GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

May 3, 2020

More Do Nothing?

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

This post is not about whether councillors should declare a Climate Emergency or not. Rather it focuses on the officer’s report and asks readers to determine how objective such a report really is and whether this is merely another example of council’s attempt at public grandstanding whilst in reality doing nothing at all.

Once again we have a report that purports to present all the relevant information so that informed decision making by councillors may take place. This report is far from ‘informative’ or objective. The take home message from this report can only be MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO!

Three options are proffered to councillors (see below)

Option 1 is clearly the most proactive and given the fact that we are told that declaring a Climate Emergency requires ‘immediate’ action this would ostensibly be the option most appropriate. We even have Ms Krull’s response to Ahtanasopolous’ question of the 25 Feb council meeting where she said: Councils that declare a climate emergency must commit to strong and fast climate action and reduce their carbon emissions as fast as possible.

Yet sprinkled throughout this report we find statement after statement that debunks this ‘urgency’ and plays the cost card. For example: Increasing the Solar Savers program where council purchases the system and residents therefore have no up-front costs, we are told: This scheme will have a financial impact on Council’s budget as Council will need to fund the upfront cost for each household in the program.

And this approach goes on and on –

Committing to goals and initiatives in Options 1 and 2 will require significant additional staff resources and operating budget to fund new activities to reduce corporate and community carbon emissions.

Current operating and capital budgets do not include an allowance for activities that will need to be undertaken if Council determines to declare a climate emergency 

No provision has been made in Council’s long term SRP for the substantial costs of the initiatives in Options 1 and 2. If these initiatives are included, Council would need to consider re-prioritisation of other projects to ensure long term financial sustainability of the SRP. 

How ludicrous that within the same agenda we have the proposed 2020/21 budget and another item that would impact greatly on this budget but has not even been investigated and quantified. Surely the vote on any Climate Emergency declaration and its accompanying actions should precede any vote on the budget? Unless of course the objective is not to introduce anything new at this point in time and continue with the goal of achieving so very little by 2030 or 2050. A charade at its best we say! 

Much of the report focuses on council’s ‘achievements’ in this domain of climate change. One such ‘achievement’ is touted as the annual planting of 2000 trees to combat the heat island effect. What we are not told of course is that according to the 2018/19 annual report 940 trees were lost (page 13). Seen from this angle, 2000 plantings become 1000! And we are still waiting of course for an ESD policy, a WSUD policy into the planning scheme and that old perennial of tree controls over private land (ie tree register). Oh, and an Urban Forest in the Booran Road park that remains under lock and key but is still counted as ‘open space’!

Finally, here is a list of Victorian councils that have declared a Climate Emergency (up to Feb 2020). Many of the accompanying proposed actions in these policies put Glen Eira to shame.

Ballarat City Council

Banyule City Council

Bass Coast Shire Council

Bayside City Council

Brimbank City Council

Cardinia City Council

Darebin City Council

Frankston City Council

Greater Dandenong City Council

Hepburn Shire Council

Hobsons Bay City Council

ndigo Shire Council

Kingston City Council

Manningham City Council

Maribyrnong City Council

Melbourne City Council

Moonee Valley City Council

Mount Alexander Shire Council

Moreland City Council

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Moyne Shire Council

Port Phillip City Council

Queenscliffe Borough

Surf Coast Shire Council

Warrnambool City Council

Yarra City Council

Yarra Ranges Council

As stated at the outset, we are not debating the issue of climate change and how council should address the challenges. We are far more concerned with how decisions can be authentic and valid when the requisite information is not provided, and budgets are to be decided that don’t include any possibility of funding real action in the immediate future. If this is the objective, then let’s see that declared instead of the continued camouflaging that is council’s modus operandi.

 

May 1, 2020

No Such Thing As Belt Tightening!

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

Council has released its draft budget and Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) for the next ten years. We can only marvel at the audacity that goes into these documents whilst simultaneously wondering how much credence should be given to any of the figures produced year to year. We acknowledge up front that budgets can and do change; that unforseen circumstances (ie COVID) play a role. However, when prognostications are out by 100% then questions need to be asked and those responsible for the figures should be held to account and judgement. More importantly, there is not one single word that seeks to explain or justify the unbelievably divergent figures!

Here are some examples comparing the figures provided in the 2019/20 Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) and what we are now presented with.

Carnegie Pool Redevelopment: Capital costs of $47.6M from 2020/21 to 2023/4 (Capital costs of $39M in 2019/20!)

Elsternwick Community Hub & Park: $47M (majority of spend in 2024/5 to 2027/8) In 2019 – $31.8M

Selwyn Street Cultural Precinct: $5.6M to be completed in 2023/4 (2019; $5.5M)

Stanley Street Multi-deck Carpark: $22.32M completed in 2023/4 (In 2019 17.3M)

Koornang Road Streetscape & Upgrade: $6.5M (majority of spend in 2025/6 to 2028/9) (2019 – $6.15)

Eat Street rotunda: $5.1M to be completed in 2021/2)(in 2019 $1.8M)

Bentleigh Library Upgrade: $6.3M to be completed in 2022/3 (In 2019 $3.5M)

Bleazby Street Carpark: $15.7M completed in 2023/4 (not listed in 2019 but Horsely Street was listed at $1.6M with majority of spend in 2029/30!)

Fair enough that prices have increased over the year. However, no sensible person will accept the massive increases suggested in the above comparison. So what does this tell us about council plans and what they are not revealing.

All  of this can be summed up neatly with the following screen dumps from the 2019/20 version and the current draft SRP.

How and why on earth should forecast spending jump from $90 million to $160M or even from $140 million to $160M. Have residents really been consulted on whether this is what they want? Is it wise spending when so many people have lost their jobs and/or are in financial difficulties? Do we really need such massive infrastructure projects and borrowings that will keep us in hock for decades? Of course, this council never bothers to present a complete picture or to consult its residents. And as some residents have already asked – have any of our extremely well paid administrators and/or councillors taken a pay cut in the current COVID situation?

Adding more insult to injury, we find the following increases:

240L waste bin – $515 up from $441 last year

120L waste bin – $255 up from $220 last year

Child care

0-3 year olds: $140 per day up from $137 last year

3-5 year olds: $132 per day up from $129 last year

Pensioner rebate contribution – $29 last year was $36 and in 2016 was $59!!!!!

Staff EFT: FROM 860.19 TO 873.86 plus a 2.5% increase in wages!

We keep reading about council’s reduced income stream as a result of COVID, yet there is nothing in this budget or the SRP which indicates a tightening of the belt, a reduction in spending, and a reduction in grandiose contruction plans. Nor is there anything to indicate that council will increase the amount of open space so desperately lacking in this municipality.

 

April 25, 2020

Council & VCAT

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

The current agenda includes an item purporting to report on the results of planning applications that have ended up at VCAT over the past five years and council’s success rate in these hearings. These results are of course presented as extremely complimentary to council. The report recommends:

That Council notes:

  1. there has been a reduction in the number of planning decisions by Council being appealed to VCAT;
  1. the number of dwellings approved by VCAT, through ‘set aside’ decisions, have decreased substantially;
  1. the implementation of the interim Structure Plan controls for the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick activity centres have contributed to these reductions; and,
  1. the changes implemented by the Urban Planning team in respect to improved processes and engagement with all parties have also contributed to these reductions.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there have been less VCAT hearings, council would like us to believe that this is the result of council’s approach to planning via its structure planning and delegations. What is never acknowledged at any stage in this report is:

  • The continued downturn of developments throughout the state in the past few years
  • The significantly increased costs of going to VCAT, especially for objectors
  • Council’s recent process change that now requires at least 15 or more objections to be decided by councillors rather than under delegation.
  • With less appeals, then logically this would involve a reduction in the number of ‘set aside’ decisions. It remains questionable of course whether the reduction in these types of decisions have anything whatsoever to do with council’s interim structure planning as claimed and more to do with the fact of general downturn, cost of land, and that our major activity centres are already built out compared to what is available in our neighbourhood centres.

Glen Eira Council is not alone in experiencing a major reduction in VCAT appeals. Below is the summary from the 2018/19 VCAT annual report which clearly shows how nearly all councils (apart from the growth suburbs) are in the same boat – ie a major reductions in appeals.

Throughout the council report we have some wonderful claims that do not stack up when analysed via third party data. For instance, the following council produced image maintains that in the 2019/20 financial year council has had 90% of its appeals to VCAT confirmed.

According to the State Government’s figures, nothing could be further from the truth. Below is a screen dump from the Planning Permit Activity website which provides data on how many VCAT appeals have been confirmed, set aside, or varied. Please note that what we are being shown is that for this time period Glen Eira was only successful in having its decisions confirmed a paltry 25%. Even if we amalgamate the ‘confirmed’ with ‘varied’ that still leaves us with only a 55% return and certainly not the 90% that is claimed!!!!

The ’varied’ results can also be entirely misleading when we consider certain examples where councillors granted permits that lopped off a couple of storeys and a number of apartments only to have VCAT ‘varying’ the permit to what the developer wanted. Perfect examples of this include: 240-50 McKinnon Road, McKinnon where council decided on 4 storeys and VCAT awarded the developer his 6 storeys and 33 apartments. Another recent example is Royal Avenue, Glen Huntly, where 4 storeys became 5 storeys at VCAT. Such decisions are not seen as ‘set aside’, they are simply labelled ‘varied’ since a permit was issued by council.

There are countless other dubious and suspect figures provided throughout this report. More importantly, what is entirely missing in this report is any mention of what is happening in our neighbourhood centres and how these appeals fair at VCAT. A perusal of VCAT decisions over the past few years reveals that the majority of appeals have involved these centres and NOT the major activity centres which have largely already been built out with the introduction of the zones in 2013. The reasoning for the development rush in our neighbourhood centres is quite simple: no real controls, no preferred character statements, and land that is cheaper. If council was really willing to provide an objective and honest analysis of what is happening in our municipality, then including a detailed assessment of what is happening outside the major activity centres is essential. This has not been done. Instead we are provided with figures that are not clearly defined.

For example: Council presents another table that is supposedly listing the number of apartments that have been approved in the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick over the years.

In fine print and as a footnote we get this sentence alluding to the table: Based on land within the Commercial 1 Zone and Residential Growth Zone. Why, especially since these activity centres also include sites zoned as MUZ and GRZ both before and after the introduction of the interim height amendments. So what do these numbers really tell us and how comprehensive and valid are they?

Earlier in the report council admits that the 2017/18 financial year was the most ‘productive’ in terms of permits granted for apartments. We are told that 2217 apartments were granted permits in that year. In the above table the total number of permits granted in the 3 major activity centres for that year totals a mere 390! Hence 1,827 apartments were erected OUTSIDE these centres!

We do not believe that council’s belated structure planning for the major activity centres is responsible for this shift. To assume such is to ignore the real data and the prevailing economics of development and a council refusing to prioritise our neighbourhood centres.

All in all, what we have before us is a report that is simply not good enough in terms of detail, comprehensiveness and basic truth telling!

 

 

April 23, 2020

Why The Delay – Again?

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

Included below is council’s latest attempt at so called ‘consultation’ methodology. Readers should carefully note the sentence regarding the delay on introducing the long awaited tree register.

Once again we find council putting off any real action which could have some major impact on development in our municipality. No reason is provided for this delay! Nor are we told which projects will push on and which others may have been delayed. As for the excuse that this is the result of COVID 19 we simply don’t buy that ridiculous claim. Here’s why:

  • An amendment is required to incorporate this into the Local Law. The protocol for this is straight forward. We would be presented with an officer’s report, councillors would vote, and the documentation would then be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.
  • The form of ‘exhibition’ would remain as it always has – ie public notice via the website, (admittedly not in the local paper since these have been stopped).
  • Community responses would be via written submissions (email, letters).
  • A council meeting would then consider the submissions and people could, if they wished, speak to their submission (available via tele-conferencing, Zoom, etc.) The number of people addressing council has historically been minimal (ie average of 5)
  • The next council meeting would then vote on the draft amendment.
  • It would then be submitted to the department/minister and gazetted very quickly.

Given this process we do not see how COVID has impacted in any significant way on this issue and hence why it has been put on the back burner. Please remember that ‘consultation’ for this occurred between November and December 2017. Two and a half years later nothing has happened except to delay this even further.

We can only speculate as to why this issue has been shelved in comparison to the other multi million dollar projects that council seems intent on pushing through at a time where finances for councils and residents have taken a huge hit!

As an example here are the tenders from last Saturday’s Age newspaper. Questions that could be asked:

  • Do we really need ‘catering’ for councillors and ‘guests’ when we have social distancing and no community events?
  • Do we really need to push ahead with the Elsternwick community hub when we don’t even have a firm structure plan in place and this is mooted to cost $32 million according to the last budget papers?

It is truly time that this council was forthcoming on all projects citing specifically which ones are on hold, which should proceed and why! That is what good governance demands and what Glen Eira City Council continually fails to provide!

 

March 21, 2020

What’s Really Going On?

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

Question after question has sought answers to what is really going on with our neighbourhood areas (activity centres) that do not have any controls on height in the commercial and mixed use zoned shopping strips.  Council’s response has been consistent: not enough ‘resources’ (presumably this means staff), plus not enough money. That they are flat out on the structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie, Elsternwick, East village, Caulfield  and recently added, Glen Huntly. Well, Bentleigh and Carnegie are now on the desk of the Minister awaiting permission to advertise. East Village is done and dusted as far as rezoning is concerned, and Caulfield is largely work being done by the Victorian Planning Authority. Yet, residents are still being told that controls for South Caulfield in particular are at least another 2 years away.

Nor have residents been able to get any clear response from council as to their ultimate objective. Language has varied considerably over the past 18 months. We have been told that ‘structure plans’ are in the vision. Next this becomes mere Urban Design Guidelines or a Design & Development Overlay. There is absolutely no guarantee forthcoming that our neighbourhood centres will have structure plans.

As for the delay in introducing even the most minimal controls, we do not for one second buy council’s excuses. Our theory is:

  • Council has always envisaged Glen Huntly Road from Kooyong to Hawthorn as being one single precinct – ie the expansion of the South Caulfield activity centre. Only stern opposition in 2002 prevented this from occurring.
  • Delaying controls facilitates the pro development agenda. We now have at least 5 applications in for Caulfield South (including one in Caulfield) that sit between 7 and 9 storeys and literally hundreds of apartments. Once these get their permits, probably within the next 8 months, it will be almost impossible for council to argue that the building heights under even a structure plan should be 5 storeys! We speculate that this is totally deliberate on the part of council.

The other question of course is WHY? What is the real reason that council is so gung ho on more and more development – especially when Glen Eira is well and truly above its housing needs to cater for population growth? Why have they caved in so easily on removing the mandatory height limits in Bentleigh & Carnegie and substituting ‘discretionary’ height limits? Yes, it is very easy and convenient to have Wynne as the scapegoat and put the onus on government rather than themselves. When other councils can fight tooth and nail for their residents in terms of pushing for greater land use control, knocking back panel reports, or sending out thousands of mail to their residents, our council distinguishes itself by either total silence, or complete acquiescence. The tragedy is that our councillors have all been complicit in this agenda.

Logic would suggest that there must be some ‘pay back’ or ‘benefit’ in adhering without question with government that is given greater priority than residential amenity, sustainability, and general welfare of constituents. We can only hypothesize, but suggest:

  • More dwellings, with miniscule restrictions on development, amounts to more incoming revenue.
  • More revenue is required for the grandiose schemes of at least $52 million to ‘redevelop’ Carnegie swimming pool; $5 million for a library that was ‘redeveloped’ less than 3 years ago; and the list of projects goes on and on. Please also keep in mind that residents have not been privy to any business plan (that is, if they even exist!!!!)
  • A quid pro quid with government so that grants increase? (ie the nonsense of the Inkerman Road safe bicycle track)
  • Also on the cards is the flogging off of council land to developers in order to proceed with high rise/multi level car parks. Envisaged by Monash to cost around $18 or so million for one. And all the while pathetic little done about procuring more and more desperately needed open space.

We certainly are not privy to the discussions that have occurred behind closed doors with state authorities, and even between councillors. What we do know is that strategic planning in Glen Eira continues to be a disaster. Residents can no longer accept excuse after excuse about the lack of money and resources that council claims is behind its ‘do nothing’ agenda. This excuse must be seen for the furphy  it is, especially when planning applications are down, and council’s staff numbers continue to climb, plus rates and charges also continue to climb. Residents need a council that will put ratepayers before large developers!

 

March 11, 2020

Council’s Financial Wizardry!

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

Council’s ability to deliver real community benefit on its financial arrangements keeps cropping up. The latest example is the agreement with the National Trust for a 3 year lease that will allow Glen Eira residents access to the Ripponlea gardens for free. No doubt a very worthwhile idea. But at what cost? And why is it that other councils can achieve the same outcome but at a cost of 5 times less? Who negotiated this deal?

The following screen dumps compare what Port Phillip managed to achieve for its residents at the cost of a maximum of $50,000 per annum and good ol’ Glen Eira is paying $250,000 for exactly the same thing!!!!

The Glen Eira resolution:

Now for the Port Phillip agreement:

History tells us that this council is woeful in negotiating anything. A $25 million loan was ‘negotiated’ at a fixed 8.4% for 25 years. To ‘renegotiate’ for a lower rate it cost ratepayers quite a tidy little sum. Of course we mustn’t forget the pathetic 4% and 5% that the Caulfield Village (MRC) development is paying for something approaching 2,500 dwellings. Every major project that this council has undertaken has resulted in time delays, over budget, and countless court cases. It is a history of poor financial management and poor decision making.

 

March 4, 2020

An Open Space Survey

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

Council is proposing a new Open Space Refresh strategy. The questions residents need to consider are:

  • Does this latest version successfully address the lack of open space in Glen Eira?
  • Is the proposed increase of the developer levy sufficient?
  • How well is council utilising the revenue collected?

In order to determine resident views on these issues, we have designed a short survey which will take about one minute of your time. It also seeks to ask the questions that council doesn’t want asked. Please forward this link on to all of your contacts.

 

February 24, 2020

Caulfield Village: Screwed Again & Again!

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

As we’ve stated repeatedly, every aspect of the Caulfield Village planning process for the past 9 years has resulted in council’s rolling over and granting the MRC everything they have applied for. The latest application for Section 7 & 8 development continues this sorry and pathetic tale.

Please note the following:

  • The Incorporated Plan of 2014 stated that there would be between 1000 and 1200 apartments. We are now well over 1200 with the Smith Street precinct (the largest and highest) still to occur.
  • The Incorporated Plan had maximum preferred heights of 5 storeys in the residential precinct. We got 6. The second precinct stipulated 8 and we have 10. The current proposal wants 9 when the incorporated plan says 8 and 6 for the centre. We get 9 and 7. These additional heights are because council refused to fight for MANDATORY provisions plus the fact that they did not stipulate the number of storeys. Instead they simply worked on height according to the Australian Height Datum (AHD) which looks at ground level. In other words, if the land slopes, plus lowering the ceiling heights and it is possible to fit in several more storeys (meaning more apartments) whilst still meeting the AHD requirement. We envisage that the last Smith Street Precinct will be anything from 22 to 24 storeys in height given past history.
  • Following amendment after amendment the developers have succeeded in: decreasing the initially proposed commercial/retail component and instead increasing the number of apartments. Money these days rests in residential, not commercial. All agreed to by council!
  • Council has made much of its ‘social/affordable’ housing policy. When they had the chance to enforce this at VCAT, council voted to abandon the proposed amendment with the argument that it would cost too much. What is still to be determined is whether the ambition of a 5% social/affordable housing component is 5% of the entire project, or simply 5% of the current application. Even this has been watered down to 16 apartments instead of 21!!!!! Again acceptable to council going by the officer’s recommendation.

The Current Proposal 

Here’s the breakdown of the major aspects of the proposal:

  • 437 apartments
  • 4 buildings of 7 storeys, 2 of 9 storeys
  • 94 studio apartments (average size 40 square metres)
  • 191 single bedroom apartments (average size 50 square metres)
  • 142 two bedroom apartments (average size 70 square metres)
  • 10 three bedroom apartments

That makes it 2.28% of dwellings that are three bedrooms. Council calls this satisfying the planning scheme’s clause regarding ‘diversity’ 

Worthy of mention is that there is not a single word in the officer’s report that mentions size of actual apartments, no figures are provided on overshadowing or overlooking. Basically we get an officer’s report that is devoid of all detail and strategic justification for the recommendation of a permit. Instead we find the following nonsense:

As part of the Whole of Land plans, it was originally anticipated that the Mixed-Use Precinct (which encompasses Stages 4-8) would have a residential yield of 732 dwellings, a supermarket space of 4000 sqm, retail space of 3,658 sqm and 798 sqm of office space.

The proposed mix is now 834 dwellings, 3,800sqm of supermarket space, 2,646sqm of retail space and 798 sqm of office space. This represents an increase in dwelling numbers (102 additional), a decrease in supermarket and retail space (by 400 sqm). The proposed office space remains the same. 

The increase in dwelling numbers has been managed within the permissible building envelope while maintaining an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes. This is considered to be consistent with the Incorporated Plan. 

Are we then supposed to accept the statement that 2.28% of apartments represents an ‘acceptable mix of dwelling sizes’? What then becomes ‘unacceptable’? And how is this considered to be ‘consistent’ with the Incorporated Plan when nothing is stated in the plan except the desire for ‘diversity’?

Interestingly, nothing in the officer’s report mentions the fact that a previous amendment to the development plan increased the size of the Mixed Use precinct. Council did not object and hence granted the MRC land that could then be developed even more as opposed to its original designation as ‘residential’!!!!!

Parking Waiver(s) 

Since council is such a stickler for claiming that everything is established via the Incorporated Plan, it is therefore amazing that the developer has asked for a car parking waiver of 154 spots and council officers think this is okay!! So much for the ‘certainty’ that residents were told again and again was provided as a result of the Incorporated Plan.

Here’s the council’s excuse for another cave in:

Council’s Transport engineers have reviewed the information provided and agree with the reduced rates for the supermarket, retail uses and the reduced rate for the 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings.  

This is considered worthy of support because there will be a number of residents across this development who are attracted to the location because of the excellent public transport options which negate the need for a private vehicle. 

Affordable Housing 

Instead of achieving 21 apartments under the banner of ‘affordable housing’, we now find that this has been reduced to 16 only. We have no problem with the provision of 2 or 3 bedroom apartments. Our problem is with the proviso that the ‘net floor area’ originally planned remains the same! There is nothing in the Incorporated Plan regarding net floor area for social housing. Another brilliant move by our council.

Even more disquieting is the fact that these arrangements will only be for 10 years!!! What happens after that? Will tenants be tossed out and the apartments sold off? And what of the entire precinct since it is not earmarked to be sold but 437 apartments to be rented out! The potential slums of the future perhaps? Also, neatly sidestepping the requirements for student accommodation, the studio and single bedroom apartments are not called ‘student accommodation’. What are the chances that they will be anything but student accommodation given their size and proximity to Monash Uni? Again, nothing in the officer’s report about this loop hole!

CONCLUSION

The willingness of this council to bend over backwards to facilitate more and more inappropriate development is again being displayed. Every aspect of Glen Eira’s dealings with the MRC has been disastrous for the community. This latest application is simply one more in the long line of disasters!

PS: we forgot to mention that because of the ‘wisdom’ of Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling & Lipshutz at the beginning of the proposals, there is NO VISITOR CARPARKING ALLOCATION for anything that is developed on this site!!! Thus over 2000 apartments will not have to provide for visitor car parking.

 

February 22, 2020

Let’s Talk Money!

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

Another item of interest in the current agenda is the proposal to steam roll ahead with spending $51+ million on the redevelopment of the Carnegie Pool. Needless to say by the time anything is constructed this figure will have increased tremendously so we could easily be looking at a cost of $60 million plus.

As with all council proposals, residents are not given the opportunity to have a real say. The formula is to present a series of options determined from above. Surely before council commits to such huge expenditure residents have a right to see a Business Case, costings for various options, detailed ‘community benefit’ outcomes. Instead, all we often get are pretty pictures and no real detail.

Reading through the comments on the Carnegie pool, the overwhelming majority state again and again that they do not want a miniature GESAC created. The emphasis is clearly on outdoor pool and open space and the retention of the history and ambience of this pool.  The writing is on the wall that council wants another GESAC (albeit smaller)!

Next we have a forecast expenditure of $5 million on the creation of Eat Street in Bentleigh and another $5 million upgrade for the library (which underwent an upgrade less than 4 years ago). So that’s another $10 million at this stage. Add in the Inkerman Road bicycle path and the real possibility that it will be council paying for everything, then millions more are set to be spent.

We are not against upgrading ageing facilities. Nor are we against providing important community infrastructure. What we are questioning is whether all of these projects provide ‘value for money’ and how essential they really are? When council is soon to borrow another $30 million whilst still owing about $10 million, we have to query the wisdom of such decision making, especially when the community is crying out for more open space and some decent strategic planning that would safeguard our neighbourhoods. These two areas have been put on the back burner and instead we get project after project that ignores these most pressing issues.

In Glen Eira residents do not have a say on budget priorities. It is definitely time that they did.

 

February 20, 2020

More Helping Out Developers!

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

Two planning applications are up for decision next Tuesday night which will forever change the face of Caulfield East and Caulfield South. Both have officer recommendations for approval. The recommendations are further evidence of:

  • Cow towing to the MRC in spite of what the 2014 Incorporated plan for Caulfield Village actually specifies. This is simply the continuation of the voting by Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling going back nearly a decade and looks set to continue.
  • The Caulfield South (Hawthorn Road) decision flies in the face of council’s adopted strategy from last council meeting. How the planning department can ignore its own policy statements is beyond belief.

For this post we will only concentrate on the Caulfield South application.

380 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South

The application is for the Godfrey’s site and is asking for 7 storeys, 42 apartments, 3 shops and a car parking waiver of 26 spots. The officer recommendation is for 6 storeys and the granting of a 20 spot waiver.

We find this recommendation totally unacceptable on the following grounds:

  • At last council meeting, councillors voted in the new City Plan. This included height limits for our neighbourhood and local centres as being 5 storeys. We are, 3 weeks later, being told that 6 storeys is now acceptable!
  • Having decided that a 20 spot car parking waiver is ‘acceptable’, we find that council’s urban designer had other ideas. We quote from the report: Whilst Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the reorientation of the on-street parking in Olive Street would be desirable and would improve the streetscape and safety, this is considered to be unnecessary as it would reduce the number of on-street public car spaces in the area. So first you waive 20 spots and then worry about on street car parking availability. More importantly safety becomes a lesser priority than forcing the developer to provide sufficient on site parking!!!!!
  • On potential overshadowing we get this comment: It is acknowledged that overshadowing is a significant concern for residents. The most affected properties would be those at 24-34 Cedar Street. The applicant has provided hourly overshadowing diagrams for the Equinox (September 22) from 9am to 3pm showing the effects of the proposed building on adjoining properties and the surrounding area. A review of this information has been undertaken and it is considered that the overshadowing impact of the proposal would not be unreasonable as adjoining properties, whilst experiencing new overshadowing, would still have an acceptable level of solar access, from 11am to 2pm. It is acknowledged that shadows cast in Winter would be longer and affect the Cedar Street properties to a greater extent than the Equinox shadows.

Shown below is the developer’s shadow diagrams for this period of 11am to 2pm. How on earth these diagrams can then be interpreted as an ‘acceptable level of solar access’ is truly mind boggling! And with no attempt to introduce winter solstice controls into the planning scheme the impact in winter is totally ignored.

Even more disturbing is the following:

It is acknowledged that there are currently no maximum mandatory or discretionary height limits for this area. Detailed strategic planning work will be done by Council for this activity centre in the near future. It is considered that the recommended 6 storey height of the proposed building, will not prejudice that work or the orderly planning of the area. 

But what will it do in terms of setting a precedent we ask, especially when surrounding applications are asking for 7 and 9 storeys? 

Council has been promising further work ‘strategic work. Yet this report also contains on page 31 of the agenda, under the heading of ‘seriously entertained amendment’ the response of ‘NONE’. Does this therefore mean that:

  • Caulfield South will not be part of any structure planning amendment?
  • Caulfield South will not be part of any Design & Development Overlay? or
  • Caulfield South will only be granted some wishy washy Urban Design Guidelines that are not MANDATORY and may not even be included in any shape or form into the planning scheme? They will simply remain as council ‘policy’. We remind readers that at last council meeting Hyams specifically used the term ‘urban design guidelines’. Hence, isn’t it time that residents got a firm answer as to council’s intentions?

There are many other comments throughout this report that should be severely questioned. Things are also missing. For example: legislation now requires ‘communal space’ for 40 or more dwellings. There is no discussion of this in the officer’s report. Even more disquieting is the constant referral to other applications that have not as yet been decided. Yet they are part of this decision making!

It will be mighty interesting to see what councillors do with this application given the potential, precedent setting decision.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »