The cry from residents should not simply be ‘save East Bentleigh’, but rather ‘Save Glen Eira’. Street after street is being ravaged and not only in the so-called ‘growth zones’ or in the major activity centres. Our alleged 80% ‘protected zones’ of Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ1) are equally at risk of seeing the doubling of dwellings with resultant impacts on amenity, traffic, infrastructure, and open space.

Council clings to the myth that the zones (secretly introduced) have got nothing to do with this onslaught – that it is all the result of a statewide building boom. What is happening in Glen Eira has everything to do with the new zones and the appalling lack of ‘protection’ contained within the Planning Scheme. When other councils can do their homework and have structure plans, design and development overlays that mean something, parking precinct plans, tree protection clauses, development contribution levies for drainage, and our council refuses to even entertain such tools, then there is something drastically wrong.

Victoria in Future 2014 (a government ‘predictor’ of housing needs) asserted that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira households will increase by another 10,000. That’s roughly 500 new dwellings per year. Glen Eira in the past 11 months has had roughly 2400 new dwellings approved – with still a month to go according to the Planning Permit Activity Reports from government. Thanks to the new zones and an outdated and woeful planning scheme, Glen Eira is in the top ranks of handing developers carte blanche to build and build and build with barely an impediment to mega profits. The refusal to revisit, amend, and tighten the Planning Scheme has got nothing to do with the ‘building boom’ and everything to do with a culture that is utterly pro-development with little concern for residential, environmental and social amenity of residents. How any council can operate efficiently when its housing strategy is based on data from 1996, and planning scheme reviews are delayed and delayed, residents should start asking why? And how well our 9 councillors are doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

Below we feature applications that have come in over the past two months and have not as yet been decided by council (a token few have been ‘refused’ and another couple are for amended permits). Given council’s and VCAT’s ‘generosity’ to developers, we anticipate that 95 to 98% of these applications will get the nod. Please note:

  • The scale of development due to the zoning
  • The fact that it is basically the residential ‘growth areas’ that are being inundated and not the Commercial zones which council claims will take the majority of development
  • A planning register that is not worthy of that name since what does ‘multi-unit development’ actually mean? Is this for 10 units, 20 units, or 100 units? Surely it is incumbent on council to provide full details (as demanded by legislation) in its online planning register?
  • East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Ormond aren’t even Major Activity Centres – yet they are being over-developed and ruined – again thanks to the zoning!
  • The list below does not include the literally hundreds upon hundreds of applications for 2 storey attached dwellings in quiet residential streets!

5-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 36 dwellings, reduction in visitor parking

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ2) Buildings and works (SBO) Reduction in the standard car parking requirement (52.06)

10 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

9 & 9A Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – four storey building comprising 20 apartments

331-333 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings, no visitor car parking

455 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Proposed apartment complex & shop (C1Z)

6-8 Blair Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey apartment building above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking) (RGZ1)

21-25 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construct a four storey residential building comprising 45 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor parking)

322-328A Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi storey (max 9 levels), mixed use development comprising basement car park (62 spaces), ground floor retial and residential development (C1Z)

20 Bent Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Multi level residential unit building (RGZ1)

37-39 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – RGZ – Construction of more than two dwellings on the land (RGZ1)

14-14A Vickery Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of 10 x 2 bedroom townhouses, dispensation 2 vsitor car parking spaces

77 Robert Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking to comprise of sixteen (16) dwellings

27-29 Nicholson Street & 20 Hamilton Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of five (5) units, construction of a two (2) storey building comprising of five (5) units and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirements – Amendment

52 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed apartment complex with basement (GRZ1)

51 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 & 670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Use of the land for accomodation where the ground floor frontages excced 2 metres and building and works in a Commerical 1 zone, construction of a residential building in the General Residential Zone, reduction of car parking under Clause 52.06, waiver of on-site loading facilities under Clause 52.07, removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 (GRZ1)

9 Francesco Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of six (6) double storey attached dwellings – Amended

2 John Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Proposed three storey of residential apartment building comprised of 12 units with basement car parking

48-50 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of ten (10) attached dwellings (4 double storey dwellings and 6 three storey dwellings)

46 Hill Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction to the land for four (4) dwellings

12-14 Quinns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to 30 dwellings

18 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – Construction of four (4) three-storey dwellings above basement car parking

16-18 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 x 3 storey townhouses

3 Malacca Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Development of the land with three dwellings

151 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – Proposed shop and 3 apartments

27 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – seven (7) double storey

29 and 31 Prince Edward Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – three (3) storey building above basement carparking comprising of twenty-one (21) dwellings

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 – amended

245 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 – four (4) double storey

10-12 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 21 dwellings (refusal)

24 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 storey, 7 dwellings

17 Rosella Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

7 Toward Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 17 apartments with basement car parking for 19 cars

8 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – Construction of a three storey building comprising fourteen (14) residential apartments above a basement car park – Amended

3-5 Adelaide Street MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 – 6 dwellings

600-604 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Demolition of the existing building and construction of new six storey building for use at the ground level for retail purposes (shop) and the upper levels for residential apartments with 76 car spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. Waiver of the on site loading bay requirement and reduction in the statutory requirement for on site car parking associated with the residential visitors and shop. (C1Z)

34 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Multi-dwelling development (building and works) (GRZ1)

13 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of five (5) dwellings (2 double storey and 3 three storey)

534-538 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements associated with the shops and waiver of loading bay requirements – amended

24-26 Cadby Avenue ORMOND VIC 3204 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements

235 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of up to eleven (11) dwellings and alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

630-632 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of a four storey building comprising of two ground floor shops and fourteen dwellings, waiving of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements – Amended

20 Wheeler Street ORMOND VIC 3204 – The construction of eight (8) double-storey dwellings and a basement car park – refusal

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construct a three storey development comprising 26 apartments above basement car parking and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor)

19-21 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – Construction of a multi unit residential development and a reduction in the provision of car parking (GRZ1)

2 and 2A James Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 316 – Construction of six (6) three storey dwellings and a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 (refusal)

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 -Construction of a three storey building comprising up to 30 dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (permit)

Bentleigh East high rise development hangs on Glen Eira Council’s rezone vote

Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will c

Rodney Andonopoulos is worried a new development at Virginia Park, Bentleigh East, will cause traffic chaos around the neighbourhood. Picture: Valeriu Campan

HUNDREDS of objections to a rezoning proposal to allow for a high-rise, high density development have been filling Glen Eira Council’s mailboxes.

And Mayor, Cr Jim Magee said he expected “a gallery filled with protesters and placards” at the next council meeting.

The large development complex planned forBentleigh East’s Virginia Park, hangs on a crucial rezoning vote at the July 21 meeting.However, speaking on behalf of developer Gillon Group, one of the project’s development managers, Adam Brix from Brix Property Group, said there would be 1250 houses and not 4000 as objectors have been printing on distributed flyers.

Mr Brix said an engineers report, commissioned by the developer, worked on “an absolute maximum development scenario” when investigating services in the area.

That report, which is on exhibition as part of the rezoning process, assumed that the site would be developed for 12,000 square metres of retail floor space and 4,462 residential dwellings.

“The dwellings numbers referred to in the infrastructure report should not be construed as what is intended to be developed,” Mr Brix said.

But community members, who fear the developer would build as close to the maximum capacity as possible, have submitted more than 250 objections already and more were expected, Cr Magee said.

Councillors must make a decision on rezoning the estate from Commercial 1 and 2 to Commercial 1 which would allow for the residential and shopping centre development, by either recommending it to an independent panel or voting against a rezone.

It can’t simply urge the planning minister to approve because of the community objection.

Cr Magee said the said the community response had been “one of the most vocal” in his time on council.

“It’s very, very rare that we see a response like this and it just shows how protective the residents are of their suburb,” Cr Magee said.

“And I suspect come the meeting we will see the gallery filled with protesters and placards like they used to be.”

There is also a Facebook group opposed to the development.

PS: OFF TOPIC BUT OF INTEREST TO RESIDENTS. FROM YESTERDAY’S GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

Untitled

With every VCAT ruling, the disaster that is the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is becoming more and more apparent. In the attempt to bandaid the cracks, and ‘remedy’ some of the worst atrocities, council’s solution is to put conditions onto permits that generally have buckley’s and none of being accepted by VCAT – ie. increased upper storey setbacks, front, side, rear and basement setbacks. Thus we have the farcical situation where council is attempting to impose conditions that do not exist under its current Planning Scheme. All the member has to say is ‘sorry, these setbacks aren’t part of your planning scheme’ or, ‘there is no preferred character statement in the planning scheme for this site’, there are no structure plans, there are no Design and Development Overlays, there is no tree protection worthy of that name, and the development meets the ResCode ‘standards’ which council has codified in its new housing diversity zones. Our sympathies to council planners who have to front up to VCAT with one hand tied behind their backs and argue for conditions that don’t stand a chance without the developer’s concession(s).

Sadly, this situation is a case of too little, too late. Variations to ResCode should have been included in the Schedules to the new zones. They weren’t! Administration and councillors should have done their homework and ensured that every loophole that would disadvantage residents was eliminated and that safeguards were included that would make it exceedingly difficult for VCAT to exercise its discretionary powers. Of course, in their folly, none of this was done. It was far easier to rely on work done decades ago and hence totally out of date, rather than undertake a current and comprehensive housing strategy review that would then inform the introduction of the zones. Residents are now paying the price for this sloth, incompetence, and pro-development idealogy.

The best example of this comes in a recent VCAT decision in Carnegie (4 storey, 35 dwellings on Neerim Road/Belsize Avenue). Council wanted the basement car park setbacks increased so that there would be room for landscaping. In other words, avoiding a boundary to boundary underground carpark. Here are some extracts from the judgement –

Council put to me that in issuing a permit, they believed it appropriate to increase setbacks at the basement level and from the front, Belsize Avenue and the side and rear setbacks to achieve a better landscape setting and better transition in built form to the southern interface.

Council’s conditions seek to increase the width of the in-ground planting and a subsequent reduction in the size of the basement by requiring a three metre setback from the front and a 3 metre setback from the southern and eastern boundary.

Council put that a 3 metre setback is required from all boundaries to enable better in ground landscaping opportunities. It was Council’s concern that tree planting would be impossible to achieve along the two street frontages due to the narrow access to natural ground and there are no opportunities for tree planting other than the northwest and north east corners of the site.

Side Setbacks

  1. Council’s conditions also seek an increase in the side setbacks to Belsize Avenue to a 5.5 metre setback. Council acknowledged that the side setbacks from Belsize Avenue meet the prescriptive requirements of Standard B6 of ResCode but are seeking an increase in the setback to strike a balance in setting a standard for future development along Neerim Road and Belsize Avenue. I am not persuaded by this submission of Council that a setback beyond the requirement of Standard B6 is warranted. It is noted that whilst the setback to Belsize Avenue may be a minimum of 2.01 metres, it increases to 5.5 metres further south into the site into Belsize Avenue.
  2. The setbacks to both Neerim Road and Belsize Avenue acknowledge the policy direction of more intensive development but also provide for landscaping opportunities.
  3. Council imposed conditions 1(b) and 7 to ensure that parking for residents and visitors is commensurate with the table to Clause 52.06. Council put to me that they would prefer the parking is provided in compliance with clause 52.06 but the bigger issue is the need to reduce the basement foot print and thereby revise the layout to add a second level to improve in ground planting opportunities and to avoid disputes about parking allocation between residents at a later time.
  4. The proposal provides for 45 car parking spaces including two visitor spaces. A reduction in the visitor parking requirement of five spaces is sought. Council did not vigorously pursue this issue but focussed on the issue of the basement footprint which I have addressed above.

Council submitted that the calculation of the site coverage at 60.0% had been calculated in error and that it was greater. Council however did not provide their own calculation. The Permit Applicant put that the site coverage was 60.9%. For all of the reason above, I have concluded that the footprint of the building is acceptable. I therefore make no further comment on this matter.

By way of contrast, Stonnington has achieved what Glen Eira ignored. In their schedules to the Residential Growth Zone, they have inserted the clause that basements should not occupy more than 75% of the site! (see below). And yet, there is still no attempt by Glen Eira to amend its planning scheme, to introduce changes that will benefit residents, or even to undertake a full review of its failures and disregard for residential amenity.

Residents should also be aware that each time council goes to VCAT with such untenable conditions imposed that it is costing us money. It would be far cheaper, more productive and with better outcomes, if instead of applying useless bandaids, council addressed the major problem – it’s woeful planning scheme!

basement

leader

Melbourne City Council ‘slow’ and ‘bureaucratic': internal review

Date: June 29, 2015 – 7:03PM

Aisha Dow

“Slow” and “bureaucratic” is how Melbourne City Council has been described in an unflattering internal review, which has criticised ageing senior leaders for not spending enough time looking at the big picture.

In a document that flags concerns Melbourne could lose its liveable-city status, it was found the municipality is at the “crossroads of either stagnating or embarking on next wave of change”.

The council’s five long-serving directors, who had been in the same job for between five to 19 years, were singled out for failing to work as a team in the report chaired by former Brisbane City Council chief executive Jude Munro.

“Directors are relatively senior in age, lengthy in tenure, male-dominated and lacking in ethnic diversity,” the review said. “They are seen to focus on operational issues to the marked detriment of leading strategic approaches.”

Questions were also raised about the efficiency of the council.

A number of external groups told the review that dealing with council was “bureaucratic” and “slow”, while finding the right person to deal with could be difficult.

Within the council, there were problems getting staff from different departments to work together. “For example, it can take up to six employees, two forms and two weeks to assign an employee to a project,” the review said.

And most staff were frustrated with the IT systems, which were described as “antiquated” and behind”. Many employees were working manually where it would be more efficient to work electronically or automatically.

However it was also noted the majority of employees had a strong passion for Melbourne and were willing to work long hours “for a city they love”.

The council’s new chief executive, Ben Rimmer, commissioned and published the review. He said most large government organisations would find that it “takes them too long to make decisions”, but the council was committed to improving this.

“We’ve had a good hard look at ourselves,” the said. “There are some areas that we want to review I am confident that we can review quite rapidly.”

A 32-page action plan has already been produced to address the problems raised.

It includes a pledge to update council’s 10-year community plan “Future Melbourne”, which is about seven years old, and to improve succession and retirement planning.

Four of Melbourne top directors have worked at the council for more than a decade. Renowned urban planner Rob Adams is the longest serving, having been at the municipality for almost 30 years.

Mr Rimmer said while it was good “as a general rule” to have some change in the management team for new perspectives and ideas, the wealth of experience and knowledge long-serving staff brought was also valued.

The review’s chair, Jude Munro, said there was always a risk that when people were in the same role for a long time they could “become used to working in a certain way”.

“Our report was talking about greater teamwork and collaboration and their role shifting to have better focus on planning for their organisation”.

Victoria’s capital is facing a period of rapid change, with the population of the inner-city set to almost double – from 122,000 people to 205,000 by 2031.

There will be increasing competition to win the Economist Intelligence Unit’s most-liveable city accolade and the review warned the loss of this crown would affect Melbourne’s ability to attract talent and investment.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-council-slow-and-bureaucratic-internal-review-20150629-gi0rh4.html

Agents tip price growth near Cranbourne-Pakenham line level crossings after grade separation

Some real estate agents expect house prices to rise when level crossings in Melbourne’s s

Some real estate agents expect house prices to rise when level crossings in Melbourne’s south go underground.

PROPERTY prices in the streets near Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon stations and near level crossings along the Cranbourne-Pakenham line are tipped to rise when grade separation works are complete.

Real estate agents agree the Andrews Government’s promised removal of seven dangerous, congested level crossings in Glen Eira will boost the surrounding suburbs’ livability and desirability.

Most expect price growth in the streets immediately around the level crossings and closest to the peak hour bottlenecks, while a few are unsure if it will make a noticeable price difference.

All agree it is hard to put a figure on how much prices could rise.

Buxton Bentleigh director Craig Williamson said premium properties immediately around level crossings could rise by up to 5 per cent when the railway lines were put underground.

That, he said, could add $100,000 to a $2 million property.“This type of thing could add 3 per cent on top of annual price growth and 5 per cent in immediate areas,” he said.

“Holistically, the entire area becomes more appealing. It’s going to add to the desirability and that demand intensifies competition and that drives prices.”

Josh Hommelhoff, from Ray White Carnegie, said promised grade separation in Carnegie and Murrumbeena would push prices up in those suburbs.

“I’ve always said that once that happens values can only go one way and that’s up,” he said.”

He said level crossings impacted on property prices there.

“If you are buying north of the railway line in Carnegie or Murrumbeena it generally means slightly higher prices,” he said.

Kim Easterbrook, managing director of Elite Property Advisory in Brighton, said she expected livability and “sellability” benefits.

“I don’t believe there will be a direct impact on property prices in the surrounding streets and suburbs due to the removal of the level crossings,” she said.

“What I would say though that it will certainly help with the livability of the suburb, meaning that it should unlock some of the traffic congestion around the crossings and therefore people will enjoy living in the immediate area more so.”

“What it could do is assist with the sellability of the properties in the immediate proximity of the boom gates.”

Woodards Bentleigh director John Pollard said it would be “fantastic” from a local point of view but doubted if it would impact on prices.

“I don’t believe there’s a change in dollar value there,” he said.

Grade separation at Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon and on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line is expected to be complete by 2018.

Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.

ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.

In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200′. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.

On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).

Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.

On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.

Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.

On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.

They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.

Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.

Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.