Parking: Compare & Contrast

 

Alma Club

 

Screwed Again?

On the 20^th May (ie tomorrow) a Planning Panel hearing will be held regarding Amendment C80. To refresh people’s memory, this concerns the rezoning of part of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS an application for a 5 storey development consisting of up to 62 units!

When this first came up before council in 2011, councillors voted unanimously to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit – even though Esakoff proclaimed some ‘concerns’ over the application part of the amendment. Then on December 18^th 2012, following the Minister’s approval, and after much argey-bargey in council, this resolution was passed unanimously –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council request the Minister for Planning to refer Amendment C80 to an Independent Panel to consider the submissions, but limited to the rezoning application.

2. Advise the Minister and the Independent Panel that Council has abandoned planning permit application GE/PP-24474/2012.

So what is Monday all about? Here’s the Department’s blurb on what this Panel Hearing is about (taken from the DPCD’s website) -

Given the history of C87 where residents were literally duped, mislead, and deceived we have little faith that the fate of the C80 will be any different. With the C87, Lipshutz and Hyams in particular were at great pains to tell residents that they could forward their objections and recommendations and that the Panel would consider them. However, when it came to the Panel Hearing it turned out that the TERMS OF REFERENCE had been set and that the panel could not consider anything extraneous to these terms – for example, why other properties could not be included as part of the Significant Character Area. Our suspicion, given the notification above, is that we are probably heading down the same path – ie the Panel terms of reference stated above INCLUDE the application for the 5 storey, 62 unit development. It will therefore be most enlightening to see what and how Council’s planning department argues on this one. Will they actually carry out a Council resolution and desist with the arguments for the application, or will they simply toss their hands in the air and use the woeful excuse that the Planning Panel has the legal authority to make a decision on the application as well? Will residents be screwed once again? And it would be most enlightening to know if the Minister was ever notified of the existence of this resolution as stipulated?

If tomorrow’s hearing includes consideration of the application together with the rezoning of the land, then residents have once again been duped. Far more important is the question as to the value of any council resolutions and whether these councillors really know what they are doing.

 

 

 

The Show Goes On!

Tuesday night’s agenda is definitely geared towards a ‘feel good’ session. We have the Arts & Culture strategy, the Disability strategy and finally the report on River Red Gum maintenance in Glen Eira. Never mind of course that it doesn’t include all the trees that Sounness identified in his Request for a Report. Also, the promised and re-promised tabling of the draft Local Law for May, is still a no show. There are however a few items of interest.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

No community reps were present. In fact, it looks like the 3 sitting reps may have been given the boot since the committee has decided to advertise via expressions of interest and to ‘inform’ current members. It will be fascinating to see if any of the current sitting members re-apply and whether they are given the nod. If not, then will they be given any plausible reason for their ‘departure’?

Delahunty has been ordained as Chairperson, but only after a split vote with Hyams. Here’s what we’re told – Director Community Services called for nominations. Cr Esakoff nominated Cr Hyams; Cr Lobo nominated Dr Delahunty. Following acceptance of nominations a vote was held and the voting was tied. After further discussion it was agreed Councillor Mary Delahunty be appointed as Committee Chairperson, and agreed in principle that the chair would rotate to Cr Hyams after a year

If this isn’t pre-empting a council decision on who will sit on which committees, then we don’t know what is!

Also noteworthy is the ‘review’ of the Engagement Strategy and the stated intent to investigate methodology and VLGA ‘principles’. We wait with bated breath!

PLANNING ZONE REFORMS

Whereas other councils (Whitehorse, Stonnington, Bayside) keep publishing updates on their progress with the Planning Zone Reforms and the likely impact on their municipalities, all residents in Glen Eira get to know is the occasional throw away line in the Records of Assembly. For example:

Cr Okotel – can the MAV assist Councils to understand the new planning zones

Cr – Okotel – new planning zones

Workshop – new planning zones

We remind readers that these new zones come into operation on July 1^st 2013 and Councils have 1 year to ‘adapt’. Within this year other councils are completing or undertaking their Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Reviews. Glen Eira, we fear, is quite willing to rely on its antiquated data and suspect policies. More importantly, why have residents not been provided with any information since the release of council’s response?

AMENDMENTS

We must take some credit for the following VCAT Watch item. It concerns a decision where council argued that its yet to be advertised Transition Zone Policy should be considered in the application. We took them to task for arguing for something that doesn’t exist as did the member in his decision. In Quarterly Reports we’ve been told that this amendment is ‘on hold’ until the zone reforms come in. Now we’re told – Councillors will recall that the Minister for Planning refused Council’s request for authorisation to place Amendment C90 on public exhibition.

Why we ask? Why wasn’t this information forthcoming at the time with reasons clearly explained? Why argue for this at VCAT when it is KNOWN that the amendment as it stands can’t get to first base? Why can’t residents be told the truth right from the start and, in fact, what is the truth?

PS: please also note that the tree labelled as River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis at Duncan McKinnon plus the very nice photograph (n0 6.) does not exist anymore! IT WAS CHOPPED DOWN EARLIER THIS YEAR. So much for the accuracy, comprehensiveness and full disclosure of this report!

 

Planning The Glen Eira Way!

With another 75 dwellings on the cards at the Alma Club location, we thought residents should know what has been going on in Glen Eira. Below are a series of decisions granting permits for multi-unit developments over the past 18 months or so. The decisions include both VCAT rulings and permits granted by either DPC or council resolution. Far too many of these developments can only be described as ‘over developments’ that the current planning scheme actively encourages, especially in Housing Diversity Areas. When 3 storey blocks can contain up to 30 units and where up to a quarter do not receive daylight, when open space does not matter, when vegetation is not protected, when no development contributions are collected, and when the extent of impervious surfaces grows and grows, then something is drastically wrong. And when car parking is continually waived then the flow on effects are obvious. Add all these up and the result is planning mayhem and carte blanche for developers. We have excluded developments that are basically 2 and 3 dwellings and concentrated only on developments over 8 units per block.

• 451 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building (with roof-top terraces) comprising a shop and ten (10) dwellings; a reduction in the standard car parking requirement; and waiving of the loading bay requirement

• 14 Maroona Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings and a basement car park on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement

• 3 Morton Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of five storey building comprising up to 38 dwellings with basement car parking

• 40 Koornang Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 21 dwellings, basement carparking, two shops on the ground floor and the reduction of the carparking requirement

• 433 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising thirty (30) dwellings and basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay Amended application

• 160 Hotham Street ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a four storey building comprising of up to thirty (30) dwellings  A reduction in standard car parking requirements

• 170 East Boundary Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165. Construction of a three storey building (and a basement) comprising up to 12 dwellings and to alter access to a road zone category 1

• 14 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with a basement car park

• 19 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings with basement car parking

• 269 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings and basement car park
• 18 Lillimur Road, Ormond.3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings with basement car parking
• 2C Walsh Street Ormond. 3204. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
• 17 Murrumbeena Road Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings. Reduction in visitor car parking requirement and a variation to the car parking design standards.
• 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings and basement car parking
• 117-125 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163. Construction of a part four storey part three storey building, use of the land for dwellings, two levels of basement and a reduction in car parking requirements on land affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay
• 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH VIC 3162 Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
• 687 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 Construction of a three storey building and basement carpark, comprising two (2) offices, up to nineteen (19) dwellings and reduction in the standard car parking requirement
• 127 Murray Street CAULFIELD VIC 3162. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising no more than twenty eight (28) dwellings with basement carparking
• 290 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162. The construction of a three storey building comprising up to ten (10) dwellings and basement car parking
• 400 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings with basement car park, a reduction in the car parking requirement and alter access to a road
• 402-404 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to thirty-four (34) dwellings, a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road in a Road Zone Category 1
• 193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement

• 61 Centre Road, Bentleigh.  Five (5) storey building comprising two shops and 32 dwellings. Reduction in the standard car parking requirement. Waiving of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 688 Inkerman Road, Caulfield North. Three-storey building (plus basement) accommodating 12 dwellings and associated car parking.

• 54 & 56 Rosstown Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with two shops and 17 dwellings, use of the land as a shop, reduction of the standard car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 111 – 113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena. 3 storeys; 2 shops and 8 dwellings, with 10 car spaces across three levels.

• 2 Belsize Ave. Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with thirteen (13) dwellings

• 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly.Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising up to twenty-seven (27) dwellings and associated basement car park and A reduction in car parking requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 249 Neerim Road, Carnegie. 3 storey, 11 dwellings

• 23 Bent St., Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 26 dwellings with basement car parking

• 633-635 Centre Road, Bentleigh 4 storey, 10 dwellings;

• 289-291 Kooyong Road, Elsternwick. Use of the land for the purpose of a Medical Centre, construction of buildings and works and a reduction in the car parking requirements

• 815 Centre Road Bentleigh East 2 storey 8 dwellings

• 658 and 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East; ·  The permit will allow for 658 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 46 dwellings, six shops and a convenience restaurant, use of the land as a car park, alterations to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in standard car parking requirement and waiver of loading facilities in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of this order.  For 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 40 dwellings, five shops and a convenience restaurant, alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in the standard car parking requirement, waiver of loading facilities and removal of an easement in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of this order.

• 221-229 Glenhuntly Road, Elsternwick. The construction of a ten (10) storey building for up to 89 dwellings, 3 shops, 1 ground floor office, reduction of standard car parking requirements and loading bay requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• 1094 & 1096 Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly. 3 storey 38 dwellings

• No. 270 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Four storey building, a reduction in the car parking requirements for a shop and dwellings, and waiver of a loading bay in accordance with the endorsed plans. (8 dwellings?)

• 7-13 Dudley Street, Caulfield East. Five storey building containing up to 71 dwellings; the construction and use of a five storey building for student accommodation (containing up to 116 student bedrooms), a convenience shop and basement car park (accommodating up to 101 car spaces) and the reduction of the standard car parking requirement and changes to the built form

• 650 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 13 dwellings

• 95 Nicholson St., McKinnon. Three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings

• 1 Mackie Road, Bentleigh East. Development of a three storey apartment building, comprising 29 dwellings

• 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South. Three storey apartment building of fourteen (14) dwellings with basement parking and reduction in the provision of visitor parking.

• 32 Mavho Street, Bentleigh. Construction of a three storey building comprising 10 dwellings with basement car parking

• 426 Hawthorn Road , Caulfield South. Construction of a three storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings 

• 98 – 100 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Construction of a three storey building with basement car parking comprising 28 dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay.

• 14 & 16 Maroona Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the construction of 26 dwellings in a three storey building
  

 

 

This & That & Editorial Independence?

We feature two articles from today’s Caulfield Leader. In particular, we draw readers’ attention to the almost word by word regurgitation of the Council spin on the proposed budget – including the totally misleading figure of a 3.5% rate hike. Unless residents are hawk-eyed they may entirely miss what possibly passes for a ‘correction’ in the box to the right.

 

Services?

The Municipal Association of Victoria estimates that labour, materials, inflation etc. results in a 4% increase per annum to councils across the state. If correct, that would mean that in order to simply maintain the same level of service, councils would have to increase their funding of various projects by this same percentage rise. Anything less indicates a decline in funding, and hence a decline in service provision.

Glen Eira’s stated objective is to “maintain existing service levels”. A review of the current and last year’s budget figures reveals that this is not happening when the 4% cost hikes are accounted for. The following figures are taken directly from the two budgets. Please note that some services have been REDUCED far in excess of what a 4% rate would indicate.

SERVICE	2012/13 BUDGET	2013/14 BUDGET
Aged Care	$634,000	$570,000
Family & children’s services	$706,000	$110,000
Shopping Centres	$550,000	$550,000
Pensioner Rebate	$270	$270
Libraries	$750,000	$771,000 (should be at least $780,000 to maintain parity)
Drains	$3.9 million (this included over $450,000+ for Boyd Park storm water harvesting which had to be returned to the Commonwealth once the full project was decided against)	$3.5 million
Footpaths	$1.73 million	$1.73 million
LATM renewal	$200,000	$200,000
Kerb & Channel replacement	$160,000	$160,000

 

Funding HAS increased by $100,000 for ‘pedestrian safety’, but gone down by $50,000 for ‘school safety’. Building works of course keep skyrocketing from $805,000 to $1.34 million.

One very interesting item is $105,000 for the ‘restoration’ of the conservatory! Exactly what this means is anyone’s guess – especially since there was the council resolution to do nothing but undertake further ‘consultation’. It also begs the question of how much work was done in maintaining the building in 2012/13 since it has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent. No figures were provided for this item in last year’s budget.

Finally, we draw readers’ attention to our post of one year ago. It is still very, very relevant! See: http://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/can-we-trust-them-2/