GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 8, 2014

487 Neerim Road – Again, and Again and Again!

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

487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.

Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:

Abuts Riley Reserve and should have been bought and added to open space in the municipality. The land was eventually sold for just over $2m about a year ago.
Land is over 2000 square metres and includes many significant trees
In September 2014 council granted the applicant a ‘building envelope’ (ie the equivalent of a C60 Incorporated Plan which means no third party objection rights!). The land was then subdivided into 7 lots – some the size of 199 metres and only one lot of anywhere near 400 square metres.
A Section 173 agreement was put in place to enforce tree protection and to include a ‘tree management plan’.
Residents at the time objected that this was all very vague.

Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –

Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Questions galore arise as a consequence:

How does a child care centre fit into what was supposed to be 7 double storey dwellings alone?
Have the lots been further sold off and residents can expect application after application for something entirely different to what the subdivision and ‘envelope plan’ permitted?
What does this say about any ‘agreement’ that is signed off by council?
Why was this ‘building envelope’ process even entered into by council instead of a normal planning permit?
What of all the other so called ‘conditions’ imposed by council (ie noise reduction, drainage) – will these now also bite the dust?
How many childcare centres are needed? – our count is 17 already within a one square km radius

And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!

December 6, 2014

How’s This For Pedestrian Safety?

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

Corner Kokarrib and Neerim Roads – taken today (6/12/2014)

December 4, 2014

A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

What is troubling racing at Caulfield? Why is a prominent trainer like Rick Hore-Lacy packing up his swag and walking? Rick is a brilliant trainer, and a real gentleman. He is still a young man; surely he doesn’t desperately need the $585,361. Wither thou goest Mr. Hore-Lacy?

Rick’ loss to Caulfield will leave an immense hole in training that will be very hard, nigh impossible, to fill.

The question remains — what exactly is for sale? Land Victoria indicates 20 Booran Road, Caulfield East, is a large allotment immediately south of the land given to the Crown in exchange for the infamous “triangle”, which was part of Queen Victoria’s Crown Grant, but which is now set aside for the MRC’s high-density commercial development on the corner of Station Street and Normandy Road – directly over the road from the Caulfield Railway Station. (Worth a damn lot more than Rick’s stable complex).

The Victorian Land’s Department also seems to think his stables are within the land controlled by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. It’s my opinion that the land to the east of Kambrook and Booran Roads is freehold, and includes what was originally an extended Bond Street.

You can see the Land’s Victoria map:

However 20 Booran Road it is further south than indicated on the Government’s map. It can be positioned by a sign on the fence indicating that it is a “Community Stable Complex — 20 Booran Road”. Furthermore there are seven letterboxes in the fence, so exactly what did Rick Hore-Lacy’s “Australia-wide firm of valuers” value? It can’t be his goodwill, because that would have only a negligible value after he departs.

It seems Rick Hore-Lacy’s departure is yet another sign that we are watching the slow, painful death of racing at Caulfield. The MRC is now too embarrassed to publish crowd numbers, even for the Caulfield Cup. Please don’t go Rick, Caulfield needs you.

A rich and magnificent 150 year history of racing and sharing with the public is slowly being desecrated by an incompetent and avaricious Racing Club, while the inept Trustees waffle about the 65 hectares of “public recreation ground and public park” which they, in theory only, hold in trust for all members of the public.

December 3, 2014

Questions, Questions, Questions!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

What is really going on at the Racecourse and what is Council and the Trustees doing about anything? There are countless questions that need asking and answering. Here’s some of them –

Is this Crown land or freehold land?
If Crown land then what are the Trustees doing?
Valued at only $585+?
Is this a ‘lease’ or a ‘sale’?
What’s happened to getting rid of training?

And questions on another issue involve the Santa events at the centre. We have been informed that it appears as if those involved in running the show have set up caravans on site and are using these as accommodation for the duration of the event which goes for a month at least. Council’s Local Law states –

Section 310

Pitching a tent, erecting any temporary or permanent shelter or placing and occupying a caravan, campervan or shipping container on any, Council Land, public or private land for the purpose of camping or living. This law does not apply to the erection (with the land owner’s consent) of a temporary shelter to facilitate the preparation of meals associated with a religious practice or festival for a period not exceeding twenty-one days.

We therefore ask:

Have the operators been granted a permit by Council?
Has Council even been informed that this is happening?
Does Council even care!

December 2, 2014

Calcutta Is Here!

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

PS: BREAKING ALL RECORDS, HERE’S THE LATEST APPLICATION FOR EGAN STREET, CARNEGIE. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THE DEFICIENCIES OF COUNCIL’S PLANNING REGISTER WHEN REAL DETAILS ARE NOT PUBLISHED.

Construction of a 16 storey mixed use development (shop and dwellings); waiver of loading bay; reduction of car parking

+++++++++++++

The total devastation of local residential streets is nowhere more evident than in what has been happening in Bent Street since the introduction of the new zones.

No account has been taken of the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on neighbourhood amenity, much less parking, drainage, open space, overshadowing and so on. For example: Bent Street comprised approximately 70 lots of land. The overwhelming majority of these lots contained one house – many of them stunning Californian bungalows. In the past 15 months permits have either been granted, or awaiting decision for an additional 178 dwellings. In other words, the potential rise in dwelling stock is to the order of 300%.

Below we feature the sad history of this once lovely street –

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking) (up for decision)

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a part three and part four storey building comprising 31 dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor car parking (up for decision)

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four storey building containing up to 36 dwellings above a basement (permit)

15 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings and a basement car park (permit)

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to 27 dwellings with basement car parking – Amended (permit)

67 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of two double storey attached dwellings (permit)

TOTAL = 178 dwellings

What is unclear is how 64-66 Bent Street’s application wasn’t rejected outright since it is our belief that this part of Bent Street is actually zoned as General Residential Zone 2 – ie supposedly 3 storey dwellings. What makes this application even more interesting is that both 64 and 66 Bent Street went up for auction on this weekend (according to the Age’s Auction results) selling for $1,750,000 each. Thus with an ‘investment’ of $3.5 million we can be assured of one thing – the developer(s) will attempt to squeeze every ounce of profit they can from this land and it’s all thanks to the zones in our view.

Unless this council starts taking account of the CUMULATIVE impacts of its permits then hundreds of streets in Glen Eira will go the way of Bent St. A five fold increase in dwellings in a previously quiet residential area of several hundred metres is not sound planning. It is destruction on a major scale that is not in accord with any planning document or concern for residents.

December 1, 2014

The MRC Juggernaut Continues & Council Does Nothing – Again!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

We’ve received the following images from a resident. Once again they raise serious questions about the pathetic ‘Agreement’ that was signed off by Council. We maintain, that you can have all the ‘agreements’ you like, but unless they are enforced, then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

The photos below reveal how this ‘agreement’ has been ignored once more – by both Council and the MRC and by implication the Trustees.

The centre of the racecourse is only to be used for MAJOR RACE DAYS OR EVENT DAYS. We do not believe that today’s event fits into these descriptors.
We are very concerned about ‘safety’ when cars are parked so close to barbecues and the euphemistically called ‘playground’.
Residents were not provided with any warning – again traffic problems
Was a traffic management plan submitted to Council and was this approved by Council?
As one reader commented a little while ago on the previous post – the noise emanating from the course can be heard 300 metres away!
And while we’re at it – we remind readers that the fences that were supposed to be gone years ago are still standing – which leads us again to that old question of WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COUNCIL?

PS: It is also worth pointing out that the case for the yellow brick roads right around and through the course was that the MRC and Council argued that it is necessary for ‘disability’ access. Bunkum, hogwash, and double this. The photos show that concrete was required so that cars could be parked and work vehicles could traverse the area. Disability would come very, very low on the list of priorities. More spin, more deception, and more pathetic governance.

December 1, 2014

Who Owns The Streets?

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

November 29, 2014

Some More Council Furphies!

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

Councillors have repeatedly stated that it is the State Government and the Minister who is responsible for the new zoning. This only reveals half of the story. Yes, amendments have to be signed off by the Minister and yes, councils have to abide by the Minister’s decision. However, it was up to councils to first determine

Where the zones would go
What the height limits would be for each zone
What would be contained in each schedule

On all of these aspects, Glen Eira City Council has, in our view failed those residents living in GRZ, RGZ and Mixed Use Zones. These are the areas where Council did have the choice as to what went into their schedules and standards. Glen Eira chose to go for the least protection possible.

Please consider the following table which outlines exactly the scope provided to councils. Readers will note that in terms of height, there was the ability to impose a 9 metre limit in GRZ. Glen Eira opted for 10.5 across the board. Even in the RGZ council again had the option of selecting a lower height limit. They didn’t. The heights listed in this document are MAXIMUMS and were not set in stone. And as we’ve previously stated, height by itself is only one component of good planning. Council ignored all the other aspects that we’ve mentioned such as: site coverage; permeability; setbacks; minimum lot sizes, etc.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND PLEASE NOTE THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS.

November 28, 2014

How Long Will Councillors Keep Fiddling Whilst Glen Eira Burns?

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

Applications for high density dwellings are going through the roof. Residents are selling up as quickly as they can – often together with their neighbours. Developers are picking the eyes out of all areas now zoned as RGZ and GRZ plus commercial and Mixed Use. And what are our councillors doing about all this? Zilch! Nothing! A big fat zero!

Instead of any firm commitment to review the current planning scheme, (which they legally must) all residents are getting is more of the same hogwash, dissembling and mistruths. Hyams, Magee, Pilling and the rest can repeat ad nauseam that the zones haven’t made any difference. That what is happening now could have happened before. Well, in theory it might have, but the reality is that it didn’t! Apart from a few aberrations in Carnegie and Elsternwick, developers knew that applying for a four storey 20+ apartment block in quiet local streets of normal block size wouldn’t get through. Many got knocked back at VCAT and some even by council. Now with the zones, developers are rubbing their hands with glee knowing that 4 storeys are acceptable, and what’s more, expected. Even more disconcerting is the growing incidence of amended applications going in for additional storeys and units. The latest is today’s publication from VCAT of a five storey amended permit application that increases the number of dwellings by 3. Council had no objection to this increase! This and countless other examples have got nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the current zones which give carte blanche to these increases.

Residents keep being told the same old furphies and to paraphrase Lipshutz citing Goebbels – if you repeat some lies often enough then people might also start believing them. Or at least that is the hope. For example:

“Glen Eira is the only council with mandatory height limits in the Residential Growth Zone.” What utter rubbish! Stonnington also has a 13.5 mandatory height limit in its RGZ2 Schedule; Latrobe goes even better with a 9 metre height limit in its RGZ2; Greater Geelong has 10.5 for its RGZ2 and so does the Yarra Ranges. How this allegedly super efficient council is ‘ignorant’ of what is going on next door (Stonnington) is not only highly improbable, but totally unbelievable. Yet residents are inflicted with these continual furphies and mistruths.

When other councils (as we’ve previously reported) can exact lower height limits for parts of their GRZ areas or, have lesser site coverage mandates, or greater permeability impostes, and Glen Eira has none of these similar standards, then residents have to start scratching their heads and wondering why this council can keep claiming that they have the best ‘protections’ in the state. Height restrictions are only one of a multitude of standards that could have been introduced or improved upon. That Council has not progressed one iota in terms of the conditions from fifteen years ago is testimony to either how little they tried, or how ineffectual their ‘negotiating’ actually was.

There is no other way of looking at the zones except to say that Glen Eira councillors have failed their constituents – not only because they did not bother to undergo consultation, but more importantly, because officers failed to do the necessary homework and come up with zones and schedules that are based on detailed and current analysis. This is shoddy, inept, and woeful planning and reveals a total disregard for thousands and thousands of residents who are now paying the price for this ineptitude and unfounded arrogance. By doing nothing, by accepting the disenfranchisement of residents, by permitting lax and sub-standard processes to continue, councillors must be tarred with the same brush!

PS: Listed below are some of the latest applications. Poor old Bent St!

64 Bent St – part 3 and part 4 storey building; 31 dwellings; reduction of requirement for visitor parking

27 Jasper Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 25 dwellings, waiving of 3 visitor car parking

322 Neerim Road, Carnegie – 4 storey, 38 dwellings

1240 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – 6 storey, 118 dwellings, waiving car park & loading bay

4-6 James Street, Glen Huntly – 3 storey, 45 dwellings, visitor car parking reduction

November 27, 2014

Safety Last, Developers First?

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

Council minutes of 31^st August 2010 record the following sentence in response to a public question – Under no circumstances are variations to standards allowed if they compromise safety. Given this unequivocal response, it would be fascinating to know exactly how many dispensations Council has granted to developers, or failed to enforce the standards, on developments for underground car parking – in particular ensuring the adequacy of sightlines for exiting cars. How many of these subterranean canyons have been allowed to exist that potentially endanger pedestrian safety? How many near misses have you experienced from cars exiting their steep driveways and you simply couldn’t see them until the last second?

Here are some examples from a range of material we’ve been sent by residents.