GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 14, 2018

Look What’s Coming!

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

Listed below is a sample of applications that have recently come into council. All are still awaiting decision. We have not included applications which are seeking amended permits for higher or more apartments, or any where decisions have already been made. Nor have we included the multitude of applications for two double storeys.

These few examples total well over 300 potential new apartments. Given council’s record at VCAT, and its pro-development agenda, we assume that the vast majority will be granted permits.

What these numbers call into question is the validity of council’s proposed structure planning and its claims about projected housing requirements that are supposed to justify the expansion of our activity centres and the rezoning of countless sites. Housing id forecasts tell us that McKinnon for example, is supposed to ‘average’ only a handful of new dwellings (18-27) per year over the next 20 years. In just a few months, McKinnon according to these applications is already up to 60 multiple dwellings. If the stats are so wrong, then it follows, that the planning is also way out of touch with what is occurring. What makes the situation even worse is that our neighbourhood centres, such as McKinnon, are still years away from having any structure planning completed!

Here’s the list –

15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East (nrz) – 8 STOREY, 106 STUDENT DWELLINGS – AREA 474 SQUARE METRES

43-45 Kokaribb Road CARNEGIE – 3 storey, 15 dwellings

32 Kokaribb Road & 259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 45 dwellings

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 26 dwellings

82 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 6 dwellings

304-306 Koornang Road CARNEGIE – 6 dwellings

11 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE – 3 dwellings

7-11 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 4 storey, unknown no. of dwellings

4 Lake Street CARNEGIE – 3 storey, 8 units

38 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE – 4 x 3 storey

13-15 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 27 dwellings

17 Gilmour Road BENTLEIGH – 4 dwellings

1 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings

45-47 Kangaroo Road & 33 Howe Street MURRUMBEENA – 15 dwellings

81 Dalny Road MURRUMBEENA – 4 dwellings

18 Railway Parade MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 17 dwellings

11 Perth Street MURRUMBEENA – 5 dwellings

8 Elm Grove MCKINNON – 3 storey, 6 dwellings

23 – 27 Prince Edwards Avenue MCKINNON – 18 x three storeys

12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON – 3 x three storeys

16 Glen Orme Avenue – 3 dwellings

15-17 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 storey, 16 dwellings

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 4 x three storeys

40 Station Avenue MCKINNON – 3 dwellings

39 Lees Street MCKINNON – 4 dwellings

27 Draper Street MCKINNON – 3 dwellings

238 Booran Road ORMOND – 3 dwellings

3 Waratah Avenue GLEN HUNTLY – 8 dwellings

123 Kambrook Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 dwellings

204-206 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 5 storey meditation centre

1042 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH – 3 storey, 9 dwellings

56 Hartington Street ELSTERNWICK – 3 dwellings

1 Riddell Parade ELSTERNWICK – 3 dwellings

 

January 9, 2018

Glen Eira & Flooding

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

Why is it that Port Phillip, Bayside and Kingston councils can publish the progress on the Elster Creek Catchment flooding mitigation project and Glen Eira is silent – apart from seeking councillor endorsement for the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding in June 2017?

These other councils have had no qualms in letting their residents know that:

  • A community forum was held
  • An action plan has been devised
  • CEOs have met several times

In Glen Eira all of this remains secret. Since Glen Eira is the major ‘culprit’ as the Elster Creek Catchment covers huge areas of the municipality, one would have thought that Glen Eira residents should at the very least be kept up to date with what is happening. Yet, there was nothing up on council’s website regarding the recent community forum. There is nothing in the minutes regarding the proposed ‘action plan’. Why the silence and why when we have again had more recent flooding is there this reluctance to give this issue the attention it deserves?

Here is the link to the Port Phillip data – http://portphillip.vic.gov.au/E135525_17__Action_Plan_Elster_Creek_Catchment_-_FINAL_Oct_2017.pdf

And uploaded HERE is the report on the community forum.

 

December 27, 2017

The Year In Review!

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

2017 has been interesting to say the least. 5 new councillors elected in 2016 brought hope that much which was amiss in Glen Eira would finally be rectified. Alas, whilst there has been some ‘progress’, there is still a long, long way to go.

Our ‘summary’ –

The Positives

  • Telecasting of council meetings – finally
  • The promise of a tree register – finally (although this could go much further and be part of the planning scheme rather than the Local Law)
  • ‘Community participation’ sessions at council meetings
  • Ostensibly, increased ‘community consultation’
  • More concrete action on heritage – ie application for Dandenong Road property

The Negatives

  • The (deliberate) drip feeding of information on structure planning
  • Extension of one year on work completion resulting in more opportunity for inappropriate development
  • The refusal to listen to the majority of community views – ie Harleston Park basketball court; height limits for Carnegie, Elsternwick; Virginia Estate, etc
  • Inundating residents with masses of documents released simultaneously
  • Lack of detail and justification in these documents – ie no ‘discussion papers’ that objectively present the pros and cons of each issue
  • No explanation as to why the Local Law has to wait until 2019 for review & no mention of notice of motion
  • Support or silence on State Government’s so called ‘reforms’ on planning
  • ‘Consultations’ that fail to ask the ‘right’ questions
  • Repeated refusal to answer why, when Glen Eira is exceeding its housing ‘quota’ by miles, this council is determined to facilitate more and more development
  • Continued and significant decline in ‘community satisfaction’ surveys and yet no action on the perennial problems – ie parking, traffic management
  • Majority of open space levy goes to existing open space and NOT THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. Plus the recent change to reporting on open space expenditure where monies spent on ‘improvements’ no longer feature together with the levy income.

The ensuing months should reveal whether or not these councillors are prepared to listen and then act on what the community has so emphatically stated in regard to structure planning and what their priorities are.

We would also like to thank all our readers for their support and wish everyone a fabulous 2018!

 

December 21, 2017

A Further Year For Developers To Make Hay!

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

 

December 20, 2017

At Last!

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

Finally, after years and years of naysaying, council had the first live streaming of its meeting last night. It went well but does raise some questions in relation to its Local Law. For example:

  • Given that presumably more residents can now see who votes for what, couldn’t the minutes reflect this vote instead of simply having ‘carried’, ‘unanimous’ or ’lost’?
  • The ‘public participation’ segment is now also available. These ‘questions’ and ‘responses’ could therefore also be included in the minutes.
  • Since these recordings will be ‘archived’ and available for viewing at any time, surely it makes no sense to have the official paper record (ie the minutes) not in line with what can be watched over and over again?

As for the meeting itself and its contentious items, not much has changed. Early on it was the Esakoff and Hyams show on the Rigby and Newman Avenue multiple dwelling applications. The ‘solution’ as moved by Esakoff and seconded by Hyams was to grant a permit but instead of 4 out of the 5 dwellings being double storey, the permit now states that 3 out of the 5 be double storey. No other councillor spoke on either of these items. Hyams did refer to Wynne’s VC110 amendment but neglected to also say that according to the Planning Scheme large size lots in the NRZ have, since time immemorial and not just since 2013, had the potential for multiple dwellings! More dubious was Hyams’ subsequent  comment that because of the introduction of the zones in 2013  no such applications ‘would have been attempted’. He neglects to mention of course that council’s position to the department was that the ‘hurdle’ of 2 dwellings per lot could be overcome by subdividing first and then submitting an application!

We remind readers of several past VCAT decisions, where the member made it absolutely clear that large size lots can hold multiple dwellings because that is council’s ‘policy’ and is enshrined in both pre and post introduction of the zones. One such application was in St Aubins Court, Caulfield North. Even though the application came in prior to the introduction of the zones in 2013 and thus had the advantage of ‘transitional’ provisions, the outcome was still a 2 storey development of 22 units – based almost entirely on council’s ‘policy’. We quote:

However in this case there remains, even post the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, strong and clear local policy support for the development of large sites such as the review site with medium density development……. While this policy intent has always applied to the Minimal Change Areas, we note that this policy statement was amended as part of the application of the new residential zones into the  Glen Eira  Planning Scheme. That amendment provided for the potential to rezone large sites with the Minimal Change Areas, so that they could continue to provide opportunities for medium density housing, despite the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. We consider such an amendment to affirm for us the continued role expected in policy for large sites such as the review site, despite the applications of the new residential zones to the  Glen Eira  Planning Scheme. (http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/664.html)

Wynne’s introduction of VC110 has major ramifications for Glen Eira and other councils. The 2 applications decided last night might be an anomaly because of their size. Thus far we believe that 14 applications have come in for multiple dwellings. Not all are large sites. The latest application for 3 double storeys is a mere 585 square metres (see below). Worth remembering as well is that according to the Housing report they accord only 0.6 net new dwellings in the NRZ and this is for sites over 700 square metres! Such applications show how far out council’s maths on dwellings truly are.

Whether or not this application receives a permit, or ends up with a permit from VCAT will reveal much about council’s agenda in relation to the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. The ‘requirements’ for this zone has remained unchanged since 2004. The Schedule introduced in 2013 simply incorporated what was already there. No new work was done. Now work is desperately required. Other councils managed to have schedules that had greater permeability, less site coverage, and subdivision sizes included in their schedules. Council has the opportunity to amend the schedules. But will they do this or remain content with facilitating more and more development in the NRZ?

PS: FYI, council has granted a permit for 6 Hudson St., Caulfield North for one double storey apartment block with 8 dwellings. The land size is approximately 1300 square metres. Please note this was not decided at council level and it shows that there is nothing to stop apartment blocks from now being constructed in the NRZ as opposed to ‘townhouses’ etc. The flood gates are well and truly open across Glen Eira!

 

December 15, 2017

Agenda: How ‘Honest’ Is Council?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

PS: We’ve done some double checking. According to the Minister for Planning’s Amendment VC104 and dated 22/8/2013 the maximum height limit in the NRZ is 8 metres if there is no height limit in the associated schedule. On the very next day, council’s Amendment 110 was gazetted. There were mandatory height limits in the schedules for the General Residential Zone (10.5m) and for the Residential Growth Zone (13.5m). Council relied on VC104 for its continuous claims about ‘introducing mandatory heights for all residential land’. Strictly speaking this claim, made time and time again, was and is untrue. The Mixed Use Zoning (considered ‘residential’) did not have height limits imposed – and neither did the schedule to the NRZ. On 23rd March Wynne gazetted his VC110 which has the effect of over-riding VC104 and the height limit there is 9 metres. Thus Glen Eira is now stuck with a 9 metre height limit in its NRZ and even higher if the land slopes. Readers should also note that Wynne has carefully refused to consider ‘basements’ as part of the 2 storey limit and allows basements to protrude up to 1.5 metres above ground level. This has the potential to therefore yield a three storey dwelling in the NRZ!

 

Two incredible officer reports feature in the agenda for Tuesday night. Both are examples of what lies in store as a result of Wynne’s VC110 and the removal of a 2 dwelling maximum for the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. The applications are for 2 Newman Avenue and 3 Rigby Avenue, both in Carnegie and practically abutting each other. The officer recommendations are to grant permits for both with some minor tinkering on conditions.

The details of the applications are:

Rigby Avenue – 4 double storey, 1 single storey

Newman Avenue – 4 double storey, 1 single storey

What is literally astounding about these reports is the failure to even mention Wynne’s VC110 and its ‘requirement’ for the mandatory ‘garden area’. Instead, the reports focus exclusively on the existing planning scheme where large allotments MAY be considered for more than 2 dwellings per lot.

So, if council is determining applications based on its CURRENT PLANNING SCHEME, then the following is unlawful, devious, and inaccurate! BOTH applications exceed the current 8 metre mandatory height limit. VC110 specifically stated that if councils have different heights included in their schedules, then the schedules apply – at least for the next 3 years! Here is a screen dump of the legislation. Please note: ‘must’ and the fact that Glen Eira does have a schedule!

Instead of honouring its own planning scheme, these reports state –

Rigby Avenue – The maximum overall height (at 8.4m) is well within the 9m height limit of the zone.

Newman Avenue – The maximum overall height (at 8.8m) is within the 9m height limit of the zone. There appears to be a minor encroachment to the apex of the roof, which can be addressed by conditions.

Adding salt to the wounds for the Newman Avenue application is the recommendation to waive one car parking spot with this nonsense – The requirement for one visitor car space is proposed to be waived. This is considered reasonable given there will be one on-street car space maintained at the front of the site. 

There are plenty of other dispensations provided that reveal the inconsistency of this council’s application of its own planning scheme. More to the point, we find it reprehensible that a report can be written which deliberately includes false and misleading information!

 

December 12, 2017

Bentleigh/Moorabbin – Be Aware & Alarmed!

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

What is the future for ‘Moorabbin’ likely to be? We have used inverted commas, since council’s plans for ‘Moorabbin’ are really plans for Bentleigh! Moorabbin as such, is in Kingston and not Glen Eira! Admittedly Plan Melbourne has nominated ‘Moorabbin’ as a Major Activity Centre. The borders of this ‘activity centre’ are not identified in Plan Melbourne and everything has been left up to local councils.

The rail station is in Kingston. There is a structure plan already in existence by Kingston where their side of South Road and Nepean Highway is divided up into a number of precincts. The tallest buildings will be 7 storeys, mainly along Nepean Highway and one fronting South Road. All the rest according to the structure plan will be 3 and 4 storeys.

We can only speculate what Glen Eira has in mind, but it behoves residents to consider the following and its implications:

  • Moorabbin (aka Bentleigh) has been allocated the prize of a Major Activity Centre with ‘opportunities for urban renewal’
  • It is thus upgraded from a Neighbourhood Centre
  • It also includes ‘major focus for housing growth opportunities’

Given that ‘urban renewal’ means the potential for 12 storeys in Glen Eira terminology, is this the future set down for this area? And if not 12 storeys, then how high? – 7 storeys? 8 storeys?

Below is the current zoning for this proposed new Major Activity Centre. Please note that surrounding the commercial area, the zoning is mainly GRZ1 – ie 3 storeys.

We speculate that the following is likely to occur –

  • Three storeys up against 7 or 8 or 9 that will become the ‘urban renewal sites’ is not feasible. That would mean that many of the streets surrounding the commercial zones will also have to be ‘upgraded’ – ie to 4 storeys or even higher. You wouldn’t want 3 storeys sitting alongside even 6 storeys!
  • Since the borders are also likely to be expanded, it would not surprise if the GRZ zone was expanded into the current Neighbourhood Residential zones.

We admit this is all speculation. However, knowing how our council has operated throughout this entire process, nothing would come as a surprise. If we are wrong, then all council has to do is be upfront and deny categorically that this is what they are planning! Silence of course can only be interpreted as ‘consent’!!!!!

 

December 11, 2017

Mandatory Height Controls

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

The following example highlights what can be achieved when residents and council work in unison to deliver positive outcomes for the community. It features Banyule Council’s fight to ensure that the Ivanhoe Activity Centre Structure Plan contains MANDATORY, rather than ‘discretionary’ height limits.

Unlike Glen Eira City Council, Banyule was not prepared to sit back and argue that mostly ‘discretionary’ height limits was the way to go. They lobbied the Minister in conjunction with their residents and have recently achieved complete MANDATORY controls for the entire activity centre. Further Banyule council is also part of the ‘pilot program’ investigating mandatory heights for all activity centres. Moonee Valley is also part of this program. Why isn’t Glen Eira? Has our council even asked, much less uttered one single official word to put any pressure on government? The answer is NO!

We also present the Save Ivanhoe letter to Wynne asking for (and ultimately getting) mandatory heights.

The joint effort by both residents and council should be a salutary lesson for Glen Eira. And so should the processes undertaken by Banyule – ie open, transparent consultation and consensus!

 

Helen Carr and Luke McNamara
Co Convenors
Save Ivanhoe Residents Group
http://www.saveivanhoe.com/
info@saveivanhoe.com

Hon Richard Wynne
Minister for Planning
Victorian State Government
richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au

19 September 2017

Dear Minister

RE: Mandatory Controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre

We are following up progress on the implementation of Mandatory Controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre.  This proposed action comes out of the Banyule Council community meeting in May when you stated that you were happy to introduce such controls given the extraordinary level of planning by the community and Council in the delivery of the Ivanhoe Structure Plan.

The Ivanhoe Structure Plan was developed through an unprecedented intensive and extensive Council planning process over three years. The community engagement was extensive. There were dozens of community sessions and workshops held and attended by traders, residents, developers, Council staff, Councillors and state politicians. Banyule Council employed the services of MGS Architects to do a street by street analysis of the activity centre zone. Council created a Community Consultative Committee (CCC) who met regularly for two years to work through the details of the plan.

The Save Ivanhoe Residents Group was a key player throughout this time, informing and harnessing the participation of many hundreds of residents and making a significant contribution to the outcome. Our contribution included participation on the CCC, dissemination of information to residents, ongoing discussion with Council and key stakeholders, site inspections, community forums and the review of the conceptual plans and documentation.

Over 1200 individual submissions were made to Council.

The ultimate plan delivered for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre was one where developers, traders, residents and Council agreed, through discussion, analysis and compromise on how to deliver future growth and development of the Activity Centre, in accordance with State Planning Policy.

The Structure Plan was reviewed by State Planning Department to confirm it contributed significantly to future density growth and also reviewed by a State Government Planning Panel. The guidelines for heights, setbacks and specific provisions in seven different precincts in the Activity Centre were endorsed through this process.

Despite the community request, these guidelines were not prescribed. Consequently many developers have blatantly ignored these guidelines, as have some VCAT decisions. More recently developers have been spurred on by the State Government’s changes to allowable heights. This has undermined the hard work and everything that our community and Council agreed was appropriate and reasonable to ensure growth and development but to avert rampant overdevelopment, destruction of neighbourhood character and future liveability.

A current example of over development is the 10-storey development application for 40 Upper Heidelberg Rd. This was refused by Banyule Council and is currently before VCAT. [VCAT Order: P1645/2017]. This proposal exceeds the guidelines height by 60% and has none of the required setbacks or the landscaping required for the site. It is situated on the most prominent ridgeline in Ivanhoe and will have significant negative impact on local residents, neighbourhood character and general amenity. It will be visible throughout Ivanhoe and from East Ivanhoe, Alphington and Eaglemont. It is at complete odds with local planning policy and process and will create a precedent for the area. Furthermore VCAT rejected a very similar development in the early 2000s. This earlier and similar sized proposal, although half the height, was thrown out as inappropriate due to excessive bulk and adverse impact on amenity.

As a consequence of continual developer disregard for the Activity Centre guidelines, there is widespread anger in the community that the Plan has been so undermined, discounted and ignored.

Save Ivanhoe Residents Group believes it is essential to protect the integrity of the Structure Plan for the development of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre. Therefore we are asking that you urgently approve mandatory controls on height and setbacks throughout the Activity Centre in accordance with the Structure Plan.

Furthermore we ask that you do so, or publicly signal your intent to do so, prior to 9th October VCAT Compulsory Conference regarding 40 Upper Heidelberg Rd. To do this will signal to developers that local planning guidelines are to be respected.  It will signal to the community that your government is responsive to and respects local community and Council planning processes. This is particularly urgent to give guidance to VCAT regarding all current applications scheduled for review.

We welcome development and growth in Ivanhoe. However no developer has the right to ignore the requirements of the Structure Plan and in doing so lead to the needless destruction of liveability now and in the future.

Yours sincerely

Helen Carr & Luke McNamara

CC:
Anthony Carbines. Member for Ivanhoe. E. anthony.carbines@parliament.vic.gov.au
David Davis, Shadow Minister for Planning. E. david.davis@parliament.vic.gov.au
Samantha Dunn, Vic Greens Planning Spokesperson. E. samantha.dunn@parliament.vic.gov.au

Source: http://www.saveivanhoe.com/news/183-mandatory-heights-for-ivanhoe-letter-to-minister-for-planning

 

December 10, 2017

More Outrageous Stats!

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

Development in Glen Eira shows no signs of slowing down. Planning Permit Victoria provides a monthly listing of NET NEW DWELLINGS granted permits. We now have the data for the first four months of the current financial year – ie July through to the end of October, 2017. As with building permits, Glen Eira puts our ‘inner south ‘partners’ to shame – and please remember that the vast majority of these permits would not as yet have gained their building permits. They are simply the okay to proceed, not necessarily to build as yet.

We highlight Stonnington, Bayside, and Boroondara since Plan Melbourne ‘Refresh’ has lumped these municipalities together under the ‘inner south’ category. Plus Council makes much of Plan Melbourne’s ‘expectations’ for housing growth to 2051. It’s just a pity that Council refuses to present any argument that Glen Eira is well and truly meeting its targets and that some of these other councils are lagging far behind when size, commercial zoning, open space, etc is taken into account IN ADDITION to the actual dwelling numbers! This position of course does not meld well with a pro-development agenda!

Here are the net new dwelling permit numbers:

Even more disturbing is the data for subdivisions over the past financial year (ie 2016/17). What should be remembered is that some of these subdivisions also include subdivisions of land, not just for dwellings. For example: one lot of say 1000 square metres is subdivided into 2 lots of 500square metres each. The developer can then put in an application for multiple dwellings on each lot. Hence, the figures presented below are ‘conservative’ in that the final dwelling figure could be a lot higher.

Looking at all the figures such as building permits, planning permits, size, amount of open space, density, land zoning, etc, Glen Eira remains the most overdeveloped municipality in this group! Yet not a peep about any of this. No public statements such as emanated from Boroondara when Wynne introduced VC110, no real opposition to any of the suggestions in the government’s discussion paper on the Victorian Planning Provisions in contrast to countless other councils, and no insight whatsoever into how to conduct genuine and meaningful consultation. And to rub salt into the wounds, Council is gearing up for more and more development – though it is unlikely that council will ever admit this. If Calcutta isn’t completely here as yet, it is around the corner if council has its way!

 

December 8, 2017

Virginia Estate: Another ‘Fun’ Night!!!!!

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

We’ve received the following email from a participant at last night’s Virginia Estate forum. Several questions arise from this:

  • Given this will be the largest development in Glen Eira’s history, the turnout is disappointing. More disappointing is the failure of many councillors to show up!
  • The economic analysis is still to make an appearance on the VPA website and it is nearing mid December and consultation closes soon. How can residents provide meaningful comments when they have nothing to comment upon?
  • Since when does council have no control over building heights? Has council already caved into whatever the developers and state government want?
  • We’re supposed to have had a Community Reference Group, yet no names have been made public so how on earth can these people ‘represent’ their community when no resident knows officially whom to contact to provide ‘feedback’?!! Nor do we know how many times this committee has met. No minutes or reporting back to council has taken place. In fact, we believe that this committee was basically ‘sworn to secrecy’. Another example of sham ‘consultation’ -standing in sharp contrast to what happened with the Alphington Mill reference group where minutes and agendas were made public and everyone knew who was on the committee. Woeful and deliberate stuff Glen Eira Council!

Here’s the email:

There was a mix of about 38 people there, Hyams and Taylor attended as did Libs candidate for Bentleigh Asher Judah.

Glen Eira’s representation was minimal and in the background and consisted of a few young female officers handing out Glen Eira’s Draft Quality Design Guideline book in the hallway, with nothing about the proposed East Village Activity Centre on show.

The opening presentation/slide show from VPA’s Steve Dunn took too long, leaving not enough time for questions; and there was no systematic reporting back from each table.
There was little new information from VPA to move ahead with.

Yvonne from the Residents Consultation Group/Panel took the podium and gave the development the big tick, basically saying what is proposed is better than what is there now, with reservations on Councils ability to control the final outcomes on height limits and traffic.

Residents used question time to rehash their same concerns of traffic overflows into their streets. Traffic issues took the lion’s share of the question time.

At about 7:30 a panel of at least 8 people assembled to answer question only 3 were used the others said nothing, Ron Torres took a few questions on building heights with the development. The person from the Education Dept took a few questions on the proposed school, the main concerns here, were to do with having the drop off and pick-up areas within the Village and not on the boundary residential streets.  (traffic related again).

Other concerns were:-
/flooding on the site
/Council not being able to control the building heights as the development progress (Ron Torres took these concerns on,  and asked for submission to the activities centre consultation and mention mandatory height limits being protected under law and mostly VCAT proof.

/The soccer club from Marlborough Reserve wants another soccer field, and suggested that by moving the existing soccer field forward and using the proposed aligning open space in the Village, they could be another synthetic field in. The answer from Steve Dunn was basically this was a done deal, Ron Torres hedged on this done deal statement,  saying Marlborough reserve was council open space and nothing has been decided.

My feelings are the residents are going to get done to death here. Issues like quality of design, rooftop gardens, larger set backs on North and E/Boundary roads, sustainable design, impact on Centre Road shopping strip, lack of public transport,  and where all these thousands of hoped for workers are going to park hardly got a mention.

One suggestion was subterranean parking. If all the other buildings are going to have similar subterranean car parks, you can imagine the permeability levels of the whole site will be very low, not to mention the sense of building subterranean car parking areas in a SBO area. The VPA is very secretive on onsite car parking, digging out these car parks will remove most of the polluted soil from the site, although the disposal costs of this spoil will be huge. It will be interesting to see if and how they justify these subterranean car parking areas in an SBO area.

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »