GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

May 31, 2016

Magee & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[24] Comments 

Councillor camps out at Caulfield Racecourse to campaign on public space

Date: May 30, 2016

Councillor Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp site.Councillor Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp site. Photo: Jason South

Jim Magee is camping out. Conservative by nature, the Glen Eira councillor is not the type to conduct a sit-in, or break his own council’s by-laws banning camping on public land.

But he was worried his long-running campaign to draw attention to the little-used public space inside Caulfield Racecourse might end up going nowhere with the state’s new environment minister, Lily D’Ambrosio.

So last week he dug the family tent out of the garden shed. “Finally in my old age, I’ve become an activist,” says Cr Magee, sitting by a fire, outside the five-person tent he pitched on Saturday by the racecourse.

Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp sit-in.Jim Magee at his Caulfield Racecourse camp sit-in. Photo: Jason South

There are local laws against camping on public land, which Glen Eira is usually quick to enforce.

“But this is a political sit-in,” says Cr Magee, who has been told by council officers that unless there are complaints from residents, they are unlikely to issue him with a notice to vacate.

Cr Magee will stay put until Saturday afternoon, by which time he hopes to have met Ms D’Ambrosio to discuss the fate of the 54 hectares of land in the centre of Caulfield Racetrack.

The reserve, set aside for the public more than a century ago, is hard to get to, because of the racing infrastructure that must be navigated. It’s open from 9.30am each morning until sundown, and many locals don’t even know it’s there.

Cr Magee was concerned that, with Ms D’Ambrosio only recently taking over environmental matters, she might not pay enough attention to a review under way by the Andrews government.

There’s little chance of that now, with the land at the centre of a fight that has led to much debate – and a scathing Auditor-General’s report. It found the public land was being used almost exclusively to serve the interests of the Melbourne Racing Club.

Cr Magee has five more nights ahead of him before his hoped-for meeting with the minister, and a rally of sporting clubs who want ovals built on the land, which equates to 15 MCG playing surfaces.

“I’ve been here through two very cold nights so far – I’ve made friends with a couple of foxes,” says a slightly blurry Cr Magee, who says he is waking every 90 minutes or so. “I’m doing more sitting than sleeping – I’m actually right next to a very busy roundabout.”

The Andrews government is reviewing the status of how the land is governed and controlled, and Cr Magee – who was once a member of the trust that controls the land – says it must change.

He wants Ms D’Ambrosio to step in as minister and take control of the land and help Glen Eira council turn it into sporting fields and parklands for use at all times.

Ms Lily D’Ambrosio said she understood the high level of community interest in the public land at the racecourse and that the government had set up a bi-partisan working group to consider the issue.

“I’m expecting to receive this report next month and look forward to working with the community to reach a resolution,” she said.

 

May 26, 2016

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
[13] Comments 

For the second consecutive time, Theme 1 (Municipal Strategic Statement & Local Policies) contained in the ‘Discussion Paper’ for the review of the planning scheme has been neatly side-stepped and no discussion permitted. We therefore wonder how Council can ‘know’ what residents suggest, or want, if they haven’t even bothered to ask. What comments council officers have made in previous forums on this theme has been far from satisfactory. Torres simply admitted that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is well and truly outdated and will need to be ‘revised’. That’s it!

Given that the MSS and its associated Local Policies are perhaps the most important components of any planning scheme, it is unforgiveable that residents have not been provided with (a) enough information on these sections, and (b) that ‘discussion’ has been literally ‘censored’. That of course leads to the very obvious questions of:

  • Is this another Clayton’s consultation where ‘changes’ have already been predetermined but residents are kept in the dark like mushrooms?
  • Who decided to discard discussion on Theme 1? Was Ms Turner given her orders to do so or was it her decision alone?

Below is a screen dump from the Discussion Paper. Please note how bereft of detail this really is, yet how this Theme contains all the vital policies and which, of course, ultimately lead onto the zones and their schedules. From our perspective, it appears that council has done everything it can to avoid any discussion on the most contentious issue in Glen Eira – ie a review of the zones and their respective schedules.

Pages from Pages from april05-2016-agendaPS: also worthy of note – the only councillor to front last night was Lobo. No sign of Lipshutz at any of these ‘forums’ and Magee’s 5 minute appearance at the first one! Delahunty has also been a noticeable absentee.

 

May 25, 2016

Open Space

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

Untitled

The lack of public open space in Glen Eira has been known for decades. It was acknowledged in 1987, again in the open space strategy of the nineties and once more in 2013. Residents were lead to believe in the 1996 strategy that 50% of revenue raised would be used to purchase NEW open space. In 2013/14 ratepayers were promised even more (via council resolutions) – ie that all monies raised from the levy would be put towards the purchase of NEW open space and not used for ‘development’ of existing open space. Thus twice residents have been dudded and promises literally thrown out the window.

Council’s record on dealing with this issue is appalling. Monies have been frittered away on lawyers, pavilion developments that come in double the original monetary proposals, always late, and inevitably turn parks into more concrete and parking at more expense. Even when council had the opportunity to purchase land they removed the public acquisition overlay on Magnolia Road Gardenvale only to re-impose it 8 years later and pay the then current market price! Their largesse to the MRC has thus far garnered a paltry $575,000 for 463 units on over a hectare of land which at today’s prices will not even buy half a suburban block!

The result? Instead of increasing public open space through proper planning and budgeting, residents are now bequeathed less public open space per individual given the population increase. To add insult to injury there is now the Request for a Report to consider whether council should be seeking a higher levy when objectors argued this point years ago. When other councils can exact levies of 8% and even more for some of their areas, this council has always been unwilling to impose anything that may be seen as an impediment to more and more development.  Present and future residents are ultimately paying the cost for such generosity.

 

May 19, 2016

Community Forum: Planning Scheme Review

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

Last night’s community forum had a good turnout of residents. We estimate that 50+ people attended. Many new ideas were proffered as well as some old perennials – ie community gardens; tree register and protection, traffic, etc.

Whilst there are undoubtedly time limits and such meetings cannot go on all night, we were very surprised by the fact that Theme 1 of the Discussion Paper (ie the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)and all council’s Local Policies) did not get a guernsy. In fact, the ‘discussion’ went immediately to Theme 2. Given that the MSS is arguably Council’s most significant document since it sets the framework for all land use together with the Local Policies, and has not had a revamp for well over a decade, it is disappointing that residents were not provided with the opportunity to voice their views on this important component of the planning scheme. It should also be noted that only two councillors were in attendance – Sounness and Lobo.

Below is a ‘snapshot’ summarising the feedback on the Environmental Sustainable Design theme as it went up on the overhead projector. (apologies for the poor quality!)

151

A sample of the other feedback provided throughout the evening was:

  • Review Urban Design for Racecourse, Caulfield Station, Monash Uni
  • Rubbish bins on roads
  • More family sized apartments
  • Open space levy increase to purchase land
  • More permeable surfaces for footpaths
  • One way streets to reduce congestion
  • All new dwellings to have solar power and green roofs
  • Significant tree register
  • Increased permeability for developments via schedules
  • Population density has impact on resources
  • Bicycles for short distance travel

Opening comments from some residents were also informative –

  • Heritage Update 2002 is not part of the Planning Scheme and that’s why VCAT does not have to consider it.
  • What is the capacity of population growth for Glen Eira and what does this say about density and all that follows from this?
  • As one commentator has said in our previous post, residents appeared to favour a 4 storey height limit for commercial dwellings/zonings.
 

May 10, 2016

Some More Councillor ‘Gifts’

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

Our thanks to Urban Melbourne for these pics!

 

May 1, 2016

Open Space

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

In what can only be seen as a total admission of failure (and straight out incompetent planning) Hyams and Delahunty moved this Request for a Report at last Tuesday night’s council meeting –

Crs Hyams/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on whether Council should apply for a planning scheme amendment to raise the Public Open Space Contribution Levy above the current 5.7%.

Thus, just on one year since the amendment was gazetted, council is now acknowledging that 5.7% falls far short of what is required. The ‘excuses’ provided were that Council’s ‘assumptions’ and conditions have changed. Nothing could be further from the truth! The so called building boom owes much to the introduction of the new zones which date from August 2013 – 2 years before the open space amendment was gazetted and a year after the deficient open space strategy was made public. The writing was literally on the wall and council needed to introduce a far higher open space levy to ensure that funds were available – but more importantly that the amount of public open space per individual did not decline.

Nor does this sudden interest in open space account for 11 years of doing absolutely nothing to raise funds to purchase open space. The levy from 2004 to 20015 was not only miniscule, but a gift to developers. Exacerbating the situation was the failure of council to purchase additional space apart from 2 house blocks in Packer Park even though the lack of public open space in Glen Eira was known and stated in both the 1987 and 1998 open space strategies.

What is even more disgraceful is the repeated and continuing slurs (including last Tuesday night) cast on the 2 objectors to this open space amendment and the completely bogus claim that their objections cost council in the vicinity of $1 million. How much did council cost ratepayers from 2004 to 2015 with its laughable levy rate? And how dare the likes of Hyams and Lipshutz in particular cast slurs on residents who decided to exercise their legal rights and object to council’s inadequate proposals and shonky strategic planning?

It is now obvious that 2 residents were able to forecast  what would happen a lot better than ‘consultants’ who cost $130,000 and councillors who were determined not to listen and bureaucrats who were only intent on limiting the damage for developers.

FYI, here is part of one of the submissions presented to the Planning Panel that argues strongly that a 5.7% levy is inadequate – especially since Stonnington with the second least amount of public open space opted for an 8% levy. In the end Stonnington achieved its 8% levy for 4 major suburbs – South Yarra, Windsor, Prahran and Armadale. The total area of these 4 suburbs at 8% will alone bring in more than Glen Eira’s 5.7% across the entire municipality. Further, Stonnington’s objective is to keep creating further open space with its $36 million in the kitty as opposed to Glen Eira’s splurging on mega palaces and concrete and disowning its twice passed resolution that the levy would go for the purchase of open space and not the ‘maintenance’ of existing open space!

“NEED FOR AN INCREASED LEVY

Contention: The proposed contribution levy of 5.7% is inadequate to meet the open space needs of the existing and future populations of Glen Eira.

Throughout this submission I have pointed out that:

  • The projected population figures are extremely conservative
  • The cited potential land development area is well and truly underestimated
  • The rate of development in Glen Eira has risen astronomically
  • The stated land values are well below the current market figures
  • Infill development figures and how they impact on potential revenue is ignored
  • Impact of strategic development sites is ignored

As a consequence of all the above, a 5.7% levy, and the overall recommendation to create (at a maximum) another 11 or so hectares of public open space will not meet the needs of the community. I acknowledge fully that there is no standardised methodology for determining what an appropriate contribution levy could be. I also acknowledge that the consultants were to a great extent dependent on figures provided to them by council. It is precisely these figures which I believe are suspect and need to be fully reviewed and updated.

Without access to current council data I can only hypothesize on what would be an appropriate levy given all the above factors. What I do find telling however is the comparison with the current Stonnington proposed contributions levy and the analysis done by their consultants. As pointed out in an earlier table, Stonnington is two-thirds the size of Glen Eira, has a smaller population, and has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state, behind Glen Eira’s record of having the least amount of public open space. Yet Stonnington’s consultants find that:

Based on current provision of open space throughout the City, the Strategy identifies that acquisition of 53 hectares is required to meet the benchmark. When factoring in population growth acquisition of 108 hectares would be required to meet the benchmark[1]

The Glen Eira OSS provides no quantifiable benchmark to work towards. If no targets are set, then I’d argue that it is extremely difficult to calculate what revenue is required in order to meet the most minimalist standards of open space per individual – especially if the data is highly suspect. At a maximum, the OSS recommends the acquisition of another 11 hectares of open space in the entire municipality.  The  least recommended would only equal another 2.2 hectares, and the ‘average’ is given as 6.51 hectares. None of these possibilities are adequate. If Stonnington is currently finding a deficit of 53 hectares then Glen Eira’s claims to need only an additional 11 hectares at best, does indeed appear well below the mark.

There’s also Stonnington’s request that their contribution levy be raised to 8%. Why a council with the second least amount of public open space should ask for an 8% levy, and the council with the least amount of public open space only demands 5.7% levy is quite frankly, beyond me.

Nor do the consultant’s reports provide any historical breakdown of levy contributions per precinct as does Stonnington. All that is cited are the cumulative figures for each financial year. Without such a breakdown it is incredibly difficult to gauge where the majority of subdivisions are occurring; the nature, scope, and size of these subdivisions and how these may indicate what occurs in the future – especially in the urban growth centres.

Stonnington has also created a list of proposed projects for its entire 20 year plan and its figures are based on the anticipated costs. Apart from disclosing 3 projects in the current budget, Glen Eira has not revealed whether in fact it even has such a long term plan and what the specific projects might entail and hence their probable costs. Again, a highly dubious basis upon which to calculate what needs to be done over the next 13 years.”

AND THE CONCLUSION

“Based on all the above I would strongly urge the Panel to recommend a higher contributions levy than what is currently proposed. I am not able to provide a definite figure since I have no access to the current data and I do not consider it my task to do so. That belongs to council and the consultants.

If the residents of Glen Eira are to be well served via the acquisition of the necessary public open space, then I urge the panel to recommend a total review of what has been proposed and that this is based on the most up-to-date and accurate data. Glen Eira residents cannot afford to undergo any further loss of open space which is inevitable I believe, if the current proposed amendment remains unchanged.”

[1] SGA Economics & Planning. (2013). Assessment of Mandatory Open Space Contributions – Page 16

 

April 25, 2016

How Much For Booran Road Reservoir?

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

Council’s record with GESAC, Caulfield Park pavilion, and countless other major works has one thing in common – the doubling of costs! GESAC was supposed to be roughly around $28m. We estimate that it is in the realm of $50 to $60m. The same with other projects. Now we have the Booran Road Reservoir.

In 2008, the estimated cost was ‘over $5m’. (Minutes of 1st July, 2008). Admittedly costs have gone up over time and there are always unexpected expenses. However, should this mean a doubling of expenditure? What does this say about ‘business plans’ and sound management and oversight?

Given the way in which council provides data it is extremely difficult to come up with figures for how much this development is actually costing ratepayers. What we do know is what is contained in the minutes and to put it simply – these figures do not add up!

In 2011 the budget stated – Booran Road Reservoir – The SRP allows for the reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site – $4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019. (minutes of 27th April 2011) That’s $7.5 million.

In 2013 the figures became – reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site as Public Open space – $5m in 2015-2016 and $4.5m in 2016-2017 (minutes of June 25, 2013) – $9.5million

In 2015 this became – Booran Reserve – reinstatement and redevelopment of the former Glen Huntly Reservoir Site as Public Open Space $4.84m in 2015- 2016 and $3.93m in 2016-17 (includes State Government funding of $585k). (Minutes of 23rd June 2015)

In the meantime of course, there has been massive expenditure on a variety of tenders and other ‘expenses’. Here are some – all taken from the minutes.

  • Booran Road Reservoir site – allow $50k for site investigation works. (Minutes of 1st July 2008)
  • Booran Road Reservoir Consultation and Master Plan Development $60k AND Feasibility Study – Booran Reservoir – $15K (minutes of 28th June 2011)
  • BOORAN RESERVOIR SOIL CONTAMINATION $60,000 (minutes of 30th August 2011)
  • BOORAN ROAD RESERVOIR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT – $200,000 (minutes of  2nd September 2014)

Tenders are also interesting – especially toilets:

  • Toilets – ($473,000.00 including GST (1st September 2015)
  • electricity station – $50,215 (Inc. GST) (MINUTES 21ST September 2015)
  • The result of this tender was not published in the minutes – Supply and Installation of two double Automated Toilets – $400,000  (MINUTES OF JUNE 30TH, 2015)
  • Demolition of Sections of Existing Concrete Walls, Floor Slabs, Earth Embankments andAssociated Works for an amount of $838,504.32 exclusive of GST ($922,354.75 including GST). (23rd September 2014)
  • More toilets – $359,693.40
  • Playgrounds – ($1,886,475.80 including GST) – 11th August 2015
  • The Water Play Feature – $1.9 m – 24th November 2015

But the best is what’s in the current agenda – an estimated $4.01 million for ‘lighting and landscape works’ with only 3 selection criteria!!!! Please note that other councils often have 6 or 7 selection criteria.

Adding up these figures, the grand total is well and truly above $9 million ($7m alone for 2015/6) and we expect plenty more to be spent.  Yes, there might be ‘carry forwards’ but this still does not equate with what the budget figures state. Thus, the question of ‘how much is this really costing’ is worth asking – especially in an era of supposed ‘cost cutting’ and ratecapping!

 

April 18, 2016

Community Forum #1

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

Tonight was the first of the 5 ‘community forums’ on the Planning Scheme review. About 30 residents showed up. Magee introduced the evening and then departed due to a prior engagement. He reiterated that Glen Eira has about 1300 people moving into the municipality each year and that they need to live somewhere. VCAT was still his main villain! His ten minute introduction was followed by another ten minute introduction by a ‘facilitator’ hired by council.

Residents were seated at tables with a council planner assigned to each table and a scribe given the task of recording people’s responses to the set questions from the discussion paper. At the conclusion of ten minutes for each theme, the elected scribe reported back to the entire gathering.

The following proposals were repeated several times and from most of the groups:

  • The need for structure planning
  • The need for tree protection
  • The need for parking precinct plans
  • The need for preferred character statements
  • The need to curb overdevelopment
  • The need for a full heritage review
  • The need for policies with more ‘bite’
  • The need for greater environmental considerations in terms of building design and vegetation
  • The need to protect local shopping strips
  • The need to review the zones and schedules
  • The need for height limits overall
  • The need for developers to pay for parking waivers and infrastructure

Sadly, the opportunity to ask questions and receive responses that the entire audience could hear, was not provided. It was clear that the focus was to be on the set questions from the discussion paper, rather than an open and free discussion. When one resident towards the end interrupted the facilitator as she was summing up and asked why no forum was scheduled for Bentleigh, the response was that council could not find a venue! We should also point out, that if council was really determined to engage with the community, then surely 6pm is not the ideal time! And finally, we ask, is it sheer coincidence that the forum scheduled for Carnegie, is to be held so late in the piece (25th May), with only 6 days left before submissions close?

PS: this is why the above recommendations are crucial

Untitled

 

April 14, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #2

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

Theme 1 of council’s Discussion Paper focuses on the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). This is supposed to outline the ‘vision’ and the policies that will enable the achievement of this ‘vision’. Much of the MSS is ridiculously out of date. A total rewrite is required especially when figures from the 1996 Census are sprinkled throughout this section, or the so-called Community Plan of 2001-2004 provides the basis for planning.

Of greater concern however are the Objectives and the Strategies which are supposed to implement these objectives. There is a total disconnect between what council purportedly aspires to, and how local policies can achieve such objectives. In many cases there are no policies that are in any shape or form available to support the stated aims.

Here is a limited list of objectives taken verbatim from the MSS.

Facilitate high quality urban design and architecture that will enhance neighbourhood character.

Question: how can ‘high quality urban design’ be ‘facilitated’ when there are no urban design frameworks?

Identify a preferred future character for housing diversity areas.

Question: how many more VCAT permits will council allow before it ensures that housing diversity areas do have preferred character statements and thus closes off this loophole so well exploited by developers?

Encourage the retention of existing vegetation, in particular vegetation and trees which contribute to the City’s tree canopy.

Question: how can council achieve this objective without a tree protection policy?

Ensure residential development in commercial areas does not contribute to traffic and car parking problems.

Question: When will council introduce decent Parking Precinct Plans and stop agreeing to car parking waivers?

Ensure that where new development places an increased burden on infrastructure it contributes to the upgrading of infrastructure

Question: How can this objective be met when council has removed its development contributions levy from the planning scheme?

It is all very well to have grandiose statements in the MSS. It is another matter entirely to ensure that there are policies within the planning scheme that will have the legal weight to bring these aims to fruition. As we’ve stated, in Glen Eira, there is not only a lack of policy, but a total disconnect between aims, objectives, and strategy. Thus, the answer to council’s question –‘Are there additional policies that should be included in the Planning Scheme’ – is a resounding ‘yes’!

 

April 10, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

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

The opening few pages of council’s Discussion Paper on the Planning Scheme Review correctly state that:

  • There has been a dramatic increase in the number of ‘mid to high rise’ apartment blocks built in middle ring suburbs such as Glen Eira
  • That population growth in Glen Eira is anticipated to require 12,000 new ‘households’ up to and including 2031. This figure is calculated from 2011 according to Vic Future 2015 and not 2016 as implied. That means that Glen Eira needs an average of 600 net new dwellings per year to meet its ‘quota’.

What the Discussion Paper DOES NOT REVEAL and is essential for a complete understanding of what is happening in Glen Eira due to the Planning Scheme and the zoning, is –

  • that building approvals are approaching 2000 new dwellings per year. Hence a 300+% increase on what is deemed as necessary to meet demand.
  • Building approvals of course, do not take into account the number of planning permits granted and these figures have also gone through the roof since the introduction of the zones. Even if only 50% of these planning permits are acted upon and construction completed by 2031, we estimate the number of net new dwellings per year to be in the vicinity of 2,500 new dwellings given current trends.
  • Council does not reveal that since the introduction of the zones close to 5000 planning approvals for net new dwellings have been granted. Thus, apart from the 300% increase per year, Glen Eira will meet its nominal ‘quota’ not in 2031 but more likely in 2020 at this rate!

Council provides no figures that enable comparisons with other neighbouring councils. Residents have no idea as to building activity in these other municipalities. No comparisons are provided on number of new houses built compared to number of apartment blocks; no comparisons in terms of ‘density’ and what this ‘building boom’ does to overall density and impacts on open space. This is significant since Glen Eira with its meagre 38+ square kilometres has one of the highest population densities in the state. The only council with a higher population density is Port Phillip – but this council is unique in terms of its Capital Zone Status, its ‘inner ring’ categorisation, the Docklands, etc., and its large tourist and commercial centres.

The table presented below is worth considering in our view. It reveals how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours in the Southern Region and elsewhere in terms of building approvals for the six months from July 2015 to December 2015. The stats come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in early 2016.

COUNCIL DENSITY PER SQK SIZE – SQK BUILDING APPROVALS FOR HOUSES BUILDING APPROVALS FOR UNITS TOTAL NEW DWELLINGS
GLEN EIRA 3385 38.7 198 741 942
BAYSIDE 2680 36.0 199 160 375
CARDINIA 57.92 1280.6 812 74 888
CASEY 615.72 409.9 1867 161 2041
FRANKSTON 1032 131.0 163 93 259
DANDENONG 1627 36.26 289 220 514
KINGSTON 1479.4 91.0 206 217 425
MORNINGTON 200.09 518.23 483 252 738
MORELAND 2887 51.0 240 858 1120
DAREBIN 2719 53.0 167 820 995
GEELONG 177.64 1247 1105 111 1222
HUME 332.5 504.0 1133 239 1372
MARIBYRNONG 2458 31.2 99 1339 1441
MELTON 536 527.3 894 153 1047
PORT PHILLIP 4871 20.62 27 1176 1217
WHITEHORSE 2365 64.0 296 1050 1348

 

In Glen Eira, the relationship between single house replacements and multi unit development is around 1:74. That means that for every single new house built, there are 74 apartments built. With just under 39 square km, and no open space to speak of density, infrastructure, traffic, will inevitably be impacted upon.

So what does the Discussion Paper propose, or even ask, in response to these trends? What can the Planning Scheme do to halt the further erosion of residential amenity? If we are to go on the questions proposed it would seem that very little can be done. We do not agree and feature some preliminary questions below that residents might like to consider asking at the forums. We welcome any other suggestions that readers would like to proffer.

  • Will council be introducing any Environmental Sustainability or Water Sensitive Urban Design policies into its planning scheme as Bayside, Yarra, Stonnington, Whitehorse and other councils have done? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing Parking Precinct Overlays into its RGZ and GRZ zoned areas to manage traffic in its centres? If not, why not? Will Council be creating the long promised Parking Precinct Plan for its activity centres? If not, why not?
  • Will Council be introducing any tree protection measures into its Planning Scheme in order to halt moonscaping as other councils have done? If not, why not?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »