GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

July 10, 2014

Level Crossings

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport
[9] Comments 

Designs revealed for new railway stations at Carnegie, Murrumbeena, and Clayton

Date:July 9, 2014 – 1:56PM

A concept design for Carnegie station.A concept design for Carnegie station. Photo: Supplied

Three ageing suburban railway stations in Melbourne’s south-east will be demolished and replaced with new station buildings under concept plans released by the Napthine government on Wednesday.

The plans involve rebuilding the stations at Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Clayton, which would be put partially underground as the Dandenong railway corridor is sunk and four busy level crossings removed.

Crossings at Murrumbeena Road – consistently rated one of Melbourne’s worst in RACV’s congestion surveys – Neerim Road in Carnegie and Clayton and Centre roads in Clayton are to be removed as part of a $2 billion to $2.5 billion upgrade of the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail line.

The project, due to start next year and be completed in 2019, will force the closure of Melbourne’s busiest rail corridor for an estimated six weeks as level crossings are grade separated and stations rebuilt. The removal of the Murrumbeena Road level crossing alone is predicted in project plans to require the Dandenong line’s closure for about five weeks.

Concept designs for the three stations show improved commuter facilities such as new footbridges and commuter car parking, but give no hint of the scope of potential commercial development around the station that is slated to happen as part of the project.

Melbourne’s rail operator, Metro, has negotiated development rights at the three stations, as its Hong Kong-based parent company MTR regularly does in that city.

Premier Denis Napthine and Public Transport Minister were challenged by Glen Eira mayor Neil Pilling to reveal how the station environment at Murrumbeena Station would change. Mr Pillings said residents were concerned “large-scale developments” would go up in the mostly low-rise suburb to help pay for the project, which is being delivered as a public-private partnership.

“One of the concerns that is raised [by residents] is about what sort of development will happen around the station here … there is a lot of VicTrack land here, it’s very important for parking, people drive here from all over,” Mr Pilling said.

Mr Mulder said any future development around Murrumbeena station would be secondary to the needs of public transport users.

“We don’t really want the development opportunities dictating what the station would look like, we want the station precinct, the public transport outcomes … to dictate what we could do with other available land,” Mr Mulder said.

The public has been invited to comment on the concept designs, which can be viewed here.

COMMENT
What a pity that the government page which includes the concept designs contains 90% spin and 10% ‘information’ of value to residents. After years and years of promises, it is most disappointing to see that the ‘concept plans’ are so devoid of fine detail (and some even look like they’ve been drawn by a two year old!) as well as failing to deliver on the most important aspects of policy – that is provision for extra tracks!
 

May 4, 2014

Coming Soon?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

High-rise plan for railway hubs

Date:May 4, 2014

Royce Millar and Adam Carey

Residents of Melbourne’s politically sensitive south-east face the possibility of high-rise development at their rail stations including Murrumbeena, under a confidential deal between the Napthine government and a consortium led by the city’s private rail operator.

The deal for the proposed multibillion-dollar upgrade of the Pakenham-Cranbourne rail corridor – contained in documents leaked to The Sunday Age – includes a specific clause about development around sites identified for level crossing removals.

”Key” issues to be negotiated with the Hong Kong-based rail operator Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) and its partners include ”exploring value capture opportunities associated with land development at grade separation sites”.

The Sunday Age is aware that MTM views the Pakenham-Cranbourne project – including property development – as the first of a series of schemes across the Melbourne network.

The ”commitment deed” spelling out the in-principle understanding between the government and the consortium, is one of a batch of high-level leaks to Fairfax Media about ”Project Flinders”, including cabinet-in-confidence documents.

In March the government made a surprise announcement about the upgrade, which it said would deliver a 30 per cent capacity boost along the congested Dandenong corridor. The revamp includes removing level crossings at Murrumbeena, Koornang, Clayton and Centre roads and rebuilding Murrumbeena, Carnegie and Clayton stations.

At the time no mention was made of the potentially controversial property development component of the project. Detail, such as the precise areas to be developed, and planning issues such as height, are yet to be finalised. So too, it seems, is any agreement about the millions of dollars likely to be generated from the sale of apartments, and commercial space.

In Hong Kong, MTM’s parent, MTR, has overseen skyscraper development around its celebrated rail network. Melbourne’s planning politics is unlikely to allow such building height or density.

More likely is the kind of development already overseen by the government-owned rail property agency VicTrack, such as the $70 million, 10-level apartment and commercial development at Glen Waverley. Other VicTrack projects either under way or in the pipeline include stations at Jewell in Brunswick and Alphington, Hampton and Pascoe Vale.

University of Melbourne transport academic Chris Hale said development around a station like Murrumbeena should be 15 levels at least.

Dr Hale said many people want to work in the CBD, and live near rail stations, but could not afford inner-city houses. He said there was a lack of housing opportunities near stations in the middle suburbs, within a 30-minute train trip to the CBD.

He called for care in planning such high density schemes. ”Rather than concrete canyons they should be lively green zones with plenty of trees and grass and great architectural qualities. State and local government needs to become more effective in their stewardship of transit-oriented design and planning.”

On Saturday, Treasurer Michael O’Brien confirmed the government would ”explore” development opportunities through the Pakenham-Cranbourne upgrade. But he stressed the government would drive a hard bargain in any such deals.

”It is the Victorian government, not third parties, that will determine whether and how any value capture opportunities are pursued.

”Any suggestion that the Coalition government has sold a right to develop land around level crossings as part of the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail project is barking up the wrong tree,” he said.

Project Flinders is Victoria’s first ”unsolicited proposal”, a new and controversial policy that allows the private sector to propose new infrastructure, even if the projects identified are not government priorities. It is Australia’s biggest rail public-private partnership.

While the government spruiked the scheme as a $2 billion to $2.5 billion (in today’s dollars) project, The Saturday Age reported yesterday that Victorians would have to pay up to $5.2 billion, or almost $1 million a day in annual services payments to the consortium until 2034.

The Saturday Age also revealed the project had been expedited to ensure contracts were signed before the November state election and that a key ”milestone” was ”contractual close” by September 29, two months before the election

Project Flinders also includes buying 25 ”next generation” high-capacity trains, high-speed signalling and a new train-maintenance depot on green wedge land at Pakenham East.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-plan-for-railway-hubs-20140503-37p6f.html#ixzz30hCKbwUu

 

April 29, 2014

Shop Local? – If You Can Get There!

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

localPaul Burke states that there is “no evidence that businesses would be adversely affected.” Research by Monash University certainly casts major doubt on such a statement!

Driving a changed approach to shopping

11 April 2013

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at local centres.

Small suburban shopping centres are disproportionately threatened by policies on climate change and traffic congestion that discourage consumers from using their cars, research shows.

The Monash University study found many people already favour larger shopping malls over local centres because of the perceived ease of parking and access.

Dr Vaughan Reimers from the Department of Marketing examined the importance shoppers gave to car convenience, recognising that urban sprawl and decentralised retail options had contributed to reliance on the car. He found that irrespective of age, gender or income, shoppers regarded access and parking as important determinants of where they chose to shop.

He also assessed perceptions of shopping malls and shopping strips, and then compared the actual level of convenience provided by both for people travelling by car. The results were published in Transportation Research Part A.

Dr Reimers’ study showed that although shopping malls had more parking than local centres, people were more likely to be able to park close to desired stores at their local centre. However, it was commonly believed that large shopping complexes always had better parking options – a belief that has helped contribute to the rise of the mall.

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at the smaller centres by respondents.

“On the basis of the results of this study, any strategies designed to deter car-usage are likely to tip the balance even further in favour of the mall,” Dr Reimers said.

“Many policies related to tackling climate change have not only failed to achieve their objective but have also had a negative effect on the retail sector.”

Dr Reimers said modern transport systems needed to find a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth, a fact that was particularly significant in light of the competitive disadvantage faced by suburban shopping centres.

“Policy makers and urban planners must give careful consideration to the negative consequences that may stem from strategies designed to deter car-based shopping,” Dr Reimers said.

Source: http://monash.edu/news/show/driving-a-changed-approach-to-shopping

 

April 23, 2014

Council – So ‘Community Minded’!

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

We’ve received an email from a resident which in our view epitomises everything that is wrong with the Glen Eira City Council administration and, in particular, its penchant for secrecy and putting every single obstacle it can in the way of residents.

Here’s what happened.

  • A resident went down to council offices and asked to see the Melbourne Transport Victoria submission on the Caulfield Village Development Plan.
  • An officer finally came down with the submission and told the resident that photographs or copies were verboten.
  • The resident, not to be put off, then started to transcribe the submission in full.
  • The officer remained watching the resident write for at least ten minutes and was clearly bored out of his brain and inwardly fuming. He then called in an underling to continue with the surveillance.

What is so outrageous about this behaviour is:

  • There is NOTHING, not a single word, in the Planning and Environment Act which precludes residents from taking a photo of a submission. The ‘embargo’ by council is simply another example of their determination to make things as difficult as they possibly can for residents. It is simply another ‘rule’ concocted by council to prevent widespread dissemination of a public document.
  • It also illustrates the common council practice of ‘if it’s not stated in the legislation’ then we can’t do it. Or the reverse is also true – if it’s not stated in the legislation, we can do it’. It all depends on the situation and the objective – for example: the Local Law and the Meeting Procedures and attempts to dissent from the chair!
  • Residents need to ask: how much did this officer surveillance cost ratepayers? How many dollars went down the drain when two employees stood around watching someone else write instead of getting on with the work they are paid (by us) to do?

Finally, here is the transcript as forwarded to us. All that has been left out are the reference numbers –

Received – 27th February 2014

 

Public Transport Victoria

Ref FQL

Rocky Camera

Coordinator Statutory Planning

Thank you for your letter dated 28/01/14 referring the Caulfield Village Development Plan to Public Transport Victoria. Please find Public Transport Victoria’s comments below.

While the accompanying Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) has made references to most items as outlined in Schedule 2 to the Property Development Zone PTV requires the following additional information to be able to conduct a proper assessment of the plan.

1/ Demonstrate how Station Street will accommodate the ‘Undivided Connector Road – B’ as detailed in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development (i.e. a minimum 4.2 metres shared carriageway for both vehicles and bikes and a minimum 2.3 metres wide parking lane).

2/ Provide further information regarding the layout and location of the proposed bus stop at the intersection of Station Street and The Boulevard. Confirm that such bus stop would be funded by the development.

3/ Further detail on how existing tram services along Normanby Road and bus services along Station Street will be impacted by the proposed development (i.e. delays to journey time) including the intersection plans showing the proposed works, how they will accommodated within the road reserve and how they will operate.

4/ Further detail on the future planning for the Normanby Road / Smith Street tram stop (i.e. timing, planning location and design of a potential Superstop).

In addition, PTV does not support the introduction of a shared tram and traffic lane as suggested in Table 4.3 of the ITT on the Normanby Road/The Boulevard/Smith Street intersection. Introducing additional traffic to the existing tram right turn would cause travel time delays to the tram service. The intersection should be designed as not to detrimentally impact the current levels of tram operation.

The PTV would prefer that the Implementation Plan submitted with the Development Plan documents clearly sets out how each intersection across the development will be constructed and the timing for delivery detailed in an approved implementation plan.

Yours,

Richard McAliece

Manager

Land and Planning

24 / 2 / 2014

 

April 23, 2014

More Dissembling!

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

Submitters to the MRC Development Plan have received a letter from council. We urge readers to note the following:

  • April 29th was never the set date for decision. Pilling announced it was to be April 8th. This delay far exceeds the requirements of Schedule 2 associated with the C60.
  • Normanby Road intersection is not the only problem highlighted by VicRoads as we’ve already shown in an earlier post. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/caulfield-village-vicroads/). Yet Council only mentions this one example. Why?
  • The VicRoads submission also mentioned working with the developers AND COUNCIL. In  this letter the role of Council does not even rate a mention! Are residents supposed to believe that Council has no role, no function, and no say in what changes are now made? Hardly!
  • Why, given these objections, and the countless other problems outlined by residents has Council not simply rejected outright the entire Development Plan? Why this ongoing behind the scenes manoeuvring? It couldn’t be could it that by rejecting the Development Plan council would be providing residents with the green light for third party objection rights?
  • Question after question on traffic, drainage, etc. has not been answered by this council except for the stock response of ‘we’re investigating’. After 4 months Council should well and truly have determined all the flaws in the plans. They should also have conducted their own traffic analysis as any decent council would if they were truly concerned about the flow on effects. Thus far and to the best of our knowledge, this Council has done nothing but accept the developer’s version of reality as factual and sacrosanct!
  • Finally, it beggars belief that official missives of Council fail to include the name of those individuals responsible for their decision making. The blanket title of ‘Glen Eira Planning Department’ will simply not do! Who is responsible? Who signs off on such letters and planning decisions and why is there no accountability and/or transparency within this administration?

IMG

 

March 8, 2014

More MRC Spin!

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

The Car Parking Management Plan for the whole of the land states that for major events the following car parking spots within the racecourse are available (from page 6 of the Plan) – Kambrook Road entrance (674 spaces); Guineas Car park (536 spaces) and centre of the racecourse (3000 spaces). The claim is that all of these are sufficient to cater for demand – especially for the Caravan and Camping Show which draws the largest crowds and puts the greatest demand on car parking spaces.

It’s a pity that the consultants haven’t included a full and accurate picture of what actually happens with the Kambrook and Guineas car parks during the Caravan and Camping Show. They disappear and are replaced (of course) with caravans and camping gear. That means that 1210 sp0aces that the MRC is banking on to support its unsupportable claims do NOT EXIST. Where these 1210 cars end up is obvious – in all quiet surrounding residential streets!

The map below (for all those who haven’t driven past the grounds) provides a clear picture of the nonsense that is contained within the Parking Management Plan.

Edited_map_smaller

 

March 4, 2014

Planning Conference: Part #1

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

The Caulfield Village Planning Conference was held last night with a very good turnout of articulate residents who quite forcibly put forward their views on the development plan. Of councillors, only Lipshutz and Esakoff were non attendees. What follows is a summary of the evening.

Pilling began the evening by introducing the planners (Rocky Camera and Ron Torres) who would be explaining the plan and answering questions. Went over the ‘procedures’ for the meeting and said that there would be a rep from the applicants who would ‘speak’ and ‘also possibly’ answer some of the ‘queries you’ve raised’.  Wanted to confirm that no decision had been made and that the evening was ‘purely about explanation’ and ‘clarification’ and giving people the ‘opportunity to ask questions’. Admitted that there was a lot of ‘history’ involved but that this wasn’t why everyone was present.

Rocky Camera, using overheads  explained the application and pointed out that there would be 8 stages of which the current one represented three stages. Stated that buildling heights for this precinct ranged from 2 to 6 storeys and all were within the preferred heights of the incorporated plan. Went through all the ‘internal’ referrals to other Glen Eira departments such as traffic, landscaping, etc and that they were waiting for feedback which would be ‘available’ in the council report. Said that council had received 26 submissions and that some the ‘key concerns’ were: neighbourhood character, amenity, car parking and congestion, trees, lack of open space, infrastructure and inconsistency between the incorporated and development plan. Camera then listed 3 main issues as he saw them –  accordance with the incorporated plan, car parking and ‘design elements’ as well as internal amenity. Pilling then asked for an overview of the C60 and the incorporated plan. The audience was then told of the approval of C60 which resulted in rezoning into a Priority Development zone and approval of the incorporated mixed use plan. Said that the latter was a ‘blueprint’ for future development and that it includes building heights, setbacks and this lead to the Development Plan which has ‘finite detail’. The project could take 15 years to finish.

Pilling asked that appeal rights be explained as well. The officer then explained the impact of Amendment c111 and the ‘minor impacts’ that this allowed like balcony intrusions and ‘no appeal rights’ since this wasn’t a ‘typical application’ but if there is a difference then it would go to the normal planning application process. Pilling then asked people to give their names and addresses before they spoke.

SPEAKER 1 – talked about the need for recreation facilities and ‘recreational support’ and that ‘increased volume’ of people means increased support for ‘community based clubs’.

SPEAKER 2 – from Queen’s avenue. Density and scope had greatly increased. Was also worried about ‘lack of public space’ and car parking. Said that ‘most of the car parks’ were currently being used at the racecourse for the Caravan and Camping show so there’s ‘very little car parking’. Didn’t think that the Monash plans had ‘been taken into consideration’. ‘It’s all smoke and mirrors as far as I’m concerned’.

SPEAKER 3: was concerned that only some of the development plan documents concerned the entire 3 precincts but the discussion was being focussed only on the one precinct and the published Incorporated Plan is incorrect. Asked whether council was going to approve plans that ‘relate to the whole of the development’ without details of these other precincts. The officer replied that the developer has to submit plans for the ‘overall project’ so council would be approving all the other documents. The speaker then stated that if the developer changes their mind about the amount of commercial space, there’s the situation that the car parking plan is then ‘set in concrete’. Planner stated that ‘that would need to be amended’ if there were changes and these amended plans would have to ‘show those changed details’. Residents would be able to ‘comment’ on these changes. Speaker than asked about the ‘validity’ of the discussion since the Incorporated Plan doesn’t include building height. ‘Why are we comparing (the development plan) to a document that council knows is incorrect’? Camera replied that this was about the Smith St precinct and it was ‘an error made by State Government’ and that this is currently being ‘rectified’ but in the mixed use precinct the height control ‘is correct’. Speaker said again that residents are being asked to compare the plan which isn’t correct and that there should be an expectation that residents are given the ‘correct information’.

SPEAKER 4: said that he’s heard what the ‘developer is doing but what is council doing in relation to’ traffic management. Pilling then answered that there’s no decision as yet and the application is being considered. Speaker said again that this answer only tells him how council is dealing with the developer and not what they are doing off their own bat especially in relation to the areas outside the site. The officer then spoke about the Section 173 Agreement which requires the MRC to put in ‘some key infrastructure’ projects about traffic management such as the ‘creation of a new road’ and making it safe for pedestrians around the railway station. Went on to list all the requirements of the Section 173 Agreement. The speaker then asked again what council itself is doing about the limited car parking in areas surrounding the site. Officer responded that the ‘car parking rates’ are now ‘set’ as a result of the C60 and it was the ‘Minister for Planning’ who ‘set those rates’. Said these are ‘ResCode rates’ (ie 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom places, etc.). Speaker again said that the answer was all about the specific site and that ‘I am asking’ about the surrounding areas and what council has done about ‘trying to accommodate the overflow’. Camera again said that the developers have put in their Development Plan a submission about what ‘happens to displaced car parking’ and council has to decide whether ‘we are satisfied’ with the proposals. Speaker then said that from what he’d read Newington was named as a ‘low priority’ street and disagreed very much with this labelling. Said he didn’t know when this study was done nor by whom and when the cars were counted but it was wrong. Since Eskdale Rd now has 2 hour parking along one side of the street it is now Newington which is receiving the ‘overflow’. Camera again said that council has to decide whether they will be ‘satisfied’ and advised the resident to look at the displaced car parking figures.

SPEAKER 5: in regards to the agreement with the MRC on centre of the racecourse parking, there was originally only to be 5 such days. Said that this appears to have ‘gone by the by” and requested confirmation whether the agreement still stands. Pilling said that the agreement ‘is still in place but that is a separate’ issue to the development plan. Speaker then said that parking is an issue and race days make this even more significant. Pilling restated that the agreement stands but has little to do with the application. Several audience members disgreed claiming that they are ‘interlinked’.

SPEAKER 6: asked what is the precise amount of open space and how many apartments were not going to receive natural light. Camera said that the Guidelines for High Density development cover open space and that ‘unlike ResCode that doesn’t give you a broad figure’. Said that for apartments ResCode recommends 8 square metres so ‘there’s no figure’ for council to ‘assess against’. Said that council would look at this and they might specify a figure for the apartments. Speaker then asked about the ‘public open space’ and not ‘the private’. Camera then said that ‘there is a provision for public open space’ and that this is through a ‘contribution’ (ie the 5 and 4 percent open space levy). Speaker then stated that the question hasn’t been answered in that the question referred to ‘exact acreage’ of public open space and not about money to be collected. Said that ‘here’s a plan where nobody knows the amount of public open space’ and that it was ‘incongruous’ that councillors would be ‘deciding on something’ when they can’t answer such basic and specific questions. Camera then replied that about access to sunlight ‘we don’t have a figure right now’ because they are ‘still going through the plans’. Conceeded that some apartments don’t have sunlight and that this was raised with developers via a council letter. This would form part of planners recommendations to council.

 

February 25, 2014

Subsidising the MRC?

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

We’ve received the following comment from a reader and believe it deserves to be highlighted as a separate post. The issues that are raised are significant –

  • To what extent is Council ‘facilitating’ the C60 development with ratepayer funds?
  • How ‘competent’ is the traffic department’s report and when errors are pointed out these are totally ignored? Why?
  • Council’s ‘policy’ states that any traffic calming initiatives must first undergo ‘community consultation’. When 92% of residents in a local street state that suggested works are unnecessary, then why is Council so insistent that the works go ahead?
  • If councillors ‘decided’ to support officers, then again and again we have major governance issues relating to decision making behind closed doors.

 

The Redan Road bicycle lane installation smacks of collusion – everywhere else in the municipality installing bicycle lanes only involves painting a white line on either side of the road and adding some cycling symbols.

Not so Redan Road – it involved
– landscaped traffic calming treatments all along the street and which at one point reduced a wide four lane road to one lane
– a loss of about 15 on street parking spaces (a number of residences are single fronted Victorian/Edwardian that have limited on-site parking capacity and on-street parking is already in high demand) which was disputed by the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Department who claimed only a loss 5)
– 93% of residents signed a petition against it – under the proposal several the landscaped traffic treatments would permanently prevent them from parking within 100 metres of their residence.
– Resident discussions with Ward Councillor/s and the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Engineers proved several of the engineers claims blatantly wrong, described the cost of the installation as a waste of ratepayers money particularly as all residents wanted was a couple of speed humps and the cycling lanes.
– Residents and Councillor/s agreed the speed hump solution would be pursued.
– Residents have now been advised that at the last Councillor Assembly (despite the local law prohibits decisions being made in Assemblies) it was decided to implement the Glen Eira/O’Brien recommendation. No doubt the tactic of letting ward councillors off the hook on contentious issues by non-ward councillors (who have probably never seen the Road) out voting them on the basis of “greater good” for the community is once again being played.

Oh did I forget to mention
. Redan Road, North Caulfield, is an wide angled road (approx. 400 metres in length) that links Balaclava Road with Kambrook Road.
. The Balaclava junction is smack dab across from Caulfield Park next to the controlled Bambra and Balaclava Roads intersection.
. Kambrook Road end is smack dab opposite the MRC’s Caulfield Village’s main Kambrook Road pedestrian access point and that the MRC is going to undertake the installation of pedestrian safety treatments at the Kambrook Road/Redan Road intersection.
. That Redan Road residents do not have a major traffic volume/speed issue since the 40 k/h speed limit and combined the restricted left turn and pedestrian safety refuge (from Kambrook to Redan) was implemented in 2007/2008. Ditto with the Balaclava Road/Redan Road intersection.
. That the Caulfield Village Development Plans focus on Redan Road as a major pedestrian/cycling route to access Caulfield Park and a tram stop that is further away then the Kambrook/Balaclava tram stop.
. How lovely it would be for the Caulfield Village residents to stroll/cycle down a wide, landscaped, tree lined avenue on their way to the already “at capacity” Caulfield Park – not to mention a photo op for the Caulfield Village marketing materials.

No doubt the Redan Road residents are greatly consoled by the fact that their already Caulfield Village impacted amenity will be further reduced by unwanted traffic treatments, that will prevent them from parking near their residences and that are being partly funded from their rates.
 

February 13, 2014

How To Sell A Lemon?

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

The extracts featured below, all come (verbatim) from the officer’s report tabled in the minutes of 12th August 2002 on Amendment C25 – ie. the brainchild for the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change carve up of the municipality. Admittedly, it can be argued that times are different and that things have changed. What CANNOT be argued is that this Amendment was sold to residents on the basis of promises that have never been kept. Now we are lumbered with the new Residential Zones that (without community consultation or even forewarning) were rushed through in secret on the basis of Amendment C25.

Please note: the 80/20 Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy is not only a dud but iniquitous. Housing diversity has grown and grown. Yet this was supposed to be ‘sufficient’ to cater for some nebulous population figures. What we now have is rapid creep into Minimal Change Areas where streets that were predominantly single storey and single dwelling are being transformed into 2 double storey dwellings on various lot sizes. Remember that Council, unlike others, has not limited the size for subdivision! Instead they are working on another amendment to allow more dwellings on larger lot sizes regardless of the fact that these are in Minimal Change.

The ‘proof’ that the 80/20 split is a myth and not working is provided by council itself. Buried in very small print in the Quarterly Report from September 2013, there is this staggering admission – ” 56% of dwellings approved were in Housing Diversity Areas”. So much for 80/20! And it’s getting worse! The rush is on for infill and that means Minimal Change. Yet, residents were told and dare we say ‘promised’, the following in relation to Amendment c25 which set this all up – (we’ve omitted comments regarding open space and that old chestnut – a Significant Tree Register!)

A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:

  • Exceed prevailing building heights
  • Dominate the street scape
  • Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
  • Result in the loss of landscaped front yards (all in accordance with the standards of ResCode)

The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.

Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reduction in open space, cr parking standards, etc.

Traffic and parking

While critically important to the viability and functioning of any commercial centre and character of residential areas, traffic and parking issues largely sit outside the jurisdiction of the planning scheme local policy. The proposed policy, therefore, does not attempt to comprehensively address existing or anticipated traffic and parking issues…..ResCode provides parking standards for residential development The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledges that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.

There’s much, much more in these papers, but readers will have got the overall gist by now. The take home message is absolutely clear:

  • Promises have never been kept much less delivered
  • The 80/20 carve up is failing and will only get worse – dwellings are NOT going into Housing Diversity, but increasingly into Minimal Change.
  • Traffic, parking, open space identified as major concerns over a decade ago has not been addressed.
 

February 3, 2014

Straight From The Horse’s Mouth!

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

How many residents’/loading bay/visitor car parking spots has this council waived in the past few years? We wouldn’t be surprised if it approaches a thousand places given the rate of development that has occurred in Glen Eira. What all this means is that local neighbourhood streets are primarily bearing the full brunt of such dispensations. Heaven help residents who just happen to be living off any of the main shopping centre strips. They represent the immediate casualties.

We’ve decided to present some of the officer decisions on major developments for the life of this current council. All of these ‘recommendations’ were approved by councillors with a little bit of tinkering via conditions. Please note the:

  • Contradictions regarding stackers for visitor car parking
  • The failure to provide quantifiable ‘evidence’ for recommendations
  • The constant repetition – at times verbatim!
  • Logic that defies belief!

1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD CARNEGIE – 12 storeys, 173 dwellings,  (13th November 2012)

264 car spaces proposed and Planning Scheme requires 276 (12 shortfall)

Council’s Transport Planning Department consider the planning scheme requirement of 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres of restricted retail floor area to be greater than the likely parking demand in this area. A parking provision closer to 2 spaces per 100 square metres is considered more appropriate (therefore a minimum of 32 spaces is required compared to the provision of 35 spaces for the restricted retail use component). It needs to be noted that non-compliance with a planning scheme car parking requirement does not necessarily flag a car parking shortfall for a particular site. This is because the planning scheme requirement is general in nature and the provisions are premised on a lower number possibly being acceptable having regard to the circumstances of a particular site. There is availability of on-street parking in the area for any overflow short term parking. In addition, the existing use of the site would have generated some demand for on street parking.

127-131 Gardenvale Road,Gardenvale –  4 storey building; 2 retail 12 dwellings (2 shortfall) 

No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings) however this can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. On the one hand, Council’s Transport Planning Department has requested the provision of two at-grade visitor car spaces. On the other hand, the applicant’s traffic engineering advice suggests that no visitor car parking is required given the ability to accommodate this parking demand in the surrounding streets. On balance, a dispensation is considered reasonable in this instance”   (27th November 2012)

483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD ELSTERNWICK – 8 storey; 4 retail; 57 units (Shortfall 16)

In this case, a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement is justified. If sustainable transport modes are to be promoted, then a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement should be encouraged. It is considered appropriate to provide a modest level of visitor parking. However providing additional on-site parking for visitors will only encourage more vehicle traffic to an area which anecdotally has issues with traffic. It is also noted that a visitor parking rate of 1 space per 10 dwellings (as proposed in this case) has been supported previously in activity centre locations. Notwithstanding this, a shared arrangement could be incorporated with the 4 retail car spaces being made available outside normal business hours (achieving the 9 spaces suggested by Transport Planning).

(5th February, 2013)

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH – 5 storey; a shop; 12 units  (Shortfall 2)

No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). However this can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the lack of any on-site visitor car spaces. On balance, a dispensation is considered reasonable in this instance/ (2nd July 2013)

674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 storey; 2 shops; 8 units (Shortfall 3)

A total of 8 car spaces have been provided on site within two car stackers. A total of 8 spaces are set aside for the residential component (as required by the Planning Scheme) and no spaces for the retail component. No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 1 on site visitor car space. Transport Planning also prefers that 2 retail spaces are provided on site (1 for each shop). However these spaces can be waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. On balance, waiving the visitor space and the retail spaces is considered reasonable. (24th September 2013)

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE 6 storey; 40 units; 1 shop (Shortfall 7)

The proposal generates a parking requirement of 49 car spaces. The proposed provision of 42 car spaces provides the required car parking rate for each of the dwellings (and provides an extra car space for one of the dwellings) but seeks to waive 7 visitor car spaces and the shop car space. The applicant is also seeking to waive the requirement for a loading bay for the shop. With the current permit, the waiving of 1 required visitor car space for the dwellings and the waiving of the loading bay for the shop were allowed. One car space was provided for the shop. It is considered satisfactory in this case to waive the parking and loading bay requirements for the shop given its small size, even in the enlarged form anticipated through the conditions addressing urban design issues. However, it is considered that at least 2 car spaces should be provided for visitors to the dwellings. This would necessitate the installation of a larger car stacker system.

It is noted that there is one visitor car space for the proposed 38 dwellings on the adjoining site to the east at 3 Morton Avenue. The primary justification for a reduction in the number of visitor car spaces is the availability of vacant spaces within on-street and public car park areas. Additionally, a note will be included to prohibit future residents from obtaining resident and visitor parking permits with a condition stating that the owner is to inform residents about this limitation.

(COMMENT: the argument that visitor car parking cannot be provided via stackers, has gone out the window on this application. Again, so much for consistency!)  (6th November 2013)

 

730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storey; 29 units; ‘food and drink premises’ (Shortfall 6)

Car parking has been provided for the residential component only (one space per dwelling). Given all dwellings are one or two bedrooms, this complies with the Planning Scheme. However a waiver of car parking for visitors and for the food and drink premises has been proposed. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and consider at a minimum three car spaces for the visitors and nine car spaces for the food and drink premises should be provided.

A recommended condition will require minimum car parking rates as follows:

 1 car space per dwelling (one or two bedroom)

 9 car spaces for the food and drink premises

A minimum of 3 visitor spaces (December 17th 2013)

 

 677-679 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey; 10 units; 2 shops  (Shortfall 2)

No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). This can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances.

Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the lack of any on-site visitor car parking. On balance, a waiver is considered reasonable in this instance given

(17th December 2013)

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »