GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

September 25, 2019

Are You Brain Dead Yet?

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

We’ve pinched a letter written by a resident to council’s CEO asking some very pertinent questions.

I live on Inkerman Rd, Caulfield North. I am very concerned that Glen Eira Council is undertaking a community feedback process on the above proposal which has failed to satisfactorily involve the community and is being undertaken with indecent haste, presumably to meet the Council’s self-imposed agenda of having a decision on the route made at the last Council meeting of 2019.

My concerns on the community consultation are as follows
1. The Council arranged community meeting at the Caulfield Pavilion in February 2019 was advertised to be 2 hours. When it became clear that there was community concern about the project, the meeting was shut down after one hour. That was the first attempt to prevent the community from speaking.
2. The community was advised that a Community Reference Group would be formed in May 2019 to assist the Council and provide community input into the proposal. Despite calling for nominations, no group has been formed. In effect, the Council has decided it does not want to hear anything from the community until a decision has already been made on the route, even if the community group is of the view that the project is unwanted or has no merit. That was the second attempt at preventing the community speaking. I refer you to Clause 6.5 of Council’s Community Engagement Policy – “Council will encourage those affected by a decision to be involved in the decision-making process”.
3. The Council approved the Pilot alternative routes report at its meeting on 3 September 2019 and has only allocated a period until 14 October to hear community views. That period takes place during school holidays, when many people are away, and during the most important period of the Jewish calendar, when many people are busy preparing for the celebrations. This period is insufficient and disadvantages members of the community who wish to make their voices heard.
4. Council’s Community Engagement Policy states at 6.3 “Council will ensure that community engagement activities are well planned, coordinated, accessible and inclusive and will provide reasonable timeframes for contribution to all engagement activities”. The restrictive 6-week period referred to above in my point 3 is not a “reasonable timeframe”, particularly given the time of year. The engagement activities have only been advertised online, which excludes people with no access to a computer or internet. The September GE News publication contained no information on its community engagement page.
5. The on-line survey is very limited in allowing a person to give their views and uses technical language. The community is unable to make comments about the proposal’s merits or otherwise. The survey is heavily weighted to give Council the opportunity to select a route without even “hearing” that the current bike routes are adequate and no change is wanted or necessary.
6. The on-line survey is open to abuse, particularly by the bicycle lobby. There is no request for verifiable information. Accordingly, no weight at all is given to people who will be significantly affected by this proposal, being Inkerman Rd, Alma Rd, Dandenong Rd, and nearby residents.

Accordingly, I would appreciate a response to the following questions:

1. Why is the community consultation period ending 14 October 2019?
2. Do you think this time period of consultation, 3 /9 – 14/10 is “reasonable” and in accordance with the Community Engagement Policy? If so, why?
3. Can the community consultation period be extended to the end of November 2019? If not, why not?
4. Why does a decision need to be made by the Council in December 2019? Please provide reasons.
5. When is the Community Reference Group going to be established? How will it be chosen? Who will be selecting the members? What is the criteria? How many members will it have? What are the terms of reference? How often will it meet? If the project goes ahead, will the group continue to be consulted?
6. How can the Council verify the location/residence of respondents to the survey? Is any increased weight being given to the views of survey respondents who live in Inkerman/Alma/Dandenong/Orrong Grove? Will the survey results be available to the community? Will they be audited by an independent party?
7. Is the survey response a numbers game, meaning is the route with the most preference the chosen one?
8. Is the Council prepared to develop with the Community Reference Group a fair survey which records the respondents’ identity/residence and which is mailed in hard copy to all residents in the affected geographical area, together with a reply paid envelope?

Yours sincerely,

Whilst the focus of the above is on the contentious bicycle route, its ‘message’ has far greater import and typifies much that is amiss with ALL of this council’s ‘consultations’. We remind readers of the following which can only be seen as deliberate:

  • The simultaneous release of thousands of pages of documents that would require a herculean effort by residents to read, absorb, and then comment (ie structure plans, local law review, East Village)
  • Forums, meetings held at inappropriate times (ie East Village: 9 to 11AM and then 4 to 6PM when people are at work, or picking up kids and preparing dinner, etc)
  • Creation of so called Community Reference Groups where identity of individuals is unknown so residents are unable to contact their ‘reps’ to offer views; the failure to publish agenda items and record the discussion topics in the minutes of council ordinary meetings (ie Elsternwick South Renewal and East Village).
  • Online surveys that are skewed to provide results that endorse predetermined decisions. Or, surveys where readers are unable to view previous comments. No rationale has ever been provided to explain why some online ‘consultations’ adopt certain methodologies and others don’t!
  • Indecent haste indeed when it comes to major development projects such as East Village. Surely it is farcical to have residents ‘formally’ address councilors THE DAY AFTER submissions close?!!!!!
  • How many more times will some councillors apologise to residents for poor consultation and yet nothing changes?

We’ve taken the trouble to go through council’s list of current and past ‘consultations’. The list is presented below. It is clear from this list alone that residents are likely to be ‘consultation fatigued’ by the sheer volume that has in the past 18 months been thrown at them. Admittedly the various ‘consultations’ will not be responded to by everyone. People are interested in different issues. But the questions that need asking are:

  • Are all of these ‘consultations’ really top priority?
  • How much did it cost to produce the tons of paper/printing associated with all of these? Is it really value for money?
  • How many millions have been spent on upgrading playgrounds when no policy exists, and residents are screaming out for decent strategic planning, especially for our unprotected neighbourhood centres. Council’s ‘excuse’ for doing nothing is lack of ‘resources’. How many planners could be hired for the squillions wasted on some of these ‘consultations’?
  • How many of these consultations actually resulted in councilors adopting much of what residents said they wanted?
  • Why can’t residents have a say on budget priorities? If they did, then how many of the following list would be high priority?

Here are our suggestions as to how consultation should happen.

  • Relevant and accurate data is provided at the outset of major proposals, including costings and time lines for completion of projects
  • Discussion papers outlining pros and cons are distributed together with data at the start
  • Community rep involvement in all major projects that include open meetings to all interested; voting rights to reps; agendas and minutes published
  • Forums/meetings etc. are held at appropriate times

That’s enough for starters. Here is the list of the inundation from the past 18 months, excluding things like Budget and Community Plans.

Current consultations

Dog off leash areas

Keep Glen Eira Moving

Safe cycling corridor pilot

New Community Space for Carnegie

Glen Eira Community Voice

Bentleigh Eat Street

Pedestrian Safe Neighbourhood Pilot

East Village

RECENT ‘CONSULTATIONS’

Draft Social & Affordable Housing Policy

Local Law Review

Get Active: The Future of Recreation & Sport

Draft Hopetoun Gardens Masterplan

Local Park Proposal – Aileen Avenue, Caulfield South

Quality Design Principles

Integrated Transport Strategy

Community Gardening in Glen Eira

Spring Road Reserve Improvement Plans

Caulfield Wedge Dog Agility Park

Community Safety Plan

McKinnon Reserve Playground upgrade

Planning for Carnegie Swim centre

Rosanna Street Reserve open space upgrade

Bentleigh Hodgson Reserve

Draft Community Engagement Strategy

We need to talk about men’s sheds

Caulfield Park Masterplan refresh

 

 

September 22, 2019

Elsternwick!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

We’ve received the following::

 

September 12, 2019

Virginia Estate: Social Housing

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

At the June 11th 2019 Council Meeting, councillors adopted the Social & Affordability Housing Strategy. The figures for ‘housing stress’ in Glen Eira are well above the average according to the State Government’s Infrastructure Victoria report Economic, Social and Environmental Profile: Inner South East. (April 2019). (https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SGS-Economic-social-and-environmental-profile-Inner-South-East-Region-April-2019.pdf) On page xiii, we are told: City of Glen Eira had the greatest proportion of households in rental stress in 2011 and in 2016, with more than 25 per cent of households in rental stress.

The numbers in council’s recently adopted strategy differ from the above report, even though Council claims the same source! Page 12 of the newly adopted strategy states:

It is estimated that 7,800 renting households in Glen Eira are in housing stress. This includes 3,400 lone person households, 1300 couple families without children households and 1000 couple families with children households. Households in rental stress represent 13 per cent of all 60, 251 households (or one in seven) and 44 per cent of the 17,700 renter households (nearly one in two).

Regardless of which set of figures one chooses to believe, it is clear that rental stress and hence affordable/social housing should be an important issue for Glen Eira council and its councillors. But is it? What could council have done to ensure that social/affordable housing was made more (financially) accessible to those in need?

The Virginia Estate development plan includes the ‘condition’ that 5% of the initial 3000 dwelling proposal be earmarked as social/affordable housing. That makes it 150 dwellings for this category. What is not known is whether or not this figure remains a constant if, in the future, the developer submits an amendment and we are faced with say 4000 dwellings, as is likely based on the experience with the Melbourne Racing Club. Will 150 dwellings be the total, or will the 5% for TOTAL DWELLINGS be the ultimate standard?

Furthermore, Council could have, and should have done heaps better when we discover that buried in the fine print there is this sentence:

Specified Consideration means 90% of the market value of the improvements constructed in respect of the Affordable Housing dwellings as at the date of the exercise of the right of transfer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement

What this means is that ‘affordable/social housing’ only gets a 10% discount on the market value at the time of hand over. Surely a windfall for the developer when we compare what other major developments and agreements have taken place. As an example we cite the Hobson’s Bay C88 amendment. This was also done under the auspices of the VPA. It involved a huge site of 40 hectares, 3000 dwellings and also a 5% quota for social/affordable housing. The difference however lies in this section of the Schedule and the Section 173 Agreement between the developers and Hobson’s Bay Council:

The price at which the Affordable Housing Dwellings are to be made available for purchase to the Council or a Housing Agency must not exceed an amount that is 25% less than the current 12-month median unit price for a two-bedroom unit in Altona North as published by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria as at the date the agreement is made (Offer Price).

Adding further salt to the wounds is that Hobson’s Bay was able to include this sentence in its schedule which augurs well in case the developer decides to go for more than 3000 apartments.

A number of dwellings equal to 5% of the total dwellings that are constructed on the land rounded down to the nearest whole number  

Hence we again have Glen Eira City Council caving in and exacting far less than it should from the Gillon Group. Why can Hobson’s Bay extract a better deal for its affordable housing component? How hard did our illustrious officers and councillors try? Or were they prepared to talk the talk about the need for social housing but when it comes to it, the developer gets away very cheaply indeed. If Hobson’s Bay can achieve so much more, then questions need to be asked about the intent of Glen Eira and its prowess in ‘negotiations’. Also if the VPA is involved in both projects, then why are the results so vastly different? Does it all boil down to our council refusing to undertake hard bargaining, or is it more cow towing to the State Government and its development arm the VPA, in exchange for some future benefit? If so, then residents should be told what the backroom wheeling and dealing has been about!

We urge all residents to read the documents and to ensure that they enter their submissions to this proposed rezoning. Once rezoned then all cards are in the developers’ hands, especially since there are no third party objection rights to any planning applications that will ensue.

 

September 8, 2019

How Not To ‘Communicate’ With Residents!

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

The trend continues with this council in that it fulfills the legal requirements on notification/advertising of proposed amendments, but these announcements are anything but informative. Nor do they help to provide an accurate picture of what is proposed. For those residents who really want to know something, they are forced to plough through literally thousands of pages of documents in order to get anywhere close to an true picture of intent.

Council’s latest example of providing residents with the truth comes with this from the September issue of the Glen Eira News.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Sounds fantastic doesn’t it? It’s what residents aren’t told that could influence whether or not they bother to put in a formal submission, and of course, whether they have the time to read the documents.

Completely missing in the above is:

  • Any mention of the number of proposed dwellings (ie 3000 at this stage)
  • Any mention of the proposed (discretionary) heights of up to 8 storeys
  • Any mention of parking/traffic?
  • Any mention of the paltry proposed open space levy, etc. etc.

Whilst other councils go to great lengths to provide some decent information when amendments are on the table, Glen Eira insists on using the planning jargon so that it becomes incomprehensible to most residents. For example: what is a CDZ? what is Clause 21.03 etc.?Where is there any ‘fact sheet’ that residents can look at and immediately see the import of what is proposed?

Here are some examples of how other councils go about informing residents. Please note: we do not endorse anything that these councils are proposing to implement. We are simply focusing on how much time and effort they put into their dissemination of relevant and clear information.

Yarra is our first example. Please check out this link and view the modelling provided. At the very least, residents can get some idea of heights, impacts, overshadowing, etc. https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/the-area/planning-for-yarras-future/yarra-planning-scheme-and-amendments/current-amendments/amendment-c231-queens-parade

 

Next example is from Greater Dandenong. Here is part of their ‘facts’ brochure (can be accessed in full here https://cgdresources.mmgsolutions.net/Resources/Website/SiteDocuments/Amendment%20C213%20Fact%20Sheet%20and%20FAQs%20Exhibition.pdf ).

All in plain, simple language understandable by all.

There are plenty of other examples we could have included in this post. We have refrained!

Until residents are seen as having a real voice in determining outcomes in Glen Eira, this agenda of keeping us ‘ignorant’ and irrelevant will continue.

 

September 4, 2019

Putting The Cart Before The Horse: ‘Consultation’

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

Please listen very carefully to this short extract from last night’s public participation segment from the council meeting.

Hyams’ admission says everything one needs to know about Glen Eira’s so called ‘consultation’ processes. Here is what his admission signifies:

  • First we make the decision and then send it out for our mock ‘consultation’. If it were otherwise, then Community Reference Groups would be in right at the beginning and not when the route has already been decided!
  • Regardless of what residents say they want we will ignore it if it is not in line with our preconceived decisions
  • We always operate on the basis of providing ‘options’ that no one wants so that residents are placed between a rock and a hard place
  • We can then tell the world that we have ‘consulted’.
  • We don’t care about the money that we waste on useless propaganda. We don’t pay for it anyway. Residents are nothing but cash cows.
  • It goes against our principles to be open, transparent and to give a damn as to what residents want

The ongoing Inkerman Road bicycle issue is just the latest in a long line of useless consultations that has been inflicted on residents. The modus operandi is always to put the cart before the horse. In other words, make decisions and then look for anything that might justify that decision. Only then when unpalatable options are presented do residents get any opportunity to ‘have your say’. What a joke. What arrogance, and what lack of integrity!

If this council was really interested in what residents’ views might be, then they would actually ask. We have been inundated with ‘consultation’ after ‘consultation’ this past year. Thousands upon thousands of pages have been produced. All saying practically nothing. Yet the most vital and informative questions have never been asked. For example:

  • What height do you think is appropriate for our activity centres?
  • Which roads do you think are appropriate for separated bike lanes?
  • What parking restrictions should apply near railway stations, or local streets?
  • Where should council concentrate on seeking to purchase open space?
  • What should be our budget priorities?

These are the base questions that should be asked first off. They never are of course. That’s why this council does not dare engage in genuine consultation because the likely answers do not fit in with their prodevelopment agenda!

 

September 3, 2019

East Village On The Way!

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

PS: Council has sent out letters and flyers to businesses and residences in the area. Letter dated 2nd September. The outstanding characteristic of these missives is the indecent haste that is now about to take place. For example, we are told:

1.Amendment will be ‘available’ from Thursday 5th September to Wednesday 9th October

2. Planning conference held at KINGSTON CITY HALL FUNCTION ROOMS on Thursday 10th October from 6.30 to 8.30 ‘to provide an opportunity for Councillors to hear those who have made formal submissions”.

3. Amendment to go to council meeting 23rd October

4. Directions Hearing 31st October

5. Panel hearing Monday 2nd December to Friday 13th December.

To the best of our knowledge, no other council’s planning scheme amendments have been pushed through at this rapid rate (ie it often takes months before planning panel hearings are set down). December is not an ideal time for residents either with school holidays, etc. How deliberate is this we have to ask?

 

Today’s Caulfield Leader features council’s advertisement for its East Village amendment (see below). Residents should note:

  • The lack of mention of any heights in the announcement
  • The similarity to the originally released documentation (ie ostensibly identical to first ‘vision’)
  • The fact that the Inkerman Road debacle will have a 6 week further consultation period but this, the biggest development in Glen Eira’s history, will have only 5 week ‘consultation’ period.
  • The insistence on a Comprehensive Development Plan (aka Caulfield Village) which means no third party objection rights once applications start coming in.
  • Nothing up on council’s website at the time of writing
  • Placing an advertisement in the Leader meant that this was ‘booked’ earlier on. Why wasn’t this included in the agenda for tonight’s meeting?
  • The VPA website includes a statement that the ‘amendment’ was handed over to council in October 2018. Hence, has council been sitting on this for nearly a year?
  • We will comment far more comprehensively once the various documents become available. However, we warn that this has all the makings of another Caulfield Village where the originally proposed development numbers of 1100 have now become closer to 2500!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

August 30, 2019

Verbage Galore!

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

At the time of writing (3.15pm) council’s agenda papers have NOT as yet been posted online! Pathetic we say!

The hard copy version is once again mind boggling in its length and verbage piled upon verbage. It is 736 pages long and weighs a ton!

Included are:

  • The long awaited Inkerman Road Safe Bicycle Corridor ‘data’
  • A draft policy on Parking Precinct Plans
  • A sustainability draft policy
  • Plus numerous other bits and pieces.

Expecting councillors who will be voting on these recommendations, to plough through these 700 plus pages and come up with reasoned and informed decisions is asking a lot. It is asking even more of residents.

Here is our take on some of the above items.

INKERMAN ROAD CYCLING

  • We are not even close to a decision. More consultation (for 6 weeks) to occur
  • Not a word about costs for actual construction, nor how much has been spent thus far
  • Time limits are unknown. Years if not decades down the track.
  • Dandenong Road is out according to Department of Transport
  • Some of the data is highly dubious, nor explained fully. For example: travel time on the various routes comes from Google. Yet Google informs us that: The average time you see when you plug a route into the Google Maps interface is one calculated using that specific data, but since travel speeds vary, it’s not always the most accurate estimate.
  • We urge residents to read this report, that is, if they have the time and stomach to plough through all the repetition and pretty pictures!

PARKING POLICY

  • What is absolutely clear is that council will be DECREASING its parking requirements for developments in its Major Activity Centres
  • All activity centres will be faced with most of their streets in the GRZ and RGZ having one side of their streets designated as 2 hour parking and the opposite side as unlimited parking. This flies in the face of some recent resident appeals that BOTH sides of a street impose restricted, timed parking.
  • Council is also quite willing it appears to hand another financial bonus to developers with their latest ‘innovation’ called unbridled parking. Their definition and explanation of this is: Unbridled parking is where parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial property. Council will consider unbundled parking proposals in new developments on a case by case basis, where the applicant has provided expert traffic analysis and advice. This will take into consideration relevant data such as car ownership rates and access to alternative modes of transport.
  • The introducion of hefty charges for residential parking permits to the value of $100 in some cases

SUSTAINABILITY POLICY

  • After years upon years of doing nothing and stating that it is all a government responsibility, Council is finally admitting that it might be time to take the initiative, since nothing is happening at State level. However this is not without the following caveat: Drafting ESD provision will be part of the Planning Schem Rewrite project or earlier if the opportunity arises to join with other Councils. Fast tracking an ESD policy by developing a policy on our own would not be possible with current resource capacity. Hence we wait and wait and wait!

One final matter worth a mention is the reappointment of the CEO. This is listed as an in camera item. Given that council has already released its intention to reappoint the CEO, we can only speculate as to why this formal resolution should be conducted away from public scrutiny? Is it perhaps because the decision may not be unanimous?

 

August 19, 2019

Silence Is Compliance!

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

The article presented below comes from Sunday’s Age. We feature this for several reasons:

  • At least some Kingston councillors are not averse to saying enough is enough. Contrast this with our councillors where not a single word has been said about the rate of (over)development in Glen Eira.
  • Density has never been mentioned in Glen Eira. Yet we are already the most dense municipality behind Melbourne, Port Phillip, and Stonnington. And these three councils of course have got special circumstances that account for their densities ie zoning of Capital City, tourist areas, and much larger commercial zones than Glen Eira. Exacerbating the issue is that Glen Eira has the least amount of public open space per population in the state! Another reason why density becomes even more important.
  • If council’s stated population growth target of approx 180,000 residents by 2036 eventuates, then our density will climb to well over 4,600 residents per square km. That figure rivals, and surpasses many other major world cities. Unsustainable of course given our aged infrastructure.

The take home message for residents is that it is high time that our councillors stopped being lap dogs to the Department and Government and actually stood up for residents and said ‘enough is enough’ as Kingston has done!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

 

August 15, 2019

Another 7 Storey For Caulfield South!

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

It hasn’t taken long for the purchaser of the Godfrey’s site in Hawthorn Road to get his application in. Another high rise proposal whilst Council sits on its backside and does nothing about its neighbourhood centres. Residents are already fighting a 9 storey proposal. Now they will have to address this new battle and fork out thousands upon thousands of dollars in fighting the proposal. We place the blame squarely on this council. It is unconscionable that residents must pay the financial price to safeguard their residential amenity all because of council’s incompetence and unwillingness to undertake work that other councils have been doing for well over a decade.

 

August 14, 2019

A Little History!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

Remembering the past is always difficult when it comes to planning. That’s why it is important that residents understand why Glen Eira is in the state it currently is in now. The present has been shaped by the past and, most importantly in Glen Eira’s case, by council’s unwillingness to undertake work that has been second nature to every other council (namely, overlays, structure plans, parking precinct plans, developer levies, etc). We should also add that council’s current work on structure planning is only due to the fact that they were ordered to do it by Richard Wynne in December 2015.

The newly formed resident group, SAVE GLEN EIRA, has published a short history of what’s been happening in this municipality. It makes for very interesting reading. The standout features are without doubt:

  • continued inaction on the most important planning issues for nearly 18 years
  • resident views have never mattered, and
  • we are still a long, long way off before controls are introduced which will safeguard our neighbourhoods.

Please read this article carefully. It can be accessed via https://savegleneira.com.au/a-recent-history-of-planning-in-glen-eira-2001-2015/

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »