Tomorrow night there will be a Special Council meeting to consider budget submissions. As per usual, Newton’s advertising of, and publicity for this meeting is abysmal. No link on the home page – except if you happen to go to the Public Notices section, where there is an advertisement – but placed in the May announcements! The ads in the local papers were both miniscule and appeared on pages 20/22. So much for alerting the public!

We believe that it is important that even though there were only 5 submissions, the views of residents are widely disseminated. Below are some verbatim selections from these submissions.

FRIENDS OF CAULFIELD PARK

 The photo above, appears under the heading of ‘More Concrete’

“We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

COMMENT: Yes, and what of risk management? A lump of concrete sticking out (especially at night without lighting) when people use this path both for walking and running.

The Depot

“We firmly believe that continuing to alienate a large tract of land within our premier park for the purposes of a depot, largely to service a range of totally non-park related purposes, is a misuse and abuse of the land and the purpose for which it was given”

The Elm Avenue

“In our 2010 submission, we identified the need for urgent action. Nothing has been done as yet. A by-product of our tree identification program confirmed that whilst there is significant regrowth due to the recent rain, there is a large amount of dead peripheral growth that was scorched during the previous dry period. About half the elms are neglected and in urgent need of remedial pruning to facilitate proper regrowth.

COMMENT: The last quote can also probably be extended to every single park in Glen Eira. The lack of pruning and general maintenance endangers literally millions of dollars worth of council assets.

MR & MRS DOWD

“We note Council’s governance still intentionally, repeatedly secretive, deceptive, misleading. No real honesty, transparence, openness re Council’s informing ratepayer the real truth of Council’s share of Pensioner Rate Rebate as compared to Government share.

Councils repeatedly reduced its share as Govt. Increased its share. So intentionally shifty.

We note Council not only dissatisfied with about double CPI and inflation rise in rates, repeatedly, more rate payers will have to pay Interest for many years for Councils borrowing the maximum allowed for ever increasing extravagant spending beyond means despite all the ever increasing rates from those ever increasing over developments and congested boxes. The worst Council in Melbourne and with the least open space. Therefore the most destruction of open space and the liveability greatly reduced. Big brother knows best, using ratepayers funds against the best interest of the majority in favour of minority, also other who are not ratepayers and Government who also don’t contribute anywhere near ratepayers share”.

MRS BUTTON

“ I object strongly with being charged $55 for a green waste bin or penalized $145 P.A. as I have a 120 litre bin and no green bin.

As I am a widow 73 years retiree single, and living on my investments, in a unit without large trees and no large garden, myself and others in my situation are being unjustly discriminated against.

Glen Eira council is simply grabbing at this tax, in an unfair manner.

These charges have not bern thought out properly, and council is not acting fairly for its ratepayers.”

COMMENT: We envisage that the evening will unfold as follows. Perhaps some of these submitters will address council. They will be given their legal right of 3 minutes. Councillors will sit there mute; there will be no exchange between residents and councillors, and after a 30 minute meeting that will be the end of the story. Legal obligations fulfilled so that at the appropriate time the budget can be accepted and endorsed by council.

A few days ago we received the following email from one of our readers. We’ve been asked to maintain anonymity. Accordingly, all names have been removed.

“To whom It May Concern,

I thank you for the opportunity of this email. I have lived in McKinnon for nearly 27 years and I love the area. Issues that I would like to bring up include; the lighting in our streets at night. The lighting is very poor and it is dangerous for anyone to be walking home from the station at night. The night noise in Nicholson street on a Friday or Saturday night, (from) drunken people making a nuisance of themselves. I did call the police on an occasion and they did not follow through.

Yesterday I learnt that the controversial apartments that are to be built on the corner of Lees and Nicholson Street went to VCAT. The majority of residents did not know of this. Also my residence backs onto a laneway….. This laneway access no longer exists as (someone) has bought the lane. When decades ago….(there was the attempt)…to close the laneways the request was refused due to being on an easement. ….Currently (there is a new) two storey home on a previous existing ‘laneway’ and on an easement. I was told that (some people) had applied and bought the lane through adverse possession as there was no yellow board put up for this to occur. My neighbours have been broken into and the offenders are thought to have accessed the property from the laneway. Alcohol and drug affected persons use this laneway; young unattended children run in the laneway; drivers drive quickly through the laneway. The original purpose of the laneways was to access septic tanks (but) as these no longer exist – sell the laneways.

Regards xxxxx

There’s a new residents’ group opposing inappropriate development in Glen Eira – and specifically Bentleigh. For all our readers in this area, please have a look at: http://bentleigheastcommunity.wordpress.com/ for all the latest news on applications and objections.

Technology once again proves the role it can play in disseminating news, providing a real communication channel, and most importantly, allowing groups themselves to release what they consider to be important – as opposed to Council’s version of events.

Hansard – 9th October, 2002

PEULICH – This is not a 2030 vision, it is a current nightmare. I say that very much from a local perspective, with one of my local councils, Glen Eira, forging ahead with the state government in piloting and preparing an amendment designating something like 117 streets in the Bentleigh electorate for high-density development. We are not talking about something 30 years into the future; we are talking about an imminent threat to local amenity, local residences, our suburbs and our local streets — and the aggravation of local parking problems, which are already severe. Currently an independent panel in the City of Glen Eira has been put together to hear objections. There have been 150 very substantial submissions made to the independent panel. Today I tabled a petition collected within only seven days and signed by over 100 objectors to the state government’s plan. It is not a metropolitan strategy with a vision.

This is a nightmare that is to be imposed upon the suburbs, and the suburbs will not wear it.

Quite clearly this is going to make the medium-density housing policy of the previous coalition government look like an open space policy, because the definition of high-density development in the City of Glen Eira, which has been guided and advised by and has been working closely with the Department of Infrastructure, is that high density is one storey higher than the height of existing buildings. Given the local streets which have been designated and which I have listed in the petition that I am currently circulating, it means the entire electorate is going to be crisscrossed by high-density development. That obviously includes secondary roads such as Brewer Road, Wheatley Road — I also mention that I live on Tucker Road, which is one of these roads — Chesterville Road, South Road and Bignell Road, as well as all the surrounding local streets within 400 metres of activity centres.

Some of these are close to railway stations or railway lines, but many of them are not. The government has devised this plan even around bus routes.

The whole concept is ludicrous, especially when you have a look at the significantly ageing demographic profile of my electorate, which has the third highest number of over-65s. These people catch a taxi to go to the doctor or to the local supermarket. They do not walk kilometres in order to get to their destination.

This is an absolutely outrageous plan, and the suburbs will rebel. Yes, we all want a vision for the development of Melbourne and we all want plans that preserve open spaces, but the government at the same time is fostering and taking action that is going to see a further diminution of open space for the suburbs.

Mr Nardella interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — You will hear about the plan.

We are not going to provide you with the solutions; we are not going to let you get off the hook. We will provide you with our ideas during the election campaign so that the voters in the suburbs which have been targeted will have a clear choice.

If you thought the town halls filled by objectors to medium-density housing in your Brightons, your Stonningtons and your Bentleighs were well attended, let me make a forecast. There will be wall-to-wall objectors in the suburbs!

I note the Premier’s own suburb of Williamstown, where he has purchased a $1.4 million home, is not singled out for this high-density development. Neither is Northcote, which is where my opponent at the next election lives.

Honourable members should look at where these plans will be implemented and where loss of amenity will be suffered by residents, where we will end up with three-storey houses in local streets, where there will be many more cars cluttering the streets and where there will be far less open space than there is currently……

As I said before, the local suburbs will not wear it. I have called on the Minister for Planning as well as the Premier to scrap plans to open up 20 per cent of my local electorate to high-rise and high-density development. Based on the definition, in secondary roads where there are already three-storey developments, we are looking at four-storey developments. It is an ever incremental plan. In local streets where there are two-storey developments there will be three-storey developments. If we thought — and the government argued — that the infrastructure and the drainage system were inadequate to cope with the increased density of our suburbs, what will it be with this strategy? …….

Mrs PEULICH — …..The controversial C25 planning amendment of the City of Glen Eira in fact shows this is not a vision, a 2030 vision; it is a nightmare. It is here and now. It is a threat, it is being fast tracked, and it is being implemented quickly by this government. I asked myself why the City of Glen Eira was so keen to go down this track. Quite a few of its councillors opposed it, including the mayor.

The answer came to me the other day, when I found out that the chief executive officer had for some time worked for a former federal housing minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Brian Howe — as did the Bentleigh Labor candidate, Rob Hudson. Clearly the two are fast-tracking this plan to increase housing density in local streets. The Labor candidate for Bentleigh does not give a hoot about the loss of amenity, the increased density, the increased clutter of cars in our local streets and the stress to drainage, because he lives in Northcote. His suburb is not listed for higher density, and neither are those of a substantial number of government members.

I am calling on the Premier and the Minister for Planning to protect our local streets. We all understand there has to be some consolidation, but it should not be at the expense of our local streets. It should not be at the expense of open space even in the suburbs — it counts.

The strategy will have a profound and negative impact on my community. It is a timely illustration of what will happen in so many other areas that are listed for high-density development, including Bentleigh, Carnegie, Caulfield, Elsternwick, Glenhuntly, Clayton, Oakleigh, Moorabbin, Brighton, Hampton and Sandringham — they are just some of the surrounding suburbs that are being targeted by Labor. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Speaker, the south-eastern suburbs will not be railroaded by the likes of this strategy or this government.