GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

August 10, 2017

Bentleigh & The Anger Is Palpable!

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

A great turnout at tonight’s Bentleigh meeting – well over 80 residents we estimate. Councillors in attendance were: Magee, Hyams, Athanasopolous and Taylor.

The outstanding pattern of the night however was that those in attendance had definitely had enough of spin, obfuscation, lack of detail, and definitely lack of strategic justification for any of the ‘concepts’. The anger in the room was palpable and expressed time and time again. Council’s responses were, to put it bluntly, pathetic. Here’s how the evening went–

  • Facilitated once more and room set up with tables, butcher paper and planners assigned to each table
  • Following on from facilitator’s introduction, Aiden Mullen provided the ‘background’ – ie what’s happened thus far and what’s still to be done and what previous feedback had been. Some new stats were put up purportedly displaying the percentages of homes in the various zones in Bentleigh. Noteworthy is the fact that Mullen NOT ONCE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE PROPOSED 8 STOREYS HEIGHT LIMIT. These areas were referred to as potential ‘office’ space! Did admit that the current circle designating the RGZ ‘didn’t make sense’! – that means that the August 2013 introduction made ‘no sense’!
  • Residents then wanted to ask questions – and they did!

RESIDENT NO 1 – wanted to know what the strategic justification was for the 5 and 6 storeys and now 8 storeys and what is the definition of ‘community benefit’? Also said that he didn’t see ‘any connection’ between the vision statement and what the concept plans proposed in terms of height. Mullen answered that an ‘activity centre is typically a 10 minute walk’ from the station. Said that ‘feedback’ from community was that developers ‘were taking, taking, taking’ and ‘not giving back to the community’ and council will be looking at every application and deciding ‘what the community really needs’. Thus ‘greater employment’, ‘office’ opportunities meets ‘community benefit’ plus ‘additional car parking’ and street connections. The resident then again asked about the vision that’s been proposed and how this fits in with 8 storeys. Wanted to know how that figure was reached and that ‘it seems a bit arbitrary’. Mullen answered that the vision was about a ‘more family friendly vibe’ and have a better ‘mix’ of housing.

RESIDENT 2 – how many properties were being rezoned from 2 storeys to 3 or 4 storeys? Mullen answered that he didn’t have those figures.

RESIDENT 3 – asked about current applications and whether they would be limited to the new heights. Mullen answered that once they’ve got their permits that’s it.

RESIDENT 4 – stated that there’s a childcare centre next to an 8 storey building and didn’t think this ‘benefited the community’ and ‘wasn’t very family oriented’.

RESIDENT 5 – queried council saying that they ‘heard’ from the public agreeing to some parts being 3 and 4 storeys. Went through the number of developments in Bent Street along a 250 metre stretch of road and these totalled well over 200 new dwellings. Said ‘that’s what people are up in arms about’ and ‘to fix that you’re saying’ that houses opposite can also now be 3 storeys when they are zoned for 2 storeys. ‘You’ve ruined Bent St.’ so ‘leave that alone’. Went on to say that ‘no-one gave you the okay’ to change some houses in Vickery from 2 to 3 storeys. (applause). Said he lives near Patterson and he has opposed development because of lack of parking and now council has ‘the audacity to say that’s what we heard from the public’. ‘You did not hear that from the public’.

RESIDENT 6 – asked ‘what gives you (council) the confidence that consultation has informed’ the plans? Mullen answered that the feedback made it clear that people didn’t want to see apartments in residential streets. Resident 5 then came back and told Mullen to stop talking in percentages and to give precise figures. ‘We want to know absolute numbers so tell us the truth’. Mullen said he would ‘update numbers and put them on the website’.

RESIDENT 7 – said she’s been to a meeting years ago and about a development in Centre Road and that ‘it was loud and clear’ that people ‘went against development along Centre Road’ that was high ‘because of the shade’ and would make Centre Road a ‘wind tunnel’. Concluded that those people weren’t listened to ‘years ago’. Also permits that were then granted had 2 years to start building but council simply granted extensions after extensions.  So how can residents have confidence that this won’t happen again and the ‘new plan’ and the ‘old plan’ don’t look any different’. The old plan has heritage but ‘we know’ by driving down these streets that they are ‘not’ being protected. Mullen responded that it’s important for council to get ‘policy’ written into the scheme. Facilitator then said that policy makes it harder for VCAT.

RESIDENT 8 – asked about balconies and that people use these for hanging out washing, sheds, etc. and what council is going to do about this. Mullen responded that council is looking to ‘tighten controls’.

RESIDENT 9 – asked about the interim height guidelines and what this means for Centre Road. Mullen said that this allowed council to get on with the structure planning work without having to worry about VCAT.

The facilitator then tried to put a stop to the questions. However one resident stood up and insisted on being heard.

RESIDENT 10 –  was told to be ‘brief’ by the facilitator but the resident answered ‘I’ll take my time thanks’. Said that we’ve got the lowest amount of open space and Stonnington is developing an underground car park and open space on top. Why isn’t Glen Eira doing the same? Mullen said ‘that we’re proposing to relocate our parking to the central strip’. Resident went on to density of population, and rates of development, and that ‘we’ve got enough housing supply’ for the next 35 years, so why ‘when we’re pulling our weight’ and the ‘critical issue’ for people is about ‘overdevelopment’ are they recommending 8 storeys in Bentleigh and 12 storeys in Carnegie and ‘repurposing council land for development’. Thus ‘how are we meeting the first principles of the origin’ of the planning scheme review and the rounds of consultation? Mullen’s answer was ‘you can’t reverse what’s happened’ and ‘you can’t put a stop to development’. Resident then asked ‘why’ and Mullen answered ‘because the Minister won’t approve’ it. Resident then said that ‘Boroondara is challenging it’. Mullen said that council is trying to provide the ‘right building in the right place’.

RESIDENT 11 – queried the boundaries since it was said a 10 minute walk and he lives near Thomas St which is at least 15 minute walk to the station. So why are these houses being rezoned and ‘I query the boundary of the activity centre’.

Facilitator then intervened and insisted that people now break up to discuss issues at their tables.

The final part of the meeting included Magee being invited to speak. He started by saying that it’s important for residents to speak up and that nothing ‘was set in concrete’ and that residents could always speak with councillors. One resident then said that he’d been to forums before and questions of height keep coming up. Said he was ‘quite amazed’ that ‘the message isn’t getting through to council’ that people don’t want 8 storeys. Said ‘it would be good to see a show of hands’ from those people who wanted 4 storeys. Magee answered that it’s about context and that if you asked people if they wanted 8 storeys most would say no. But if you asked them about 8 storeys at Ormond Railway station ‘I guarantee you that most would not say no’. The resident insisted on asking the question whether people wanted a maximum of 4 storeys. Our observations indicated that just about everyone put up their hands!!!!!!!!

MEETING CONCLUDED AT THIS POINT!

PS: IF ANYONE WAS IN DOUBT ABOUT THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE CURRENT PLANNING IN GLEN EIRA, THEN THE LIBERALS ARE QUICK TO POINT THIS OUT!

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)

— My constituency question relates to the Minister for Planning and is about the precinct surrounding Chestnut Street in Carnegie

That area has a significant set of protections over the streetscape and the properties there . It is also an area in which the government has recently put an interim design and development overlay in place . The City of Glen Eira is currently consulting with the community but has proposed an area where up to 12 storeys will be built. This would be a very significant increase in height and would put massive pressure on traffic, with congestion .

There is obviously an area already impacted significantly by the sky rail, and the risk of this imposition and overshadowing is significant.

. What I ask is whether the minister in his planning scheme amendment will rule out a 12 -storey tower or 12 storeys that overshadow heritage protected areas?

 

 

August 6, 2017

Hyams!

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

In the interests of factual reporting and honest communication with residents we highlight a comment put up by Hyams on the Residents’ Action Group Facebook page in response to the residents’ letter featured in our previous post.

I have a completely open mind about this, and I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the consultation, but it’s a great shame the anonymous authors of the letter chose not to mention the large areas where four storey development is now permitted that the proposed changes would reduce to two storeys or three storeys.

Now whether one believes that council has reduced the Residential Growth Zone in ‘large areas’ or not, the important considerations here are:

  • How many 4 storey developments already exist, or are up for decision in these proposed 3 storey areas?
  • What impact do the already existing 4 storey apartment blocks have on the street and is this merely a case of too little, too late – that the horse has already bolted?
  • What Hyams does not address is how many sites have now been converted from 2 storey maximum height to 3 storeys? – much less the need for such changes given that Glen Eira is well and truly surpassing its housing needs for population growth.

As the perfect example of what we are on about, council is proposing to rezone the area north of Ward St along Bent Street from 4 to 3 storeys. There are 6 blocks of land in this area – 3 of which have already been granted permits for 4 storey developments. They are –

27 – 29 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 31 units

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 29 units

Thus 50% of this small side of the street is already 4 storeys and 60 units! But it gets worse. The East side of Bent St is currently zoned for 3 storey (ie grz2). This is now extended to 6 properties further east along Vickery street which is currently zoned for 2 storeys.

Hyams of course does not mention any of this!!!!

Here is the map and again those sites highlighted in yellow already have permits for 4 storeys. The green markings indicate those sites earmarked for 3 storey development. This is not quid pro quo – it is an expansion of development potential throughout the municipality.

 

August 5, 2017

Residents: Enough Is Enough

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

 

August 4, 2017

Structure Planning & The Mutual Admiration Society!

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

At the last council meeting, councillors voted unanimously to endorse the Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy. The discussion on this item should be further cause for concern since:

  • The emphases is clearly on growth and more growth despite the Hyams’ effort to deny this
  • Bentleigh East residents should definitely be gearing themselves up for at least 6 storey developments and probably many more areas earmarked for GRZ and possibly RGZ
  • The lame excuse that up-to-date census figures are not included because council is waiting for vital employment data. Please note that this release will basically reveal figures of work by sex, age, and broad categories of employment – ie ‘professional’, etc. The only scrap of really important data would be how residents travel to work – ie walk, car, train, bus. There is literally no valid excuse why current figures have not been incorporated into these latest documents – except that they prove several things that council would like to ignore – ie less population than projected; increase in apartments standing empty; decline in residents over 75; well above state average for 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, etc. etc.

Readers should also question why the gallery is repeatedly subjected to waffle and more waffle instead of actually focusing on the documents themselves and DEBATING the issues and the recommendations.

+++++++++++

Athanasopolous moved motion to accept as printed. Taylor seconded.

ATHANASOPOLOUS:  said that everyone knew at end of last year that council was ’embarking’ on structure planning and this ‘document is one part of that body of work’. It was ‘a great piece of work’ and there will always be ‘some things that aren’t identified’. But ‘the community was consulted on this’. Thought that the ‘outcome, balances the community expectation’ and ‘what the state expects’. Congratulated council and officers and ‘the community for being a big participant’. Hoped that ‘we will continue to produce work like this’ to ‘shape the future’ of the city.

TAYLOR: said it was a ‘huge body of work’ with over 4000 responses to the consultation and she wanted to ‘keep this coming’ in the further consultation. There will be plenty of options that inform people so council ‘isn’t hiding’ this from people and they really want input. The ‘standouts’ were that people wanted a ‘diversity of housing’ that catered for different ‘age-groups’ and for ‘people of different ability’ and ‘different socio-economic backgrounds’ plus ‘families’. People wanted ‘density’ to focus ‘on the activity centres’ and ‘less on the smaller streets’. People also wanted to ‘maintain the heritage and character’ of places. Said that ‘we do have to wait for Census data’ since she’d seen something on social media that asked ‘why do you need to wait?’. Said that ‘we have to wait’ until October 2017 because ‘we will get more important data’ on employment, and people’s vocation, ‘work place address’, and how they get to work. ‘We can’t ignore this vital information’ and they want a complete report. Without it, the report ‘won’t be useful and it will have gaps’ and ‘won’t serve the community in the way it needs to do’. Stated that it’s ‘important to have a dynamic document that continues to respond’ to the community and ‘this important data’ that they currently don’t ‘have access to’. The 4 structure plans are really important in that council has a ‘clear roadmap’ of ‘where we’re going’.

HYAMS: thanked submitters. Said this isn’t the end of a stage because the document ‘will be changed’ because ‘of further census data’ and more feedback from ‘the other consultations’. Called the document a ‘set of’ ‘guidelines’ that is the ‘skeleton’. Said there ‘were some changes from the original’ and these were that ‘the word vibrant was taken out’ since ‘that word did seem to cause a fair bit of angst’ and that people wanted their centres to be ‘lively’ but also ‘safe’ and ‘sedate’. Student housing also went in as an additional category of housing. This was important because people were thinking we ‘are allowing student housing when we’re actually not’ in certain areas. Caulfield South and Bentleigh East were also changed and ‘redefined as larger neighbourhood centres’. This is ‘basically the same as a neighbourhood centre’ but ‘maybe a bit more development’. Worth noting that in terms of shop floor space that Bentleigh East is ‘larger’ than Glen Huntly but has got less public transport and that’s why ‘it’s not the same’ but ‘it is probably appropriate that it be differentiated’ given its commercial size. Thus the housing ‘might be more 4 to 5 storey shop-top’. ‘We shouldn’t be seeing this as an attempt to encourage growth’. ‘We don’t want growth but have to accept that growth is happening’. So they have to ‘channel it in the most efficient way’. The plan therefore ‘sets out where employment opportunities should focus’ and ‘where different types of housing’ should go. So ‘if you’re looking for an absolutely prescriptive plan for every house in Glen Eira’ this isn’t it but rather a ‘broad brush’ stroke.

SZTRAJT: Said that council can accept or reject development applications but ‘at the end of the day other bodies such as VCAT’ ‘make the decisions’. ‘If we don’t provide these types of guidelines’ then council is ‘opening ourselves up to unelected officials who don’t live in the area’ making decisions ‘about what’s appropriate’ for us. ‘This is a way’ for the community to ‘tell us not only where development should happen’ but ‘what it should look like’ and ‘how it should be integrated into public transport’.  Said that ‘this is the ideal’ that it’s a plan ‘where we (say) what we want for our community and as a community’. Said he is ‘proud’ of what has ‘gone into’ the document and it is a ‘very impressive process’ of consultation.

MAGEE: said this is ‘all about building a much stronger local community’. The document moves council forward but ‘it is not the end of the journey’. This has to work with Plan Melbourne as well as the community/council plan. ‘This is something that will continue to evolve’. Said he had talked with a resident who had moved into Carnegie and she was ‘absolutely amazed’ what a great ‘city’ Glen Eira was. She hadn’t thought she ‘could afford’ to live in Carnegie ‘next to a railway station’ and a ‘really vibrant place’ as she ‘called it’. Council didn’t ‘supply’ the building but council did make sure that the building ‘complied with out planning scheme’. Council has to look at ‘where people live and where people work’. Said ‘I would hate to see Glen Eira purely as a residential city’. It has to be a place where people can work and not have a ‘one hour commute’. Said it’s been ‘nice’ to hear positive comments coming from residents especially around the Bentleigh and East Bentleigh area on ‘what’s happening in the city’.  There are ‘several tiers’ to the structure planning and this is ‘one tier’. Looking forward to further feedback and currently it is ‘8 to 2’ on the feedback – 8 positive and 2 negative.

DELAHUNTY: said it was an ‘incredibly’ important and ‘detailed piece of work’ and that ‘I’ve learnt a lot’ like what to call ‘that bit around Caulfield Station’ since ‘we’re all calling it different names’ and ‘what goes in a framework and what stays out of a framework’. Strategic planning is ‘sometimes about patience and getting the levels right’. So this ‘sets up the framwork’ for the future in how the ‘city looks and reacts’. Wasn’t ‘sure that I completely agree with Cr Hyams’ in saying ‘we don’t want growth’. Want ‘growth that we will be able to manage it in a way’. ‘We don’t want necessarily to shut the gates’. Victoria is the ‘recipient of the great benefits that growth has given’ but a bit ‘overwhelmed’ in how to ‘manage that in people’s best interests’. ‘We can’t shut the gates in Glen Eira’ and the plan is how to ‘manage the look and feel’ of growth. Agreed with colleagues that the strategy has been commented upon and had changes as a result of consultation. Thanked residents and ‘officers for their work’.

ATHANASOPOLOUS: thanked councillors for explaining ‘what this strategy means for you and what you got out of the process’. Said that one of the ‘most glaring’ stats he’d seen was that 80% of residents worked outside the municipality. Thought that ‘number is quite high’. Said that ‘retail is fantastic’ in most places including neighbourhood centres. Other forms need to be ‘encouraged’ and that the city is ‘craving’ for this. ‘great work’ and thanked the community ‘for being involved’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

August 2, 2017

More On Bentleigh

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

There’s a sublime irony in council calling one of its structure planning documents the Building Transition Plan. ((uploaded HERE)According to council’s ‘vision’ the objective is to “manage the transition between housing densities’. If this is indeed the objective then we have to scratch out heads and wonder how on earth the following can even be contemplated  –

  • Potential eight storey buildings directly abutting 4 storey buildings
  • Rezoning 2 storey buildings to either 3 or 4 storey buildings and then to claim that this Manage(s) growth in a way that responds to Bentleigh’s suburban residential character.

The above comments relate to the Bentleigh structure plans, but they apply equally to Carnegie as well as Elsternwick. Here’s what’s planned in greater detail.

Translated this means –

The areas marked in green (currently zoned for 2 storeys) will now be either 3 or 4 storeys.

The areas marked as PUZ6 are designated as a potential 8 storeys. Please note that these directly abut 4 storeys – yet council has the gall to call this ‘transition’!!!!!!!

 

August 1, 2017

Hired Guns?

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

When tens, if not hundreds of thousands of ratepayers’ dollars are spent on consultants then surely it is incumbent on those consultants and the officers who advise and vet the final reports to ensure that they are accurate. This is not the case with the latest Planisphere document entitled Urban Design Analysis – Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick (uploaded HERE).

Consultants are ‘hired guns’ – employed to do a job where they are bound by their brief and terms of reference set by council and completely reliant on the data that is provided to them by officers. How much they are paid is also correlated to the amount of work expected. If the data is deliberately skewed and the brief so narrow that it becomes meaningless, then the validity of any ensuing ‘report’ must be questioned. This is the case with the Planisphere effort.

Here is the section highlighting the recommendations on Carnegie –

Please note the following:

  • There are no ‘approved’ permits of 16 storeys in Carnegie. The 8 Egan St application for 16 storeys has twice been rejected by both council and VCAT. The first in 2015 and the second in May 2017. Why does Planisphere then state that VCAT approved this application? Readers can check these decisions at – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1565.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/695.html
  • As far as we know there has also not been a 13 storey permit granted. The application was for 12 storeys. Emphasising these illusory ‘permits’ is intended to bolster the argument that greater heights are now a reality in Carnegie and hence the proposed ‘urban design’ is warranted.
  • There is no explanation provided as to why this document concentrates exclusively on the areas nominated in the interim height amendment – especially since many of council’s proposed changes are OUTSIDE the areas included in the amendment – Rosstown Road for example. There is not a single word about Elliott, Tranmere, etc. Why? If the brief was this narrow, then council needs to tell its residents the reasons why and on what basis the changes in other areas were made.
  • The language used is also a concern in our view. For example: south of the railway line we find that an 8 storey permit is labelled as only a ‘minor breach’ of the interim height guidelines of a preferred 6 storey height limit. Yet, North of the railway we find the language changes to ‘significant breaches’ when only one permit has thus far been granted. We remind readers that the overriding reason given by VCAT for this permit was the lack of any height and building design guidelines in the planning scheme!
  • The most startling comment is the recommendation for a 9 storey height limit. Council’s ‘concept plans’ nominate an 8 to 12 storey height limit in this area. Thus we have the ludicrous situation where consultants recommend a potential for 9 storeys and council for some unjustified reason decides that 12 storeys is appropriate! Whether or not this is simply council’s opening ambit claim with the intention of ‘softening’ up the community and making them feel relieved that it will ultimately only be 9 storeys remains to be seen. But surely it is strange that so called experts call for 9 storeys and council wants 12 storeys?

There is much, much more throughout this consultant’s report that needs challenging – especially when activity centres as in Bentleigh have doubled in size and the consultants completely ignore what is happening outside the immediate commercial areas. And surely by any accepted definition ‘urban design’ must include analysis of setbacks, open space, traffic, etc. Planisphere is silent on these issues and residents are left to wonder what else council has up its sleeve?

PS: WE’VE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FLYER AND ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO ATTEND

 

July 30, 2017

Devious, Deceitful & Deliberate – #2

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

It’s bad enough when council releases documents that misrepresent community views or only tell half the story. But it is even worse when council allows straight out porkies to form part of their strategic planning in the hope, we surmise, that these lapses won’t be discovered.

One of the latest documents is the Bentleigh Background Report with the wonderful subheading of Building Transition Plan. On page 9 of this ‘report’ we find the following:

We are told (twice) in the above that council’s proposed changes are to limit current streets zoned for 4 storeys  and change this into 2 and 3 storey townhouses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The areas earmarked for change along Vickery, Godfrey, Oak, Blair, Bent & Nicholson are NOT ZONED FOR 4 STOREYS. All the proposed changes are currently in the neighbourhood residential zone (ie 2 storeys) and with a huge flood listing (SBO). That means the buildings can be even higher!

Here is what is proposed. All sites filled in with yellow are currently zoned NRZ and will now be rezoned to GRZ.

The overall rezoning from these few streets alone plunges another 40 or so properties into the General Residential Zones. No strategic justification is supplied – except the admission that the current zones themselves have been a disaster – and nonsense such as this – ….the plan seeks to introduce a greater spread of housing type, with a particular focus on medium density terrace housing within the suburban streets. This housing type is a good transitional building form linking the lower scale residential areas with the core of the activity centre. So council’s ‘solution’ is to allow more three storeys in ‘suburban streets’ instead of ensuring that those areas zoned for 4 storeys are either dramatically reduced or include provisions in the associated schedules that safeguard amenity.

Nothing but nothing can excuse a council that repeatedly disseminates information that is inaccurate and deliberately misleading.

 

July 29, 2017

Devious, Deceitful & Deliberate!

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

Council’s first disseminated publication on their structure planning process included the map provided here –

It was conveniently described as nothing more than the proposed ‘study area’. Recent publications have shown that nothing could be further from the truth. These ‘study area’ borders are now the ‘new’ borders for the activity centres as confirmed with the Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick latest version of the ‘concept plans’. What residents were never told and is now clear is that the intention was always to promote further development and to turn areas zoned as Neighbourhood Residential (ie 2 storeys) into sites now available for 3 and 4 storey development. Thus far our tally indicates that hundreds of properties will be so affected in just 3 of these ‘activity centres’. Some even worse – ie 4 storeys to a potential 12 storeys in Carnegie.

Yet, apart from the first map shown above, every other illustration purporting to reveal the overall framework has been along the lines of the following bland, innocuous, and far from revealing portrayal –

Questions on changes to zones were fobbed off. Assurances to residents that there would be no expansion(s) proved untrue. The list goes on and on. Worse still of course is how residents have been fed ‘information’ in dribs and drabs making it extremely difficult to grasp an overview of what is really going on. And this continues even now – ie the latest Planisphere document purports to be an ‘urban design’ yet not a single word is featured on proposed setbacks, and existing schedules to the zones. That critical information is still being held back when it undoubtedly would have featured prominently in any planning thinking.

Further, when other councils can provide maps that are clear and precise, that feature street demarcations that are legible, Glen Eira deliberately avoids such clarity. Better to keep everyone in the dark we suspect until it is too late.

 

July 28, 2017

More Spin!

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

Throughout the first stage of ‘consultation’ on council’s structure planning residents made it absolutely clear that vision statements which included terminology such as ‘vibrant’ and ‘village feel’ were way off the mark and totally inappropriate for neighbourhoods that had already been ruined by over development. Thus it is important to compare the May version of council’s plans with the current July version and to see exactly how much has changed and to what extent council has listened to its residents.

Several things need noting:

  • Housing/population (ie development) barely gets a look in. Where it was mentioned in the May version, it has now been removed and substituted with that wonderful innocuous phrase of ‘urban character’ that is capable of hiding a multitude of sins!
  • ‘vibrant’ still exists but is now concentrated on ‘cafe life’. Sadly ‘village feel’ remains
  • There’s plenty of emphases on ‘green’ and ‘safe’

Basically, spin remains spin – it is just fancied up a little more and designed to be less threatening. How on earth these statements are meant to enforce community views is totally beyond us – especially when the size of all activity centres have probably doubled paving the way for more and more development! That of course is never clearly stated anywhere in any document – nor explained.

Compare and contrast –

 

July 26, 2017

Structure Plans

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

Item 9.3 – Draft Structure Plans

Here is the ‘discussion’ that occurred in regard to the Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie concept structure plans. We ask residents to read the following carefully and to consider these points –

  • What is the justification for the proposed ‘trade offs’? Where is the evidence to support this?
  • The absurb reduction of everything to the most simplistic and illogical level that is not a fair representation of the facts – ie development versus no development (when the issue is appropriate development); ‘vibrancy’ versus ‘safety’ etc. etc.
  • No reference to the impact of Wynne’s VC110 and its likely influence on dwelling stock
  • No explanation as to why and how 12 and 8 storeys were plucked from the air and barely rates a mention – only 2 out of 9 councillors even bothered to refer to this ‘proposal’
  • No explanation as to why so much stands in opposition to resident suggestions and responses, and
  • The countless contradictions inherent in most councillors’ comments
  • The explicit acknowledgement that the introduction of the zones has been a disaster – and remember who were the current councillors who allowed this to go through in secret – Hyams, Magee, Delahunty, Esakoff!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Motion to accept moved by Davey and seconded by Silver

DAVEY: called it a ‘fabulously detailed piece of work’ and ‘accessible by anyone who reads it’. It ‘also makes a lot of sense’ and is ‘very detailed’ on housing design/ Apologised for losing her voice and handed ‘it over’ to others.

SILVER: said there are 2 documents – the ‘quality design principles’ and then the structure plans themselves. The latter ‘allows us to control’ the heights in commercial zones and they also ‘have to outline the sorts of residential development’ they want. They’ve set up a ‘typology’ and designated the designs they want into the surrounding streets. The draft structure plan is a ‘bit more interesting because they are looking at the exact proposals’. These aren’t ‘set in stone’ because they are going out for community consultation. The car park proposals for Staniland Grove ‘I have some concerns about’ also green space for where the library currently is. Had some concerns particularly ‘about the impact on traders’ with the Staniland car park. Thought that ‘some of these ideas will enhance the amenity of the area’ but they are ‘of course open to alternate ideas’.

ESAKOFF: said councillors consider all of Glen Eira and not just their own wards. And ‘this item will impact’ all of the municipality. Hoped people do ‘look at these guidelines in great detail’ and respond. She ‘agreed and endorse(s) the majority’ of recommendations. Everyone wants to see good buildings and nice gardens, but there are some things that ‘I have some reservations about’. An example is ‘avoiding the secluded garden’ in front yards. Asked ‘what if the front of a property is the part that faces north?’ Said that ‘surely the environmental design would take precedence over a line item like that?’ So if someone does have a property that ‘faces north that they won’t be allowed to have’ a front secluded garden. We want ‘that northern sun’ especially in winter. In regard to ‘reducing the number of driveways’ which allows more on street car parking but ‘there may be instances where we really don’t want that hard and fast rule’ because there could crop up a safety issue where ‘forward exiting might be preferred’. ‘So there needs to be a little flexibility’. She has some ‘reservations’ about the ‘universal designs’ and she would ‘like to provide for people who actually prefer to live in buildings that (don’t) allow dogs’. ‘So why on earth would we force every building to allow animals?’ ‘We need to have those choices’ about living in a pet free building. We also ‘don’t want everything built in Glen Eira to look the same’. Asked Torres if these were only ‘examples’. He responded that they were only examples. On the commercial areas ‘I agree that we should protect the character of our strips’. Access and good parking ‘are vital’. She is ‘not convinced’ about ‘allowing up to four storeys extra on the height limits’ and wants to hear from the community on this. ‘I would like to see a community benefit within’ the set height limits. Didn’t think that the community would support these extra heights and thought that 6 to 8 storeys was high enough. But ‘there may be exceptions to that rule’ like on a ‘highway’ where it ‘affects nobody’. ‘But across the board I have my reservations’. In regard to car parking didn’t think that ‘more is the solution in isolation’. Said that people want easy access whether it’s to stop off and buy one thing why should they have to go to one central high rise car park half a km away. Parking needs to be ‘convenient’ and ‘scattered’ throughout the shopping strip. This is especially true for the elderly and disabled.

If council wants the strips to thrive and grow then it won’t happen unless ‘we provide easy access to our shops’. Gave examples of other strips where clear ways have ruined shopping strips like Bridge Road, and if there isn’t enough parking behind, then these will die. Concluded that she’s raised her kids, looked after aged parents and knows how important it is for parking in shopping strips.

ATHANOPOLOUS: doesn’t want to give his view because ‘it is going out to community’ for their input. Is ‘sure there will be more questions from the community’. If council can get another 4500 people ‘participating’ that will be ‘fantastic again’. Said that on something like this there are ‘multiple stakeholders’ from government to residents, traders ‘pulling in a million different directions’ and he ‘felt it in my body with my arm going this way and my other arm going that way’. ‘Our job is to try an appease’ everyone. Unlike business where everyone sits down and thrashes it out, this ‘can’t be sorted out’ like that. Gave example of residents saying they want a ‘vibrant city’ but also a ‘safe’ one and to ‘be safe is to be safe in numbers’. So ‘all these terms can be quite contradictory’. We want to ‘improve’ the city but ‘not expand the activity centres’  whether it is ‘up or out’. ‘How do you achieve an increase in employment without increasing the potential for employment in the area?‘ With car parking you increase ‘congestion’ by having more car parks. Council traffic reports will concentrate on this and not just on transport but on movement in the centres. Comparing what’s currently in place and what is proposed ‘you will see a much better outcome’, especially ‘how sensitive’ council is to those areas that ‘currently have heritage’. ‘In one section you won’t get any development even though it is in a growth zone’ but ‘across the street you will get a triple storey apartment’. ‘Is that really where a three storey apartment should be opposite a heritage’ place? or ‘should we look at something more like terrace housing?’ Asked residents to ‘critique’ the documents but also consider ‘all the work that has to go in to appease all the opposing’ points of view.

HYAMS: said there will be two more consultations and he is 100% sure there will be changes. Said there will be ‘concerns’ about 8 storeys in Bentleigh in the transition areas after ‘we’ve gone and said we want height protection’ so ‘there’s no doubt that will be controversial’. Said the question is whether ‘we think it is worth that’ to safeguard streets like Loranne and Mavho, Bendigo, Daley and Godfrey rather than looking at a ‘one size fits all in terms of geographic’ layout? We have to consider ‘whether we need to make that tradeoff’ or whether there is enough room for our ‘projected development’. Said these are ‘the questions’ that will come up.  This is the same for the 3 storey proposals along Centre Road. That’s ‘also a quid pro quo’. In Elsternwick ‘should the strategic site go all the way to Hopetoun?’ or should it remain in ‘heritage shops as it is now’?

‘Overall, this does represent an improvement’. With these changes activity centres will be ‘more pedestrian friendly, more green space’. Agreed with Esakoff on parking. So ‘these are all things we need to look at when we get down to the detail’ because traders want parking for their clients. Thanked submitters thus far.

MAGEE: at the end of this council period there will be another 8000 new people living in Glen Eira and by 2027 there will be another 20,000 people. That ‘worries’ him about how to accommodate the new and the current residents. ‘How do we transition Bentleigh, East Bentleigh’ when it hits 160,000 people living in the city? Some residents have said that Glen Eira ‘has already got too many people’. So ‘put up a sign no vacancies – that will never happen’. ‘I welcome the people coming into Glen Eira’. ‘I want to see a Bentleigh that’s growing’. The plans are a ‘damn site better than what was there before’. In Mavho, you ‘could build a 4 storey on one side of the street and 3 storey building on the other’. ‘We have now got that consistency in there’. Said there are ‘obviously trade offs’ behind Hodgkins Reserve, ‘there’s a group of houses there’ that will be 3 storey and a ‘trade off in Centre Road’. ‘This gives us a lot more certainty’ and ‘what’s really exciting is the requirement for diverse housing’. Said that ‘this doesn’t frighten me’ at all and he ‘welcomes the opportunity’ because we are in a ‘great place like Bentleigh’ with a railway station and ‘lots of facilities’ and here is the ‘opportunity for people who cannot afford’ houses. Said that when he decides to move out he will build double storey town houses on his land and sell them ‘for as much as I can possibly get’.  He can see himself living ‘near a Bentleigh, McKinnon or Poath Road railway station’. Said the document is a ‘step forward’ and that it has to ‘address the amount of people’ who will come to a city that ‘is growing evolving’ and becoming a ‘metropolis’.  It ‘worries me that we’re not accommodating and looking far into the future’ but the ‘document is starting that process’.

SZTRAJT: said there would be different opinions. Said that he was elected as a councillor ‘to protect Glen Eira’. He ‘loves Glen Eira’ and lived ‘here most of my life’. ‘If it were up to me I would like all development to occur outside of Glen Eira’. Said he is ‘trying to restrict development in Glen Eira’. He views each application on ‘its merits’ but ‘overall’ ‘my vision’ would be a city that ‘halts a lot of this development’. His ‘problem’ though is that when not a councillor he got angry at council, and when they refused an application he got angry at VCAT for overturning council’s decisions. That’s why he decided to become a councillor. ‘So I am standing here conflicted’ because ‘I believe I’m standing here to protect what we have right now’ but ‘I’m smart enough to know’ that ‘wishing it’ is so is ‘not going to happen’. So ‘rather’ than letting development happen because of State Government imposed decisions, or VCAT’ developments are ‘happening’. The ‘problem’ is that development is ‘happening in a way that is unstructured’ and that the community does not ‘have control over it’. So if a development goes up next door and ‘we think it’s unfair’ then ‘we don’t have a leg to stand on’ if it goes to VCAT they don’t look at just Glen Eira, they are ‘looking at all of Victoria’. They say that ‘Glen Eira has to take its share’. ‘I think that Glen Eira is taking more than its share’ but that doesn’t mean that VCAT will agree with him. ‘So Glen Eira is going to have to grow’. ‘I would much prefer our community to be holding the rein’ by ‘making the decisions on what type of development we want to see’. Said there’s ‘plenty’ in the documents that he disagrees with and they have argued about it. But ‘this decision tonight is about saying ‘we want the community’ in on this. Said ‘we have to be honest’ and if development is happening then ‘let’s get ahead of them’. ‘This is the time we want community involvement’ because ‘we’ve got the chance to say this is how our city should look’. If council doesn’t say ‘where’ development should go it will be ‘imposed on us and will happen in residential side streets‘. Urged people to ‘support us in this by giving your feedback’.

TAYLOR: ‘genuinely and pleasantly surprised’ about ‘how clever’ this document is so that ‘instead’ of having development concentrated ‘down those smaller streets’ it will be ‘concentrated in our activity centres’ and ‘arterial roads and not so much’ in local streets. This will be more ‘palatable’ but she doesn’t want to be ‘presumptive’ so ‘let’s hand this document over to you’. On congestion ‘we will have the integrated transport plan’ that will ‘integrate into the structure plan’.

DELAHUNTY: two ‘massive pieces of work’, ‘very exciting concepts’, ‘controversial’. Said she can see ‘multi level car parking’ at the back of shops to ‘activitate’ the centres and ‘exactly what the traders were telling us they wanted’.

DAVEY: said this is a ‘strategic document’ and is a 15-20 year document. This will ‘change everything’ how people use the centres. ‘We don’t always agree’ but ‘ultimately it is not for us’ but the community’s views.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »