Tag Archives: Glen Eira Residents Association

East Village -The Grand Finale for Residents

UPDATE – Council’s 7/7/2020 Decision

Amendment C155 of the Glen Eira planning scheme was passed by Council with some recommendations from Council as recorded in the Minutes of the meeting held on 7th July 2020
It is now in the hands of the Minister. Watch this space!!!

************

Initial Posting – 5/7/2020

This Tuesday’s (7/7/2020) Council Meeting will focus on the Planning Panel Report and proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C155 for the East Village Development on East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East.  Documentation for  discussion is available in the Council Meeting Agenda

It has taken  5 years for the initially proposed, much smaller Virginia Estate redevelopment (12.3 ha, 4,600 dwelling) to morph into the massive East Village redevelopment (24.0 ha, 3000 dwellings).   Mega dollars have been spent by developers, State Govt., VPA and Council without addressing either the

  • land locked sites access issues or
  • defined maximum height limits and dwelling densities, or
  • concerns of residents of the surrounding area

Residents who have been actively involved throughout this process expect Council will pass the Amendment on Tuesday and are extremely disappointed

  • with Council’s consistent planning decisions in favour of the developer, and
  • the absence of any restrictions of any consequence in the Amendment, and
  • limitations on future third party objection rights

Below is a copy of a letter forwarded to Councillors by the residents.

**************

Panel Report

The Panel Report was received by Council on 11 February 2020 and was made available to the public on 5 March 2020. A copy of the report is also included on Council’s website. The Panel supported Amendment C155 and recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to a number of recommendations which are listed in the attached Panel Report.

In summary the main recommendations include:

  • Mandatory heights for residential areas within the precinct.
  • Increased heights along residential south sub precinct from 3 to 4 stories. = more shadowing of Virginia Park
  • Discretionary heights for all other areas within the precinct.
  • Building setbacks recommended as discretionary guidelines.
  • Mandatory overshadowing controls for Central Park and Town square based on the winter shadow controls.
  • Discretionary overshadowing controls for Virginia Park and Marlborough Reserve.
  • Reduced road widths for the proposed internal roads within the precinct. = more traffic jams
  • Discretionary controls referring to number of supermarkets within the precinct and their floor space.
  • Mandatory control referring to location of supermarket within the precinct.
  • Town Centre guidelines ensuring that the town centre is designed as a street based village rather than internal mall.
  • Council’s requirements (or triggers) as to when the road intersection projects need to be constructed (with redrafting from Panel).
  • Reviewing the traffic cost apportionment to determine if the average of the AM and PM peak hour traffic flow has a superior outcome.
  • Re-running the Development Contribution Plan and including the latest and additional costings that need to be reviewed. = original contribution $64 million now $64 million.
  • Changes to intersection works and corresponding costing upgrades. = traffic jams and nowhere to park.
  • The Panel’s revised recommended version of the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 2.

Deletion of maximum limit of 3,000 dwellings within the precinct. = build many more than 3000 – look at what happened with Caulfield Village.

At the Panel hearing Council put forward its preferred version of the CDZ2 which changed the dwelling yield from a discretionary ‘soft cap’ to a mandatory ‘hard cap’ with the addition of a Section 2 (permit required) condition in the table of uses that states:

Must be no more than 3,000 dwellings in the precinct boundary shown in Plan 1.

The Landowners’ preferred version of the CDZ retains the Section 1 (no permit required) ‘soft cap’ for dwellings and deletes the condition that prohibits any dwellings in excess of 3,000. The Landowners also proposed that additional affordable housing could be provided, where a soft cap of 3,500 dwellings was exceeded.

The Panel considers the best way to manage dwelling yield is a soft cap with the ability to consider applications for dwellings in excess of 3,000. The Panel does not believe a mandatory dwelling cap is strategically justified but also does not believe that an exceedance of the soft cap is an automatic entitlement.

The Panel does not expect that the cap could be significantly exceeded as this could have implications on the traffic network. The officer supports the recommendation to apply a soft (discretionary cap) of 3,000 dwellings.

Dwellings will be prohibited from the commercial sub precincts which will allow for the precincts’ overall vision to be achieved without being compromised by an oversupply of dwellings.

The CDZ Schedule includes as an application requirement for buildings and works applications to demonstrate how the development will contribute to the provision of 3,000 dwellings within the precinct, including a plan showing the location and total number of existing dwellings within the precinct. This allows for a monitoring mechanism on the number of dwellings provided within the precinct

Infrastructure for East Village is to be provided through a number of mechanisms, including the Development Contribution Plan.

Other mechanisms include subdivision and construction works by developers, Section 173 Agreements, utility service provider requirements, capital works projects by Council and State government and Works in Kinds (WIK) projects undertaken by developers on behalf of Council and State government agencies. The East Village DCP:

  • Establishes a framework for development proponents to make a financial contribution towards the cost of identified infrastructure projects;
  • Ensures that the cost of providing new infrastructure and services is shared equitably between various development proponents and the wider community;
  • Provides the details of the calculation of financial contributions that must be made by future developments towards the nominated projects;
  • Provides developers, investors and local communities with certainty about development contribution requirements and how they will be administered. At the hearing both Council and the landowners agreed that further discussions were required to finalise the DCP. Council stated in its closing submission that the DCP needs to be re-run and to do this the project costings must be finalised. The Panel noted that as the author of the DCP, the VPA should be part of discussions. The Panel stated that it did not have sufficient information to make final recommendations on these unresolved matters.

The Panel agrees that the DCP costings should be updated, where necessary and that the DCP should be ’re-run’ to reflect those changes.

This includes new drainage costs provided by the VPA and updated costs for realignment of the North Drive/East Boundary Road intersection and suggested changes to other intersections.

Council has engaged an external consultant to re-run the DCP. Both the landowners and the VPA have reviewed the revised DCP. The updated DCP includes revised costings for infrastructure, development infrastructure levies, revised calculation of equivalence ratios based on AM/PM average and overall a mechanism for development proponents to make a financial contribution towards the cost of identified infrastructure projects.

Planned Development at 14-16 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield North. Application GE/DP-33521/2020

GERA has been contacted by a Caulfield North resident asking for assistance in raising residents awareness for a proposed development at 14-16 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.  Details of the proposed development and the objection process are included in the below letter forwarded to us.

We encourage readers to consider lodging an objection to the development should you wish to do so.    If you would like to contact the resident co-ordinating the objections please do so by emailing GERA (geresidents@hotmail.com)

**************************

Dear Neighbours,

Plans have been advertised for a 4-storey, 31-apartment building with 62 car spaces to be constructed at 14-16 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield North. The two historic houses built in the early 1920s at 14 and 16 Hawthorn Road on the corner of Wanda Road would be demolished.

We only have until early July for to lodge objections. The development is inappropriate for this residential area of Hawthorn Rd. It would add an unsustainable traffic load to Wanda Road, which has already been negatively impacted by parking and traffic from the Emmy Monash aged-care facility.

The link to the council page for you to view the plans and register an objection is supplied below. Please consider submitting an objection as a matter of urgency. If we cannot prevent the two historic homes at numbers 14 and 16 Hawthorn Road from being demolished, we hope to at least have the plans for the new building modified so that the impact on our neighbourhood is not so great. If we cannot block the development, we would aim to convince the council to reduce the size and height of the building, and have the underground parking accessed from Hawthorn Rd. We feel strongly that a two, or maximum three-storey development with parking access from Hawthorn Rd would be the only acceptable option.

Please also be aware that we were able to block the development of the adjoining block at 12 Hawthorn Rd over a year ago, and a 4-storey apartment building was rejected for 14 Hawthorn Rd over 3 years ago. This current proposed development would pave the way for future inappropriate developments and fundamental changes in our neighbourhood.

It is also worth pursuing the issue through Heritage Victoria, as the two existing houses are beautiful and well-maintained examples of early 20th century architecture that is rapidly disappearing from our area. If any of you have expertise in this area, it would be terrific if you could investigate this.

We have included below: the links to the plans, the council website for objections, and a Guide to Objections. Please email me if you would like an emailed copy of this letter so you can open the links directly.

The Council Application Number for the development is: GE/DP-33521/2020

Advertised plans

Council link to submit an objection.

Scroll down to click on the  online planning portal link. Enter Application Number GE/DP-33521/2020, then click the number. Scroll to the bottom of the page to make a submission.

The Glen Eira Residents Association has an excellent document: “Planning Permit Objection Guideline

We hope to successfully block this development that threatens the character and amenity of our neighbourhood.   Thank you for your involvement.

Yours sincerely,

Dev

2019 AGM & Discussion

Well, it’s AGM time again.  We hope residents will continue to show their support by attending our AGM. 

As always we promise to keep the formalities short to take full advantage of our Guest Speaker – Clifford Hayes, MLC – Southern Metropolitan (Sustainable Australia).  

 

The topics for discussion are particularly relevant to Glen Eira.  Over the past year, residents and GERA have been expressing their concerns to Council re  

  • Over-development of Glen Eira, lack of height limits, traffic and parking issues
  • Protection of trees and lack of green areas
  • Lack of policy to protect heritage and neighbourhood character
  • VCAT issues
  • Council’s lack of real community consultation

Clifford’s past experience with Bayside Council together with his current MLC role and legislative changes will enable him to provide valuable insight into best way forward for residents wishing to promote much needed change in Glen Eira.

Protest at the Caulfield Cup

Late notice we know.  But, if like us, you were moved by last Thursday’s appalling expose on the cruel reality of the racing industry (and that industry’s inadequate response to that expose), we believe its worth highlighting this protest to our residents – after all it’s on your turf.

Details of the event are

 

The protest is sponsored by the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses (CPR) and they are asking you to

 “Join CPR as we educate attendees to the Caulfield Cup and call out the racing industry!

ABOUT THIS EVENT

 With the Spring Racing Carnival quickly approaching, it’s up to us to show racegoers the cruel reality of the horse racing industry.

 The racing industry has a lot to be ashamed of: whips, 2-year-old racing, jumps racing, tongue-ties and much more. Our recently released deathwatch report found that 1 horse dies every 3 days on Australian racetracks, 122 in the past year alone.

 But worst of all – the industry has no retirement plan for their horses, resulting in thousands being killed for pet food and human consumption.

 Join us as we ask racegoers to choose kindness over cruelty so that we can change the world for racehorses.

 Signs & banners will be provided

 BYO refreshments, sunscreen etc.

 Please dress smart casual at the minimum.”

 

For further information

Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses – https://horseracingkills.com/

 

 

EAST VILLAGE AMENDMENTS – SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE

It’s taken a long time (since 2015) and significant involvement by the VPA (Victorian Planning Authority), Council and residents to get to this stage ie the release of the Planning Scheme Amendments for community consultation.

These Amendments  set the requirements for the massive (20ha) redevelopment on East Boundary Road (near the North Road intersection) in Bentleigh East.  Basically, they outline what is required to be built where within the site to ensure the Structure Plan (passed by Council, 2018) comes to fruition over the next 15 years.

Residents are concerned that the

  • Structure Plans inadequately addressed
    • Land locked site – vehicle access from East Boundary and North Roads only
    • Limited access to public transport (bus only)
    • Down stream flooding impact – Elster Creek
    • Impact on proximate activity centres – Bentleigh, Bentleigh East, McKinnon/Ormond and Murrumbeena
  • Amendments, as presented, do not include sufficient detail or controls to ensure the outcomes included in the Structure Plans will be achieved. For example (but not limited to):
    • building heights are “preferred” and, therefore may be increased, no density controls
    • no requirement for provide housing diversity in the form of no. of bedrooms
    • no controls to ensure adequate or appropriate employment opportunities.

Also of major concern is that the process undertaken for the this redevelopment (known under various names – concept plan, incorporated plan or design development plan), will exclude third party objections (from surrounding residents and residents of the site) to all future plan changes – only objections to building specifics (eg. type of finish) will be permitted once the amendments are passed.   The rationale being that residents have already been provided with sufficient information and opportunities to object.

Given the above lack of details and controls and the consequences re community consultation mentioned above, a concerned residents has forwarded the below sample objection letter  and requested readers submit objections to Council by 9th October.

We encourage residents to formally object to the Amendments after considering the issues raised in the letter.  Feel free to cut, paste and personalize the below or download, sign and send the  PDF version.  Please submit by 9/10.

***

Strategic Planning Department

Glen Eira City Council

PO Box 42

Caulfield South, VIC, 3162

Dear Councillors,

Re: East Village Development

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed East Village Development Precinct Amendment C155 and request several changes to the amendment.

  • 3000 apartments represent an overdevelopment of the site and should be substantially reduced.
  • Eight storey apartment towers do not fit with the neighbourhood character. No higher than four storeys should be built. This will also take into consideration the over shadowing of Virginia Park and residential houses to the East. This must be mandated not preferred as stated.
  • Size of the apartments should reflect real housing diversity. There is no commitment required of the developer to deliver x number of three bedroom apartments, x number of 2 bedroom apartments or x number of 1 bedroom apartments. History shows that there will be a considerably larger number of 1 bedroom apartments so that they can cash in on more rather than less apartments.
  • That the developer be required to pay more than 5.7% in an open space levy and should be pay 11.4% on all land developed for commercial and residential
  • The area is poorly serviced by public transport and will result in more traffic chaos and until this is addressed the development should not go ahead.
  • Full signalisation of Cobar St prior to any development and construction.
  • An assessment of the proposed car parking provision including suitability of scale location and capacity to service the anticipated car parking demand.
  • Council displays any development plans and notifies the residents.

More information is required as it is not clear how the following will be funded:

  • Public Acquisition on 960 North Rd, East Bentleigh
  • The signalisation of Cobar St/North Rd/ Crosbie Rd intersections
  • Any necessary upgrades to those networks
  • The availability and capacity of the electricity, drainage, sewer water and digital networks

Yours truly

Name:

Address:

Mobile:

Signature:

Date:

 

Rally Update – Stop the Elsternwick Towers

Congratulations to the Stop the Elsternwick Towers (STET) group for yesterday’s well attended (hundreds) rally.

Amid existing, and under construction, high density dwellings surrounded by heritage areas, residents  gathered to show their support for the Elsternwick Village’s vision statement – ie. “a vibrant cultural and entertainment precinct, which embraces its historic character and identity”.

Their message came through loud and clear

  • the 10 & 14 stories Woolworths redevelopment of ABC Selwyn Street site is both inappropriate and excessive, and
  • Glen Eira Council’s inability to complete in less than 6 years what it originally proposed to do in 1 year – ie undertake proper planning via Structure Planning – was unacceptable to residents.

 

East Village Exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendment

Below is the Victorian Planning Authority’s (VPA) notification of the Exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendments for the East Village development in Bentleigh East.  We encourage residents to review the documentation presented, attend the Community Information Sessions and to lodge submissions as requested.

Dear community member,

Glen Eira City Council (Council) and the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) are progressing the planning for a sustainable and vibrant new precinct known as ‘East Village’ in Bentleigh East.

The VPA undertook the initial planning work for East Village, and Council is now leading the planning scheme amendment process. The Planning Scheme Amendment documents will be available to you to view from Thursday 5 September to Wednesday 9 October 2019, during which time you are invited to have your say by making a submission to Council.

Details about how to make a submission are available on Council’s website

VPA will attend two drop in sessions hosted by council on:

  • Tuesday 17 September 9am -11am  
  • Thursday 18 September 4pm-6pm
Both sessions will be held at the Packer Park Pavilion, 120 Leila Road, Carnegie.

For more information about the project please visit:

If you have any further enquiries please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Ammar Habasch // Senior Strategic Planner – Urban Renewal

Victorian Planning Authority

Level 25, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne  VIC  3000

T: 03 96519677  //  E:Ammar.Habasch@vpa.vic.gov.au

*************************************

Please feel free to post comments on our Facebook Page.

NEW RESIDENTS GROUP – SAVE GLEN EIRA

UPDATE – SAVE GLEN ERIA WEBSITE 24/8/19

We’ve been advised that the Save Glen Eira  (savegleneira.com.au) website is up and running.

Their initial postings cover the current planning issues and Glen Eira’s past planning history.

 

UPDATE – SAVE GLEN EIRA GATHERING – 29/7/2019

Congratulations to the Save Glen Eira residents group on the success of their “Gathering” on Monday night (29/7).

The Gathering drew a large audience and was well presented.

The 5 resident presenters, from across the Glen Eira, who discussed aspects of development in their local areas, clearly resonated with attendees.  All presentations highlighted the lack of adequate information, difficulties in dealings with Council and the many and varied issues arising from Council’s lack of proper planning.   “It shouldn’t be this hard” was a comment frequently heard from the attendees.

Following the presentations, residents were given an opportunity to have “real” input into the development of Save Glen Eira’s “way forward”.  The residents enthusiastically made many and varied suggestions –  clearly showing support for SGE’s emergence and mission.

We understand a follow up meeting will be held in the next few months.

************

Recently GERA has been contacted by a new community group  – SAVE GLEN EIRA (SGE).

This group is  looking to bring together Glen Eira’s many residents and resident groups concerned about inappropriate development in their suburbs.   Bringing the groups together will present a collective voice to Council.

SGE’s  key objectives are to ensure

  • genuine community consultation occurs,
  • proper town planning is undertaken and
  • neighbourhood quality is protected

To facilitate this  “bringing together”, Save Glen Eira invites all concerned residents and resident groups to a gathering at the Caulfield Park Pavilion on Monday, 29th July, 2019.

Details of the Gathering  appear on the below open invitation.

In conjunction with the Gathering, SGE has prepared a RESIDENT SURVEY and asks residents to identify their top 4 issues

GERA supports SAVE GLEN EIRA and we encourage our members and readers to attend the gathering and complete the survey.

SGE contact details are:

Please note the website is currently under construction and should be available shortly.

ACTION AT LAST – OPENING UP THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE

Four years on from the Auditor General’s report we finally see some real action on the opening up of the Caulfield Racecourse.

Within 5 years,  training facilities (tracks and stabling), located on the Reserve’s Crown Land, will be removed and the huge centre of the reserve opened up for public recreation and park usage.

As always information is scant and there are loads of major questions re what this actually means for public usage (staged implementation, development and funding of facilities) vs. those areas of Reserve to be leased for 65 years ( leasing arrangements ie areas, lease fees, terms and conditions).

A huge break, though how huge remains to be seen.  Unfortunately there are many public $’s being directed to Racing, rather than public usage, and another 65 years (up from 21 years) before any “next” break through.

MEDIA RELEASE  

Monday, 22 October 2018

INVESTING IN WORLD-CLASS RACING FACILITIES

The Andrews Labor Government is building new infrastructure and creating hundreds of new jobs at the Cranbourne Training Complex and Pakenham Racing Clubs as part of a major boost for racing in Victoria.

Minister for Racing Martin Pakula today announced a $17.5 million investment to create new facilities at both the Cranbourne Training Complex and Pakenham Racing Club as part of a $40.1 million joint funding package.

Thoroughbred training at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve will be relocated over the next five years, to open up the reserve for greater public access and recreational use.

The Labor Government will invest more than $6 million at the Cranbourne Training Complex for the construction of additional stabling, an inside grass track, an equine pool and tunnel upgrades to accommodate additional horses.

More than $8 million will also go to the Pakenham Racing club for new stabling, new uphill grass and synthetic tracks and an additional equine pool. The project will accommodate an additional 600 horse boxes and create up to 200 new jobs during construction, with a total economic impact estimated to be more than $250 million.

Racing Victoria and the Melbourne Racing Club will contribute $22.6 million towards the project. Works at both facilities will begin immediately, to help relocations which may begin from mid-2020. Trainers will have up to five years to relocate from their existing facilities at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The Government has approved a long-term lease between Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust and the Melbourne Racing Club to increase recreational opportunities and secure horse racing at the reserve for another 65 years.

As part of this, the Government will provide an additional $1 million to support the Trust to develop a long-term land use plan for the site, to open up the space and balance the needs of residents, racing stakeholders and community groups.

The Trust will develop a three year corporate plan that will set out the strategic direction and management of the reserve in close consultation with the local community.

Quotes attributable to Minister for Racing Martin Pakula

“We’re investing in world-class facilities for the future at the Cranbourne Training Complex and Pakenham Racing Club to ensure that Victoria remains the premier racing state.”

“These new facilities will create hundreds of new jobs, provide a major economic boost for the racing industry and help ensure thoroughbred racing in Victoria keeps pace with international standards.”  

Quote attributable to Minister for Environment Lily D’Ambrosio

“Through our legislation and the new long-term lease, we’re delivering on our commitment to establish a strong future for a more accessible Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.”

 Quote attributable to Member for Cranbourne Jude Perera

“Thoroughbred racing is a vital part of our community and this major investment will provide local jobs and ensure these facilities remain world class for years to come.”

 

 

 

ELSTERNWICK – RESIDENTIAL DRUG REHABILITATION CENTRE

We’ve been asked by a group of concerned Elsternwick residents to draw the community’s attention to a retrospective planning permit application to operate a residential* Drug Rehabilitation Centre on the former Daily Planet Brothel site – 7-12 Horne Street, Elsternwick.

The site, recently acquired by a developer, has been let and is currently  operating as a residential drug rehabilitation centre.  Residents have advised that initially Council Officers felt (mistakenly in GERA’s view) that the site’s zoning of Commercial 1 did not require a planning permit for use as a residential drug rehabilitation centre.  However, the below significant issues, raised by residents since the centre commenced operating many months ago, has resulted in a Council “re-think”.  Hence the permit (Application No. GE/CP-32039/2018) now being sought for the already operating centre.

The residents, who are currently lobbying Councillors and seeking residents support, have clearly indicated to GERA that they are not objecting to an accredited drug rehabilitation centre operating at this location.  Rather they are

  • questioning and objecting to the adequacy of the centre’s current facilities and security provisions given the nature of the services offered
  • asking that the current permit application be rejected and current operations cease.
  • seeking assurances that, should a future similar permit application be received,  appropriate facilities and security provisions are provided and the due planning approval process is followed, prior to the commencement of operations.

For those interested in supporting the residents, please note that

  • a Planning Conference will be held on 22/10/2018 at 6.30 pm in the Town Hall Theatrette. Objections may be submitted at any time prior to the Conference
  • Council is scheduled to discuss and decide the application at the 7/11/2018 Ordinary Council Meeting.

*************************

RESIDENT’S COMMENTS

  • There was no letterbox drop. Supposedly this meets planning regulations. We are disappointed by this and we believe the community is not fully aware of what is going on around them, but are not questioning this part of the Act.
  • Council are letting them operate without a permit and were allowed to continue to do so whilst they undertook the application process. Rules for some, different for others.
  • Some of our neighbours have been given a ‘tour’ of the facility when it opened its doors WITHOUT a permit many months ago, the general consensus was that residents who attended were greatly concerned with the lack of information provided on who the operators were, what credentials they had to run a facility like this, and what safety measures would be put in place for both surrounding and internal residents. Amongst the many aspects of the venues operations, we were informed:
    • The centre is an operational drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinic.
    • Patients have moved in will live on site for up to 3 months (24/7).
    • The centre appears as a brothel and we question whether it is actually ‘habitable’.
    • They will accept anyone from heavy drug addicts (ice, heroine, MDMA, cocaine, etc) alcoholics, physiological problems to relationship issues. Such a range of conditions would require a very broad range of expert care.
    • Their application proposes 1-2 staff for every 6 patients.
    • Patients would be prescribed drugs whilst they are living on the premises and would be walking the local streets to collect these drugs themselves from the chemist.
    • Patients would be accessing the building from all possible entrances/exits (including the alley ways which access residential properties). They are free to come and go as they please.
    • No renovation work had happened inside as of June 2018, and we suspect this is still the case (directors mentioned lack of funds and no construction vehicles have been seen in the area since). It sill presents as the brothel once did (I am told and assume having never been in a brothel before). Soft furnishings still remain ( I understand they have acquired much of the furniture off the brothel), images of naked women adorned the walls, the bedrooms were kitted out with multiple beds and fully operational spa baths, mirrors etc. Not the type of environment we would have assumed would be conducive to rehabilitating patients?!
    • They have signed a 5 year lease. They implied the business had been set up by 3-4 individuals. They would not provide any clarity around who they were, what experience or qualifications (if any) they had. The ‘deal’ was proposed by one of the brothel staffers who ‘knew’ all the relevant parties and ‘set up the deal’ in his words. He still works there as of June 2018.  
    • Patients will pay $10k per month.
    • They could not clarify what security would be put in place. They said there were operational camera’s already installed however the only camera down the alleyway that accesses residential property has been seen disconnected and is facing a roof.
    • Residents and business owners have already noted windows have been smashed since the business opened and the number of ‘questionable characters’ hovering and walking the local streets and laneways has markedly increased with some residents experiencing disputes erupting from the premises that made them feel incredibly unsafe.
    • We understand that this type of establishment has very few rules/regulations around its operations.
    • Certain residents have been informed that this specific organisation is recruiting its patients from the outside the courts – offenders waiting for trial and wanting to seek bail must be enrolled into a centre like this one which will keep them out of jail.     

We appreciate the history of this site has been an interesting one but are seriously concerned with the type of clientele this facility is attracting and the lack of transparency and professionalism shown by the staff/operators.

 We would like the community to be aware of what is occurring at the ‘Daily Wellness Centre’

 ***************************

UPDATE – 15/10/2018

One of our facebook readers has added the below link to our page.  It’s a 2016 Four Corners program on the private rehabilitation industry in Australia – the reader comments that very little has changed since the program aired.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/rehab-inc.-promo/7827128

****************************

 

Footnote:

Residential = estimated duration of stays 2 – 12 weeks