GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 5, 2012

Patronising, Paternalistic & Pathetic!

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

Tonight’s council meeting was an absolute marathon. For this first report on the evening we will concentrate on only 1 item – the Akehurst report on the new Planning Zones. We’ve chosen to highlight this agenda item because it epitomises fully what is wrong with our council and the majority of its councillors. As per usual, the evening descended into grand farce revealing incompetence, spin, unbelievable arrogance and an attitude that was both patronising and insulting to residents. This is what happened.

Esakoff moved to accept the report plus the addition of the point that the motion only relates to the potential Council submission to the Minister’s review. Seconded by Pilling. Esakoff began by stating how fortunate this council was by already having in place the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change area zones. Her address was basically a regurgitation of the Akehurst report (verbatim in parts). There was no real mention of the loss of third party rights to object but the jargon of ‘as of rights’ and repeated verbatim the party line that ‘third party rights are not changing’.

PILLING: thought that there are a ‘lot of good points’ in that there will be surety about ‘height’ and that with council’s current policy there will be ‘a reasonable good fit’ with the government’s proposals. Emphasised the ‘similarities’ between the proposed zones and council’s planning policies and that ‘it can be made to work’.

MAGEE: spoke about the mixed use zone and that ‘the devil will be in the detail as to what’s allowed’….’can turn into being a 6, 7, or eight storey development in those zones’….’that’s where this council needs to be very careful’. Wondered why the government put the deadline date for submissions at 21st September and the results will be available after the election. Said he saw both ‘good points’ and ‘concerns’ but detail is lacking but ‘all in all I think it’s welcomed’.

TANG: called it a ‘double edged sword’ in that it did involve a loss of third party rights and council rights. Said that places of worship up to 250 square metres could now go in without third party rights. Said these are ‘quite drastic changes’ but the good points are that these are ‘cutting through angst, bureaucracy’ and therefore not dealing with uncertainty anymore. Now there’s also mandatory height limit and ‘that’s something that council has been crying out about for years’. Said that all councils around Victoria have been asking for mandatory height controls (OUR COMMENT – EXCEPT GLEN EIRA!!!!!). Thought that residents would also ‘appreciate having that certainty as well’.Spoke about the commercial zones claiming that Glen Eira has graduated zones but this introduces just one zone for everything and ‘high density as of right’ which means that ‘you could be in Mackie Road and faced with high density’ …..’of 5 or 7 storieys in one of these local centres’. Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’. Froesahdowed that this be put on council’s website and invite submissions from residents and alerting them to the government website and that submissions close on 21st September. (OUR COMMENT: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER COUNCILS HAVE BEEN HOLDING RESIDENTS’ MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR WEEKS NOW!)‘ No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.

HYAMS: ‘lot about this which is good’…’lot about this which does raise concerns’. VCAT will now have to apply zones and not only consider them ‘it will give us a lot more certainty’. Said that there’s uncertainty whether the government will apply the commericial zones immediately. Said he attended a mayoral and ceo forum last week and the Minister was present to take questions which he dealt with. Hyams asked Minister about high density being allowed in commercial zones. Said that the MInister responded by saying that it would still need ‘to go through the permit process’  but that Hyams then made the point that where there’s higher density allowed that would be what vcat would apply. Stated that the Minister ‘suggested that we have a chat about it afterwards’ and that they’re trying to tee up a meeting. So none of this should be seen ‘as a done deal’. Thought that this was the ‘basis of a good submission’.

TANG: moved amendment that this be published on council’s website and promoting a link to the department’s website with contact details.

Hyams then asked Esakoff if this amendment was ‘acceptable. She then asked a question of Akehurst

ESAKOFF: ‘given the time structures here’ whether the amendment is feasible?

AKEHURST: Said that time is an ‘issue’ because that only leaves 17 days. Said that he had ‘waded through the new zones’ himself and that he was pretty familiar with the proposals  ‘it does take a little getting over the top of what is in the zones’. If this was going out to the general public then he wasn’t sure ‘whether there is going to be adequate time to get across the substance’. Repeated that a ‘zone is really a tool’ and isn’t important until it’s applied and ‘we’re not at that stage yet, we’re not at stage 2’. So if there’s to be public involvement ‘it wouldn’t be at stage 1’. Public should only be involved ‘when you apply the zones’.

Tang then asked about a point of order whether you can put questions before seconding  an amendment. Hyams responded that this isn’t covered by the local law. Penhallurick then offered to second the amendment. Esakoff then removed her seconding of the amendment and said that she would take this to ‘a wider discussion of all councillors’. Penhalluriack then seconded.

TANG: said that we’ve ‘got 2 weeks’ and that with the new website it should be pretty simple to put up the links and the Akehurst paper. Said that he didn’t expect ‘all residents to be across the technicalities of the zones’ but residents could use the paper itself in order to understand the zones. Said the jargon has been translated for councillors anyway so residents should also be able to understand it. Foresahdowed another question about the ability of the Minister to implement some of the zones without ‘recourse to council’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not difficult to put on the website’…’knowledge is power’ and even if there are only 2 people who are interested ‘why should we withhold’ this?

TANG: asked Akehurst if he knew whether it was within the power of the Minister to implement the zones without further recourse to council and further consultation?

AKEHURST: said that ‘the issue of implementation has great lack of detail’. Said that he’d spoken with senior people and no-one knew how this would be done and thought the minister was waiting for results from submissions. Thought that government ‘is keen to advance commercial zones’ and that ‘they may come in without consultation’. On the residential zones he thought that ‘councils would be given some time’ and that ‘Glen Eira has got a head start’ on implementing these because of its housing diversity/minimal change zones.

LIPSHUTZ: said that after listening to Akehurst he realised that these zones are something ‘that is still very much up in the air’ and that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.

ESAKOFF: also had ‘concerns’ and thought that only a very small percentage of the community ‘would look at our website on a regular basis’….’it could look a little bit mischievous on our part’ if we consulted with the community on something that isn’t consultable (ie if the minister brings in the commercial zones without consulting councils). Doubted ‘very much’ if the time to consult ‘is now’.

Hyams asked Akehurst if the submissions to government are only from councils or also from the public.

AKEHURST: ‘That’s a good question. They’re on the website….but I’m not sure’ whether people are aware. Hyams again asked if the public are invited to make submissions. Akehurst didn’t know. A member of the gallery informed them ‘it does’!

HYAMS: said that the amendment should be supported because if the government is taking submissions then ‘we should be facilitating that’….’I certainly don’t think there’s any harm to that’. Also said that if the government was going to bring in the zones ‘straight away’ then ‘this is the only opportunity’ to have a say. Whilst not everyone looks at the website those who do are ‘more likely to make a submission’.

ESAKOFF: asked the question that if the vote is in favour that this be ‘inserted on our electronic consultation letter – if that’s the right name for it'(!!!!!!!)

HYAMS: asked that this be an amendment. Tang seconded and was carried unanimously.

TANG: moved another amendment that this be advertised in both Leader newspapers. Pilling seconded.

PENHALLURIACK: said that the next Leader comes out on the 11th and that would be ‘insufficenct time’ and that council would be wasting its money.

ESAKOFF: asked when the next edition was coming out and the deadline for advertising.

BURKE: Thursday

HYAMS: asked Burke if the community column in the Leader had already been finalised?

Amendment was put and carried. The motion with the 3 amendments was then put and carried unanimously

COMMENT: It’s quite staggering that after years and years as councillors and the lauding of the ‘consultation/engagement policy’ that the difference between information provision and consultation seems to be lost on most of these individuals. Other councils obviously saw no problem with ALERTING their residents to what is happening. This is the first stage of any consultation – accurate, timely, and comprehensive information provision. Glen Eira showed no interest in doing any of this. Now at the 11th hour we suddenly have several pangs of conscience. Even this though is tinged with a paternalistic and patronising hue – ie. we poor residents will be incapable of understanding such a complex matter. It will only ‘frighten’ us! For this residents should read – we don’t want community involvement. Lipshutz and Esakoff in particular should be ashamed of themselves in our view! As for the rest of the councillors, why didn’t they insist that this occur way back in July?

 

September 4, 2012

Welcome To Leggo Land!

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

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

September 4, 2012

Selling For A Song!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Council is about to sell just under 100 square metres of its land to the MRC for the paltry figure of $140,000. Stuck in the middle of the current car park it is admittedly useless to Council but extremely important to the MRC. This is where the 4 storey buildings are to go.

This leads us on to several important questions:

  • Has council ever received ‘rent’ from the MRC for this land?
  • Why wasn’t this discovered when the C60 was being planned?
  • This is the second time that odd little pieces of land are changing hands. What does this say about the planning department’s fingers on the pulse and their vigilance?
  • Why is Council prepared to sell this 100 sq metres for a song? Most real estate experts value the price of land in this area as between $2,000 – $2,500 per square metre if not more. That would make it at least double what council is prepared to sell for. Why and how has this bargain basement figure been determined?

 

 

September 3, 2012

Fact & Fiction

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Fact & Fiction 

Many councils are now publishing their draft submissions to the Minister’s planning changes. It’s therefore fascinating to compare the rose-coloured spin presented by Akehurst and his bosses with what other councils see as major problems. Below is the City of Yarra’s response from the upcoming September 4th agenda papers. We urge readers to compare and contrast this vision with the PollyAnna scenarios presented by Glen Eira. Of most concern is the removal of third party objection rights. It’s also worthy of repeating that countless other councils have met with resident groups (as has Yarra) and organised ‘information evenings’ in order to fully inform residents of the potential ramifications of these draft proposals. Again, this has not happened in Glen Eira! Here are some extracts from the Yarra Council response –

” A preliminary assessment of the new zones indicates a major reduction in the capacity for Council to control some aspects of new development and land use, as the proposals generally increase the land uses in the ‘no permit required’ category. Two of the proposed residential zones propose ‘no permit required’ for smaller shops, cafés and offices within 100 metres of a commercial zone or mixed use zone and for a medical centre up to 250sqm anywhere in the zone.

The implementation of the proposed new residential zones presents Council with some complex choices about where and how to apply them. These zones include scope for mandatory height limits and variable restrictions on a range of building form and subdivision matters. The proposals do not indicate, however, the strategic justification required to support Council proposals.

In all three proposed Residential Zones no permit is required for medical centres (up to a floor area of 250sqm). This is far less restrictive than currently, where a planning permit is needed in a Residential 1 Zone. This will remove the capacity to control operating hours and other aspects of operation which might impact on local amenity.

The changes to this zone are significant and include a new objective ‘to provide for housing at higher densities’. The range of no permit required land uses has increased and the scope to specify the limits to floor-space has been removed from the Schedule to the zone.

The economic and amenity implications from these proposals include potentially undermining the viability of strip shopping centres, local traffic impacts in residential streets and conflicts between household amenity and nuisance and pollution from neighbouring cafes and shops. If no permit is required, there is no scope to apply conditions on hours of operation, managing odours and other local impacts.

There are likely to be both intended and unintended impacts from these changes. Some of the implications are difficult to predict. It seems likely that if the new zones come into effect the City of Yarra could potentially change in the following ways:

(a) there will be more small supermarkets in a wide range of fringe commercial / industrial locations;

(b) there will be more shops, cafes and small offices in residential areas on the fringes of commercial areas;

(c) there will be more retail activity outside the existing centres; and

(d) a range of nursing homes, hostels, aged care facilities and other types of accommodation could begin to occur in semi-industrial locations.

While the implications and impacts are not certain it is clear that Council will, as Planning Authority, have much less capacity to control and respond to how the city develops and changes. The new zones also mean that particularly in mixed use neighbourhoods which in many ways characterise Yarra residents, business owners and others with an interest in the future of their city will have much less say or influence over the outcomes.

 

September 2, 2012

Crystal Ball Gazing!

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

It is quite clear that this administration and its lackey councillors have absolutely no intention of either listening to residents or changing the direction of its planning policy. Item after item for Tuesday night’s council meeting confirms this. It will be more of the same – no consultation, no up-to-date local analysis, and certainly no let up in over development. We come to this conclusion based on the following:

Akehurst’s ‘review’ of the proposed VicSmart legislative changes is overwhelmingly supportive and even self-congratulatory in that the current Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change Areas as practised in Glen Eira will easily be reconfigured into VicSmart. In other words – no change is necessary in Glen Eira –  “It is assumed that there will be an expectation on behalf of the State Government that the new zones will be applied in as neutral way as possible having regard to our existing zones and policies. The strongest likelihood is that this transition from our one existing residential zone (Residential 1 Zone) and policies (Minimal Change/Housing Diversity) to three new residential zones which incorporate our policy intents will be able to occur via a Ministerial (fast track) amendment. If this can be achieved it will occur relatively smoothly and ultimately with an improved outcome”. Of course, what this ‘improved outcome’ will be is not clarified, much less justified and proven. The message however is inescapable – much, much more of the same.

Whereas other councils (Manningham, Boroodara, Kingston to name just a few) can hold information sessions and urge their residents to become involved and put in submissions, all Glen Eira can do is present a self serving report that barely questions the removal of third party rights and other major drawbacks. What we get are nonsense paragraphs such as – “Third party rights (the involvement of neighbours) are not changing. It must be acknowledged however that the flip side of greater land use opportunities for land owner applicants is less involvement by others.”

Next, there’s the C87 Amendment where residents were excluded from having any say prior to the drafting of the Amendment and hence their voices and protests were ruled out of order. Even when the Panel report recommends that Heritage reviews be undertaken PRIOR to removing several properties from Minimal Change Areas and placing them in Housing Diversity, the response is:

This recommendation is not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that a heritage control in a Housing Diversity Area may be perceived as a mixed (stop and go) town planning message, a heritage control would take precedence over potential development opportunities. It is considered that the two planning controls (i.e. heritage and housing diversity) can co-exist. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate for this area along Balaclava Road to change to a Housing Diversity Area(as exhibited). This policy should not impact on the potential for this area to have heritage protection in the future.”

We should also note that the Panel’s urging for Heritage reviews and other Amendments are barely mentioned. No time lines are provided, no sense of urgency detected. In the end, residents shouldn’t hold their breaths. What they can be certain about is that unless most of these councillors are voted out, then this municipality will continue to bend over backwards to support (over) development anywhere. This is the legacy of Newton and his toadies.

 

August 31, 2012

News Flash: GESAC – The Mess Continues!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Hidden away in the agenda for next Council Meeting we find this small paragraph:

“Recently as advised to Councillors, the contractor applied for adjudication pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2001 (Vic) for a sum of $4.2M. Progress with these claims will be disclosed as it occurs”.

Reading between the lines this can only mean one thing – Hansen and Yuncken aren’t taking the withholding of over $4 million in ‘liquidated damages’ lying down. Chances are that not only will they sue for this money but also ask for compensation, interest and god knows what else. The final sum could be millions above the $4M. Then we have to add on legal fees (and these have surely already been accumulating).

Other news on GESAC is that there are still ‘problems’ that need fixing! We also note that in this financial report no mention is made of the GESAC consulting suites and the loss of income. Are we to assume that after months of months of bringing in no income these suites have finally been let, or is it simply that council forgot to mention this item in its report?

PS – In addition to the matters referred to above there are also some other very, very strange goings on according to the Records of Assembly.

  • One item from the 7th August is utterly bewildering and we can only speculate as to its import and reason(s) for being brought up. It reads – “Agenda Item 9.3 – VCAT Watch July 2012 decisions. Amended recommendations to include incorporation into the Code of Conduct”. Checking back to these minutes the VCAT decisions were highly contentious in that one rejected council’s proposal for a 4 storey dwelling and made the order for this to be a 5 storey development. The argument was that this was more in keeping with the obvious intent of council’s planning scheme and policy. So we are left scratching our heads as to why a VCAT decision should suddenly be seen as appropriate, or even relevant for a ‘Code of Conduct’. More importantly is this paving the way for more restrictions to be placed on councillors?
  • From the same Record of Assembly there is: “Cr Forge – Caulfield Racecourse. Said she was of the view that the number of fences appears to have increased with the park development in the racecourse centre” AND there is this one as well: “Cr Penhalluriack – programming a meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Advisory Committee and informed the groups that he had invited one local MP and would invite the MRC. Following discussion it was agreed to defer a meeting of the Advisory Committee until after the next meeting of the Racecourse Trustees.” Wonderful! When was the last time this Advisory Committee met? It’s a relief to know that councillors are so busy doing council work that they can’t even get together in over a year and have to wait on the outcomes of a secret, behind closed doors Trustee meeting before they can even discuss a single thing! These last two items should really fill residents with confidence as to how the entire Racecourse issue is being handled, supervised, and reported upon. In other words – disgracefully!
 

August 31, 2012

Trust Me – I’m A Councillor!

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

The Panel Report on the C87 Amendment is now out (uploaded here). No surprises as to what the recommendations are. But that’s not the end of the story. The story itself would appear to be one of back room manipulation on the part of administrators and councillors. The only plausible excuse that councillors may have is that they are just plain ignorant or stupid, but ultimately compliant with the questionable agendas implemented by this administration. Here is what we know:

  1. Every important draft amendment has been subject to a Council Resolution to forward it on to the Minister for permission to exhibit. Following permission for exhibition, there is the compulsory ‘consultation’ phase, a potential Panel hearing if objections are raised and then the final Council Resolution as to accepting, adapting, or rejecting the Panel report.
  2. With c87 no such formal resolution to seek permission to exhibit from the Minister has ever been passed. The Minister’s approval was however gained in June 2011- we presume under officer delegated powers with no clear, open council resolution supporting it. In other words, residents did not get to see the proposed Amendment until it had already gone off to the Minister – far too late to change anything!
  3. Following the consultation period and the number of objections, both Lipshutz and Hyams encouraged residents who wished to add properties to the list to put in submissions in the hope that the Panel would listen to their objections. Utter nonsense as we stated in previous posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/c87-crocodile-tears/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/move-over-sir-humphrey/). No panel was ever going to exceed its terms of reference, and those terms were set solely by the officers. Hence, we need to ask how honest were both Lipshutz and Hyams in their encouragement of residents to waste their time in writing submissions that would without a shadow of a doubt be ignored? Or perhaps we should ask whether Lipshutz and Hyams were just plain stupid and didn’t know any better? Or were they simply indulging in some political face-saving in order to take the heat off themselves and their colleagues for once again dropping the ball and not exercising their duty to set policy that involved the community at the outset? Or finally, as the examples keep piling up, supporting the administration to the hilt at the expense of residents?
  4. The proposed amendment NEVER gave councillors and residents the right to have any input at the most crucial stage – that is, which properties might be added, removed, etc. The officers’ report in fact stated clearly that once an amendment was exhibited it could not be changed and if properties were to be included then this would involve ANOTHER amendment! Yet Lipshutz and Hyams persisted in telling residents that they should put in their submissions to the very Panel that would reject them. If they did not know that this was a useless exercise, then they should have known. If they did know, and continued to perpetrate this myth, then they should be hauled before a code of conduct panel for deliberately misleading the public!
  5. The upshot is that the community has been duped; councillors have either been duped, or been fully complicit in perpetrating this deceit. It once again illustrates exactly what goes on in this council and how the normal and expected processes are abused, distorted, and manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes that do not in any shape or form benefit the vast majority of residents. In Glen Eira, residents are personae non gratis. Their views do not count, their objections do not count, and their aspirations do not count. All residents are good for is to continue forking out higher and higher rates to cover up poorly managed projects (ie GESAC) that do nothing except serve the gigantic egos and current power structures.

Come election time we urge all residents to take these issues into account when they cast their votes.

 

August 30, 2012

More Lawyers!

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

Rebel Penhalluriack’s hostel charge

SUNDAY trading rebel and Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has been charged by his own council for allegedly running an illegal backpacker hostel.

Cr Penhalluriack could be fined up to $42,000 if convicted.

He yesterday claimed the court action was part of a vendetta by Glen Eira to get him.

The council is also taking a separate action against Cr Penhalluriack in VCAT over alleged misconduct.

It has accused him of bullying the council’s chief executive and community services director, failing to declare a conflict of interest, misusing his position and failing to attend anti-bullying training.

The VCAT hearing was adjourned last week after senior VCAT member Robert Davis disqualified himself from hearing the case because of his association with one of the witnesses.

Cr Penhalluriack was initially fined $1221 by the council over the alleged illegal backpacker hostel. The fine was recently withdrawn and a summons to attend court was issued because the fine wasn’t paid in the specified period.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams yesterday said the council had given Cr Penhalluriack every opportunity to pay the fine.

“He will be treated exactly the same way as any other person … in the same situation,” Cr Hyams said.

“We take these matters very seriously and we have successfully prosecuted others for the same infringement.

“These places are potentially death traps.”

Cr Penhalluriack yesterday denied all of the allegations being made against him in VCAT and also denied he had been running an illegal backpacker hostel.

He recently demolished the building, which was between his hardware store and garden centre in Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield.

He is due to face Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court on the hostel charge on October 10.

Protests by Cr Penhalluriack against a ban on Sunday trading – which saw him jailed for 19 days in 1984 – helped influence changes to weekend trading in 1996.

 

August 29, 2012

News Flash: The Alma Club

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

A huge crowd witnessed the sale of The Alma Club for $7.94 million this afternoon. The buyer will have the opportunity to deduct $330,000 if he wishes to retain the telecommunications pole which is presently sitting on the property. The terms of sale were the handing over of $1 million upon purchase and the rest in June 2013.

Council has once again let the community down badly. Not only has it forsaken an absolute real estate bargain when the asking price was basically $3 million, but they have again shown what a sham the continual cry of lack of open space means to these decision makers – absolutely nothing! Residents need to be asking some very serious questions –

  • why were no real discussions entered into?
  • who made the decision to say ‘no’?
  • why wasn’t this conducted in an open council meeting?
  • is council that cash strapped because of its poor financial management? If so, then how much credence should residents place in the financial statements and budgets?
  • when will these councillors really start taking charge of this municipality and perform their mandated duties instead of leaving practically everything to unelected ‘fat cats’?
 

August 24, 2012

Are We Living In The Dark Ages?

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

We thought it time to have a close look at how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours on up-to-date planning and forward thinking. True to form, most of the central planning policies in Glen Eira date back to the mid or late nineties. Even the promise to include all central policies on council’s website has never materialised. Basically the agenda is ‘business as usual’, with no real updated local analyses, no up-to-date long term articulated vision and certainly no ‘improvements’.

Below we feature the Incorporated/Reference Documents that are listed in the various council planning schemes. We’ve focused on open space, urban design/land use, and heritage. We ask that readers pay particular attention to:

  • The various dates, and
  • The Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009. This is supposedly the document upon which the Amendment removing the child care centres from the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’ was largely founded upon. Yet, it was never mentioned in the officer’s report and has certainly never been placed into the public domain! Another ‘mystery report’ that remains secret and unaccountable.

GLEN EIRA

Glen Eira Long Term Open Space Strategy, City of Glen Eira, 1998

Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan, 1996

Glen Eira Retail / Commercial Strategy, Essential Economics, 1998

Urban Village Structure Plan, Glen Eira City Council, June 1999

Economic Overview, Henshall Hansen & Associates, 1997

City of Glen Eira Business Development Strategy, 1998

Glen Eira 2020, 1996

Housing and Residential Development Strategy, Glen Eira City Council, 2002

Urban Character Study, Anne Cunningham & Anne Keddie, 1996

Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009.

KINGSTON

Retail and Commercial Development Strategy 2006

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage One Report”, Living Histories, 2000

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage Two”, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, 2004

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006 

STONNINGTON

Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007- 2031, City of Stonnington, December 2007.

City of Stonnington, Public Realm Strategy, October 2010

Commercial Strategy: Stonnington City Council, 1999

Forrest Hill Structure Plan; Stonnington City Council, 2005

Heritage Guidelines; Stonnington City Council, 2002

Heritage Overlay Citations; Stonnington City Council (various dates)

Late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: measuring the saturation levels Research Paper, April 2010

Prahran Conservation Study: Conservation Controls; Nigel Lewis, 1983

Prahran Data Base: Prahran Conservation Study Listing; Nigel Lewis, 1992

Prahran Character and Conservation Study; Prahran City Council, 1992

Review of Policies and Controls for the Yarra River Corridor – Punt Road to Burke Road; Consultant Report, June 2005

Stonnington Open Space Strategy; Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd, 2000

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History, 2006

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History: Update 1 Addendum, March 2009

City of Stonnington Heritage Overlay Gap Study, Heritage Overlay Precincts Final Report, March 2009

Urban Design Strategy; Stonnington City Council, 1998

Waverley Road Urban Design Framework Plan, 2008

PORT PHILLIP

Sustainable Design Policy (2006)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Implementation Plan (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Strategy (2006)

Port Phillip Industry and Business Strategy (2003)

Open Space Strategy (2006, Revised 2009)

Open Space Strategy Implementation Plan Framework (2009)

Foreshore Management Plan (2004)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Design Manual (2000)

South Melbourne Central Structure Plan (2007)

South Melbourne Central Urban Design Framework (2007)

Ormond Road Urban Design Guidelines (2007)

Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2010 (SJB Urban, 2010)

Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2009)

Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework (2009)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »