GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

February 7, 2012

How Does Glen Eira Stack Up?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:

20 storeys for C60 instead of mooted 23 storeys
8 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 10 storeys (10 storeys in the end)
7 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 14 storeys
Glen Eira has no interim or permanent height controls. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to gain such controls
Glen Eira has no structure plans for activity centres. Instead there is ongoing steadfast refusal to have structure plans
No consistent/adequate public consultation

When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.

126 Apartments Axed

Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7^th February

Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.

More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.

Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”

Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”

Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.

Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.

Chaos over control

Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7^th February

City needs minister to step in over plans

STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.

The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.

Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’

Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.

Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.

PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February – Linh Ly

Club details sought

MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.

The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.

The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.

The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.

The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.

Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.

February 5, 2012

Consultation Via ‘Consultants’: The Biggest Con?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[10] Comments

Consultants are generally hired on the recommendation of administrators. The public never gets to know how much these high priced ‘consultants’ cost and we doubt that councillors even know. We have also long suspected that in Glen Eira such consultancies simply deliver pre-arranged and pre-determined findings or outcomes. In other words, they are nothing but a huge and expensive public relations exercise that gives the pretence of actually listening to the community – but the outcomes are already fixed and set in yellow concrete. It’s the old story of ‘he who pays the piper plays the tune’ and more importantly, he who writes the brief and gives instructions, controls the so called ‘findings’ and outcomes.

Nothing illustrates this more than the processes involved in the current C87 proposed Amendment. Please note the following:

Both Bayside (in 2008) and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the research on Significant Character Overlays
Both Bayside and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the review of the original Neighbourhood Character Research

What we present below is a table comparing the comments by PLANISPHERE from the Bayside study (uploaded here) as opposed to the Glen Eira study. The differences in tone, content, methodology, level of community engagement and depth of analysis is mind boggling. As we stated earlier – you get what you pay for and what the carefully scripted brief (plus private conversations?) tell PLANISPHERE to ‘research’. We conclude that the C87 report is nothing more than an administration directed document that totally fails to incorporate community views and values as mandated by the legislation.

BAYSIDE PLANISPHERE REPORT	GLEN EIRA PLANISPHERE REPORT
“Since the completion of the Stage 1 Review, other streets were identified for investigation by Council and community groups, and these have been included in the study” (p.4) “The Study area included areas that were identified in Stage 1 of the Review by Planisphere as well as those additional areas or streets that were subsequently identified by Councillors, planning staff or the community”. (p.6)	“These were new areas of significant neighbourhood character or extensions to previous areas and were either recommended by Council officersor recognised by the study team…..” (p.23) COMMENT: Even councillors don’t get a look in in Glen Eira!
“At Council’s request consultation with property owners and residents was conducted as the next stage of the project. This included an information package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open-house’ drop in information sessions. Over 1,000 submissions were received via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site work and in some instances adjustments to precinct boundaries have been made”. (p. 4)	“A preliminary survey and assessment was also undertaken of the 15 SCAs listed in the Minimal Change Area Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Clause 22.08) as well as potential areas of significant neighbourhood character recommended by Council”. (p. 5) “Community awareness of the importance of neighbourhood character issues is an essential aspect of implementation. This applies to a range of different groups in the community where a range of approaches to communication are required. This includes: Education of real estate agents and developers Working with residents’ groups and landowners generally Education of design and building professionals The final report and Design Guidelines will form a large part of this communication. Additional techniques that could be used include: Awards or encouragement schemes for ‘good character’ developments Workshops with residents’ groups, Council staff, developers, or design professionals Public displays Media articles/events”. (p.61)
“Exclude Lawrence Street which has been recommended for Heritage Overlay controls”. (p. 19)“Neighbourhood Character Overlay to apply to the south western side of Loller St, and a Heritage Overlay to apply to Lawrence Street”. (p. 19)	“Whilst this report identifies potential heritage significance it does not go so far as to make recommendations on future Council actions in relation to heritage matters”.(p.13)
“Consultation with the community has provided an indication of the types of development pressures taking place in each area, and the community views of this”. (p.30)	“An understanding of the pressure for development in each area has also been gained from discussions with Council’s planning staff”. (p.37) AND“Field trips around Glen Eira’s residential neighbourhoods revealed to the study team a range of scenarios where inappropriate design responses were felt to impact adversely upon neighbourhood character”. (p.27)

Nothing about the C87 Amendment has been transparent and accountable. It has been designed, and orchestrated ‘internally’. No officer’s report has been tabled at a council meeting recommending sending off to the Minister for permission to exhibit – as is the case with practically all proposed Amendments. Instead, the ‘legal’ excuse undoubtedly used here, harks back to Council’s resolution of 2010 which included as an Addendum to the sham of the Planning Scheme Review, the C87 proposed amendment. But even this resolution contained the words “with the approval of council”! Hence, a vague rider to a resolution taken 18 months ago is now the legal ‘excuse’ for no report, no consultation, and no explanation. Another minor little hiccup in legalities, if not democratic process, is the fact that council announced the exhibition of C87 on January 31^st. It was not gazetted until February 2^nd! Obviously the legal requirement of one month’s notice to the public occasioned this oversight. We must therefore conclude that there is an almighty rush to push this Amendment through! Why the hurry we ask? After 18 months surely a proper discussion paper, outlining the objectives and the rationale, together with the pitfalls, could have been produced and distributed to all those interested?

The community should be outraged at the money that is spent on such spurious ‘consultations’. Either we employ consultants who are given free reign to explore an issue fully and comprehensively or councillors should put a stop to such flagrant misuse of public funds. It’s definitely time that councillors took control and demanded answers to the following basic questions:

How much has each external consultancy cost ratepayers?
What was the precise brief given to each of these consultants? What private conversations ensued? Where are these documented as part of the public record?
Were draft reports ever ‘ordered’ to be altered? If so, did councillors know of these ‘alterations’?
Were councillors privy to the briefs? If not, why not?
How do councillors justify the spending of this money without any genuine involvement from the community?

We will in the weeks ahead, also be commenting on the other current consultant’s report on the Community Plan – which as council freely admits is really the Council Plan! At least this latter nomenclature is spot on!

February 2, 2012

A Resident’s Point Of View

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments

Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.

Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.

We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)

Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.

As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.

January 31, 2012

C87: The ‘Great Pretender’

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[16] Comments

When residents are screaming that their neighbourhoods are being raped and pillaged by overdevelopment and that the (discriminatory?) 80/20 Minimal Change Area is simply not working, how does Council respond? With more ‘discrimination’ via its spin that the c87 Amendment will solve all these problems. Yes, the proposed Significant Character Overlay (SCO) will be more prescriptive, and yes it will ‘protect’ some aspects of street scape – but it will never solve the problems that the Planning Scheme has created. In fact the suggested amendment will only cover less than 2% of all housing in Glen Eira! So instead of an 80/20 policy we are marching towards a 98/2 policy.

In case there is any doubt about these figures, we’ve done a quick count of the properties earmarked in the documentation. Here’s the table taken directly from the provided documentation (Plenisphere). Please note that the ‘approx’ are the result of possible alleyways which weren’t discernible on the maps – but we’ve included these as part of the property count.

SITE	NO. OF PROPERTIES
The Highway, Bentleigh	34
Chestnut St., Carnegie	23
McPherson Ave., Carnegie	68
Queens Ave., Caulfield East	50
Clarinda St., Caulfield South	31
Derby Cresc., Caulfield East	30
Downshire Rd., Elsternwick	192 (approx)
James Pde., Elsternwick	138 (approx)
Exhibition St., McKinnon	61
Field St., McKinnon	38
Lindsay Ave., Murrumbeena	47
Oakdene Cresc., Murrumbeena	69
Boyd Park, Murrumbeena	238 (approx)
Lydson St., Murrumbeena	20
Murray St., Elsternwick	49
Prentice St., Elsternwick	27
Kambea Gve., Caulfield North	30
TOTAL – 17 AREAS	1085 PROPERTIES

To illustrate the above more graphically, we’ve also uploaded the map which shows exactly how little of the entire municipality is considered to be worthy of greater protection.

January 31, 2012

Why Some Are So Much More Equal Than Others

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[6] Comments

Council has put out a Media Release (and a Public Notice in today’s Leader) regarding Amendment C87 which proposes to simply tinker with the current inadequacies of the Planning Scheme rather than addressing the root problems. We will be dissecting this proposed Amendment which we believe is inequitable in that only 17 designated areas within the municipality will receive greater ‘protection’. Is it a case of ‘to hell with the rest’ and more open slather for developers? Below is the Media Release and the usual spin!

Neighbourhood character amendment on exhibition

The Glen Eira community has until Monday 5 March to provide written feedback on Glen Eira City Council’s proposed amendment to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

Amendment C87 proposes to introduce new planning scheme controls — neighbourhood character overlays and design and development overlays to control dwellings and to help protect 17 residential areas identified as having a high-level of neighbourhood character significance against inappropriate development.

A key focus of the amendment is to provide more detailed information about these distinctive areas through improved character descriptions and a preferred character statement for each.

There will also be a requirement to apply for a planning permit for demolition, alteration and additions to single dwellings, new dwellings and front fencing in these areas.

Council’s Director City Development Jeff Akehurst said these controls are based on a rigorous assessment of neighbourhood character conducted by planning consultants and completed in 2011.

“By proceeding with the amendment, it will give Council greater control over all dwellings, which can often through their siting and design, pose a real threat to neighbourhood character,” Mr Akehurst said.

Further information regarding Amendment C87 is available from Council’s Service Centre Council’s libraries and Council’s website: www.gleneira.vic.gov.au

January 30, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Stonnington Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[10] Comments

Council to reject massive project

Jason Dowling

January 30, 2012

Stonnington Council will consider an application for one of Melbourne’s biggest housing proposals at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale, at a special meeting tonight.

STONNINGTON Council is expected to reject a planning application for one of Melbourne’s biggest housing proposals at a special meeting at Malvern Town Hall tonight.

The council is widely tipped to refuse a planning application from developer Vivas Lend Lease to build 475 dwellings in apartment towers of up to 12 storeys on a 2.5-hectare site at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale.

Council planning officers have advised the council to block the proposal because it ”fails to respect the existing amenity of surrounding dwellings” and ”does not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community, nor does it enhance the liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm”.

It is the second attempt by the developer to have plans approved for the site. The first, in 2010, was for 479 dwellings in towers of up to 16 storeys.

The council received more than 600 objections to the latest application and more than 100 residents are expected to attend tonight’s meeting.

Well-organised residents have campaigned strongly against the plans for more than two years.

Unlike other key development sites across Melbourne, the Baillieu and former Brumby governments have not intervened in the dispute at Orrong Road, close to the marginal seat of Prahran, which changed hands at the last election.

Even opponents of the development proposal agree the site – with no local height control and six kilometres from the CBD, close to Toorak train station, Malvern Road trams and parks – is ideal for housing.

But locals are bitterly opposed to the scale of the development.

In a sign it is almost certain to reject the proposal, the council has submitted a request to Planning Minister Matthew Guy for permanent planning controls for the site that would restrict future development to a height of 17 metres – the height of the existing six-storey office building on the site – and limit housing to 250 units.

Another factor weighing against councils approving contentious planning proposals are council elections in October.

Margot Carroll, from the Orrong Group of residents, said there was strong local opposition to the Vivas Lend Lease proposal.

”The proposal would be totally out of character with the heritage, low-density surrounding area of Armadale/Prahran/Toorak and would introduce CBD-type high-rise development to these suburbs,” she said in a statement.

Should the council reject the development proposal, Vivas Lend Lease is expected to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Lend Lease’s Ben Coughlan said the company ”remains fully committed to delivering one of Melbourne’s finest and greenest residential communities at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale”.

“The council officers’ report unfortunately doesn’t recognise the major redesign of the original plans for the site, which was undertaken to respond to community concerns over shadows, height, density, traffic and open space,” he said.

January 19, 2012

Profligacy Or Sound Financial Management?

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

These are the facts currently facing Glen Eira:

a ‘high risk’ council as determined by the Auditor General
a liquidity cash crisis due to GESAC
repeated statements on the need to curb spending

So, given these circumstances, it is absolutely astonishing that we find the following Media Release by the Minister for Sport & Recreation.

Funding boost for new playspace at Murrumbeena Park

Thursday, 19 January 2012

From the Minister for Sport and Recreation

Families in the Murrumbeena area will soon have access to an exciting new accessible playspace thanks to $258,921 of Victorian Government funding set to go towards a new community facility at the popular Murrumbeena Park.

Minister for Sport and Recreation Hugh Delahunty visited Murrumbeena Park today to announce the funding boost from the latest round of the Community Facility Funding Program.

“Local parks provide a fantastic outdoor space for families to get together, socialise, enjoy a picnic, relax or get active,” Mr Delahunty said.

“The proposed new playspace will add a whole new dimension to the Murrumbeena Park, providing even more recreation options for this growing community.

“This new project will introduce a variety of new play equipment to excite and challenge children of all abilities and backgrounds, testing their dexterity and, most importantly, encouraging fun activities,” Mr Delahunty said.

The project includes the development of a new regional playspace and social area featuring play equipment that ranges from junior to senior level and will be complimented with creative garden landscaping.

Mr Delahunty said the new playspace was also designed to complement the park’s existing charm and character.

“Murrumbeena Park is also home to several local sports clubs including the Murrumbeena Football and Bowls Clubs.

“Once fully established the new play space will encourage not just local kids but the whole community to venture outside more often to exercise, socialise, join a club and get more active, more often,” Mr Delahunty said

“By investing in high-quality, accessible community sport and recreation facilities across Victoria, the program goes a long way towards increasing participation and improved access to sport and recreation activities in communities like Murrumbeena,” Mr Delahunty said.

Mr Delahunty congratulated the City of Glen Eira for contributing $776,764 towards the project.

COMMENTS:

A playground already exists (see photo below)
The $776,764 does not appear anywhere in the 2011/12 budget
Did councillors know of this proposed expenditure & grant application?
Why does it seem that all grants have something to do with either sport, or appearance? How many applications have gone in for structure plans, transport plans, children’s hubs, etc. etc.? The real ‘nuts and bolts’ for successful planning?
Why is council now spending another million dollars on a park when we have a ‘cash crisis’? What does this say about the financial management of Glen Eira and the strategic directions being pursued?

December 29, 2011

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[7] Comments

From page 8 of the Melbourne Racing Club Annual Report – http://secure.melbourneracingclub.net.au/news/2011MRCAnnualReport.pdf

Council decided upon a further period of community consultation before passing a resolution at the end of April to recommend adoption of the Amendment, with only minor alteration to the original proposal. This led to the formal announcement of the approval of the $1 billion dollar development at Caulfield on 28 June.

The Planning Scheme Amendment for the mixed use Caulfield Village development allows for up to 1,200 – 1,400 residential apartments, up to 20,000 (square)m of office space and approximately 17,500 (square)m of retail shopping, food and beverage outlets. Caulfield villege is to be situated on five hectares of land adjacent to Caulfield Racecourse. Approximately 2,000 car parking spaces will be provided within the development.

In taking the project to the marketplace, the Club is seeking expressions of interest from premier developers and investors within Australia and Internationally. This will be a two stage process, with expressions of interest being taken until early January, after which the Club will then narrow the candidates down to a preferred short-list.

In some ways the project is only now about to commence and works will be staged progressively over several years. I would like to expressly thank the development Team led by Brian Discombe for their outstanding work in delivering this approval.

Prior to the development of Caulfield Village, the Club will review Members’ car parking arrangements. As previously advised, Members’ car parking facilities will be relocated to three key areas – the Guineas Car Park, the newly expanded Kambrook Road Car Park and the Centre of the Racecourse, which will have dedicated reserved Members’ car parking.

COMMENTS

Finally, the truth is out! The ‘plan’ submitted by the MRC and passed by the gang was, and is, a work of fiction. Please note the following:

The sudden increase in both office and retail space
The sudden increase in potential apartments – now up to 1400 units
The use of the centre car parking as a “dedicated” members carpark – in other words, a public carpark suddenly becomes a private “members” carpark!
What does “approximately 2000 carparks” mean? – 1950 for 1400 units? Or 1850 for 1400 units? Or maybe just 1000 car spots? Your guess is as good as ours!
We can only conclude that nothing which has been put before the public is set in concrete. That the MRC will change, adapt, and manoeuvre however they choose and with the probable full complicity of Glen Eira Council!

December 20, 2011

The Leader: Chadstone Expansion

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments

Congestion central: Chadstone expansion hard to swallow

Nicole Cridland

RESIDENTS say an expansion of Chadstone Shopping Centre will swallow small business in parts of Glen Eira and worsen traffic congestion. Trish Fields said businesses in Carnegie were suffering and residents were being fined for parking infringements while Chadstone had been allowed to continue to grow and offer all-day parking. ‘‘It’s a case of the Fashion Capital versus local neglect as a monolith grows and grows,’’ Ms Fields said. ‘‘There is no consideration for local traffic, but every effort is made to help Chadstone grow while small traders in surrounding areas are actively being restricted.’’

Stonnington Council is seeking approval from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to allow an amendment to the Planning Scheme before placing the proposed $500 million Chadstone expansion on public exhibition in January. Local resident Matthew Knight said news of the planned expansion, that included an office tower and hotel up to 13 storeys as well as 27,000sq m of extra retail space, was a ‘‘shocking revelation’’ to the community. ‘‘With Dandenong and Warrigal roads already completely congested, this massive expansion will simply overwhelm the local road network,’’ Mr Knight said. ‘‘Given that there is insufficient parking and no plans for any significant expansion of public transport access, the only certainty is a congestion crisis at Chadstone.’’

Ms Fie l d s said traders in Carnegie and Malvern East were being unfairly penalised by parking restrictions. ‘‘There is no effort to scour Waverley Rd to monitor parking overstays or speeding drivers who use the side streets and make illegal turns to avoid the traffic lights,’’ Ms Fields said.

December 12, 2011

Our Disappearing Parkland

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

We thought residents would like a ‘bird’s eye’ view of what has been happening at Bailey’s Reserve. First off, we present the BEFORE AND AFTER LOOK.

Next there is a slideshow where the size and scale of GESAC may be truly appreciated.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates