GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2015

Residents: Once Bitten Twice Shy!

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

The front page of today’s Moorabbin Leader features claims by the Gillon Group on the proposed Virginia Park development. Residents have been down this track before with the Caulfield Village. When Amendment C60 was first proposed it was stated:

The development will include:

  • Retail premises consisting of a convenience-oriented neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by a supermarket with additional specialty shops and mini major stores as well as cafes, restaurants and a food court;
  • Commercial office space
  • Up to 1200 residential units
  • Short term accommodation up to 100 beds (Quest style) (minutes of April 28th, 2011)

Please note:

Caulfield Village is currently set to have 2063 dwellings. 40% are single bedroom units. Retail originally cited as 35,000 square metres – now reduced to 12,500 square metres. By the time development plans are submitted for the remaining precincts these figures are sure to be varied. We see no reason to think that Virginia Estate will be any different. The motive is profit and if profit is derived from residential development, then so be it!

calls

 

July 7, 2015

Screwed Again!

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

How many more times will this council permit the Melbourne Racing Club to get away with blue murder? How many more times will permits not be worth the paper they are written on? Or to be even more cynical, what kind of collusion is occurring between the MRC and council?

The latest outrage concerns the use of the four storey ‘big screen’ that council so kindly permitted to be placed on Crown Land. The officer’s report recommending approval of the permit stated –

The purpose of the proposed screen is to display race-day activities including live video feeds, race replays and sponsor information…..As such it is considered reasonable to have a screen as a component of the horse racing use. (minutes of May 20th 2014).

It now looks as if the definition of ‘race-day activities’ is about to expand and take in the Ashes Cricket and rugby too. More importantly, the MRC intends to have the screen going to 1am this coming Wednesday (ie tomorrow).

Once again we can only lament the arrogance and disregard for the local community by the MRC and we suspect, ably abetted by Council. Below is the advertisement for this event – with no indication of course as to whether this is part of the ‘major event days’ or whether any traffic management plan has been submitted to council and granted approval! 

Source:  http://mrc.racing.com/calendar/2015-07-08/super-sports-night

Game on at Caulfield! Trying to decide what to watch next week, either NRL SOO III or The Ashes? Problem solved, come and watch both at our place.

Come and join us for a Super Sports Night in the Medallion Bar at Caulfield Racecourse. 

As Australia starts their campaign to hold on to the Ashes against fierce rivals England in two weeks’ time, on the same night, Queensland and NSW will take to the field and battle out the State of Origin title. With the series now tied at 1-1, game III “the decider” is sure to be a thriller.

Caulfield’s new 38.4 metre wide Super Screen will provide dual coverage of both the Ashes and the State of Origin with 32 screens from start of play until 1:00am.

Gather your friends, family and colleagues and join us for a night of sporting action in Caulfield’s premium Medallion Bar to share in the excitement and passion as we cheer on our nation.

With free entry and prizes to be won, and great beer on tap, this is the perfect night to watch great sporting action with your mates.

Make sure you arrive by 6:30pm to be eligible for some great prizes.

Date: Wednesday 8th July 2015

Time: 6:00pm till 1:00am.
Patrons can then process to the Caulfield Glasshouse to watch the final innings of the Ashes or the Tour de France. The Caulfield Glasshouse closes at 4:00am.

Where: Medallion Bar, Caulfield Racecourse. Enter via Gate 23, Stations Street, Caulfield East. Limited parking provided Gate 2.

Happy Hour from 6 to 7pm – selected beverages $5.00 during this time. Hot items will be available for purchase from the standard Medallion Café menu, as well as specials for a more substantial meal.

For more info call 1300 GO RACE (46 7223) or Click here to view the menu (PDF)

PS: for all those who haven’t as yet had a read of the Australian Financial Review article on the Melbourne Racing Club, we reproduce it below

Nagging questions about Victorian racing icon 

by Duncan HughesIt’s a 54-hectare site in the prized inner-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The tenants are offering less than 30¢ a day in rent. And the ensuing dust-up is exposing deep rifts in the city’s tight-ruling elites.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve was originally intended for use as a racecourse, a park and public recreation area when it was created 155 years ago on the then-outskirts of booming Marvellous Melbourne.

It embraced the ideals of Empire and Britishness in a state named after the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria, and a capital named after one of her favourite prime ministers, Viscount Melbourne.

Today it might be less famous than Flemington Racecourse in the city’s inner west. But Caulfield is on the “right side” of town. It’s a dress circle race track amid dress circle properties. And the landlord thinks the rent is far too cheap.

The tenant is Melbourne Racing Club, an establishment powerhouse that packs as much political punch as the Australian Football League.

The landlord is Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, a governing body that includes a Federal Court judge and is chaired by Greg Sword, former ALP federal president and political powerbroker.

For more than 20 years  MRC has paid an annual rent of $95,000, which is adjusted for inflation.  Since 2012 it’s been squabbling with its landlord about its renewed offer of just $100 rent per annum. That amounts to just 30 cents a day.

MRC says that’s a fair sum, based on an independent valuation that takes into account millions it has spent on maintaining the racecourse plus hundreds of millions of economic activity generated by race meetings.

Local community leaders, whose constituents live in multimillion-dollar Victorian and Edwardian villas along whipper-snipped boulevards, claim they are being bullied.

One of them is Jim Magee, a former racecourse trustee and current mayor of Glen Eira, the local government for the area surrounding Caulfield Race Course.

He says the MRC’s offer is a “joke” and condemns how the MRC has used what is supposed to be public space.

Public campaigners claim race days and use of the track and its surrounds to train hundreds of horses have limited safe public access to a minimum.

Inadequate signage and entrances add to the difficulty of finding a way in.

“To get onto the reserve through the main entrance you have to navigate your way around 150 metres of horse poo and then an obstacle course of fences ostensibly intended to protect the public,” says Magee.

Hundreds of local schoolchildren are being forced to play for neighbouring community sports’ clubs because there are no local fields on which they can kick a ball, he says. The racecourse has monopolised a space equivalent to 15  Melbourne Cricket Ground playing fields.

His complaint is backed up by a report done last year by the Victorian auditor-general, John Doyle, who found that 11 hectares, 20 per cent of the land, is under lease to the MRC; another  37 hectares, 69 per cent, is used by the MRC without any clear legal entitlement or payment arrangement.

The remaining six hectares is open space for the community from 9.45 am to sunset except during 22 race meetings.

MRC vice-chairman Peter Le Grand is digging in for a fight. He says the annual offer of $100 in rent takes into account maintenance and security spending. The local council has failed to make any contribution to recent renovations and maintenance, he says.

But there’s even more mud being thrown around the turf. The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust has discreetly raised its nagging concerns about senior MRC officials’ financial interest in the racing stables on the course, according to leaked letters to the state minister in charge of the course obtained by AFR Weekend.

The letters raise concerns that  MRC chairman Mike Symons, who is also a trustee, has an ownership interest in Aquanita Racing, a company that leases stables from the MRC under sub-lease from the trustees.

The letter, signed by Greg Sword, chairman of the trust, discloses that annual lease payments for the stable are about $27,000. An independent valuation by Charter Keck Kramer said the rental could be $328,000.

“Any financial negotiations involving the company is done at arm’s length,” says Symons about payments.

MRC vice chairman Le Grand adds: “Mike, or any of the board members, would exclude themselves from any debate, or discussion, that might involve a conflict of interest.” He says that “nothing had come up” about Aquanita Racing at MRC meetings during the past 10 years.

Auditor-general Doyle recommends improved disclosure of the MRC’s benefits from the course, criticised the state government’s oversight, and recommended improved disclosure of finances, performance and management of “perceived conflicts of interest” in the course’s management.

There is now speculation that the trust will be replaced by a management board similar to the statutory bodies that run the  Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust or the Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust.

There is also talk about reviewing the way the land is managed.

“That’s news to me,” said mayor Magee. “It’s nice for the government  to tell someone what’s going on. You would have thought they would contact the local council about the most appropriate use for the land. But we have not heard a thing – its silence has been deafening. We only want to share the land.”

 

July 4, 2015

Save Glen Eira!

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

The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

  • The scale of development due to the zoning
  • The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
  • A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
  • East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
  • The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

 

July 3, 2015

Enough Is Enough!

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

Bentleigh East high rise development hangs on Glen Eira Council’s rezone vote

  • Troels Sommerville
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
  • July 03, 2015 12:00AM
Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will c

Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will cause traffic chaos around the neighbourhood. Picture: Valeriu Campan

HUNDREDS of objections to a rezoning proposal to allow for a high-rise, high density development have been filling Glen Eira Council’s mailboxes.

And Mayor, Cr Jim Magee said he expected “a gallery filled with protesters and placards” at the next council meeting.

The large development complex planned forBentleigh East’s Virginia Park, hangs on a crucial rezoning vote at the July 21 meeting.However, speaking on behalf of developer Gillon Group, one of the project’s development managers, Adam Brix from Brix Property Group, said there would be 1250 houses and not 4000 as objectors have been printing on distributed flyers.

Mr Brix said an engineers report, commissioned by the developer, worked on “an absolute maximum development scenario” when investigating services in the area.

That report, which is on exhibition as part of the rezoning process, assumed that the site would be developed for 12,000 square metres of retail floor space and 4,462 residential dwellings.

“The dwellings numbers referred to in the infrastructure report should not be construed as what is intended to be developed,” Mr Brix said.

But community members, who fear the developer would build as close to the maximum capacity as possible, have submitted more than 250 objections already and more were expected, Cr Magee said.

Councillors must make a decision on rezoning the estate from Commercial 1 and 2 to Commercial 1 which would allow for the residential and shopping centre development, by either recommending it to an independent panel or voting against a rezone.

It can’t simply urge the planning minister to approve because of the community objection.

Cr Magee said the said the community response had been “one of the most vocal” in his time on council.

“It’s very, very rare that we see a response like this and it just shows how protective the residents are of their suburb,” Cr Magee said.

“And I suspect come the meeting we will see the gallery filled with protesters and placards like they used to be.”

There is also a Facebook group opposed to the development.

PS: OFF TOPIC BUT OF INTEREST TO RESIDENTS. FROM YESTERDAY’S GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

Untitled

 

July 1, 2015

More On Virginia Estate

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

leader

 

June 30, 2015

Sound Familiar?

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

Melbourne City Council ‘slow’ and ‘bureaucratic’: internal review

Date: June 29, 2015 – 7:03PM

Aisha Dow

“Slow” and “bureaucratic” is how Melbourne City Council has been described in an unflattering internal review, which has criticised ageing senior leaders for not spending enough time looking at the big picture.

In a document that flags concerns Melbourne could lose its liveable-city status, it was found the municipality is at the “crossroads of either stagnating or embarking on next wave of change”.

The council’s five long-serving directors, who had been in the same job for between five to 19 years, were singled out for failing to work as a team in the report chaired by former Brisbane City Council chief executive Jude Munro.

“Directors are relatively senior in age, lengthy in tenure, male-dominated and lacking in ethnic diversity,” the review said. “They are seen to focus on operational issues to the marked detriment of leading strategic approaches.”

Questions were also raised about the efficiency of the council.

A number of external groups told the review that dealing with council was “bureaucratic” and “slow”, while finding the right person to deal with could be difficult.

Within the council, there were problems getting staff from different departments to work together. “For example, it can take up to six employees, two forms and two weeks to assign an employee to a project,” the review said.

And most staff were frustrated with the IT systems, which were described as “antiquated” and behind”. Many employees were working manually where it would be more efficient to work electronically or automatically.

However it was also noted the majority of employees had a strong passion for Melbourne and were willing to work long hours “for a city they love”.

The council’s new chief executive, Ben Rimmer, commissioned and published the review. He said most large government organisations would find that it “takes them too long to make decisions”, but the council was committed to improving this.

“We’ve had a good hard look at ourselves,” the said. “There are some areas that we want to review I am confident that we can review quite rapidly.”

A 32-page action plan has already been produced to address the problems raised.

It includes a pledge to update council’s 10-year community plan “Future Melbourne”, which is about seven years old, and to improve succession and retirement planning.

Four of Melbourne top directors have worked at the council for more than a decade. Renowned urban planner Rob Adams is the longest serving, having been at the municipality for almost 30 years.

Mr Rimmer said while it was good “as a general rule” to have some change in the management team for new perspectives and ideas, the wealth of experience and knowledge long-serving staff brought was also valued.

The review’s chair, Jude Munro, said there was always a risk that when people were in the same role for a long time they could “become used to working in a certain way”.

“Our report was talking about greater teamwork and collaboration and their role shifting to have better focus on planning for their organisation”.

Victoria’s capital is facing a period of rapid change, with the population of the inner-city set to almost double – from 122,000 people to 205,000 by 2031.

There will be increasing competition to win the Economist Intelligence Unit’s most-liveable city accolade and the review warned the loss of this crown would affect Melbourne’s ability to attract talent and investment.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-council-slow-and-bureaucratic-internal-review-20150629-gi0rh4.html

 

June 26, 2015

Virginia Estate: Gillonspeak.

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

Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.

ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.

In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200’. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.

On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).

Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.

On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.

Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.

On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.

They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.

Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.

Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.

 

June 23, 2015

The People Speak: Virginia Estate

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

PS: a new Facebook page has just started up opposing the Virginia Estate development. We have provided a link to this site via our Blogroll. The URL is – https://www.facebook.com/groups/453771051463638/ /

Last night’s planning conference for the Virginia Estate development was jam packed with outraged residents and traders. Pilling chaired the meeting. What came through loudly and clearly was:

  • Residents’ total dissatisfaction with council’s ‘communication’. Many stated that they did not receive notification, had no idea this was happening, and definitely had no idea that ‘permission’ had been granted for 10 storey developments in 2011.
  • Those who did receive formal letters also complained bitterly that the jargon was incomprehensible – ie one resident who had lived nearby for 30 plus years simply said – ‘oh well, it’s already commercial from the time of W.D & H.O Wills, so this is just more commercial.’ The idea of ‘residential’ did not enter his mind. Other residents were not so forgiving and labelled the notices as ‘misleading’ and ‘non-transparent’.
  • The developer’s retail impact statement was declared suspect by both the Carnegie Traders and the Bentleigh Traders Association.
  • Residents cited numerous objections – ie. Virginia Estate is ‘landlocked’ with no transport to speak of, alongside residential dwellings, with already choked major arterial roads. Other comments focused on what impact another 5000 residents would have on local schools that are already bursting at the seams. Infrastructure, open space and lack of sporting grounds were also noted.
  • Once again the chair (Pilling) resorted to the common Glen Eira tactic of trying to shut down one very informed speaker to the loud chorus from the audience of ‘let her speak’. It should also be noted that when the developer then rose and spoke there was no opportunity for residents to ask him questions since Pilling then closed the meeting!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Throughout the ‘introduction’ to the amendment by both Pilling and council planner (Rocky Camera) there was no mention of:

  • Removal of third party objection rights
  • The overall number of proposed dwellings – ie Camera insisted that the amendment covered only 1200 dwellings without revealing the significant fact that 1200 was only for PRECINCT 1. Precinct 2, 3 and 4 were still to come. This is deliberately misleading and devious.
  • Pilling stated that ‘no decision’ had as yet been made. No ‘formal’ decision may have as yet occurred , but the developer revealed that it was council which asked for the 20m link of open space and the 5.7% cash open space levy instead of a land contribution of any significance. Meetings between the developer and council had been ongoing for a long period of time as well.

Finally, we wish to inform residents of how this council operates. When it wants, it can initiate ‘extensive community consultation’ at ratepayers’ cost. The best example of this, is the travesty that occurred with the removal of the Caulfield Park conservatory. There were 2 public consultations. When council did not get the results it was seeking there was a last ditch effort that involved:

  • The printing of glossy brochures and a ‘survey’ which was distributed to 3,247 properties around Caulfield Park. (Minutes of 24th September 2013) at a cost of over $14,000 and consultant fees which would clearly make this amount much greater.

In contrast Amendment C75 which set up the platform for the current rezoning only had 500 properties notified. The current proposal has had 638 according to the figures cited last night. When there are literally thousands of thousands of homes impacted by this amendment, 638 notifications written in planning jargon, is a drop in the ocean. Residents should be querying not so much the strategies adopted by council, but asking what are the vested interests behind such a strategy. It is obvious that the intent was to keep residents as ignorant and as quiet as possible! This is ‘consultation’, Glen Eira style!

meeting

 

June 22, 2015

Virginia Estate History

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

As with the Caulfield Village, the history of Virginia Estate goes back many years. The processes involved are subtle, incremental, and ultimately identical – namely:

  • Rezoning to allow high density development
  • Removal of third party objection rights via Incorporated/Development Plans

The First Amendment

On the 4th November 2009, council first considered the question of rezoning Virginia Estate from Industrial to Business 2 and Business 3 – thus allowing for residential development to occur. The proposed amendment also introduced the euphemistically entitled ‘Development Plan Overlay’. This set the scene for 10 storey development in the centre of Virginia Estate.

As to the purpose of the amendment, the officer’s report stated:

The amendment seeks to facilitate a shift from traditional heavy industrial and warehouse uses, to technology based industries and office uses. It will also enable a limited amount of retail, directly related to the uses on the site, to meet the needs of tenants.

The word residential did not appear once in this report or the public notice. Conclusion? Devious, deceptive, and not stating up front in clear, precise language exactly what this amendment would mean.

The resolution read:

Crs Hyams/Magee

That this item be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 24 to allow Council to receive more detail.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest)

Meeting of 24th November 2009

No ‘more detail’ was provided in the officer’s report this time around and incredibly placed last (Item 8.17) in a long, long agenda list. Given that the resolution stated that it was ‘Council’ (with a Capital ‘C’) to receive this additional ‘detail’, then this additional ‘detail’ should have been included in the officer’s report. It wasn’t. Instead the November 24th version was identical, word for word, with the 4th November effort. Thus once again, decisions are made on the basis of information with-held from the public, and the public record and decided behind closed doors.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Council

  1. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C75.
  2. Exhibit the amendment no earlier than January 27 2010.

Meeting of 8th June 2010

The amendment (following advertising) was considered again. No submissions were published and officer comments were largely supportive of the amendment.

Euphemisms continued as per the following:

Proposal – Amendment C75 proposes to rezone the Virginia Park ‘industrial’ estate in East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East to a Business 2 and 3 Zone to facilitate commercial redevelopment.

14 submissions were submitted. No detail given as to how many opposed the amendment and how many supported the amendment. The resulting decision was to send off to a panel.

Meeting of 15th March 2011 & The Panel Report

The following paragraph from the Planning Panel report is significant in that it mirrors exactly what happened with the C60 version(s) of the Incorporated Plan – ie. residents were not privy to the ‘negotiations’ taking place between the developer and council and hence their objections were based on what had been advertised and NOT what was now before the panel. Further, since none of the submitters attended the panel hearing, presumably believing that their submissions addressed what was advertised, they were not provided with the time, or the opportunity, to challenge the changes. One must seriously question whether ‘natural justice’ had been afforded to objectors.

A schedule to the DPO was exhibited with the Amendment. Council submitted a revised schedule on 24 August 2010 and Mr Scally on behalf of the proponent tabled a tracked changes version of the schedule at the hearing. It is understood this version followed further discussion between Council and the proponent before the hearing. The blue text is the further changes proposed by Council and the red text is the further changes proposed by the proponent. It is proposed to use this version as the working document in this report

The council resolution stated:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

  1. Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

  1. Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

 CURRENTLY

As we’ve stated previously, resolutions mean nothing in Glen Eira. Here was a decision regarding setbacks and now the amendment wishes to reduce this setback. No Section 173 agreement has been made public.

CONCLUSION

Residents should ask themselves:

  • Why does this council continually agree to remove resident third party objection rights?
  • Why does this council continually cave-in and meet the vast majority of developer demands?
  • Why does this council continually fail to advertise and inform widely on such important issues?
  • Why should residents have any faith that the projected 4,600+ dwellings is the final figure, given the experience of C60?
 

June 18, 2015

Virginia Estate Planning Conference

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

VP flyer re 22nd June meeting-2Over the past 4 weeks we have received numerous emails from residents complaining that they know nothing about the proposed rezoning of Virginia Estate and where they can find information. This is a damning indictment of council’s failure to not only live up to its charter and Community Plan in ‘ensuring’ community input into development, but we would go further and allege that this is all part of the culture of this council – ie the less people know what is going on, then the better from the point of view of ramming things through. God forbid, there should be extensive community involvement!

Council has spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars upgrading its website. We challenge anyone to find any ‘useful’, coherent information on the plans for Virginia Estate. It’s not listed under ‘Major Projects’ (in fact, nothing is at the time of writing). Under ‘Public Notices’ one would have to know which amendment number refers to the Virginia Estate proposal. In other words, users have to click on every single amendment listed. Not only is this woeful website design that a 4 year old could do better, but it makes things as difficult and time consuming as possible for people.

Once found as Amendment C135 residents are overjoyed to find the following ‘explanation’

(The Amendment proposes to rezone part of the land to Commercial 1 to enable an integrated mixed use development over the entire site and amends Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) to enable a broader mix of uses across the site)

Accurate? Of course! Informative? Never! How many residents really know what Schedule 2 is and means? How many know what the ramifications of rezoning to C1Z means? And as for Development Plan Overlay, that belongs in the stratosphere 0f total incomprehension for most people. There is absolutely no excuse why Council can place ad after ad in the Leader for GESAC, (at what cost?) and only one notice about Virginia Estate which would be the largest single development in the municipality’s history. Don’t people deserve to know what is really going on and what it could potentially mean?

Compare this with Bayside and the documentation that accompanies their proposals – ie actual documents online; ‘have your say’ available, and most importantly, a PLAIN ENGLISH EXPLANATION of what is proposed AND WHY! http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/amendment_C139_bayside_drainage_development_contributions_plan.htm

The same can be said for Boroondara and countless others – http://boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/building-planning/strategic-planning/amendments/amendment-c178-introducing-permanent-heritage-overlays

Even typing the word ‘amendment’ into council’s search engine brings up a page of gobbledygook – ie a list of amendments. Click on any one, and all that comes up is the ‘public notice’ published in the Leader. Informative? Conducive to resident involvement? No way!

We are now living in the age of social media. Glen Eira Council still belongs in the dark ages. We also believe that the substandard website is nothing more than the physical manifestation of this culture which is determined to carry on business as if residents don’t matter, shouldn’t know, and definitely not be given the best chance of becoming involved and voicing their opinion(s). Yes, council adheres to the legislation – at the literal and minimal level. It will not go one step further in ensuring that people know exactly what is going on.

How much more incompetence, sub-standard performance, and anti-community behaviour, will this set of 9 councillors allow? When will they exert their legal muscle and say ‘enough is enough’?

We urge as many residents as possible to attend Monday night and for once, let us hear the community – loud and clear!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »