Front page of today’s Caulfield Leader by Jenny Ling:
Call to reject Caulfield East plan
OUTRAGED residents are urging the council and State Government to reject a 147-page report recommending the Melbourne Racing Club’s Caulfield Village plan should go ahead.
The report comes after six days of public hearings before an independent panel in May about the multi-million dollar high-rise development in Caulfield East.
The plan calls for up to 1200 units and 35,000sq m of commercial, offices and shops around Caulfield Racecourse. Three buildings would be up to 15 storeys. The report found:
TRAFFIC congestion in the area is not dissimilar to many in metropolitan Melbourne
THE MRC can sufficiently accommodate demand for parking
THE MRC and the council need to ensure infrastructure associated with the development is provided for; and
THE council pursue improved on and off-street parking with the MRC for events at the racecourse.
The report says: ‘‘The panel is satisfied that considerable strategic work has been undertaken for this site . . . the subject land should be redeveloped’’. But resident Peter Brohier said it was ‘‘a gross missed opportunity’’. ‘‘I would urge the council and State Government not to follow the panel’s recommendations,’’ Mr Brohier said. ‘‘It will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.’’
Resident Lee Perring said she was disappointed with the report. ‘‘Living in the area and seeing the parking . . . it’s going to cause unmitigated hell,’’ she said.
Mayor Steven Tang said he was pleased the panel had noted key concerns with parking and traffic.
Council officers will now prepare another report recommending it be adopted with or without changes – or be abandoned completely.
AND HERE’S WHAT THEY ALL SAID:
BRIAN DISCOMBE, MRC -“Caulfield Village will provide long term sustainability for the club and provide a wide range of options for living , employment, shopping and relaxation. It will bring significant investment into Caulfield.”
STEVEN TANG, MAYOR – “The development could contribute positively to the Glen Eira community but still presents a number of challenges. Car parking, traffic and open space provision represent significant hurdles for the development.”
DUNCAN ELLIOTT, VIC ROADS – “The development has the potential to allow the community to better access public transport services which support activity within the precinct and become a convenient source of parking for communters and university students.”
PETER BROHIER, RESIDENT – “It’s time the council and State Government accepted that panel findings within guidelines may not best serve the public interest. In this case they will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.”
AND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR –
Glen Eira Debates 
August 17, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I just get so damn angry when I read the waffle that comes out of Tang’s mouth. This isn’t the sort of councillors and council that we need. What is required is the ability to stand up for the community. A friend of mine living in Bayside sent me the following Bayside Council media release opposing a development in that area. What it reveals is the ability to mobilise the residents and to achieve results. The protest resulted in the granting of interim height limits for the council. Glen Eira would never do the same. Why? I’m guessing that with more and more high rise development, this means more money in their pockets, so they can trumpet their claims of cash rich, low cost council. It’s the community though which ends up paying big time. Here’s the media release…..
Bayside is angry: street protest 4 October 2008
ANGER over the threat of inappropriate high rise development in Bayside’s villages will spill onto the street with a community protest on Saturday 4 October marking the high mark of the ‘Our Villages, Our Plan’ campaign.
Bayside Mayor Andrew McLorinan said the protest in Church Street, Brighton would attract a Saturday morning crowd of hundreds.
“We believe the Victorian Government’s directives on town planning constitute a dead end policy,” Cr McLorinan said.
“For that reason we’ll be closing Church Street for 20 minutes during this protest to prove to this government that we are unified, and determined, in our mission to save our villages from inappropriate high rise development.
“Bayside has been very clear about this: we support the growth targets of the government’s Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint, but we don’t accept that those targets can only be achieved by allowing highrise buildings in our much loved villages.
“We’re already exceeding our growth targets, and we have a robust plan to continue to meet them. We want the government to give us the chance to prove it.
“Our Villages, Our Plan came about because we listened to our community: now we want the government to listen to us.
“We need all Baysiders who care about our villages, and the residential streets around them – including the many hundreds of people who have already signed the campaign petition – to join us at Church St on Saturday 4 October to make sure our voices are heard, loud and clear.
“As an added incentive to football fans and a special message to former footballer and now Planning Minister Justin Madden, I’ll be asking protesters to join me at the end of the protest to break through our AFL style campaign banner.”
The ‘Our Villages, Our Plan’ street protest will be held on Church Street, immediately west of the Carpenter Street roundabout, on the southern footpath from 10am. Church Street will be closed from there, west to the nearby u-turn break, from 11am to 11.20am.
Local representatives of the government and opposition will be invited to make their case in a short address to the crowd, and a sausage sizzle will be provided along with face painting for children.
August 17, 2010 at 11:36 AM
From the Stonnington Leader (17th August). The implications for Caulfield East Village are obvious. This is without Monash’s plans for a twenty plus storey building.
Plan objected
Locals fight against new student housing site
MALVERN East residents are fighting a student housing tower they say threatens to overrun nearby streets.
Applicants Nerup, Tycolour and Lemas Nominees are looking to build student accommodation at 857 Dandenong Rd near Monash University.
Plans submitted to Stonnington Council for the Clarence St-Dandenong Rd site show an eight-storey building of 118 units and a ground-level shop.
The application also calls for a parking area dispensation, with 16 bays for the 118 units.
Malvern East resident Michael Lambrellis said he had letterboxed residents in Clarence, Chanak and Finch streets, urging them to object.
The letter cites concerns about the height, number of new residents — which Mr Lambrellis estimates would double Clarence St’s population — and lack of parking.
Mr Lambrellis said the application was ‘‘ludicrous’’ and that he had garnered ‘‘substantial support’’ for the fight.
Stonnington Council has received 127 objections.
Mr Lambrellis said such an intensive site with hundreds of units on a single block needed better transition with the nearby residential areas. Building the project at Caulfield Plaza across from the current site would be more appropriate, he said.
‘‘We understand the need for development and housing, but this is ludicrous. There’s nothing realistic about it.’’
Residents felt the parking dispensation was unrealistic, with space already tight as a nearby dance school and church used the scarce parking, he said.
Mr Lambrellis said East Ward councillor Greg Hannan had indicated but not confirmed there would be a meeting between residents, councillors and the applicants.
Stonnington Council will consider the item in September
August 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM
coincidences are wonderful things. As soon as there’s a bit of noise regarding planning applications such as the Elsternwick highrise, caulfield village and others, the wonderful super duper council website has hit a glitch. The online planning register has now been DOWN for just on a week. I don’t believe in coincidences. Even if it is a technical hitch, why hasn’t it been fixed in the meantime? I’m just a plain old cynic, and can’t help thinking that there is some ulterior motive (censorship?) to this whole event.
August 17, 2010 at 9:38 PM
I called Anne Barker, the local State member to get her opinion and she stated she was unaware of any proposed development so I then rang Michael Danby, the local Federal member who not only was unaware of the development, but after 5 minutes of me mentioning the MRC said, “oh you mean the VATC!”. Our local members have once again deserted their electorate – and don’t get me started on the Councillors.
August 18, 2010 at 1:10 AM
A friend of mine once urged me to contact Anne Barker, as he heard
for the umpteenth time my complaints about town planning. Fair enough,
a casual outsider might think. I wasn’t all that enthusiastic after
having responded to the obligatory Party “we care about you” mailout.
I did of course respond, pointing out multiple ways in which
development failed to comply with various aspects of Melbourne 2030
and the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. I got back a form letter thanking
me for my contribution and stating how Anne was looking forward to
working with me to make “Oakleigh” [the State seat] a better place.
Thank you Anne. Looking forward to making a start.
August 18, 2010 at 10:35 AM
These are the comments that thus far have been posted online at the Caulfield Leader site:
Dean writes:
Posted on 18 Aug 10 at 08:57am
Monash University are about to commence building three high rise buildings of 10 to 12 storys each. Across the road Zagames have plans for a 18 to 23 story building on that site as well. These high rise buildings all put together will see at least an extra 5000 people a day trying to get in and out of the area. The streets won’t cope and neither will I. The developers will make a killing out of this and the Caulfield community will suffer the effects for decades into the future.
Paul writes:
Posted on 17 Aug 10 at 03:22pm
What a shock. Development at all costs. We are actually going to become much more congested. Normanby road is terrible in peak hour now. They are actually going to make it worse. We actually go backwards. If they wanted housing on the land, why did they buy up all the houses and rip them down in the first place? Because they needed it for parking one presumes. Now all of a sudden they don’t need parking anymore. Strange. And what of the crown land and Queens caveat which has stood unchallenged for 130 years? Money talks I suppose.
Michelle writes:
Posted on 17 Aug 10 at 02:21pm
This is just crazy. When I go to Caulfield Station, sometimes I cannot squeeze onto the train when it arrives, so I have to wait for the next one. After this development is complete and all the extra people come into the area, what possible chance will I have? To call this planning is just a sick joke. It is building approval foresaking everything else, including the local community. I tire of being a second class citizen.
Maureen writes:
Posted on 17 Aug 10 at 12:16pm
Between this development and the multi level multi building development at neighbouring Monash, the roads and rail will be completely overwhelmed. In peak periods, you cannot get on the train now. Traffic congestion will also worsen, reducing the mobility of all. Flooding in the underpasses will worsen from greater run off and many historic and pollution absorbing trees on Smith St will get the chop. Caulfield residents are big losers under the Brumby Governments planning scheme.
Ben writes:
Posted on 17 Aug 10 at 10:00am
If the concerns relating to parking and traffic congestion are resolved – the development itself should proceed as it will revitalise the area south of Dandenong Road. I do think the area needs more open space and parkland – but with the transport hub close by it stands to reason that a development of this type is approval – albeit within framework that works for all stakeholders.
Jess writes:
Posted on
18 Aug 10 at 11:22am
Caulfield racecourse is crown land leased ny the MRC. It also has a board of Trustees that are suppose to look after the land on behalf of all the stackholders. That includes the local community. The local community does not want this, so where are the Trustees to represent us? There seems to be a culture of cover up.
August 18, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Do we really need yet another uncritical report from Council
officers? I can only assume that part of their Performance
Review is the number of dwellings approved in Housing Diversity
areas. At least the Panel Report included some results from
modelling of traffic flows, as you would expect of a traffic
assessment if it is to be considered competent. The Panel had
the courage to say there would be problems for which they didn’t
have solutions. They’re not answerable to ratepayers, so didn’t
see that as an impediment.
Council officer reports, you might think, would have to apply
Council Policy as spelled out in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
Perhaps “21.12-2…Requiring a detailed traffic assessment to be
provided or undertaken where new development is likely to
significantly increase traffic volumes on the adjoining road
network”; or “22.05-3…Residential development takes account of
established traffic characteristics of the area and does not add
to identified traffic conflicts…Large scale developments be
accompanied by a Traffic Impact Report.”
That is not the case. Council officers can use their discretion
whether to ask for the data, and in the absence of data Traffic
Engineering can assert that the local roads can cope. Just what
“cope” means is left unspecified, deliberately. Technically
they use a table based on road class/width to establish the
carrying capacity of a road in terms of vehicle movements/day.
This however ignores bottlenecks such as traffic conflicts and
level crossings. Its little comfort that the road is coping when
it takes you 30 minutes to travel 400 metres from home. [I have
chosen no longer to do consulting work after that experience.]
August 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM
‘Reprobate’ please continue your fascinating analysis of what is wrong with Glen Eira’s Officers approach to analysis and reporting of facts and data.
I too have problems with that for a long time. I find that Glen Eira Officers use weasel manipulative words to control Councillors, communities and even the State Government MPs and bureaucrats. And their primary goal in any reporting is to make the Council look good on paper.
As to the traffic issue, it is part of the Public Realm consideration of any government. Any self respecting traffic expert will tell you that congestion have to be kept below a certain level to avoid bottlenecks and unavailability of roads. The measure is not traffic averaged over a period of time, but the number of times that a road is inaccessible and unavailable. A perfect example of that is Glenhuntly Rd from Nepean Highway to Koornang Rd. There are three intersections that illustrate that fundamental point.
Nepean Highway / Glenhuntly Rd intersection has a road overpass at Elsternwick station. That intersection has a level of congestion and Glenhuntly Rd unavailability determined by car traffic flows, tram schedule and traffic lights. This intersection should be used as a benchmark for other intersections on Glenhuntly Rd. There is clearly plenty that can be improved at that intersection, which should be driven by Council’s Engineering together with VicRoads and Yarra Trams.
The other intersection to be closely examined is Glenhuntly Rd / Hawthorn Rd in Caulfield South. There are two tram lines there and the level of congestion and road unavailability measure provides a good indicator of this area’s ability to grow its commercial and community activities. This shopping centre has a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would focus on the Public Realm elements and do a Structure Plan for the area.
Let’s consider now the disaster level crossing intersection of Frankston rail line and Glenhuntly Rd at Glen Huntly station. Any examination of that level crossing will show an unacceptable level of road unavailability and congestion. The number of times that traffic banks up from Grange Rd to Booran Rd (633 m) while the slow train arrives and leaves the station is already unsustainable. Anybody, just come during peak hours and experience it yourself. In addition this and Neerim Rd level crossings is a disaster waiting to happen as it already happened at Bentleigh station. Clearly those level crossings must be replaced with a road overpass or underpass to reduce the unacceptable level of road unavailability. The area around Glen Huntly station has also a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would do a Structure Plan as suggested by the State Government several times since 2003.
Finally, roads between intersections should have the capability to carry the traffic generated by the population of the area and the transport network within and around Glen Eira. As ‘Reprobate’ points out, the deliberate non-action of Officers leads to unsatisfactory capability of Glenhuntly Road. The width of this road is highly variable and it has some peculiar access roads onto it (eg Orrong Rd), which may have been ok for low traffic horse drawn carriages, but clearly are not ok for a modern city full of cars, trams, buses, cyclists, pedestrians and railway crossings.
August 18, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Reprobate,
here’s an old letter from the Moorabbin/Glen Eira Leader. Think it supports your point –
Street upgrade puzzling
IWASinterested to read about Glen Eira Council plans for traffic-calming measures in Vunabere Ave (‘‘Councillors resolve an epic battle’’, Moorabbin Leader, September 9).
According to data I received from council in March in response to a Freedom of Information request, Vunabere Ave was ranked equal 325th out of 325 streets in line for traffic management works. That’s right, last. The two key measures used by the council to assess traffic are volume and speed.
Council traffic monitoring data show fewer than 500 vehicles a day use Vunabere Ave and speed (measured at the 85th percentile) is within the speed limit.
Contrast that with Whitmuir Rd in McKinnon, which the same set of data shows carries more than 2000 vehicles a day with more than 300 of those exceeding the speed limit. Every day.
That is enough to make Whitmuir Rd ranked 97th but still it is ‘‘unlikely to receive funding for traffic management in the foreseeable future’’.
I wonder if anyone at council can explain how Vunabere Ave leapt over 320 other streets, including mine?
August 18, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Here are another two comments from the online Leader –
Anthony Frazzetto writes:
Posted on
18 Aug 10 at 03:51pm
Glen Eira Council should be reflecting community views on this and oppose this in full. But with questions arising over the internal workings of the council as flagged by outgoing Deputy Mayor Helen Whiteside, one really wonders what is behind thier stand. An independent inquiry might get to the truth.
Maryanne writes:
Posted on
18 Aug 10 at 12:53pm
Instead of cramming all these extra people into Melbourne, why don’t they send them to regional centres such as Bendigo and Ballarat. Melbourne is full and so is Caulfield. Gillard talks of sustainable population but is still bringing in the same amount. Immigration needs to be cut.