GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

February 7, 2014

Trees: The New ‘Endangered Species’

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

Another mature tree (if not more) is to go in order to make way for more concrete plinths and car park. This time at Princes Park. The cost to ratepayers (at this stage anyway) is $388,000+ according to the response to a public question at last council meeting.

We are not decrying the need for upgrades or improving areas that need it. What we are decrying is the potentially wanton waste of public money without justification. This section of Princes Park HAS been ‘redeveloped’ in recent times – a new pavilion, 3 new car parks, plenty of yellow brick roads, and ‘landscaping’.

More importantly, anecdotal evidence suggests that this Dover St car park is never full – even on weekends when sport is being played. Residents have not been provided with any data that would support the potential expansion of the car park or its surrounds. What surveys have been undertaken? What monitoring has been done in the past 5 years? Where is there any quantifiable ‘evidence’ that ripping out more trees, and putting in more paths is ‘essential’? And if a new yellow brick road is about to appear parallel to the existing roadway, then what does this say about that recent argument of ‘safety buffers’ that justified the ripping out of countless trees in Caulfield Park, since the proposed new pathway will be running close to current sporting grounds. The arguments put up in defence of the Caulfield Park carnage would appear to be cancelled by what we assume is about to happen at Princes Park. And the final clincher,  – how much further open space will be lost to bitumen, concrete, and car parks?

Nor does any of this explain why the public cannot be privy to ‘consultation’ and access to the actual plans or designs.  Have councillors ever clapped eyes on the plans? Have they really done their fiduciary duty and considered whether such ‘developments’ are worth the cost, much less needed? Or have they simply bowed their heads and said ‘yes sir, whatever you say sir! How high should we jump sir’?

Here are some photos taken in the past few days of the area.

Dover1

P1000247

dover3

 

January 30, 2014

The MRC ‘Guardianship’ Of Crown Land!

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

We paid a visit to the centre of the racecourse (aka ‘The Wasteland’) this afternoon in order to check up on some emails we’ve received regarding the state of the upkeep of this land. What we found confirmed what residents had been saying:

  • Barbecues that had not been cleaned for days or weeks
  • Toilets that were disgusting
  • Weeds everywhere
  • Boardwalk fading and weeds/grasses coming through
  • Dead saplings all over the place
  • And not a soul to be seen at 2.30pm on a gorgeous day!

So much for the ‘Agreement’; so much for proper maintenance, and so much for Council supervision and possible breaches of the Health Act!

ccr1

ccr4

ccr2

ccr3

ccr5

 

January 25, 2014

Lord Reserve: Here We Go Again, And Again, And…..

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

Council can certainly get things rolling very quickly when they want to. The latest is the Lord Reserve car park development at the cost of $542,000. Tenders were advertised on November 16th and closed on 6th December. The decision was made on the 17th December. Quick as a wink, without telling residents exactly what is happening, the contractors moved in, and what a surprise, a further bunch of at least 8 mature trees were removed.

We do not for one instance believe that the speed and timing of this project is a coincidence. If you expect community opposition, and certainly questions, then January is the best time to get the ball rolling.

Please note: we are not suggesting that this section doesn’t require work. What we are questioning is:

  • Why were so many trees removed? Could any have been saved?
  • How much open space will be lost and turned into a bitumen car park?
  • Why can’t residents be given a clear picture of what is happening?

PS: By way of contrast, residents should take a look at how Bayside City Council deals with car park extensions and the value of trees and consultation. The following is taken directly from the agenda set down for January 28th.

The Beaumaris Reserve Masterplan was adopted by Council in September 2008. The masterplan identified a range of initiatives to be implemented over the lifetime of the plan, including works to the car park adjacent to the sportsground at the rear of the Reserve.

The design for the car park was subject to a period of community consultation between May and July 2013. Key design features reflected the endorsed 2008 masterplan and included; reducing the area available for car parking by turning the area behind the Arts Building into an extended Village Green, proposed removal of six trees to the north of the existing car park to facilitate additional car parking spaces and the installation of a rain garden. 

Following this phase of community consultation, it was evident from the comments received that the proposed design no longer met the needs of the community or the users of the Reserve. As a result, a revised design was developed to take into account issues raised by users, including retaining the existing car park footprint, retaining six trees proposed to be removed and reducing the extent of asphalt surface to the entry road. As the revised car park footprint differed significantly to the endorsed 2008 masterplan, a revision to the masterplan was required.

A revised masterplan detailing the amended car park footprint was presented to Council and adopted at its 29 October 2013 Ordinary Meeting detailed in Attachment 1.

Source: Agenda item 10.1 – 28th January 2014 – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/documents/governance/28_January_2014_Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda_without_confidential.pdf

lord

Here’s the ‘before and after’ –

Untitled

lord3

Untitled2

lord2

 

January 23, 2014

Caulfield Park Trees

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

The latest missive from Friends of Caulfield Park –

Dear Friend of Caulfield Park,

Happy New Year!

You will have seen that this week the Council has started to work on ovals 3 & 4 in earnest. 

Last Monday, at the start of the week of over 40 degree heat, Council chose to relocate the trees that they had made so much political capital out of ‘saving’. 

Whilst we are sure the contractors for the removal did their best, this was an absurd thing to do as no real work took place at the site until this Tuesday.  It was clear last week that this week would have been much cooler and a thinking person would have put back the move 7 days to this Monday, (especially as the relocation of the trees only took a couple of hours).

Early last week, as soon as we discovered the Council’s folly, we sent an urgent email to Paul Burke and when there was no reply by the next day, to the CEO Andrew Newton. 

We asked:

  • why was the relocation not rescheduled to a later date when it was cooler,
  • what steps were being taken to help the clearly stressed trees to survive
  •  to affirm that no further relocations or removals would be needed.

On Thursday afternoon, four days after the Monday relocations, we were finally advised by phone that both Messrs Newton and Burke were on vacation.  It is  shame that there was no-one  able to respond in their absence.  It seems that the Council was without leadership over the Festive Season. 

We then emailed the mayor, Neil Pilling, who replied that he would let us know what was happening by this Monday and that Council had been busy dealing with people suffering from the extreme heat.   That is as it should be, but the parks maintenance crew would hardly have been involved in caring for elderly and vulnerable people!

On Monday the mayor advised that the tree relocation had been scheduled for that Monday, that the relocated trees were now being watered three times a day, and that there were no plans to relocate or cut down any further trees in association with the oval redevelopment.  There was no explanation why there had been no attempt to reschedule the relocations of the trees.

As far as we can tell, from Friday onward there has indeed been a program to save the trees by regular watering.  However, of the 12 trees moved, 3 (2 of which were larger Eucalypts) look as if they are very likely to die, and after such inappropriate timing in terms of the heat, it is possible that more will follow so that the only trees that have been ‘saved’ were the recently planted saplings. 

What can one say about a Council that never admits to error, and which therefore never says ‘Sorry’?

We are continuing to monitor the work and will keep you posted of any further developments.

Best regards,
Spike Cramphorn
Secretary

 

January 20, 2014

$28 Million Versus Peanuts!

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

City of Stonnington aims to create more open space

Date:January 20, 2014

The City of Stonnington is flush with nightclubs, shops and socialites. What it doesn’t have a lot of, is parks. And so it has set out to acquire some.

Council has launched a $200,000 feasibility study and is test drilling this week to explore turning Cato Street car park in Prahran into a park.

But parking officers shouldn’t weep just yet or greenies rejoice – the council plans to move the car park under the park, which could increase the number of parking spaces from the current 400.

Mayor Adrian Stubbs said the car park may have to be at least two levels deep to make it viable.

The cost would be ”millions” but council will wait until the feasibility study’s report comes out in May. Council could finance it or seek private, federal, or, in an election year, state government funding.

Cr Stubbs would like an underground car park to offer shoppers the first two hours free, and sees the park as a village square, flanked by cafes and shops as well as the current supermarkets.

He said it would be a boon to locals. ”It gives residents a place to congregate, socialise. You’d see mums walking with their prams, it’s a place to engage in sporting activity, it’s a place just to sit and think. Would you rather have asphalt, or trees and grass? I’d rather have trees and grass.”

The move came from concerns that of Stonnington’s 26 square kilometres of land, only 6.7 per cent is public open space. It is the second-lowest ratio after Glen Eira at 4.5 per cent, and compares to an average 17.9 per cent in metropolitan Melbourne.

Cr Stubbs said because it was so ”mammothly behind” the council ”needs to be creative” to increase the percentage. It has identified 450 sites for investigation, including taking a 100-space car park in Edsall Street, Malvern, underground, if Cato Street proved successful. Cato Street and Edsall Street car parks are both council-owned.

Stonnington also has a $28.1 million reserve fund for 2013-2014 alone for the purchase of open space, raised from developers who subdivide property having to contribute to council 5 per cent of the land’s unimproved capital value towards open space, if they don’t contribute actual open space. Since 2007 the fund has purchased six properties, many adjoining parks, five of them worth more than $1 million, says Cr Stubbs.

Council has also applied for an acquisition overlay for vacant privately owned land in Carters Street, Toorak, and for vacant factories between Bangs Street and Clifton Street, Prahran, to signal council’s desire to purchase when it is sold in future. Other options being considered include buying railway land or building decking over it, creating ”pocket parks” in dead-end streets and creating roof gardens.

Oskar Cebergs, spokesman for the Chapel Street Precinct Association, said the 6.7 per cent open space figure was ”pretty frightening”. The association was ”fully supportive” of the open space strategy, including the greening of Cato Street car park. But building the car park shouldn’t be a priority over the council’s revitalisation of Chapel Street, including new footpaths, lighting, town squares, furniture and greening.

 

January 14, 2014

Centenary Park: Before & After

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

P1000134

P1000228

 

January 7, 2014

Open Space Levies

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

One component of this strategy has been the review of the current open space contributions program. Areas for improvement that have been addressed in the review include simplifying the schedule of rates, broadening the contribution requirement to all development in the City of Glen Eira, providing direction on when a land contribution should be required, and re-calculating the rate based on the projects included in this strategy and linked to population change in the municipality during the strategy planning period. The strategy establishes the need for all subdivisions to contribute to open space and the type of contribution required, whether as land or equivalent value in cash.

A new schedule is proposed for Clause 52.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme An averaged rate to apply across the municipality would replace the schedule of multiple rates currently in the planning scheme. This would simplify the percentage rate calculation for open space contributions and link the funds collected to the open space projects contained in this strategy. Based on the projects recommended in this draft strategy, it is anticipated that this rate will be in the order of 4 to 5 per cent.

Thus sayeth the consultants in the draft Glen Eira Open Space Strategy. How they justify the recommended 4 to 5% flat rate is anybody’s guess given that:

  • No figures are provided on anticipated costs of acquiring new open space
  • No figures are provided on anticipated necessary expenditure  – for example on pavilion ‘improvements’
  • No figures are provided on what income is expected from a 4 to 5% increase and to what extent this meets the anticipated costs.

More important is the fact that this draft strategy TOTALLY IGNORES the possibility of levies higher than 5%. Stonnington for example is currently seeking an 8% levy across its municipality largely based on the fact that it has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state. If Glen Eira has the lowest, and is facing major residential development everywhere, then even a 5% levy is a joke!

We cite the following from the Stonnington review of its open space levy strategy and have uploaded the full document HERE. What is most impressive is the detail, the financial analysis, and the correlation between all of Stonnington’s policies – ie Public Realm, Pavilion Strategy, etc.

For starters, here’s what is not revealed in the Glen Eira version –

Clause 52.01 of the VPPs expressly recognises the power of councils to obtain open space contributions under the Subdivision Act, and provides a mechanism for councils to amend the provisions to suit local circumstances.

The Schedule enables a council to set its own contribution rate(s) subject to strategic justification. This can exceed the 5% limit of the Subdivision Act. The percent contribution can be tailored to meet the specific needs of areas and sub-areas, subdivision types (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial) and method of contribution (i.e. cash, land or both). Details of liability can be more clearly defined to suit local conditions. Councils are effectively immune from challenge to the contribution if a Schedule to Clause 52.01 is incorporated into the Planning Scheme and it is unambiguous and applied appropriately. Implementation of a Schedule to Clause 52.01 requires a Planning Scheme amendment. (page 4)

There is then an overview of the various levy approaches that could be taken by councils. For example:

The main advantage of this is its simplicity, clarity and certainty for subdivision proponents and council. A rate around 5% can deliver a significant income stream to council for open space.

The main weakness or disadvantage of this approach is that the nexus between who pays and who receives open space investment benefit – by area – can be weak. As such, it may be difficult to justify a rate higher than the Subdivision Act benchmark of 5% in using a flat rate even if some parts of a municipality would justify this due to high development pressure and open space need. (page 7)

Precinct Based Fixed Rate

The precinct based levy approach differs from the flat rate in that it seeks to provide a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment. The upshot is that areas with more open space investment will pay a higher contribution, all other things being equal.

The approach links planned investments in an area to the contribution requirement. If an area is to receive no open space investment, the contribution in the area will be zero. The basis for the levy is therefore the planned investment as follows:

Strategic planning work is undertaken and this identifies infrastructure and open space projects that are required or desired for the planning area. This can be documented in a specific open space strategy or plan or a structure plan

The open space projects are identified and costed from this strategic base. The cost of each project is apportioned to subdivision over the life of the funding plan.

The strength of the precinct based approach is that it provides a stronger nexus between developments that pay open space contributions and areas that receive benefit from planned open space investment

The main weakness of the approach is that more justification may be required to support the Planning Scheme amendment process compared to a simple model. The validity of the approach may be based on the rigour of the supporting strategy and information inputs. (page 8)

The report then goes on to provide the necessary financial framework for the final recommendations-

Across the City as a whole, the current levy schedule has delivered about $3.3m per annum on average over the last four years and $6.2m in the latest full financial year.

If a 5% flat rate levy was used instead of the sliding scale over the last four years of levy operation, the income to Council would have been $15.0m over four years at an annual average of $3.8m (instead of the actual $13.2m at $3.3m).

The 5% flat rate would have delivered $6.8m in the 2011/12 financial year (instead of the actual $6.3m). This marginal change is explained by the fact that in that year most subdivisions applied a rate at or near 5%.

Various scenarios using 5% to 10% flat rate levies are shown in Figure 19 below. These levy rates are applied to:

The four years of levy collection from 2008/09 with an average per annum figure produced

The last financial year of levy collection 2011/12

The figures are extrapolated over 20 years to gauge what might be required to achieve approximately $314m in income to cover the cost of proposed open space works via this tool.

The four year data suggests that a flat rate of well over 10% would be needed if planned open space expenditure were to be fully funded from this levy over 20 years. Using the latest year data, projected revenues would be significantly greater, but even at a 10% levy rate, this mechanism would only collect 87% of projected expenditure.

In terms of the Chapel reVision area the levy would need to be set at 8% to fully recover the cost of acquisition and works planned for the area.

CONCLUSIONS?

  • Stonnington has decided that 5% is far from adequate. We suggest that the same holds true for Glen Eira.
  • Is Glen Eira Council capable, and/or willing, to do the necessary analysis that will provide the detail for any amendment that has a chance of getting up? Or is it easier to take the simple path and just pluck a figure from the air without really knowing how far this will advance the acquisition of more open space in the municipality?
  • Is 4 to 5% seen as the secret threshold that will not put off too many developers – even though these extra costs will undoubtedly be passed on to eventual purchasers.
  • And the perennial question is: why can one council do all this work, be upfront with their strategic planning, and our glorious council persists in waffle, lack of detail and financial justifications, and misinformation!?
 

December 19, 2013

Method Acting & Pure Bull!

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

There were 2 Rights of Reply Tuesday night from Pilling and Magee. Both were supposedly in response to the Southwick remarks in parliament regarding the removal of the Caulfield Park trees.  We highlight these as the supreme example of political grandstanding (especially by Magee) and the puppet performance by Pilling reading out his scripted lines. Laugh out loud, dear readers!

PILLING: claimed that Southwick was ‘not correct’ and that his statements were ‘inaccurate and misleading’.  Pilling denied that the cutting down of trees was on ‘party lines’ but that at ‘every’ stage there was ‘unanimous support’ by councillors. The ‘true number of trees removed is 21′ and many of these trees were in the range of ’15 to 20 years old’. Southwick only contacted council via a letter dated 9th December and on the 12th Pilling answered. He then quoted from that response letter. He read that the alternate proposal won’t ‘address or solve’ the ‘purpose of these works’ and that there was misunderstanding about the ‘need for buffer zones’. The proposed ‘works’ are the same that happened to ovals 5, 6, and 7 in 2008 and over 300 new trees planted. The master plan was ‘adopted after extensive community consultation’ and council has ‘reviewed’ it to ascertain whether the proposed action is ‘still relevant’. Said this was ‘the case in this instance’ and ‘even more so because of increasing pressures’ of high density development. The works are about ‘reducing risk and ensuring safety’. Went on to state that the works were advertised over a month ago and that ‘all councillors’ have had ‘continued dialogue’ with residents and as a result ‘endeavoured’ to ‘reduce the number of trees removed’. The ‘benefit’ of the ‘reconfiguration’ is that ‘over 100 children’ can now ‘participate in organised sport’. All of this is highlighted on council’s website. Concluded that the ‘long term benefits to the community’ outweigh the ‘short term loss’.

MAGEE: said that he ‘appreciated’ Pilling’s right of reply for council but that he wanted to do his own right of reply. Started by saying that Southwick ‘made a couple of fatal errors’ in his speech. Magee then spoke about pre-election and how Southwick had promised to ‘open up the racecourse’. ‘Well now the centre of the racecourse is full of fences’ and a ‘failed miserable playground which is only used during racedays’. Quoted Southwick as claiming this is a Greens/Labor council. Magee then said that the works are part of the ‘warm season grasses’ program and that Lipshutz moved that motion and ‘the last time I looked Cr Lipshutz was not a Labor person’ and he doesn’t remember Lipshutz ‘sitting next to me in an ALP meeting singing ‘Solidarity forever’. Thought that it was ‘disappointing’ that Southwick ‘does say these things’. He could have rung council but instead said something in parliament and Magee will now say something back and Southwick will probably do the same and it is all ‘very childish’. ‘What’s important here is that we are all working for the benefit of our community’ and getting more open space. ‘If Mr Southwick had kept his promise and opened the centre of the racecourse’ then council wouldn’t need to ‘pull down’ the trees because there would be enough sporting grounds. Claimed that the ‘last thing’ council wants to do is remove the ‘loving’ trees. If Southwick ‘wants to condemn us for it, then I condemn him’ and ‘this is his fault’, ‘his inaction, his broken promise’. Southwick didn’t ‘open the centre of the racecourse’ and left council ‘with no alternative’. Said that ‘it’s atrocious that we have to do something like this to a beautiful park like Caulfield park – but we have to’ and ‘it’s Mr Southwick’s fault, not council’s’.

 

December 12, 2013

Hansard: Southwick, FoCP & The Trees

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

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to the house:

Caulfield Park tree removal

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:

The petition of the residents of Caulfield and surrounding areas draws to the attention of the house:

the decision by the councillors of the City of Glen Eira to remove or relocate 37 trees of varying maturity and significance within the Crown land of Caulfield Park in order to enlarge two sporting ovals. This decision deviates significantly from the approved master plan for Caulfield Park and was undertaken without any community consultation.

The petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria expresses its strong disapproval of this action which was undertaken without due process and urges the City of Glen Eira to reverse this decision and explore options that will minimise the impact on the trees while still allowing for the upgrade of sporting facilities.

By Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (533 signatures).

Caulfield Park trees

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—When I first spoke in this house three years ago I said that ‘Caulfield Park has for more than a century been a suburban oasis for the people of Caulfield, providing an escape to nature’. This is still true; a quick walk through Caulfield Park brings people a sense of sanctuary and quiet, with only the jingle of tram route 3 to remind them that they are in the centre of Melbourne in the great and beautiful suburb of Caulfield. For decades passive enjoyment of the park has coexisted with Caulfield’s great community sporting activities of footy, soccer, cricket, lawn bowls and many other great sports that are a key part of the park.

That sense of quiet was blown away yesterday by the sounds of chainsaws and trucks as the City of Glen Eira, led by the Labor-Greens council, set about destroying or relocating 37 mature and significant trees without any consultation with park users or the community. The council claims that the trees need to be removed in order to create a buffer around the sporting ovals and to increase the size of the ovals. Friends of Caulfield Park submitted to council a well-thought-out alternative proposal that would have had minimum impact on the trees, but it was ignored. This morning I tabled a petition of 533 signatures which shows the strength of community opinion the council is so willing to ignore.

There is significant community anger in Caulfield about the decision by council to ride roughshod over the feelings of residents and carelessly destroy trees of significant environmental and historical value. I join my community in utterly condemning this decision by Glen Eira City Council to sneakily destroy these trees.

 

December 2, 2013

Long Term Planning & Open Space

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

The 1998 Open Space Strategy made it abundantly clear that Glen Eira has a deficit of open space and especially in the North Caulfield, Elsternwick and Gardenvale areas. But has this knowledge, reiterated in the current draft strategy put a halt to the continual sell off of public land? Not on your life! It continues at every opportunity and often the only beneficiaries are developers. This is despite the June 17th, 2002 statement by Newton in the Caulfield Leader -“We have sold nearly $30 million of assets. Every cent has gone to capital expenditure. There are virtually no more surplus assets to sell”. Glen Eira has had no trouble in finding more and more land to flog. So, since we’ve always known that there is a deficit of open space, how can this be allowed to continue? What does this say about the overall lack of planning, financing, and real vision that is the responsibility of Newton and councillors?

What’s really irksome is that land is being sold off, at rock bottom prices, only to find there’s a (concurrent) application put in for multi unit developments. A recent example is 52 Ercildoune St., North Caulfield. This was advertised in the Leader in September and in August there was this application – “Construction of a three storey building comprising eight (8) dwellings above a basement carpark and a reduction in visitor car parking requirements”. Another example is McKittrick Rd, where council displayed its largesse to developers by selling the land for $20,000 when it was valued at $66,700. At the very least council should never have sold this land for such prices – especially when developers are not paying their share of development contribution levies, or open space levies.

Below we present a table of what we have been able to discover on land sales for the past decade. A nice little sum has been accrued since 2002, especially when the figures for the old depot are added in. Residents need to ask: where has this money gone? What additions have been made to open space (apart from the 2 houses in Packer park for $1.91 million) in the past decade? Given the long term knowledge that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space in the state, then the actions, (or failure to act – ie purchase of Alma Club) are  further evidence of poor planning, and poor financial management.

 DATE FROM MINUTES

 ADDRESS

 AMOUNT
26th May 2003 SEC 173 AGREEMENT SALE OF LAND FORMER WORKS DEPOT CORNER MANCHESTER GROVE AND NEERIM ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY 

 

  UNDISCLOSED
16th August 2004 SALE OF LAND BETWEEN NINA COURTAND SOUTH ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST Undisclosed – part only was sold
29th November 2004 SALE OF LAND – REAR OF55 WOORNACK ROAD, CARNEGIE $28,000
11th April 2005 CARNEGIE SENIORCITIZEN’S CLUB, 314 NEERIM ROAD

CARNEGIE.

 Council states: $784,000
16TH October 2007 PRINCESS AVENUE, CAULFIELDEAST $3.25 million
23rd September 2008 3-5 Station Avenue, McKinnon $3.1 million
21st July 2009 Rear of 23-27 Empress Road, St Kilda East $50,000 (although council had to spend $70,000 on drain before sale)
13th October 2009 REAR 16 WYUNAROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH $17,000
REAR 1 TO 5 EPSOM STREET ANDADJOINING UNITS 2 to 5 / 5 DERBY CRESCENT,

CAULFIELD EAST

 $41,600
12th October 2010 13 NINA COURT AND 16 NIKI COURT BENTLEIGHEAST $45,000
23rd November 2010 REAR OF 233 AND 239 NEPEAN HIGHWAY,GARDENVALE $93,500
17th May 2011 Road at Rear of 2 to 6 Langdon Road and Drainage Reserve at Rear of 36to 42 Rosemont Avenue, Caulfield North $79,532
22nd May 2012 PART OF THE ROADRESERVE IN PORTER ROAD, CARNEGIE, ADJOINING

8 THE CROSSOVER.

 $39,798
18th December 2012 SALE OF FORMER RESERVE AT THEREAR OF 37 TO 59 AND 69 TO 73 ESKDALE ROAD, 25

TO 41 AND 49 TO 55 FITZGIBBON CRESCENT AND

ADJOINING 33 AND 35 BAMBRA ROAD, CAULFIELD

NORTH

 25 Fitzgibbon Crescent $6,435.0027 Fitzgibbon Crescent $7,150.00

35 Fitzgibbon Crescent $1,787.50

47 Eskdale Road $6,792.50

71 Eskdale Road $3,575.00

73 Eskdale Road $7,507.50

33 Bambra Road $20,020.00
5th February 2013 Reserve and a closed road offHeywood Street, Caulfield North $140,000 – sold to the MRC!
19th March 2013 542 Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick – laneway sale $13,750 and council stated that this “is fifty precent of the current market value.”!!!!!!
9th April 2013 Reserve off McKittrick Road, Bentleigh Council stated: “The land has a market value of $66,700. The Owner made several offers topurchase the Land over many years at well below market value. His current offer is $20,000.”
26th November 2013 26 TO 32ROSEMONT AVENUE, CAULFIELD NORTH $27,118

The final irony comes when we compare some of the recommendations from the current draft strategy and what’s happened in the past. This page shows that 3 properties were sold in an area that is now recommended to purchase land and create open space.

Tthe red dots are properties that council owned and has sold-1

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »