GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

May 14, 2015

From Another Resident

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

In 1993 Council opened Gardenvale Park and established a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) on the adjacent property at 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale, with the aim of eventually acquiring it to extend the Park. Around 2008 however, adjacent residents supported a Council initiative to remove that PAO, on the basis that the land involved had by then become too expensive for Council to acquire, especially as it would only extend the Park by a relatively small area. As neighbors, we also felt that this would only be fair to the owners, who could then renovate, develop or sell the property without restriction. For reasons known only to the owners, over the last seven years, the property has been uninhabited, the utilities disconnected, the building has taken on a derelict appearance, with broken windows, open doors and an untidy, overgrown yard that receives only occasional rudimentary maintenance. This in turn has attracted the following anti-social behavior to the house and adjacent park, which has impacted negatively on the amenity of Gardenvale Park and the lives of nearby residents:

  1. Teenage groups, sometimes even in school uniform, regularly trespass inside the house for underage drinking, sexual activity and smoking, including marijuana (as evidenced by the alcohol containers, used condoms and cigarette packets they leave behind and the odor of marijuana).
  2. Graffiti gangs have covered every interior wall of the house with their efforts, not to mention inflicting some of their work on properties in nearby streets for the first time.
  3. Cars full of youths occasionally meet up in the early hours of the morning in the cul-de-sac next to the house, with one person from each car entering and then quickly returning to their respective cars, which then head off off in different directions – drug deals?
  4. Vagrants routinely squat at the property.
  5. Bags of rubbish, including food and human waste, are piled ceiling-high in some rooms, attracting flies and rodents
  6. Evidence that trespassers use candles and light small fires inside the building and at the rear of the property to keep warm, heightens the risk of a serious house fire.

Police have been called on several occasions and have promptly attended. They managed to catch one of the squatters and move him on, and some patrolling of the vicinity may act as a welcome deterrent, but police can only respond to reports of incidents of trespassing or possible criminal activity as they occur. A Glen Eira Civic Compliance representative has also inspected the property and some action may be taken to encourage the owners to tidy up, fence off or board up the property to deter trespassing, however the legalities involved if the owners prove uncooperative may result in a long, drawn out process before the property is secured.

On 17th March 2015, Council advised nearby residents that Amendment C135 was being proposed to establish a new PAO on 53 Magnolia Road, again with the intention of extending Gardenvale Park. While all local residents are obviously pleased with this development and support the Amendment, based on the indecision exhibited by the owners and Council during previous years, we are rightly concerned that further delays will see the situation regarding the house deteriorate further. With Council now cashed up to purchase more open space, thanks to the 5.7 per cent levy on developers, and the property owners due for a nice windfall, thanks to current land prices, we trust that this time around, the Public Acquisition will come to pass – very promptly one would think. However, should this not be the case, local residents are not going to look on patiently while the property attracts escalating anti-social elements and criminality and further erodes our right to the quite enjoyment of the area. It is time that this fiasco finally ends with the demolition of this uninhabitable eyesore and the promised extension of a very popular local park. It will have only taken 22 years to achieve!

Signed

Gardenvale Park Local

COMMENT

Given the above comments, we ask:

  • Has council enforced its own Local Law to the limit? Under Section 412 of this Local Law council has the authority to order the demolition of any ‘building or structure’ that is deemed to be “detrimental to the amenity of the area’.
  • Have infringement notices even been issued?
  • Is the ‘lack of money’ a decent enough excuse for removing a Public Acquisition Overlay and then 7 years later replacing it, when millions are wasted elsewhere and when both the 1987 and 1998 Open Space strategy clearly identified the lack of public open space in the area?
  • How much more will it cost to purchase the property at today’s prices compared to what it could have cost seven or eight years ago, much less 22 years ago?
  • There is no mention of any potential 53 Magnolia Road purchase in the current draft budget. If Council can foreshadow capital works years down the track and allocate funds for these works, it is quite strange that no mention is made of this Public Acquisition Overlay, nor the much publicised Mimosa Road debacle. Admittedly this still has to go through the normal processes of Panels, ministerial adoption and gazetting. However, if planning is up to scratch, then funding needs to be put aside. The budget and SRP is the place to itemise these plans.
 

April 14, 2015

Open Space – Value For Money?

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

Council is currently holding a ‘consultation’ on establishing a new open space area running between Eskdale Road and Fitzgibbon Crescent in North Caulfield. We have no qualms about increasing the open space areas in the municipality. What we do question is the logic, planning, and whether or not this site is not only appropriate, but even sensible, and whether ratepayers will be getting ‘value for money’ if this goes ahead.

The claim is that this ‘unnamed road’ is in a Gap area identified by the recent Open Space Strategy (OSS). Yes, it is. However, it is less than 500 metres from Caulfield Park (see arrow below). This map, taken from the OSS, clearly shows how bereft North Caulfield is of open space. So why select this particular street when other areas in this ‘gap’ zone are crying out for more open space?

ossNext, is the issue of size. The entire street is roughly 85 metres long. The plans DO NOT intend that the entire street be blocked off, just half – since there are driveways that can’t be blocked. This means that hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent on creating a ‘park’ that will still be part street and not fulfill the ‘multiple purposes’ that was the recommendation of the OSS.

Untitled

In response to a public question Council admits to already having spent just under $7,000 for some pretty drawings. When asked what is the anticipated cost in implementing these plans, council responded with – “That is yet to be determined following the outcome of the public consultation process”. Surely when plans are drawn up, there must be some notion of what the expenditure is likely to be? Given Council’s track record, we suggest that the creation of this ‘park’ will not be less than half a million.

We repeat – yes, create open space, but not this hare-brained addition. Not when it is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park; not when it will be nothing more than a pocket handkerchief in size, and definitely not, when it will cost around half a million dollars, when other areas of North Caulfield are crying out for open space.

ps: we draw readers’ attention to the following.

The OSS contains 6 ‘gap areas’ in North Caulfield. See map below.

Pages from Open_Space_StrategyThe proposed street closure is in gap area CN6. The ‘conclusion’ and hence the ‘recommendation’ that is contained within the OSS (page 170) for this area states: Improve access to the future Crown Allotment 2031 or other future open space associated with Caulfield Racecourse.

On page 172 of the strategy, there are the ‘’open space links’ recommendations for North Caulfield. In relation to this gap area we find: “Investigate the potential to improve pedestrian accessibility in the street network in gap area CN6 and across Booran Road to future open space associated with Caulfield Racecourse.” The priority grading is MEDIUM. There is not one word in the “Individual open space recommendations for Caulfield North” regarding this area!

Thus, we ask:

  • Why has Council chosen this first off, when there are 5 other gap areas identified that are much further away from any open space?
  • Why, when an action is designated as ‘medium’ has this been initiated BEFORE ANY OTHER ATTEMPT TO FILL EXISTING GAPS?
 

March 23, 2015

The MRC Screen: Public Land For Private Profit

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

barbecue

view from barbecue area

 

March 19, 2015

Virginia Park & The Games Council Plays!

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

Item 9.6 Virginia Park Estate

Prior to reporting on this item, some background information is vital so that readers can put the following into perspective.

  • In the past few council meetings alone, 3 proposed draft amendments have been rejected by councillors. Not one single councillor stated why this should not occur with this particular amendment. Instead there was the ad nauseum repetition of the ‘first step in the process’ etc. Past history shows that this is generally nothing more than double-speak for ultimate ‘approval’ of the amendment.
  • Not one single councillor stated that third party objection rights did not exist beyond the amendment. For all the talk about the community expressing their views (when they know absolutely nothing about the ‘detail’ of the proposed plan) is precisely what happened with the Caulfield Village fiasco. The only difference between this proposal and the Caulfield Village is that it will be 9 councillors to decide instead of the annointed 4, and the doubling at least of the number of dwellings.
  • The machinations and back room dealings over this site go back many, many years. Amendment C75, restricted residential development to only the centre of the site. Only one tiny sentence in the original officer’s report mentioned the fact that ten storeys was envisaged. Now it is proposed to make the entire site ‘suitable’ for residential. Magee claims that council and councillors were left in the dark and the Gillon letter of June 17th was asking ‘assurance’ that Council would support the amendment. Then in an email written by Andrew Newton on the 30th July 2013 to Richard Brice of the minister’s department, as an ‘inducement’ for the introduction of the new residential zones, he wrote – Viginia Park industrial estate (12 hectares): Amendment to be exhibited to rezone all to C1. Expected to be finalised next year. We have to query whether councillors knew of this ‘promise’! Needless to say, no resolution has surfaced which would support such ‘approval’. Nor is Virginia Estate mentioned in any of the Records of Assembly for this period. Again, either the records are are not an accurate representation of the topics discussed or councillors were not informed that this new upcoming amendment had received the nod of approval from the bureaucrats!
  • There has been no explanation provided, following a public question, as to why the limited constraints of Amendment C75 are now to be removed with this new amendment (ie setbacks in particular). Basically, we fear, that this is another Caulfield Village in the making and all the bluff and bluster that follows is nothing more than individual grandstanding, and ensuring that all the legal t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted!
  • As for Magee’s silencing of Lobo, we suggest that Magee refer to the Local Law meeting procedures. Any councillor has the right to raise a point of order as to ‘relevance’. Gagging councillors with ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that’ is in our view not only incorrect but abuse of his position.

Magee moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ from the chair. Sounness seconded. We point out at this stage that in other councils Mayors must vacate the chair if they move or second any motion. Not so according to the Glen Eira Meeting procedures. More on this throughout the ensuing discussion!

MAGEE: said that the last council group passed an amendment on this in ‘2011 or 2012’. Said that the amendment is up again because it is currently commercial 1 and commercial 2 and with the new zones this gives the developer the ‘opportunity’ to have it all rezoned as commercial one. Claimed that the ‘reasons’ for rezoning are ‘all fair’ but that he has got some ‘serious concerns’. Council got a letter from the Gillon group on the 17th June a ‘few years back’ in 2013. Quoted from the letter which said that they had had ‘discussions with senior officers of the department’ who are in favour of rezoning and that this was to coincide with the introduction of the new zones on July 1st. ‘We seek written confirmation from Council that they would be supportive’ of this rezoning. Magee then said that the ‘developer went straight to the Minister’ and that ‘they had in principle support from them’. Then on the 28th June councillors got ‘some advice from officers’ that the owners hoped this would happen ‘without public consultation’ and that the ‘minister was supportive of this process’. Then there was a ‘follow up letter’ from Elizabeth Miller dated the 24th June when ‘councillors aren’t even aware of this as yet’. Magee quoted her as writing she is ‘supportive of the proposal’ and that this would ‘serve as a model for other precincts to replicate’. Said that the last to ‘know about this were us” the ‘residents of East Bentleigh’. Called this the ‘perfect storm’ and here’s commercial zone in a ‘predominantly’ residential zone with the ‘potential’ for 12, 4 and 6 storeys plus ‘four and a half thousand’ apartments. It would be a ‘mini chadstone’. It will affect amenity and ‘will not be good’. Said every school is ‘full’ with no ‘railway station’ and only ‘one bus that runs along North Road’. Ultimately ‘there is nothing here to support this’. But ‘this is the process of putting it out’ and of ‘going to the community’ and that’s what council ‘wanted’ all along. Magee didn’t think that the community ‘would be supportive’ of the amendment. Went on to say that there is an ‘opportunity’ to develop the land and that the ‘developer has every right to do that’. Magee would prefer that the developer ‘went for a neighbourhood residential zone’.

SOUNESS: called Magee an ‘angry tiger’. Accepted that this is part of the ‘process’ and that there would be many ‘queries’ about the impacts. Said there would also be ‘infrastructure matters’ that shouldn’t fall to council to fix. Talked about the surrounding residential areas and the transition. If a large development is going to happen then he would ‘be looking for’ ‘transport opportunities’ and ‘there are none along here’. But ‘we start to go down this process and see where this process takes us’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Magee reminded them of the ‘dark times’ in planning and the ‘Point Nepean disaster’ when councillors ‘were shocked’ that ‘this sort of process would go on’ in Glen Eira with ‘such an obvious site’. Wondered if any ‘investigative journalist’ would get to the bottom of the relationship between the Gillon Group and the former government. Thought that this is ‘probably a lead worth pursuing’ and that ‘it could have gone ahead without this proper process’. So ‘Council is at step one of a proper process’. Whatever happens the ‘community will have their say’. It’s a ‘massive site’ and does ‘provide’ some jobs and she was looking forward to submissions from businesses because she understood that there were some ‘ownership rights’ involved. Repeated that this is ‘step one of a proper process’ and is the way ‘things should be done’.

PILLING: acknowledged Delahunty’s ‘passion’ but this is the ‘start of the process’ and thought it was ‘quite proper’. Said that with the ‘redevelopment of the site’ there are ‘opportunities there’.

ESAKOFF: said that she was ‘really disappointed with the sorts of comments that I’m hearing’ which make it sound like there is ‘something very underhanded’ going on and that there had ‘been some sort of dealing’ happening. Said that the ‘political side to this’ is both ‘unnecessary and uncalled for’. As a local council they are dealing with an ‘amendment’ and she is ‘very disappointed in what I’ve been hearing’. Said that ‘Mr Burke’ should make sure that ‘we retain those tapes’ of tonight about the ‘comments that have been made’. Went on to say that in comparing what ‘is there now’ to what was there ’50 years ago’. Currently it’s ‘bits and pieces’ but ‘East Bentleigh believe me is coping’ and if there are ‘some residents living there too, they will also cope’. Said she ‘grew up with the North Road bus’ and that it ‘took me ten minutes’ to walk to the bus and ‘three minutes to get to Ormond Station’ – ‘it really didn’t kill me, yet’. ‘The overdramatisation of this item is beyond belief’ plus the ‘political innuendo is moreso – very disappointing’.

HYAMS: asked Torres when the rezoning request came to council.

TORRES: didn’t remember the exact date but it was ‘relatively recently’. Hyams then asked ‘this year?’ and confirmed by Torres

HYAMS: didn’t see anything ‘underhand’ in the developer ‘approaching’ the local member and that the Labor members had also found ‘to their cost’ that they should be ‘advocating’ for East Bentleigh. Apart from the politics the owner is applying for commercial rezoning. The site is ‘underutilised’ and Amendment C75 ‘set up certain heights’ and this amendment ‘won’t change those heights’ or the setbacks. He ‘shares the reservations’ about the impact on the community but this is a ‘step’ in the amendment process. Couldn’t see ‘any reason’ for opposing the amendment ‘going out to the community’. So once they get feedback they ‘might’ decide to go to an ‘independent panel’ or ‘decide otherwise’.

LIPSHUTZ: joined others in saying that he didn’t ‘like the political aspects to this’. But he has some ‘reservations’ about how ‘this property will be developed’. Said that there’s a saying that ‘if you build it they will come’ but if this were Chadstone ‘it might be a good thing’ but whether it’s a good thing or not will ‘come down to the community’ giving their views. Regardless of what councillors might think about ‘appropriate or inappropriate’, the ‘community will have their say’. Said that it is ‘important to do that’ because it’s a huge site and ‘underdeveloped’. Said he doesn’t ‘lionise the developer’ and all this has to be ‘checked very carefully’ because this is a ‘site that can prove’ to be a ‘great benefit to East Bentleigh’ or a detriment. So ‘the community will have their say’.

LOBO: said he could have told Magee to ‘speak to the motion’ (moderators: this comment is in regard to Magee telling Lobo on a previous item to ‘speak to the motion’)

MAGEE: ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that!’

LOBO: said this would turn out to ‘be a big Chadstone’ and will impact on ‘neighbouring businesses’ in Tucker,East Boundary and Mackie Roads. They will be ‘suffering’ and ‘maybe closing as a result’. Said that ‘we did not consult on zones’ and ‘we are going to consult on this’.

MAGEE: told Lobo he was ‘incorrect’ in that council did consult in 2010. Said that for ‘clarification’ his comments on Guy ‘were not political statements’ but ‘statements of fact’. He simply quoted from the letters. Said that to the ‘north there is another industrial estate’ and more commercial sites. Thought that ‘in the future’ ‘more will follow’ so if this is to have ‘5000 apartments’ then ‘next door could see the same’. Said that in East Bentleigh there would be ‘upwards of ten thousand’ new dwellings. Called all this a ‘major impact’ on the area, on amenity, and on transport and if there’s a new shopping centre then another impact on existing businesses. ‘But it is Stage 1’ where the community is asked ‘what do you think’. Councillors will then ‘adjudicate’ and have the option of a panel, or do ‘whatever we please’. Said that he thinks the ‘community has a right to know’ what is ‘in store’. Said that he ‘could bet that this has been planned to the last doorway’. Said that the developer ‘knows exactly’ what will be on the site and that the only ‘people who don’t know are you and me’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS; THE PLOT THICKENS EVEN MORE ON WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN AND HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT. PLEASE SEE THE SCREEN DUMP BELOW AND NOTE THE DATE OF THIS PUBLICATION. Source is: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141104/pdf/42th5bhxvbgp45.pdf

Untitled

 

March 13, 2015

Caulfield Village Doubled!

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

If residents thought that the Caulfield Village was a mass overdevelopment then they should think again! Item 9.6 of the current agenda features the latest plans for the Virginia Estate on East Boundary Road, Bentleigh. In short, what is proposed is the following:

  • Rezoning all of the land to Commercial 1 – meaning that there is now the legal entitlement for far greater residential development
  • Buried in the documentation for this rezoning is this paragraph – At this stage any detailed information about the likely development for the estate should be regarded as indicative. It seems clear however that significant development is envisaged. Likely or possible developments are a shopping centre including a supermarket, office development and some 4,400 dwellings
  • As with the Caulfield Village, the same approaches are being used – namely, an Incorporated Plan, constant rezoning, and then we assume the eventual rubber stamping of a Development Plan!
  • The ‘magnanimous’ open space contribution by the developer is for a 20 metre width ‘open space link’ – specifically the developer has offered to provide a strategic open space link of approximately 20 metres width within Virginia Park Estate to connect Virginia Park Reserve and Marlborough Street Reserve. No 1 Barrington Street is owned by the developer and could form part of the open space link.
  • For a 12.5 hectare site and over 4000 dwellings the developer will only be required to pay 5.7% in an open space levy. Again laughable especially when other councils have successfully included in their open space schedules the options of exacting a higher levy than for ‘normal’ subdivision for ‘strategic development sites’. Glen Eira refused to entertain such an idea in its recent amendment.

We should also point out that in this current agenda, officer reports give the green light to a further 153 new dwellings.

There is also, after years and years of waiting, a two page report on the Significant Tree Register. Most of this is unmitigated waffle and the recommendations so limiting that they basically mean nothing – except in maintaining the current status quo! We will comment in detail in the days ahead.

 

March 10, 2015

Caulfield Leader

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

leader1

leaderPS: – CHANNEL TEN NEWS – http://tenplay.com.au/news/melbourne/2015/3/10/bulldozer-battle

PPS: CHANNEL SEVEN NEWS – https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/video/watch/26586585/pensioner-wins-home-fight/

 

February 16, 2015

Is This Sustainable?

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

Council’s Community Plan asserts that in order to meet population demand the city will have to provide for roughly 9,700 new dwellings in the period between 2011 and 2031. Victoria in Future 2014 predicts a higher figure – approximately 9,800. At the rate we’re going, and even if we assume a forecast figure of 10,000, this target will be reached within another 18 or so months. That is 15 years ahead of schedule! Plus, it does not even take into account what will be the final figures for the Caulfield Village!

Data from Planning Permit Victoria reveals the following numbers for ‘net new dwellings’ from 2011/12 onwards. Please take careful note!

2011/12 – 1280 dwellings

2012/13 – 934 dwellings

2013/14 – 1716 dwellings (council’s published data)

For the period from July to December 2014, another 1519 new dwellings were on the horizon according to Planning Permit Victoria. This makes it a grand total of 5449 in three and a half years. If the current rate of development continues, then the target of 10, 000 will be reached by the end of 2017 – even earlier once all the 2046 dwellings at the racecourse have been given the rubber stamp by our very accommodating administration and councillors.

So exactly what is council doing about this predicted future? What initiatives have they introduced, or even thinking about, that will ensure that such a rate of development is sustainable and doesn’t completely destroy the fabric and lifestyle of existing and future residents?

There are countless questions that should be raised and must be answered. For example:

  • What is ‘saturation’ point? When will it be acknowledged that the city is fast approaching breaking point and that no further development is possible unless major environmental, social, and economic safeguards are implemented?
  • How many speed humps in quiet residential streets have to happen, and at what cost, before proper Parking Precinct Plans in all activity centres are introduced and the waiving of car parking requirements ceases?
  • How well is the drainage infrastructure coping and how well will it cope with another 10,000 dwellings?
  • How many double levels of underground car parking will council allow before the water table becomes a real problem? How many of these have resulted in structural problems for the development and/or their neighbours?
  • What happens post 10,000 new dwellings? How many more are feasible?
  • How much will it cost to ensure that infrastructure is adequate?
  • How much should developers contribute to this new infrastructure or is it council’s intention to keep subsidising development and keep raising rates?
  • How much will open space provision decline per person as a result of population increase? Apart from the Booran Road Reservoir, what is council’s long term acquisition plan? Does one even exist, or are we to have more and more pavilions, car parks, and removal of trees and pretend that this is fulfilling our open space needs?
  • Will councillors have the temerity to demand amendments that actually do something to alleviate congestion, shoddy building design, environmental sustainability, or are they as impotent as they appear?
  • When will common sense prevail and council gets off its backside and starts proper strategic planning and consulting with residents as to the future of this municipality? And when oh when will the archaic, inept, and totally out of date planning scheme be reviewed in a proper consultative fashion with residents?
  • And last, but certainly by no means least, when will standards that mean something be introduced and adhered to by this planning department and councillors?

PS: readers may be interested in the following application. Interestingly the developer has bought up surrounding GRZ properties and is now contemplating having 3 storeys alongside 7 storeys on East Boundary Road, which is already a disaster given recent applications and, of course, GESAC. We suggest that residents attempt a left hand turn from Centre Road into East Boundary Road to see for themselves the traffic conditions in this area. And East Bentleigh isn’t even a major activity centre! It merely is a de facto one!

795-807 Centre Road and 150 East Boundary Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of a part three (3) and part seven (7) storey building comprising 110 dwellings and 4 shops, use of the land for dwellings, reduction of statutory car parking requirements, waiver of loading bay requirements and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »