People before Plants or Politics!

(Cr. Reid with Mdm Liong at On Luck Nursing Home. Picture used with permission)

Madam Liong is 102 years old, and has waited a long time to get into the On Luck Nursing home. There are many others like her still waiting for a place in the 60-bed Chinese-specific nursing home. In a victory of compassion and common sense, the Planning Minister and the Department of Planning and Community Development approved Ammendment C88 to the Manningham Planning Scheme, which allows On Luck to compete for Chinese-specific aged-care bed licences in this year's ethno-specific Federal allocation. The nursing home will still have to go through a planning process with council, but the Amendment gives the nursing home, and other elderly citizens like Mdm Liong, real hope for dignity and compassion in their old age.

Do not be misled by some of my fellow councillors, whom I believe seek to capitalise on the recent political bandwagon rolling against our Planning Minister. Do not indulge romantic misconceptions that this Green Wedge is a land of pretty plants and prancing possums ... As the picture below of On Luck's neighbours shows, the site is already surrounded by semi-urban developments whose impacts far exceed anything the nursing home will do. The modest 28% site coverage that On Luck will have when it fully expands will not look anything as bad as this neighbouring development!

(picture above: ADJACENT large development in the Green Wedge, NOT On Luck, but also approved by Minister). 

As the DPCD's excellent Explanatory Report to Amendment C88 explains, the social and community benefits far outweigh any environmental impacts - in fact, the report finds that there are no adverse environmental impacts! Why then the unprecedented scrutiny of this Chinese Nursing Home?

I for one, was raised to respect my elders. I cannot ever agree that in this case, it would have been preferable to indulge in a 2+ year planning process, before the final Amendment would have had to be decided by the Minister anyway. Council cannot decide on Planning Scheme Amendments, only the Minister can, that's the current Law, however much we may dislike it, and a separate grievance to take up with the State Government. We should not take out this frustration about processes on elderly nursing home residents, for they are the victims in all of this! During the suggested 2 year alternative process, several elderly residents on the nursing home's long waiting list would have passed away without ever having experienced the comfort and peace that such a language-specific facility provides. For what? To indulge the political ploys and witch-hunts by the type of Green councillor who votes against helping bushfire victims?

No, for fellow Councillors Pick, Macmillan, Downie and I, people will always come before plants or politics, and for that I make no apology!

First battle to save our Family Parks lost by Gough's deferrment!

The fight to save our precious pockets of green, our family parks, from the ignominy of being "unclassified reserves" and the ultimate fire-sale of community assets .... IS ON! I have to go to work, but come back tonight for more on this issue!

Heartless Greens go after Nursing Home

Come back soon to find out what Cr. David Ellis had to say .....

Residents' Planning Victory: "Some of us aren't rubber-stamping robots!"

"Some of us aren't rubber-stamping robots!" was my defiant cry as we debated the fate of 53 Franklin Street, Doncaster East.

I have always supported good and appropriate development, it is necessary for urban renewal and growth. Our planning department had great foresight to introduce Amendment C53, one of the first councils to act to control high-rise developments in quiet suburban streets. However, I reject the views of my fellow Councillors Mayne, Ellis, Gough and La Vella, who supported the development and variously stated during the night that "this development ticks all the boxes" and should be allowed, accused residents of being NIMBYs, insulted the good Councillors of neighbouring Boroondara* and accused councillors like myself of "pandering to residents".

Well, I don't just tick boxes. Nor do I prejudge planning applications. At the submitters meeeting the night before, I listened to the developer. I listened to the residents. I saw that there are multi-villa developments just two blocks away and that this is a designated activity centre, and as such, designated for higher density development. Crucially though, I saw that a walk-up appartment block was inappropriate for our ageing demographics and the neighbourhood character. Multi-villa units would have achieved the same density target, whilst retaining more character and being more flexible for the future.

Cr "Tricky" Gough has served on council longer than any of us and certainly knows all the tricks (as evidenced by his clever use of deferments to closed committees he chairs), so I would never dare suggest he has lost sight of our role in being the compassionate adjudicators between strict rules and natural justice. All I know is that whilst I support our planning rules, I also listen to those who elected me. I listen to my judgement when it tells me, something that "ticks all the boxes" can still be an overdevelopment for a given neighbourhood.

"We cannot give up on our residents just because some think we might lose at VCAT!", has been my rallying cry. I said the same whilst opposing the gross overdevelopment on King Street (proposed nursing home). Sadly, Crs Mayne and Gough in particular, frequently argue that we should just follow our planning officers' recommendations because otherwise we'll just "waste money at VCAT". Rich, given that  between them they advocate the sale of community assets (like family parks) and champion 6.5% rate rises!

Cr Mayne has previously accused me of "flip-flopping" on planning matters. What he clearly cannot see, is that I judge each application on its merits, which is vastly different from his uniform, conforming approach of following officers' recommendations. I listen to all arguments, then make my own decision.

Happily, as the minutes will record, Crs Chuah, Downie, McMillan, Pick and Reid sent a clear message that higher-density can be good, but only if it is done is a manner sensitive to the neighbourhood character.

*Gough, actually on another debate that night, family parks; presumably a reference to their Kew Cottages fight on residents' behalf.

Residents' Parking Victory - Battle Won but War still to be fought!

Hurrah, we won the battle, and residents' wishes will be fulfilled, with parking restrictions in Tiffany and Adele Courts to be aligned with adjacent streets! However, it wasn't easy and the struggle is far from over - we must remain vigilant! Moments before the council meeting where my motion was to be debated, an "officers recommendation" was tabled ahead of my more comprehensive motion. My motion, supported by the residents, called for immediate restrictions, a sweeping review and strategic plan, since we cannot keep tackling this issue piecemeal. The "officers' recommendation" just called for piecemeal installation of parking restrictions. In the end, both motions were passed, but not before some debate and angst before the meeting started!

Where we have to be vigilant, is around the enforcement of these new restrictions. As my frustrated friends, the residents of Hender Street, next to the Park & Ride will attest, enforcement can be patchy. Without effective enforcement, parking signs become mere street decorations and the culprits continue to thumb their noses at residents!

Belatedly I realised that my motion did not explicitly call for the development and implementation of an effective enforcement strategy (we have very few enforcement officers to cover a large area) ...... 

We may need to revisit this one yet, I fear. I will keep a watchful eye on this, but need your support and feedback to monitor it too. E-mail me at: ivan.reid AT manningham.vic.gov.au (substitute @ for AT). Contact the Leader Newspaper. Be vigilant.

Save our Family Parks!

Our family parks are under threat from m****-grab**** councillors who have long campaigned to sell these community assets so that other pet projects of theirs can be realised!

Those peaceful green oases scattered around our municipality, usually the size of a residential block, have long been under siege. The showdown is at the pubic Council Meeting, Tue 2nd Feb 2010!

Long before I became a councillor, I supported a petition to save my local "unclassified reserve" in Coolabah Street, Doncaster. Current Council Policy allows for these reserves to go unnamed, unsigned and neglected. When play equipment falls into disrepair, it is removed, not repaired or replaced! By oficially calling them "unclassified reserves", some residents feel, as do I, that this is an attempt to belittle their true worth to the community.

Join me in my fight to protect our community assets! I have raised the following Councillor Motion at the public Council Meeting on 2nd Feb 2010. Show your support by attending at 7pm or writing to all councillors at: councillors@manningham.vic.gov.au.

Don't let them steal our parks!

Councillor Reid's motion:

Manningham City Council resolves:

1. That the term "Unclassified Reserves" as defined in 3.2.4 of the Open Space Strategy 2004 be immediately discontinued and replaced by the term "Family Parks", since this better reflects their true community value.

2. That Manningham Council immediately commences a review, independent of the broader Open Space Strategy Review, of all its policies directly dealing with "Family Parks" (currently designated "Unclassified Reserves"). This review is to also focus on reviewing the appropriateness or otherwise of current Council policies relating to the maintenance of these community assets, in particular their signage, play equipment and future use. Of particular concern are recommendations 23 to 27, and 46 of the Open Space Strategy 2004, and sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.5.2.

3. That this review involve significant community consultation including a Mayor's letter to all residents previously recorded as objecting to Council about its policies relating to "Unclassified Reserves" and/or their possible sale.

-------------------

Parking issues around Doncaster Hill

Manningham has the dubious distinction of having the highest number of cars per household in the whole of Melbourne and is the only urban municipality without any form of public rail infrastructure. Ever increasing housing density and the huge popularity of Doncaster Shoppingtown can only exacerbate the parking and congestion problems our residents already face.

To this end, I have responded to community petitions by raising the following motion to be debated at the public Council Meeting to be held Tue 2nd Feb 2010 at 7pm. I encourage all concerned residents to support me in my endeavours, by writing to "councillors@manningham.vic.gov.au" (which reaches all elected councillors) and / or attending the council meeting.

Councillor Reid's Motion:
With regard to strong community sentiment relating to on-street parking around the Doncaster Hill area, and in particular, the petition received from residents of Tiffany and Adele Courts Doncaster, Manningham Council resolves to:

1. Reflect the wishes of the majority of residents by immediately implementing Permit Parking restrictions in Tiffany and Adele Courts, Doncaster, to ensure consistency with the adjacent streets which already have these parking conditions.

2. Examine other streets around Doncaster Hill which may also have parking restrictions inconsistent with their adjoining streets and recommend measures for these streets.

3. Undertake a comprehensive strategic review of the current and projected future parking and traffic volumes around Doncaster Hill, with recommendations on suitable parking restrictions, enforcement and mitigation strategies. The review should reflect the likely continued increase in residential and commercial development within the area, particularly should the Eastern Golf Course redevelopment eventuate. It should also critically examine the current trend in parking dispensations for commercial developments and consider the impact of possible new public transport e.g. tram.