GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 19, 2015

A Quiz On The Zones!

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

Glen Eira has designated Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie as Urban Villages where the majority of new development is supposed to go. All the rest are either Neighbourhood Centres or Local Centres. There are ten Neighbourhood Centres and 23 listed ‘local centres’ in the Planning Scheme. The Phoenix Precinct has its own category as a Priority Development Zone.

According to the Planning Scheme, residential development in Neighbourhood Centres, is meant to adhere to the following:

Apartments and shop top housing is encouraged within the commercial areas of these centres. Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.

AND

Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases.

Thus, according to this prescription, multi-unit development is only to go into those areas “IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COMMERCIAL AREAS”. Then why oh why has so much of these neighbourhood centres been zoned as GRZ1 – ie three storeys?

It is obvious that the zones do not match what is stated in the Planning Scheme, with the result that huge swathes of McKinnon, East Bentleigh, Murrumbeena, Ormond, Caulfield South and others, have been all given the green light for 3 storey multi-unit development.

Local centres are even worse off since these are pockets of land zoned commercial that more often than not, directly abut neighbourhood residential zones. The Planning Scheme states:

Recognise the minor role that local centres will play in providing for housing diversity by encouraging development limited to low density shop top housing

AND

Ensure that residential development (except in Patterson and Gardenvale local centres) does not exceed two storeys in height

Since there is no height restriction on land zoned commercial, this is indeed pie in the sky – as recently proved with a three storey development at 251 Koornang Road (zoned commercial 1). Why such errant nonsense still remains in the planning scheme is beyond us. Nor has Council even attempted to introduce any restrictions on its small shopping strips as Boroondara has had success with. Nor have they introduced any Design & Development Overlays as this comprehensive document from Bayside demonstrates (uploaded here). Council has done nothing except slap Commercial zoning on a handful of businesses without due regard to the fact that many of these ‘local centres’ are surrounded by residential, low rise single dwellings – all zoned Neighbourhood Residential zone.

Once again it is inept planning and a bonus to developers.

So here is a quiz on the zones that readers might like to have a go in responding to. We would bet that councillors and even officers wouldn’t know the answers to most of these queries!

Which suburb has the largest Commercially zoned area?
Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ1?
Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned GRZ2?
Which suburb has the largest percentage of its land zoned RGZ1?
Does Glen Eira really have 78% zoned NRZ1?
What percentage of residential land area in Carnegie is geared towards medium and high density development because of its zoning? How does this correlate with the nonsense of 80/20 – ie minimal change versus housing diversity?
How many streets in Glen Eira have multiple zonings (which was advised against by the C25 Panel Report)? – ie RGZ, GRZ, NRZ, MUZ, C1Z?
How much ‘infill’ has occurred in Neighbourhood Residential Zones – ie two double storeys per block?
How many sites in Glen Eira are over 1000 square metres, larger than their neighbours, and according to the planning scheme, capable of accommodating more than two dwellings – regardless of them being in Neighbourhood Residential Zones?
How many amendments has Council pushed through to rezone land to Mixed Use since the introduction of the zones? How does this compare with other councils? Please remember that Mixed Use has no height limits, no open space requirements, etc.
How many VCAT decisions that overturn council are largely due to the ‘policies’ contained in the Planning Scheme?

These are the questions we believe that residents need answers to since they go to the heart of sound strategic planning. If this council is so confident that its planning is ‘perfect’, then they need to be able to justify their planning decisions. Thus far, all residents have received are shonky figures, complete failure to fulfill the ‘promises’ of a decade ago, plus execrable statements that consulting with residents would result in worse outcomes. For any council to hold such a view is utterly abhorrent.

August 18, 2015

Progress?

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

And more of the same?

August 16, 2015

Public Safety Versus Profit

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

We’ve received the following email and series of photographs highlighting (once again) the chaos that residents have to put up with. Why this goes on and on and developers allowed to own our streets is incomprehensible. Even if fined, we’re told that either the fine is ignored, or it’s so miniscule that it is a drop in the ocean for most contractors working on multi-million dollar projects. It is our understanding however, that councils have the legal right to set their own penalties. A $200, or even $300 dollar fine is negligible. It is time that this council got off its backside and starting properly policing, fining and prosecuting each and every single developer that does not give a damn about those living next to his mess.

In order, here is:

The email we received
The photos depicting day after day

What we do not have photos of is the claim that on Friday last, there were 16 trucks parked in the Carnegie Street – three with trailers attached. The street in its entirety is approximately 200 metres long. Residents were unable to get out of their drives.

Development has a major impact on us everyday and council just doesn’t care and doesn’t have the interest in doing anything about it!! Our neighbourhood has been impacted, like so many others, by a local single block development in Carnegie. The developers and construction company have had no regard for publicly owned property, no regard for public access, no regard for neighbours and have had a number safety breaches on site that I understand have resulted in fines and orders to rectify the site. This week council has been contacted everyday to complain about the impassable footpath that has been created by the construction company. The attached photographs show the problem. The daily calls have resulted in 3 notices being issued to the construction company (Wednesday) – but the result was no change at all – the footpaths remain impassable. Calls were made again on Thursday and Friday – again no change to the footpaths at all. This morning the solution seems to have been found! ‘Use other footpath’ signs erected. So the developers get away with completely ruining public infrastructure and are not made to immediately rectify the damage – no strong action from council, nothing that does anything to protect the health and safety of residents, nothing that makes a strong statement to developers about not damaging public property. This council is shameless and completely ineffective.

August 13, 2015

Our ‘Perfect’, Little ‘Cosy Club’

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

Item 9.COMMUNITY GRANTS

Magee moved to accept ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

MAGEE: said this was the ‘most gratifying part’ of being part of a council in handing out money to community groups who ‘provide services to our community’. Went through the report on numbers of applications and how many from non profit groups. Said that the committee included himself, Esakoff and Sounness. Community groups are largely volunteers and they work to ‘give a community benefit’. Some groups missed out because they didn’t fit in with the guidelines which council publishes and these are ‘extensive’.

HYAMS: called this a ‘good process’ and it helps the community and ‘everyone benefits’. There are still other applications to consider.

OKOTEL: is ‘happy and pleased’ that there is this program because it’s ‘important for our community’ in supporting groups. What she was unhappy about was the ‘final submissions’ on which clubs received the grants. Said that the process involves ‘assessment against community grants guidelines’ and this ‘is done in a very thorough way’ by the grants committee. This takes a day to go through them all and ‘I would certainly endorse the recommendations of the committee’. But she sees ‘a stretching of those guidelines to accommodate’ other applications and that ‘this goes one step too far’. Further, ‘if council were to act properly’ then they should amend the guidelines ‘to be more accommodating rather than stretching’ in her opinion, the guidelines to give grants to those groups that ‘weren’t recommended’ by the committee. She supports the recommendations of the committee but ‘what we see before us is a step too far’ beyond the guidelines.

PILLING: said that the ‘process’ had improved over the years and that the quality of applications had also improved. Said that ‘overwhelmingly’ the majority of the committee’s recommendations were ‘adopted’. Admitted that a ‘few’ had changed amounts but ‘that was a very small number’ and he was ‘confident that the process’ is good and that all applicants are aware of the guidelines. Purpose of the guidelines is to give residents the ‘confidence that we’re spending their money wisely’.

DELAHUNTY: thanked the committee for their work and appreciated that it was ‘very very difficult’ for decisions when there are so many ‘good causes’. Thought that ‘the process is robust’ and councillors have a big responsibility and also to ‘ensure’ that they follow the guidelines. Said she was ‘undecided’ on some and that they had to ‘get more information on’ like the one on making a ‘short video’ and the Jewish GLBT (IE gay, lesbian,bisexual, transgender) and ‘this will be a great project, one we haven’t seen before’. Sporting clubs ‘hang out for our decisions’.

LOBO: ‘any grant is always welcome’. Said that grants are ‘motivation’ for clubs and this is also apparent in the ‘community service awards’. One thing that ‘intrigued’ him was the clubs who said they were ‘running multi-cultural’ events and ‘I would like to have seen what kind of multi-cultural activities they perform’ plus whether ‘multi-cultural people can also join that club’.

MAGEE: endorsed all recommendations and everything is assessed against guidelines. Committee is important because they can delve and question and decide ‘what is the greatest community benefit’. and ‘sometimes the amounts can change slightly to what the officers recommend’. Thanked Jones and the officers for ‘putting this together’ and ‘it is an awesome amount of work’ that they put in and then bring it ‘to the assembly’. Also, there is often the need for ‘clarification’ from the applicants and this sometimes ‘comes from the committee and sometimes from Mr Jones’. Magee endorses ‘all of the’ grants and even when there is the wish to give a grant he can’t ‘because there is only so much money to give out’. Those groups that ‘miss out’ did so because their application wasn’t ‘worded properly’ or ‘explained’ things properly. Said there are some new things in the grants – Jewish Comedy Festival and he’s ‘looking forward to this’ and hopes it really ‘gets off the ground’.

MOTIONS PUT AND CARRIED. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST

++++++++

Item 9.12 – Strategic Resource Plan

Hyams moved to accept as printed. Pilling seconded.

HYAMS: said that this was simply to ‘adjust some of the figures’ but that they are still ‘good figures’. Main one was ‘liquidity’ and ‘at first glance is not the greatest’ but the ‘reason we adjusted’ is that once you look at the ‘seasonally adjusted for aged care’ it is ‘very sustainable’. Stated that the adjustment was because ‘without that’ there would be the assumption that the aged care bonds would have to be ‘repaid all at once – and that’s never going to happen’. So now the ‘assumption is that only a small percentage’ will be paid out at a time. Claimed that the adjustments therefore equal ‘the real world’ and the previous figures were more ‘accounting fiction’. Council had to change because the Local Government requirements has changed and council had already sent their plan off to the minister. So there was the need ‘to change and bring into line with those assumptions’. Admitted that ‘there were also some mistakes that were made’ but these ‘have been corrected now’.

DELAHUNTY: said that the officer’s report mentioned two reasons for the adjustments – ‘formulaic inconsistencies’ and ‘definitions’. Said these errors should have ‘been picked up’ and that the ‘biggest one’ is the ‘last line’. Said that council ‘always’ knew about the ‘new definitions’ for the aged care bonds. This was ‘adjusted in our minds’ only. Said that she’s got ‘issues’ with the performance indicators as a system and acknowledged the time of council officers to ‘work out the definitions’. The report is ‘obviously sound’ but ‘subject’ to the need to be a ‘bit more careful’.

OKOTEL: said that they’ve ‘identified areas’ where the indicators ‘could be improved’ so that ‘what we’re reporting against is meaningful’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments

ITEM 9.7 – MRC

(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)

Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.

DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.

OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.

HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.

DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

The Melbourne Racing Club is at it again – acting as if it is their god given right to do whatever they want on public land, whenever they want, and without any concern for nearby residents. This time they want a ‘timing system’ which involves the erection of 31 radio towers (height 13 metres) scattered across the racecourse and costing, they claim, $570,000. Naturally, the Department (as land manager) has given its approval (see uploaded letter here).

Throughout the application there is not a single word about environmental impacts nor potential safety concerns for residents – nor for that matter horses! Instead there is repetition upon repetition claiming ‘non-significant impact on the visual amenity of the area’. One paragraph in particular caught our attention –

3 antennas are proposed within the centre of the reserve and will be located directly adjacent to the track and existing infrastructure. The location of these antennas will ensure that the visual impact is minimal and the use of the public open space area remains unaffected.

Yes, 13 metre high poles of steel are certainly compatible with visual amenity and ball sports that council is advocating. Another nail in the coffin for more public open space if this goes ahead!

Here is what the poles will look like and where it is proposed they will go!

PS: please note that the heights will exceed 13 metres, since this calculation does not take into account the footings upon which the poles will rest.

August 9, 2015

A Fair Dinkum Stuff Up?

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

How on earth does a council stuff up so badly on financial reporting when:

There’s supposed to be an audit committee that oversees everything?
Strategic Resource Plans are worked on for months and months – presumably?
The CEO has been part of the Advisory Committee that set up the standards (See: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/244867/Directions_Paper_-_Local_Government_Performance_Reporting_Framework_December_2012.pdf
The budget and SRP has already been tabled, so why has it taken 3 months to discover the errors?

This is all about Item 9.12 of the current agenda where we find the following unbelievable admission –

On assessing the financial indicators as part of the end-of-year accounts review, officers identified a number of formulaic inconsistencies and errors in the indicators listed in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan compared with the calculations in the LGPRF template.

To ensure consistency with the Local Government Performance Reporting calculations, officers have recalculated the financial indicators and have reproduced these (refer attached). They will be updated in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.

So readers may judge for themselves the magnitude of these errors, we ask them to compare the ‘original’ SRP (passed and accepted without question by our wide awake councillors) and the current version. Simply click on each image to enlarge. We do apologise for the quality of the images – that of course is dependent on the formats that council chooses to publish its material. Otherwise readers should go directly to the minutes of these council meetings.

CIRCA MAY/JUNE 2015

AUGUST VERSION

August 7, 2015

Fences: A Microcosm Of The Rot!

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

In the great scheme of things, Item 9.10 of the current agenda is trivial and far from earth shattering. Yet, it is a microcosm of the rot that distinguishes this council and its administration. The report is about fences on borders and whether Council should include information on its website that residents can access. Hardly revolutionary, hardly controversial and hardly likely to bring down the citadel. Yet the report (written once again by Mr Anonymous!) recommends the usual – do nothing!

Even with something so basic, the report is skewed and peppered with woeful logic, plus a disdain for residents that comes through strongly and clearly.

The arguments for doing nothing are quite literally appalling, childish and contradictory. There’s no need for council to do anything because residents can use ‘Google’ to get the required information, plus –It would be uncommon for members of the public to go, in the first instance, to the Glen Eira Council website to search for information on boundary fences. Really? Then why claim a few sentences later that council is frequently called by residents on such matters as gas, transport, centrelink, etc. If residents don’t know who is responsible for these latter areas and call council, then why should they have any more ‘legal’ knowledge about fences?

We’re then told that the job of council is to direct callers to the appropriate authorities. All well and good – but residents might not call – they might simply go to the website looking for information!

The final kick in the guts to residents comes with these gems of paragraphs –

The purpose of Council’s website is to provide residents with information about issues that Council can assist with. It is not to provide them with information on every issue that may affect them, such as dividing fence issues.

If residents were to see information on issues that Council has no control over, such as dividing fences, then it may lead to the question – “If Council can’t help me then why do they have information about it on their website?”

It follows that placing information on Council’s website about boundary fences warrants placing information on the website about other non-Council controlled matters. Taken further, it could be argued that Council’s website should include information about income tax returns, or passport applications; matters which are also important to the community.

Of course, nowhere in this mass of puerile logic will readers find one statement about fences that sit on the border of council and private land and council’s responsibility to pay for half, or to compensate owners when their trees damage private fences. That aspect of important information for residents does not rate a mention. Search the website and all that one can find relates to the mandatory fences around swimming pools.

How such drivel and disdain for the public can be allowed into the public domain is beyond belief. It is arrogance of the highest order that in our view even surpasses the arrogance of the Melbourne Racing Club. In Glen Eira, residents simply don’t matter except as the permanent cash cows to keep such anonymous authors in a job!

And what on earth is the problem with putting up a single webpage? Surely this could have been done much cheaper without a ‘request for a report’ and some bean counter spending an hour or two devising a way to say – get stuffed? How much did his time cost ratepayers?

Thankfully, not every council is so toxic and anti-community as Glen Eira. After a perfunctory search, here are the URLs for information on fence borders that all these other councils think is worthwhile to put up on their respective websites.

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/residents-and-services/building/homeowner-and-tenant-information/fences/side-fences-and-neighbours/

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/building_in_bayside.htm#Fences

www.kingston.vic.gov.au/…/Fences_Boundary_Rules_Info_Generic.pdf

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Building/Fences/Dividing_Fences

http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Building/Installations/Fences

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Fence-Requirements.html

http://www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=931

http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Planning_Building/Building_services/Around_the_home/Fencing

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/FencingRegulations.aspx

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Planning–Building/Building-services/Fences/

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/fencing/

http://www.melton.vic.gov.au/Regulations/Rates_and_payments/Fencing_information

www.buloke.vic.gov.au/neighbours-the-law-and-you

http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/fences

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/fencing.htm

http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Council_the_Region/Laws_Regulations/Fences

https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/building/fences

http://www.corangamite.vic.gov.au/index.php/council-services/building-a-planning/building/fencing

http://www.latrobe.vic.gov.au/Search?keyword=fences

http://www.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/Building_and_Planning/Building/Fences

http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=8602

http://www.glenelg.vic.gov.au/Neighbouring_Fences

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Property-owners/Owner-Responsibilities

http://www.alpineshire.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=1922

http://www.hrcc.vic.gov.au/building-services/fences

https://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Services/Building_and_Property_Services/LandProperty_Enquiries/Fencing_Details#.VcRwcvkXdEM

http://www.colacotway.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=4762&h=1

August 7, 2015

Council Clowns!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

The following two pages appear in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s council meeting. They pinpoint very clearly the sheer incompetence of this administration and its councillors – plus the ongoing ‘born to rule’ mentality of the MRC. Many issues need to be investigated and fully reported on – namely:

What has Council done in the past 4 years to ensure that the Clayton’s ‘agreement’ is in fact bona fide and worth the paper it is written on?
Council in 2011 published an ‘agreement’ signed only by Newton. Why wasn’t this countersigned by the MRC or Trustees? What actions, if any, did council undertake to ensure this occurred?
What representations, if any, has council and/or councillors made to MPs following the Auditor-General’s report?
Were councillors told prior to Newton signing the non-existent ‘agreement’ that this still required the MRC’s signature?
What further ‘information’ is likely to ‘come to hand’?
What is the nature of the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between Council (and whoever was involved) and the MRC in the past 2 years? Why has there not been a single report tabled in regard to such meetings?
We have been informed that the MRC is currently creating a Master Plan for the centre of the Racecourse? What involvement has council had with this? If none, then why not? If yes, then why the ‘secrecy’?

CONCLUSIONS

We can only conclude from all this that:

there is NO AGREEMENT!
that residents have been dudded
that administration and councillors have allowed this situation to drag on to the detriment of all.

August 5, 2015

McKinnon – Definitely Gone!

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

PS: We’ve received the following email from a resident and believe it needs highlighting. We have edited out the address.

Dear gedebates.
Our street, Elliott Ave Carnegie has now lost 8 houses, between Neerim Rd and Jersey Pde (railway end) not including the corner blocks on Neerim Rd to the rampant development. We were rezoned 2 years ago to RGZ1 and there are only 7 out of 15 remaining. We live at XXXXX Elliott and have found out the three houses next to us, to the north have been sold. We will also be facing 5 houses opposite us, all of which will be 4 stories, in a street of single dwellings. The dramatic increase in traffic, people and loss of our community is devastating after a peaceful and lovely 35 years.
I know this is happening everywhere. We feel helpless and incredibly angry with the council.
where to from here?

We featured Elliott Avenue several months ago – a street that was full of beautiful well kept homes that has now been sacrificed like much of Carnegie. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/

Six McKinnon neighbours sell combined residential development site for $8.88 million

Six home owners at McKinnon in Melbourne’s south-eastern bayside, have reaped a $8.88 million, off-market sale of their residential development site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich brokered the sale of the 3 to 9 Claire Street offering.

Sold at what is believed to be a record $2913 a square metre for the area, six neighbours came together with the common aspiration to create a one-off opportunity by combining their properties to form an attractive development prospect.

“Six home owners have reaped a circa 40% price windfall,” Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich said.

The property, comprising four residential sites totaling 3049 square metres and six individual properties (six owners), is zoned General Residential, has 60 metres frontage to Claire Street, minutes walk to McKinnon Road retail strip and railway station.

Source: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-investment/reits/44120-july-15-comm-prop-six-mckinnon-neighbours-sell-combined-residential-development-site-for-8-88-million.html

COMMENTS

How many dog boxes will the developers have to build in order to recoup their money and make a profit? 60? 80? 100? All feasible on 3000+ square metres zoned for 3 storeys!
How much longer will council continue with their bullshit that the zones have nothing to do with this rampant over-development?
What is ‘capacity’ for a dead end street that contained 10 lots (two of which each contained 2 single storey units) making a total of 14 dwellings in the street not so long ago.
Since the zones have come in, this has all changed and the population of this street is set to increase by at least 1000%. That’s right – 1000%! Here’s why –

1 Claire St (with land size of just under 800 sq metres has recently been sold). A permit has been granted for 3 double storeys

6-10 Claire St is now heading to VCAT for an adjudication on a three storey development consisting of 36 units and a reduction in visitor car parking. Council refused the permit.

Then there’s 11 Claire St, with a permit for a two storey dwelling and 9 units – achieved after three VCAT visits. The first two refused permits for (a) 4 two storey dwellings in June 2012; (b) 2 storeys with ten units (October 2012) and finally in August 2013 a permit for 2 storey and 9 units. When granting a permit for this last decision the member stated – I am similarly satisfied that the design and scale of the building generally represents an appropriate response to the existing and envisaged character of the area in that the two storey scale ensures the development does not dominate the streetscape. The building includes elements that sympathetically respond to the prevailing architectural typology. These elements include wide eaves, pitched roof forms, good fenestration, basement garaging, and (subject to conditions) reasonable front, side and rear setbacks in order to provide for appropriate landscaping.

So now we’ve gone from two storeys to the blank cheque handed to developers for 3 storeys – all with flat roofs, removal of every single tree and vegetation on site, and setbacks that are a joke! And the total number of dwellings in a street barely 50 metres long has gone from 14 to possibly 130-150 dwellings. Thus hundreds of cars and all having to enter and exit onto McKinnon Road!

This is planning madness for sure and the blame must be laid at the feet of this council. The inconsistencies, the contradictions and the lack of justifiable strategic planning is unforgiveable. And what must never be forgotten is the simple fact that residents were the last to know about the zones. Like mushrooms we were kept in the dark – not worthy of being ‘consulted’, and not worthy of anything except paying rates that have been going up year after year by 6.5% – all needed to pay for increased staff and huge pay rises to the CEO! That’s the culture, the ethos, and the ethics of this administration and its lackey councillors!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates