GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

July 10, 2015

Open Space Planning

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Council in its wisdom has decided to spend a small fortune on converting HALF a tiny street in Caulfield North into a ‘park’ that is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park. They are also spending another small fortune in converting the concrete at the front of Carnegie Library into less concrete. Yet when opportunity after opportunity arises for some major acquisitions that could add to the deficit of open space in Glen Eira, there is no action whatsoever, no planning, and no overall public benefit. For starters, there was the Alma Club land; next there was 487 Neerim Road, and now there is 46 Regent Street, Elsternwick. All available for purchase, and in the case of the Alma club an absolute bargain at $3m compared to the $8m it was sold for and the development of 79 units in a neighbourhood residential zone. Now we’ve got Regent Street.

Readers with long memories should remember the outcry over the proposed school application for the site in 2011. With a packed gallery and much acrimony, the application was rejected unanimously by councillors and the threat of a VCAT appeal did not eventuate. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/regent-st-protest/

The Regent Street site has been razed, moonscaped, and left vacant for years. A submission to the Open Space Strategy and a Change.org online petition pleaded with council to purchase this land in an area identified as lacking open space. Of course, nothing was done and the pleas fell on deaf ears. Now the property is up for sale. And it is not just any property – it is a massive 3,000 square metres! Big enough to provide a real park, in an area crying out for more open space.

Given the size of the area, we are in no doubt that residents can expect scores and scores of new apartments on the site – all exiting via the narrow confines of Regent Street itself. Another opportunity is thus about to be lost and council can continue to squander ratepayers’ hard earned cash on cosmetic changes to already existing open space instead of INCREASING open space that is worthy of that name! We assert that by the time the Open Space Strategy is reviewed in another 15 years the overall open space per individual in Glen Eira will be REDUCED as a result of population growth and more than 60% of the funds raised by the levy will have been squandered on more concrete, more pavilions, and more useless ‘parks’ such as the one in Eskdale/Fitzgibbon. That is open space planning in Glen Eira!

July 8, 2015

Residents: Once Bitten Twice Shy!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

The front page of today’s Moorabbin Leader features claims by the Gillon Group on the proposed Virginia Park development. Residents have been down this track before with the Caulfield Village. When Amendment C60 was first proposed it was stated:

The development will include:

Retail premises consisting of a convenience-oriented neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by a supermarket with additional specialty shops and mini major stores as well as cafes, restaurants and a food court;
Commercial office space
Up to 1200 residential units
Short term accommodation up to 100 beds (Quest style) (minutes of April 28^th, 2011)

Please note:

Caulfield Village is currently set to have 2063 dwellings. 40% are single bedroom units. Retail originally cited as 35,000 square metres – now reduced to 12,500 square metres. By the time development plans are submitted for the remaining precincts these figures are sure to be varied. We see no reason to think that Virginia Estate will be any different. The motive is profit and if profit is derived from residential development, then so be it!

July 6, 2015

Street By Street – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

The insanity of Glen Eira planners and councillors is nowhere more pronounced than in Bent St, Bentleigh/McKinnon.

This narrow, winding local street runs off the Coles Supermarket in Bentleigh through to McKinnon Road. It contains three distinct zones – Neighbourhood Residential, General Residential and Residential Growth Zone – with the NRZ a small oasis smack in the middle of this stretch of road. Since the introduction of the zones council has basically given the green light for the development of at least 217 apartments – one application listed in the online register is totally uninformative – ie ‘Multi level residential unit building’. Maybe 20 units? Maybe 30 units? Maybe 55 units as granted to 14 Bent St?!!! Hence the figure of 217 is ultra conservative, plus the fact that most of these applications include reduced visitor parking. The total could well be in the realm of 250 new dog boxes along a stretch of road that is approximately 500 metres long.

This brings us to the heart of the matter – how well this council has, and is, planning for the future. Answers to the following questions are essential. We believe that they would all be answered in the negative!

When was the last drainage upgrade for this street?

What infrastructure plans has council made for this area and how much will it cost ratepayers since there is no development contributions levy from applicants?

What number of dwellings does council consider as ‘capacity’ for this street?

Has any traffic analysis been undertaken of this and connecting streets in the past 3 years?

How many parking fines have been issued in this street over the past 2 years?

How many of these properties have been moonscaped? How many mature trees have been lost?

Here are the facts on Bent Street since the introduction of the zones –

10 – 12 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 35 dwellings

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 55 dwellings

15 Bent – 3 storey, 17 dwellings

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings

23 Bent – 4 storey, 34 dwellings

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 and 4 storey, 31 dwellings (refusal)

67 Bent St – 2 double storey attached

75 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 2 storey, 7 dwellings

217 PLUS UNKNOWN NUMBER IN ONE SINGLE STREET. THANK YOU COUNCIL!

July 4, 2015

Save Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

The scale of development due to the zoning
The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

July 3, 2015

Enough Is Enough!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

Bentleigh East high rise development hangs on Glen Eira Council’s rezone vote

Troels Sommerville
Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
July 03, 2015 12:00AM

Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will cause traffic chaos around the neighbourhood. Picture: Valeriu Campan

HUNDREDS of objections to a rezoning proposal to allow for a high-rise, high density development have been filling Glen Eira Council’s mailboxes.

And Mayor, Cr Jim Magee said he expected “a gallery filled with protesters and placards” at the next council meeting.

The large development complex planned forBentleigh East’s Virginia Park, hangs on a crucial rezoning vote at the July 21 meeting.However, speaking on behalf of developer Gillon Group, one of the project’s development managers, Adam Brix from Brix Property Group, said there would be 1250 houses and not 4000 as objectors have been printing on distributed flyers.

Mr Brix said an engineers report, commissioned by the developer, worked on “an absolute maximum development scenario” when investigating services in the area.

That report, which is on exhibition as part of the rezoning process, assumed that the site would be developed for 12,000 square metres of retail floor space and 4,462 residential dwellings.

“The dwellings numbers referred to in the infrastructure report should not be construed as what is intended to be developed,” Mr Brix said.

But community members, who fear the developer would build as close to the maximum capacity as possible, have submitted more than 250 objections already and more were expected, Cr Magee said.

Councillors must make a decision on rezoning the estate from Commercial 1 and 2 to Commercial 1 which would allow for the residential and shopping centre development, by either recommending it to an independent panel or voting against a rezone.

It can’t simply urge the planning minister to approve because of the community objection.

Cr Magee said the said the community response had been “one of the most vocal” in his time on council.

“It’s very, very rare that we see a response like this and it just shows how protective the residents are of their suburb,” Cr Magee said.

“And I suspect come the meeting we will see the gallery filled with protesters and placards like they used to be.”

There is also a Facebook group opposed to the development.

PS: OFF TOPIC BUT OF INTEREST TO RESIDENTS. FROM YESTERDAY’S GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

July 2, 2015

Bandaids Versus Fair Dinkum Planning!

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

With every VCAT ruling, the disaster that is the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is becoming more and more apparent. In the attempt to bandaid the cracks, and ‘remedy’ some of the worst atrocities, council’s solution is to put conditions onto permits that generally have buckley’s and none of being accepted by VCAT – ie. increased upper storey setbacks, front, side, rear and basement setbacks. Thus we have the farcical situation where council is attempting to impose conditions that do not exist under its current Planning Scheme. All the member has to say is ‘sorry, these setbacks aren’t part of your planning scheme’ or, ‘there is no preferred character statement in the planning scheme for this site’, there are no structure plans, there are no Design and Development Overlays, there is no tree protection worthy of that name, and the development meets the ResCode ‘standards’ which council has codified in its new housing diversity zones. Our sympathies to council planners who have to front up to VCAT with one hand tied behind their backs and argue for conditions that don’t stand a chance without the developer’s concession(s).

Sadly, this situation is a case of too little, too late. Variations to ResCode should have been included in the Schedules to the new zones. They weren’t! Administration and councillors should have done their homework and ensured that every loophole that would disadvantage residents was eliminated and that safeguards were included that would make it exceedingly difficult for VCAT to exercise its discretionary powers. Of course, in their folly, none of this was done. It was far easier to rely on work done decades ago and hence totally out of date, rather than undertake a current and comprehensive housing strategy review that would then inform the introduction of the zones. Residents are now paying the price for this sloth, incompetence, and pro-development idealogy.

The best example of this comes in a recent VCAT decision in Carnegie (4 storey, 35 dwellings on Neerim Road/Belsize Avenue). Council wanted the basement car park setbacks increased so that there would be room for landscaping. In other words, avoiding a boundary to boundary underground carpark. Here are some extracts from the judgement –

Council put to me that in issuing a permit, they believed it appropriate to increase setbacks at the basement level and from the front, Belsize Avenue and the side and rear setbacks to achieve a better landscape setting and better transition in built form to the southern interface.

Council’s conditions seek to increase the width of the in-ground planting and a subsequent reduction in the size of the basement by requiring a three metre setback from the front and a 3 metre setback from the southern and eastern boundary.

Council put that a 3 metre setback is required from all boundaries to enable better in ground landscaping opportunities. It was Council’s concern that tree planting would be impossible to achieve along the two street frontages due to the narrow access to natural ground and there are no opportunities for tree planting other than the northwest and north east corners of the site.

Side Setbacks

Council’s conditions also seek an increase in the side setbacks to Belsize Avenue to a 5.5 metre setback. Council acknowledged that the side setbacks from Belsize Avenue meet the prescriptive requirements of Standard B6 of ResCode but are seeking an increase in the setback to strike a balance in setting a standard for future development along Neerim Road and Belsize Avenue. I am not persuaded by this submission of Council that a setback beyond the requirement of Standard B6 is warranted. It is noted that whilst the setback to Belsize Avenue may be a minimum of 2.01 metres, it increases to 5.5 metres further south into the site into Belsize Avenue.
The setbacks to both Neerim Road and Belsize Avenue acknowledge the policy direction of more intensive development but also provide for landscaping opportunities.
Council imposed conditions 1(b) and 7 to ensure that parking for residents and visitors is commensurate with the table to Clause 52.06. Council put to me that they would prefer the parking is provided in compliance with clause 52.06 but the bigger issue is the need to reduce the basement foot print and thereby revise the layout to add a second level to improve in ground planting opportunities and to avoid disputes about parking allocation between residents at a later time.
The proposal provides for 45 car parking spaces including two visitor spaces. A reduction in the visitor parking requirement of five spaces is sought. Council did not vigorously pursue this issue but focussed on the issue of the basement footprint which I have addressed above.

Council submitted that the calculation of the site coverage at 60.0% had been calculated in error and that it was greater. Council however did not provide their own calculation. The Permit Applicant put that the site coverage was 60.9%. For all of the reason above, I have concluded that the footprint of the building is acceptable. I therefore make no further comment on this matter.

By way of contrast, Stonnington has achieved what Glen Eira ignored. In their schedules to the Residential Growth Zone, they have inserted the clause that basements should not occupy more than 75% of the site! (see below). And yet, there is still no attempt by Glen Eira to amend its planning scheme, to introduce changes that will benefit residents, or even to undertake a full review of its failures and disregard for residential amenity.

Residents should also be aware that each time council goes to VCAT with such untenable conditions imposed that it is costing us money. It would be far cheaper, more productive and with better outcomes, if instead of applying useless bandaids, council addressed the major problem – it’s woeful planning scheme!

July 1, 2015

More On Virginia Estate

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

June 27, 2015

Livability?

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

Agents tip price growth near Cranbourne-Pakenham line level crossings after grade separation

Andrea Kellett
June 27, 2015 12:00AM

Some real estate agents expect house prices to rise when level crossings in Melbourne’s south go underground.

PROPERTY prices in the streets near Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon stations and near level crossings along the Cranbourne-Pakenham line are tipped to rise when grade separation works are complete.

Real estate agents agree the Andrews Government’s promised removal of seven dangerous, congested level crossings in Glen Eira will boost the surrounding suburbs’ livability and desirability.

Most expect price growth in the streets immediately around the level crossings and closest to the peak hour bottlenecks, while a few are unsure if it will make a noticeable price difference.

All agree it is hard to put a figure on how much prices could rise.

Buxton Bentleigh director Craig Williamson said premium properties immediately around level crossings could rise by up to 5 per cent when the railway lines were put underground.

That, he said, could add $100,000 to a $2 million property.“This type of thing could add 3 per cent on top of annual price growth and 5 per cent in immediate areas,” he said.

“Holistically, the entire area becomes more appealing. It’s going to add to the desirability and that demand intensifies competition and that drives prices.”

Josh Hommelhoff, from Ray White Carnegie, said promised grade separation in Carnegie and Murrumbeena would push prices up in those suburbs.

“I’ve always said that once that happens values can only go one way and that’s up,” he said.”

He said level crossings impacted on property prices there.

“If you are buying north of the railway line in Carnegie or Murrumbeena it generally means slightly higher prices,” he said.

Kim Easterbrook, managing director of Elite Property Advisory in Brighton, said she expected livability and “sellability” benefits.

“I don’t believe there will be a direct impact on property prices in the surrounding streets and suburbs due to the removal of the level crossings,” she said.

“What I would say though that it will certainly help with the livability of the suburb, meaning that it should unlock some of the traffic congestion around the crossings and therefore people will enjoy living in the immediate area more so.”

“What it could do is assist with the sellability of the properties in the immediate proximity of the boom gates.”

Woodards Bentleigh director John Pollard said it would be “fantastic” from a local point of view but doubted if it would impact on prices.

“I don’t believe there’s a change in dollar value there,” he said.

Grade separation at Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon and on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line is expected to be complete by 2018.

June 25, 2015

Where Are You Council? – Again, Again, Again……

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

We’ve received the following photographs from a very frustrated resident. These shots were taken today (25th June) at 1.00pm.

This first photograph shows Neerim/Kokaribb Streets, Carnegie. There is:

no warning sign to indicate the closure of Kokaribb Street and,
all cars forced to detour via the shopping centre car park. Great for shoppers!

The second photograph shows:

pedestrian access blocked
construction trucks and witches hats taking over car parking spots
thus we have a situation where shoppers, pedestrians, and traffic is all caught up in the snarl of cars making u-turns because of unannounced street closure.

Thus,

can’t council co-ordinate street closures and traffic better than this?
what does this do to local traders? or,
do developers get top priority in Glen Eira?

PS: We’ve received another photo from a different resident. This time the shot was taken at 7am yesterday morning. Readers, please note the number of car parking spots that are taken up by trucks and contractors and undoubtedly staying there all day. Who would want to be a trader in this vicinity now?

June 23, 2015

The People Speak: Virginia Estate

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[17] Comments

PS: a new Facebook page has just started up opposing the Virginia Estate development. We have provided a link to this site via our Blogroll. The URL is – https://www.facebook.com/groups/453771051463638/ /

Last night’s planning conference for the Virginia Estate development was jam packed with outraged residents and traders. Pilling chaired the meeting. What came through loudly and clearly was:

Residents’ total dissatisfaction with council’s ‘communication’. Many stated that they did not receive notification, had no idea this was happening, and definitely had no idea that ‘permission’ had been granted for 10 storey developments in 2011.
Those who did receive formal letters also complained bitterly that the jargon was incomprehensible – ie one resident who had lived nearby for 30 plus years simply said – ‘oh well, it’s already commercial from the time of W.D & H.O Wills, so this is just more commercial.’ The idea of ‘residential’ did not enter his mind. Other residents were not so forgiving and labelled the notices as ‘misleading’ and ‘non-transparent’.
The developer’s retail impact statement was declared suspect by both the Carnegie Traders and the Bentleigh Traders Association.
Residents cited numerous objections – ie. Virginia Estate is ‘landlocked’ with no transport to speak of, alongside residential dwellings, with already choked major arterial roads. Other comments focused on what impact another 5000 residents would have on local schools that are already bursting at the seams. Infrastructure, open space and lack of sporting grounds were also noted.
Once again the chair (Pilling) resorted to the common Glen Eira tactic of trying to shut down one very informed speaker to the loud chorus from the audience of ‘let her speak’. It should also be noted that when the developer then rose and spoke there was no opportunity for residents to ask him questions since Pilling then closed the meeting!

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Throughout the ‘introduction’ to the amendment by both Pilling and council planner (Rocky Camera) there was no mention of:

Removal of third party objection rights
The overall number of proposed dwellings – ie Camera insisted that the amendment covered only 1200 dwellings without revealing the significant fact that 1200 was only for PRECINCT 1. Precinct 2, 3 and 4 were still to come. This is deliberately misleading and devious.
Pilling stated that ‘no decision’ had as yet been made. No ‘formal’ decision may have as yet occurred , but the developer revealed that it was council which asked for the 20m link of open space and the 5.7% cash open space levy instead of a land contribution of any significance. Meetings between the developer and council had been ongoing for a long period of time as well.

Finally, we wish to inform residents of how this council operates. When it wants, it can initiate ‘extensive community consultation’ at ratepayers’ cost. The best example of this, is the travesty that occurred with the removal of the Caulfield Park conservatory. There were 2 public consultations. When council did not get the results it was seeking there was a last ditch effort that involved:

The printing of glossy brochures and a ‘survey’ which was distributed to 3,247 properties around Caulfield Park. (Minutes of 24^th September 2013) at a cost of over $14,000 and consultant fees which would clearly make this amount much greater.

In contrast Amendment C75 which set up the platform for the current rezoning only had 500 properties notified. The current proposal has had 638 according to the figures cited last night. When there are literally thousands of thousands of homes impacted by this amendment, 638 notifications written in planning jargon, is a drop in the ocean. Residents should be querying not so much the strategies adopted by council, but asking what are the vested interests behind such a strategy. It is obvious that the intent was to keep residents as ignorant and as quiet as possible! This is ‘consultation’, Glen Eira style!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates