December 1, 2016

Caulfield Village & Virginia Estate

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

There is a salutary lesson for residents and council in the comparison of the Caulfield Village development process and what is fast approaching for the Virginia Estate project. Residents need to be fully aware of:

  • The impact of rezoning (ie Caulfield Village rezoned to Priority Development Zone, and Virginia Estate now mooted rezoning to MUZ and/or Commercial 1)
  • Council acceptance of an Incorporated Plan for Caulfield Village and the potential acceptance of a ‘Management Plan’ for Virginia Estate – both of which will allegedly provide the ‘conceptual framework’ for development but without real detail. No objection rights for residents – decision is made by council.
  • Development Plans (ie the details) which then follow for each precinct but which only have to be ‘generally in accordance’ with the Incorporated/Management Plan. These Development Plans can be amended time and time again, and have been for the Caulfield Village.

Readers will remember that the Precinct 2 application (just under another 400 dwellings) for the Caulfield Village was refused at ‘manager’ level by Council without Council displaying this until after the fact. The developer immediately went to VCAT, where the decision has now been handed down. Once again, the developer has basically won, and all previous promises (ie real social housing element, ‘housing diversity’ has gone).

The ‘problem’ with this entire process is that the Schedule for the Caulfield Village which Council accepted and which provides all the ‘musts’ is so vague, and basically useless,  that the developer has all the cards stacked to his advantage. Fundamentally,  council’s requirements were inadequate and our fear is that unless some real lessons are learnt the same will occur at Virginia Estate. For example, the Caulfield Village history is:

  • No on-site visitor parking required (at this stage 2063 dwellings – originally mooted at 1100 in the Incorporated Plan). Precinct 2 now has 45 on site car parking spots but this is dependent on the ‘largesse’ of the developer and not on council’s Schedule.
  • Amendment after amendment that allows balconies to encroach on setbacks
  • No definitive statements on social housing except this useless sentence in the Schedule – The provision of affordable housing in the form of social housing. No definitive statement on how many ‘social housing’ units, or how this is to be managed. Readers will remember that council wrung its hands in dismay when Precinct 1 was allowed without any social housing and the arguments of Hyams et al were that future precincts would meet this requirement. So much for promises!
  • No definitive statements on ‘housing diversity’ – thus Precinct 1 has over 40% as one bedroom dwellings and Precinct 2 will likely have 2.2% of three bedroom apartments according to the plans.

For the full VCAT decision, please see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1965.html

As we’ve said above, unless the lessons from Caulfield Village are learnt, and learnt properly, then we fully expect that the Virginia Estate project will follow in the same manner . It is the job of this new council to ensure that every single potential gap in any Management Plan and accompanying Schedule is spelt out so that the developer has as little wriggle room as possible. If this is not done, then we can rest assured that the eventual Management Plan will not be worth the paper it is written on and the entire project will duplicate the abysmal planning that occurred and is still occurring with the Caulfield Village!

 

November 30, 2016

VCAT & Questions From Gallery

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

Resident #2 – began by asking whether the ‘new council is doing all it can to ensure it has all the information’ to ‘bolster its position at VCAT?’. Said he had been an objector to VCAT several times and ‘last week’ attended the hearing for a development on Neerim Road, Carnegie. Went on to say that it ‘breaks his heart’ to see council representatives trying to ‘argue a case’ when they don’t have ‘much to stand on’. Gave the example of internal amenity where the developers argued that it is ‘not mentioned in the planning scheme’. On car parking there were many permits granted where waivers were granted but ‘there is no evidence of how many car parking waivers have been granted’. Went on to say that ‘unless there is other evidence provided’, then the ‘evidence of the applicant stands’. Stated that the member asked about the draft Amendment on height limits, but the council rep ‘wasn’t able to provide an update on that’. The speaker claimed that this ‘would have had a big impact on the outcome of the case’. The question then is whether they can ‘invite’ these people who ‘act for council’ to present to council a report on ‘what are the gaps’ ‘whilst the whole process’ of implementing the work plan for the planning scheme review is going on. Also asked how council can ‘accelerate’ the Minister’s approval of the draft amendments.

DELAHUNTY: said that council were doing the ‘strategic work’ that she thought would ‘bolster’ council’s position at VCAT. Also stated that ‘arguably’ this strategic work should have ‘been done some time ago’ but they’ve ‘made the decision to do it now’. Thought that the questioner’s point about council reps reporting back to councillors ‘might have some merit’.

TORRES: said it wasn’t an ‘easy’ situation and that council gets a ‘high number of VCAT appeals’ and ‘many’ that council ‘defends’ are changed or ‘overturned by VCAT’. Claimed that ‘council is running’ on an average with ‘other similar councils’. Stated that the VCAT reps include ‘senior staff’ and consultants who were chosen because of their ‘experience and expertise’ including one who was previously a VCAT member himself.

DELAHUNTY: repeated the question that they use the reps to ‘figure out what are the hot issues at the time’ and that this ‘suggestion’ has ‘merit’. Informed the gallery that the VCAT Annual Report has been published and that there was ‘some discussion’ about the number of Glen Eira appeals. Admitted that it was a ‘high number’ and the cost for ratepayers. Again thought questioner was right in that they had to listen to reps ‘in order to figure things out’.

QUESTIONER #2: said there was ‘urgency’ because there’s a ‘gap’ between ‘what the representatives have to argue’ and they could be the ‘best representatives’ but ‘if there’s no basis for their arguments’ and therefore ‘no results’.

SILVER: said he was ‘satisfied’ that officers are ‘taking the appropriate steps to incorporate our policies’ into the planning scheme and that there’s a difference between ‘policies’ and the current legislation. Said he would like to see more lawyers on the panels.

COMMENT

Readers should find the following statistics from the VCAT Annual Report very interesting. Not only do they reveal that Glen Eira has had the highest number of appeals to VCAT in the last year, but that East Bentleigh appeals have gone through the roof (a 90% increase). These statistics put pay to the myth that under the new zones, VCAT appeals would be reduced. It also reveals the impact the zones have had in East Bentleigh where the overwhelming majority of cases are developer initiated precisely because of the zoning!

vcat1vct2

 

 

November 29, 2016

Wynne, Politics, & Inconsistency!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

This is just a very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. A detailed summary of some of the items will follow in the next couple of days.

  • Delahunty again moved the motion to suspend standing orders and to take questions from the gallery. This time around Esakoff voted in favour of the suspension of standing orders, whilst Hyams voted against. There were three questions – one on an empty fish and chip shop in Bentleigh and how it is now representing a health hazard. Promises were made to investigate. Another question involved planning and whether council’s consultants at vcat could present reports to councillors on the ‘gaps’ in the planning scheme that prove problematic at vcat. (full detail to come on this one).
  • Item 9.2 on council’s ‘advocacy’ to change VCAT was passed as written – ie the council ‘acceptance’ of do nothing until 2018! (again details to come)
  • Council’s submission on the Ormond rail development was the most interesting item all night. What we witnessed here was politicking on a grand scale in our view, plus Wynne’s reputed demands for some decent ‘strategic planning’ having a major impact. Consistency from Hyams and Magee was non-existent – as per usual!
  • Three public questions – but since the questioners were not in the gallery, the questions and answers were not read out and neither will they be minuted!
 

November 28, 2016

Wynne & The Interim Height Amendments

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

If the persistent and strong rumours prove correct, then Council has again been ticked off by Minister Wynne in relation to their draft amendments for the Bentleigh and Carnegie activity centres. We suspect that council has been ordered once again to pull its finger out and do some decent strategic work which would justify him gazetting the amendments.

As we’ve said in previous posts, the draft amendments:

  • provided no strategic justification for the stated interim height levels
  • FOI documents revealed no data that was worthy of that name was submitted by council
  • all council has done is draw a few lines on some maps and this is meant to constitute ‘strategic planning’

All of this means, if true, more delays upon more delays in introducing some measures which help protect residents against over-development. We simply ask the question – when will this continued incompetence stop?

 

November 25, 2016

Agenda: VCAT ‘Advocacy’

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

Item 9.2 of the current agenda features an officer response to a Request for a Report on ‘advocacy’ actions available to Council in relation to VCAT.  Given that meeting after meeting VCAT is portrayed as the total villain in  that it repeatedly ignores council policy, is undemocratic, and that its decisions are arbitrary, depending on the whim of appointed individuals, it is astounding that the recommendations include:

(that Council) considers its VCAT advocacy position in June 2018. This will allow time to monitor the effect of Council’s Planning Scheme Review program on Glen Eira’s number of appeals or success rate at VCAT.

Once again it seems as if council is urged to do absolutely nothing but wait and wait and wait. We point out the bleeding obvious –

  1. ‘advocacy’ and the work plan resulting from the Planning Scheme Review are not mutually exclusive. Surely strategic work on the planning scheme review work plan can continue alongside some decent advocacy? Besides, council has stated that it will take 4 years to produce two structure plans. What ‘damage’ can VCAT do in the intervening period, unless there is some strong advocacy to change legislation? What advantage do residents gain by waiting, and what happens if the resulting data shows that the ‘number of appeals or success rate at VCAT’ have not been reduced in this period? We remind readers that both council and Matthew Guy promised that VCAT appeals would decrease as a result of the new zones. That furphy has well and truly been put to bed in recent years!
  2. Part of the Camera report includes some advocacy ‘options’ which somehow do not feature in the ultimate recommendations. He summarises possible council involvement as:
  • Through peak bodies for local government in Victoria such as the Municipal Association of Victoria
  • In partnership with neighbouring Councils, such as through the Inner South Metro Mayors’ Forum
  • Directly to the Attorney- General who is responsible for VCAT.
  • Directly to the Minister for Planning

All of the above is possible right now. We can see no salient reason for delay and doing nothing! Councillors need to ensure that proactivity and not reactivity is the agenda of this new council!

 

November 23, 2016

Virginia Estate – Part 2

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

Development will happen at Virginia Park. That is inevitable. What matters is:

  • How much development is ‘necessary’ or even ‘appropriate’ for this site? 1000, 2000, 4000 or 5000 apartments?
  • What will this development look like?
  • What short and long term benefits will accrue to the community as a result?

The answers to these questions are currently unknown. What is known, is that housing brings in the money for developers and that rezoning of the land is the first step in the process. Once rezoned it is the fine print of the so called Development Plan that will reveal much of what the future might look like. Thus it becomes even more imperative that Council insists that the eventual Master Plan is more than a glossy salesman’s promotion – which it currently is!

At this stage we can only go on the published documentation and there is much to be concerned with here given the absence of specific detail and the plethora of motherhood statements.

We address some of the core issues below.

How many apartments are planned?

The developers neatly side-step this concern with this catch all statement – Final densities and dwelling numbers cannot be determined at this point as they are dependent on a number of factors such as potential heights, scale and uses on which feedback is sought as part of this consultation phase.

The intended message is that resident input will have a decided effect on the outcomes – such as ‘dwelling numbers’. That remains to be seen of course, but we are indeed skeptical. Heights for close to half of the site are already set by the existing Schedule to Amendment C75 gazetted in 2011. Plus, when it was envisaged that a 12.5 hectare site could accommodate up to 4000 apartments, it is extremely difficult to believe that a site double this size will not attempt to accommodate more!

The final number of apartments will also be determined by how many are single bedroom, double bedroom or how many are 3 bedroom apartments suitable for families. When the issue of ‘housing diversity’ is reduced to the following, as the documentation repeatedly emphasises, then this is potentially another cause for concern – ie Feedback from earlier consultation on the development of a 20 year masterplan for the precinct asked for consideration of smaller dwelling options, affordable housing and aged care and retirement options.

Housing diversity is much, much more than ‘smaller dwelling options’ or even the inclusion of aged care and affordable housing. The ‘offer’ of ‘up to 5% of total dwellings’ as ‘affordable housing’ palls when we consider the Yarra Council’s Schedule to the Alphington Paper Mill development  (16.5 hectares – 2500 units) and the imposition of an ‘unconditional’ 5% affordable housing component.  

It is therefore imperative that Councillors insist on unequivocal terms and definitions, once the final Master Plan is submitted.

Population Growth In Glen Eira

The various published documents emphasise how Glen Eira’s population is projected to grow by 2031 and the number of apartments that are required to meet this housing need. We’re told that population will increase by a third and that another 7,474 new dwellings are therefore essential – and that is throughout all of Glen Eira, not just East Bentleigh!

What the Gillon conglomerate does not tell residents is:

  • That there are already another 1500+ apartments in the pipeline due to the Caulfield Village development and these will all be completed by 2031.
  • According to Planning Permit Victorian figures for the first quarter of 2016/17 another 448 net new dwellings have been granted permits.
  • According to the ABS data on building permits for the current financial year, we can add another 420
  • On the cards is also major development projects at Rippon Lea, Ormond rail station and probably McKinnon and Bentleigh stations as well. Ormond is purported to house another 200 apartments. No information has been released for McKinnon and Bentleigh, but we can’t imagine that these stations will be left untouched. Then of course there is the recent sale of the Daily Planet and 2 surrounding properties where the developer promised ‘bay views’ to his prospective buyers.

Thus we have the situation where we already know for certain that out of the ‘required’ 7474 new dwellings, Glen Eira already has at least 2600 accounted for. This of course does not take into account the flurry of applications already in for the RGZ and GRZ areas of the municipality and those applications which will still come in. Even discounting all these latter scenarios, all Glen Eira has to achieve is another 4800 new dwellings over the next 15 years to meet its unofficial ‘quota’. Thus, there is absolutely no need for Gillon to use the excuse of a housing shortfall in order to condone the potential  (over)development at Virginia Estate. And certainly not the questionable and debated target of 4000+ that was in the first attempt at rezoning.

And all of the above ignores the major problems of traffic, parking, infrastructure, commercial viability of Centre Road shopping strip, residential amenity of neighbours, open space, walkability, transport options, blah, blah, blah. Each and every one of these concerns must be addressed – and not by motherhood statements, or vague promises. The onus is on council to do its own research and to insist that every single ‘I’ is dotted and every single ‘t’ is crossed and that clear, rational justification is provided to residents for the subsequent decision making.

 

November 22, 2016

Virginia Estate – Part 1

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

This is the first of our posts on the draft Master Plan for the development of the Virginia Estate. For this post we have simply picked out some ‘howlers’ that have made their way into the draft. A far deeper analysis will follow in the coming days.

Whilst we acknowledge that legally the developers have only to abide by the constraints of the Amendment passed in 2011 (ie C75) which constitutes the equivalent of an Incorporated Plan designed to set out some broad parameters rather than detail, the Gillon group could have, and should have, done a lot more with this draft to allay resident fears.

In a 24 page document we find:

  • Unfounded claims and statistics
  • A watering down of previous commitments on open space
  • A reliance on developer protocols on ESD, and
  • Half of the document is nothing more than a regurgitation of past documents and actions/events

UNFOUNDED CLAIMS AND STATISTICS

Several of the published documents make a big deal of our ageing population and the need for increased aged care. We take no issue with this. What we do object to is the deliberate obfuscation of the facts. Lumping together Glen Eira, Stonnington, Bayside, Monash and Kingston into an analysis of population without taking into account what aged care developments are happening in these other municipalities, or even acknowledging that Glen Eira residents could find themselves retiring to these other municipalities is, at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading. Page 21 summarises the argument for Glen Eira alone with – “Those aged 65 years and over will make up 21.2% of the total population.”

The Victoria in Future – 2016 prognostications for Glen Eira differ markedly from this claim as evidenced below –

age-pop

OPEN SPACE

Originally, the developers were required (and we assume willing) to pay a 5.7% open space levy in cash – according to the minutes of March 17th, 2015. However, since the site has now doubled in size from 12.5 hectares to over 24 hectares, this does represent a huge increase in cash payments. Thus we get a new proposition of 3% cash and 3% in ‘land contribution’.

At a rough estimate, a 3% land contribution should be about a hectare of land. More than enough for wide open spaces within the estate. That is clearly not the aim of the developers. Going on their previous publications we fear that any land contribution will simply consist of concrete pathways and linkages between buildings and the nearby, already existing parks.  We do not envisage a grand open space area of over 1 hectares. Their proposed contribution in all likelihood will be cobbled together bits and pieces sitting between high density towers.

ESD – ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Much is made of the use of ESD and how this will set a ‘benchmark’ for future development. The only problem with the ‘standard’ suggested is that it is owned, devised and regulated by the development industry itself – ie The Urban Development Industry of Australia. The scheme does not cover individual house construction per se. Instead it is geared towards “residential land development” and the developer’s ‘reward’ for adhering to these ‘standards’ is a ‘leaf icon’ as certification. Further, the developer does not have to abide by all the criteria listed – only one will suffice to get ‘accreditation’. We’ve uploaded a research article which compares the various ESD schemes available (HERE). The proposed one in our view falls well short of the mark in comparison.

It is also amusing to read such nonsense as – The EnviroDevelopment rating exceeds the requirements set by the Glen Eira City Council and the State Government. Anything would ‘exceed’ what council has got given that nothing of substance exists in its planning scheme!

Watch this space for more!

 

November 18, 2016

Elsternwick – Going, Going, Gone?

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

Developer picks up Daily Planet brothel site for $8.85 million

Nov 18, 2016 Larry Schlesinger
The Daily Planet brothel along with two neighbouring properties will make way for apartments

Australia’s most famous brothel, the Daily Planet in Elsternwick in Melbourne south eastern suburbs, will make way for a mixed-use apartment development after the 18-room bordello was snapped up at auction on Friday by a local developer.

The unnamed buyer, with offshore ties and a number of projects on the go in Melbourne, paid $8.85 million for the brothel on Horne Street – well above expectations – as well as securing the two neighbouring commercial buildings auctioned separately for $1.9 million each, spending a total of $12.66 million.

Combined, the three adjoining buildings create a 1239 square metre potential development opportunity 10 kilometres from the city centre with almost 45 metres of street frontage.

The brothel at 7-12 Horne Street, founded by strip club owner John Trimble in 1975, made history in 2003 when its holding company, Planet Platinum, became the first sex industry business to be listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

It was put up for sale by liquidators Ferrier Hodgson after the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered in December that Planet Platinum be wound-up. Planet Platinum was delisted from the ASX in March.

The next door commercial building at 13 Horne Street was also owned by Mr Trimble and was offered as a mortgagee sale while the third property at 15 Horne Street, is a privately-owned warehouse unrelated to Planet Platinum.

A large crowd of around 200 attending the on-site auction. The brothel, which continues to operate, was closed during the auction giving those attending a glimpse of the temptations that lie behind the bland grey walls.

The three properties were marketed by Alex Ham, Benjamin Klein and Michael Gross from Gross Waddell. Mr Klein said the purchaser’s intentions were to “design and develop a landmark mixed use project with the benefit of views of Port Phillip Bay”.

Mr Ham commented: “We received over 250 enquiries throughout the campaign mainly due to the recognition of this iconic asset and the substantial combined landholding. All three properties were purchased by the one group, a locally based development company.”

Planet Platinum also owned King Street strip club Showgirls Bar 20, which was recently sold for $13.25 million to Rialto Tower owners Grollo Group and Kuwaiti government-backed St Martins Properties.

With a Superman-inspired Daily Planet logo above the door, the 18-room brothel with spa baths and mirrored walls in some rooms, was voted Best Brothel in Australia 18 times at the Australian Adult Industry Awards.

Source: http://www.domain.com.au/news/developer-picks-up-daily-planet-brothel-site-for-127-million-20161118-gssvqj/

COMMENT

  • With no ‘action plan’ for Elsternwick in the forseeable future, developers are having a field day.
  • With an outlay of over $12 million we do not expect that the developer will settle for a 6 or even 7 storey building. The sites are zoned Commercial – thus the sky is the limit, literally
  • Is the failure to address the planning issues in Elsternwick deliberate? If so, will council come clean on its intentions? simply arguing that a ‘survey’ conducted as part of the planning scheme review placed Bentleigh and Carnegie higher on the pecking order, is not good enough and certainly not when the area is undergoing dramatic and rapid development.
  • Given that council has basically drawn a few lines on some maps, we have to wonder why the same could not have been done for Elsternwick.
  • FYI, there is another application in for Seymour Road, Elsternwick on a property over 3000 square metres. The application seeks to change usage from ‘aged care’ to residential. The site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential – but the planning scheme ‘encourages’ large lots. Whether or not this ends up as another Wilks St., St Aubins Avenue, or a Wahgoo fiasco, remains to be seen. The writing is on the wall however. Elsternwick demands immediate attention and not in another 4 or 5 years when council just might get around to addressing the current planning scheme gaps and inadequacies that cover this suburb.
 

November 15, 2016

At Last – The Winds Of Change!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[18] Comments 

The following was provided for the gallery at tonight’s council meeting –

img007

Delahunty began the meeting with some explanatory comments regarding the above sheet outlining  ‘Request to Address the Council’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that at the appropriate time in the meeting she would call for the suspension of standing orders, so that people in the gallery who had filled out the sheet could address council either with a question or a statement. Said that either she would answer the question or direct the question to the ‘most appropriate person’. There will be a 15 minute time limit. This is ‘trialing one method’ and could change depending on ‘how this goes’ but the aim is ‘greater public consultation’.

Delahunty then proceeded with the traditional oath, accepting previous minutes, reading of petition, etc.

When reporting on the Community Consultation Committee minutes, Hyams made the comment that what Delahunty is proposing is that her motion is ‘fine but that local law is sacrosanct’ and that her proposal goes ‘outside’ the law so he won’t be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders.

Delahunty then explained that if her motion to suspend standing orders is successful, that the questions asked by the gallery is different to the public questions process in that the question and answers won’t be minuted. Public questions will continue at the assigned agenda item (ie at the end of the public meeting). Delahunty then moved the motion to suspend standing orders. Seconded by Magee.

MOTION PUT – VOTING IN FAVOUR – TAYLOR, STRAJT, SILVER, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, ATHANOSOPOULOS, DAVEY

VOTING AGAINST: HYAMS, ESAKOFF.

MOTION CARRIED.

1st question – asked about the Ormond development proposal and the construction of the platform for the development whether this ‘breached’ any council planning laws. If it didn’t breach any planning laws then under what authority was this done?

ANSWER: Delahunty referred this on to Torres who reported that the Minister for Planning ‘changed the town planning controls’ to ‘facilitate the removal’ of the crossing and to ‘facilitate the development of the railway station’. This meant that ‘no planning permission was required’ from council for these two things. ‘We understand that the deck is an intrinsic part of the redevelopment’ and therefore council has no authority over this since ‘it is a structural requirement’ for the trench and ‘didn’t need planning permission’.

2nd question – asked how council is going to stop this development.

ANSWER: Delahunty said that ‘vision’ that council and the community has for the streets will involve strong lobbying. Council does want to see the area ‘enlivened’ but acknowledged there would be concern over ‘what precedent is set’. Residents should be ‘assured’ that ‘we are determined to do some strategic work’ that residents can ‘tell us’ what your vision is for the area. The CEO then spoke about council’s ‘shopping strip initiative’ which would ‘help form our activity’ as a result of the planning scheme review. Torres also said that they’ve started the process to ‘help inform’ our ‘future activity strategy’ such as questions like ‘what do you like about your shopping centre’. This might seen a ‘simple question’ but is important for ‘creating a vision for the centre’.

3rd Question – whether council would consider working together with other councils to ‘enable a more cost effective delivery of services’.

ANSWER: Delahunty said this was a good point about the need for ‘developing partnerships’ and she’s in favour of it as is the CEO. Because of ratecapping this becomes inevitable and they will have to think ‘more collaboratively with our neighbours’. Hyams also said it’s a ‘good idea’.

4th question – will council provide a date for live streaming of meetings?

ANSWER: Delahunty said that she couldn’t provide a date but that it is definitely on the agenda. They are waiting on a report to come back to council. Magee spoke that he’s in favour but the heritage of the building was a consideration but he didn’t like just one camera focused on the mayor. Privacy issues also needed to be addressed.

Question 5 – whether council would change the order of business so that public questions aren’t at the end of meetings and that the time for questions be extended to 30 minutes?

ANSWER: Delahunty said they would look at this but it’s ‘set out in the local law’ which council can change.

Other questioners were invited to speak to councillors at end of meeting since the 15 minutes was up.

 

November 14, 2016

Is This Why No Structure Plan For Elsternwick?

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

ABC Television studio building in Elsternwick up for sale

Jordy Atkinson, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

November 14, 2016 3:35pm

THE ABC has put its Elsternwick property on the market as productions move to its new Southbank studios.

The 6155sq m property, on the corner of Selwyn and Sinclair streets, comprises offices, storage facilities and some of the ABC’s television studios.

Six separate titles make up the property, which is zoned for mixed use and includes a two-level office, several warehouses and a two storey carpark.

The site is within 100m of Elsternwick station, trams and retail facilities along Glenhuntly Rd.

The property is being sold by Savills.

Savills state director Clinton Baxter said the property would attract a “great deal of attention”.

“This is one of those exceptional properties which very rarely hits the market,” he said.

“In this case favourable mixed use zoning, abundant surrounding amenity including retail, public transport, bay beaches and numerous prestigious schools, coupled with a levelled site with superb access from several street frontages.”

Mr Baxter said the buildings dated back to the 1950s and offered a wide range of potential uses in “what is one of the best and most highly credentialed development locations in Melbourne”.

The property will be sold following an expressions of interest process, which closes on December 6.

Savills would not reveal how much the property was expected to fetch.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/abc-television-studio-building-in-elsternwick-up-for-sale/news-story/383f1f9b862c4a641254c7a3dee6c7b7

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »