December 10, 2014

A Resident’s Plea

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

We’ve received a copy of a letter written to all councillors from one Carnegie resident. It is published below – minus identifying material. The epistle has also prompted us to investigate more closely what is happening along one major street – Neerim Road. As with Bent Street, the juggernaut of over development is destroying street after street. We repeat that:

  • When no consideration is given to the cumulative effects of countless developments, then this is sub-standard planning
  • Council can repeat and repeat its mantra that the zones have nothing whatsoever to do with this over-development. Those living in these streets and who are regularly accosted by developers beg to differ.

The Letter

I am compelled to write to you regarding the development that is occurring in Carnegie. In the last 12 months, at least 25 houses have been sold to developers and 4 storey buildings are being built and are proposed for these sites totalling at least 200 apartments heralding a dramatic increase in people and traffic. These sites are all within 150 metres along Neerim Rd between Tranmere St, Elliott Ave and Belsize Ave, and continuing into Elliott Ave and Belsize Ave. There are at least 5 more sites proposed in Jersey Pde, between Elliott Ave and Tranmere St on the north side.

This pace and size of this development is unprecedented and the consequent loss of living standards and future livability for existing, and proposed residents is causing severe stress and alarm. Loss of neighbourhood character, garden space and privacy is a major concern.

Traffic is already an issue as this area attracts overflow from the station and exiting the side streets into the main arterial streets is hazardous. The increased number of people living in this confined area can only exacerbate an already difficult situation.

In the Glen Eira News, (December, 2014) newly appointed Mayor, Jim Magee stated that the “Council is undertaking a series of major projects to provide improved facilities for residents” He stated that these include some open space projects. These are to be commended. However, I believe these public projects ,albeit important for outdoor leisure and recreation cannot compensate for the losses being experienced with the massive development that is occurring. He also said “I love living in Glen Eira and want everyone who lives here to feel the same”. I can assure him that everyone would want to share that sentiment. Unfortunately, this is being translated into shock, horror and despair.

I would like to invite you to come and view these developments and stand on the corner of Elliott Ave and Neerim Rds. I am happy to meet you there. Please come and see for yourself and reassure the residents that Glen Eira Councillors are aware of this juggernaut that is overwhelming our suburb.

++++++++

The Sad History of Neerim Road

212 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a double storey dwelling at the rear (NRZ1)

487 Neerim Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Developement Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO) (NRZ1)

322-326 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising 38 dwellings and associated basement carparking (RGZ1)

332-334 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising twenty six (26) dwellings above a basement car park; Reduction of the requirement for visitor parking; and Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (RGZ1)

365-367 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a Multi-Storey Building Comprising Dwellings and creation of access to a road in a road zone Cat 1(GRZ1)

276-280 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Development and use of the land for the purpose of a five storey building with retail premises at ground floor, up to forty two dwellings and basement car parking, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements and waiver of a loading area (MUZ)

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising thirty-five (35) dwellings and a basement car park and reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (rgz1)

17 Neerim Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (including a first floor addition) and construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling – Amended (permit) (NRZ1)

401-407 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a five storey building comprising of shops and dwellings above basement car park, a reduction in standard car parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit) (MUZ)

135-137 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising of up to forty (40) dwellings above basement car park and waiver of visitor car parking requirements (refusal) (GRZ1)

286 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The use of the land for the purpose of two (2) shops and development of the land for the purpose of a four (4) storey building including ten (10) dwellings, two (2) shops, waiver of car parking requirement for the shops and visitor car parking and for a loading bay – Amended (permit) (MUZ)

167 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (permit) (GRZ1)

149-153 Neerim Road & 4 Hinton Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of up to seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 – Amended (permit) (GRZ1)

212 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a double storey dwelling at the rear (NRZ1)

328-330 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, the waiver of three visitor parking spaces and alteration of an access way to a road in a Road Zone Category 1(RGZ1)

479 Neerim Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings – Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings (including removal of existing trees) on land affected by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (permit) (GRZ2)

179 – 181 Neerim Road, CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 19 dwellings and basement car parking. Amended Application. (permit)

259-261 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings, associated car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and Parking Overlay (permit) (RGZ1)

253 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings with associated car parking at basement level and creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1 on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (refusal) (RGZ1)

46 Neerim Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 – Construction of two (2) dwellings (double storey to the front and single storey to the rear) (permit) (NRZ1)

172B Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Use of the land for accommodation (retirement village), construction of a three (3) storey building comprising thirty (30) independent living units with basement parking, reduction to the parking requirements (dwelling) and waiver of visitor parking under Clause 52.06 and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (refusal) (NRZ1)

Whilst some of these applications do not reveal the number of proposed dwellings, residents can be assured that in the space of 12 months, Neerim Road will have on its books permits for over 400 new dwellings – at least! Residents can also be assured of the following:

  • Residents will be subsidising developers for drainage
  • The vast majority of these apartments will be single and two bedroom units – so much for ‘diversity’ and family living!
  • Car parking, loading bays, will be waived so traffic will become even more of a nightmare
  • And what will councillors be doing about all this?
 

December 9, 2014

On The Nose

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

belsize+++++++++

A few points on the following image:

1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?

2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?

crr

 

December 8, 2014

487 Neerim Road – Again, and Again and Again!

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

487 Neerim Road just will not go away. Instead, this site epitomises everything that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira and how this council bends over backwards to accommodate developers.

Here’s a very quick history in order to refresh readers’ minds:

  • Abuts Riley Reserve and should have been bought and added to open space in the municipality. The land was eventually sold for just over $2m about a year ago.
  • Land is over 2000 square metres and includes many significant trees
  • In September 2014 council granted the applicant a ‘building envelope’ (ie the equivalent of a C60 Incorporated Plan which means no third party objection rights!). The land was then subdivided into 7 lots – some the size of 199 metres and only one lot of anywhere near 400 square metres.
  • A Section 173 agreement was put in place to enforce tree protection and to include a ‘tree management plan’.
  • Residents at the time objected that this was all very vague.

Now, two months later we suddenly find there is a new application in which reads –

Development and use of a child care centre, construction of a side fence in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), removal of a tree in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), and buildings and works in the Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Questions galore arise as a consequence:

  • How does a child care centre fit into what was supposed to be 7 double storey dwellings alone?
  • Have the lots been further sold off and residents can expect application after application for something entirely different to what the subdivision and ‘envelope plan’ permitted?
  • What does this say about any ‘agreement’ that is signed off by council?
  • Why was this ‘building envelope’ process even entered into by council instead of a normal planning permit?
  • What of all the other so called ‘conditions’ imposed by council (ie noise reduction, drainage) – will these now also bite the dust?
  • How many childcare centres are needed? – our count is 17 already within a one square km radius

And as the final insult to injury, remembering that this land could have been purchased and added to the open space network of this municipality, we present the destruction of trees that have occurred on this site in the past 5 years. Remember that Glen Eira does not have any tree protection policy that is worth a cracker! Saving trees is certainly not in the interests of developers!

november 2014 October 2009

 

December 6, 2014

How’s This For Pedestrian Safety?

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

Corner Kokarrib and Neerim Roads – taken today (6/12/2014)

photo

 

December 4, 2014

A Resident’s View

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

What is troubling racing at Caulfield? Why is a prominent trainer like Rick Hore-Lacy packing up his swag and walking? Rick is a brilliant trainer, and a real gentleman.   He is still a young man; surely he doesn’t desperately need the $585,361.   Wither thou goest Mr. Hore-Lacy?

Rick’ loss to Caulfield will leave an immense hole in training that will be very hard, nigh impossible, to fill.

The question remains — what exactly is for sale? Land Victoria indicates 20 Booran Road, Caulfield East, is a large allotment immediately south of the land given to the Crown in exchange for the infamous “triangle”, which was part of Queen Victoria’s Crown Grant, but which is now set aside for the MRC’s high-density commercial development on the corner of Station Street and Normandy Road – directly over the road from the Caulfield Railway Station.   (Worth a damn lot more than Rick’s stable complex).

The Victorian Land’s Department also seems to think his stables are within the land controlled by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. It’s my opinion that the land to the east of Kambrook and Booran Roads is freehold, and includes what was originally an extended Bond Street.

You can see the Land’s Victoria map:

PMHowever 20 Booran Road it is further south than indicated on the Government’s map. It can be positioned by a sign on the fence indicating that it is a “Community Stable Complex — 20 Booran Road”. Furthermore there are seven letterboxes in the fence, so exactly what did Rick Hore-Lacy’s “Australia-wide firm of valuers” value? It can’t be his goodwill, because that would have only a negligible value after he departs.

It seems Rick Hore-Lacy’s departure is yet another sign that we are watching the slow, painful death of racing at Caulfield. The MRC is now too embarrassed to publish crowd numbers, even for the Caulfield Cup. Please don’t go Rick, Caulfield needs you.

A rich and magnificent 150 year history of racing and sharing with the public is slowly being desecrated by an incompetent and avaricious Racing Club, while the inept Trustees waffle about the 65 hectares of “public recreation ground and public park” which they, in theory only, hold in trust for all members of the public.

booranlb

 

December 3, 2014

Questions, Questions, Questions!

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

What is really going on at the Racecourse and what is Council and the Trustees doing about anything? There are countless questions that need asking and answering. Here’s some of them –

Hore Lacy Sale0001-1

  • Is this Crown land or freehold land?
  • If Crown land then what are the Trustees doing?
  • Valued at only $585+?
  • Is this a ‘lease’ or a ‘sale’?
  • What’s happened to getting rid of training?

And questions on another issue involve the Santa events at the centre. We have been informed that it appears as if those involved in running the show have set up caravans on site and are using these as accommodation for the duration of the event which goes for a month at least. Council’s Local Law states –

Section 310

Pitching a tent, erecting any temporary or permanent shelter or placing and occupying a caravan, campervan or shipping container on any, Council Land, public or private land for the purpose of camping or living. This law does not apply to the erection (with the land owner’s consent) of a temporary shelter to facilitate the preparation of meals associated with a religious practice or festival for a period not exceeding twenty-one days.

We therefore ask:

  • Have the operators been granted a permit by Council?
  • Has Council even been informed that this is happening?
  • Does Council even care!
 

December 2, 2014

Calcutta Is Here!

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

PS: BREAKING ALL RECORDS, HERE’S THE LATEST APPLICATION FOR EGAN STREET, CARNEGIE. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THE DEFICIENCIES OF COUNCIL’S PLANNING REGISTER WHEN REAL DETAILS ARE NOT PUBLISHED.

Construction of a 16 storey mixed use development (shop and dwellings); waiver of loading bay; reduction of car parking

+++++++++++++

The total devastation of local residential streets is nowhere more evident than in what has been happening in Bent Street since the introduction of the new zones.

No account has been taken of the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on neighbourhood amenity, much less parking, drainage, open space, overshadowing and so on. For example: Bent Street comprised approximately 70 lots of land. The overwhelming majority of these lots contained one house – many of them stunning Californian bungalows. In the past 15 months permits have either been granted, or awaiting decision for an additional 178 dwellings. In other words, the potential rise in dwelling stock is to the order of 300%.

Below we feature the sad history of this once lovely street –

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of 55 dwellings (above basement car parking) (up for decision)

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of a part three and part four storey building comprising 31 dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor car parking (up for decision)

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four storey building containing up to 36 dwellings above a basement (permit)

15 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings and a basement car park (permit)

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a four-storey building comprising up to 27 dwellings with basement car parking – Amended (permit)

67 Bent Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Construction of two double storey attached dwellings (permit)

TOTAL = 178 dwellings

What is unclear is how 64-66 Bent Street’s application wasn’t rejected outright since it is our belief that this part of Bent Street is actually zoned as General Residential Zone 2 – ie supposedly 3 storey dwellings. What makes this application even more interesting is that both 64 and 66 Bent Street went up for auction on this weekend (according to the Age’s Auction results) selling for $1,750,000 each. Thus with an ‘investment’ of $3.5 million we can be assured of one thing – the developer(s) will attempt to squeeze every ounce of profit they can from this land and it’s all thanks to the zones in our view.

Unless this council starts taking account of the CUMULATIVE impacts of its permits then hundreds of streets in Glen Eira will go the way of Bent St. A five fold increase in dwellings in a previously quiet residential area of several hundred metres is not sound planning. It is destruction on a major scale that is not in accord with any planning document or concern for residents.

 

December 1, 2014

The MRC Juggernaut Continues & Council Does Nothing – Again!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

We’ve received the following images from a resident. Once again they raise serious questions about the pathetic ‘Agreement’ that was signed off by Council. We maintain, that you can have all the ‘agreements’ you like, but unless they are enforced, then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

The photos below reveal how this ‘agreement’ has been ignored once more – by both Council and the MRC and by implication the Trustees.

  • The centre of the racecourse is only to be used for MAJOR RACE DAYS OR EVENT DAYS. We do not believe that today’s event fits into these descriptors.
  • We are very concerned about ‘safety’ when cars are parked so close to barbecues and the euphemistically called ‘playground’.
  • Residents were not provided with any warning – again traffic problems
  • Was a traffic management plan submitted to Council and was this approved by Council?
  • As one reader commented a little while ago on the previous post – the noise emanating from the course can be heard 300 metres away!
  • And while we’re at it – we remind readers that the fences that were supposed to be gone years ago are still standing – which leads us again to that old question of WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COUNCIL?

184

181PS: It is also worth pointing out that the case for the yellow brick roads right around and through the course was that the MRC and Council argued that it is necessary for ‘disability’ access. Bunkum, hogwash, and double this. The photos show that concrete was required so that cars could be parked and work vehicles could traverse the area. Disability would come very, very low on the list of priorities. More spin, more deception, and more pathetic governance.

 

December 1, 2014

Who Owns The Streets?

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

bambra

w

 

November 29, 2014

Some More Council Furphies!

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

Councillors have repeatedly stated that it is the State Government and the Minister who is responsible for the new zoning. This only reveals half of the story. Yes, amendments have to be signed off by the Minister and yes, councils have to abide by the Minister’s decision. However, it was up to councils to first determine

  • Where the zones would go
  • What the height limits would be for each zone
  • What would be contained in each schedule

On all of these aspects, Glen Eira City Council has, in our view failed those residents living in GRZ, RGZ and Mixed Use Zones. These are the areas where Council did have the choice as to what went into their schedules and standards. Glen Eira chose to go for the least protection possible.

Please consider the following table which outlines exactly the scope provided to councils. Readers will note that in terms of height, there was the ability to impose a 9 metre limit in GRZ. Glen Eira opted for 10.5 across the board. Even in the RGZ council again had the option of selecting a lower height limit. They didn’t. The heights listed in this document are MAXIMUMS and were not set in stone. And as we’ve previously stated, height by itself is only one component of good planning. Council ignored all the other aspects that we’ve mentioned such as: site coverage; permeability; setbacks; minimum lot sizes, etc.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND PLEASE NOTE THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS.

Pages from Reformed-Residential-Zones-fact-sheet-1_07_2014

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »