GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

December 21, 2013

Your Future In Their Incapable Hands?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

A new low has been reached with the following ‘debate’ on the Kornhauser application.

Delahunty moved the motion to accept with changes – conditions requiring unloading area and that this shouldn’t be ‘used for any other purpose’. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that this was ‘incredibly difficult process’ for residents and didn’t give her any ‘pleasure to stand here and deliver a verdict tonight’. Said it was a ‘beautiful’ street and ‘suffers from being very beautiful and popular’ and she uses it when she visits Masada hospital. Said that councillors had asked officers to ‘review’ the parking in the area and that the notice of decision does have ‘regard’ for the ‘very relevant objectors’ opinion’. Realised that the objectors would be wondering how councillor can ‘allow’ this to ‘come about’ and she thought that the non-residential uses in residential zones policy has some ‘deliberate ambiguity to it’ so that decisions can be made on some non residential uses. Went on to say that in order to ‘minimise’ the impact on neighbours ‘council has done several things’ such as limiting hours and numbers of students and to limit ‘traffic movement’ and to provide car parking ‘which is an absolute necessity’. Said that what council can’t do in a permit, but she hopes will happen in that ‘everyone will go away’ here tonight ‘in good faith’ and that people come together and work together. Hoped that the permit will not ‘interrupt neighbourhood amenity’. Stated that there were some things raised by objectors that ‘may seem relevant but can’t actually be considered’ such as noise and the type of education being provided. These couldn’t be ‘discussed’. Thought that the conditions were trying to ‘strike a balance’ and hoped that everyone would be kind to one another and that the applicant adheres to the conditions.

SOUNNESS: acknowledged that there’s a history to this application and that there are ‘grounds’ under planning to consider it again. He found it ‘striking’ that such a small school could ‘generate’ that amount of ‘correspondence’ and that it’s ‘got support by the community’ and also ‘concerns’ from the community.  Went on to claim that the conditions seek to ‘confirm’ numbers of staff, students, etc. ‘These things give surety’. Said that the planning scheme isn’t definitive and ‘there is ambiguity’. He thought that a school is one thing and a home education is another and that this application ‘sits’ somewhere in between. Ultimately he couldn’t see anything to say ‘that this should not proceed’. Thought that the conditions ‘encourage good behaviour within the community’ but council isn’t a ‘policeman’ that’s going to stand ‘at the corner counting’ so he ‘hopes’ that parties recognise the conditions and act accordingly. Council needs to do the ‘best’ they can ‘by the tools they have’. He was confident that the conditions set down would provide the best ‘outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he chaired the planning conference and said that he was ‘disappointed’ that no objectors showed up because he wanted to hear what they had to say. Stated that he did hear from objectors ‘this morning’ but that this was ‘too little too late’ in ‘terms of trying to convince councillors’. If they had shown up then they would have heard that officers look at parking and amenity and noise and that ‘those are the issues’. Many objections were raised but ‘outside those principles’ and which ‘can’t be looked at’ since council is only able to look at ‘planning law’ since they had a ‘quasi-judicial’ function and have ‘to enforce planning law’. Said that in the past he had said that he doesn’t want ‘a school in my street. I don’t want Mr Scopus in my street’ but ‘this is 25 students’and for him this wasn’t ‘particularly onerous’. Talk about parties intimidating each other was ‘unfortunate’ but all council can do is ‘look at planning principles’.  Claimed that council basically ‘tried to limit the nature of this institution’.  If there is student ‘creep’ well all that means is that the ‘applicant will have to come back to council to make an application’ and he thinks that it won’t be looked upon ‘favourably’. In answering the question of ‘how do we know’ how many students front up Lipshutz said ‘well council can have spot checks’ and ‘they will be brought to task’ if the permit isn’t adhered to. There’s been ‘distrust’ and now it’s ‘important’ that everyone ‘goes away’ and allow the ‘applicants to proceed and do what they have to do’ and ‘be good neighbours’. ‘If they’re not, they will pay the consequences’.

LOBO: went through the history of the application – ie council refusal, vcat. Said that the school ‘has been operating for some time now’ but the owners are now ‘trying to put their records in order’.  Claimed that officers had addressed all issues like parking and the covenant. Said that Victoria accepts ‘home schooling’ and that council’s policy ‘cements’ this approach. Went on to say that ‘I have always said that schools should be separate from residents’ so kids can ‘shout and play’. Said the motives in running the school by the applicant is ‘commendable’ and that they are an ‘epitome of the community’ because ‘they enjoy good integrity and character’.   Since he’s got a few ‘Jewish family friends’ he ‘understands’ the organisation who are ‘selfless’ and ‘reach out to everyone without discrimination’. He’s also been told that ‘preconceived evil is not in their nature’. Said that this needs to looked at in terms of the new application and the ‘Kornhauser’s philanthropic’ contribution to society. “I do not think that their rabbis hate me anymore’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors not attending the planning conference is ‘disappointing but understandable under the circumstances’ and this doesn’t mean that their written objections weren’t ‘taken into consideration’. She didn’t think that ‘Cr Lipshutz was suggesting that’.  Said that one objector had asked her whether she would like to live there her response was that  if she didn’t ‘know the history, I would be absolutely thrilled’ but if she had ‘been through’ what residents have been through ‘I might think differently’. But ‘as it stands now’ being close to parks and transport, ‘Yes I would live there’. She ‘hoped that this street is a happy place to live’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS: A reader kindly posted the URL for the Dilbert cartoon below. We thought that it so precisely sums up the Glen Eira Council culture and philosophy that it requires highlighting.

dilbert

 

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 17, 2013

Council Meeting Marathon!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Detailed reports on tonight’s council meeting will follow in the days ahead. However, readers should note the following outcomes:

  • The Kornhauser application accepted unanimously and not one single word stated about student accommodation/shared housing. Lobo even declared at one point that ‘rabbis would love’ him now!
  • The so called greens see nothing wrong with the Gordon St 8 storey 55 unit development because it’s close to transport and will ‘enliven’ the area. Lobo/Magee motion to refuse got up by 5 votes to 4. Voting against refusal – Lipshutz; Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
  • The most important items (ie. proposed amendments for large lot sizes and the revisiting the C87) took about 10 minutes in total! Passed unanimously. Our view is another ‘victory’ for developers and deceiving the public.
  • A sporting allocation policy that changes nothing and still cedes all control to unelected officers
  • Audit committee report nothing more than self-congratulations and how wonderful Gibbs and McLean are.
  • CCTV funding from government refused. Voting to accept – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel.
  • Many public questions demanded that councillors provide INDIVIDUAL answers to specific queries – in other words, tell residents of their views and why they voted or felt the way they did. No councillor had the guts to address the questions and state what their actual views were. Instead it was all about ‘councils’ views.
 

December 15, 2013

Double Standards?

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

This council has had no qualms in spending tens of thousands of dollars in pursuing Frank Penhalluriack over an alleged boarding house violation that in effect was only in existence for several weeks. It would appear that the same diligence, persistence and consistency of law and principle does not apply to all residents and properties. We are referring to the new application for 8 -10 Springfield Avenue, North Caulfield. What councillors are now being asked to do is grant a ‘retrospective permit’ for an ‘education centre’ and we believe a ‘shared accommodation’ site.

The question of  double standards centres on the following:

  • If there is a component of this ‘education centre’ that provides a 10 month course and offers ‘accommodation’ for these students (some of whom are from overseas) does this constitute a ‘boarding house’?
  • Why has council turned a blind eye to this and not pursued the owner in a manner that is commensurate with the approach taken to Penhalluriack? We refer readers to the boarding house registry where they will find that NO PERMIT exists for this property (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/types-of-rental-agreements/public-register-of-rooming-houses?rs=Glen+Eira+City&sz=20&pg=1&ct=4
  • Why does the Ron Torres report not mention the fact that the 10 month course also offers ‘accommodation’. All that we are told is: The intensity of the current version of the proposal has been reduced compared with the previous version that was refused. For example, the 2 week intensive MerkosWomen course will not be offered and a maximum of 10 women will be enrolled in the 10 month course rather than 15. Whilst the maximum number of boys is not proposed to be reduced, the hours of operation will no longer include any Sunday classes. Similarly, there will be no evening classes for the MerkosWomen that were part of the original application.
  • Yet, the current website of Merkos Women, makes it absolutely clear that the site provides for live-in accommodation, and according to the VCAT member the 10 month course charges US $12,000!

Participants are provided with beautiful accommodation in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community. The accommodation includes comfortable shared bedrooms, modern formal and informal lounging areas and a large kitchen in which the girls are guided in preparing communal based meals and are given the opportunity to explore the cultural aspect of food preparation. For the hotter summer months, there is a swimming pool and outdoor area.

Source: http://merkoswomen.com.au/general-info-for-overseas-participants

This ‘new application’ is ‘retrospective’. In other words the site has been operating for years without the appropriate permits. And what has council done? Very little it would seem! The earlier VCAT decision even included this admission by Council’s representative (Mr Leary) – Council’s Enforcement Officer having apparently had problems in the past with being granted access on to the subject land. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1157.html)

As to the merits of the ‘new’ application we only reiterate that for years neighbours have complained to council about the operation of this site as a school and they have basically been ignored. Now council proposes to grant a permit despite traffic concerns, and entirely overlooks the question of whether or not the site is in part operating as ‘shared accommodation’. Thus our question of double standards and why the law is not applied equally to all?

Finally, we draw readers’ attention to the following Age/SMH article and especially to the alleged council position as stated in the penultimate sentence – The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2nUskMgpk

 

December 13, 2013

Agenda: Stuff Ups & Spin

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

Apologies for what is an exceedingly long post but which focuses on 2 vitally important Amendment proposals that basically admit council’s previous stuff ups, plus the public relations exercise on the C60 and Caulfield Village. Please refer to the actual agenda items on council’s website for other items including – walking strategy, sporting ground allocations policy, and some very interesting in camera items concerning the Audit Committee.

Caulfield Village Development

Rocky Camera’s report is in response to the following Request for a Report passed at last council meeting – “That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield  Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another method used by other councils.”

We note at the outset that the request for ‘methods’ is not really addressed by Mr Camera’s response and ‘structure’ planning is mentioned only twice in passing, in the entire 6 pages of script! Instead, the report is a follow up to the Akehurst comments from this council meeting and the admission that residents’ opportunities to ‘object’ to the Caulfield Village are dead and buried!

Once again there is plenty of misleading information. Even though Probuild has formally announced its intention to build 1500+ units, this report still maintains – “Caulfield Village will contain 1200 dwellings’ and ‘improvements to three main road intersections’. The report then continues with assurances that “details” are known and this followed (of course) ‘extensive community consultation’. Probuild could not have employed a better public relations firm that Glen Eira City Council in spruiking the development as evidenced by the following highly dubious claims.

This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village. This certainty even extends to the location of new roads, infrastructure upgrades, and the use of laneways. If any person is unaware or unsure of the future development of the Caulfield Village, they simply just need to turn to the Incorporated Plan. In this respect, the community’s involvement in “helping shape the future of the area” has occurred.

The degree of detail and certainty far exceeds what a structure plan could offer. At best, structure plans are policy documents, providing general guidance on future development. The framework for Caulfield Village, with precise controls, and a rigorous ‘recipe’, means there is already absolute certainty about what the extent of future development will be.

Thus, after a page and a half of unfounded assurances, the real truth emerges. All residents will be able to do regarding the Development Plan is submit ‘comments’. They will not have any objection rights to VCAT. The best residents can hope for is that someone with common sense realises that 1500+ units as opposed to 1200+ units, does in fact constitute a marked departure from the Incorporated Plan. The domino effect should then be applied to traffic, etc. But all we’re told is:

if the developer deviates from the Incorporated Plan (‘recipe’) and proposes, say, taller buildings than what is specified in the building envelope. In this case, a full town planning process, together with typical third-party rights must be undertaken. That is, if a proposal contains taller buildings than the agreed envelopes, or departs from the Incorporated Plan, the community needs to be further consulted.

What will be interesting is how ‘deviates’ is defined and by whom and what constitutes a ‘deviation’ from the sorely lacking detail of the Incorporated Plan!

There are several other admissions most notably that the open space levy extracted from the developers only amounts to $4m for the residential components. Given that the law at the time permitted up to 5% Council has again let the big boys off very cheap at 4%! Mention is made of the possibility of ‘back dating’ rates, but we assume that this will be calculated on the miniscule rates that have been part of the Planning Scheme since 2006/7 and not the uppermost limit currently available. Another present to developers!

We urge residents to read this report very, very carefully and to note the following:

  • The first development plan is already in the hands of council and will be made public early 2014
  • After so many assurances that ‘precise details’ are known about the future of this area, the recommendations confess that the C60 in effect only supplies ‘broad parameters’!

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND HERITAGE CONTROLS

If ever there was an admission of a total stuff up then Item 9.9 is the living proof. This harks back to Amendment c87 where the Neighborhood Character Overlays were introduced into the planning scheme. Readers will remember that councillors in their wisdom promised those residents who asked that their areas be included, or not excluded, that they could present their case to the Planning Panel, only to find that the ‘terms of reference’ could not be altered. Hence, all those individuals who believed council found out to their horror that their claims were not relevant to the deliberations of the Planning Panel. We also remind readers that both residents and councillors were not given the opportunity to put in any recommendations – it was all done ‘inhouse’ by officers and through the Planisphere report.

Well now (a year later) there is a massive public relations exercise about to happen, where a handful of residents from that time will get a look in. The proposals are minimalist in the extreme – a couple of more houses added to the heritage listing and basically one more street included. Of course, none of this will happen in the short term, given the length of time it takes for Amendments to get through. We simply ask why this couldn’t have happened right from the start? Why does it take this council attempt after attempt to get something close to ‘correct’?

LARGE SITES – NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

This is nothing but a confession that the zone reforms are another major stuff up and this is purely a limited attempt at ‘damage control’ given the outcry from developers. It does not excuse, nor solve the problem as we see it because:

  • The proposed amendment only addresses lots that are larger than 2000 sq. m. What if block of land is 1000sq.m for example?
  • With no minimum size prescribed in the planning scheme we can have subdivisions upon subdivisions so the myth of two dwellings per lot may stand – but the overall effect would mean 2 dwellings on each subdivision. There is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent this and we believe it is already happening.

There is much, more more of significance in these agenda papers. As per the norm, major issues are all presented at the one time so that real discussion, debate, and the prospect of intelligent and careful decision making is jeopardised. We even wonder whether councillors have taken the time to actually read all 377 pages!

PS: We’ve neglected to mention the Elsternwick Plaza item. At last council meeting the following resolution was passed – “That Council not accept VicTrack’s revised offer and continue to advocate for finalisation of the lease as per the original plan.”. This was after the Lipshutz/Hyams motion was defeated. However, being persistent little councillors, we now find that Newton has undertaken further negotiations and that there has been some ‘movement at the station’. This new recommendations DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE EXISTING RESOLUTION. We presume that the motto of the gang is that if you don’t succeed first time around, try, try, try again! It will be fascinating to see if councillors have got the gumption to stick to their original motion or whether they will cave in as per usual. This item just happens to be 9.20 – last cab off the rank when ‘determination’ and ‘stamina’ have been well and truly exhausted by everyone! Ah, the games that we play!

 

December 6, 2013

Another 8 Storeys!

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

VCAT has approved an 8 storey ‘mixed use’ development of  shops, offices, 54 dwellings and waiver of resident, visitor, and loading bay requirements. The site is at 28 Riddell Parade, Elsternwick. Below are extracts from the decision. Whilst VCAT will undoubtedly be ‘blamed’ by Lipshutz & Co for this decision, the member once again highlights how the Glen Eira Planning Scheme holds little terror for developers. The full decision is available at – 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2006.html 

  • We find the policy guidance on height turns on the weight to be given to State policy, which clearly supports larger scale buildings in Major Activity Centre that do not conflict with surrounding land uses. Mr Sheppard expressed this policy direction succinctly by saying State policy anticipates new development will lead to Major Activity Centres having a different character than that which currently exists.
  • The absence of a Design and Development Overlay specifying a preferred maximum height for new development on the review site influences our interpretation of the site’s policy setting. It implies that a development’s height is only limited by the specific combination of the policy and physical context of this, or any other, site in this Major Activity Centre that is not encumbered by such an Overlay.
  • We found it relevant that numerous other 7 to 10 storey buildings have been approved in this Major Activity Centre, with many of these buildings having direct abuttals to low scale residential development. These buildings all display a different character to what currently exists and indicate that buildings of a comparable height to what is proposed have been considered acceptable in this centre.
  • To this end, we distinguish Mr Scott’s evidence as relying too strongly on the notion of respecting and maintaining the centre’s existing character. We find his reliance on the ‘success’ of recent four storey infill development is too heavily weighted towards the assumption that policy discourages any visual competition to this centre’s heritage character. We found Ms Heggen’s opinion that the proposed development is one of the ‘next generation’ of activity centre buildings better reflects the policy framework and the recent history of this centre.
  • We do not accept the concept that only the western end of Glen Huntly Road can accommodate taller buildings, as it is not reflected in State or local policy nor is reflected on the ground. The local policy does not distinguish between the eastern and western sides of the railway line nor does it call for ‘gateway’ buildings along Glen Huntly Road.
  • Rather, it separates the centre into precincts where particular development outcomes are anticipated. We note that the zone boundaries make an intentional deviation to include this site. It anticipates larger scale buildings at heights compatible with adjacent buildings in the precinct containing the review site and identifies Stanley Street as a ‘point of transition from larger scale to the north’ to ‘lower scale to the south’. We find this explicitly encourages larger scale development on the review site, despite it lacking a frontage to Glen Huntly Road and despite it being on the east side of the railway line.
  • Much turned on the meaning of these phrases in the local policy. We find the first phrase – heights compatible with adjacent buildings – is to be interpreted as including heights envisaged by the policy framework rather than just the height of the existing adjoining buildings. In this interpretation, it is reasonable to assume a larger scale building could occupy the commercial site to the north or could be constructed on the council managed car park to the east.
  • We find local policy is not clear on whether a gradual or an abrupt transition is required. To this extent, Mr Barber’s interpretation is credible yet we consider it is not correct. The policy guidance for Precinct 4 does not imply taller buildings are discouraged in Precinct 6, rather Precincts 5 and 6 require a ‘transition’ between the Stanley Street precincts. We see the term as standing on its own and being capable of interpreted as either an abrupt or a gradual transition.
  • Separately, Messrs Barber and Scott rely on the Design Vision for Elsternwick Planisphere 2004 to varying degrees. We find this is not helpful to our decision, as this document has no status in the Planning Scheme.

In summary, we find the policies of the Planning Scheme support the height of the proposed building.

Overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza

  1. We do not accept that the public amenity impact of overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza caused by this building is reason to reduce its height. The building will cast shadow on the southern corner of the Plaza, yet this shadow will recede before 10am at the equinox. We find this is a marginal and acceptable impact.
  2. We acknowledge that local policy discourages such overshadowing yet find this must be balanced against other policy considerations that promote larger scale development on the review site. We also acknowledge Mr Brazilec’s observation that greater shadow will fall on the Plaza at times other than the equinox, yet remain of the view that the shadow is acceptable, as it will fall on a relatively small section of the Plaza even in mid-winter.
 

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

 

November 30, 2013

Too Little, Too Late!

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

Esakoff moved, and Sounness seconded the following motion on roof top gardens –

That Council:

1. Include the concept of Rooftop Gardens and Open Space in Council’s submission to ‘Plan Melbourne’, and

2. Commence the process of applying for a Planning Scheme Amendment to include this concept within our Residential Growth Zones and Commercial Zones on the basis that Glen Eira has the last (sic) amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne.

Ostensibly, this sounds terrific. But like most things done in Glen Eira it is too little too late and won’t be achieved (if at all) until years down the track. It is vital that residents appreciate what this administration and its councillors could have achieved if they really cared via Amendment C110 – the ‘reformed’ residential zones. Boroondara for example has 4 different schedules for its General Residential Zones. That means that they have looked at their neighbourhoods and carefully differentiated the respective areas. Glen Eira really only has 2 because the third schedule applies solely to the Alma Club site. Glen Eira has no limits on subdividing land less than 500m and sets a height limit in this zone of 10.5 metres. In contrast Boroondara believes that 9 metres is necessary and permits are required for land less than 500 metres in area.

What’s really important however is Boroondara’s emphases on open space. Glen Eira relies on the miniscule ResCode standards. Here’s what Boroondara stipulates in its GRZ zones –

boroondara

And it’s not only Boroondara. Kingston, Stonnington and others are ensuring that their schedules meet basic principles of non chicken coop living. Their permeability requirements, together with open space requirements (and the inclusion of increased open space levies in some schedules) put Glen Eira to shame. All of this could have been done with Amendment C110. It wasn’t. So now we have this cry for an amendment that in the end is meaningless. With no real urban design framework and no ESD mandates in its planning scheme, the prospect of forcing developers to do anything is pie in the sky in our view. This call for rooftop gardens is nothing more than an afterthought, designed to counter the mounting criticism and to give the appearance that council is actually doing something. But, with little hope of ever being legally viable, and potentially years down the track, it remains a pipe dream.

The opportunity to institute real reform has been squandered, or worse, never intended. The open invitation for unfettered development in Glen Eira still stands – only it’s much worse!

 

November 28, 2013

C60: The Travesty Continues……

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments 

We urge all residents to read the following very, very carefully since we believe it encapsulates everything that is wrong with Glen Eira City Council.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

Crs Delahunty/Magee
That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another
method used by other councils.

DELAHUNTY: said that this is largely a response to residents and “road works currently going on in the area” and this has ‘raised some residents’ concerns about what our future plans are’ for traffic, and the protection of amenity in the area and infrastructure ‘projects that might be going ahead’ especially because of the ‘population inflow into that area’. Said that she thought council could be ‘innovative’ in how they tried to ‘engage the community in planning’ and that council could ask people what they ‘thought they need’. ‘Some have called this a structure plan’ whilst others just a ‘consultative process’. Said that ‘we do need a platform of advocacy’ and that council needs to ‘understand what residents in that area want’ and it’s important to ‘engage them in conversation because they are facing some changes’. On the 19th July Matthew Guy talked about Stonnington needing to have structure plans (ie in relation to the supreme court decision on Orrong Rd development) and that they lost at ‘vcat because they didn’t have any control’. Admitted that ‘we’re not facing the same challenges’. Whatever Glen Eira decides to call it (‘structure plans’ or ‘advocacy plan’)  she’s ‘asking for officers’ guidance on that’. Hoped that councillors could see that this is about ‘residents who are facing an uncertain future’ in an area where open space hasn’t improved and ‘in an area’ where ‘traffic flow’ and maybe ‘calming measures’ and ‘actually planning for the future’ is needed. She’s therefore seeking ‘guidance’ on the ‘methods’, measures and community views.

MAGEE: did not say anything – “I have nothing further to add’.

LIPSHUTZ: asked Akehurst about the current status of the area

AKEHURST: started off by saying that the ‘history of this area goes back many years’ and there’s the C60 which provides the ‘broad scope’ for ‘what development takes place’. Said that ‘in some ways’ a structure plan does provide a ‘picture of what the future might be’ but that the ‘future’ of the area is ‘very well known’ because ‘the detailed footprint of buildings is known’ as well as ‘the area for office’. ‘The number of dwellings is known’. Then stated that ‘what is not known is matters of detail’ and that will be known once the Development Plan is submitted for approval and before approval is given ‘that development plan goes out to the community for comment and consultation’ and that should happen ‘early in the new year’. People can comment ‘but I have to say it’s limited comment’ because ‘there is a degree of certainty’ that ‘has been locked in’ with the acceptance of the C60. Said that residents’ comments can only go to council and not VCAT because ‘that’s not available’. Claimed that ‘the reason for that is that the opportunity’ to talk about ‘the scale of development has come and gone’.

OKOTEL: asked about the need for ‘this report’

AKEHURST: said it was hard for him to ‘comment on that’ but there might be positives in ‘getting the community to understand what they can comment on’ and what they ‘can’t make a comment on’ and that ‘when the development plan goes out it was always intended that that would happen’. Said that they ‘already have presentations ready to go’ and that these presentations could answer ‘those sorts of questions’ that would crop up for residents. So he thought that there probably ‘is some value in informing the community of what their rights are’.

DELAHUNTY: reiterated that there is ‘value’ for residents and for councillors ‘getting advice’ and for council to be ‘engaging in a conversation’ with residents. Admitted that she doesn’t ‘live in that area’ but if she did she might be ‘feeling a litle bit frightened’ or ‘a little bit wary of what’s coming ahead’. So she would like her ‘representatives’ to ask for her ‘opinion on what’s coming ahead’ and for council to establish a ‘platform of advocacy’ for people’s needs. Council won’t know ‘what people want until we ask them’. Said that ‘we’ don’t ‘have experience on what traffic will be like’ and therefore they need to ask people in order to ‘get ahead’ fo the upcoming issues.

MOTION PUT: Motion carried. ESAKOFF VOTED AGAINST. Delahunty called for a division.

COMMENT

There may be some ‘excuses’ for both Delahunty and Magee. The former was not on council when the C60 was rammed through by the gang. Magee was not a member of the gang’s Special Committee. Having said that, the appalling hypocrisy (if not straight out treachery) of this council is writ large in the discussion on this request for a report. When council did basically nothing in terms of investigating traffic, infrastructure, etc. at the time of the C60, and the environmental impacts this would have on the entire region, it is now a bit rich for these kinds of ‘studies’ to be undertaken. And when residents weren’t listened to in 2011, why should they have any confidence that their views will be listened to now? And what can residents suggest anyway? The die is cast and it’s once again a tale of too little too late – as always intended we maintain.

We must also admit our disgust upon hearing Akehurst admit that council has ‘presentations ready to go’ on the MRC stitched up Development Plan. What an absolute betrayal of all residents. No presentation, much less information, and god forbid, ‘consultation’ over the Residential Zones, but now, at the behest of the MRC no doubt, Council has worked its little butt off and done their hatchet work. Akehurst’s statements should also be seen for what they are – utterly misleading and probably intentional. He knows very well that if the development plan comes within cooee of the Incorporated Plan then this lot of compliant, sycophantic councillors will pass anything. The contractors have already admitted that the C60 will not be 1200 units, but over 1500. They have already announced that commercial and retail space is close to double that originally stated. As for height – well, dear readers, your guesses are as good as ours.

The entire C60 process was a sham and an atrocity right from the start. It sounds as if this will continue!

 

November 26, 2013

Full Steam Ahead!

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

The planning figures for October 2013 have recently been released by the Dept of Planning. Glen Eira continues to streak the field of surrounding councils with 166 additional dwellings approved in just one month. In contrast, here’s what’s happening in other councils –

Bayside – 7

Kingston – 57

Stonnington – 44

Port Phillip – 29

Source: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/planningapplications/planning-permit-activity-in-victoria/monthlystatistics

Some more recent highlights include:

  • 8 storey application for Gordon Street, Elsternwick
  • 4 storey, 24 dwellings, Neerim Road, Carnegie
  • 5 Storey, Morton Avenue, Carnegie
  • 4 storey, 18 dwellings, Orrong Crescent, North Caulfield
  • 3 storey, 12 dwellings, Cromwell Street, North Caulfield

With no development contributions levy, with an appalling open space levy rate that will take eons to alter, developers are no doubt, rubbing their hands with glee, and sending wonderful Xmas cards to Newton, Akehurst and the planning department!

Here’s the report. Please note that parking waivers are not cited in this set of data. We are sure that this key element would also be going through the roof in Glen Eira!

Untitled

PS: WE FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THE GRAPH SHOWING THE NUMBER OF ‘ACTIVE’ PLANNING APPLICATIONS (IE. YET TO BE DECIDED) HAS GLEN EIRA STREAKING THE FIELD AND COMING IN AT NUMBER 1 FROM ALL OTHER COUNCILS IN THE STATE!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »