August 9, 2012

Traffic (Mis)Management?

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

This comment has come in from a reader. Given the current shambles of traffic management in Glen Eira, we publish this in the public interest.

“My mind boggles at council’s approach to parking and traffic management.  Major road works are underway in Kokarib Road Carnegie, the street behind Koornang Road where Safeway is located.  The street is being totally rebuilt and council in their wisdom appear to have removed the angle parking outside Safeway and are replacing it with parallel parking.  This will mean the loss of about around 8 or 9 car parking spaces outside the supermarket. These car spaces were nearly always fully occupied.  My amazement at this loss of parking in Carnegie follows from seeing the result of roadworks and parking  in Glen Huntly near Safeway.  They effectively removed up to four car parking spaces on  each side of the road near the post office.. I know traffic lights have  been installed, but why would you reduce car parking?  What benefit is there to shop keepers?  What benefit is there to shoppers? What are the benefits at all?”

And we mustn’t forget another important question – what is the cost?

 

August 7, 2012

Compare & Contrast: VicSmart

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

No surprises that other councils such as Yarra and Kingston are on the front foot when it comes to speaking their mind, and encouraging residents to participate in feedback to Matthew Guy’s recently announced shakeup of the planning system. Glen Eira on the other hand is once again SILENT. Nothing on the website, nothing in chamber except for a few mumbled sentences, but certainly no indication that Council is inviting public comments and urging residents to have a say. We remind readers that not for the first time has this council put in submissions that were drafted behind closed doors (in secret) and submitted without a formal council resolution – ie VEAC submission, Parking Review & Speed Limit Review. We anticipate that exactly the same thing will happen here – that is, if council even bothers to put in a submission. Our major concern of course is governance and how submissions made in council’s name, and of such importance, do not warrant an agenda item and thus formal and legal endorsement via council resolution. It’s staggering that other councils continually publish their draft submissions. In Glen Eira, everything is secret and a travesty of good governance.

Below we present Yarra Council’s Media Release, then Kingston’s appeal from the Moorabbin Leader.

CITY OF YARRA

Concerns about State Government’s zoning proposals

24 July 2012

In mid-July 2012, the Minister for Planning announced that some changes were to be made to Victoria’s planning zones.

The Government is seeking feedback on the proposed changes by 21 September.

Council encourages community members to look into what is proposed as the changes are likely to have a significant impact in Yarra.

Council staff have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the changes and understand that the changes could result in the following:

  • In business and some      industrial zoned areas, a supermarket of up to 2000 square metres with an  additional 500 square metres of shops could proceed without the need for a  planning permit
  • In some of the residential zones, small shops, offices and cafes could proceed without the need for a  planning permit if they are within 100 metres of a business/commercial zone and if they share the same street frontage.
  • Medical centres of up to 250 square metres could proceed without the need for a planning permit in all of the proposed residential zones.

The changes could therefore mean that some developments and changes in land uses could go ahead without public input and Council assessment under the proposed zone provisions. Significant changes could occur in local neighbourhoods without an opportunity for community members to lodge formal objections and without an opportunity for Council to weigh up the issues and decide whether or not to issue a permit.

For more information on the proposed zoning reforms and how you can have a say, visit the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

You may also be interested in the State Government’s intention to prepare a new metropolitan planning strategy. More information on that project is also available on the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

Kingston Council wants comments on planning proposal

 

KINGSTON Council is urging residents to have their say on the biggest change to planning rules in decades.

The State Government’s proposed new planning zones will have the potential to make a big impact on many Kingston neighbourhoods, as well as green wedge areas.

The neighbourhood residential zone will be the toughest of the new zones.

It will allow councils to restrict the number, height and block size of new homes.

The reforms will also make agricultural operations in green wedge areas easier by getting rid of the need for planning permits.

Public feedback on the proposed changes is open until September 21.

Kingston Mayor John Ronke said the council hoped to include residents’ views in its submission.

Residents must contact the council by August 6.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the neighbourhood residential zone gave planning power back to councils.

But Opposition spokesman Brian Tee said the new rules would protect only Melbourne’s wealthier suburbs from developers.

Jessica Wray

 

August 7, 2012

Letters To The Editor: C80

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

Trucks would cause chaos 

REGARDING the plans for the recycling plant in Glenhuntly Rd, Carnegie, traffic and noise are already issues in this area given on-road parking, the trams and a level crossing down the road.

Trucks coming and going will cause further traffic congestion and noise, not to mention the dust and pollution local residents and businesses will have to deal with.

I can only imagine how teachers and parents at Glen Huntly Primary will feel about children walking to and from school in the new ‘‘industrial’’ Carnegie. Hopefully, Glen Eira Council will dismiss this proposal immediately.

Given the application to rezone the area and build residential apartments next door, I wonder how the proposals will affect one another. Who wants to buy an apartment next door to a rubbish factory? 

Axe the plan immediately 

THIS is a ridiculous proposal for the area. The council really needs to stop this without delay.

Imagine the dust and noise 

I HAD the misfortune of walking past this place when they were operating without a permit. They dumped a load of old bricks and the noise and dust was unbelievable.

It’s the wrong place 

I THINK it’s disgraceful in this day and age that they would allow people’s lives to be affected in such a thoughtless way by toxins, fumes and noise. These places belong in outer industrial zones and not in the middle of residential areas near schools, flats, aged people’s homes and so on.

Hand over the permit 

SURELY someone can do something to stop this ridiculous plan. Is this a grab for rates from Glen Eira Council? If the council has no rateable property outside residential areas it should give the planning permit to neighbouring Kingston or Monash, who have plenty of vacant land.

 

August 5, 2012

Council & The MRC: What Price Safety?

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

Council would like residents to believe that ‘safety’ is top of the priority list when it comes to all manner of things. The photos below of Queen’s Avenue reveal a different story:

  • the failure of council and the MRC to provide a safe environment via regular pruning of branches
  • bike riders who have to veer into the path of cars in order to avoid these branches.
  • joggers who would have to veer onto the road because of failure to regularly prune back trees and shrubbery
  •  It’s  quite bizarre that there’s an entry to the Racecourse precinct from Queens Av but you can’t get there safely on foot.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

August 2, 2012

The Ethics Of Planning

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

We raise an issue that has important ethical implications about the interdependence of developers and council planners. Two questions stand out:

  1. How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
  2. To what extent should officers’ reports to council be an almost verbatim transcript of the developer’s proposal or, if not verbatim, then a very close paraphrasing of the application?
  3. To what extent do officers rely completely on developers’ reports and to what extent to they do their own homework and investigations?

We focus here on two documents related to the proposed C80 amendment which seeks to rezone parts of Glen Huntly Rd in order to create a 5 storey, 62 unit dwelling with car parking waiver. Part of this site also featured in this week’s Leader, since there is another application in to create a recycling facility on a section of this proposed rezoned land. (See our previous post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)

We’ve located the Urbis ‘Planning Permit Report’ (104 pages) and compared this with the five and a half page officer report presented to councillors. It’s important to note that of this five and a half pages, more than two are taken up with the usual preliminaries and protocols – ie the processes involved in seeking amendments, and an opening page which outlines the proposal, plus the aerial view of the site. That leaves roughly 3 pages upon which councillors have to make their decision. Hardly adequate we believe! And especially inadequate when justification for recommending the proposal rests on such nebulous language as ‘appropriate’, “consistent”, “adequately cater”, etc.  This is the part that is important. The rest of the item consists of architect drawings and a ten page draft Permit Application. We doubt that any councillor actually read this ‘permit’!

We’ve extracted some paragraphs from the Urbis report and compared this with the council planner’s effort. The selective plagiarism should be obvious to everyone and makes us seriously question not only the ethics of this, but also whether council planners by quoting, or paraphrasing so liberally can be seen as impartial adjudicators?

THE URBIS REPORT

COUNCIL OFFICER’S   REPORT
“The   proposed amendment provides opportunities for new economic growth and   additional housing supply within the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. The   existing N3Z applied to the subject land is designed to encourage the   development of industries and associated uses which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant   premises within the subject land. The rezoning of the land to B2Z allows   for a different mix of possible land use outcomes that would be consistent   with the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.” The existing Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) applied to 1232-1258   Glen Huntly Road, supports industries and associated uses, which are becoming increasingly redundant within   this area. This is evidenced  by the number of vacant premises and nonindustrial uses operating with the area. Also the industrial zoning   currently prohibits any residential use/development on the land (other than a   caretaker’s dwelling).

Therefore the rezoning has the potential to create   opportunities for economic growth and additional housing supply consistent with the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre.

 
“The   majority of the subject land is currently zoned for industrial use. A Site Assessment   Report, prepared by Douglas Partners has indicated that a number of the sites   have had past and current land uses that are considered to be of medium to high potential for contamination,   including 122 Grange Road, Carnegie. Therefore the amendment seeks to   implement an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land to ensure that it is suitable for any future sensitive uses. A   chronological land use history of all the sites has been undertaken to   identify whether  the land is potentially contaminated. Based on these findings it is considered that   there is medium to high potential for contamination. Therefore the application of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to all of the land is required, to ensure  that the land is suitable for any sensitive use, such as residential, in the future.

 
“The   Framework Plan identifies the land as being located within a Neighbourhood   Activity Centre (NAC). It is important   to note, that the activity centre designation of the Glen Huntly is different   from (sic) State Government’s   perspective under Melbourne 2030. The B2Z encourages a range of office   and associated commercial uses, which complement the core retail uses of the   centre and achieve the desired strategic outcomes for an activity centre of   this level.” The   rezoning of 122 Grange Road from Residential 1 to Business 2 is considered appropriate and will reflect the long term commercial use that has operated on the land since the 1950s. It will also facilitate future mixed use redevelopment opportunity of  this prominent corner location.

It is important to note that there currently is a discrepancy between State and Local Planning Policy in regards to the identification of the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.

State   Planning Policy identifies Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre (MAC). Council’s Local Planning Policy identifies this area as a Neighbourhood Centre.

 

 

 

 

August 2, 2012

How Not To Answer Public Questions!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[14] Comments 

The following stems from another public question asked at last council meeting. Whilst the original question is admittedly long and not numbered, we have attempted to organise the question and answer along some logical lines. This proved to be a most difficult task given that there is no real connection between what is asked and the response! All the questions relate to parking and traffic management in an upcoming Murrumbeena development. 

Why hasn’t the council been pro active knowing that post development there will be traffic and parking issues?  

Answer – William Street, Murrumbeena is situated within Council’s Housing Diversity Area. A key reason for this designation is the good access to public transport (including Hughesdale Railway Station) which provides opportunities for residents and their visitors not to use private vehicles. Development is therefore directed towards these areas.

What are councils plans regarding parking and traffic flow in and out of William st knowing that reports are already available.? 

Answer – It is acknowledged that some additional vehicle movements will be experienced in William Street as a result of the new development however State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.  

Why does the council continue to fail the residents and stakeholders regarding this development?  

Answer: Council annually receives many requests for traffic management works but resources for works of this type are finite requiring prioritisation of resources. Resources are directed to those streets in greatest need of attention (not where new rateable homes are provided). Council operates a warrants system whereby streets are prioritised for attention on the basis of objective criteria including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, reported crashes, peak hour traffic volumes and land uses (activity generators).

Why cant the the council be proactive and involve the residents and stakeholders with and open forum to appease concerns regarding access in and out of William st let alone parking post development? 

Answer: Traffic counts will be undertaken following the occupation of the new apartments to determine the number of vehicles using William Street. 

It is obvious that there will be traffic issues in William st post development, imagine 50 cars trying to get in and out of Poath rd in peak hour. keeing in mind cars parked in the street.  

Answer: It is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable. 

The resources are available as there is 41 new rateable homes, The information regarding traffic management is available and already supplied.  

What is the councils plans to assit and appease the residents and stakeholders concerns regarding traffic and parking in William St Murrumbeena?”

Answer: Once data is collected in William Street, it will be added to this list to determine its priority for traffic management works.

 

 

July 31, 2012

Pilling & Foot In Mouth Disease!

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

Application lodged for Carnegie Recycling Plant

Residents are facing the prospect of a recycling plant in the unlikely location of Glen Huntly Rd, Carnegie.

An application to build the plant to recycle plastic, foam, timer, metal and bricks at 1254-1258 Glen Huntly Rd is open for objections until August 3. The site also subject to a rezoning application, is 650m from Glen Huntly Primary School.

Trucks would bring materials to the site throught the day. Dust, noise and traffic congestion were worries raised by nearby homeowners. Sam Zervides, who lives nearby with his wife, Helen, said the plant would wreak havoc on the “prime residential area”.

Dust, noise and traffic jams were worries raised by Adrienne Tomzai and other homeowners. “we are completely shocked – this is not an industrial area,” Mrs Tomzai said.

Mrs Zervides said she had not received any written notification of the application, despite living so close. Deputy Mayor Neil Pilling said the council had followed protocol. He said worried residents should lodge objections.

The Leader was unable to contact the plant’s applicant.

 

July 30, 2012

Your Rates At Work!

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

In the interests of presenting the truth, we will conclude with the following slideshow. Please note:

  • the weeds
  • the mould/fungii
  • and the water logged and dead trees. We have plenty of photos of more dead trees. We estimate that each tree would have cost at least $50 given their size. More money literally down the drain!
  • We have to ask: do these people really know what they are doing?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

July 30, 2012

More Porkies?

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

This is a continuation from previous post and features another of the bogus council answers.

Q4 – In the past year council has laid hundreds of metres of ‘instant grass’ along the concrete path edges. How much did this cost? And how does council now justify the fact that the mulch covers this newly laid grass?

Answer – The total cost of the grass sods along sections of the new pathway trail was approximately $6,000. The sods stabilised the edge of the pathway, making the pathway safe for users of the path. Council arranged the mulching the following year and extended it to the edge of the path for ease of ongoing maintenance. This involved removing some of the sods. 

COMMENT: “Ease of ongoing maintenance”?!!!!!! Hardly. Over time mulch settles so that the edges of the pathway gain huge 3 to 4 inch drops – a perfect way to break an ankle, or come off a bicycle. Secondly, this will mean continual replenishing of mulch, the continual weeding, or worse, continual poisoning of these weeds. We already note that in one Record of Assembly Pilling enquired about the poisons so liberally used throughout our parks and their safety.

More importantly, the following photos reveal the truth about what occurred and the deliberately misleading response provided by Council. The hundreds of metres of grass sods planted were largely unnecessary. These photos reveal that after twice bringing in truckloads of earth in order to level out the sides of the path, that the grass had finally taken. The sods were not removed. The mulch was simply spread over the top of the existing sods without any regard for the allegedly $6000 already spent. The photos below showing the same positions in the trail provide clear evidence that:

  1. Vast areas of “stable” grass was needlessly ripped up at ratepayers’ expense
  2. Previous green ‘open space’ is now unusable

Ratepayers need to ask themselves whether this is really ‘best value’ for our money and how much faith to place in the responses to public questions.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

July 28, 2012

A Tale Of Porkies!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[21] Comments 

When residents ask public questions then they have every right to expect that the responses they receive and signed by the Mayor will constitute the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far too often, this is not the case. Our latest example concerns another public question from last week’s council meeting. We will break this down so that it is easier for readers to follow – ie. the question, followed by the response and then the photographic evidence which belies what council claims. This will occur over several posts and all relate to the Elster Creek Trail.

Question 1 –  Given the Noel Arnold recommendations on the handling of mulch materials, why have council employees not adhered to these recommendations when carting, laying, and spreading the mulch – especially the requirement to wear masks, gloves and goggles?

Answer – Staff and contractors are trained in the safe handling of mulch and use appropriate personal protective equipment for the nature of the works.

 

COMMENTS: The Noel Arnold report stated:”Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi….”. Please note: Council has admitted this mulch was ‘commercial’. It lay in huge piles fermenting and emitting steam prior to being spread. Further, the Arnold report made these recommendations: “To protect staff from potential risks, provide training, instructions, information and appropriate personal protective equipment to Council employees likely to come in contact with this material. The personal protective equipment that is recommended for Council employees handling the mulch material is: disposable dust mask; gloves; washing of hands after use”.

The photos clearly show that NONE of these safety precautions were employed. Who is responsible? What oversight was taken by those in charge? Why is the response to the question so dissembling if not a straight out porky? Note – as an admitted ‘commercial’ mulch, this comes under Australian Standards and hence is arguably more ‘dangerous’ than mere leaf and chip mulch! Not only has Council failed to adhere to the Arnold recommendations – they have ignored the Australian Standards thereby potentially putting their employees at risk.

If readers click on the image they will see the piles of mulch waiting to be spread. There are many other photos not included here.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »