Reprobate has commented on the Racecourse and Election Candidates – but we feel that his ideas warrant a separate post. His views are also pertinent to the whole issue of ‘consultation and planning’. Readers may remember that the ‘consultation’ process for the Planning Scheme Review consisted of 3 ‘forums’, one negligible ‘discussion paper’ and submissions which never saw daylight. This sequence of events would place Glen Eira Council at Stage 2  –  4 of the ladder reproduced in the previous post. Still a long, long, way off from ’empowering’ residents and paying heed to their concerns.

Reprobate’s comment reads:

We’re getting to the pointy end of planning decisions regarding the Racecourse, and there has been a substantial shift away from Labor. I was one of them (not that I was ever a fan of Labor’s version of democracy). Our ex-Minister against Planning has gifted the MRC a significant parcel of Crown Land, yet ensured that most of the land within the Caulfield Racecourse and Park Reserve remains under the control of the MRC. The MRC desperately needs its much-sought planning permission to build a massive carpark in the centre of the racecourse reserve since it plans to develop the Member Carparks 1 and 2. As their justification for C60 states, they need to find ways to make more money because interest in racing is dwindling. So much for being a non-profit organisation.

A key question is just how much of public assets should be devoted to helping that clique make money. They have been poor custodians of the crown land in the centre of the reserve for 140 years, and little wonder as we increase density that people are keen to break their monopoly. I have absolutely zero confidence in my Council to plan for the area, since over the 4 years I have taken an interest in planning matters:

* Approved dozens of 3-storey developments that fail to comply with the standards contained in Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
* Approved 4+ storey developments next/adjacent/opposite to single-storey developments (not GEPS policy).
* Ignored traffic congestion as an issue, going so far as to lecture objectors because the problem will go away in 20 years.
* Decided that open space is not necessary to support high density living.
* Accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive non-compliance with GEPS.
* Made cars a higher priority than pedestrian safety in Carnegie Major Activity Centre.
* Allowed a major development to build without a Planning Permit for 8 months (9 Morton Avenue).
* Failed to ensure the so-called Spotlight Centre (Carnegie Fringe) complies with its Planning Permit.
* Contradicted Parliament’s Road Safety Committee’s report that strongly recommended strengthening standards for off-street parking, by arguing for no standards with respect to gradients and sightlines.
* Published a review of the Planning Scheme in which *no* changes to the scheme were recommended, and failed to identify a single problem with the current Scheme, while unilaterally deciding that no multi-unit development should or need comply.
* Failed to publish any statistics to show whether all the development activity they have supported have contributed to their stated goals (e.g. housing diversity, employment, ageing population, reduction in greenhouse gases).
* Supported 100% site coverage and no landscaping, to help developers make more money.
* Allowed a developer to build something that failed to comply with their Planning Permit, then support the developer at VCAT in getting a retrospective amendment to make it legal.
* Usurped limited playground space at Carnegie Primary School for a kindergarten to replace the land they wanted redeveloped at the former Uniting Church.
* Allowed the Developer Contributions Overlay to lapse, so that developers don’t have to contribute to the costs of infrastructure to support their developments. Ratepayers are expected to subsidise not only the Developers’ planning applications, we’re expected to subsidize all infrastructure, and accept a loss of amenity from congestion, safety, loss of diversity.
* Restricted the provision of valuable services close to where people live, preferring that they drive to one of the 3 “major activity centres”, but then creating the economic conditions that make those centres far from active. Its one of the few arguments in favour of C60, or otherwise people will in the future need to do their shopping in another Municipality (e.g. Stonnington).

Essentially GEPS is a fraud. It has been used both by Council and VCAT to support development, regardless of the clauses designed to protect residential amenity. This situation exists mostly because people allow it, choosing not to get involved until they are the target. I don’t like that attitude. We should be insisting on fair and ethical treatment of all residents, on the basis of how we would wish to be treated ourselves.