GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

August 7, 2015

Council Clowns!

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

The following two pages appear in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s council meeting. They pinpoint very clearly the sheer incompetence of this administration and its councillors – plus the ongoing ‘born to rule’ mentality of the MRC. Many issues need to be investigated and fully reported on – namely:

  • What has Council done in the past 4 years to ensure that the Clayton’s ‘agreement’ is in fact bona fide and worth the paper it is written on?
  • Council in 2011 published an ‘agreement’ signed only by Newton. Why wasn’t this countersigned by the MRC or Trustees? What actions, if any, did council undertake to ensure this occurred?
  • What representations, if any, has council and/or councillors made to MPs following the Auditor-General’s report?
  • Were councillors told prior to Newton signing the non-existent ‘agreement’ that this still required the MRC’s signature?
  • What further ‘information’ is likely to ‘come to hand’?
  • What is the nature of the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between Council (and whoever was involved) and the MRC in the past 2 years? Why has there not been a single report tabled in regard to such meetings?
  • We have been informed that the MRC is currently creating a Master Plan for the centre of the Racecourse? What involvement has council had with this? If none, then why not? If yes, then why the ‘secrecy’?

CONCLUSIONS

We can only conclude from all this that:

  • there is NO AGREEMENT!
  • that residents have been dudded
  • that administration and councillors have allowed this situation to drag on to the detriment of all.

Pages from Agenda_11_August_Page_1Pages from Agenda_11_August_Page_2

 

July 29, 2015

What Pro-Active Councils Do!

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

Bayside council is currently undertaking community consultation on its draft C140 Amendment which will apply to areas zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Aside from the content, the methodology of this consultation stands in stark contrast to current practices in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • An online survey
  • An 8 page explanatory booklet in plain English
  • Clear explanations on the website – Glen Eira residents have to be ‘satisfied’ with the regurgitation of incomprehensible jargon contained in the public advertising and with only a link to the department as follow up!
  • Formal submissions
  • Links to documents

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/caring_for_bayside/6801.htm

This amendment seeks to:

  • Limit subdivision size to 400 square metres. Glen Eira has no minimal subdivision size. In fact, Council granted 487 Neerim Road permission for 8 subdivisions. These all ranged in size from 199 square metres to just over 200 square metres! With no minimal subdivision size, this means that it is hypothetically possible for landowners and developers to subdivide and then subdivide again. In other words – 4 dwellings on a lot instead of the much vaunted 2 dwellings per lot. We expect developers to cotton on to this loophole very soon.
  • Permeability of 35%. Glen Eira prides itself on achieving that massive percentage of a piddling 25% which has been in place since 2004 and we wonder how hard our ‘negotiators’ really tried to increase this quotient! Please remember that there are other councils with as much as 40% permeability requirements!
  • Private open space to equal 75 square metres – a minimum of which must be 60 square metres and 5 metres wide. In Glen Eira, residents are stuck with – “An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 4 metres and convenient access from a living room”.

Bayside is also basing its draft on a 2012 Housing Strategy and is currently reviewing its Planning Scheme. Again, compare and contrast with what Glen Eira is doing!!!!!

 

July 21, 2015

What Is ‘Capacity’?

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

Planning Permit Activity reports are now available for the entire financial year of 2014/15. The figures represent ‘net new dwellings’. From July 2014 to June 2015, another 2885 dwellings have received permits. This is on top of the 1713 from the previous year. Population projections for Glen Eira tell us that in order to meet housing needs the municipality will require 9000 new dwellings by 2031. Since the zones have come in the numbers have gone through the roof – 934, 1713, and now 2885 – for a grand total of 5532. Hence in the space of three years Glen Eira has achieved an average of roughly 1800 dwellings per year – triple what is stated in the fossilised Planning Scheme. At this rate, the 9000 new dwellings will be reached in 2018 and not 2031!

Given these figures, today’s Letter to the Editor, is very relevant.

Untitled

 

July 17, 2015

Agenda: Officers Recommend Panel Hearing

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 

The officer’s report for the proposed Virginia Estate Amendment recommends that the Minister appoint an ‘independent’ Planning Panel. No surprises there! Nor is the ‘quality’ of the report itself a surprise. Once again it is short on justification, short on comprehensive analysis, and most importantly fails to adequately address and answer residents’ concerns.

By way of contrast, we feature below the officer’s report from 17th March 2010, which recommended sending the Caulfield Village Amendment C60 off to a planning panel. Whilst this Amendment itself is steeped in controversy and back room wheeling and dealing, we ask readers to carefully consider the far greater detail that went into this report – in contrast to what’s been dished up now with the Virginia Estate amendment. We also acknowledge that the C60 was based on what was called an ‘incorporated plan’ rather than a Development Overlay as with Virginia Estate. However, the end result is basically the same – ie setting height limits, etc and both needing a Development Plan in the future.

Please compare the two and note the details that are lacking for this current amendment. It highlights once again in our view:

  • The failure to present all the relevant information
  • Questions need to be asked regarding how ‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ the report actually is?
  • And the most vital question – why are residents once again ignored, spurned, and not listened to?
  • FYI – we’ve uploaded the officer report HERE

VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_1VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_2

 

July 10, 2015

Open Space Planning

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

Council in its wisdom has decided to spend a small fortune on converting HALF a tiny street in Caulfield North into a ‘park’ that is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park. They are also spending another small fortune in converting the concrete at the front of Carnegie Library into less concrete. Yet when opportunity after opportunity arises for some major acquisitions that could add to the deficit of open space in Glen Eira, there is no action whatsoever, no planning, and no overall public benefit. For starters, there was the Alma Club land; next there was 487 Neerim Road, and now there is 46 Regent Street, Elsternwick. All available for purchase, and in the case of the Alma club an absolute bargain at $3m compared to the $8m it was sold for and the development of 79 units in a neighbourhood residential zone. Now we’ve got Regent Street.

Readers with long memories should remember the outcry over the proposed school application for the site in 2011. With a packed gallery and much acrimony, the application was rejected unanimously by councillors and the threat of a VCAT appeal did not eventuate. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/regent-st-protest/

The Regent Street site has been razed, moonscaped, and left vacant for years. A submission to the Open Space Strategy and a Change.org online petition pleaded with council to purchase this land in an area identified as lacking open space. Of course, nothing was done and the pleas fell on deaf ears. Now the property is up for sale. And it is not just any property – it is a massive 3,000 square metres! Big enough to provide a real park, in an area crying out for more open space.

Given the size of the area, we are in no doubt that residents can expect scores and scores of new apartments on the site – all exiting via the narrow confines of Regent Street itself. Another opportunity is thus about to be lost and council can continue to squander ratepayers’ hard earned cash on cosmetic changes to already existing open space instead of INCREASING open space that is worthy of that name! We assert that by the time the Open Space Strategy is reviewed in another 15 years the overall open space per individual in Glen Eira will be REDUCED as a result of population growth and more than 60% of the funds raised by the levy will have been squandered on more concrete, more pavilions, and more useless ‘parks’ such as the one in Eskdale/Fitzgibbon. That is open space planning in Glen Eira!

46 Regent Street Els PRW 2015 07 03

 

July 8, 2015

Residents: Once Bitten Twice Shy!

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

The front page of today’s Moorabbin Leader features claims by the Gillon Group on the proposed Virginia Park development. Residents have been down this track before with the Caulfield Village. When Amendment C60 was first proposed it was stated:

The development will include:

  • Retail premises consisting of a convenience-oriented neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by a supermarket with additional specialty shops and mini major stores as well as cafes, restaurants and a food court;
  • Commercial office space
  • Up to 1200 residential units
  • Short term accommodation up to 100 beds (Quest style) (minutes of April 28th, 2011)

Please note:

Caulfield Village is currently set to have 2063 dwellings. 40% are single bedroom units. Retail originally cited as 35,000 square metres – now reduced to 12,500 square metres. By the time development plans are submitted for the remaining precincts these figures are sure to be varied. We see no reason to think that Virginia Estate will be any different. The motive is profit and if profit is derived from residential development, then so be it!

calls

 

July 6, 2015

Street By Street – #1

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

The insanity of Glen Eira planners and councillors is nowhere more pronounced than in Bent St, Bentleigh/McKinnon.

This narrow, winding local street runs off the Coles Supermarket in Bentleigh through to McKinnon Road. It contains three distinct zones – Neighbourhood Residential, General Residential and Residential Growth Zone – with the NRZ a small oasis smack in the middle of this stretch of road. Since the introduction of the zones council has basically given the green light for the development of at least 217 apartments – one application listed in the online register is totally uninformative – ie ‘Multi level residential unit building’. Maybe 20 units? Maybe 30 units? Maybe 55 units as granted to 14 Bent St?!!! Hence the figure of 217 is ultra conservative, plus the fact that most of these applications include reduced visitor parking. The total could well be in the realm of 250 new dog boxes along a stretch of road that is approximately 500 metres long.

This brings us to the heart of the matter – how well this council has, and is, planning for the future. Answers to the following questions are essential. We believe that they would all be answered in the negative!

When was the last drainage upgrade for this street?

What infrastructure plans has council made for this area and how much will it cost ratepayers since there is no development contributions levy from applicants?

What number of dwellings does council consider as ‘capacity’ for this street?

Has any traffic analysis been undertaken of this and connecting streets in the past 3 years?

How many parking fines have been issued in this street over the past 2 years?

How many of these properties have been moonscaped? How many mature trees have been lost?

Here are the facts on Bent Street since the introduction of the zones –

10 – 12 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 35 dwellings

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 55 dwellings

15 Bent – 3 storey, 17 dwellings

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings

23 Bent – 4 storey, 34 dwellings

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 and 4 storey, 31 dwellings (refusal)

67 Bent St – 2 double storey attached

75 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 2 storey, 7 dwellings

217 PLUS UNKNOWN NUMBER IN ONE SINGLE STREET. THANK YOU COUNCIL!

 

July 4, 2015

Save Glen Eira!

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

The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

  • The scale of development due to the zoning
  • The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
  • A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
  • East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
  • The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

 

June 26, 2015

Virginia Estate: Gillonspeak.

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

Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.

ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.

In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200’. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.

On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).

Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.

On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.

Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.

On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.

They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.

Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.

Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.

 

June 23, 2015

The People Speak: Virginia Estate

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

PS: a new Facebook page has just started up opposing the Virginia Estate development. We have provided a link to this site via our Blogroll. The URL is – https://www.facebook.com/groups/453771051463638/ /

Last night’s planning conference for the Virginia Estate development was jam packed with outraged residents and traders. Pilling chaired the meeting. What came through loudly and clearly was:

  • Residents’ total dissatisfaction with council’s ‘communication’. Many stated that they did not receive notification, had no idea this was happening, and definitely had no idea that ‘permission’ had been granted for 10 storey developments in 2011.
  • Those who did receive formal letters also complained bitterly that the jargon was incomprehensible – ie one resident who had lived nearby for 30 plus years simply said – ‘oh well, it’s already commercial from the time of W.D & H.O Wills, so this is just more commercial.’ The idea of ‘residential’ did not enter his mind. Other residents were not so forgiving and labelled the notices as ‘misleading’ and ‘non-transparent’.
  • The developer’s retail impact statement was declared suspect by both the Carnegie Traders and the Bentleigh Traders Association.
  • Residents cited numerous objections – ie. Virginia Estate is ‘landlocked’ with no transport to speak of, alongside residential dwellings, with already choked major arterial roads. Other comments focused on what impact another 5000 residents would have on local schools that are already bursting at the seams. Infrastructure, open space and lack of sporting grounds were also noted.
  • Once again the chair (Pilling) resorted to the common Glen Eira tactic of trying to shut down one very informed speaker to the loud chorus from the audience of ‘let her speak’. It should also be noted that when the developer then rose and spoke there was no opportunity for residents to ask him questions since Pilling then closed the meeting!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Throughout the ‘introduction’ to the amendment by both Pilling and council planner (Rocky Camera) there was no mention of:

  • Removal of third party objection rights
  • The overall number of proposed dwellings – ie Camera insisted that the amendment covered only 1200 dwellings without revealing the significant fact that 1200 was only for PRECINCT 1. Precinct 2, 3 and 4 were still to come. This is deliberately misleading and devious.
  • Pilling stated that ‘no decision’ had as yet been made. No ‘formal’ decision may have as yet occurred , but the developer revealed that it was council which asked for the 20m link of open space and the 5.7% cash open space levy instead of a land contribution of any significance. Meetings between the developer and council had been ongoing for a long period of time as well.

Finally, we wish to inform residents of how this council operates. When it wants, it can initiate ‘extensive community consultation’ at ratepayers’ cost. The best example of this, is the travesty that occurred with the removal of the Caulfield Park conservatory. There were 2 public consultations. When council did not get the results it was seeking there was a last ditch effort that involved:

  • The printing of glossy brochures and a ‘survey’ which was distributed to 3,247 properties around Caulfield Park. (Minutes of 24th September 2013) at a cost of over $14,000 and consultant fees which would clearly make this amount much greater.

In contrast Amendment C75 which set up the platform for the current rezoning only had 500 properties notified. The current proposal has had 638 according to the figures cited last night. When there are literally thousands of thousands of homes impacted by this amendment, 638 notifications written in planning jargon, is a drop in the ocean. Residents should be querying not so much the strategies adopted by council, but asking what are the vested interests behind such a strategy. It is obvious that the intent was to keep residents as ignorant and as quiet as possible! This is ‘consultation’, Glen Eira style!

meeting

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »