GE Service Performance


State Government vows to make Places Victoria more efficient, monitor parking spaces

  • Kylie Adoranti
  • Leader
  • January 15, 2015 12:00AM

THE State Government has vowed to make government developer Places Victoria more efficient and promised to monitor councils’ decisions on parking spaces in new apartment complexes.

These are among a list of thorny planning matters Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas has assured the government will address.

Mr Pallas said under the new Labor Government, Places Victoria would have “a greater purpose and focus”.

He described Places Victoria as being “a shambles” under the former Liberal Government.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” he said.

Mr Pallas said his government would oversee councils’ use of carparking waivers “to protect livability and to make sure cars aren’t causing congestion and parking in suburban streets”.

“Local councils decide the carparking ratios for apartments in their areas. State governments have a responsibility to protect Melbourne’s livability. Development is important — but it needs to strengthen our communities, not weaken them,” he said.

“There was a revolving door of management and we look forward to a period of better management,” — Acting Planning Minister Tim Pallas

When asked about whether the scrapped Linking Melbourne Authority would be replaced, Mr Pallas said the government was in the process of establishing Infrastructure Victoria — an independent organisation to oversee capital projects.

He said there were no plans to review the urban growth boundaries and the green wedge would be protected.

The government has also promised to conduct a review into the residential planning zones.

Mr Pallas told the Leader the government would recast Fishermans Bend as a series of neighbourhoods.

“Part of this involves ensuring there is a mixture of heights and densities — from medium to high. Fishermans Bend is not a short-term project. It is a place that will evolve over many years into a precinct where people will want to live, to work and to raise a family.”

Mr Pallas was acting planning minister at the time of publication, replacing Acting Planning Minister Robin Scott who has been on leave and who was replacing Planning Minister Richard Wynne who was recovering from a minor heart attack.

Opposition Planning Spokesman David Davis said Mr Pallas criticising Places Victoria was “the pot calling the kettle black”.

“Places Victoria was a step by the previous government to clean up the rabble and mess left by Labor by the Vic Urban authority.

“Presumably Tim Pallas will retain the butler that was introduced in Labor’s period,” he said.

Mr Davis said the government had to release more details on its plan for Fishermans Bend.

“I have no idea what the erratic Andrews Government will do (to Fishermans Bend). The CFMEU-inspired planning spokesman prior to the election had no idea where it was heading.”

MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse

The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.

It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.

Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:

— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;

— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;

— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;

— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.

The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.

Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.

The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.

MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.

“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.

Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.

That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.

++++++

 COMMENT

The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –

  1. Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
  2. Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
  3. Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
  4. Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
  5. Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
  6. And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?

Here are the quotes:

Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community

The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.

Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.

The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.

Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:

  • To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
  • Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.

It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:

  • Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.

…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.

DPI

In Glen Eira contracts awarded under tender are invariably decided behind closed doors via the in camera provisions of council meetings. Residents are not even always provided with information as to the outcome of these tenders. Not only does Glen Eira not provide any information on WHY and HOW the tenders are awarded, nor why company ‘A’ was successful as opposed to company ‘B’, but the performance criteria themselves are kept secret, the officers involved are secret, and the voting is secret.

We’ve reported previously on how other councils go about their tender decisions. Many publish full accounts of the companies involved; the scores they achieved against the criteria, and the individuals involved. Further, these are published in full in council agendas and minutes. Glen Eira maintains its cloak of secrecy.

This recent tender from Monash council caught our eye for several reasons. Readers should note the following:

  • The relative speed with which flooding issues have been addressed, and
  • How developer levies on drainage lessen the cost to ratepayers.

We have uploaded the full report HERE

Pages from Agenda  Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held 16 December 2014Ten years at least and still counting for Glen Eira to achieve anything on tree protection. We have reported on this several times already and direct readers to a previous post – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/

In February 2011, hundreds of properties in Glen Eira were flooded. Council’s response was a report three months later which concentrated on either laying the blame elsewhere (ie Melbourne Water, developers and residents), or patting itself on the back for its ‘emergency response’. Promises were made, such as – Council officers are currently investigating increasing Council’s drainage maintenance resources and will report on this in due course. (Minutes of 28th June 2011). Needless to say, such a report has never seen the light of day in three and a half years!

Compounding the problem of flooding in Glen Eira is the fact that it is now 9 years at least since the introduction of the Special Building Overlay into the Planning Scheme. Such overlays are meant to safeguard against the risk of flooding by mandating floor level heights. Past estimates have placed properties at risk of flooding in Glen Eira as well over 12,000. With rapid development going on in the municipality, coupled with the increase of impermeable surfaces that such development brings, it surely is time to reassess the entire local drainage system and to evaluate whether any additional sites are now also deemed to be at flood risk.

Other councils have been proactive on this issue – Darebin, Greater Geelong and Port Phillip are the current examples. Port Phillip, which bears the brunt of much water flowing down from Glen Eira’s territory, resolved at its last council meeting to seek an amendment. The amendment follows several years of joint study with Melbourne Water and intends to clearly differentiate between Melbourne Water drains and local council drains. We’ve uploaded the full officer report HERE, but included below some important extracts –

Commencing a planning scheme amendment to update the SBO immediately is recommended. Following the SBO Review, it is now known that the current SBO does not accurately reflect all properties at risk of overland flooding. Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date, and the SBO provides an important and transparent statutory mechanism for indicating properties that are subject to inundation in a severe storm event

Modification of the SBO boundaries on planning scheme maps to reflect the revised flood shape agreed by Melbourne Water and Council (refer maps at Attachment 4). This would:

  • Include approximately 10,200 new properties which have now been identified as being subject to inundation.
  • Remove approximately 500 properties from the SBO which are no longer identified as being subject to inundation.
  • Retain the SBO over approximately 17,300 properties which remain subject to inundation. (Note: The extent of the SBO over these properties may be altered.)

Port Phillip has also included maps of the new sites in its proposed amendment. We find it extremely difficult to accept that potential flooding risk as determined by Port Phillip ‘conveniently’ stops at the border with Glen Eira. If many of the streets running off Hotham on the Port Phillip side are now deemed to require an SBO, then surely many of the properties less then 20 metres away on the Glen Eira side of the street could also be under threat. The questions that need to be asked regarding these new studies are:

  • If ‘Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date’, then what has Glen Eira done in the past decade or so in relation to its SBO?
  • Why has Council been so reticent in providing any information on its flood risks and measures taken to improve and extend local drainage systems – especially after its ‘promise’ of 2011.
  • The current buzz word for councillors is ‘capacity’. How is this quantified, evaluated, and acted upon?
  • What impact is all this new development having on Glen Eira’s drainage systems and the water table? Does Council even know?
  • And the most important question for residents is – how much longer will ratepayers continue to subsidise developers given that Glen Eira has abandoned its development contributions levy scheme?

Finally, readers may also find the Darebin proposed amendment of interest. Uploaded HERE.

Plan to fund new drainage works

17 December 2014

Developers will be asked to contribute towards the cost of drainage works to improve flood protection in Bayside under a proposed development contributions plan.

Bayside City Council Mayor Cr. Felicity Frederico said the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan (DCP) proposes a fair and equitable system for developers to make a contribution to the increased drainage capacity required when units and apartment blocks are built.

“The plan also allows Council to remain focused on its long-term financial management by continuing to look at opportunities for alternative revenue streams to take pressure off rate increases,” said Mayor Cr. Frederico.

The DCP proposes a development levy of $2000 for each additional ground floor dwelling, $1000 for each additional upper floor dwelling and $340 for each additional 100 sq.m of commercial development built in the Bayside municipality.

Contributions from developers will only be spent on infrastructure that services the drainage needs of new development in that catchment.

Residents building one house on a block of land will be exempt from paying the levy. Other exemptions include additions or extensions to existing dwellings, new dwellings that replace an existing dwelling, or commercial development that does not increase the existing building area and development on public land.

Contributions will be collected when applications for planning permits are approved or at the time of subdivision.

Implementation of the DCP is dependent on its incorporation into the Bayside Planning Scheme which requires authorisation from the Minister for Planning and will follow the planning scheme amendment process.

For further information contact Council on 9599 4444.

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/media_release_fund_new_drainage_works.htm

We thought it fitting that for the final post of 2014, we revisit the secret introduction of the new residential zones. Fifteen months down the track readers can judge for themselves the total ineptitude and complicity of councillors in the duping their community.

The following extracts all come from statements made on the 13th August 2013 Council Meeting.

HYAMS – Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’.

LIPSHUTZ – Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’.

MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’…..Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’

DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites

OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty. This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the  ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’

AND HERE’S PART OF COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC QUESTION

It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Important decisions were made in 2014. Very, very few could be said to have been in line with community views or aspirations.

  • Granting the MRC its wishes with the passing of the Caulfield Village Development plan for at least 2046 dwellings. At the subsequent VCAT appeal council once again caved in and basically watered down the few conditions it had imposed with the permit.
  • Permit after permit has been granted for major developments largely as a result of the introduction of the new zones with no progress whatsoever on parking management plans, environmental sustainable design, or in fact, introducing any amendments that would address the flow on effects of development.
  • Interest rate hikes still way above the CPI with another 6.5% increase – far more than neighbouring councils.
  • Back flips on the Caulfield Park conservatory indicating how little council resolutions mean and how much money is wasted on bogus ‘consultations’.
  • Still no local law that was promised a year and a half ago. All quiet on the western front in terms of: tree register; notice of motion; recording of council meetings.
  • More destruction of open space and trees for car parks – Centenary Park
  • Whilst Stonnington with the second least amount of open space is looking for an open space levy of 8%, Glen Eira with the least amount of open space only sought 5.7%. Council also did a back flip on its much publicised policy that all monies collected would be used for the ACQUISITION and improvement of new open space. Residents can now expect more of the same – ie. funds largely expended on capital works for existing open space and little or no purchase of additional open space.
  • More delays in major capital works and budget blowouts – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – with no explanation of real costs provided to the community.

We are sure that readers can add to this list. As for the ‘positives’ and the future, we simply note that the gallery is now full of residents protesting development after development. It has taken a year for the impacts of the new zones to become clear and the result is that more and more residents are finding voice. We believe that this trend will continue, ensuring that councillors will eventually be held to account.

Best wishes to all for 2015!

2015 Happy New Year Strands Line Glow Dark Background

247 – 251 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Four storey multi-residential development and associated basement car parking

322-326 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking

8 Egan Street, Carnegie – Construction of a 16 storey building comprising 155 dwellings above three levels of basement car parking (with additional parking above ground), two retail tenacies and reduction of statutory car parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements

198-202 Balaclava Road, Caulfield North – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a four storey building (with a basement car park) comprising shop, office, 14 dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement on land affected by the Special Building Overlay

795-809 Centre Road and 150 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East – Construction of a part-3, part-7 storey mixed use building, use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in car parking requirements, waiver of the loading and unloading requirements associated with the use of the land for a shop, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 and the variation of an easement

251-253 Jasper Road, McKinnon – Development of a four (4) storey mixed use building, comprising of a shop and twelve (12) dwellings, waiver of car parking associated with shop and residential visitors and waiver of loading facilities

3 Grange Road, Caulfield East – Construction of a three storey building for the use of twenty eight (28) student accommodation; reduction of car parking requirements; alter access to a Road Zone Category 

 

 

 

Parking is without doubt a central concern for Glen Eira residents. Council’s ‘solution’ has been to either waive parking requirements (especially for commercial uses) or refuse residential parking permits forcing car owners to park their vehicles in surrounding local streets.

Despite the Planning Scheme stating that Parking Precinct Plans will be devised, and that Public Acquisition Overlays will be introduced to provide public parking Council has done absolutely nothing on these matters. They have not purchased land and converted this into public car parks – rather they have ceded space in Centre Road in exchange for a yet to be built public toilet! Nor has council done anything in terms of introducing Parking Overlays that really address the issues.

Glen Eira has basically two Parking Overlays within its planning scheme:

  • One for the Caulfield Village Development, and
  • One for student housing in several areas throughout the municipality

We note that the Caulfield Village overlay has no visitor carparking in its mandate and the student housing overlays stick to the minimum allowable.

WHAT CAN BE DONE

At last council meeting Hyams claimed that Council is powerless to change ResCode parking standards. Not so! Council has the power to introduce schedules to any Parking Overlay that outstrips ResCode. (Clause 56.02-5). This would operate in the same manner as schedules to the residential zones. Basically, councils have been given the right to determine what parking provisions go where in their municipalities. Glen Eira has chosen to do bugger all in stark contrast to what countless other councils have achieved.

What is even more galling is that under the legislation councils can also exact a monetary payment from developers for any car parking space that council decides to waive. Glen Eira does not have such a clause in its existing overlays. Here is what some other councils collect if they decide to waive one spot –

Campaspe – $2000 per space

Cardinia – $16,935 (excl. GST) per space

Casey – $16,935 (excl. GST) per space

Colac – $13,000 (excluding GST)) per space

Greater Bendigo – $10,000 per space (no GST) per space

Greater Dandenong – $19,000 (excl. GST) per space

Monash – $11,000 (plus GST) per space

The minutes for the last Bayside City Council included the following –

Council has commenced the preparation of Car Parking Plans for the four Major Activity Centres of Bay Street, Brighton; Church Street, Brighton; Hampton Street, Hampton; and Sandringham Village, Sandringham to better manage car parking in these centres. The Car Parking Plans will provide the basis for Parking Overlays, to form part of the Bayside Planning Scheme. A Parking Overlay can be applied to a geographic area and can regulate financial contributions (such as cash in lieu scheme) amongst a range of other car parking management improvements.

We have been told that under the old Caulfield City Council regime developers paid $10,000 per car park waiver. This is now gone. How much money could Council have collected in the last 14 years? How much public car parking space could have been purchased to assist in alleviating what is now a nightmare for residents?

But it gets even worse once comparisons are made with the finer points of the various schedules that other councils have introduced. Councils can determine the number of spaces for various commercial uses. Glen Eira in its 2 parking overlays has basically stuck to the minimalist ResCode guidelines. They even argue in their planning officer reports that since a shop is ‘small’ that no parking is required, or that loading bays can be waived. Not so other councils. Here are some examples that show what can be done when there is the will to protect local amenity –

Office

Boroondara – Office 3.5 spots to each 100 sq m of net floor area)

PLEASE NOTE THAT for the Caulfield Village Council has 2 per 100square metres for office.

Manningham 2.5 per 100 square metres

Casey – 3.5 per 100 square metres

Restaurant

Manningham – 0.36 for every seat available

Monash – 0.45 spaces to each seat available .

Shop

Monash – 4 To each per 100 sq m of leasable floor area

Banyule – 4.6 for shop

Casey – 4 for any shop under 2000 square metres

There are plenty more categories (ie offices, supermarkets) where other councils have far exceeded what ResCode states. Not only has Glen Eira done literally nothing to address the parking concerns of residents but they have literally squandered the opportunity to garner hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars over the years which could have been used to purchase property (as the planning scheme states) and alleviate the congestion in activity centres and the flow on effects to local streets.

The failure to act is in keeping with so much that is amiss within Glen Eira. Of course, introducing Parking Overlays that actually address the problem would mean:

  • Current and effective analysis and possibly decent structure planning
  • It would also go against the grain of a council that is so developer friendly!

« Previous PageNext Page »