|
We’ve received the following comment from a reader and believe it deserves to be highlighted as a separate post. The issues that are raised are significant –
The Redan Road bicycle lane installation smacks of collusion – everywhere else in the municipality installing bicycle lanes only involves painting a white line on either side of the road and adding some cycling symbols. Not so Redan Road – it involved Oh did I forget to mention No doubt the Redan Road residents are greatly consoled by the fact that their already Caulfield Village impacted amenity will be further reduced by unwanted traffic treatments, that will prevent them from parking near their residences and that are being partly funded from their rates. |
GE Service Performance
February 25, 2014
Subsidising the MRC?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
February 23, 2014
Trickey Dickies & Governance!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
Presented below are a series of pages from the various versions of the Incorporated Plans for the (euphemistically labelled) ‘Caulfield Village’. They raise innumerable questions as to process and overall governance by this Council. The first set of plans clearly illustrate:
- The April 2011 version which became the official C60 and which was never given to residents prior to the formal consultation process, and
- The latest 2013 version which is again different to one that was extant several months previously (ie also in 2013)
- Readers need to take careful note of the differences in ‘preferred heights’ from both documents.
Here’s an even earlier version that again shows the not so gradual creep of these plans and Council’s acceptance of these. In July 2008 we were told 15 storeys –
What is even more farcical is that when we compare council’s own comments on the first MRC proposal for a Priority Development Zone/Amendment C60 (minutes of 4th September 2007) we find that nothing much has changed and that council’s comments then are still valid for the latest version of the Development Plan. We quote –
(k) The MRC envisages the amendment facilitating office development of 20,000 sq.m, retailing of 10,000 sq. m (including 4,500sqm supermarket) and cafes of 5,000 sq.m for a total of 35,000sq.m. This makes it three times the size of the Glen Huntly shopping centre, with less planning control than for a simple dual occupancy.
(l) It is also important to note, however, that the actual floor areas proposed are not articulated anywhere in the amendment documentation and have only been referred to obliquely in various technical reports supporting the draft masterplan lodged in November 2006. These floor areas have also been subject to change. For example, up to 10th August 2007 the office component of the development was quantified at 10,000sqm. On 10 August, Council was advised that it had increased to 20,000sqm.
Such (road) closures, however, will also be the subject of commercial negotiations with Council to ensure fair
return to ratepayers for Council-owned land.
(o) The amendment also proposes the downgrading of Station Street in order to provide on-street carparking, taxi ranks and access to the racecourse. In effect, this results in a discontinuance of this road in its current form. No
Road Closure Overlay, however, is being proposed to address this issue.
The most damning comment is –
This then becomes a problem of a flawed process. If the path of a priority Development Zone were to be followed, when the public has the opportunity to comment, there would be little to comment on; when details were available, there would be no opportunity to comment.
Readers should also keep in mind that the subsequent C60 Amendment is literally full of loop holes allowing the MRC in concert with Council to do whatever they like. It reads:
A development plan may be approved by the responsible authority:
with or without conditions relating to the use and/or development of the land;
which exceeds the preferred maximum heights or reduces the setbacks in the Preferred Maximum Height and Setback Diagrams in the Incorporated Plan; or which alters the Precinct Boundaries or the Staged Development Areas shown in the Precinct Plan of the Incorporated Plan and in this Schedule.
Given the history of this council’s acquiescence to the wishes of the MRC, and their failures to adequately consult and act in accordance with community wishes, the above clauses should be enough to set off many alarm bells for residents.
February 21, 2014
Ho, Ho, Ho, – It’s Off To Court We Go!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[18] Comments
Ratepayers had better prepare themselves for humungous legal costs, on top of what has already been forked out, if our assumptions are correct. Today’s agenda features the monthly ‘financial report’. Unlike previous versions, the notation about ‘mediation’ with Hansen Yuncken set down for 14th February is no longer present. Add to this the in camera item about ‘legal advice’ and the GESAC construction contract, and we would bet our socks that mediation has failed and that we’re now all heading for a major court case. Lawyers are laughing their heads off at their windfall no doubt.
When this is seen in conjunction with the Duncan Mackinnon Maxstra contract and the mega bucks already spent on pursuing Penhalluriack, then real questions need to be asked about the way that this administration does business.
On wastage of public monies, it looks like there could be a repeat of the ‘try, try again’ farce that has occurred with the Caulfield Park conservatory. Readers will remember the three time attempt at public consultation over cafes in the park versus restoration. Now the Booran Road Reservoir is up for the same treatment judging by this little sentence buried in the Records of Assembly –
Former Glen Huntly Reservoir – Councillors asked that a second option involving passive and active use and not just passive use be prepared for public consultation
We simply ask: how much did the original ‘concept plans’ cost? How much did the ‘consultation cost’? And why can’t this council accept the over-riding public response that the vast majority of residents opted for PASSIVE space?
There’s also the tacit admission of a major planning stuff up due to the ungodly haste in ramming through as quickly as possible the Residential Zones. One application asks for a 4 storey development for a school – in other words coming under the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’. The officer’s comments are illuminating –
A height of 13.9m is proposed with a 2.1m plant/lift overrun screening above. The school is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 where a 10.5m height limit is imposed to residential buildings and dwellings only. As the proposal is non-residential, this height limit does not apply. Council recently agreed to review the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy such that the height applicable to residential uses carries across to non-residential uses. This revised policy intention has no status at this time.
Last but not least, we have the full text of the Lipshutz Right of Reply. Such a pity that on other countless issues, the voices of residents remain muted, unacknowledged, and ignored!
Shortly prior to Christmas last year I saw a flyer from the Friends of Caulfield Park which described the Council contractors removing trees from Caulfield Park as “storm troopers”. I full well appreciate the passion some have in relation to Park and the issue of Council’s actions but the term “storm troopers” went beyond the pale.
Melbourne is the home to the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita outside Israel and the vast majority of Jews in Melbourne are either Holocaust survivors or children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Accordingly to equate Council’s actions with the actions of Storm troopers was highly offensive.
While the expression storm troopers has been used in the Star Wars movies I suggest that the FOCP were not using that analogy but clearly equating the actions of the Council with the actions of Nazi storm troopers.
I am former President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and former Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission I have perhaps by that reason a fairly prominent profile in the Jewish Community. As such I received over 40 phone calls from people who effectively said that they were offended by what had been written. Many others approached me at Synagogue and other places making similar comment. When I returned home from overseas in January there were also voice messages making similar comment. One elderly lady asked me if FOCP really knew what storm troopers were and how they acted. She was a Holocaust survivor a person who had first hand experience.
I do not say for an instance that the authors of the flyer are anti-Semitic and I do not make any accusation as to racism; indeed knowing some of the people at FOCP I believe that the words used were rather an expression of their passion. Nevertheless the words used were insensitive given the connotation of storm troopers with Nazi Germany. The expression used was clearly over the top and indeed I believe was counter-productive.
Councillors unanimously agreed to proceed with the upgrade of Caulfield Park. We listened to representatives of FOCP and we questioned and queried Officers before proceeding. Council did nothing by stealth.
Those that oppose Council’s actions have every right in our democratic and free society to make their views known, however to describe Council contractors as storm troopers was excessive in the extreme.
In my experience in public life, going beyond my years on Council I have seen that most people who are able to present a reasoned, intelligent and unemotional argument bereft of abuse will be listened to. To exaggerate however and suggest that Councillors are stupid or are in the pocket It (sic) of Council officers doing their bidding as if puppets is not likely to endear themselves or win any argument. Similarly to describe Council contractors as storm troopers full well knowing the connotation that expression raises is either obtuse or thoughtless.
While no doubt there are some Jews who would not find that comment offensive there are many that have and it is therefore appropriate for the authors to apologise and retract that offensive innuendo.
February 19, 2014
Please Don’t Spew!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
Apart from the above over-the-top market hype, readers should take careful note of the so called ‘green spine’ that is to serve as public open space and a pedestrian ‘carriage way’ to public transport. No amount of pretty drawings and promises can hide the fact that:
- No figures are given for overall AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE within the precinct
- Width of entrance via Kambrook Road is barely enough to swing a couple of cats through – 9.6 metres which will in effect be reduced once ‘plantings’ go in.
- No mention is made of the ‘canyon effect’ and resulting potential for wind tunnels
- Glossy pictures of tall new vegetation leave us unimpressed given that much of this ‘green spine’ will be in shadow for much of the day – see diagram below.
February 18, 2014
FYI
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[9] Comments
PS: Below is a map produced by Monash Uni of Melbourne’s ‘vulnerable’ areas to heat exposure. Readers will see that Carnegie, major parts of Bentleigh East, and the Caulfield North areas even before the 2046 dwellings arrive as part of the Caulfield Village, are given the highest danger ratings. And all this whilst Glen Eira Council still refuses to introduce a Significant Tree Register that actually has some bite and prevents moonscaping. This map also highlights how planning has directly contributed to this via the inequities of Minimal Change versus Housing Diversity. See: http://www.mappingvulnerabilityindex.com/home/melbournevi
February 16, 2014
Section 173 ‘Agreement’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
On the 28th April 2011, the select group of 4 councillors passed a resolution that a Section 173 Agreement be entered into with the MRC. It is our contention that:
- This Agreement must be redrafted and renegotiated PRIOR to any approval of the Development Plan
- The existing Agreement represents a financial windfall for the MRC and a burden on Glen Eira ratepayers.
Here is what the Agreement states:
- Certain infrastructure requirements are listed as ‘Required Infrastructure Projects’ and pertain almost exclusively to land within the boundaries of the Incorporated Plan – apart from traffic management at the corner of Koornang and Station Street and as listed in the works contained in Schedule 2.
- ‘Additional Infrastructure Projects’ is defined as being tied in with Part 3B of the Planning and Environment Act. Since this part of the legislation refers to Development Contributions, and Council has removed this section from its Planning Scheme, there is no way for council to exact payment from the MRC for anything ‘additional’ without the MRC’s agreement.
What the Agreement ensures is that approval for its Development Plan (even with conditions) comes first! Then there is the necessary argey bargey for ‘additional infrastructure’ works. In other words, Council is signing a blank cheque! Having approved the Development Plan, they would then need to go cap in hand and ask the MRC for ‘additional infrastructure works’. Nothing would compel the MRC to agree with any such request once they have got their Development Plan approved.
Here’s some extracts:
The development of the land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan will generate a need for certain infrastructure to be provided. Some of that infrastructure is identifiable as at the date of this Agreement while the need for other infrastructure may only become apparent upon the approval of development plans under the Schedule to the Priority Development Zone.
Required Infrastructure Projects means infrastructure works not included in Schedule 2 that are fairly and reasonably required as a result of the development of the Subject Land under the Planning Scheme and which are included as a conditlon in the approval of a development plan or a planning permit pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Priority Development Zone.
We then get to Additional Infrastructure Projects with the wonderful ‘escape clause’ for the MRC –
the Additional Infrastructure Projects may benefit other land owners in the vicinity of the Subject Land and that it may be fair, just and equitable for contributions for the provision of this infrastructure to be provided by other persons in addition to the Owner.
if, at any time, Council introduces a development contributions plan, pursuant to Part 38 of the Act or otherwise, then any payment made by way of contribution for an Additional Infrastructure Project may be credited towards any payments required for works, services or facilities pursuant to the development contributions plan.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that:
7.1.1 the plans and specifications required for the Required Infrastructure Projects are intended to facilitate works to a standard required only by the development of the Subject Land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan and not to a standard required to compensate for any inadequacy in the infrastructure that currently services existing developments or as a result of development on any other land.
7.1.3 the amount of contribution required for the Additional Infrastructure Projects will be determined as far as practicable having regard to the principles developed through relevant Victorian law which would apply to the assessment of a contribution pursuant to an approved development contributions plan under the Act.
COMMENTS
Approving any Development Plan without first analysing the overall potential impact on surrounding areas and demanding adequate compensation is sheer folly. It is simply not good enough that the Transport Plan only looks at a handful of adjoining streets and totally ignores the flow on effects of 2046 units and 13,500 square metres of retail/commercial space.
It is also not good enough that in catering for a possible 2046 units that the MRC be responsible for drainage and other service infrastructure ONLY within the bounds of the Precincts and expect residents to pay for the additional necessary upgrading of infrastructure that exists outside of the land’s borders.
Here we have a Section 173 that is not only reliant on the MRC agreeing to pay for anything that someone might struggle to define as ‘reasonable’ but is largely reliant on a Development Contributions Levy which does not exist and even if it did exist would not go anywhere in meeting the costs of the additional infrastructure that is undoubtedly required.
For this situation we can thank our brilliant ‘negotiating’ team of Newton, Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. Having stuffed up once before, it is imperative that this not happen again. Development Plan approval must come after a fully detailed and updated Agreement that itemises all necessary works throughout the entire 3 precincts and all the surrounding areas. Ratepayers should not be subsidising the profit making enterprises of any developer.
February 13, 2014
How To Sell A Lemon?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
The extracts featured below, all come (verbatim) from the officer’s report tabled in the minutes of 12th August 2002 on Amendment C25 – ie. the brainchild for the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change carve up of the municipality. Admittedly, it can be argued that times are different and that things have changed. What CANNOT be argued is that this Amendment was sold to residents on the basis of promises that have never been kept. Now we are lumbered with the new Residential Zones that (without community consultation or even forewarning) were rushed through in secret on the basis of Amendment C25.
Please note: the 80/20 Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy is not only a dud but iniquitous. Housing diversity has grown and grown. Yet this was supposed to be ‘sufficient’ to cater for some nebulous population figures. What we now have is rapid creep into Minimal Change Areas where streets that were predominantly single storey and single dwelling are being transformed into 2 double storey dwellings on various lot sizes. Remember that Council, unlike others, has not limited the size for subdivision! Instead they are working on another amendment to allow more dwellings on larger lot sizes regardless of the fact that these are in Minimal Change.
The ‘proof’ that the 80/20 split is a myth and not working is provided by council itself. Buried in very small print in the Quarterly Report from September 2013, there is this staggering admission – ” 56% of dwellings approved were in Housing Diversity Areas”. So much for 80/20! And it’s getting worse! The rush is on for infill and that means Minimal Change. Yet, residents were told and dare we say ‘promised’, the following in relation to Amendment c25 which set this all up – (we’ve omitted comments regarding open space and that old chestnut – a Significant Tree Register!)
A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:
- Exceed prevailing building heights
- Dominate the street scape
- Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
- Result in the loss of landscaped front yards (all in accordance with the standards of ResCode)
The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.
Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reduction in open space, cr parking standards, etc.
Traffic and parking
While critically important to the viability and functioning of any commercial centre and character of residential areas, traffic and parking issues largely sit outside the jurisdiction of the planning scheme local policy. The proposed policy, therefore, does not attempt to comprehensively address existing or anticipated traffic and parking issues…..ResCode provides parking standards for residential development The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledges that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.
There’s much, much more in these papers, but readers will have got the overall gist by now. The take home message is absolutely clear:
- Promises have never been kept much less delivered
- The 80/20 carve up is failing and will only get worse – dwellings are NOT going into Housing Diversity, but increasingly into Minimal Change.
- Traffic, parking, open space identified as major concerns over a decade ago has not been addressed.
February 11, 2014
The Leader: C60
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[19] Comments
February 9, 2014
C60: ‘Little Boxes, Little Boxes……’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
PRECINCT 1 (with more to come!)
442 dwellings comprising 5 buildings and 8 double storey townhouses that are either 3 or 2 bedroom.
|
BUILDING |
HEIGHT |
ONE BEDROOM |
TWO BEDROOM |
THREE BEDROOM |
| 1A | 6 storeys |
29 |
27 |
1 |
| 1B | 6 storeys |
65 |
29 |
9 |
| 2A | 5 storeys |
36 |
24 |
0 |
| 2B | 4 storeys |
34 |
8 |
4 |
| 3A | 5 storeys |
88 |
66 |
14 |
| TOTAL |
252 |
154 |
28 |
THUS 58% OF PROPOSED NEW DWELLINGS ARE SINGLE BEDROOM! Only 28 dwellings (excluding the 8 townhouses) will be 3 bedroom apartments, equalling a paltry 6.45%!
How many of these little boxes will have direct sunlight is never clearly enunciated. Instead we have such qualifications as – Where possible, new dwellings have been orientated to achieve optimum solar access to balconies and internal living areas. We can only surmise that this means that most bedrooms will be devoid of natural light!
PS: For those with an eye for looking at plans, we’ve included a ‘snap shot’ from part of the Development Plan which is repeated throughout. Please note at the top right hand corner the size of apartment and the size of balcony – a miniscule 4.0 sq. metres. This should be read in light of the following Age article where the City of Melbourne is considering plans to ensure that apartments do not become chicken coops because of size and where London has enforced a 50sq.m minimum size for one bedroom places. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-considers-minimum-floor-size-for-citys-shrinking-apartments-20130727-2qrhi.html
February 7, 2014
Trees: The New ‘Endangered Species’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
Another mature tree (if not more) is to go in order to make way for more concrete plinths and car park. This time at Princes Park. The cost to ratepayers (at this stage anyway) is $388,000+ according to the response to a public question at last council meeting.
We are not decrying the need for upgrades or improving areas that need it. What we are decrying is the potentially wanton waste of public money without justification. This section of Princes Park HAS been ‘redeveloped’ in recent times – a new pavilion, 3 new car parks, plenty of yellow brick roads, and ‘landscaping’.
More importantly, anecdotal evidence suggests that this Dover St car park is never full – even on weekends when sport is being played. Residents have not been provided with any data that would support the potential expansion of the car park or its surrounds. What surveys have been undertaken? What monitoring has been done in the past 5 years? Where is there any quantifiable ‘evidence’ that ripping out more trees, and putting in more paths is ‘essential’? And if a new yellow brick road is about to appear parallel to the existing roadway, then what does this say about that recent argument of ‘safety buffers’ that justified the ripping out of countless trees in Caulfield Park, since the proposed new pathway will be running close to current sporting grounds. The arguments put up in defence of the Caulfield Park carnage would appear to be cancelled by what we assume is about to happen at Princes Park. And the final clincher, – how much further open space will be lost to bitumen, concrete, and car parks?
Nor does any of this explain why the public cannot be privy to ‘consultation’ and access to the actual plans or designs. Have councillors ever clapped eyes on the plans? Have they really done their fiduciary duty and considered whether such ‘developments’ are worth the cost, much less needed? Or have they simply bowed their heads and said ‘yes sir, whatever you say sir! How high should we jump sir’?
Here are some photos taken in the past few days of the area.
Glen Eira Debates 