GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

November 12, 2016

Open Space Decision Making!

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

 

The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –

  • What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
  • Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
  • Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
  • If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
  • What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
  • Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
  • Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?

We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.

 

October 14, 2016

Camden Ward ‘Meet The Candidates’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[26] Comments 

A very good turnout at last night’s Camden ward ‘Meet the Candidates’ forum. Congratulations to all candidates for showing up, namely – Delahunty, Pinskier, Hermann, Sounness, Silver, Fayman and Strajt. Questions focused on the following:

  • Community safety – with some members of the audience arguing that Glen Eira is very safe. Candidates responded that crime statistics don’t bear this out and that if even some residents feel unsafe that it is council’s duty to listen and consider their concerns. Ms Pinskier said that she was opposed to CCTV cameras and ‘angry’ about guns in parks which she is absolutely against.
  • One resident from Redan Road, Caulfield East asked why Delahunty and Sounness voted against 92% of residents’ wishes in regard to council’s traffic management ‘solution’ for the street and why emails weren’t answered. Delahunty responded by saying that the measures introduced were in response to ‘safety’ issues and that she makes no apologies for that.
  • Another resident asked how much money council had raised in the past few years from the open space levy and how much of this money had been spent in acquiring new open space in Camden. Sounness replied that there is a process in place where officers look at what is available for purchase and then determine how to proceed. Given the high cost of land at the moment councillors have to decide if any purchase is ‘value for money’. Delahunty then outlined what council had spent money on – ie Riddell Parade, Eskdale Road, and the purchase of an Aileen Avenue property (to be settled in November).
  • Next question was directed to new candidates about the changes to the public questions protocols and whether they thought this was ‘discriminatory’. All new candidates stated that they were opposed to this change and Pinskier favoured full streaming of council meetings. Silver added that he thought there should be a limit on the number of questions per individual because council could then run until 3am! The resident also asked about why the ‘red fence’ of the racecourse was still up and why council allowed this. On the fence question Sounness stated that he thought it was part of the racecourse only to be corrected that it was both council’s and the MRC’s responsibility. Delahunty conceded that council should get moving on this issue and that it was ridiculous that people couldn’t ask questions like this at council instead of a forum.
  • Another resident asked the new candidates for their definitions of ‘neighbourhood character’ and ‘overdevelopment’ and how they could ‘guarantee’ (as Silver stated on his facebook page) that there would be ‘sensible development’. Silver responded that his definition of this is ‘family friendly’ development with proper apartment size to fit 2 adults and 2 children and the need for gardens. Fayman was concerned about waiving of car parking places and thought that 3 or 4 storeys along main arterial roads was justifiable as were one bedroom apartments near university. Strajt spoke about population growth and how councils that joined forces would be best placed to resist overdevelopment. Hermann called overdevelopment the most important issue facing the community and undertook to get fully ‘up to speed’.
  • There was a question on preferences and whether this was done on political grounds. Delahunty said that she put those who had real estate advertising on their boards as last. Silver thought this was a ‘slur’ and that there was no ‘impropriety’ or ‘conflict of interest’ concerns. Hermann thought it was time for fresh faces and that’s why Delahunty and Sounness were put last on her voting card.
  • Another questioner was interested in governance and brought up the issue of notice of motion, recording of council meetings and general transparency and accountability and whether the local law would be changed as ‘first item on the agenda’. Silver said it was ‘up there’ but not his first item and didn’t know whether these suggested options ‘would work’.  Sounness, Hermann, Delahunty were all in favour.
  • A further question was on the large number of developments in Elsternwick, especially the shopping strip and whether candidates felt it was appropriate that this rate of development continues. Also queried was the future of the Elsternwick library. Strajt talked about the system failing and the need for wholesale changes so that councils have more control. Sounness said he would like to see 4, 5 or 6 storey development in some areas so that people can get to know each other and that where there is ‘density’ that it has to be well designed and ‘comfortable’. Hermann was concerned about traffic in Elsternwick and overshadowing and if elected would do all she could to change this. Delahunty said that structure planning could control the ‘rate of change’ as was pointed out by Wynne. Said she will ‘wear’ the criticism as council hasn’t done any structure planning and that when the Coles development happens this will ‘stretch’ the rate of development even further. Structure planning will help and that ‘should have been done a long time ago’.
 

September 22, 2016

Andonopoulos Flyer

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

ra

 

September 18, 2016

Agenda: Open Space

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

Item 9.12 deals with the proposed closure of Fosbery/St  Aubins Avenue to create open space. What will be fascinating is to see whether resident concerns are acted upon by councillors or ignored entirely.

The report states that for traffic in Kambea and Otira Road – The majority of the feedback was strongly opposed to the proposal based on concerns around traffic volume, congestion and vehicle movement. Responding to this opposition we have –

The analysis of this data indicates that:

Σ There would not be any noticeable change in the daily traffic conditions in Fosbery Avenue (north of St Aubins Avenue) and at Otira Road.

Σ Daily traffic volumes in Fosbery Avenue, south of the proposed open space area would decrease by approximately 70%.

Σ Traffic volumes along St Aubins Avenue are also expected to decrease.

Σ Traffic volumes at Kambea Grove, west of Fosbery Avenue would be expected to increase by approximately 219 vehicle movements per day, and up to 44 vehicle movements in the AM peak hour.

Σ The traffic volumes are considered appropriate noting the acceptable threshold volume for a local street under State Government planning guidelines is variously 2,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.

The most incredible paragraph in response to the potential speed of cars reads –

The location of the proposed open space was not identified in order to address a specific traffic concern, although wider streets like St Aubins Avenue and the southern section of Fosbery Avenue (south of the dogleg) can attract more traffic ‘cutting through’ and travelling at higher speeds, due to ease of access.

Surely when up to half a million dollars of ratepayer funds is about to be spent on a project, all aspects should be considered and fully investigated. We also remind readers that less than 2 years ago a tender was granted for the ‘redevelopment’ of this site for approximately $930,000. We have wondered whether this means that work previously done will now be ripped up to make way for this project?

Some further information on open space

Page 212 of the agenda states – Purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue for a potential new open space opportunity in Caulfield South.

We assume that this relates to some recent in camera items and the resolution to ‘accept’ the officer’s report presumably for purchase. Readers should note:

  • Recent sales in Aileen Avenue are listed as over $2 million
  • Council’s purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue repeats the ongoing trend of concentrating on Camden ward to the exclusion of the far more ‘high priority’ recommendations from the Open Space Strategy for the Carnegie area. Why?
  • And why oh why is council continuing to spend valuable money on new open space that is literally a stone’s throw from existing open space? – ie Fitzgibbon/Eskdale (Caulfield Park); St Aubins/Fosbery (Greenmeadows)? And now Aileen Avenue – Princes Park?

os

 

 

September 15, 2016

Residents, Candidate Promises, & How To Decide

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

fairy-tales

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning, 

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for? 

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what. 

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?  

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry. 

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other. 

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

  • Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
  • Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
  • Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
  • Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
  • Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
  • Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

 

September 15, 2016

Ms ‘Independent’!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

esakoff

 

September 6, 2016

Election Flyers: Hyams ‘Recycled’!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

img001Scanned Image 122670000-1Pages from Community-Satisfaction-Survey-2016

 

September 4, 2016

Election Flyers: Don Dunstan – Rosstown Ward

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We reproduce only part of the 4 page flyer here.

p3 001

Page 1

Page 2

Page 4

 

 

August 23, 2016

Secrecy, Secrecy, Secrecy!

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

The Ombudsman  recently met with the CEO and the Mayor in relation to her investigation into ‘secrecy’ and lack of transparency in council decision making. It is therefore astounding that the following has occurred so shortly afterwards.

1.The online and hard copy agenda published on the Friday before the last council meeting did not contain any items for in camera consideration

  1. On the evening of the council meeting (ie last Tuesday week) there was this ‘insert’ into the agenda – please note the in camera item.

P1000440

  1. The minutes have finally been published. Wonder of wonders, the above description has disappeared into the ether. All that residents are now told is this wonderfully uninformative single line –

12.1 Under s89(2)(d) “contractual”.

Then on ‘outcomes’ of the in camera discussion, the minutes state –

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty

That the recommendation in the report be adopted.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

What has happened to the far more expansive explanation regarding the open space item? Why was this edited down and by whom? Why is so much effort expended to keep residents uninformed? And why does this council continue to push the envelope when it comes to transparency and sound governance? Who is behind this latest attempt at secrecy? We would even suggest that given the resolution the item is no longer ‘confidential’, since the Local Government Act states on disclosure:

in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process.

Residents have no idea as to the ‘report’ much less any idea as to what this resolution concerns, or what its ramifications are? Will council be spending money for open space? If so, how much? Did the report recommend no purchase? Where is this potential open space?  Is the location good value? We can only assume that if the wording of the item was changed then it is a deliberate attempt to conceal from the public what is really going on! What makes this even easier to conceal is that council sees fit to provide only half a dozen or so agendas in the chamber when the gallery over the past few meetings has at times contained 10 times this number of residents. Please remember that council has ‘promised’ several times over the years to consider displaying motions, amendments via some form of overhead, so that residents can follow what is going on. Nothing has eventuated!

We are confident that the ombudsman would be very interested in this latest example of Glen Eira’s approach to transparency and sound governance and non-adherence to the strictures of the Local Government Act!

 

August 8, 2016

The Ultimate Betrayal!

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

Residents need to take careful note of what happens tomorrow night, especially what councillors say and how they vote on the so called Planning Scheme Review. If this is passed as it stands, then it is a clear message that councillors are not the community’s real representatives. They have to be gone in October!

The euphemistically entitled Planning Scheme Review, is anything but a professional and comprehensive review. It continues the tradition of pro-development, anti-community, and the ‘ let’s do nothing’ mentality that has so bedevilled this council since its inception.

Here are our reasons why this document is not worth the paper it is written on:

  • Does not meet the legal requirements associated with planning scheme reviews (ie the relevant Practice Notes and the ‘continuous improvement kit’.
  • Does not present full and comprehensive figures (ie very selective editing)
  • A work plan that is literally ludicrous and designed to only delay and then delay some more
  • The absence of any data in this review which assesses the actual performance of the planning scheme.

Questions that should be answered of councillors:

  1. Why is it that practically everything is lumped together under the umbrella of a ‘structure plan’? Plenty of actions can be taken without the need for a structure plan! Parking overlays can achieve the same result. Council had no trouble with Amendment C99 that introduced another student parking overlay to assist the Caulfield Village! No structure plan was needed here!
  2. Why is it that the issue of basement car parking is lumped under the ridiculous category of Water Sensitive Urban Design? Again, a simple amendment to increase basement car park site coverage can be done immediately via a change to the schedules – ie. Stonnington for both its Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones has this – Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
  3. Why is it that the zones themselves do not rate a mention when this has been the constant cry from residents? Why is nearly half of Ormond zoned as GRZ1 – telling developers they can put in 3 storeys to their hearts’ content? Why aren’t the zones themselves a priority for ‘review’ – especially since Glen Eira has quadrupled its population and housing targets? This of course is not mentioned anywhere!
  4. Why does the section on Local Policy simply state ‘develop new policies where gaps are identified’ and the time span is given as 2 to 3 years? Any decent ‘review’ should already have identified all the gaps!
  5. Why is there no mention of Mixed Use Zoning, or Local Centres, where there are no height limits? Will council only look at Activity Centres and nothing else? Why isn’t this spelt out fully?

There is plenty more that could be said about this effort. We will desist and simply urge all concerned residents to write to the Minister and local politicians and demand that this Planning Scheme review be consigned to the rubbish bin and that Minister Wynne intervene directly and bring in interim measures. If council is incapable or unwilling to do its job properly, then the State Government needs to know and to act now. Glen Eira simply cannot afford another 3 to 4 years of doing nothing!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »