GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

September 17, 2010

Another Planning Fiasco – Elsternwick 10 Storey

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[4] Comments 

It is with utter disbelief that we read the following Officers’ Recommendation for the 10 storey proposed development in Ripon Grove, Elsternwick located in today’s agenda items –

Recommendation

That Council: Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for partial demolition and alterations and additions to the existing church at 12 Ripon Grove to comprise up to 18 dwellings; the construction of a 3 to 10 storey building at 233-247 Glen Huntly Road comprising 7 shops and up to 119 dwellings; use of dwellings in a Business 1 Zone (ground floor facing Ripon Grove); two levels of basement and the reduction of the standard car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the conditions contained in the Appendix.

Never has there been anything so vague, so ambiguous, and so pro-development as this report. How can any planner worth his salt recommend 3 to 10 stories – either it is 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. or 10!  Instead we have:

“It is acknowledged that the proposed building at 10 storeys in height represents a signifcant change. In considering the merits of the proposed 10 storey height, a number of contextual factors must be considered: The subject site contains several allotments adding up to an area of 3,450sqm. This represents a unique and major opportunity for significant redevelopment in this centre.”

A little further on, there is this gem: “Having regard to the site’s context and policy considerations, the 10 storey scale of the proposal is considered acceptable. It is a significant but policy-appropriate change of character that ought to be expected in this location and can be absorbed in this location given the contextual factors. A building of high architectural quality will be achieved. However, it is considered that some aspects of the proposal are inconsistent with the urban context of the site and will need refinement.”

As far as parking goes, we then have: “The Planning Scheme requires 358 car spaces for the combined shop and residential uses. The Planning Scheme acknowledges that the parking rates for each use can be waived or reduced. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department considers that a more realistic figure of 178 spaces for the proposal reflects anticipated car parking demand”.

We urge all residents to carefully read this report. It will soon be coming to your neighbourhood! If councillors do not reject this report, ask numerous questions about its findings and recommendations, then as Whitlam once said, ‘nothing will save them’!!!

 

 

 

 

September 5, 2010

Looking Gift Horses in the Mouth?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

The State Government has just released another $8.3 million to assist Councils and the private sector to ‘drive growth and change in activity centres’  through the Expert Assistance Program. The money available through grants is designed to provide: “specialist expert advice to assist councils to finalise and implement structure plans for principal, major and specialised activity centres in metropolitan Melbourne. This is in addition to the provision of specialist expert advice to assist councils to finalise and implement structure plans for Principal, Major and Specialised Activity Centres in metropolitan Melbourne”.

Not only is hard cash available, but the necessary “knowledge and expertise that is hindering the completion or implementation of strategic planning or structure planning work.” Assistance is provided in the following areas:

· environmental planning
· statutory planning implementation
· development facilitation
· transport planning
· community consultation
· property development
· built form / urban design
· social planning
· public realm planning

Currently 40 councils are already the beneficiaries of grants – but not Glen Eira it seems. We can only wonder at the repeated opportunities this council lets slip by and the motives behind such actions. The results of the Planning Scheme Review have again shut out all possibility for long term strategic and comprehensive planning that would make Glen Eira eligible for any of the above. 

(All quotations come from the State government’s website: http://www.land.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/7020B1BB206F6AC6CA2572FA00192772EB42DA4324DA309FCA2572E4000D84ED

 

September 1, 2010

A Resident’s Point of View

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

We have received a slightly edited version of a letter that was sent by a resident to all Councillors early this year in regard to planning in general, and the planning scheme review in particular. We note, that only 3 councillors bothered to respond to this letter. We further note, that of all the comments made, only 1 even received token comment in the final planning scheme review.

I wish to bring to your attention some matters relating to planning in Glen Eira and seek your support in addressing these issues in this term of council.

You will be aware that the Save Carnegie Action Group has been active in Carnegie over recent years, trying hard to retain some character and residential amenity in a neighbourhood under intense development pressure.  I will continue to work to ensure my children have an opportunity to grow up in the type of suburb and neighbourhood that made us want to purchase our home 30 years ago.

I have major concerns about the inadequacies of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and how these inadequacies have offered residents of my neighbourhood little or no protection against inappropriate high-density development.

I am familiar with the planning scheme, Melbourne 2030 and now Melbourne @5m.  I am aware that it is easy to blame state policies whenever development proposals are put forward.  But it is and always has been state policy linked heavily to councils planning scheme that have threatened and continue to threaten the character and community of Carnegie. Council always states that state policy drives the planning scheme but many other councils have planning responses that more heavily protect residents.

You need to look after residents across the whole municipality on planning matters, not only those people who have been fortunate enough to live in ‘minimal change’ areas.

Twenty percent of the Glen Eira municipality has been designated for high density development with little protection of residential amenity, the other 80% get far more protection.  Why are not all property owners being treated equally?

I want you as councilors to see ensure that the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is rewritten and redeveloped in consultation with the community so that we can preserve and maintain some of the great features of this, and other neighbourhoods across the city.

Some points I want to raise with you:

  1. Glen Eira has not prepared structure plans for any of the 5 urban village (activity centres) within its boundaries
  2. The plans that have been prepared have the planning work dated as 2000 – TEN YEARS AGO! – Good planning cannot take place when the plans and consultative processes leading to the plans are over 10 years old
  3. The 10 year old plans are no longer relevant to the city and certainly not relevant to Carnegie
  4. C25 contains no where near enough details to guide development of most of the Carnegie neighbourhoods
  5. There is no rational thinking behind the designation of urban village (activity centre) boundaries in Carnegie – with areas better suited to higher density development being ignored and streets with single storey family homes designated as appropriate to 3 (and higher) storey buildings
  6. Unless the planning scheme is changed council will not be able to stop inappropriate high density development as the scheme, as it is now, gives developers the full go ahead and gives little protection to existing land owners
  7. Glen Eira already has a very dense population for a ‘middle ring’ municipality – the density per square kilometre of Glen Eira’s population sits more closely with inner ring municipalities rather than middle ring municipalities, based on population figures from 2006

 

City/Shire LGA Area km2 People in 2006 Density/ km2 Ring to CBD Rank Melb Rank Aus Develop Cap %
Port Phillip 20.62 85,096 4127 Inner 24 363 6
Yarra 19.5 69,330 3555 Inner 30 514 10
Stonnington 25.62 89,883 3508 Inner 13 63 12
Glen Eira 38.7 124,083 3206 Middle 12 56 8
Moreland 51 142,325 2791 Inner 25 376 4
Boroondara 60 154,450 2574 Middle 4 9 9
Bayside 36 87,936 2443 Middle 3 8 5
Moonee Valley 44 107,090 2434 Inner 21 191 6
Darebin 53 128,067 2416 Middle 27 386 5
Whitehorse 64 144,768 2262 Middle 5 24 10
Maribyrnong 31.2 63,141 2024 Inner 29 503 14
Monash 81.5 161,241 1978 Middle 11 51 6
Melbourne 36.2 71,380 1972 Central 31 574 4
Banyule 63 114,866 1823 Middle 8 31 3
Kingston 91 134,626 1479 Middle 16 99 1
Brimbank 123 168,215 1368 Middle 26 381 2
Knox 113.8 146,740 1289 Outer 7 26 1
Hobsons Bay 65 81,459 1253 Inner 20 163 2
  1. Given the already high density of population in the city, why are we under pressure to increase this density?
  2. Glen Eira has a similar population density to the Cities of Yarra and Port Phillip  – why has there been such a ‘planning push’ to increase the density of our city any further?
  3. The only winners from high density development are the developers – the community loses on every front including:
    • Loss of amenity
    • Increase traffic in our local area
    • Increased on street parking
    • Increasing numbers on an already overstretched public transport system
    • More cars on local roads with increasingly lengthy waits at railway crossings – sometimes the traffic along Darling Road heading south can be backed up almost to Waverley Road’ at peak hour
    • Loss of diversity in the Carnegie shopping strip – nearly every vacant shop is being redeveloped as a café or Asian supermarket
    • Continual noise and disruption from construction works
  4. Carnegie is not suited to be an activity centre – we have no public open space in the activity centre – this is a factor considered as very important in state planning guidelines for activity centres but was totally ignored when Glen Eira council nominated Carnegie as an Urban Village.
  5.  The size of blocks in the Urban Village in Carnegie are quite small, with most having 50’ frontages and being 122’ deep,  so intense development really pushes what is reasonable and acceptable on small blocks and challenges residential amenity when high density development is located next to residential properties.
  6. The inappropriate and amenity-compromised outcomes of high density development in a low density housing area  

What you as elected representatives need to do is: 

  • Immediately review the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, particularly C25 – genuine review that includes detailed consultation with residents 
  • Undertake planning with a focus on the ‘public realm’ rather than a singular focus on housing – Carnegie needs a new planning scheme that will result in a neighbourhood with vitality, viability and vibrancy – this is not what is happening at the moment 
  • Oppose inappropriate development that results in 3 (or more) storey buildings being constructed next to single residential dwellings 
  • Limit the height of developments so as to protect residential amenity 
  • Continue to challenge the recommendations of council’s planners who often get it wrong and present incorrect information in their reports to council 
  • Listen to what the community wants and offer us some protection to our residential amenity, our property values and the values and character of our neighbourhoods
 

August 26, 2010

Glen Eira and Planning: Always the Odd Man Out

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

This post asks the simple question – why is Glen Eira Council always the ‘odd man out’? What benefits does the community derive from this idiosyncratic approach to planning? We proffer the following information so that residents can compare and answer the above:

  Glen Eira Bayside Kingston Monash Stonnington Port Phillip
Structure Plans NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development Levy Was 0.25%; now ZILCH Will introduce in 2011   3 lots -2%4 lots -3%

5 lots -4%

6 or more lots – 5%

 2 lots – none specified3 lots – 2%

4 lots – 3%

5 lots – 4%

6 or more lots – 5%

 5%
Height limits No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 

August 25, 2010

Planning: Reprobate’s View

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

C60 is one element (albeit a big one) of Council’s desire for
development in “strategic” parts of the municipality. For reasons
that have not been made public, some Council Officers have been
pushing very hard for Glen Eira to be seen to be leading all other
municipalities in encouraging development, provided its in the areas
they nominate.

The expiry of Development Contributions Overlays has meant that in
Glen Eira no contributions are sought from developers to contribute
to the cost of infrastructure (and public subsidy) needed to
underwrite their profits. The scale of the shortfall is staggering,
based on academic research, but is the natural consequence of
encouraging development at a rate faster than there is the
political will to fund infrastructure. The costs for processing
Applications for Planning Permits for large developments far
exceed the fees paid by applicant. The community is subsidizing
them in multiple ways. They really should be nicer to us on this
ground alone.

Planning law (the Planning And Environment Act for example) is
pathetically weak. Putatively Council should abide by it (insist
developments have a Planning Permit where one is required for
example), but Council is not legally obliged to do as its Planning
Scheme says. Anything that might restrict development can be
categorized as a “guideline” and is not binding.

In my opinion there should be a periodic audit of the Planning
Scheme by somebody independent of Council. The recent publication
of Council’s own Review of the local components of the Planning
Scheme show why when its examined critically.

I don’t believe Council has the skills to manage large-scale
development, and under the circumstances, yes, it is extremely
likely there will be problems for which no solutions are offered,
due to the need for the developer to maximize their profit. As
one developer said to me, “Its all about money”.

That pursuit of money is why we see so few 3-bedroom apartments,
why most of the units constructed are rented to young people without
families, why once-vibrant shopping centres are losing their range
of services (with food outlets almost universally replacing other
activities), why open space is considered not necessary in Urban
Villages, why statistics around demographics and transport patterns
are not sought or required during the planning process, why any
standards that might restrict development are so casually waived.

But God help you should you try to subdive your block to build a
second house at the back in a Minimal Change Area. Expect the full
wrath of Council.

We have at least 2 more years of the current regime. While we have
no direct say in development in *our* municipality, we can at least
maintain some political pressure on the nefarious parties involved.
Council has lots of policies, including unofficial policies about
which policies they have no intention of complying with. I hesitate
to say the community deserves better, because significant chunks of
the community have remained silent, perhaps grateful that Council
intends to protect their amenity at the expense of somebody else.

I got involved in Town Planning matters in Glen Eira because I saw
things happening to other people that I wouldn’t want happen to me.
Council’s enthusiasm for development has resulted in Council losing
an ethical dimension to their decision-making, and a similar
malaise has affected VCAT’s Planning and Environment List and the
Minister against Planning’s Department. “Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Its time to curb their
power.

 

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?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »