GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

April 1, 2017

Financial Transparency?

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

Booran Reserve playground in Glen Huntly could be best in Melbourne

Bianca Carmona, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

April 1, 2017 12:00am

A CHILD’S smile might be priceless to most, but it comes with a hefty price tag of almost $11 million in Glen Eira.

The council has spent $10.8 million creating what could be Melbourne’s most expensive playground at Glen Huntly’s Booran Reserve.

It is almost twice the cost of the Royal Park Nature Play Playground next to the Royal Children’s Hospital, which opened two years ago and is considered one of Melbourne’s best.

By comparison, neighbouring Bayside Council has approved funding of almost the same amount ($10.48 million) to improve more than 60 play areas over the next 10 years.Booran Reserve in Glenhuntly will open soon.

The Leader asked Glen Eira council what bang ratepayers were getting for their buck, but the council refused to reveal a breakdown of the final bill, acknowledging only that the State Government had provided $700,000.

Leader can reveal the water-themed playground of the future boasts Australia’s first double-dome climbing net, custom-made play equipment, a water play area, outdoor gallery space, urban forest corridor and double flying fox.

Glen Eira Council infrastructure, environment and leisure director Samantha Krull said the reserve, which was formerly a reservoir, included a range of spaces that provided for play, activity and relaxation.

The construction of the playground at the corner of Glenhuntly Rd and Booran Rd is now almost five months behind schedule, building anticipation about its opening on Sunday.

Comments from the Glen Eira Residents Action Group were mostly positive, with member Vicki Howson writing: “Wow, looks fabulous … can’t wait to take my grandchildren here.”

But Ratepayers Victoria vice-president Jack Davis wasn’t impressed, saying the price tag was “ridiculous”.

“It’s an exorbitant use of ratepayers’ funds,” he said.

A Community Fun Day will be held at the reserve on Sunday, April 9.

The official opening will be held on Tuesday, April 11, by Victorian Minister for Innovation Philip Dalidakis.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/booran-reserve-playground-in-glen-huntly-could-be-best-in-melbourne/news-story/f132e57ea7cb7b1b7ebba5ca420d6230

 

March 30, 2017

The Bentleigh ‘Concepts’

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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Every single resident should read the ‘transformative concept review’ created by Planisphere. As a strategic document that is supposed to set the vision for the next 20 to 30 years, it falls well short of the mark in our view. Our concerns with this ‘review’ are numerous. In a nutshell, we find:

  • The objective is to sell off as much public land as possible
  • Recommendations are impractical and impossible to deliver
  • Corporate memory is non-existent. This results in unbelievable profligacy.
  • The incorporation of recommendations that are not what residents said they wanted, or ignoring what residents stated
  • Inaccuracies of statement after statement

We will start off with an analysis of the Bentleigh ‘concepts’ and proceed with the bullet points made above as headings.

Selling off public land

The Bentleigh Activity Centre has 6 car parks (one of which council doesn’t even know if it owns – ie Aldi!!!). What is proposed in superb double-speak is a ‘repurposing’ – ie sell off- of some of these car parks to commercial interests and the creation of a multi-storey carpark of 2 to 3 storeys. No costings of course, no time scale, no nothing! Instead we are left with the ‘promise’ of increased car parking spaces. Yet, the sites of this new car park are also highly questionable. If all car parks go, then residents will be forced to congregate even more in one single high rise concrete structure. Will this create less patronage of the centre or more? What is the evidence to support either position? And why high rise? Why not underground with a large public open space above as Stonnington is doing? We appreciate that council must recoup some money for any of these ventures, but the outcomes must be positive and not create more traffic problems which we believe this will do, or be deleterious to businesses when people can’t get easy access to car parking.

Impractical Recommendations

The desire for more shops, restaurants, cafes, and night-life sounds wonderful. The reality is that council has very little control over what kind of shops go into an area. Their level of intervention is limited to brothels, porn shops, massage parlours, alcohol etc. Council cannot tell an applicant to open up a restaurant when he wants to open up a $2 shop! And if hours are extended for restaurants until late evenings, then what impact will this have on parking. Will all restaurant patrons go and park in the high rise car park or settle for side streets that are closer to their chosen destination?

Also proposed is the creation of several ‘green spines’, the closing off of Vickery Street and the extension of the rotunda area across Centre Road to meet up with Vickery Street. We fully agree that the rotunda area has been an eyesore for years and that something needs to be done about this site. As far back as February 2010 there was ‘public consultation’ on the rotunda and the following resolution was passed on the 2/2/2010. Needless to say, the issue of the rotunda and the actions councillors resolved to happen were never heard of again!

That Council:

  1. Under take a proof of concept to redevelop the Bentleigh Rotunda site with acommercial caretaker presence at the rear and public open space adjacent to Centre Road.
  1. Prepare artist’s impression of what the redeveloped site may look like from Centre Road and Daley Street (to assist with further community consultation).
  1. Obtain advice to determine the most suitable commercial instrument to use to develop the site with a commercial component.
  1. Consider a further report on this matter (including suggestions for further community consultation) on completion of the above. (unanimously passed)

Traffic along Centre Road is already crawling. Closing off more access to Centre Road will surely force cars into streets that remain open. And what of the ‘green spines’ that are to run behind the shops? What happens to the truck deliveries that service these shops from these areas? Will they be forced into Centre Road itself?

Profligacy and Waste of Public Monies

3 options are provided for the current library site in Jasper Road, including ‘develop for mix of car parking/commercial/residential opportunities’ or ‘utilise for new centralised green park’. The last option is ‘retain library in existing position’. Thus 2 out of 3 recommendations involve moving a recently redeveloped library that cost ratepayers millions and will cost heaven knows how much more to move and establish in another centre. Here is a run down of just part of what council spent on this redevelopment alone –

That Council appoint Core Properties Pty Ltd CAN 007 192 056 as the contractor under Contract Number 2010.009 Bentleigh Library Building Refurbishment Works at 161 Jasper Rd, Bentleigh for the sum of $677,703.40 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered. (minutes of 11/8/2009). (The contractor lists the resultant project at $1.5m)

That Council appoint WM Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN. 005 711 222 as the contractor under Contract No. 2009.039 Bentleigh Library Car Park Rehabilitation & Associated Landscaping Works at 161 Jasper Rd, Bentleigh for the sum of $506,042.02 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered (minutes of 19/5/2009)

Also of interest is that in March 2007 an officer’s report into the feasibility of developing a new Bentleigh Library and Community Centre including a Library, Maternal and Child Health and associated child development and care services, senior citizens and general community facilities and amenities . was tabled. The report then stated that – The cost of building a new library and community centre with the functions set out in Council’s resolution (which are greater than the facilities at Carnegie) is estimated to be $19-$24M. (Minutes of 20/3/2007). Hence the project was shelved and only the library redevelopment was undertaken. That was ten years ago. How much would this cost today?

Inaccuracies

On page 16 of the Bentleigh report we get this paragraph – Buildings are generally up to two storeys in height, with newer development up to four storeys. There are isolated older buildings dispersed throughout. The report is dated March 2017. To therefore claim that ‘newer development’ is ‘up to four storeys’ is unacceptable given that permits have already been granted for 8 storeys well before the writing of the report, and council’s own position is that it wants a ‘preferred’ height limit of 5 storeys.

On page 3 of the report we are told – This report reviews the options for transformation projects in each centre, from an urban design perspective.  An urban design approach that totally ignores built form and major development in the entire activity centre is certainly not a ‘comprehensive urban design’ evaluation in our view.

There is much, much more that could be said about these ‘concepts’. We urge all residents to voice their opinions and to insist that if council is truly committed to genuine consultation that the community’s views be incorporated into a vision that is truly representative of good strategic planning!

PS: NEWSFLASH ON INTERIM HEIGHTS FOR BENTLEIGH & CARNEGIE. SEE: http://www.nickstaikos.com.au/media-releases/new-planning-controls-to-protect-bentleigh-and-carnegie/

 

March 28, 2017

Structure Plans & Borders

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

The 3 images above depict an aspect of structure planning undertaken by different councils – and stand in stark contrast to how Glen Eira Council is approaching the same task.

Please note that:

  • Each of these councils includes vast areas of ‘residential’ land
  • Borders are clearly defined and are ‘reviewed’
  • Notations that ‘heritage’ areas to be ‘generally excluded’

Glen Eira’s structure planning concentrates exclusively on the main shopping strip (ie Centre Road, Glen Huntly Road, etc) and the surrounding residential areas (ie the zones) are ignored. The use of the term ‘shopping strip’ alone in the surveys was the clear giveaway!

Given that ‘structure planning’ is meant to deal with ‘activity centres’ as a whole, and that activity centres include far more than a single shopping strip, we find the approach taken by council far from adequate – especially in light of the countless comments already submitted by residents complaining about overdevelopment in their side streets. What we are therefore seeing is NOT a structure plan for an activity centre but a half baked approach to genuine community consultation and proficient strategic planning.

Finally, Council’s planning scheme clearly outlines what it considers to be an activity centre. Here is the one for Bentleigh –

By ignoring the residential areas included in the activity centre, we can only wonder at the efficacy of any resulting structure plan. If no current data on population, car ownership, developments, etc is included in the design of any future structure plan, then the very validity of the plan must be questioned. As shown in previous posts the vast majority of development is not occurring in the areas zoned Commercial, but in the abutting residential areas. The impact of this must be reviewed and questions as to capacity, infrastructure needs, etc. addressed before any window dressing occurs for the central shopping strips alone.

 

March 26, 2017

Another Clayton’s Consultation?

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

Residents do have cause for concern given the ‘results’ which have thus far been produced by council in regard to the structure planning ‘consultations’. The plans are supposedly based on community feedback. Yet very little of what residents wrote is reflected in any of these documents. When even council is forced to admit that ‘opposition’ to ‘private development’ features prominently in most of the areas listed, but fails to make an appearance in the ‘objectives’ section listed for further action, then something is drastically wrong.

Below is what council sees as the road map for the next phase of ‘consultation’ for four of the designated activity centres – (the screen dumps come from the ‘Transformational Concepts’ report). Please keep in mind that no explanation has been given why Hughesdale and Murrumbeena should be included as part of the first cabs off the rank instead of say Ormond, McKinnon and even Balaclava, Glen Huntly and Caulfield which according to the latest version of Plan Melbourne are now designated as MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRES!

What we have here is thus another example of a Clayton’s Consultation where decisions have already been made and the ‘results’ of  community input are deliberately distorted, or completely ignored!

 

March 21, 2017

Structure Planning ‘Consultation’ – #2

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

The image above comes from Council’s summary of community responses to the Bentleigh ‘shopping strip’ online survey. According to the ‘facts’ presented here we are meant to believe that 65% of respondents are in favour of ‘private development’ (whatever that means!) – but with some constraints on height and ‘character’. Please note that of the valid 248 comments included in the document, the claim that 65% are ‘supportive’ does indeed represent an entire work of fiction. What is most disappointing about this report is:

  • The failure to acknowledge the countless comments that specifically referred to overdevelopment in the various side streets of Bentleigh – ie the damage done via the zones
  • The exclusive emphases on the ‘survey’ comments rather than the opinions expressed via the forum PLUS the apparent ‘editing’ of the forum comments themselves – ie not every comment made online is included in the resulting ‘summary’. Here is one example of what’s been omitted – The critical and major issue is the urgent implementation of height and appropriate building form controls. Interim measures are required immediately to ensure a planned future for the shopping precinct. The inappropriate and unplanned overdevelopment must be stopped now to ensure that structure planning results in long term plan
  • The total inconsistency in the reporting across all suburbs. Surely a report on community responses to one issue should include identical categories in the respective pie charts?
  • Could this possibly be another example of ‘community consultation’ designed to ‘endorse’ the decisions that have already been made behind closed doors?

Presented below are the pages that are council’s version of the online forum comments plus another graphic displaying what has been happening south of Centre Road Bentleigh since the introduction of the zones!

 

March 19, 2017

Structure Planning & ‘Consultation’ – #1

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

Council’s recent release of documents related to its ‘structure planning’ must, in our view, be treated with a huge grain of salt. This is the first in a series of posts analysing what has been placed in front of residents and how valid, accurate, and transparent these documents really are. Are we again being taken for a ride via data that are highly questionable and manipulated to present already determined decisions?

The first document is called ‘Activity Centres Snapshot: February 2017’. It purports to be ‘based on similar studies carried out by Melbourne City Council’ in its Places for People and Local Liveability 2015 Study. (uploaded HERE). The aim is to ‘provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the city performs for everyday people’. Yet, when both of these documents are compared, the Glen Eira version is anything but ‘comprehensive’. For starters we are told that:

  • All data used in this document is current (February 2017) except for residential and employment population data, which is taken from the Census carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2011. How much credence should then be placed on this ‘snapshot’, especially given the rate of development since 2011?
  • The land uses were determined using Council’s internal database and does not include residential land within the study areas. How on earth any study can ignore ‘residential’ is simply mind boggling! Or is this simply more confirmation of the fact that council is focusing exclusively on the single street shopping strips themselves and not the zones that have blighted countless people’s lives?
  • Then of course, there is this wonderful ‘escape clause’ – Disclaimer: this document is provided for information purposes and does not claim to be complete. Although due diligence has been applied to ensure that all information contained in this document is accurate, it cannot be guaranteed that this document is without errors or omissions. Why publish anything if its accuracy and integrity cannot be assured?

We’ve drawn up a table below which illustrates just some of the differences between the Glen Eira version of good planning and what the Melbourne City Council included in their study. To therefore claim that this piece of paper represents a ‘snapshot’ of what is happening in Glen Eira, and is the basis upon which to plan for the future, is not only ludicrous, but deliberately misleading and invalid.

MELBOURNE CITY COUNCI1

Compounding all of the above, we then have neat little maps of the various areas under consideration – with no explanation, no criteria, and again, lines drawn on a map. The City of Melbourne’s study clearly defined how its various neighbourhood borders were selected –

To understand the Local Liveability 2015 Study area at a local level, 5-minute walking catchments were identified across the study area to effectively act as a sieve and allow for disparate urban geographies and their components to be compared ‘apples for apples’. For greater rigour and to reflect the true local urban conditions, real 5-minute walking catchments were determined rather than standard ‘as-the-crow-flies’ walking radii.
Local Movement as defined by Melbourne then includes ‘Car Spaces Per Employment’, ‘Car Spaces Per Resident’, and the numbers of bus stops, tram stops, etc.  All Glen Eira includes are the latter. As mentioned previously parking does not figure at all. Instead we are presented with nice little maps, that may look ‘professional’ and pretty, but which don’t reveal very much when terms, borders, and important categories are omitted!
The Bentleigh snapshot is typical. Depicted is a huge area that is overwhelmingly ‘residential’ – which we’re told has been excluded. Thus, what knowledge and what kind of basis for future planning can be drawn from this effort? Finally, Melbourne has no qualms in pinpointing areas that are ‘poor’ in terms of ‘liveability’ for its neighbourhood areas. In Glen Eira of course, the category ‘poor’ simply does not exist – everything is ‘great’ or ‘good’!!!!!!!!!
 

March 8, 2017

Carnegie: The ‘Sacrificial Lamb’ To Atrocious Planning!

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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

For all the talk about ‘consultation’ the single thing that residents have been clamouring for over the past few years is being totally ignored – a review of the residential zones.

The image above provides clear, unassailable evidence of how disastrous the implementation and maintaining of the current zoning has been. Please note carefully:

  • The vast majority of development since the introduction of the new zones HAS NOT OCCURRED in those areas zoned as Commercial – which is what the planning scheme states should happen. Instead, street after street has been destroyed because it is zoned as suitable for 4 storey development.
  • Many of these streets are not within cooee of the railway station (circled in red) which is the reason for designating these areas as an ‘activity centre’. They might be 400-600 metres away from the station, but only as the crow flies. Walking distance (ie properties in Mimosa, Beena, etc) would make these sites at least one kilometre from any railway station.
  • Activity centres are also supposed to incorporate community facilities such as open space. The map reveals not a skerrick of nearby open space!
  • Other councils do their structure planning on the basis of recent Housing Strategies. Glen Eira’s fossilised strategy originates from 1998 data. Yet, we now have the spin about structure planning that will extend over the next 10 to 15 years, WITHOUT any new housing strategy!
  • Even Matthew Guy had enough sense in his July 2014 directive to mandate – A planning authority must use a housing strategy to inform the balanced application of the three residential zones. We assume that Guy’s order would presume recent analysis and data, since those councils who chose the option of going to a committee for the implementation of their zones were told that their proposed zoning couldn’t go ahead since their data is too old! Glen Eira as a result has no strategic justification for its implementation of the new zones according to what the committee told numerous other councils!
  • Guy even states – A planning authority must evaluate and monitor the implications of the application of any of the three residential zones within two years of their gazettal into a planning scheme. Planning authorities must specifically assess the affect of the residential zone(s) on housing supply, housing prices, infill development site land prices and the availability of land for infill development but are not limited to those matters. Three and a half years down the track and residents are yet to receive any decent ‘report’ as to the efficacy of all the zones – are they working? Where is development really going? What needs changing? How best to protect residential amenity?
  • Residents also should realise that when Amendment C25, which created the Housing Diversity/Minimal change areas in Glen Eira, the panel appointed to evaluate the amendment clearly saw this as an ‘interim’ measure. The word ‘interim’ was used over 20 times in their resulting panel report. Here is one example of what was stated – The boundaries of the neighbourhood centres identified in the amendment are considered by the panel as interim at best. Thus, we are stuck with ‘interim’ housing diversity borders and for the past 17 years no inclination by Council to do what it promised – ie review the areas and implement controls that will protect residents.

The take home message is that unless these councillors have the courage to admit that disastrous mistakes have been made, the rot will continue until the bottom falls out of the housing market. We simply ask:

  • Why can’t the borders of housing diversity areas be reduced given the fact that instead of the required 600 new dwellings per annum, Glen Eira is now accommodating over 2000 net new dwellings per annum?
  • Why should suburbs such as Ormond have over 40% of its area designated as suitable for 3 storey developments? – especially when large swathes are zoned as heritage?
  • Unless there is a comprehensive review of the zones, then residents have every right to label this council not only as incompetent, but negligent in its duty.
  • Creating structure plans only for the Commercial areas will not solve the problem of street after street being over-run with substandard dog boxes. This isn’t planning. It is cow-towing to the development industry and the refusal to admit that the Newton & Akehurst vision for Glen Eira is a total disaster, especially when residents have had no say in what happened!

As a reminder of the human cost involved, we re-publish an email we received a while back from an Elliott Street resident. It spells out everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira –

We live in the house next to the 51 units, 4 storeys, 3-9 Elliott Ave. It is on our north side! We will also be opposite 60 more units in Elliott Ave. Only 6 out of 20 houses left in our part of this small suburban street…… what can we say. We explored all avenues including going to VCAT, employing a Planner for quite a substantial fee. We achieved some minor concessions with shadowing and setbacks. It has been an exhausting process. I wonder if we are completely stupid to continue to stay here after 36 years, enjoying the peace and convenience of living in Carnegie. However, all has changed. The council has won. The peace and joy of living here is shattered. We will stay and see how things pan out. The world is changing at such a rapid pace around us and I’m afraid we’ve lost faith in the Council and its concern for the community. We will look back in a few years time at the implementation of these zones and wonder how it could happen. In a bizarre way it makes me empathise with the first people of our country and the bewilderment of colonisation! Rapid change can leave a community depleted.

 

March 1, 2017

A Marathon Talk Fest!

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

A short, preliminary report on last night’s lengthy council meeting.

Item 9.1 (19 storey Kooyong Road application) created a first in Glen Eira. Instead of cramming scores of the public into the chamber, this item was moved into the larger hall with councillors and officers up on the dias and supplied with microphones. As expected, the application was unanimously refused. Delahunty moved an amendment that should the developer decide to go to VCAT, then council would be asking the Minister for Planning to ‘call the application in’. This effectively means that it is the Minister who would, under these circumstances, be making the decision.

Following this item the meeting resumed back in the chamber. Many residents were present to hear the outcome of the parking restriction items – especially those streets around the Caulfield Hospital. In line with previous meetings there was the suspension of standing orders for the gallery to ask questions for 15 minutes. Council and councillors received the most scathing criticism from several people for their failure to consult, to be transparent, and to employ basic common sense. Delahunty did apologise on behalf of council for not consulting when this issue of changing the 2 hour parking layouts occurred. The report and the final decision (to basically do nothing except wait some more) resulted in many residents walking out in disgust.

This issue has now been allowed to continue for at least 9 months. We remind readers that council’s so called ‘policy’ states that parking decisions will be made with a survey of the streets involved. This was not done, and it is not being done now. Please refer to our previous posts for details and how other council approach such issues –

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/parking-glen-eira-versus-moonee-valley/

and

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/q-a-2/

For the nth time a request for a report by Taylor on the possibility of community gardens was passed unanimously. Terrific stuff, since this issue has been around since 2003!

We will provide a far more detailed summary of the ‘debates’ in the days ahead.

 

February 25, 2017

Agenda: Planning Mayhem!

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

No surprise that the recommendation for the 19 storey Calvary Health application is a refusal. With over 300 formal objections, wide media coverage, Wynne’s  call for Council to ‘get it right’ and the absurdity of what is undoubtedly an ambit claim, council was left with little option.  Trouble is that they have certainly not done residents a favour with the resulting officer’s report. If anything it has handed the developer enough ammunition to turn council into a laughing stock at VCAT.  The report is incompetent, and worse, deliberately misleading! Here’s why!

One of the major reasons for refusal is council’s sudden interest in open space.  We’re told:

The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Glen Eira Open Space Strategy (2014) as: The proposed public open space is of insufficient size to serve the open space needs of the existing and/or future population.

The area is said to be 457 square metres and consequently not large enough for public open space according to this version of reality. Trouble is that the cited Open Space Strategy (OSS), and the Planning Scheme itself says nothing of the sort! Yes, the area is designated as a ‘gap area’ requiring the creation of 2 Small Local Open Space parks. Clause 22.02 states that the size of such parks can be –

oss

Then on page 75 of the OSS we find the following – the area allocated for Small Local open spaces range in size from 300 sqm up to 2,499 sqm and the larger sized spaces can accommodate large canopy trees.

457 square metres is acceptable as public open space according to both the Planning Scheme and the OSS. Further, council suddenly requires that the open space within the development itself has the capacity to not restrict the type of activities that could take place there.

Once again the OSS disagrees with this statement – Minimise duplication of facilities in Small Local open spaces to provide a diversity of recreational activities in open spaces within a local area, e.g. one Small Local open space could be predominantly for play facilities, while the next provides passive seating and open grassed areas. (page 261). In other words, Small Local Open spaces should be treated as unique sites and not be seen as providing options for multiple users and uses.

We also get the demand for a land contribution instead of a cash payment. Whilst the OSS and the Planning Scheme does list council’s preference for a land contribution here, nothing is mandatory. Council ‘may’ request a land contribution if they so wish, or opt for the cash alternative. Which they so happily did with the Virginia Estate amendment that is also listed as suitable for a land contribution. The Gillon Group then revealed that they had offered land but Council insisted on cash. Why the inconsistency is of course the crucial question.

Next there is the question of ‘neighbourhood character’ and council’s ‘policies’. We agree that 19 storeys is a joke. But so is the Planning Scheme and its ‘summary’ of ‘neighbourhood character’ in this area. The fact that any ‘policy’ can be so general, cover such an immense area, and be so wishy-washy, is hardly something that can be relied upon at VCAT!

Character Area 9: Elsternwick – Caulfield South

Character Type: Edwardian / interwar garden suburban base with modern overbuilding (infill development)

This area has an Edwardian and interwar base, with a range of modern overbuilding that creates a mixed character.

Many of the original buildings are constructed of timber.

The area generally has well established gardens with low to medium scale vegetation and regular planting of street trees. Occasionally private gardens include substantial trees and several streets are defined by their avenue planting.

It includes the areas of significant neighbourhood character around St James andRiddell Parades, which is valued for its intact Victorian, Edwardian and Interwarstreetscapes and the strong vegetation quality. (Clause 22.08).

Council also relies on its claims about ‘potential flooding’! Please note:

  • There has been no referral to Melbourne Water
  • There is no Special Building Overlay (SBO) impacting on the site (see image below)
  • All the VCAT member has to do is look at this nonsense and chuck it out. This of course doesn’t explain the fact that given all the flooding since at least 2011, Council has sat back and done bugger all about its SBO’s

sbos

The most important omission in our view is any discussion as to the legal interpretations that should play a large part in any VCAT hearing. Council simply states –

The mandatory height limit applies only to land used as a “Dwelling” or “ResidentialBuilding”. Any other use is not subject to the mandatory height.In this instance, the proposed “Residential Aged Care Facility” building fronting Ludbrook Avenue is the only component of the development which is subject to the mandatory height limit of 9 metres (as the slope of the land is greater than 2.5 degrees). The balance of the development including the nineteen storey building comprising the retired living units is exempt from the mandatory maximum height under the zone.

When 86 so called ‘independent living units’ are crammed into a 19 storey building, and some of these will include 3 bedroom apartments, then surely it is at least worth raising the issue of the status of such a proposal. Could they in any shape or form be considered as ‘dwellings’? If they are ’dwellings’ then they come under the Neighbourhood Residential zone requirements of an 8 metre mandatory height limit! Even the Planning & Environment Act would appear to provide some solace here with its definition of ‘dwelling’. Council simply ignores, or at best, skims over this vital consideration!

“dwelling” means a building that is used, or is intended, adapted or designed for use, as a separate residence, (including kitchen, bathroom and sanitary facilities) for an occupier who has a right to the exclusive use of it …..(planning and environment act, 1987 – definitions Section 46H)

There are plenty of other gaping holes in this Rocky Camera report. Until the competence of the planning department improves dramatically and until officer’s reports are accurate and not misleading, we do not hold out much hope that residents can have any faith in what is presented on the written page!

 

February 17, 2017

Bentleigh Revisited – Post Zones!

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

No need for words. The image says it all – 500 apartments crammed into another handful of streets! And this is without the 7,8, and 9 storey developments waiting in the wings along Centre Road itself. We should also point out that in the majority of these developments, permits were granted by Hyams, Esakoff, Magee and Delahunty who also decided that the community was not worth consulting when they introduced the zones in secret and by stealth!

bentleigh2CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »