GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

August 23, 2010

Caulfield Racecourse: Occam Razor’s Viewpoint

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

The following comment was received from one of our readers. We believe it deserves to be put up as a separate post. To read the other comments on the Racecourse/East Caulfield Village, follow this link – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/rage-at-racecourse/#comments

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to see your comments as a post, then please let us know. Glen Eira Debates welcomes the opportunity to publicise residents’ views and seeks to engender genuine debate on important issues.

The Planning Panel Report on Amendment C60 dealing with rezoning issue for Caulfield Village will be voted on shortly by the Glen Eira Council. There is yet to be the Officer’s Report on the Planning Panel Recommendations. However, it is a forgone conclusion that Officers will recommend to accept it They will argue that Council has no choice but to follow State Government’s legislative planning arrangements and Planning Panel suggestions. Also, they cannot reject an Amendment approved by the Council.

Caulfield Village development is the biggest issue in Glen Eira, much bigger and much more important than GESAC ever was. There are so many reasons for it, not least of which is the associated Caulfield Racecourse issue. All of the troubling issues are a result of the lack of Public and Public Realm considerations. The critical problems are:
• Unwanted high rise development;
• Traffic congestion;
• Insufficient parking;
• Unnecessary training on Crown Land;
• Public barrier fence and inaccessibility to Public use of Public Crown Land;
• Increased use of betting and pokies facilities on Crown Land;

And the resultant effects include:
• Likely increase of unwanted and unruly social behaviour;
• Likely increased environmental degradation of the Racecourse Crown Land and due to Caulfield Village high rise development;
• Likely non-equitable and low economic return on the greedy grab of monies made by MRC and VATC of its immoral and exclusive use of Crown Land since at least 1948

The outcry and action by disaffected and angry residents is yet to be fully expressed as the issue unfolds further. Whether Caulfield Village and Racecourse will become a political hot, hot potato is still uncertain, because it will depend on if, and how, those issues will be dealt with in the first instance by the Council. But if this issue is not resolved before the State election of November all politicians, local, state or federal will eventually be drawn into the quagmire of anger, first at the Council decision on Amendment C60, Planning Scheme changes, Municipal Strategic Statement modifications and various Ministerial responses to upcoming Council decisions.

The Victorian State election may then be fought on that issue with a number of MPs being challenged on those unresolved Public issues. It is not clear at this stage which Party and which candidates in the State election will pick-up this issue and run with it. It is certain though that the fight for the seat of Caulfield will become embroiled in that issue. So who is there at this stage? Helen Shardey is retiring and David Southwick is the Liberal Party candidate for Caulfield. We will not know until all other candidates are known who else will enter the fray for the seat of Caulfield.

Then there is the Upper House Southern Metropolitan Region, which covers Caulfield with five MPs vying for re-election. They are: ALP John Lenders Treasurer and Jennifer Huppert, LP David Davis and Andrea Coote, and Green Sue Penniciuk. Jennifer Huppert is a resident of Caulfield and has her office there. She became an MP as a result of Evan Thornley’s resignation from Parliament. Thornley’s election to Parliament was marginal and based on preferences. Hence Jennifer Huppert ‘re-election ‘in her own right is rather tenuous. She may not be elected if there is a backlash against the Victorian Government’s unwanted decisions regarding Caulfield Village and Racecourse.

Fundamentally it depends on how well the residents organise themselves to oppose Melbourne Racing Club developments of the Caulfield Village and Caulfield Racecourse. Large group political action may result in the State Government to react to mollify residents’ grievances. However, if it is just a bunch of rowdy individuals their concerns will be ignored by all politicians at local, state or federal levels.

Finally, this development is only the first step! Given council’s pro-development stance, and its refusal to address crucial issues through its planning schemes, then Glen Eira can expect the onslaught of inappropriate development to continue throughout the municipality. This isn’t only about people living close to Monash and the Racecourse – it will embroil all residents, regardless of whichever suburb they currently reside in. The community needs to voice and demonstrate its opposition to developments they do not want in an organized and coherent way on all fronts – local, state, and federal.

 

August 19, 2010

Occam’s Razor responds to Reprobate

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off on Occam’s Razor responds to Reprobate 

We received the following comment and thought it deserved to be highlighted.

‘Reprobate’ please continue your fascinating analysis of what is wrong with Glen Eira’s Officers approach to analysis and reporting of facts and data.

I too have problems with that for a long time. I find that Glen Eira Officers use weasel manipulative words to control Councillors, communities and even the State Government MPs and bureaucrats. And their primary goal in any reporting is to make the Council look good on paper.

As to the traffic issue, it is part of the Public Realm consideration of any government. Any self respecting traffic expert will tell you that congestion have to be kept below a certain level to avoid bottlenecks and unavailability of roads. The measure is not traffic averaged over a period of time, but the number of times that a road is inaccessible and unavailable. A perfect example of that is Glenhuntly Rd from Nepean Highway to Koornang Rd. There are three intersections that illustrate that fundamental point.

Nepean Highway / Glenhuntly Rd intersection has a road overpass at Elsternwick station. That intersection has a level of congestion and Glenhuntly Rd unavailability determined by car traffic flows, tram schedule and traffic lights. This intersection should be used as a benchmark for other intersections on Glenhuntly Rd. There is clearly plenty that can be improved at that intersection, which should be driven by Council’s Engineering together with VicRoads and Yarra Trams.

The other intersection to be closely examined is Glenhuntly Rd / Hawthorn Rd in Caulfield South. There are two tram lines there and the level of congestion and road unavailability measure provides a good indicator of this area’s ability to grow its commercial and community activities. This shopping centre has a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would focus on the Public Realm elements and do a Structure Plan for the area.

Let’s consider now the disaster level crossing intersection of Frankston rail line and Glenhuntly Rd at Glen Huntly station. Any examination of that level crossing will show an unacceptable level of road unavailability and congestion. The number of times that traffic banks up from Grange Rd to Booran Rd (633 m) while the slow train arrives and leaves the station is already unsustainable. Anybody, just come during peak hours and experience it yourself. In addition this and Neerim Rd level crossings is a disaster waiting to happen as it already happened at Bentleigh station. Clearly those level crossings must be replaced with a road overpass or underpass to reduce the unacceptable level of road unavailability. The area around Glen Huntly station has also a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would do a Structure Plan as suggested by the State Government several times since 2003.

Finally, roads between intersections should have the capability to carry the traffic generated by the population of the area and the transport network within and around Glen Eira. As ‘Reprobate’ points out, the deliberate non-action of Officers leads to unsatisfactory capability of Glenhuntly Road. The width of this road is highly variable and it has some peculiar access roads onto it (eg Orrong Rd), which may have been ok for low traffic horse drawn carriages, but clearly are not ok for a modern city full of cars, trams, buses, cyclists, pedestrians and railway crossings.

 

August 9, 2010

Planning: Is this what we want?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

Map-Housing_Diversity_Areas_policy-1

The Planning Scheme Review Report is significant in that:

  • There are no recommendations for review of Housing Diversity Policy
  • Developers are currently pushing the boundaries everywhere. Latest is Coles Supermarket (7 storeys/137 units) and Elsternwick (10 storeys)
  • The Planning Panel recommends over 20 storeys and 5-6 storeys in Residential 1 area of in Caulfield Village. This is like the New Residential 2 Zone proposal by the State Government with no rights of appeal
  • No increase in developers’ contribution levy – remains stagnant at 0.25% whereas other councils stipulate between 4% and 5% for all areas
  • No plan to increase the accessible Public Open Space
  • No program to get Caulfield Racecourse into Public Use and remove horse training & fencing
  • No Public Realm policy development
  • No integration of land use with Integrated Transport plan
  • No environmental or ESD plans for buildings
  • No plans to exhibit the Final Report of this Scheme for comment by the public before sending the document to the Minister

Conclusions:

  1. This Review Report excludes the public from commenting on details as done by other Councils.
  2. If Caulfield Village Planning Report is accepted then the Housing Diversity Areas Policy Framework is now unravelling into a defacto acceptance of the State government’s Residential 2 Zoning which will see high rise developments throughout Glen Eira with the tacit approval of Council and practically no rights of appeal.
 

August 8, 2010

Planning Scheme Review: Where is the public open debate?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
1 Comment 

Council has finally released its Planning Scheme Review. The Recommendation is: “That the attached Planning Scheme Review 2010 Report be endorsed and forwarded to the Minster (sic) for Planning as required by statute”. Fait accompli is seems. Where is the public open debate on this vital document? Public ‘consultation’ has been limited to 3 so called ‘information’ sessions and the call for submissions over a period of two months, and all this based on a ‘discussion paper’ that was short on detail, analysis, and ‘reality’. Totally inadequate when dealing with such a complex and far reaching strategic issue. Readers should compare this approach with Stonnington’s as a first step in a long process. (See: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/SSG_13_Final_Planning_Scheme_Review_Report.pdf).

In the end, the Review becomes what it was always intended to be – a political document endorsing a vision that has never seriously engaged the community, nor adequately informed of its major ramifications. The Review is nothing more than a self congratulatory exercise in obfuscation.

The obfuscation is most evident in the use of dubious statistics. Glen Eira relies exclusively on data drawn from the State Government’s VIF (Victoria in Furture: 2008) statistics. What it fails to notify residents of is the caveat placed on these statistics:

“Victoria in Future 2008 – first release population projections are not predictions of the future, nor are they targets. They analyse changing economic and social structures and other drivers of demographic trends to indicate possible future populations if the present identified demographic and social trends continue.”

In contrast, the ABS statistics, used by Melbourne, Kingston and numerous other municipalities clearly states:

“To provide a more accurate population figure which is updated more frequently than every 5 years, the Australian Bureau of Statistics also produces “Estimated Resident Population” (ERP) numbers. Based on population estimates as at 30 June, ERPs take into account people who missed the count on Census night, including people who were temporarily overseas, plus an undercount adjustment for those who did not complete a Census form, and an overcount adjustment for anyone who was double counted.”

The result is that VIF consistently underestimates population and dwelling figures. Yet, these are the figures that Glen Eira embraces wholeheartedly. Why?

The table below indicates the population explosion that is now and will remain the situation in Glen Eira if this document is endorsed.

ABS Population Changes per Year

Years Glen Eira Bayside Kingston Monash Stonnington Port Philip
1996 Base 120,271 86,365 129,655 160,677 88,562 76,089
1996/2001 567 489 846 493 283 893
2001/2006 1,335 584 1,182 1,113 1,007 2,000
2006/2011 2,153 1,475 2,683 2,577 1,271 1,953
2011/2016 2,231 1,478 3,107 2,701 1,151 2,083
Total Increase 31,426 20,130 39,090 34,420 18,557 34,643
Total 2016 Population 151,697 106,495 168,745 195,097 107,119 110,732
% Increase 26.13% 23.31% 30.15% 21.42% 20.95% 45.53%

 

Please Note:

  • These figures do not include the Caulfield East development which will add 2,500 to GE population. Taken this into evaluation gives a total of over 154,000. Adding Caulfield East figure gives a 28.21% increase;
  • Port Philip is an inner ring Council and GE should be a middle ring Council;
  • Kingston has Southland, which can justify the projected growth, not so GE;
  • The worst effect of Caulfield East development will be felt economically by Caulfield North and Caulfield South areas with Glen Huntly, Carnegie, Ormond and Murrumbeena suffering additional traffic problems;
  • Glen Eira has no Economic Analysis and assessment of its population expansion and impact of Housing Development C25 guidelines. That should be done every 5 years and reviewed. Melbourne & Kingston Councils are doing it. Why not Glen Eira?
  • Glen Eira is focused totally on statutory planning considerations and very little on Strategic and Future Planning. It simply quotes what Victorian Government is saying;
  • As a recognized local level of Government Glen Eira should be doing its job of strategic planning per each Suburb and argue its case with anybody else, whether it’s private developers or another level of Government. It should be doing it on a Strategic not just Statutory level;
  • As a recognized local level of Government it should be engaging and involving the community in a debate of its Strategic and Future Plans to ensure that community input is incorporated in the plans and that the community supports GE plans. The best way to do that is through an extended Structure Planning process. This is not happening;
  • As a recognized local level of Government its representative members and leaders i.e. Councillors must engage with the community in a debate, particularly if they have a different view to some community members. This is not happening. Councillors are being ‘muzzled’ or being shut out by the statutory process. The result is that GE Council is seen as an autocratic and not a democratic Council.
 

August 4, 2010

Planning: Once Again in the Dark!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Seems like Glen Eira Council are experts when it comes to Clayton announcements. We are ‘told’ about something, but all the relevant and vital detail is somehow missing. The latest example of this comes via the August issue of The Glen Eira News. Listed rather innocuously on Page 3 there is this little gem:

High density

Council urged the State Department of Planning to consult the community on proposals for high density accommodation at the Caulfield Campus of Monash University. The Department replied that tight funding timeframes required expedited assessment with minimal consultation on those proposals, but there would be broader consultation concerning other proposed buildings on the Campus.

Questions:

Is this about the 28 storey building application that is allegedly sitting on Minister Madden’s desk at the moment?

What exactly does Council know and why isn’t the community being fully informed?

Exactly how much do councillors know?

When will the community be let in fully on this ‘higher density’ arrangement?

 

July 30, 2010

Panel Report: Caulfield (Racecourse) Village

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
1 Comment 

From council’s website (including link to full report).

Amendment C60 – Melbourne Racing Club Re-development Panel Report released Printer Friendly
Council has received the Panel Report on Amendment C60 which seeks to rezone the land that is generally bounded by Station Street, Kambrook Road, Bond Street, Heywood Street and Normanby Road, Caulfield.

The amendment proposes to:

Rezone the land from a part Residential 1 Zone and part Mixed Use Zone to a Priority Development Zone – Schedule 2 (PDZ2).
Introduce Schedule 2 to the Priority Development Zone – Caulfield Mixed Use Area, into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
Apply the Road Closure Overlay (RXO) to close part of Smith Street, Bond Street, a laneway west of Bond Street and a laneway south of Heywood Street.
Amend Clause 22.06 Phoenix Precinct Policy to reflect the development vision of the Incorporated Plan.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to include the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan, July 2008 as an Incorporated Document.

An officer report will be prepared for a decision in due course. This report will discuss the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations. The officer report may make one of the following recommendations to Council:

That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes proposed in the Panel Report.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes that differ to the Panel’s recommendations.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with no changes.
That the amendment be abandoned by Council.

 

July 20, 2010

Strategic Planning: Does it exist in Glen Eira?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Our last two posts have featured what may appear to be separate issues – Caulfield Racecourse planning and childcare centres and kindergartens. In reality they are intimately connected. Strategic Planning must incorporate all aspects that are likely to impact on the local community. It must also “focus on what the customer wants rather than what the appointed and elected officials think the customer needs.” (Dave Fountaine, AQUEST Consulting LLC) In Glen Eira, the ‘customers’ are mostly irrelevant. A glimpse at the recent Community Satisfaction Indicators reveals that on the criterion of ‘engagement in decision making’, Glen Eira ranks 63rd out of the 79 Councils in Victoria with a bare pass mark of 58.

 Yet, we are a municipality with a growing population, an unprecedented spurt in residential development, traffic and parking nightmares, and an increasingly ageing population. Open space remains limited, yet we insist on either selling it off, or privatising this valuable resource. Aged and child care facilities barely get a look in. And all through this, real public debate is absent. Without a comprehensive and detailed strategic vision, drafted in direct consultation with residents, this municipality will continue to waste resources and alienate its community.

Given all this, there are some vital questions to ponder:

  1. Why is Glen Eira the only metropolitan council without formal structure plans? Such plans could: introduce strict height limits and overlays through properly executed community consultation processes. Perhaps then we could avoid the angst of Elsternwick, the Racecourse, Centre Road, Hawthorn Road, and others yet to hit the drawing boards.
  2. Why is Glen Eira focussing on 3 ‘activity centres’ when other neighbouring councils have double this number? Surely the role of council is to support local business and breathe life into strip shopping throughout the municipality with more retail, commercial and community services to reduce travel, pollution and increase employment? The planting of a few tawdry trees is not an answer!
  3. Why is Glen Eira being treated by developers as an inner ring municipality with high-rise (over 5 storey buildings) housing developments circumventing Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme? Why is this being allowed to continue – or is it in fact ‘encouraged’ ie. Zoning/amendments at developers’ requests?
  4. Why has Glen Eira failed to address its child care and kindergarten shortage which it has known about for at least a decade? Is this what the community wants? Have they ever been asked for their priorities?
  5. Why is public open space dwindling and being sold off or leased to private interests with fences to ensure exclusive use (de-facto privatisation) on a regular bases?
  6. Why is there never any substantive change in budget allocations that take into account community submissions?
  7. Why can other councils such as Bayside institute a 13 member community consultation panel for its community plan as a formal, prerequisite component of its Council Plan? Why can other councils actively seek and achieve direct community input and involvement? (See: http://planforbayside.wordpress.com/)
  8. Are councillors prepared to explain why they blithely endorse the expenditure of $7-9 million to demolish and then rebuild the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion and grandstand, and yet will not spend a fraction of this on child care centres?
  9. Why does Glen Eira Council does not conduct regular expert economic analysis as the fundamental basis for information and decision making processes that set the parameters for social, environmental and financial triple bottom line accounting?

 

Honest answers to all of these questions would tell us a lot about the lack of consultation, vision, and planning of this administration and its ‘yes men’.

 

« Previous Page