GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 14, 2016

Is This Why No Structure Plan For Elsternwick?

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

ABC Television studio building in Elsternwick up for sale

Jordy Atkinson, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

November 14, 2016 3:35pm

THE ABC has put its Elsternwick property on the market as productions move to its new Southbank studios.

The 6155sq m property, on the corner of Selwyn and Sinclair streets, comprises offices, storage facilities and some of the ABC’s television studios.

Six separate titles make up the property, which is zoned for mixed use and includes a two-level office, several warehouses and a two storey carpark.

The site is within 100m of Elsternwick station, trams and retail facilities along Glenhuntly Rd.

The property is being sold by Savills.

Savills state director Clinton Baxter said the property would attract a “great deal of attention”.

“This is one of those exceptional properties which very rarely hits the market,” he said.

“In this case favourable mixed use zoning, abundant surrounding amenity including retail, public transport, bay beaches and numerous prestigious schools, coupled with a levelled site with superb access from several street frontages.”

Mr Baxter said the buildings dated back to the 1950s and offered a wide range of potential uses in “what is one of the best and most highly credentialed development locations in Melbourne”.

The property will be sold following an expressions of interest process, which closes on December 6.

Savills would not reveal how much the property was expected to fetch.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/abc-television-studio-building-in-elsternwick-up-for-sale/news-story/383f1f9b862c4a641254c7a3dee6c7b7

November 12, 2016

Open Space Decision Making!

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

The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –

What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?

We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.

November 10, 2016

North Road Skyrail

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

Ormond ‘sky tower’: call to cut car parking from project to boost train use

Adam Carey

A 13-storey tower proposed to be built on top of Ormond railway station could have minimal car parking to encourage its expected 600 residents to use public transport.

The car park would also be designed so that it could one day be converted to other potential uses, such as housing or office space, planning documents for the “vibrant transport hub” in Melbourne’s south-east show.

Level crossing removal fast tracked

The removal of level crossings is fast tracked just one day after the Victorian government received a huge cash boost.

The Andrews government wants to build the first high-rise building in low-rise Ormond, on railway land freed up by the recent removal of the North Road level crossing, to recover some of the costs of its $6 billion grade separation project.

The proposed high-density apartment, office and retail development is the first of several such projects likely to spring up along Melbourne’s rail lines in the next few years, as an add-on to the government’s program of 50 level crossing removals by 2022.

New details about the Ormond development have been published ahead of a planning panel hearing scheduled for February.

The hearing will give the public and the project’s proponent, the Level Crossing Removal Authority, the chance to debate the final form the project should take before approval is granted. A deadline of December 9 has been set for submissions.

The proposal has not been universally embraced by Ormond residents, some of whom have set up a lobby group against it.

No Ormond Sky Tower spokeswoman Vivian Shannon said the government had alienated residents by failing to be up front about its plans for the site.

“If they had been transparent and said at the start, this is what we’re proposing, I don’t think they would have the backlash that they are going to get now,” Ms Shannon said.

The government did not announce its plan to build above Ormond station until after it had removed the North Road level crossing, leaving it to eagle-eyed observers to notice a large concrete deck being constructed over the tracks.

“We understand it makes sense that along the rail corridor that is where you’re going to have most development, but 13 storeys and access only from the two side streets is completely inappropriate,” Ms Shannon said.

The LXRA has contracted property developers DealCorp to produce a proposal for Ormond station.

The building is slated to have about 220 apartments that will house about 600 people, plus a supermarket and a handful of smaller businesses. An adult book shop has been ruled out in the proposal.

Construction of the building is due to start in 2018 and finish in 2021, the documents state.

It would generate between 660 and 800 extra car journeys a day, according to traffic modelling, and traffic speeds along North Road would be expected to slow by about 4 km/h as a result.

The traffic analysis, by GTA Consultants, also recommends that the development should break with statutory car parking requirements and have a “lower than standard” number of spaces, given it will sit above a station on the busy Frankston line.

Instead, 650 car parks would be included across four levels, with 120 of those reserved for commuters using Ormond station.

The building would be tallest at its southern end, facing North Road, and would taper down to five to six storeys at the northern end of the site, which would face onto quieter streets with detached houses.

The development will also generate 285 new jobs and about $67 million in retail sales in 2021-22, the first full year it is expected to be open, according to analysis for the project.

Traffic queues as a train crosses North Road in 2015, before the level crossing was removed. Photo: Simon O’Dwyer

But one expert on railway stations criticised the Ormond proposal for being “underwhelming” in its intention to encourage its residents to use public transport, given it would still have hundreds of parking spaces.

Chris Hale, a sustainable transport consultant, said that given billions were being spent removing level crossings, communities and local governments “are rightly expecting meaningful outcomes in the realms of local transformation and urban renewal”.

“Passengers want better station facilities and more convenient access to rail, beyond parking,” Dr Hale said.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ormond-sky-tower-call-to-cut-car-parking-from-project-to-boost-train-use-20161110-gsm7e9.html

November 8, 2016

Delahunty Elected Mayor

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

Congratulations to Mary Delahunty on being elected unopposed as the new Glen Eira mayor this evening. Jim Magee was elected deputy mayor for a period of two years.

Delahunty’s acceptance speech set a new tone for this council, and again we congratulate her on this.

The highlights of her acceptance speech were:

that the 5 new councillors were being given a unique opportunity to work for the community. The job comes with opportunity but also challenges.
dedicated to leading a ‘cohesive council and achieving the goals of our community’
wanted council to be ‘strategic’ and ‘showing the rest of the state what local government can be’ in terms of being a good employer, and having services that ‘are meaningful to the community’m ‘environmentally’ responsible and a council that ‘deals with fiscal responsibilities’ but with a ‘social benefit’. Plus, ‘we can be an absolute force when it comes to community advocacy’.
Had ‘faith’ that the ‘diversity around this table will lead to good community outcomes’ and that councillors will ‘respect each other’, the process, ‘this chamber’ and ‘the people who put us here’.
There’s the need to make sure that all people ‘feel welcomed and have a voice on council’.
There will be opportunities and challenges such as the level crossing removal and making sure that ‘in a constructive way we are putting the best interests of the community forward’. Noted the 2016 Community Satisifaction Survey where there were a ‘few areas’ where ‘people were happy’ but other areas where they weren’t. Of ‘great concern to our community is the intensity of development’ and ‘we have to be more forceful’ and ‘proactive’. Council has to now concentrate on the necessary strategic work and on consulting and protecting heritage and trees. ‘We have to bring the voices of the people into the process’.
‘Good financial management’ whilst important is not an ‘end goal’. They are ‘enablers’ for ‘progress’
The racecourse is still an issue and thanked Magee for his work on this. But ‘we will finally put this right’.
The ‘community has voted for some change and I’m sure we can deliver that’. ‘We need to be the community representatives but with a strategic mandate’ and ‘we need to make as many opportunities as possible to hear from the residents’ and to ‘adopt a learning posture at all times’. The Local Law doesn’t allow this but does allow the mayor to have ‘discretion’ in deciding what can be asked. ‘I intend to exercise this discretion for 15 minutes’ from the next public meeting (applause).
On councillor allowances she will be ‘directing’ that a ‘portion’ of the mayoral allowance be used to fund family violence strategies. Said that as the level of government closest to ‘the people’ that Council needs to ‘play a leading role’ in the safety of the community.

Ended up by thanking family and friends.

November 3, 2016

Letters To The Editor

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

November 1, 2016

Leopards Don’t Change Their Spots!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

We’ve pinched part of a dialogue from the Facebook page of the Glen Eira Residents’ Action Group, featuring Newton Gatoff and Jamie Hyams.

HYAMS: It’s (election results) not unbelievable when you look at the latest community satisfaction survey, which is run by the State Government and therefore independent of Council. 56% said Council’s performance was very good or good and 11% said it was poor or very poor (32% said it was average and 1% didn’t know). The survey represents all age groups and suburbs.

GATOFF: I’m not sure the “community satisfaction survey” is borne out by the election result, but when a community elects a majority of new Councillors, it tends to reflect a call for change – In Kingston where the Council had structure plans, collaborative community decision-making and transparent Council meetings, the electorate re-elected every incumbent who stood. Yes, there are many good things being done by good Officers in Glen Eira who get well paid to perform. The Councillors can save their chest-beating for when we have a planning scheme which is fair and a level of governance which responds to the vocal minority. This is not a private club membership; it is an honourable non-executive role which should be performed with sincerity and humility but above all in reflection of the community’s wishes. So congratulations Jamie, you were re-elected again, and I for one will be calling on all three of my ward Councillors to give as much airtime to residents who need your help as you do to celebrating statistics. My commiserations to you Neil, it is not a generous process and I realise how hard it can be 1st time around, but I would invite you to remain a voice of sense and reason in whichever municipality you find yourself in.

HYAMS: Responding specifically to Newton, yes there were only four incumbents returned, but Michael Lipshutz resigned, Kelvin Ho had only been a councillor for a few months, Oscar generally didn’t identify with Council’s successes and while Thomas was a valued and constructive councillor, as an endorsed Greens councillor, his fortunes were more closely tied to the regard voters had for his party. That leaves only five of us whose re-election reflected the community regard for the Council, and four of us were re-elected. It was a great shame that Neil Pilling, who was a fair and diligent councillor who had the respect of his colleagues, was not returned.

Newton, having read your recent and earlier posts, and also listened to your performance on J-Air radio, there seems to be a theme that the wider community doesn’t really know what’s good for them, so Council should listen to the “vocal minority”. I find this to be quite elitist and undemocratic. I’m on council to represent the whole community, not just those who make the most noise. You also attack us for having implemented height limits in all residential zones, and for not having structure plans, the main feature of which would be height limits, in commercial zones. I would think that you can complain either about us having height limits or not having them, but when you complain about both, you just appear to be criticising us for the sake of it.

You say we brought in the zones without consultation and should therefore apologise, but the zones were the direct result of consultation in the form of the 2010/11 Planning Scheme Review, and apart from one block in Caulfield North, it was a direct translation from the Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas and Urban Villages to the corresponding Zones. I refer you to my earlier more detailed post on this issue, posted on 10 October. Councils tend not to consult when implementing to the letter the result of a previous consultation, and certainly don’t apologise for it.

I agree that we do need structure plans in commercial zones, and implementing these is one of the priorities of our planning scheme review. However, up till recently, our policies generally provided the necessary protection from overdevelopment in these areas, and this only changed when various VCAT members took it upon themselves to disregard these policies.

October 27, 2016

11 Storeys For Elsternwick!

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

22-26 Riddell Parade Elsternwick, has been granted a permit for 11 storeys – no thanks to Council!

Readers should revisit our initial post on the Rocky Camera report (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/another-12-storeys/) where we queried some of the assertions made at the time. Please remember:

Council sold part of its car park to ‘facilitate’ this development!
Much was made of whether or not the entrance to the proposed car park was ‘legal’ and/or ‘safe’. Doesn’t or didn’t Council know who owned what? What does this tell us about their record-keeping, their corporate memory, or the accuracy and fallibility of officer reports?
Elsternwick was omitted from the proposed Amendments C147/8 that covered Bentleigh & Carnegie – though admittedly too late for this application. It is clear that Elsternwick is fair game for developers and we can only wonder what plans Council has for further development – ie ABC studios?

We also wonder why, if so much of the Camera report and the councillors’ refusal was based on demanding safe entry to the basement car park, why these arguments are totally missing in the hearing? Instead, traffic engineering is said to be ‘in agreement’. What happened to all the supposed opposition that council was going to put up on this point? Here are some extracts –

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Pitt tabled a registered Plan of Subdivision (PS7285588C) for Stage 1 that provides for areas of Common Property No. 1 shared by Stage 2 to provide for legal access.
Council did not raise any concerns about the proposed access arrangements at the hearing, however the respondents submitted that the reliance on the existing Stanley Street access point would create congestion. Mr Barnard submitted that alternative access for bicycles and pedestrians could be taken from the northern laneway to reduce the pressure on the Stanley Street access point. He produced a plan illustrating how this might occur. The plan showed relocation of the bike storage to car parks and the reorganisation of the waste storage to provide an opportunity for direct access to the laneway.
The evidence of Mr Fairlie was that the existing access to Stanley Street was acceptable and that the crossover and surrounding street network could accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development. Council’s traffic engineers agreed, also recommending additional site lines in the laneway and some minor changes to the internal layout.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1692.html

We point out another couple of VCAT decisions where council’s refusals amounted to a big fat zero given its planning scheme and the zones.

137-139 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena – VCAT granted a permit for 3 storeys and 27 units
12 Anarth St., Bentleigh East – 2 double storeys side by side
90-94 Mimosa Road – 4 storeys, 47 units.

October 19, 2016

Residents Speak!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

Gary Max interview with 2 Glen Eira Residents on elections, and council performance

PS: The minutes for Monday night’s special council meeting have now been published on council’s website. We believe that an all time record has been set in that the meeting lasted exactly 3 minutes to ratify the most important document that a council can produce – the Annual Report! Both Delahunty and Lobo were absent.

The stuff ups with minutes still continue however. Item 4.1 states that the item under consideration is the Councillor Code of Conduct. Yet when it comes to the actual nominated 4.1, it is on the Annual Report. Would whoever is doing the minutes please, oh please, proof read and ensure that what goes out to the public is accurate and a true record of what occurred!

October 18, 2016

More Electioneering: Magee & Hyams!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

Small McKinnon street sandwiched by large developments

Sam Bidey, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

October 18, 2016 12:00am

PEOPLE living in a small McKinnon street feel they are being overrun by major developments which are changing their neighbourhood character.

Foster St runs parallel to Claire St, where a three-storey 33 apartment block is set to be built, and adjacent to Adelaide St, where a 34 unit, three-storey dwelling has just been approved by Glen Eira City Council.

All but two of the original homes on Claire St have been snapped up by developers who have taken advantage of the new zones which allow a three-storey height limit.

Steve Toth, who has lived in Foster St for 21 years, fought against both the builds that will leave him and his neighbours sandwiched between two major developments.

Mr Toth said he was more understanding about the need for developments than most of his neighbours, but was put off by the size and style of the builds.

“I accept that we are a developing suburb but there has to set backs and it doesn’t have to look so industrial,” Mr Toth said.

“The side facing me (of the Adelaide St development) which is the one I can comment on — looks like the back end of a power station and that’s something we don’t like.”

Mr Toth said the “butt ugly” building proposed from Adelaide St took away from the character of the neighbourhood.

“If you have a look at Adelaide St now you have five of the most unique, nice houses with each one creative and each one different.

“That’s what I find very disappointing — there are five beautiful houses and now we’ll get Lego land in their place.”

Councillors Jamie Hyams and Jim Magee opposed the Adelaide St development at last week’s council meeting.

Cr Hyams said the proposal was “out of touch” with the character of the opposite side of the road and surrounding streets.

He suggested it would be more appropriate if the townhouses were two stories nearest the street with a setback to a third story at the rear of the block.

Mr Magee said the main issue was VCAT would always allow these developments unless the State Government introduced legislation to make them apply the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to their decisions.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/small-mckinnon-street-sandwiched-by-large-developments/news-story/a76b62771c7802de6952cba8c26a9d91

COMMENT

We have had a gut full of the hypocrisy, contradictions, and straight out mistruths that this council and in particular Hyams and Magee keep inflicting on residents via their statements. This is an election period and current councillors are definitely panicking – most noticeably in Tucker Ward. The blame VCAT game continues, as does the promulgation of half truths and deceptions.

Shortly after the zones were introduced, Magee on one application in Centre Road Bentleigh, voted for a permit whilst saying – MAGEE: He will support the application because ‘you can support it without liking it’ and ‘developer does have the right’ to go for ‘the maximum’ and ‘the planning scheme allows that’. So that’s the policy and he will ‘support it’.

VCAT has not set the ‘maximum’ – it is council and its zoning of properties in the GRZ or RGZ. Developers go for broke because of the zoning and because VCAT must resort to what the planning scheme says!

As for Hyams, we repeat his statements from before the introduction of the zones and after their introduction. Contradiction and opportunism certainly don’t appear to worry this councillor who, we remind readers, played an integral part in the introduction of the zones in the first place!

Prior to the secret and devious introduction of the new zones, which is repeatedly heralded as Glen Eira’s crowning achievement strictly because of its height limits, Hyams proclaimed the following (dates are from our postings)

HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (from our post of 6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.)

Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement –

Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)

October 17, 2016

Chickens Finally Come Home To Roost!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

Residents will remember the GESAC basketball allocation fiasco where the Oakleigh Warriors were given the lease of the newly created basketball courts instead of the local McKinnon Basketball group. The arguments presented by Paul Burke at the time were that the Warriors had promised council more money and about 120 hours filled in court time. We also believe that the ombudsman became involved in this decision. Public questions followed, none of which were satisfactorily answered – for example: are the Warriors paying their weekly rental? are they meeting the stated court hours?

Well now it appears that:

Council could be owed thousands and thousands of dollars that the Warriors have not paid on their weekly rent
Bob Mann is now gone
McKinnon Basketball has been granted access to GESAC
Does any of this account for GESAC’s stated loss of $340,000+ from the anticipated income?
What does this say about the ‘business plan’ instituted by Newton, Burke and the councillor group? What ‘evidence’ was supplied at the time to ensure that the Warriors could afford what they promised? and
How much have residents forked out over the years in subsidising another woeful decision from this administration and councillors?
Will this council produce figures that clearly reveal all income and expenditure on GESAC? If not, why not?

Here is the Leader’s version of events –

Oakleigh Basketball Association slammed by messy off-court chaos

Sam Bidey, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

OAKLEIGH Basketball Association is in tatters with financial and governance issues meaning hundreds of children have been forced to leave the league.

The association, which last year had more than 500 junior players, has had its operations put on hold by Basketball Victoria after an inquiry.

Some players have been transferred to the McKinnon Basketball Association, while representative players had the option of trying out with other associations or establishing an Oakleigh team in the McKinnon or Port Phillip associations.

Glen Eira Council reached a deal with McKinnon which will see the association have use of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre basketball courts this season; the courts would usually be used by Oakleigh.

Basketball Victoria manager Stephen Walter said he initially stepped in to resolve a governance issue as two committees had claimed control of the association.

“There were lot of families leaving the club or they just weren’t re-registering; the club had lost critical mass to run a domestic competition,” Mr Walter said.

Tony Pitara, who was president of one of the club committees, said he had identified a tax debt at the club, dating back to 2009 and that was being addressed.

Mr Pitara said he respected Basketball Victoria’s decision, but was confident that had the club sorted out its internal “politics”, it could have found a solid financial footing in two to three seasons.

Karen Wilson, vice-president of the newer committee said she had been informed the debt was in the region of a “manageable” $70,000.

But she said the sacking of the head of coaching had created dissatisfaction and prompted the establishment of the second committee.

Cheltenham mum Rosey Cooke, whose son Andrew had played at Oakleigh for five years, said parents weren’t consulted.

“The kids don’t understand all this business — they just want to play ball,” Ms Cooke said.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/oakleigh-basketball-association-slammed-by-messy-offcourt-chaos/news-story/5e556fc1430a1dbbaa4f4e27ccc34a23

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates