GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 16, 2018

The Developer’s Best Friend – Council’s Planning Department!

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

To what extent is council’s planning department in cahoots with developers? A recent application renders this question very, very relevant. The application is for an 8 storey student accommodation building  in Dudley Street, Caulfield East. The proposal is to house 104 students, a shop at ground level and a car parking waiver of 31 spaces. The application is currently being advertised.

All well and good – perhaps. Except that:

  • The site is zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – ie a MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMIT OF 9 METRES OR 2 STOREYS
  • The site is NOT PART of the Phoenix precinct which is (partly) geared towards accommodating student housing.

Yet, this application is now being advertised. Why? Why hasn’t it been refused outright given the above? Secondly, why when the developer admits to ‘pre-application’ meetings with the planning department has council allowed this application to reach this stage of advertising instead of refusing it outright under delegation? Doesn’t the planning department know its own zoning or its own planning scheme?

Regardless of whether Dudley street should have been rezoned eons ago given that there is now 5 storey buildings in this street, the fact remains that it hasn’t been rezoned. So what conclusions can we draw from this? It is clear that council and the VPA intends to expand the Phoenix Precinct. That residents of the area can expect more and more high rise development. This however does not excuse the planning department’s failure to enforce the current planning scheme or to insist that the ‘errors’ contained in the application are removed. For instance: we are repeatedly told that the site is in ‘housing diversity’ area. It is NOT. We are also repeatedly told that the site is part of the Phoenix precinct. It is NOT. Time and again council’s officer reports tell us that it is the current planning scheme that matters and that council’s draft structure plans therefore play no part in the decision making since they are not approved parts of the planning scheme. Surely the same should apply to this application? The fact that it hasn’t, that the developer has been allowed to get away with blue murder, raises fundamental questions about governance, ‘favouritism’, the sheer competence of the planning department and of course, council’s hidden agendas!

We’ve uploaded the current zoning (below)  that clearly shows the NRZ status of the land –

It will be fascinating to see the officer’s report (if we get one) and the rationalising that will undoubtedly attempt to excuse the inexcusable. What is at stake here is the community’s faith in the integrity and objectivity of planning in Glen Eira.

 

May 15, 2018

Plenty Of Questions But No Answers!

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

The two tables presented below are from the latest ABS building approvals. (uploaded HERE) The first table features the total number of building permits granted per year for the past 6 years and 9 months – ie until March 2018. Glen Eira is still ahead of the pack in unit development, plus the fact that Stonnington is a special example – ie three times the commercial zoning that Glen Eira has, whilst Port Phillip is in a league of its own with over 15% of its land mass designated as ‘capital city zone’ plus its large quotient of commercial zoning plus tourism. Monash is double the size of Glen Eira and has double the number of houses built compared to Glen Eira. Boroondara is also well ahead of Glen Eira in the number of houses versus apartments erected in that municipality.

So, once you add in the following, then the ‘damage’ done to Glen Eira is evident:

  • Small size of municipality
  • Least amount of open space
  • High population density and increasing
  • Dwellings per hectare
  • Lack of any traffic plans
  • No developer contributions for drainage, community infrastructure, parking waivers
  • Small commercial zoning which means development is occurring in local streets (approx 3% compared to Stonnington’s 8%)
  • Money squandered on open space ‘improvements’ instead of the purchase of more and more open space
  • No local environmental or water policy in the planning scheme
  • No local policy regarding tree protection in the planning scheme – and a mooted ‘significant tree register’ which will probably total only about 150 trees. This won’t go far enough by a long shot to halt the rampant moonscaping that has been plaguing Glen Eira for decades.
  • Most importantly, these figures make a mockery of council’s prognostications. Our supposed 13000 net new dwellings by 2031 will be here within the next few years – especially with a mooted 4500 net new dwellings for East Village and precinct 3 for Caulfield Village. Thus, why are hundreds upon hundreds of properties being rezoned? Why are activity centres being doubled in size? And why oh why does council refuse to address and answer these fundamental questions?

 

May 11, 2018

From The Residents On Calvary ‘Experience’

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

We’ve received the following email from the BHCAGROUP and uploaded the VCAT decision HERE 

Hi All,

I am not usually in the habit of looking back, but as we have learned of VCAT’s decision, I remember that horrible sinking feeling that we all experienced when we learnt of Calvary’s proposed 19/20-storey tower.  While everyone recognised that the Bethlehem hospital site was ripe to be updated and improved, we all understood the deep impact that development on the scale proposed would have on the neighbourhood character and the direct effect on surrounding properties.

The community knew that this proposed development needed to be resisted.  It was with your support – moral, practical and financial, that we, as a community, forcefully expressed our objection in this administrative VCAT process against the high-powered team of barristers and experts engaged by Calvary.

The decision issued by VCAT has not stopped the redevelopment of the Bethlehem Hospital by Calvary.  It has, however, fundamentally reshaped it.

VCAT has directed the Glen Eira City Council to issue a permit for the redevelopment of Bethlehem Hospital that is now 10/11 storeys.  The appearance of the buildings is more articulated with a finer grain exterior.  The retirement village, aged care and ancillary uses are now more evenly spread over the site.  The 90 place childcare centre has been abandoned.  The inadequacy of the car parking arrangements were acknowledged and the at-grade car park on the corner of Saturn Street and Kooyong Road reserved, as a condition of the permit, as a permanent carpark, serving to somewhat alleviate the pressure on the surrounding streets.

I hate to think what might have been the outcome of the VCAT process without the local community’s engagement of strong legal representation and expert witnesses.  Attending each day of the hearing demonstrated to me that this was the right approach and that our well-argued objection contributed to a revised development that is substantially reduced in scale.  It also confirmed to me that had we relied solely on the promises of our elected councillors and allowed the Glen Eira City Council to prosecute our objections alone, it would have been a major folly. (our emphases)

Significantly, and notwithstanding our expertly constructed legal arguments about the application of height limits on retirement villages, VCAT determined that retirement villages are exempt from height limits, setting a new legal precedent that I am sure will be adopted by other developers throughout the suburbs of Melbourne.  (Incidentally, it appears that VCAT’s decision has introduced an even bigger loophole to the planning regulations for applications made prior to the current act – time will tell what impact this has).

For those that wish to read the VCAT decision, it is attached.

As the spokesperson for the BHCA Group and the local community, and in what will be the last communication to the group, I would like to thank everyone for the energy, financial contributions and support to defend the character of our local streets and the amenity of our own properties.  I am firmly of the view that without it, we could not have achieved any amendment to the original scheme.

Kind regards

Kelvin Cope

 

May 4, 2018

Carnegie: What Is The Real Agenda?

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

The following public question was asked at the last council meeting –

The Strategic Resource Plan indicates a planned allocation of $2.95m for Shepparson Avenue Market Development for design, concept plans and initial consultation and there is also planned budget allocations for the market/library area in the 2018-19 Draft Annual Budget. This there a budget and timing estimate for the actual market?

Council’s response was:

Council has prepared a Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) for the ten years 2018-19 to 2027-28 as part of its ongoing financial planning to assist in adopting a budget within a longer term strategic framework.

At this stage, funding for construction of the Market Development has been provisionally allocated from 2028-29 to 2030-31. This timing will be dependent on community feedback, funding models and Council priorities.

The SRP and capital works program is reviewed annually as part of the Council’s budget process and funding for capital works projects is reprioritised where required

It would appear that council is determined to proceed with spending $3 million on ‘design’ and ‘consultation’ – despite the fact that its commissioned Blair Warman Economics report (October 2017) had this to say about the Shepparson Market proposal –

Hardly a ringing endorsement for anything! If the only true option is a ‘speciality’ food market that relies on the more ‘high income households’ of Malvern, then god help us. The examples that this report provides include the Oasis Bakery in North Road and a site in Brisbane. Significantly, no mention is made of the Prahran market in the heart of Malvern where we would expect these ‘high income households’ to do their shopping! That leaves us to question the efficacy of both the report and to question why council is so determined to pursue this option worth $3m just for plans!

 

May 2, 2018

Shame Councillors, Shame!

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

Councillors have voted unanimously to abandon the Amendment seeking to achieve a social/affordable housing component  for the Caulfield Village development. What is staggering about the ‘debate’ is:

  • Every single councillor carefully avoided use of the word ‘abandon’
  • Residents would be hard pressed to decipher council’s position on the officer recommendations, especially when Delahunty made such repeated comments as ‘we will not give up’ plus labelling the MRC as ‘disgusting’.
  • Not one single councillor addressed the issues raised by the Planning Panel letter and why council is unable to respond to these legal issues. Was further legal advice even sought?
  • Not one single councillor even mentioned the issue of the MRC’s attempt to tinker with the boundaries to the Mixed Use precinct and how this was also an integral part of the proposed amendment. What happens now on this issue is anyone’s guess.
  • Instead we got heaps and heaps of chest thumping about how important social housing is and barely a word on the amendment itself and why it should be abandoned except for ‘we don’t have the controls’. This was never itemised, spelt out, or even discussed.
  • Significantly, Esakoff (one of the gang of 4 who accepted the Incorporated Plan) did not speak.

For those interested in listening to the discussion, we’ve uploaded it below.

 

May 1, 2018

Residents Speak Out!

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

PS: The latest figures for planning permits for the third quarter (January to March 2018) were released today. Glen Eira has granted permits for 1002 net new dwellings in the space of nine months. The figures for Bayside and Stonnington are not yet available. Still way ahead of council’s prognostications and hence continues to throw major doubt on council’s planning and the justifications provided.

The following interview took place on Triple R yesterday morning.

 

April 29, 2018

Money, Money, Money!

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
[9] Comments 

No one expects council to complete its proposed infrastructure works in the space of a year or two. That does not mean that essential projects be held off for nearly a decade whilst developers get the go ahead to literally reach for the skies.

Council’s draft Strategic Resource Plan/Budget has some startling figures. We quote directly from these documents and ask that residents carefully consider the consequences of what this means.

ELSTERNWICK

  • Elsternwick Community Hub & Park – $32.45m (majority of spend in 2024-25 -to 2026-27).
  • Stanley Street East Multi-deck Car Park – $18m (majority of spend in 2023-24 – to 2024-25).
  • Selwyn Street Cultural Precinct – $1.2m (to be completed in 2023-24).

BENTLEIGH

  • Eat Street (Rotunda) – $2.55m (to be completed in 2020-21).
  • Bentleigh Library Upgrade – $2.9m (to be completed in 2023-24).
  • Horsley Street Multi-deck Car Park – $14.05m (majority of spend in 2027-28).

CARNEGIE

  • Koornang Road Streetscape Upgrade & Pedestrianisation – $6.45m (majority of spend in 2023-24 to 2025-26).
  • Shepparson Avenue Market Development – $2.95m for design, concept plans and initial consultation.
  • Kokarib Road Park – $50k for design works.

What these figures reveal is that residents will have to wait at least 10 years for most of these things to be completed. Given council’s track record on time lines and budget blowouts we expect the time lag and cost to be even more than indicated here.

No information is provided on:

  • Business case(s)
  • How costings were derived
  • Reasons for delay(s)
  • Percentage of third party involvement and their ‘contribution’

Even more discouraging is the fact that no dates are provided anywhere in the SRP or the Community Plan for the completion and introduction of such vital amendments as:

  • Car parking overlays
  • Infrastructure levies on development
  • Increase of open space levies

Much of what is proposed has not been ‘endorsed’ by residents. Do residents really want to spend $14m for a high rise concrete car park in Bentleigh or $18m for one in Elsternwick? What ‘evidence ‘ is there that this will solve parking problems in these areas? Is this really ‘value for money’ or simply ‘value’ for developers when council land will be sold off? And do residents really want to be in hock again to the tune of an additional $30m  that council wants to borrow?

PS: As an example of what can be achieved right now (if there’s the will) the following Kingston amendment was gazetted a few days ago.

 

April 27, 2018

The 3C’s – Caulfield Village, Council & ‘Cowardice’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

How councillors vote on Item 9.5 next Tuesday night will reveal much about their courage, their integrity, and their overall commitment to social/affordable housing. It will reveal once and for all whether all the recent huffing and puffing about supporting the less advantaged in our society has been nothing more than hot air and political grandstanding.

Item 9.5 concerns the proposed amendment designed to ensure that the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) sticks to the terms of the Incorporated Plan and provides a modicum of social/affordable housing in its mammoth 2000 plus Caulfield village development. The officer’s recommendation is –

Having given consideration to the issues explored in this report, resolves to not proceed with Amendment C151 and support a position to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C151 that it intends to abandon the amendment. 

We remind readers of the following:

  • The appointment of the gang of 4 (Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams & Esakoff) instead of the entire councillor group to decide on the incorporated plan in 2011 which agreed to heights of at least 20 storeys.
  • Decision after decision that increased dwelling numbers from a stated 1100 to now over 2000 and by the conclusion will probably total closer to 3000 apartments – the vast majority being single bedroom dog boxes.
  • The continual cave in after cave in on each submitted development plan
  • The ridiculous acceptance of a paltry 4 and 5% open space levy
  • The failure to even have a social housing policy years after VCAT made note of this fact
  • Fences along Queen’s Road still standing though falling apart and
  • A ridiculous acceptance of a pathetic little ‘playground’ and barbecue area that is supposed to represent ‘open space’ for the community whilst the gates remain locked half the time.

Every single aspect of council’s dealings with the MRC has resulted in total disaster for the community. Now we have this latest outrage which will hand the developer millions more in profits no doubt. And one of the major ‘excuses’ for giving up and abandoning the amendment –

If the Amendment proceeds a considerable amount of funding and resources will be required in the preparation of a panel hearing. 

How this sentence can even be included is literally mind boggling – especially when the draft Strategic Resource Plan includes this gem of future expenditure – Shepparson Avenue Market Development – $2.95m for design, concept plans and initial consultation (page 6). If we are reading this correctly, council is prepared to spend just under $3 million before the first sod of earth is even turned, yet they baulk at the prospect of even $100,000 to ensure that the MRC holds up its end of what the Incorporated Plan and the C60 schedule states.

What irks us even more is that the entire focus of the officer’s report is on the social housing aspect. Yet the proposed amendment contained much more. It was intended to ensure that the MRC could not alter the boundaries of the 3 precincts which would have enabled them to expand some areas and hence cram in more dwellings. No argument is presented as to why this should not be pursued!

The other issue this item raises is the competence of council’s planning department once more. If there are ambiguities in the draft amendment and therefore open to legal challenge, then what does this say about the expertise of those who drafted the amendment in the first place?

Regardless of the legal wrangles, council now has the opportunity to carry through on all its stated commitments to social housing. It should not come as a surprise that the MRC is fighting every step of the way. But so should council if they have any integrity left! Hire some decent legal eagles, do the necessary homework, and ensure that the MRC does not once again walk all over the community and its representatives! The expenditure of $100,000 is surely a drop in the ocean compared to the vast waste that is endemic in Glen Eira!

 

April 14, 2018

Virginia Estate

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

Finally a positive move on Virginia Estate. Sad however that it had to come from our neighbouring councils and not from Glen Eira Council or the VPA itself!!!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

April 13, 2018

Parking!

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

At Tuesday night’s council meeting the two most contentious applications (Belsize Avenue & Hamilton Street) got their permits – both voted in unanimously. Hyams and Esakoff moved and seconded motions for increased setbacks and full visitor parking spots. The requirement for Construction Management Plans was also ‘tightened’ in the face of much community backlash recently. The thrust of councillor arguments was that applications should be ‘compliant’ with ResCode – especially visitor car parking.

Ostensibly these resolutions sound reasonable and justified. However, when we look at the bigger picture, we can only wonder what on earth is going on. All of council’s published documents on traffic and parking reveal that what is likely to happen is a REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS in our activity centres. We repeat the relevant page from the recently published Integrated Transport Strategy. Please note these ‘recommendations’:

  • explore a reduction in the statutory parking requirements for office use.
  • Where it is demonstrated a public parking availability is underutilised during the evenings, explore a reduction in the statutory parking requirements for these commercial uses.
  • allowing these commercial parking spaces to be shared by multiple users.

The writing’s on the wall! Council’s ‘parking’ strategy will include a REDUCTION in the current requirements. We will get parking overlays that will see waiver after waiver of both visitor and resident car parking or making the requirements for single, double, or triple bedroom places so minimal, that they amount to multiple waivers.

The relevance of councillors’ arguments on the Belsize Avenue and Hamilton Street applications become significant in the light of the above draft proposals. Both streets form part of the Carnegie and Bentleigh Activity Centre. Both are zoned Residential Growth Zone. Council’s consistent argument has been that shops can’t accommodate the necessary parking requirements, but neighbouring streets can. That means streets such as Hamilton and Belsize Avenue. So, if the eventual parking overlays adopt this approach and reduce the current regulations for offices, shops, and apartments, then these side streets will be chocka block full of parked cars.

Going a step further, we then have to ask, are the conditions placed on the Hamilton Street and Belsize Avenue permits nothing more than sheer hypocrisy and/or total ignorance by our councillors? For example, how can they in the same breath vote for a (draft) transport policy that REDUCES PARKING REQUIREMENTS, and also vote that applications in the activity centre ADHERE TO THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF PARKING ‘STANDARDS’? Was all the chest thumping on Tuesday night nothing more than grandstanding? Will our local streets now become parking lots?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »