Councillors to vote on retaining Dandenong Creek Escarpment

Monash Council Officers are recommending the proposed reduction to the Dandenong Creek escarpment in the north of Glen Waverley BE DROPPED.  We COMMEND the Officers for a decision which protects the liveability and environment in our City.

Councillors will vote on whether to accept this recommendation at their meeting on Tuesday evening.  Cr Geoff Lake has disappointingly supported decreasing the escarpment, stating the garden character is the same as areas not on the escarpment.  Council Officers correctly state the topography (and not garden character) determine creek escarpment.

The community will benefit from a well maintained escarpment. There will be a lower risk of flooding and a healthy green environment to live in for both people and wildlife.  The creek will be healthier providing a wonderful region for both river life and leisure activities.  It is true some people do not want this environment but the diversity of areas across Monash gives everyone the chance to find a place to live!

Extract from Council Officers Report for Council meeting 31 May 2016

Access the full Council Officers’ Report here:

The agenda for the meeting 31 May may be accessed here:

Note: Questions for Public Question Time must be submitted by 12 noon on Monday 30 May.  Maybe after the Council Elections in October the new Council will update Local Law 1 so that we have more up to date and constituent friendly procedures for asking questions at Council meetings.

Related Link:
Save our creek – Support NRZ4


2 thoughts on “Councillors to vote on retaining Dandenong Creek Escarpment”

  1. It was rather shocking to read in the minutes of the March 29 meeting that Glen Waverley ward councillor Lake’s rationale for removing some of the steepest land from NRZ4, the Dandenong Creek Escarpment, was that NRZ4 was the ‘largest zone’ in the city and it was “too big”.
    One is left wondering what landscape should be included in an “escarpment” zone if the steep land does not qualify.
    The other obvious question which arises is: if the proposed NRZ4 was “too big” what objective criteria determined that and do they assure us it is now not “too small”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s