September 22, 2015

Some More Comparisons!

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

The General Residential Zone, schedule 2 is, according to our wonderful council, supposed to provide the necessary ‘buffer zones’ between properties in housing diversity and minimal change (ie NRZ) because of the upper level setbacks included in the schedule. No other limitations, apart from the deficient ResCode numbers, have been enforced on this zone. For example – in Glen Eira we find:

Site Coverage – 60%

Permeability – 20%

Height – 10.5 metres

Private Open Space – minimum of 25 square metres (ResCode) and

Nothing about tree protection or landscape plans.

Other councils in their ‘negotiations’ and subsequent amendments just happened to be far more successful in introducing limits on what can be build in the GRZ2 zone. Here are some examples that are gazetted and in operation.

Banyule –

Site coverage 40%

Landscaping – Landscape plans will provide 1 tree for every 400 square metres of site area, including 1 large tree in the front setback – A Landscape Concept Plan must be submitted which considers the Banyule Tree Planting Zone Guidelines. It should distinguish landscaped garden areas from useable private open space, show tree planting locations and the extent of the mature canopies.

Geelong –

Landscaping – One canopy tree per dwelling

Private Open space – An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. It cannot include a balcony or roof top terrace.

Height – 9 metres

Knox –

Height – 9 metres

Private open space – Private open space consisting of an area of 80 square metres or 20 per cent of the area of the lot, whichever is the lesser, but not less than 60 square metres. At least one part of the private open space should consist of secluded private open space with a minimum area of 40 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres at the side or rear of the dwelling with convenient access from a living room.

Monash –

Front setback – 7.6 metres.

Private Open Space – A dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:

 An area of 75 square metres, with one part of the private open space at the side or the rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum width of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room

 

Stonnington –

Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

Walls on boundaries – Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

Whitehorse

Site coverage – 40%

Permeability 40%

Provision of at least two canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 12 metres. At least one of those trees should be in the secluded private open space of the dwelling. The species of canopy trees should be native, preferably indigenous.

Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.

Walls on boundaries – Walls should only be constructed on one side boundary.

Yarra – height 9 metres

 

September 19, 2015

Nero Still Fiddling!

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

Whilst other councils are moving fast to shore up their defences against inappropriate development, Glen Eira sits on its hands and does nothing. We’ve already highlighted the Bayside draft Amendment C140 that is seeking to introduce a minimum size subdivision of 400sqm, plus a 40% permeability requirement in its Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Now we have Monash Council and its C125 Amendment that takes in all Neighbourhood Residential and General Residential zones. The significance of this amendment is:

  • It is based on the 2014 Housing Strategy. Glen Eira’s housing strategy is a fossil, based on data from 1998.
  • 3 new NRZ schedules are introduced, 3 GRZ schedules and 1 RGZ
  • Development in activity centres are now to pay 10% open space levy. Glen Eira pats itself on the back for achieving a paltry 5.7%
  • Subdivision in the nrz schedules 2, 3, and 4 will now have a minimum lot size of 300sqm. Glen Eira does not have any minimum. The impact of such planning is clear when there is a current application in for 363R Neerim Road (zoned grz2) for 4 townhouses on land that is approximately 310sqm.
  • Introduction of Design and Development overlays
  • 40% permeability in GRZ3 sites plus a maximum of 40% site coverage plus 7.6 metre front setback from street
  • In grz4 there is a 30% permeability requirement
  • In the NRZ, 40% permeability and site coverage
  • And even in RGZ there is as requirement of 40 sqm private open space and a balcony of 10 sqm

In every single one of the above (if the amendment is approved), residents of Monash will be far better off, than their cousins in Glen Eira. All Glen Eira does is continually pass the buck and blame VCAT for all its woes. That will no longer wash, especially when no action has taken place in either reviewing the atrocious planning scheme or even attempting to introduce amendments that will ameliorate the damage that is currently occurring through rampant overdevelopment. Every time a VCAT member makes statements such as the following, the blame lies entirely with this administration and its complicit councillors.

The Council advised that there is no neighbourhood character policy which applies to the review site and its surrounds, and no neighbourhood character guidelines to assist in determining anticipated built form outcomes. Guidance must therefore be obtained from policy within the MSS and at Clause 22.07.

There is nothing within the policy framework which would indicate that apartment-style development should not be permitted here. Rather, what is evident is an expectation of change as multi-dwelling developments replace the traditional single-dwelling housing stock. The diversity of housing types sought for neighbourhood centres indicates that apartment-style development can be contemplated. (August 6th 2015)

 

September 15, 2015

More Carnegie Pain – 2364 Sqm Worth!

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

carnegie

 

September 11, 2015

Financial Review & The MRC

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

Secret plans to develop Caulfield and Sandown race courses

by Duncan Hughes

Confidential plans for multi-billion dollar residential, commercial and retail property developments at Caulfield and Sandown race courses are being considered by the Victorian State Government.

The ‘master plans’, which have been commissioned by the Melbourne Racing Club, one of the nation’s most powerful sporting bodies, are expected to involve joint ventures with development and property companies to design, build and run the projects.

But the plans are likely to become another flashpoint between the MRC, state government and some councils about the impact of high density developments on local communities and public amenities.

Sandown Park, about 30 kilometres south-east of Melbourne, is a 112-hectare horse and car racing track located in a major growth and transport hub that is fully-owned by the MRC, a not-for-profit organisation.

Untitled

The park is in the electorate of Premier Daniel Andrews.

The MRC also owns more than 152,000 square metres of land surrounding the Caulfield Race Track, 13 kilometres south-east of central Melbourne, in addition to leased stable and training areas within the race course.

It is already undertaking a controversial $1 billion development opposite the entrance to the racecourse and close to a railway station that has been rezoned from a car park to 1200 apartments, 10,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space.

“We are aiming to develop a plan for land-use, upgrades and development for the next 15-20 years,” said Josh Blanksby, general manager of the MRC, about the redevelopment plans.

Mr Blanksby said the racing club was looking at the “best ways to utilise its strong assets”, which in addition to hosting meetings was expanding into other forms of entertainment, gaming and property development.

He said no decision has been made.

State government officials have been briefed about the proposals devised by Hassall, a global consultancy and architecture group.

But the MRC, which leases the Crown Land occupied by Caulfield Race Course, is under fire from the local Glen Eira Council and landlord, Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, for failing to consult.

“It is totally inappropriate that the tenant is proposing a master plan for what is probably one of the biggest development sites of prime inner-Melbourne land,” said Jim Magee, a former racecourse trustee and current mayor of Glen Eira, the local council for the area surrounding the course.

Mr Blanksby said the council was approached but declined to comment.

The trust, which is chaired by Greg Sword, former national president of the Australian Labor Party, has launched a separate ‘master plan’ into the use of the 54-hectare site that is legally meant to be divided between public recreation, a public park and the racecourse.

“The balance is a little skewed,” Mr Sword told a local community last week about the MRC’s influence over the use of the site.

The business of running racing clubs has been rapidly evolving in recent years from hosting race days into a multi-billion entertainment, gaming, land development and hotel business.

In the past four years MRC’s revenues from course admissions have remained static around $1.5 million as gaming revenue more than doubled to $34 million and telecasting rights rose 20 per cent to more than $9 million.

Victoria’s Attorney-General and Racing Minister Martin Pakula is among those reviewing the plans. Developments involving Caulfield Racecourse will also need the approval of the board of trustees, which has six council appointed members, six MRC members and three independents.

It is 12 months this week since the state’s auditor-general recommended full disclosure of the MRC’s benefits from the course, criticised the state government’s oversight and recommended improved disclosure of finances, performance and management of ‘perceived conflicts of interest’ in the course’s management.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/secret-plans-to-develop-caulfield-and-sandown-race-courses-20150911-gjkcac#ixzz3lQ9uUhtG

 

September 9, 2015

Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

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

About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –

  • The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
  • After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
  • Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
  • Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!

Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –

sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities

The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees

Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.

Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-

Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira.  It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.

Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.

 

September 9, 2015

The ‘How To Fob Off Residents Handbook’!

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

A resident wrote to all councillors complaining about the lack of adequate parking in the Carnegie shopping centre. Issues highlighted were:

  • Use of car parking spots by tradies and developers thereby reducing those areas available for shoppers
  • Increase in restaurants thus bringing in more people and more cars
  • Traders’ concerns about lack of sufficient clientele parking which is therefore impacting on their businesses.

Council, via Mayor Magee, provided the following response. Please note carefully:

  • The ‘solution’ that shoppers should resort to walking, cycling, and car sharing! Too bad about all the elderly who are unable to walk, cycle, or car share!
  • The woeful self promotion instead of responding directly to the resident’s claims
  • The failure of councillors to initiate any positive action and their abysmal willingness to sign any crap that is put under their noses!

Some other considerations:

  • How many parking fines have been issued to developers in this area?
  • When was the last time a ‘traffic survey’ was undertaken and why, oh why, is it ‘traders’ responsibility to work out ‘solutions’?
  • When was the last time any decent statistics were published by council on parking in general?
  • Why, when the planning scheme states that property will be bought and turned into car parks council has failed to purchase one single property. Rather they have granted council car parking land to developers in exchange for a toilet which is still not there (ie Centre Road, East Bentleigh)!
  • Readers should also note how this response typifies the modus operandi of this Council – how to fob off residents with what can only be described as total and insulting nonsense.

Council Response0001_Page_1Council Response0001_Page_2

 

September 7, 2015

And The Winner Is? – Ormond!

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

Announcing Plan Melbourne, Mr Guy promised 50 per cent of suburbs would be protected from development. Glen Eira got much more. Nearly 80 per cent of the city, which includes Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond, Elsternwick and Carnegie, would be protected from apartment and unit-style development, Ms Crozier declared, setting an ”enormously positive example for other councils to follow.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/not-all-going-to-plan-in-tale-of-two-cities-20140628-3b0pj.html#ixzz3kxUMrkZ0 (June 29th, 2014)

So much for the spin, the propaganda, and the misinformation. We certainly take issue with the 80% of Glen Eira as ‘protected’. But even more offensive is the claim that ‘Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond, Elsternwick and Carnegie’ would not suffer from ‘apartment and unit-style development’. The reality is that huge swathes of these suburbs are now geared towards facilitating 3, 4 and even higher storey developments – and it’s all thanks to the new residential zones and council’s woeful record in strategic planning.

Ormond, in particular, is testimony to the falsity of the above claims. The suburb is barely 2 square km in its entirety. Exclude those areas designated as ‘parkland’ or public utilily zones, then the area available for development shrinks to about 1.83 square km. Then there’s another 25 or so hectares zoned Heritage, but this hasn’t stopped council from giving the green light to development by zoning large parts of such areas as GRZ1. In addition, large sections of these areas are also under a Special Building Overlay because of flooding concerns. What all this means is that in Ormond, just under 42% of the suburb is zoned as appropriate for 3 storey dwellings. Another 8% of land is zoned either C1Z or MUZ with no height limits at all. That makes Ormond the most potentially overdeveloped suburb in Glen Eira with over 50% of its land designated for 3 storeys or higher.

Readers also need to remember that Ormond is NOT an Urban Village. It is a Neighbourhood Centre, where there is supposed to be less development. How that is possible with such zoning beggars belief. But this is planning in Glen Eira – inept, pro-development, and with no thought as to the long term impact on people’s lives. When over 50% of a suburb (which is not a major activity centre) is geared towards high density development, then there’s something drastically wrong with planners, and the councillors who allowed this to happen.

Here are the figures upon which the above calculations have been derived –

C1Z – 54,329 sqm

GRZ1 – 745,837 (THE LARGEST GRZ1 AREA IN GLEN EIRA)

GRZ2 – 21,182

MUZ – 10,113

RDZ – 97,740

 

September 4, 2015

Bayside Versus Glen Eira & The Development Industry

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

Bayside City Council is attempting to protect and preserve its existing neighbourhood character via draft Amendment C140 which is now out for consultation. In short, the amendment proposes to:

  • Limit subdivision to sites that are over 800 square metres thus creating a default subdivision size of 400 sqm per unit. In Glen Eira, there is no minimum subdivision size and permits have been granted for subdivisions of under 200 square metres.
  • Increase permeability to 35%. In Glen Eira it is 25%
  • Increase open space requirements to 75 square metres. Glen Eira has 60 square metres.

Add on the number of Design & Development Overlays that exist in Bayside, an updated Housing Strategy, plus tree protection clauses, and Bayside is streaks ahead of Glen Eira in strategic planning. Of course, this proposed amendment does not sit well with the development industry, real estate agents, and others.

Thus we have this publicity campaign by Takle Developments – who also happen to have an office in Centre Road. Clearly such a campaign is largely unnecessary in Glen Eira, since this council has bent over backwards to facilitate development via its inaction and sub-standard strategic planning.

Takle-Bayside developer,Aug.15-1

 

September 3, 2015

Ironies & Magee

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (IMPROVED GOVERNANCE) BILL 2015

Introduction and first reading

Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1989 to improve the governance standards of councils, amend arrangements for local government elections and provide for other matters, to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to repeal part 4A of that act and to consequentially amend the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993, the City of Melbourne Act 2001, the Electoral Act 2002 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and for other purposes.

Mr CLARK (Box Hill)—I ask the minister to provide a brief explanation of the bill, further to the long title.

Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—This bill will raise the standards of behaviour by councillors and generally improve——

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER—Order! I remind members to remain silent while the Chair is on his feet. That applies at all times during parliamentary proceedings. I request members to comply with that.

Ms HUTCHINS—The bill will raise standards of behaviour by councillors——

Mr R. Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Warrandyte!

Ms HUTCHINS—It will generally improve council governance in Victoria and improve the conduct of the general council elections to be held in 2016.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

 ++++++

SouthernMetropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My constituency question is to the Minister for Education, Mr Merlino. Recent reports have suggested that a local councillor is campaigning for a third secondary school in the Glen Eira area, very close to two existing secondary schools. The land which the Labor mayor of the City of Glen Eira, Cr Jim Magee, is campaigning for the government to acquire in order to build a secondary school is in Virginia Park. Virginia Park is only 500 metres from the existing Bentleigh Secondary College.

The shadow Minister for Education, Nick Wakeling, and I visited Bentleigh Secondary College only last week to meet with the newly appointed principal. Bentleigh Secondary College has an excellent reputation and we were both fortunate enough to meet the dedicated teachers and a number of students. It was confirmed to Mr Wakeling and myself that Bentleigh Secondary College has capacity for further student enrolments. Nearby McKinnon Secondary College also has additional capacity and the principals of both McKinnon and Bentleigh secondary colleges do not think a third secondary school in such close proximity is necessary.

Constituents are confused and concerned about comments from the mayor. Does the government support the campaign by Cr Magee and what is the government’s position on acquiring the land at Virginia Park, as suggested by Cr Magee?

NOTE: no response to this query from Minister Noonan (Minister for Police)

 

September 2, 2015

Hansard & Southwick

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Miscellaneous
[7] Comments 

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. The action I seek is that the minister undertake an urgent review of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the Melbourne Racing Club.

As we know, some 12 months ago there was an Auditor-General’s report on the review of the mechanics of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Unfortunately since that Auditor-General’s report came out there has been little activity. The trust has hardly met and the Melbourne Racing Club has continued on, and it is my understanding that a lease is still not in place in terms of the mechanics of the facility.

This is really important for the future of what is the largest open space in my electorate. It is an under-utilised space where there should be more sporting activity, which I have called for on numerous occasions. We have the lowest amount of open space anywhere in the city of Glen Eira. This is a great opportunity for the minister to work with me and others to ensure that we get a result. The Glen Eira council has been calling for some action for some time. I know that racing is fundamental to Caulfield and that we need to ensure there is a permanent site where racing has a home, but there is uncertainty with the lease and a lack of action, and this is a missed opportunity. The centre of the racecourse is hardly frequented or used by the people of Caulfield, and we really need some action.

I suggest that there be a complete review of the trust and that the minister look at working together with me as the local member to see what we can do to ensure that the Auditor-General’s report is implemented, that there is transparency going forward, that ultimately the people of Caulfield get the best possible facility and the best use of open space and that the future of racing is guaranteed.

Response

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Minister for Industry)—…..I thank the member for Caulfield for raising an issue about the Melbourne Racing Club and the trust arrangements that are in place for Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. He is correct in pointing out that the Auditor-General raised serious concerns in relation to the way that the structure of that trust was established and the potential for and real conflicts of interest that exist. I have had representation from the member for Caulfield and the member for Bentleigh, who is a former trust member, about some of those issues.

We have appointed new board members in order to get the trust up and functioning again. The trust and the Melbourne Racing Club are currently doing strategic land use plans for the park. That of course does not address the main issue. We have looked at a range of options for what we could do regarding the governance arrangement, and legislative changes are required. As I have indicated to the member for Caulfield, I am keen to work with him as the local member and also a representative from the opposition and people from outside on trying to get a long-term solution and a new governance arrangement for Caulfield.

Members raised a range of issues for a number of ministers, and I will pass those on to those ministers.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »