GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

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

 

February 13, 2015

‘Density’ & The Zones

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

A long but important post – so our apologies!

In the past week, The Age has published several articles on high rise towers in the Melbourne CBD. The articles are based on research done by Leanne Hodyl, the 2014 Churchill Fellow. We’ve uploaded her full report HERE.

Whilst the report focuses primarily on ‘high rise’ towers and the city centre, some of the content applies directly to planning everywhere and especially to what is happening in Glen Eira. Hodyl recommends:

  • Density controls
  • Apartment standards
  • Separation between towers/buildings, and she says –
  • Planning policies should aim to ensure that this growth is managed well; to ensure that the cumulative effect of alldecisions made in the city make the city a better place to be and balance private and public benefit. (page 11)

However, without clear definitions and standards of what constitutes ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high density’ (in fact what ‘density’ even means and how these variable measures should be applied, and in which areas), we are in a state of anything goes.

Glen Eira’s new zones provide enough evidence to show that there has been no consideration whatsoever as to the cumulative impacts of rapid development. Nor has there been any attempt to gauge what is an appropriate ‘balance between private and public benefit’. Instead, lines have simply been drawn on a map consigning vast areas of residential land as booty for developers and speculators.

Below is a list of all the applications that have been submitted in the past 18 months or so, for one single stretch of road – Neerim Road. Some applications are still awaiting approval. Others have been granted permits either by council or VCAT.

We urge readers to carefully note the following:

  • Many of these developments are literally side by side. We assume that over time the ‘gaps’ will be filled in with further 3 and 4 storey applications.
  • Assuming that all of those still awaiting their permits will have them granted, this equals just on 2 hectares of Neerim Road that is going to be developed with 4 and 3 storey boxes and, in Mixed Use/Commercial zones, even higher. We anticipate that at least 40% of these new dwellings will be single bedroom apartments given current trends and the financial rewards.
  • The total of new dwellings designated in just under 2 hectares of land will be around 400+ (366 known, and others unknown since council’s register is incredibly short on detail in many instances)
  • According to Hodyl’s paper, this means that certain sections of Neerim Road, in terms of dwelling DENSITY, will outstrip what is happening in the CBD and even some of the other major international cities.
  • What impact this will have on the public realm has NOT been considered by council. Much less has traffic congestion, lack of public open space, and general amenity – not to mention heritage, neighbourhood character, water tables etc.etc.
  • So when is ‘saturation’ or ‘capacity’ (council’s latest buzz word) finally arrived at? When a few hundred yards of Neerim Road contains 600 dwellings? And how much will residents have to fork out to support drainage infrastructure, traffic management instead of developers providing their fair share via a development contributions levy, or a community levy?

As Hoydl implies, a one size fits all approach to huge swathes of land is nothing more than a recipe for environmental and social disaster on a grand scale.

We urge readers to consider the ‘facts’ about Neerim Road. They are indeed frightening – not only for this thoroughfare, but for all the neighbouring residential streets.

143-147 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly – Construction of a three storey building comprising 32 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)

149-153 Neerim Road & 4 Hinton Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of up to seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 – Amended permit (GRZ1) (`1700sqm)

179 – 181 Neerim Road, CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 19 dwellings and basement car parking. Amended permit (GRZ1)(`1200sqm)

247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 48 dwellings above 2 levels of basement car parking, reduction of statutory requirements for visitor parking and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (RGZ1) (`2100sqm)

253-255 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of four (4) storey building comprising multiple dwellings (RGZ1) (`1150sqm)

257 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building containing seven (7) dwellings and altered access to a Road Zone Category 1(RGZ1) (`630sqm)

259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings, associated car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and Parking Overlay (permit) (RGZ1) (`1170sqm)

276-280 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a five storey building with retail premises at ground floor, up to forty two dwellings and basement car parking, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements and waiver of a loading area (amended permit)(MUZ) (`1050sqm)

15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to forty seven (47) dwellings above two levels of basement car parking (permit)(RGZ1) (`1950sqm)

322-326 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking (RGZ1)(`1350sqm)

328-330 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, the waiver of three visitor parking spaces and alteration of an access way to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`800sqm)

332-334 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising twenty six (26) dwellings above a basement car park; Reduction of the requirement for visitor parking; and Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1) (`1130sqm)

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to thirty (30) dwellings and a basement car park and reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (permit granted for 3 storeys and 27 units)(RGZ1) (`900sqm)

365-367 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement comprising of sixteen (16) dwellings and creation of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1(GRZ2) (`750sqm)

401-407 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a five storey building comprising of shops and dwellings above basement car park, a reduction in standard car parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)(MUZ) (`2030sqm)

Finally, we’ve linked to a South Australian Government Report , which at least attempts to define low, medium and high density. Compare what’s happening in Glen Eira with these figures and how our council still insists that RGZ zones are ‘medium density’!!!!! Pages from Understanding_residential_densities_handbook Pages from Understanding_residential_densities_handbook

 

January 30, 2015

Agenda Items 2015

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

There are several important items up for decision next Tuesday. Here is the first one –

Item 9.1 – Public Acquisition Overlay on 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale

Purchasing land to expand public open space is commendable. In this instance we can only shake our heads in bewilderment at the continual inconsistency and contradictions that are the hallmarks of planning in Glen Eira. Please note:

  • 53 Magnolia Road had a public acquisition overlay. It was removed in January 2008 (process for amendment started in 2007)
  • At the time the following statement was made in support of removing the overlay – Gardenvale Park is a small neighbourhood park. The addition of this small house block (497m2) will not greatly increase the park’s size. Gardenvale Park, as it has been developed, serves the needs of the local community and does not need to be extended in area. (Minutes of 27th November 2007)
  • The decision to proceed was made in camera on the 1st May 2007. The formal resolution read – Crs Robilliard/Lipshutz – That Council – a) Seek authorization from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment to remove the Public Acquisition Overlay from 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale.
  • Now in 2015 we get the story of how deficient in public open space Glen Eira is, and how this amendment fulfills the Open Space Strategy. Forget the fact that Council and residents knew in 1987 and again with the 1998 Open Space Strategy that Gardenvale was lacking in open space. The 1998 Strategy went even further in specifically recommending that Council maintain the overlay on this property.

There were two submissions at the time of the proposed removal. One of the submitters included the following comments –

Procrastination by the Council over more than 10 years has seen the building deteriorate to the extent that the only likely course of action for the current owners or any near future owners would be to demolish the building. It is barely habitable. Whereas, if a decision had been made by Council earlier, the building may have been saved and the streetscape and entrance to the Park left relatively unaffected. The Council has also missed the opportunity to acquire the property at a reasonable cost and thus expand the park.

Now, 8 years later, Council decides that it does need to reimpose the public acquisition overlay. Of course, Council will now have to pay 2015 prices and not 2008 prices. Further, why couldn’t this proposal have been included as part of Amendment C120 (open space levy) as other councils have done given the very short time frame between the two?

House prices in the area are well over $1,000,000. What were they in 1987 and again in 2007?

 

December 28, 2014

The Year In Review

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

Important decisions were made in 2014. Very, very few could be said to have been in line with community views or aspirations.

  • Granting the MRC its wishes with the passing of the Caulfield Village Development plan for at least 2046 dwellings. At the subsequent VCAT appeal council once again caved in and basically watered down the few conditions it had imposed with the permit.
  • Permit after permit has been granted for major developments largely as a result of the introduction of the new zones with no progress whatsoever on parking management plans, environmental sustainable design, or in fact, introducing any amendments that would address the flow on effects of development.
  • Interest rate hikes still way above the CPI with another 6.5% increase – far more than neighbouring councils.
  • Back flips on the Caulfield Park conservatory indicating how little council resolutions mean and how much money is wasted on bogus ‘consultations’.
  • Still no local law that was promised a year and a half ago. All quiet on the western front in terms of: tree register; notice of motion; recording of council meetings.
  • More destruction of open space and trees for car parks – Centenary Park
  • Whilst Stonnington with the second least amount of open space is looking for an open space levy of 8%, Glen Eira with the least amount of open space only sought 5.7%. Council also did a back flip on its much publicised policy that all monies collected would be used for the ACQUISITION and improvement of new open space. Residents can now expect more of the same – ie. funds largely expended on capital works for existing open space and little or no purchase of additional open space.
  • More delays in major capital works and budget blowouts – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – with no explanation of real costs provided to the community.

We are sure that readers can add to this list. As for the ‘positives’ and the future, we simply note that the gallery is now full of residents protesting development after development. It has taken a year for the impacts of the new zones to become clear and the result is that more and more residents are finding voice. We believe that this trend will continue, ensuring that councillors will eventually be held to account.

Best wishes to all for 2015!

2015 Happy New Year Strands Line Glow Dark Background

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »