GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2016

Open Space & Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

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

No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.

Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:

The impact on traffic
The size of this new ‘park’
The cost of creating this ‘park’
The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?

Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park. Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?

Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –

That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted

This clearly leads to a series of important questions:

Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?

Conclusions? If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.

June 27, 2016

Inconsistency & ‘Objectivity’?

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

Three planning applications for Tuesday night’s council meeting deserve some close attention and questions asked about:

The competency/objectivity of the planning department
What outside influences are at play here?

We are not arguing in favour of development here. We are simply questioning the basis of this council’s decision making.

One application involves Bentleigh, and the other Carnegie. Both are zoned RGZ, and both are within council’s lines drawn on a map that designate them both as being within the Urban Village structure. Yet, remarkably, the one in Bentleigh for 30 odd units receives the nod of approval and the one in Carnegie for ‘only’ 13 units is refused. Why? – when both are basically ‘compliant’ with the planning scheme? Secondly if the one in Bentleigh can be ‘fixed’ via the imposition of conditions, then why not the one in Carnegie?

Even more disturbing is the absolute rubbish that we find in the Rocky Camera reports – inaccuracies, and blatant bias as evidenced in the following. We’ve drawn up a table so that readers can compare like for like.

The Tranmere Avenue application also makes reference to Skyrail and the land’s proximity to the proposed rail line. The developer has submitted a noise impact statement for trains at ground level only. Given that no one knows much about Skyrail and its impacts, it is interesting to note that for Montgomery House application council granted a permit with the notation that should Heritage Victoria not rule in favour of retention, then a new application can be submitted. No such leeway was provided to Tranmere.

Application for 2 double storey in Barry Street, Bentleigh

Please note:

The site is zoned Neighbourhood residential Zone – ie suitable for 2 dwellings
No objections
Area of approximately 650 square metres – well and truly able to ‘cater’ for 2 double storeys

The officer’s report states:

An acceptable level of articulation has been provided for the development. The first floor is recessed behind the ground floor walls, with minor staggering of facades providing further articulation. Single garages are proposed ensuring that garages are not a dominant feature of the development.
The dwellings have both been provided with ground floor, east-facing private open space areas of 58m2 and 87m2 respectively, in accordance with the requirements of the zone and Rescode.
There are adequate landscaping opportunities at the front and rear of the site. Councils Landscape Officer has recommended that two canopy trees be planted in the front and rear yards of each dwelling (4 trees in total). Site coverage is less than 50%, which complies with Rescode requirements.
All proposed setbacks are in compliance with the State Government guidelines

COMMENT

Thus we get a page and a half report where practically every aspect of the planning scheme is met, plus NO OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION. Yet, it still is put on the agenda for a council resolution. Why? When countless other applications are decided at officer level, why is this one granted the privilege of a council resolution? What factors are at play here? Why is council’s time being wasted on such an application when the agenda is already overpacked (a mere 721 pages for Tuesday night). Is this a case of someone knowing someone else? Or knowing what might eventuate a year or two down the track? Who is responsible for getting this onto the agenda and what are the real motives?

June 21, 2016

Are We About To Be Screwed Again?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments

The latest Development Plan for the Mixed Use Precinct of the Caulfield Village reveals once again the failure of this council to keep its residents informed as to what is really going on. Worse still, the proposed plans are another example of MRC profit making and to hell with the local community.

Council Secrecy

The plans reveal the following (and we quote) –

On 27 May 2014 Glen Eira City Council (GECC) approved the initial Development Plan for Caulfield Village (DP 16060/2013) relating to that part of the Residential Precinct west of Bond Street. That Development Plan approval was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, most recently on 05 May 2015 (page 6 –Town Planning Assessment Report)

Condition 24 of Development Plan approval DP 16060/2013 required that the proposed design of the Normanby Road / Boulevard / PHE / Sir John Monash Drive intersection be resolved and approved by SJB Planning Council before further work on the future stages of Caulfield Village can advance. Following extensive engagement with State and local government stakeholders, an updated Integrated Transport Plan was submitted to Council for endorsement on 01 October 2015. (Page 13/14)

Thus, the MRC keeps putting in amended plans and residents know nothing about the amendments and what concessions have undoubtedly been granted to the MRC and by whom! There has not been any formal council resolution on the 5^th May 2015, nor any notice that amendments were sought. Why not? And who made the decisions and under whose authority? And as we stated in our previous post, who made the current decision to ‘refuse’ the new Development Plan and what were the grounds of refusal? Why aren’t residents informed as to what is going on until after the fact?

The Development Plan

There is much that could be said about this current proposal. We will only highlight the most obvious things –

Another 397 apartments proposed in 4 buildings
Building A – 9 storeys of 56 one bedroom and 56 two bedroom
Building B – 9 storeys of 44 one bedroom, 56 two bedroom and 9 three bedrooms
Building C – 5 storeys of 36 one bedroom and 12 two bedroom
Building D – 7 storeys of 92 one bedroom and 36 two bedroom

Thus the percentage of family oriented three bedroom apartments is the wonderful number of 2.26% – whereas the documents claim 5%!

The proposed configurations of these apartments are also nothing to write home about. For example:

No of apartments under 50 square metres – 51

No of units between 50 and 60 square metres – 60

No of balconies under 8 square metres – 71

We remind readers that council caved in on the requirement for 8 square metres of balcony on a previous amendment. Also the State Government’s Better Apartments is looking at legislating for a minimum size and 50 square metres is one suggestion.

Traffic Management & Parking

Thanks to the incompetence of the Incorporated Plan, there is NO VISITOR CAR PARKING
397 units plus retail only warrants 441 spots
The ‘statistics’ used date from 2010 and ‘updated’ in 2013! No mention of course of impacts on Eskdale Road, Newington, and other local streets all round the precinct!

Affordable Housing

We are so dumbfounded by this proposal that we cite it in full. Please remember that some councillors wrung their hands in dismay when there was no provision for ‘affordable housing’ in Precinct One. The argument put forward by the Lipshutzs and Hyams and Pillings of this world, was that the other precincts would fulfill this requirement. Well here is the ‘master plan’ for affordable housing, courtesy of the MRC. We are sure that readers will get a good laugh out of the following:

Aspirations for the provision of affordable housing within the Caulfield Village development are expressed in the Incorporated Plan. In the current absence of a Federal or State Government scheme to support the development of affordable rental housing, BPG has given detailed consideration to how it might self implement an opportunity for affordable housing within its development that is suitable to Caulfield Village and the broader Caulfield context.

The Caulfield Village & Affordable Housing Report at Appendix Q explores a variety of models that might be adopted to facilitate affordable housing opportunities within the development. It identifies the “Pathway to Ownership” model as the most appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of the proposal and its context. Broadly, the model would offer assistance to low-to-moderate income renter households to purchase an affordable home in the Caulfield Village development by providing people in affordable or private rental with a savings record an opportunity for assistance to meet the necessary start up funds to facilitate ownership. Deposit subsidies from BPG to eligible participants also form part of the assistance package. The scheme would be administered by a community housing provider. It is anticipated that eligible purchasers would currently be living in community housing or private rental accommodation, with limited opportunities to otherwise enter the housing market.

The added benefits of the scheme include the direct expertise of a community housing provider to assist appropriate and eligible candidates on the pathway to ownership, and the freeing up of low rental accommodation previously occupied by participants in the Pathway to Ownership scheme.

The preferred affordable housing model, which will be known as Caulfield Apartment Start Program (CASP) could potentially be applied to any of the proposed accommodation within the development, rather than limited to certain apartments or apartment types. Likewise there would be no limit to the number of apartments able to be purchased under the affordability scheme. The model applies a subsidy to eligible purchasers, rather than dwellings. It is uncertain, until the scheme is up and running, what the uptake of accommodation through the Pathway to Ownership model will look like, but BPG is committed to implementing the program for accommodation within the Mixed Use Precinct, and potentially future development stages

Our final word of caution

Whilst the variously dated Incorporated Plan (ie some of the documents refer to the Incorporated Plan as being 2011 and other documents cite 2014!) stated that the maximum preferred heights for Precinct 1 was 5 storeys, we now have 6 storeys looming over Station St. This is because of the neat little trick perpetrated by the MRC and permitted by council of using the formula of AHD. This refers to sea level heights. Thus if the land is sloping, then instead of the preferred height of say 5 storeys, the MRC can build 6 storeys. Council of course, and all their expert planners, did not pick this up – or if they did, did not care! Thus we warn residents that the mooted heights of these building are just that – mooted and nothing is set in concrete!

PS: stuck between the four building of 9/10 storeys, and 5/6 and 7/8 storeys, the MRC proposes to create a ‘pocket park’. The accompanying visuals are astounding: vast expanses of ‘open space’ that make the area look like a major park and not a ‘pocket park’. No real high rise to dominate the site; no overshadowing whatsoever, and nowhere in the landscape plan could we find any data which states the size and dimensions of this proposed ‘park’. What we do know at this stage is that 25 onsite trees will be removed and 14 street trees at least!

June 20, 2016

Q & A: #2

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

Not on this topic, but worth a read – http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/06/20/use-other-footpath/

RESIDENT #5 – stated that he ‘lived directly behind the town hall’ and that council talks about ‘community planning’ but they got a letter ‘yesterday’ telling them that their 2 hour parking on their street would now become all day parking. Believed that this change was to ‘facilitate council employee’ parking and not residents. Facilitator again interrupted and said that the resident is basically asking about the amount of information and ‘why’ this is happening. Resident answered that he is talking about ‘prior consultation’. Facilitator then rephrased again to include ‘consultation’.

TORRES: started saying about a ‘review’ of parking in the municipality, but was interrupted by the resident saying that he isn’t concerned with the entire municipality just why this happened to his street. Torres then continued and said that some ‘underutilised parking areas’ had been identified and having one side of the street as two hours and the opposite as unrestricted is ‘consistent’ with other streets in Glen Eira. Also said that parking is ‘dynamic’ and changes happen ‘over time’ so ‘it’s not a permanent situation’. The letter also said that the new conditions would be ‘reviewed early next year’.

Resident then explained how he already can’t get out of his drive. Facilitator again suggested that the resident speak with Torres and to provide him with details about the ‘process that took place’ and how the resident might ‘make an objection’. Resident claimed that this situation is exactly the same as happened to the other speaker’s question on Phillip’s Street changes. Facilitator summed up by saying ‘parking is a huge issue’ and therefore there needs to be the opportunity for this to be ‘examined’. Resident then went on with issue about trees and breaking branches and that ‘nothing’ ever happens about their concerns.

COMMENT

The resident’s question of ‘consultation’ has again been neatly sidestepped as has justification for the changes. In light of these actions, readers need to consider council’s ‘policy’ on traffic management changes. To the best of our knowledge this policy is still extant and is available online. Only 2002 this time! AND

June 18, 2016

Planning: Residents’ Q & A!

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

Residents at Wednesday night’s ‘feedback’ forum were provided with the opportunity to ask questions. Here is a summary of the first few –

Resident #1 – asked what part of structure planning will ensure, for example that heights are mandatory?

THE TORRES RESPONSE: said that there can be a mixture of controls – some are discretionary and also mandatory. ‘Ideally’ they want mandatory which VCAT cannot overturn. Glen Eira has got mandatory height controls over residential zoned land and VCAT can’t change this, but they can over-ride the ResCode guidelines such as setbacks, car parking requirements, etc.

Resident 1 then asked whether ‘we can assume’ that mandatory height limits will be put on commercial zoned sites like in Centre Road? Torres responded by saying that there would be a ‘thorough review’ of what people want to see develop in the future and that ‘there are tools available to produce greater clarity’ and height limits is one of these and there is ‘potential for mandatory height limits’ but this will involve a planning scheme amendment, then ‘ultimately the Minister for Planning has to approve that’. We will ‘ensure that we produce the best strategic justification’ for this.

RESIDENT #2 – spoke about heritage and that ‘our heritage areas are being attacked and we are losing them’. Said he couldn’t understand why council hasn’t done anything about its 2002 draft heritage guidelines which VCAT continually ignores because it is only a ‘reference document’ in the planning scheme and not a major policy. Said that he ‘understands’ that all that needs to happen is for this draft to be ‘ratified’ in some way. So instead of having ‘five or ten years of destruction happen’ he can’t understand why this draft document isn’t ‘ratified’ since a lot of the work has already been done and ‘is far better than the 1996 plan’. ‘We need to do something about it now’. (applause).

TORRES: said that what was called the ‘draft’ is part of the plan for the review and they’re ‘not talking 5 or 10 years’ time . The review will also probably recommend an ‘updated status’ of heritage within the planning scheme. They still need to go through the planning scheme review process though. Resident then asked that the draft plan stems from 2002 and that’s 14 years, so ‘why wasn’t this certified or ratified’? Also stated that he doesn’t understand Torres’ response and asked if he’s saying that it ‘can’t be certified or ratified now or do we have to wait for this other grand plan?’

Torres replied that there has to be a planning scheme amendment process in order for this to be ‘elevated’ in status in ‘our planning scheme’. They are reference documents currently and VCAT is ‘not giving them the weight’ that they should have. Resident again asked why this draft ‘can’t be certified now. Why wait’. The facilitator then interrupted asking officers to explain the amendment process to the audience because ‘there is a process involved here’. Torres then went through the process – ie asking the minister for authorisation to exhibit the amendment, public consultation, and if there are concerns then an independent planning panel is convened and this ‘applies to all of Victoria’. ‘There are many legal stages and they have to be honoured’. The comment was that all this could take 18 months.

Again the resident stated that he didn’t understand why nothing has been done in 16 years on something that is a lot better than the work produced in 1996. Then resident asked ‘why can’t this be taken as interim’ for the time being? Facilitator then intervened suggesting that the resident sit down with Torres privately so he could explain the State Government ‘process and the local council process’. Resident again stated that if it is taken directly to the Minister that the minister ‘can come up with some interim’ orders. Smith responded that it is part of the ‘work plan’ and that they can’t do anything that hasn’t been ‘reviewed’.

COMMENT

The responses to both of these questions are informative not for what they state, but for what is left UNSTATED! On the heritage questions, Torres kept insisting on the legal processes of a formal advertised amendment, possibly a planning panel and then the Minister’s approval. What is NOT STATED and could be a viable option is an application to the Minister under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, asking the minister to intervene and approve the amendment, or impose interim controls – without the need for public consultation or a panel. This we remind readers is what council did when they introduced the residential zones by stealth and in secret! Of course, the major obstacle to such an approach is that since council has done bugger all for the past 14 years on Heritage, the minister may well be loath to rubber stamp a document that is so out of date. Another scathing indictment of the failure of this council to act and to fulfil anything that it has promised in the planning scheme.

On the first question of height limits for Centre Road, we again have to query the comprehensiveness of the Torres response. When both Lipshutz and Hyams have declared that they think that 6 storeys is appropriate in Centre Road, then how much credence should residents have that their preferred heights (which some have already stated to be 4 storeys) will get a look in from this council. Once again council has the option of applying for interim height controls whilst working on their structure plans and thus ten years need not go by before anything is done. This option is not stated!

Nor is it clear what position LOCAL CENTRES have in all this discussion of ‘activity centre’ commercial zoning. Glen Eira has heaps of LOCAL CENTRES and in each we have commercially zoned sites, many directly abutting Neighbourhood Residential zones. Not once has the discussion paper referred to these areas. Not once has any councillor or planner referred to these areas. Nor is it even clear whether Local Centres are classified as ‘activity centres’!

June 15, 2016

Planning Scheme Review: #1

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

Tonight’s meeting drew a big crowd. Over 100 people in attendance. Missing in action were – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Ho, Delahunty. Ms McKenzie (CEO) was present as were Lobo, Hyams, Magee, Pilling and Sounness.

The evening started with the facilitator introducing the format and then Ms McKenzie providing the ‘context’. Acknowledgement was given as to the criticism levelled at council and the amount of work that was required. This was followed by Torres providing feedback on the results of the community consultation and then Russell Smith (acting manager Strategic Planning) providing a synopsis of the planning tools available which could address the issues raised by residents. Residents were then invited to ask questions of planners.

The Positives

Despite years and years of refusing to undertake various initiatives, tonight possibly, maybe, perhaps, signalled a change in direction. Here is a brief list of what council proposes to do according to their stated ‘draft work plan’.

Structure planning
Water Sensitive Urban Design
Vegetation Protection
Environmental Sustainable Design
Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements
Heritage Review
Development Contributions Levy for drainage
SBO – overlays to mitigate flooding
Update the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policies

Without unduly blowing our own trumpet, we wish to point out that these initiatives are what we, and countless residents, have been demanding for years and years and which council has steadfastly refused to implement! Whether this represents a real change in culture, attitude, and listening to residents remains to be seen.

The Negatives

Council’s ‘draft work plan’ was stated as:

3 structure plans to be carried out over first 5 years with a view to continue developing structure plans or Urban Design Frameworks over all activity centres after this period of 10 years……

Residents were also asked to ‘prioritise’ the list provided at the start of this post. Torres explained in response to a question that the 3 structure plans does not automatically mean that this will be the 3 major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie. People were free to suggest that the initial structure plans should involve such neighbourhood centres as Glen Huntly for example.

We do not deny the amount of work involved in preparing sound and competent structure plans. Nor do we deny the costs involved. Our concerns are as follows:

If only 3 are to be completed within 5 years and the rest subject to council’s budgets/finances and a time span of ten or more years, then the reality is that of the 10 neighbourhood centres, most will remain untouched for the next decade.
No ‘official’ reference was made to reviewing the zones, or the associated schedules. What this means is that if structure plans are developed for the major activity centres, then the neighbourhood centres and their surrounding residential areas, will continue to allow three and four storey overdevelopments for the next decade. Only at question time from the audience was the completely lame response given that the neighbourhood character policy review would safeguard these centres. We beg to differ! If the mandatory height limit remains at 3 and 4 storeys for large swathes of McKinnon, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Murrumbeena, Bentleigh East, Caulfield North, then no local policy will prevent this overdevelopment of local residential streets. Without reviewing the extent of the zones, then structure plans alone will not safeguard residents from overdevelopment!

Our next post will focus on the questions asked by residents and the often unsatisfactory responses received. Overall, whilst this planning scheme review has seen changes that are positive, and explicitly acknowledged by the new CEO of council’s failure to address planning issues over the past decade, there is still room for major scepticism as the answers to the questions revealed. More on this in the days ahead.

June 14, 2016

Virginia Estate

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

The Gillon conglomerate has now released its next phase of ‘consultation’ for Virginia Estate. Residents should note:

The site keeps expanding. It now includes the area between Griffiths Avenue and North Road. We estimate that the site is approximately 25 hectares.
Detail is non-existent and several of the maps in relation to NEW OPEN SPACE are contradictory.
Terminology is obtuse (ie Mixed Use Development we argue should be read as a euphemism for residential development).
Solution to traffic is the installation of two sets of traffic lights within 100 metres of each other along East Boundary Road.

Readers should consider the following carefully in terms of:

If all the buildings marked as ‘redundant’ are to go, will they be replaced with apartments?
Are we really looking at an ‘employment hub’ that covers 90% of the site, or is this simply doublespeak for 2 shops and hundreds of apartments above? Remember that the centre of the site has already been rezoned and ‘permission’ granted for 10 storey developments.

Conclusion?

Until the Gillon group is prepared to be upfront with residents and to provide full detail then little credence can be given to these ‘concepts’.

June 8, 2016

Council’s ‘Parking Management’!!!!!

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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

We remind readers of the following:

Changes to parking arrangements according to council ‘policy’ is to undertake a survey of all residents and requires a vast majority of responses in support. Was a survey undertaken?
What has happened to council ‘policy’ that new developments will not be eligible for residential parking permits?
What rationale could support the removal of 2 hour parking? Were residents informed, warned? Where is the data to support this?
Is council monitoring this street and fining drivers if they break the law?

May 26, 2016

Another ‘Clayton’s Consultation’?

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

For the second consecutive time, Theme 1 (Municipal Strategic Statement & Local Policies) contained in the ‘Discussion Paper’ for the review of the planning scheme has been neatly side-stepped and no discussion permitted. We therefore wonder how Council can ‘know’ what residents suggest, or want, if they haven’t even bothered to ask. What comments council officers have made in previous forums on this theme has been far from satisfactory. Torres simply admitted that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is well and truly outdated and will need to be ‘revised’. That’s it!

Given that the MSS and its associated Local Policies are perhaps the most important components of any planning scheme, it is unforgiveable that residents have not been provided with (a) enough information on these sections, and (b) that ‘discussion’ has been literally ‘censored’. That of course leads to the very obvious questions of:

Is this another Clayton’s consultation where ‘changes’ have already been predetermined but residents are kept in the dark like mushrooms?
Who decided to discard discussion on Theme 1? Was Ms Turner given her orders to do so or was it her decision alone?

Below is a screen dump from the Discussion Paper. Please note how bereft of detail this really is, yet how this Theme contains all the vital policies and which, of course, ultimately lead onto the zones and their schedules. From our perspective, it appears that council has done everything it can to avoid any discussion on the most contentious issue in Glen Eira – ie a review of the zones and their respective schedules.

PS: also worthy of note – the only councillor to front last night was Lobo. No sign of Lipshutz at any of these ‘forums’ and Magee’s 5 minute appearance at the first one! Delahunty has also been a noticeable absentee.