winter solstice hours for planning applications. Overshadowing of public open space is important. But equally as important is to ensure that council is doing everything it possibly can to halt the plunging into darkness of those residents who find themselves within the shadow range of 12 storey apartment blocks. This, council has steadfastly refused to do and the reason is obvious. If planning applications have to adhere to winter solstice controls then that means that permits for 12 storeys would be jeopardised and would undermine council’s prodevelopment agenda. Worthy of note is that even the commisioned Peer Review of the Urban Design Guidelines had this to say:

Mid-winter overshadowing controls limit development envelopes to the north of spaces severely with the need for setbacks that are equal to approximately 2.5 times the overall height of the building.
As an example this would require a 12 storey built form to be setback over 90 metres from the northern edge of a public open space.

Overshadowing impacts to Woorayl Street Park would likely to substantially decrease the
overall height and development yield of sites between Woorayl Street and Arawatta Street
(to 5-6 storeys) if June 22 shadows are adopted in Guidelines, while September 22
shadows are more easily reconciled with the maximum height (with community benefits) as
shown in Figure 20. This model has assumed an adoption of September 22 shadow.

March 19, 2019

What A Circus!

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

Tonight’s council meeting resembled a three ring circus and revealed once again to what extent decisions are made behind closed doors in Glen Eira. The ‘circus’ involved Item 9.1, on the 14 storey application for Horne Street, Elsternwick..

There was a significant pause before Delahunty put up her hand to move a motion for refusal of the application. This was seconded by Magee. What became obvious was:

The motion was entirely unexpected by all. Hence no grounds for refusal (as required) were as yet drafted.
Countless apologies to officers for this ‘surprise’ and not a word of criticism for their recommendation that went beyond the current Design & Development Overlay. Instead, we got comments as to how well they are interpreting the planning scheme.
Silver admitted his opposition to the application
Same old arguments from Hyams and Sztrajt such as ‘we could get worse outcome at VCAT’.
A 5 minute break in proceedings so councilors can again ‘decide’ what to do behind closed doors.
Magee’s ‘liking’ for 12 storeys, but only if it’s in the ‘right place’. That is along Nepean Highway.

On return, Delahunty’s motion was voted out. Only Delahunty and Magee voted in favour of refusal. All the rest voted against. Please note that Athanasopoulos and Esakoff were absent.

Davey had foreshadowed a new motion for a permit of 8 storeys. It was then decided that the issue would come back for decision once Torres had been given some time to draft the relevant motion and its conditions.

Silver moved motion for 8 storeys. Sztrajt seconded. Voted in 5 votes to 2. Interestingly, Davey who foreshadowed the 8 storey motion, voted against! Magee also voted against. Cade was silent throughout this item.

Please listen to what was said (below) and consider the following:

Baseless claims by Magee and others that the structure plans were in line with community sentiment. All community feedback was strongly against the 8 to 12 storey heights.
No justification has ever been provided for such heights
Traffic and overshadowing documents that were to be done over a year ago are still to make it into the public domain. Has council actually done this work?
Why does this council continually blame the State Government and yet not one single formal public statement has been made that challenges anything. When other councils such as Boroondara, Mornington Peninsula, Stonnington can voice their disapproval of government decisions, why is our council silent and compliant? This is not advocacy. It is complicity!

Please listen carefully to the incredible waffle that epitomises these councillors decision making!

Finally, we also point out that in response to the 4 or 5 public questions council did not provide a single answer.

PS: FROM HANSARD 19/3

SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr HAYES(Southern Metropolitan) (18:01):My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning. I refer the minister to the case of my constituent Graham Huntly, who is helping the government meet its renewable energy target by putting solar panels on his home at Ross Street, Elsternwick. If Woolworths succeeds in building 10 and 14-storey towers in Elsternwick, Mr Huntly’s sunlight will be blocked and his solar panel investment—to say nothing of his quality of life—will be devalued.

What rules does the government have in place to stop developments overshadowing solar panels, and will the minister support Glen Eira council’s eight-storey height controls—and make them mandatory—and reject 10 and 14-storey towers in Elsternwick?

March 15, 2019

Agenda: Horne Street Application

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

Council continues on its merry way of destroying Elsternwick by recommending a 12 storey permit for Horne Street (Daily Planet site). We remind readers that this area sits alongside single and double storey dwellings, even though the latter (Ross Street) is zoned RGZ (four storeys). Council therefore sees no problems with a 12 storey building backing onto dwellings of this size.

The application was for 14 storeys and true to form we get a recommendation to lop off a couple of storeys. There is much in this officer’s report that is highly questionable if not straight out farcical.

In this post we will simply concentrate on the draft permit and what the recommendations allow. We quote from the report.

The building height to be reduced to not more than 46.30m above natural ground level comprising not more than 12 storeys, with no architectural features,services, stairs, lift overruns or masts higher than 50.30m above natural ground level.

COMMENT: Amendment C157 has as the ‘maximum building height’ 43.0 metres (discretionary). Thus, even though council might be reducing the number of storeys, the overall height of the building itself will be even greater than the structure plan suggests. Plus with masts up to 50.30 metres the building will definitely reach for the skies. The adopted C157 Amendment only allows a 4 metre extra height for masts, telecommunications, lift overruns, etc. So now we have the absolutely ludicrous situation where council first wanted 8 storeys and with ‘community benefit’ maybe 12. Now they are okaying extra height for both building and its masts, both in opposition to its own planning scheme!

The owner will maintain the shared space side laneway for not less than 5 years after the date of its completion to the satisfaction of Glen Eira City Council.

COMMENT: This is the only time that the phrase ‘not less than 5 years’ is included in the officer’s report. It is only to be found in the pages upon pages of the ‘conditions’ and not in the body of the report itself. Instead we find this contradictory statement in the rest of the report

A Section 173 Agreement should be entered into for the permit holder to provide and maintain the shared space side laneway for the life of the building and to secure the office floor space for the life of the building.

Which is it? Or is the above comment intended to camouflage what the Section 173 agreement will state? Surely the ‘life of the building’ is more than the 5 years stipulated in the conditions for the permit? Secondly, why only 5 years? Does this mean that in the 6^th year the costs of maintenance will now fall upon council and hence ratepayers?

The front (north-eastern) setback of the tower element (third floor and above) to Horne Street increased to a minimum of 4.0m.

COMMENT: We have to ask, what’s the point of having a structure plan if it ends up being ignored. The recommended setbacks are the perfect example of this. Amendment C157 included a requirement (preferred) of a 5 metre setback. The original urban designs for our activity centres had featured a 6 metre setback but council changed this to 5 without any real explanation. Even so, how on earth is it now considered appropriate that this be even further reduced? Why bother with structure plans at all when council itself decides it can ignore what it so loudly championed?

As to what constitutes ‘community benefit’ we get the rubbish of widening a laneway by a few metres as proof of this, plus the creation of ‘passing areas’ because otherwise cars won’t get through.Creation of offices is nothing more than pie in the sky at this stage as well.

We have also had a good laugh at this sentence Over time, the character of Elsternwick will change as buildings, consistent with the planning controls are constructed. One must question how many of these past high rises and now this one can be seen to be ‘consistent with the planning controls’?

We can only speculate as to why council would recommend a permit of this height? Our suspicion is that it is merely another nail in the coffin for low rise along Nepean Highway. Council is determined that Elsternwick becomes the high rise capitol of Glen Eira. Granting a permit for one more eyesore makes it a lot easier to have 12 storeys along all of Nepean Highway, regardless of whether this is needed or not!

Well done council. At least you are consistent in your appalling planning decisions!

March 14, 2019

Thank You Council!

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

Council’s brilliant planning has provided another developer with a major bonus. This concerns 285 Neerim Road, Carnegie. A permit was granted by VCAT in 2015 for a 4 storey and 41 apartment block.

Residents will remember that in 2017 council produced its first version of its structure plan which was gazetted as an interim height amendment (C148) in 2017. The site was then designated as having a four storey mandatory height. With the latest version as of August 2018, the site suddenly became suitable for a 5 storey mandatory height limit. No explanation of course as to why within the space of a year council (and the minister) saw fit to increase the height in this area.

Now we have what has happened so often in our neighbourhood centres as this section of the application makes clear

The developer has decided that instead of 4 storeys, he wants 5 and instead of 41 units he is aiming for 46. Visitor car parking will go completely and there is even a further reduction in the requisite parking for retail/shops from 20 to 16. And of the 46 proposed apartments, 33 are two bedroom, 9 are one bedroom and the magnificent total of 4 as three bedroom. That makes it a total of over 91% as one and two bedroom dwellings. So much for ‘diversity’ as required in the planning scheme!

What irks us about this application is not the right of the developer to ask for more. He is perfectly entitled to. The concern resides with council’s failure to offer any justification for its decisions, much less listen and act upon resident feedback. How any reasonable person can accept that in April 2017 council proposed and the Minister agreed that 7 storeys was needed to protect again ‘inappropriate development’ and then in just over a year to suddenly use the same argument and claim that 12 storeys is required to avert ‘inappropriate development’ is simply mind boggling. And yet our illustrious councilors did not bat an eye but voted this in! Thank you indeed councilors for your ineptitude and disregard for the community!

March 12, 2019

Aged Care Submissions

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

Residents addressed council tonight on the proposed sell off of our aged care facilities. All speakers performed wonderfully well = articulate, informed, concerned, and passionate about preserving this service for the long term.

Some of the themes that were prominent included:

the lack of genuine consultation and council’s secrecy over this issue
the lack of justification
the permanent loss of a service and its impact on individuals

We present below one resident’s submission. Please listen to this carefully since it summarises beautifully how council has failed its community and the lack of transparency. We also note Hyams’ fumbling and disingenuous response to the issue of the lack of community consultation. When council makes this audio available it is worth listening to simply because of his pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.

March 7, 2019

Agenda & Aged Care!

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

The agenda for next Tuesday night’s Special Council Meeting has been published. This focus of the upcoming meeting is to hear submissions on the sale of the three council owned and run aged care facilities. We remind readers that council has already made the decision to sell behind closed doors and without any warning to residents, employees, or the general community.

The accompanying officer’s report is nothing more than a regurgitation of ‘legalities’ – ie. which part of current legislation has been adhered to; where public notice was published etc. It contains not a single word of justification, or explanation, as to why the decision to sell was made. All that residents have to go on is the Q and A ‘work in progress’ on council’s website. This has been added to over the past few weeks in response, we believe, to public outcry. Yet the crucial questions remain unanswered.

Submissions are an opportunity for residents to express their views, dissect the arguments and to assess whether or not they are valid. With nothing to go on in terms of real ‘facts’, what we will hear on Tuesday night is likely to be highly emotional/personal and with references to ‘social responsibility’. Nothing wrong with this. However, in order to dissuade council from progressing the sale, residents need far more than mere assertions such as:

Private companies are better suited to deliver complex aged care
Monies from the sale will be redirected to the most ‘vulnerable’ in our community

How about some real facts and figures, such as:

How much has council been subsidizing aged care over the past 5 years? What role has this played in the decision to sell?
How many staff are affected? If only 40% of current staff are offered ongoing employment is council prepared to accept this?
What evidence can council provide that private companies are more suited to carry out the demands of aged care in the current climate, and especially with a Royal Commission to go through?
What percentage of the monies garnered from the sale will be redirected to the ‘vulnerable’ in our society and how much will go into general ‘revenue’?
Will council be seeking a guarantee that after the current residents’ term of tenure has expired, that the purchaser will not sell the land or seek to develop a residential estate?
Has council already sought a valuation of the land and will this be made public?
Does council intend to also outsource its home help? If so why?

We wish all submitters the best of luck next Tuesday night and reiterate that submissions can only be as good as the information that is provided. Once again, this council has shown itself to be far more comfortable working in secret and keeping its populace ignorant!

February 26, 2019

Betrayed Again!

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

It is almost impossible to get a straight answer from Glen Eira City Council. Tonight’s council meeting illustrates this fully. One answer was provided to a resident in the public participation section of the meeting. Another version of council’s plans came via an Esakoff statement. The third version came with a response to a public question. Having said all this, there was at least an inkling of council’s plans. And it’s pathetic news for the majority of Glen Eira residents in that those living in neighbourhood centres should expect that council will not be doing anything for at least 2 years to halt development after development in its commercial (and mixed use)areas where the proposed heights outstrip the mandatory height limits in its major activity centres – particularly Bentleigh which has a 5 storey height limit.

The first version of council’s plans emerged as a response to a question from a resident in the ‘public participation’ section of tonight’s council meeting. What we now know as ‘confirmed’ is that

Neighbourhood centres will NOT HAVE STRUCTURE PLANS
Neighbourhood centres will have to be satisfied with mere Quality Design Guidelines. We remind readers that such ‘controls’ are often nothing more than ‘reference’ documents in a planning scheme and that they are NOT mandatory.
The larger neighbourhood centres will get the nod first – ie South Caulfield and Bentleigh East.
According to version one and version 3 residents will have to hang on and wait until 2021 for this marvelous silver bullet to even commence. Esakoff’s version was in 3 to 4 months!
We also learnt that the Caulfield Station planning will probably now also include Glen Huntly!

Here is the question and the response to Version 1:

Here is the Esakoff version of ‘reality’ –

And here is the response to the public question on the same issue:

What a joke! Don’t we already have ‘guidelines’ that were promulgated as the universal panacea for ALL OF GLEN EIRA? Will work on these new ‘guidelines’ start in 2021 or in 2019?

These councilors should hang their heads in shame when they are literally abandoning the vast majority of the municipality. By the time anything is done our neighbourhood centres will become high rise centres far outstripping our major activity centres. Finally, perhaps crying lack of resources could easily be remedied if instead of investing millions in redeveloping parks that the majority don’t want ‘redeveloped’ (ie Harleston, Aileen Avenue), or spending hundreds of thousands on ‘consultants’ who produce documents lacking detail and substantiation, more money could be available to do what should be done –some decent and honest strategic planning!!!!!

February 22, 2019

Agenda & Neighbourhood Centres

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

Another mammoth agenda of 731 pages. Lowlights are:

All planning applications result in a recommendation for permit
Nothing to be done in relation to extending existing Neighbourhood Character Overlays

Here’s a quick summary:

APPLICATIONS

47 ALMOND ST CAULFIELD SOUTH – 3 storey, 6 dwellings
20 BENT STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 7 dwellings
37 EUMERALLA ROAD CAULFIELD SOUTH – 2 double storeys
653-655 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD CAULFIELD – 5 storey, 15 dwellings
79-87 HAWTHORN ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH – 7 storey, 33 dwellings
33-35 NICHOLSON STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 22 dwellings

Grand total? = 85 dwellings

The Glen Huntly Road and the Hawthorn Road applications are in our Neighbourhood Centres (Activity Centres) with no controls whatsoever. Thus these so called ‘lower order’ activity centres are now reaching heights in excess of our Major Activity Centre of Bentleigh!

The 7 storey application in Hawthorn Road is the most contentious. As council notes, it will sit immediately alongside another 7 storey development approved by VCAT. Council had originally refused this neighbouring development and its stated reasons were:

The proposal is inconsistent with the intent and objectives of clause 22.07 (Housing Diversity policy) as:the density, mass and scale of the development is not appropriate to the scale, character and physical size of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre

Less than 2 years later, with no change to the planning controls, council now states (in several places) that this latest proposal is –

suitable for an intensive form of development that would complement the well-established mixed-use role of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre

The 7 storey building height is considered to be compatible with the neighbourhood where there is an emerging change in character that includes 5, 6 and 7 storey mixed-use buildings fronting Hawthorn Road

There is no height limit in the Commercial 1 Zone that forms the core of the Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre. However, the 5-7 storey heights of the recently-approved buildings are considered to be appropriate given the built form and planning policy contexts of the area.

When the VCAT member handed down his decision on the neighbouring 7 storey application, he stated:

We are not persuaded that the building would be unduly tall in this centre because: There is no specific guidance in the scheme in a schedule to the zone, a DDO or a policy regarding the preferred height.

At 144 Hawthorn Road there is a 6 storey development that council had suggested should only be 4 storeys. The VCAT member merely reiterated what has become the constant refrain –

There is nothing in the Planning Scheme to indicate that a uniform height is sought for buildings within this centre. Indeed, as noted during the course of the hearing, the land within the activity centre is not affected by any overlays that regulate built form outcomes, such as a Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay

This above decision was handed down in 2015!!!! Thus for over 4 years this council has done absolutely nothing to ensure that our neighbourhood centres are adequately protected. And residents are still waiting for some guidance on what is to be done with the remaining neighbourhood centres and when!!!!!

The most laughable comment in the current officer’s report reads –

There are currently no maximum mandatory or discretionary height limits for this area. It is acknowledged that strategic planning work will be done by Council for this activity centre in the future and it is considered that the 7 storey height of the proposal will not prejudice the orderly planning of the area.

There are countless other issues as well – for example:

A 3 metre rear laneway that will be the entrance and exits for both 7 storey building car parks. The ‘solution’ is to use some of the ‘rear setbacks’ of the buildingS as a passing lane. Planning at its absolute best!

Council’s Transport Planning Department has advised that the proposal would significantly increase the volume of traffic using the laneway. An estimated additional 35 peak hour vehicle trips will need to be accommodated in the laneway. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the additional peak hour vehicle trips generated by the 3 developments at 67, 79 and 97 Hawthorn Road will be 4 times current volumes (i.e. 65 vehicles/hour with >50% attributable to the proposal).

Given that the laneway currently carries an average of approximately 15 vehicles in each of the morning and afternoon peak hours, it is anticipated that the total future traffic volume would be in the order of 80 vehicle movements/hour which is relatively high but will be manageable provided that suitable passing areas are provided along the laneway.

It is noted that there will be additional opportunities for additional passing areas for future developments at the southern end of the laneway.

We can only assume that residents will now have to back up a considerable distance into these ‘passing areas’ so that 2 cars can get by.

The message is clear. Council has no intention of doing anything about its lower order activity centres until it is well and truly too late. As we’ve previously stated, we already have:

10 storeys in Ormond

6 storeys in McKinnon & East Bentleigh

a potential 9 storeys in Caulfield South

6 storeys in Murrumbeena, etc. etc.

When for years VCAT has been handing down decisions in these areas that state again and again that no planning controls exist, council has done nothing except sit back and gloat or blame VCAT.

Our summary of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay will feature in a coming post.

February 9, 2019

Aged Care: Some Are Not Happy!

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

The minutes from last Tuesday night’s council meeting on the sale of the aged care facilities make for very interesting reading. Please note the following:

The emphases throughout is on the ‘commercial’ aspect. Not a word ensures that the sale will be allowed only to another aged care provider.
Council is giving itself plenty of leeway it seems with the repetition of ‘all or some’ of the designated land. Given that Weeroona is a massive site of approximately 1.6 hectares, developers would perhaps be eyeing off such a sized property – and not necessarily for aged care but for residential development. How many apartments could be fitted onto 1.6 hectares we wonder?
Finally please note the outcome of this vote. Clearly, not every councillor was ‘happy’ with the motion. Whether this ‘unhappiness’ related to the publishing of the resolution, or against the proposed sale itself is anyone’s guess.
How many councilors voted ‘nay’ so that the motion was only ‘carried’ and not endorsed unanimously. On such an important decision surely one councillor at least had the guts to call for a division so that residents would know which councilors favoured sale and those opposed! No such luck in this happy group of campers.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates