Glen Eira Debates

Council is about to embark on a revamped Open Space Strategy. That’s great but, we have to wonder whether this will simply be another exercise in spin judging by the actions that have failed to be implemented from the 1998 strategy. Below are some extracts from this 1998 version. Please consider how many of the following objectives/statements/promises have been translated into concrete actions and how many that were mooted 15 years ago are still to be realised!

Where open space contributions are required for multi-unit developments, Council impose the maximum monetary open space contribution about of 5% wherever possible.

A 50% split between acquisition and improvement is suggested.

Constantly review opportunities to expand open space, particularly where sites may become available adjacent to existing parks in the precinct and allow opportunities to increase the size of these parks.

Retain a Public Acquisition Overlay to no 53 Magnolia Road, Gardenvale to complete the concept plan for Gardenvale Park (shown in the City of Caulfield Local Parks Strategy, 1987) and purchase the property when it becomes available, subject to current budget priorities

Changing recreation trends and an aging population indicate that informal open space is an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system

There is community support to get involved in the planning development and management of open space

Encourage government authorities ie schools to make their open space available for community use (especially where there are identified open space deficiencies) and investigate opportunities to provide additional open space if school sites are redeveloped

There is a community perception that there is a lack of unstructured open space in Glen Eira and changing recreation trends and an ageing population indicate that informal open space will be an increasingly important component of Glen Eira’s open space system.

The general community ‘feeling ‘ is that there is adequate provision of active open space that that future strategies should focus on ensuring a balance between active and informal recreational pursuits

Some sports require additional expanded facilties but generally the provision of improved maintenance and/or upgrades to existing facilities would satisfy current and future sporting demands

Concern for traffic management within and around various parks to ensure safety for users of open space.

Investigate opportunities to expand existing open space in the Gardenvale neighbourhood of the West precinct

Increase outdoor events in Glen Eira’s open space system, ie jazz festivals, open-air movies, art/sculpture displays of local artists work, flora and fauna displays

Organise community events in Caulfield Park to coincide with and complement the Spring Racing Carnival

Capitalise on the amphitheatre in Caulfield Park for a wide range of outdoor community events

Through the statutory planning permit process support and encourage the provision of open style fencing for new residential development that directly abuts open space

Review the provision of buildings in open spaces, including the provision of scout halls and other affiliated groups, and determine their possible rationalisation/reduction as part of the process of preparing park Masterplans.

Encourage and generate ‘friends”/community groups and school children to be involved in the development and on-going maintenance of parks.

Ensure that existing informal open space is not encroached on, inhibited or placed with any further restrictions, unless some form of compensation is negotiated ie land swaps

Design playgrounds to include fences, paths, seats, shade trees/shelter to provide comfort for parents supervising children

Build on the educational programs run by Council’s Park Services unit and develop an education centre in Caulfield Park to complement the native bushland reserve and bird aviary where education programs can be run with interactive facilities provided for community members to learn about Glen Eira’s natural heritage

Work closely with the Glen Eira Environment Group and the Society for Growing Australian Plants and utilise their knowledge and expertise to continue to enhance and maintain environmental open space in the city.

Negotiate with the National Trust to allow some form o community access into the gardens of Rippon Lea ie residents could be issued with a ticket to allow them 10 free passes per year into Rippon Lea

80% of open space system functions as outdoor sports/local parks combined

Develop a Masterplan for Elsternwick Plaza keeping in mind this park potentially forms an important recreational element to the Elsternwick urban village concept. The Masterplan should open the park up to invite pedestrian activity and integrate with Glen Huntly road

Work with the Society for Growing Australian plants to develop the original route of the old Elster Creek trail into a native vegetation corridor/nature walk with interpretative signage and encourage private property owners along the route to plant appropriate native vegetation to increase havitat potential.

A dominant portion of open space in each precinct is restricted at certain periods by sports activities, with the North-East and South-East precincts having the larger proportions of their open spaces used for organised sports at certain periods.

The dominant landscape setting in all precincts is sporting which ranges between 55% in the South-West to 88% in the South East

Readers will remember the 12 storey, 173 dwelling application for Dandenong Rd. that went to council on November 13^th 2012. Lipshutz, Magee, Sounness and Pilling all thought that 12 storeys was fine but the rest of the councillors reduced this to 8 storeys and 90+ dwellings. The officer’s report had the following to say about traffic –

“The proposal is considered to activate the Dandenong Road Frontage

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channeling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.”

We’ve since come across a Youtube video created by a Monash student (see below). What is most striking about the video is the sound. Listen carefully and ask yourselves, is this really a ‘significant advantage for this development site’.

Another example of councillors doing nothing is evidenced by their resolution on the car sharing item from last Council meeting. Please note that the issue itself is not our focus. What is our focus is the process that this council adopts in the attempt to get anything done. Here’s the recommendation and the ensuing resolution

That Council:

i) Notes the report.

ii) Notes that car share systems could be used within new developments in the future.

 Crs Sounness/Lipshutz

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(iii) That a further report be provided on how car sharing policies operate in other Victorian Councils (eg Cities of Melbourne, Stonnington and Port Phillip), and the effectiveness of these policies in improving public and private sustainable transport options.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

So, here we go again. Another report, another time lag, another example of inefficiency, added cost, and temerity. The inefficiency relates to both councillors and officers. The supposed objective of this first report was to outline the “benefits/impact’ of car sharing. What we ended up with in the Akehurst version was waffle, generalities, and the predicted recommendation to look to the ‘future’. The only other council mentioned, as we’ve already noted was Melbourne City Council. Surely any report attempting to fulfill the terms of ‘benefits/impact’ would provide a far more extensive analysis than simply looking at one council? Why didn’t Akehurst include commentary/analyses from these other councils to begin with? How about some real statistics? Our take is that when you’re trying to push a particular line you never give too much away – especially if the ‘findings’ of the analysis are all ‘positive’ and your position is one of ‘do nothing’.

Councillors should not escape unscathed either. So they’ll get another report which will undoubtedly say that although there are some positives in these councils’ plans it will cost too much; nothing is budgeted for and hence Glen Eira needs to delay until funds are available. The hidden issue of course is what this might mean for the entire parking allocation system in the municipality. When development after development is allowed to get away with waiving car parking spaces and nearby streets are permitted as surrogates, then to create car share spaces could be a major problem. Instead of looking at the entire system, we have another tinkering with the periphery and thus not even coming close to addressing the real issues.

The ‘report’ will come in at some stage and given past history councillors will meekly accept whatever recommendation is put before them. End of story!

LIPSHUTZ moved to accept recommendations and Option A. ($600,000 Gardener’s Rd revamp) Lobo seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: “We are the victims of our success”. They did not ‘in any way imagine’ that there would be 9000 members and ‘probably growing”. He thought that by the ‘end of summer’ there would be over 10,000 members. Gesac was ‘visionary’ but ‘unfortunately’ success brings ‘car parking problems’. The car parking has been ‘extended somewhat’ but they are realising that it’s ‘not sufficient’ so ‘the appropriate course’ is to increase car parking. Best way is to do it is through extending Gardener’s Rd because this won’t have an impact ‘at all’ on residents nor the park itself. Admitted that in the end council might have to build an underground car park or above ground car park but ‘that’s for the future’. Said that ‘if people can”t get in, they won’t go’ and the ‘more car park space we have the more GESAC will be a success’. Said that Option A is the ‘appropriate way to go’. Said that $600,000 is ‘little’ and would be recouped through increased patronage.

LOBO: ‘fully agree(d)” with Lipshutz. Went on to say that currently there’s an ‘inherent risk’ for children crossing the carpark to get to the facility and also at Bailey Reserve for the soccer players. ‘We cannot afford to have a tragedy” and “delay this any more”. Went on to say that ‘someone’ has written in the newspaper that consultation should be done. ‘You can’t do community consultations all the time”. When there’s a risk, and ‘council knows there is a risk” things have to be done. Therefore he supports Option A.

SOUNNESS: Said that council is very proud of it’s ‘risk profile’ but that ‘it’s completely got car parking wrong for GESAC’. Admitted that his ‘weakness’ was that he doesn’t know the ‘history of the site’ but after 3 council meetings that he’s attended if ‘you still have to go back to the drawing board’ and it’s still not right then ‘somewhere the sums have gone wrong’. He doesn’t doubt the success of GESAC but ‘why is it that car parking was so grossly miscalculated?’. Compared GESAC to MSAC and the fact that they’ve got heaps of car parking around, plus public transport, cycle paths, etc. Said he knows he will be in a minority but that ‘somewhere in the background there’s been a miscalculation’. Stated that many things are unfeasible such as railway line and even cycle paths won’t make much of a difference. Said he’s got real doubts and wants more information and that the community can rightly ask whether the park is now ‘just a sea of asphalt’.

MAGEE: challenged Lipshutz’s statement that people didn’t envisage that GESAC would be that popular and that ‘there was never any doubt in my mind”. Talked about the 7000 signature petition and that he had “many, many” more sheets that were signed by people who now might also become members. GESAC is an ‘outstanding success”. It won’t “please everybody” but does please thousands of people. “I’m very happy to see this parking go in” and that “this is not the end of the parking”. Saw a “need” for parking in “the centre of East Boundary Rd” and hoped that Vic Roads would grant permission for this. Saw this as a “great opportunity for a staff car park” and this would ‘free up another 30 or 40 spots” in the main car park. People shouldn’t “ignore the fact that GESAC is such a success” and all that’s happening is “taking away a bit of nature strip” in order to get “a much needed car park”. Concluded that he was “happy” to debate this with “anyone who wants to take this up with me personally”.

DELAHUNTY: Said that she liked Option A and that her husband was present to “make sure” that she voted for more carparking. She particularly liked the “drop off zone” and that this would “ease congestion”. GESAC “is an incredible success” and thought has to be given to how to get 9000 people there efficiently, safely and also thinking about the environment. Urged for more advocacy to get a bus route.

OKOTEL: in favour of Option A but still did share the “concerns’ of Sounness and Magee in that “further car parking will be required”. Said that in relation to Options C and D that these were “under study” and that she would welcome the results.

HYAMS: asked the movers if they would consider adding to the motion that Option D be continued to be considered (ie median strip parking in the centre of East Boundary Rd). Both Lipshutz & Lobo agreed.

OKOTEL: if the new amendment was accepted whether there might not also ‘be support for Option C?” (ie time restrictions on East Boundary Rd). Again accepted by mover and seconder.

HYAMS: asked Burke that if time restrictions come in on East Boundary Rd and already in the Bailey Reserve carpark whether this would be a problem for those cricket administrators ‘who spend all day’ there when the teams are playing?

BURKE: said ‘yes – it’s one of the concerns”

HYAMS: then wanted to move an amendment that the wording about Option C ‘be removed”. Asked for a seconder to the amendment. Lipshutz didn’t accept so Hyams moved it as a formal amendment. Delahunty seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: ” don’t say that we shouldn’t do it’ just needs to be seen if this is viable and therefore a report needs to be asked for – like he did with the Wi Fi request for a report.

OKOTEL: said that this study is already underway regarding Option C and that since the ‘study is already being prepared” that council should wait.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Lipshutz and Okotel that ‘this needs to be investigated’ and that there could ‘be a possibility of providing exemptions’ for ‘certain officials that require them’.

MAGEE: Said that ‘this is all about going backwards with GESAC’ since GESAC is ‘about encouraging people to come’. The amendment says that if you come for sporting activity like cricket which can go on for 5 or 6 hours so with timed restrictions ‘this is not a welcoming thing’. Said that as a ‘cricketer, I need somewhere to park, my children need somewhere to park’ and the ‘only avenue’ is Next we’ll ‘be pushed down’ to using the East Bentleigh shopping centre and local streets.on East Boundary Rd.

HYAMS: said that with Esakoff statement about certain officials, there are also cricketing, and other sporting groups so hard to ‘work out a system that would also include them’. Said that asking for a report is only ‘putting fear into the people that use’ the facilities and that ‘we don’t want to add to that stress’ when people are trying to park.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST: voted for: MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS.

AGAINST: LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, SOUNNESS, ESAKOFF, LOBO

LIPSHUTZ: said that GESAC has ‘the best consultants in Australia’ and they came to the ‘conclusion that certain parking was required’. There was also a ‘cost factor’ and safety factor and they didn’t put in an underground/above ground car park because ‘women do not like’ to use these. ‘We are a victim of our success’ and no one expected to have 9000 members. They knew it would be a success but ‘not to this extent’. Half way through building they realised that there wouldn’t be enough car parking space. So, ‘there’s no issue here of poor planning’ just a ‘huge success’ and ‘we will probably have to deal with (more) car parking in the future’. Council has to choose Option A otherwise GESAC won’t have ‘sufficient car park’ and that Option C should be ‘explored’ so as not to ‘impact on cricketers and people who use the park’

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED: For – Lipshutz, Lobo, Esakoff, Hyams, Delahunty, Magee,Okotel.

AGAINST – Sounness

COMMENTS

Once again the lack of consistency and logic in these discussions leaves much to be desired. Please note the following:

• Suddenly there is an ‘inherent’ danger for pedestrians according to Lobo and that’s why he wants more cars on the adjacent street. Even better, he seems to have totally forgotten that on September 24^th 2012 (less than 3 months ago!) a report was tabled on the ‘safety audit’ at GESAC which included the following statements:

“It is considered that the GESAC car park and Bailey Reserve provide a safe environment for pedestrians” AND

“The audit (May 2012) provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented.” Lobo himself then moved the motion to accept the report’s recommendations.

There are 3 possibilities here: (1) either safety issues have suddenly cropped up which would of course make a mockery of the safety audit, or (2) the report was entirely inaccurate, or (3) Lobo’s memory is failing rapidly!

• We also take issue with Lipshutz’s statements that the problem with car parking is not a ‘planning issue’. Surely if a project of this size and cost is correctly planned then all contingencies are considered – from worse case scenarios, to best case scenarios? Further, what’s important is NOT the number of memberships, but the number of DAILY VISITORS. GESAC was stated to attract 500,000 visitors per year. We were told recently that the centre has 1500 visitors per day. That would mean that the yearly patronage still comes in at 547,000. Hardly a huge blowout from the original prognostication. Thus the question remains – how good was the original planning? Or is this ‘staged’ increase in car parking deliberate?
• There is not one single word  in any of this discussion (apart from Lipshutz’s aside that there are no problems) about the traffic impact in Gardiner’s Rd, or any mention of the residents that live along this road. There have already been petitions from this group of residents as well as media coverage. We’re told that ‘consultation’ took place eons ago and that their fears were allayed. We wonder how ‘allayed’ their fears are now and whether they were even informed that this is happening?
• It is surely most comforting to have Hyams so concerned about raising residents’ ‘fears’ by asking for a report. Ignorance is bliss we guess!
• We congratulate Sounness for at least having the courage to call a spade a shovel. There have been major ‘miscalculations’ and all the spin, smoke and mirrors, and plain old propaganda cannot hide or disguise this self-evident truth.
• Finally, we have to ask why oh why if GESAC is so successful is there still a need to place full page colour advertisements in the local newspapers on a weekly (and expensive) basis – especially given the financial report’s continuous urging for frugality?