GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

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

 

June 22, 2015

Virginia Estate History

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

As with the Caulfield Village, the history of Virginia Estate goes back many years. The processes involved are subtle, incremental, and ultimately identical – namely:

  • Rezoning to allow high density development
  • Removal of third party objection rights via Incorporated/Development Plans

The First Amendment

On the 4th November 2009, council first considered the question of rezoning Virginia Estate from Industrial to Business 2 and Business 3 – thus allowing for residential development to occur. The proposed amendment also introduced the euphemistically entitled ‘Development Plan Overlay’. This set the scene for 10 storey development in the centre of Virginia Estate.

As to the purpose of the amendment, the officer’s report stated:

The amendment seeks to facilitate a shift from traditional heavy industrial and warehouse uses, to technology based industries and office uses. It will also enable a limited amount of retail, directly related to the uses on the site, to meet the needs of tenants.

The word residential did not appear once in this report or the public notice. Conclusion? Devious, deceptive, and not stating up front in clear, precise language exactly what this amendment would mean.

The resolution read:

Crs Hyams/Magee

That this item be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 24 to allow Council to receive more detail.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest)

Meeting of 24th November 2009

No ‘more detail’ was provided in the officer’s report this time around and incredibly placed last (Item 8.17) in a long, long agenda list. Given that the resolution stated that it was ‘Council’ (with a Capital ‘C’) to receive this additional ‘detail’, then this additional ‘detail’ should have been included in the officer’s report. It wasn’t. Instead the November 24th version was identical, word for word, with the 4th November effort. Thus once again, decisions are made on the basis of information with-held from the public, and the public record and decided behind closed doors.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Council

  1. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C75.
  2. Exhibit the amendment no earlier than January 27 2010.

Meeting of 8th June 2010

The amendment (following advertising) was considered again. No submissions were published and officer comments were largely supportive of the amendment.

Euphemisms continued as per the following:

Proposal – Amendment C75 proposes to rezone the Virginia Park ‘industrial’ estate in East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East to a Business 2 and 3 Zone to facilitate commercial redevelopment.

14 submissions were submitted. No detail given as to how many opposed the amendment and how many supported the amendment. The resulting decision was to send off to a panel.

Meeting of 15th March 2011 & The Panel Report

The following paragraph from the Planning Panel report is significant in that it mirrors exactly what happened with the C60 version(s) of the Incorporated Plan – ie. residents were not privy to the ‘negotiations’ taking place between the developer and council and hence their objections were based on what had been advertised and NOT what was now before the panel. Further, since none of the submitters attended the panel hearing, presumably believing that their submissions addressed what was advertised, they were not provided with the time, or the opportunity, to challenge the changes. One must seriously question whether ‘natural justice’ had been afforded to objectors.

A schedule to the DPO was exhibited with the Amendment. Council submitted a revised schedule on 24 August 2010 and Mr Scally on behalf of the proponent tabled a tracked changes version of the schedule at the hearing. It is understood this version followed further discussion between Council and the proponent before the hearing. The blue text is the further changes proposed by Council and the red text is the further changes proposed by the proponent. It is proposed to use this version as the working document in this report

The council resolution stated:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

  1. Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

  1. Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

 CURRENTLY

As we’ve stated previously, resolutions mean nothing in Glen Eira. Here was a decision regarding setbacks and now the amendment wishes to reduce this setback. No Section 173 agreement has been made public.

CONCLUSION

Residents should ask themselves:

  • Why does this council continually agree to remove resident third party objection rights?
  • Why does this council continually cave-in and meet the vast majority of developer demands?
  • Why does this council continually fail to advertise and inform widely on such important issues?
  • Why should residents have any faith that the projected 4,600+ dwellings is the final figure, given the experience of C60?
 

June 6, 2015

The Budget: From The Sublime To The Ridiculous!

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

Residents have their chance to address council on the budget this Tuesday night. 17 submissions have been sent in – a huge increase. The comments (highlights presented below) range from unacceptable charges and rate increases, poor policy documents, that are so out of date they belong in a museum, and lack of real consultation with residents.

Before presenting these ‘highlights’, we draw readers’ attention the most ridiculous set of tenders ever entertained by this council. When councils all over Victoria are being urged to tighten their belts and be accountable for the expenditure of ratepayers’ hard earned dollars, Glen Eira council is its wisdom is about to spend a million dollars on unnecessary ‘trifles’. It appears that for this council the major priority is to promote itself rather than address the needs of residents. Here are the details of the proposed tenders –

  • Mystery shopping program for GESAC – $40,000
  • Point of Sale system for Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – $150,000
  • The supply of promotional items for sale/giveaway from Glen Eira City Council – $400,000
  • And $390,000 to plant a few trees and grass in the Carnegie forecourt! (mind you, no ADDITIONAL open space, just the usual expensive tinkering – which begs the question why the first design was ever countenanced).

This expenditure should be read in the light of resident comments below –

Deliberate, repeated deception and secrecy in governance and cover up continuing

I note that Glen Eira’s half-page Street Lighting policy dates from 2002 and as such is completely out of date. I suggest that this policy be comprehensively revised with the inclusion of the environmental and health impacts of light at night before such a program (ie LED) is contemplated.

…this year’s planned increase in rates of approximately 4.94 per cent, which is almost four times the current inflation rate, is completely unnecessary and unacceptable. (Please note: this resident has obviously been duped by the manner in which council has publicised its rate increase. The increase is 6.5% and NOT 4.94%!)…During March of this year, most of the kerbing, footpath and landscaping at this location, has been reworked at considerable expense to the Ratepayers of the City. In my opinion, the works appear to have only completed superficial changes, which I regard as unnecessary. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the developer of this site is able to reap the profits, when the roadworks surrounding this property development have been required to be reworked as a direct cost to Glen Eira Ratepayers. ….it appears that the Council decision makers are intending to apply different principles because their accountability is obscure, and Ratepayers do not generally feel that the outcome of the objection process is likely to be worthy.

I consider the $450,000 allocated towards the construction of the Eskdale Road/Fitzgibbon Crescent Caulfield North new open space to be an unnecessary and terribly wasteful expense. The proposed new open space is small and is unwarranted as it is located within easy walking distance of Caulfield Park and therefore is unlikely to be used by many residents.

Supply of places (childcare) may exceed demand due to council charging too high fees for the service the centres provide. Whilst I am very conscious of the quality of care and the homely environment provided for children at the centre my child attends (which was a primary factor in choosing this centre), it is my understanding that other centres in Glen Eira provide nappies and even cooked meals. Parents have to provide these at the conoucil-run centre in Carnegie. Other centres also provide excursions…..It is actually my understanding that kinder places are funded by the State or Federal Government (which makes the cost significantly lower for parent who have the flexibility to put their child into a straight-up kinder program) and that the City of Glen Eira is not passing that funding on to parents through reduced fees for children in the Kinder-year.

Currently, there is no allocation in the budget to redress the steady erosion of resources and facilities for passive usage of Caulfield Park….Since the Conservatory has been removed, there is no shelter in the western end. This means that young and old have neighter shelter from the scorching heat of the summer sun, nor from biting winter wind and rain.

I appreciate that there are many opportunities for community input and consultation to Council deliberations generally, however feel that one area in which these opportunities are lacking, is in relation to the Children’s Centre. As far as I am aware, formal parent involvement in the governance of the centres is limited to an annual online survey, the results of which are not communicated. Input from the parents and the community has the potential to have direct impact on the bottom line, through suggestions that have cost savings, or revenue enhancement, implications.

As I can see the tennis courts are regulary used (ie at Carnegie pool) and appear to be in very good condition, why is $130,000 being spent to change them? Has there been any community consultation, and what is the reason for the change? (ie to convert to small sided soccer pitch)

The Draft Community Plan – Transport – page 28 proposes to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities but “only where balanced against maintaining traffic flows”. Is the council really wanting “more traffic faster” as the overriding objection of transport planning in Glen Eira? The priority for more faster traffic reads like a strategy from the 1960’s for freeways and not a way to create a livable local community with good sustainable transport choices. Instead the plan and councils transport planning programs and works should firstly prioritise pedestrians, then bikes, then public transport and lastly cars – as is current transport planning best practice…..The Walking Plan is mentioned in the transport section but is missing from the list of all strategies on page 42 – is that an oversight or a statement of priority?….The proposed investment of $150,000 would be insufficient to build more than 1 set of traffic lights on the Rosstown Rail Trail – let alone the many that are required. Does carrying over funds from last year also indicate poor action on implementation and a need to review how the plan is managed?

How can $50,000 be allocated to Thomas Street Reserve, McKinnon? Surely, four large old trees surrounded by bark and drought affected grass, on a double housing block, doesn’t constitute a ‘Reserve’….Only two seats are provided at bus stops between Thomas Stret and Wheatley Road North side and no seats on the South side. Elderly people sitting on fences and students sitting on the kerb, waiting for the bus, is demeaning.

 

June 5, 2015

News Flash: 12 Storeys & Council Incompetence

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

VCAT is no friend of residents. However, if there ever was a more clear-cut condemnation of the ineptitude, and indifference of Glen Eira City Council to land use planning, then it comes in the decision for a 12 storey, and 134 units, plus shops, plus waiver of some visitor parking in Woorayl Street, Carnegie.

Every single resident should read the judgement and in particular the following extracts. They will show:

  • How policies that expired in 2007 have not been touched since
  • How maps in the planning scheme contradict policy
  • The failure to include overlays and urban frameworks – the ‘tools’ that Sounness so easily reneged on
  • This judgement reads as a litany of utter failure to protect neighbourhoods

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/735.html

“We have found that although a 12-storey building will represent a highly visible built form change on the review site and nearby, this outcome is supported by policy that aims to increase intensity of development in activity centres close to public transport and provide the highest density of dwellings within Urban Villages including Carnegie. In reaching that conclusion, we have had regard to the absence of overlay or schedule provisions containing preferred heights and the local policy framework that provides little specific guidance on height or built form outcomes sought for the area.

The policy includes a map that divides the Carnegie Urban Village into nine precincts. The review site is within Precinct 1 that contains most of the area between Dandenong Road and the railway line. There are specific built form policies for all precincts except Precinct 1. The policy for Precinct 1 expired on 30 September 2007. There was reference to the expired policy in various submissions and evidence at the hearing. We indicated at the hearing and confirm in this decision that we give no weight to a policy that, despite referring to objectives for the precinct, expired over seven years ago

We find clause 22.05 on Urban Villages provides general direction on how Carnegie is expected to change. Its general principles are relevant and its Precinct Map provides direction on land uses, street interfaces and the treatment of public places. It provides little direction on the height, scale or form of new development, which we consider are important elements of any statement of preferred character. As such, we find this policy allows great scope in interpreting what the preferred character might be.

The Urban Village Structure Plan is a Reference document to this policy. It identifies a Precinct layout that differs from what is in Clause 22.05 and includes the review site in a Mixed Use precinct, east of Koornang Road. It says this area is ideal for high intensity activity due to its proximity to the shopping centre, public transport and major road network. It says the Council should strongly consider purchasing the open space north of the railway reserve and when purchased redeveloped with seating, play equipment and lighting. It recommends that development avoid overshadowing the rail reserve’s open space. It also encourages a pedestrian walkway between Woorayl and Arawatta Streets, a new road link between these streets and the closure of the western end of Woorayl Street. We place little weight on this document. As a reference document, it provides background to the Urban Village policy. It does not substitute for the policy and is not a replacement for the expired policy in the Planning Scheme for Precinct 1. As such, we find it does not justify the Council’s submissions regarding the height of new development on this site or its submissions that that the site should provide a pedestrian link between Woorayl and Arawatta Streets.

A building must not exceed the maximum height specified in a relevant Schedule; however, the relevant Schedule sets no maximum height. The decision guidelines require consideration of State and local planning policy and the Guidelines for a development of five or more storeys.

  • Council is concerned that the proposal will result in significant shadow and associated loss of amenity to the public open space area on the south side of Woorayl Street. In the context of the urban village, Council contends this is unacceptable especially given there is no other open space in the activity centre or nearby. The unreasonable shadow impact in Council’s submission will occur in winter as well as spring and this outcome is contrary to policy that seeks to improve the quality of open space, to the DSE guidelines that aim to avoid reduction of sunlight to important public places and to the concerted efforts Council is making to improve quality and quantity of open space in the municipality. The City of Glen Eira Open Space Strategy 2014 recommends securing this reserve as a high priority and identifies it as an important open space for the community living and working north of the railway line. In addition, this Strategy includes guidelines that seek between 9am and 3pm a minimum of three hours direct sunlight at the winter solstice and five hours at the equinox.
  • It is the applicant’s submission that it is not reasonable to expect that there will be no winter shadow to the reserve opposite. The applicant says the shadow outcome is acceptable having regard to its role and function, the limited improvements, the public use zoning and the lack of any evidence that Council has a prospect of obtaining the land for public open space.
  • Ideally there would be no shadow cast to the reserve but on balance we consider the extent is acceptable having regard to the following matters:
  • The reserve is owned by VicTrack and zoned for Public Use –Transport. It is not zoned for public open space and it is not subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay.
  • Although there are Council aspirations to secure the reserve for open space, that conclusion is not assured. The plan to secure the reserve has been in place since 1998 with no apparent advancement to that end and the uncertainty about the future of the land is increased by potential rail works to provide grade separation at Carnegie with implications for land owned by VicTrack

The objective in the DSE Guidelines to avoid reducing sunlight to public places applies to ‘important’ places and refers to the option of local policy identifying public spaces that should be protected at the winter solstice. There is no such policy in the Planning Scheme but rather in a reference document and the importance of the space is reduced, in our view, by its unknown future.

  • Council criticised the proposal for failing to provide a public pedestrian link from Woorayl Street to Arawatta Street through to Dandenong Road as sought in the expired local policy for the precinct and supported by the Urban Village Structure Plan 1999. Council says such a link would assist in increasing permeability though the precinct and specifically would assist with improving walkability and access to the train station.
  • We have already indicated that we give the expired policy no weight. Whilst we acknowledge the Urban Village Structure Plan refers to a pedestrian link that would improve connectivity to Dandenong Road, we consider a 15 year old suggestion in a Reference document with no ongoing translation into policy is difficult to support. There are no obvious pedestrian link opportunities between Arawatta Street and Dandenong Road with no footpaths adjacent to the vehicle access to the car park, no pedestrian entry to the Spotlight development from Arawatta Street and Council did not identify any detailed analysis to support the concept. We consider the need for the link is not clear and would not refuse the application for this reason.

There are 134 dwellings proposed of which 123 are one or two bedroom and 11 are three bedroom.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »