Glen Eira Debates

January 20, 2016

Letters To The Editor

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

January 18, 2016

Virginia Estate: Round #2

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

PS: RESIDENTS BEWARE! THE PROPOSED VIRGINIA ESTATE LAND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXPANDED WITH THE ‘PARTNERSHIP’ OF THE MAKE PROPERTY GROUP. NOWHERE IS THIS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED – EXCEPT ON THE MAP BELOW.

Please note that the land under question now extends to Griffith Avenue. The original draft amendment did not include this land – ie from the minutes of 21st July 2015

The land abutting Griffith Avenue is currently zoned Industrial Zone1 (ie no residential). Thus, the site under discussion would appear to have increased dramatically – without residents being informed in an open and transparent fashion! Not a great start for ‘consultation’!!!!!!!! Secondly, if the land mass is increased significantly, does this mean more dwellings? Another amendment that wants the entire area rezoned to Commercial 1? Or is it simply a case of a leopard does not change its spots?

Here is the planning map of the site as it currently stands –

We have received the following media release –

January 16, 2016

Shuffling The Decks On The Titanic?

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

Does this signal the departure of the very recently appointed Ms K. Ware?

January 15, 2016

Okotel’s Political Aspirations

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Miscellaneous
[13] Comments

Female executive a favourite for Victorian Senate

Primrose Riordan

14 January 2016

The Australian Financial Review

Victoria’s all-male Liberal Senate team could be facing a shake up: AustralianSuper adviser Jane Hume has emerged as a favourite to replace outgoing Senator Michael Ronaldson.

Freedom and Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson’s decision to bow out of the race on Tuesday is “building momentum” for an all-female ticket at the 2016 election, say Liberal MPs, and could help Ms Hume take the top slot.

Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer’s chief of staff Julian Sheezel, who was thought to be in with a chance, also pulled out of the race last week.

“Before Tim quit [Ms Hume] had a good chance, now she has an even better chance,” a Liberal source said. “Jane’s got friends across the party”.

To have the best chance of winning and becoming a senator, candidates must be in the top two spots. National Senator Bridget McKenzie will retain the number two position. Senior party sources said Ms Hume is supported by Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg, Wannon MP Dan Tehan, and Deakin MP Michael Sukkar.

One Liberal MP said: “Jane Hume is strongly favoured to win the first spot. Jane has cross-party support”.

“I think it’s time we walk the talk and had more women,” said another MP supporting Ms Hume.

Institute of Public Affairs deputy director James Paterson, 28, is also running for the number one spot, and his supporters say he has the backing of at least two Liberal ministers.

Mr Paterson has told party selectors his media and fundraising experience would allow him to start campaigning as soon as possible in a busy election year.

Ms Hume’s supporters hoped for an all-female Senate ticket, and to slot Glen Eira City Council Deputy Mayor Karina Okotel into the third spot, which some in the party view as winnable.

That spot is also likely to be contested by a former Liberal candidate for Frankston, Sean Armistead.

Nominations close on January 25 and Liberal members will vote on March 6.

January 14, 2016

Magee

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

Contradictions, inconsistencies, blatant mistruths, and grandstanding are the hallmark of this crop of councillors. In other words, they will say and do anything that is politically and personally expedient at the time – regardless of its basis in fact.

Here is Magee’s glowing endorsement of the zones soon after they were announced by the Minister. Residents need to ask themselves how much of this comes within cooee of reality.

MAGEE – Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’. Said he bought his house in minimal change and away from main roads but his back door neighbour built 3 units and he can touch them ‘with a broom’ and that ‘this won’t happen again’ with these zones. Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’ (13/8/2013)

Compare this with the VCAT judgement on 40 Mavho st – (21^st December 2015) – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1978.html

I fail to see how its density is unacceptable. It is in the Bentleigh Urban Village. Local planning policy identifies Glen Eira’s urban villages as the preferred location for the municipality’s highest densities of residential development. As such, one would expect a high density development in this location.
I acknowledge that its mass and scale is challenging, as it is a four-storey building on a ‘standard’ 15.24 metre wide residential lot. I consider the key variable is the lot’s width. I say this a four-storey building is acceptable in principle because the zone controls encourage buildings up to 13.5 metres in height. This is the equivalent of four-storeys.

PS – ON ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY, BUT ONE THAT MAY INTEREST RESIDENTS. A new application has just gone in for a 12 (twelve) storey building with 3 levels of car parking and 40 apartments and offices at 22-26 Riddell Parade, Elsternwick.

What makes this application ‘interesting’ is the following taken directly from Council minutes of 19th May 2015.

The owners of 22-24 Riddell Parade would like to acquire land that abuts their property and Council’s car park. In this respect, the owners propose that Council:

Σ Formally close a section of road they occupy and then sell them the land in accordance with Council’s Rights of Way and Reserves Discontinuance Policy.

Σ Sell them the thin sliver of Council land they occupy between the section of road and the adjacent Council carpark.

Σ Sell them the airspace 4m from above the surface and the airspace below the surface, which is a corner splay that abuts both the sliver of land and the part of the road. This would allow them to build a first floor above and a basement below the splay but still allow sightlines along the adjacent laneway (minutes 19^th May 2015)

The owner has agreed to pay $59,015, inclusive of GST…..The owner has also agreed to meet all of Council’s reasonable costs associated with pursuing this proposal, estimated at $26,222.00. This is also consistent with Council policy.

January 12, 2016

What More Need We Say?

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

A tiny sample:

Lipshutz stated ‘that there is nothing wrong with developers making profit’ (11/2/2011)

LIPSHUTZ: he ‘took umbrage’ at Lobo’s comments about council and developers. Said that ‘there is nothing wrong with profit’ and that the developer purchased this industrial site and now want to make a profit and that ‘this is a good thing’ because ‘that’s how we grow our society’ (2/3/2015)

January 11, 2016

Ormond In 2015

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

What Council doesn’t want us to know:

Ormond has an area of 2.05 square km. Of this –

2.94% is zoned Commercial (no height limits)
37.33% is zoned GRZ1/2 (three storey)
0.49% is zoned MUZ (no height limit)

TOTAL = 40.76% of the suburb is handed over to developers

Please remember that once public parks, and other utility sites are removed from the overall acreage – since they will not be built upon (in the forseeable future) – then this percentage leaps even higher. Thus Ormond, which represents only 5% of the area of the entire municipality is designated to carry an inequitable proportion of new developments.

11 Malane Street ORMOND – dwellings at rear

35 Thompson Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

291 Grange Road and 4 Walsh Street ORMOND – 3 storey, 23 dwellings

280 Grange Road ORMOND – 3 double storeys

2 Olympia Court ORMOND – 2 double storeys

10 Tyrone Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

70 Ulupna Road ORMOND – 6 double storeys

17 Wicklow Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND – 6 three storeys & one double storey

29 Katandra Road ORMOND – additional level plus 9 new dwellings

11 Thompson Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys

720 North Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys

25 Wicklow Street ORMOND – double storey at front, single storey at rear

13 & 15 Murray Road ORMOND – 3 new dwellings (permit)

9 Malua Street ORMOND – single storey at rear

15 Wild Cherry Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

265 Grange Road ORMOND – 11 dwellings (amended permit issued)

11 Bewdley Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

198 Booran Road ORMOND – single storey at rear (refusal)

289 Grange Road ORMOND – 3 storey, 17 dwellings (amended permit issued)

532 North Road ORMOND – 5 storey, 10 dwellings (refusal)

600-604 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 34 dwellings (permit)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND – 7 double storeys (permit)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND – 2 double storey and 3 three storey (permit)

534-538 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 20 dwellings (amended permit issued)

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND – 3 storey, 12 dwellings

23 Collins Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

235 Grange Road ORMOND – 2 storey, 6 dwellings (permit)

630-632 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 14 dwellings (permit)

17 Bewdley Street ORMOND – double storey at rear (refusal)

6 Florence Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (amended permit issued)

1 Florence Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

9 Bewdley Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

4 Ulupna Road ORMOND – 4 dwellings (amended permit issued)

25 Wicklow Street ORMOND – double storey at front & single storey at rear (refusal)

722 North Road & 62 Draper Street ORMOND – double storey at rear (permit)

30-30A Holloway Street ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

15 Wild Cherry Road ORMOND – 2 double storeys (permit)

January 8, 2016

Council Inaction Equals Incompetence!

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

Here is a list of the latest planning applications for Carnegie. The longer that nothing is done this destruction of Carnegie and other suburbs will continue.

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a six-storey mixed use building comprising sixty-one (61) dwellings and three shops, reduction in the associated car parking requirements, waiver of loading bay requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of an 8 storey mixed use building containing 40 retirement living apartments and a food and drink premises.

1032 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a nine-storey residential hotel (comprising 49 lodging rooms), waiver of loading bay associated with a food and drink premises and a reduction in the associated car parking requirements

116-118 Grange Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – To construct a three storey building comprising 31 dwellings over a basement carpark, reduction of visitor car parking and to alter access to a Road Zone Category One

14-22 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – and for the 12 storeys, 134 apartments, there is now an amendment applied for.

January 7, 2016

Glen Huntly

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

Some background on this suburb is necessary. Glen Huntly is the second smallest suburb in the municipality coming in at 0.89 square km. Only Gardenvale is smaller at 0.25 sq km.

The planning history of Glen Huntly and how council has handled this area is abysmal. According to the State Government this is designated as a Major Activity Centre. Council regards it as a ‘neighbourhood centre’. Thus, when applications have gone into VCAT, the judgements have always been that State legislation over-rides council views and thus the developer has been granted his permits for far more intense development. What makes this situation even worse is that the State Government granted Council $45,000 to undertake the necessary work to produce a structure plan. Council returned that money and refused to implement any structure planning or anything else that could mitigate the ongoing development in Glen Huntly. So Glen Huntly is now stuck in the ‘never-never land’ of being technically a Major Activity Centre, with no Urban Design Frameworks, no parking precinct plans and no real vision as to the future of this suburb and its shopping strip. Retailers have time and again lobbied for improvements – to little avail. But development continues unimpeded – thanks to the zones.

What is even more questionable is the way the zones have been applied. The breakdown is:

31% of this suburb is zoned as GRZ1 and GRZ2 – ie available for 3 storey development

5.39% of the suburb is zoned Commercial 1 – no height limits

0.72% is zoned – Mixed Use Development (MUZ) – no height limits

Add in the Road Zone Category which also welcomes 3 storeys along major roads and close to half of Glen Huntly is ripe for the picking and far greater development. Glen Huntly does admittedly already have large numbers of units. These are products of the 50’s and onwards and will be demolished and new ones built of far greater density and even height.

Yes, there is plenty of public transport, and an incredibly busy rail crossing. But without proper planning that actually addresses the social, environmental and economic aspects of growth, Glen Huntly will continue along the path of unsustainable development.

One perfect example of this in just one small area, is shown below. These are applications that have been decided since the zones and most have been granted permits. Those ‘refused’ by council will undoubtedly end up at VCAT.