The Agenda for Monday night’s Special Council Meeting is up on the website. Officers’ recommendations on the C60 are overwhelmingly in support of the panel’s recommendations. We’ve uploaded the agenda. Please read carefully and comment. Main recommendations are:
That Council:-
1. Notes that the MRC has agreed to enter into a Section 173 agreement for the provision of infrastructure beyond the Amendment C60 land.
2. Enters into the Section 173 agreement with the MRC for the provision of infrastructure beyond the Amendment C60 land . (Refer Appendix 1).
3. Enters into discussion with the MRC about the management of car parking and public open space use by the community in accordance with undertakings given by the MRC in their letter dated 9 September 2010. (Refer Appendix 2).
4. Notes the recommendations of the Panel but adopts Amendment C60 in a changed form in accordance with the “Council position” detailed in Appendix 3.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM
The paper states “The land being the subject of Amendment C60 has involved the greatest policy focus and community consultation of any comparable land in the municipality of Glen Eira” What a load of crap. I have attended the MRC information sessions and the Panel session and not once have I been allowed to ask a simple question to the developer. In particular, is it the developers intention to develop a car park on the site of the Guineas area? In any normal planning forum I could ask this question and get an answer but not here. Questions are not allowed to be asked, debate not allowed to occur. In reading the paper, the only discussions that have occured are between the MRC and Newton….and the only interest Newton has is if there a chance for council to make a quick buck out of the development, not about concern for the residents. I am so angry about this that my blood is boiling. WATCH OUT!!!
December 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM
I agree that there should not be any more Crown land handed over to the MRC to develop. However the Glen Eira financial needs that flows through the document makes me wonder why? Are we not as financial as we are led to believe? Is there a blowout on the GESAC that needs to be funded (and a cover up required by the current group of Councillors)?
December 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM
You’re angry! Residents should also have a read of the Packer Park recommendations. The croquet, bowling and PETANQUE (god help us!) development is recommended to go ahead. This in the face of strong opposition. Many people wanted kindergartens, or plain old open space – ie grass, trees, gardens. Once again this council is bulldozing its schemes through. Residents need to ask:
1. What research has actually been undertaken to determine that a petanque, etc. green is a major priority for the community?
2. Where are the statistics, data, that will support this?
3. Why has the current report failed to mention many of the suggestions that came foreward?
Once again, it appears that whatever the community has to say is totally disregarded by this administration – and we’ll see on Tuesday, if it is also disregarded by councillors.
December 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Yes I am sure there are a lot of Glen Eira residents angry at the moment. I have also read the Council papers for Tuesdays meeting and the whole area of planning needs to have an investigation. How 8 notices would be sent out and 30 objections received calls into question Councils lack of community involvement in planning. What was also interesting is that C60 has been assumed to be accepted by the Caulfield Racecourse Special Committee meeting on Monday because a 5 storey development on Station Street was given the tick of approval by the Planning department due to acceptance of C60 amendment – has the decision already been made by the gang of four or is this a faux pas by the Planning department? Newton needs to join his brother Stephen Newton(ex Caulfield Grammar principal) into retirement and hand Caulfield over to people who care about the community.
December 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM
It astounds me that there are investments made in various areas and for various reasons and yet there is no clear prioritization as to what is attended to first.
You hear about dog agility facilities, croquet, bowling and PETANQUE and yet the issues at Victory Park such as no female change rooms, still remain and nothing in any of the minutes or documents address it. When will the councilors and the council realize that by not addressing this and more pressing issues that they are seen as discriminating against members of the community.
December 10, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Anger isn’t the right word. It’s absolute fury at what is total capitulation. 5 million weasel words will not disguise the collusion and wink, wink, nudge, nudge, that has probably been going on for years. If this is voted in, then councillors can start looking for another job. I will devote the next two years to ensuring that none of these hacks are voted back. That is a solemn promise.
December 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM
100% spot on the money – SACK ALL COUNCILLORS – And start with the gang of four!
December 10, 2010 at 10:35 PM
There’s one item on the agenda for the regular council meeting which is both presumptious and premature.The arguments for the Station St 5 storey development hinge almost exclusively on C60. I find this extraordinary in that c60 has not been passed, but it is clear that it is expected to be passed. For example, we’re told that “It is considered that the proposal satisfies the above general objectives. Importantly it also has regard for the built form, height and setbacks proposed as part of the exhibited Glen Eira Planning Scheme Amendment C60”
The arguments are inconsistent, and border on deceptive. Another example is when we’re told that “Res Code does not apply to the proposed development given it exceeds a 3 storey height”. Reading further on though there is this – “According to the Planning Scheme, 96 car spaces are required on site unless the parking is waived or reduced….Using Res Code standards as a guide only, 49 resident car spaces are required”.
In one instance we’re told that Rescode standards don’t apply, but then we’re told that they have figured strongly in council’s decision to waive car parking requirements of its own planning scheme. Unbelievable double standards that should be taken to task by councillors. If this is the standard of the planning department, their machinations and contortions, then we’re all in desperate strife. I regard this as highly unprofessional conduct.
December 10, 2010 at 11:17 PM
The lack of governance and ethics being displayed by this Council is mindblowing. “Ex-Gratia” payments (ie bribes) being made by the MRC to Newton and the Administration of Glen Eira should not be allowed, I don’t care if the MRC is the largest ratepayer in Glen Eira. No, if this is approved on Monday I can GUARANTEE two things will happen. There will be a corruption investigation and the Municipal Investigator will return (he might as well be based in Caulfield Town Hall) and second NOT ONE OF THE GANG OF FOUR WILL BE REELECTED at the next council elections.
December 10, 2010 at 11:36 PM
For those who simply do not have the stomach to plough through 124 pages we present an edited version of the ‘lowlights’!
The resultant differential strategy has led to outcomes under which Glen Eira has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality.
MRC envisaged development on the Amendment C60 site is extensive. So extensive,that the proposed development will have off-site consequences on needed infrastructure
treatments. These needed infrastructure requirements can legitimately be managed by use of a Section 173 agreement. Such an agreement is the correct way of ensuring the
MRC properly fund future necessary infrastructure off the Amendment C60 site and not the ratepayers of Glen Eira.
From a town planning perspective the issue of “displaced” car parking does have relevance. It is apparent that the centre of the Racecourse can lawfully cater for
displaced car parking. It is not a town planning issue whether or not the centre of the Racecourse is Crown land and whether or not this will adversely impact the community’s use of the land for open space purposes. These may be issues for Council from a point of view of Council promoting community interests but not for Council in its role as the Planning Authority.
The Amendment C60 land does not include the Crown Land which is part of the Caulfield Racecourse. That Crown Land is controlled by the Melbourne Racing Club, the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees, the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and the Minister for Crown Lands. Council has no more control over the Racecourse than it does over the average residential property.
With this amendment the detail comes later when it is known. It comes in the form of a Development Plan which requires Council’s approval.Approves an Incorporated Plan – providing precinct based “conceptual” key information on future development, such as the proposed road network and heights and setbacks.
• Requires Council approval of a Development Plan (i.e. the “detail”) to be submitted down the track when the specific design of a particular building/s is known. The
Development Plan must be in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, however, no third party appeal rights apply at this stage.
• Requires a planning permit for buildings and works if it is proposed to exceed the heights and setbacks in the Incorporated Plan. Such an application is not exempt
from notice requirements and third party appeals and must follow the ‘normal’
planning permit process.
The Panel is satisfied that the scale of the retail development proposed will not adversely impact on the operations of Chadstone Shopping Centre and Malvern Central Shopping Centre. The Panel also finds that any potential
trading impacts on Caulfield Plaza will be within the bounds of a normal competitive retail environment.
Comment:
The Planning Office agrees.
The Integrated Transport Plan, which is a component of the Development Plan, requires traffic analysis and modeling to be undertaken which has regard to the likely pattern and intensity of development in all three precincts. In addition, the legal agreement (Section173 Infrastructure
Agreement – refer to Appendix 1) requires substantial infrastructure improvement works to be undertaken to support the proposed development in terms of traffic movement and management. It is considered, therefore,
that traffic management issues will be able to be adequately addressed throughout the development process.
The way in which this agreement is to be executed is perhaps the biggest departure from the Panel’s recommendations. The Panel recommended requiring an initial agreement to then enter into a second agreement which
would pick up on the infrastructure items. Council’s legal advice, however,states that this is unsatisfactory as it raises the possibility of Council having to deal with multiple land owners if the Amendment C60 land is sold in the future. This would make it difficult for Council to obtain the improvements required. Additionally it is considered preferable to have major consequential infrastructure improvements known and funded in an “up
front” agreement. It is therefore recommended that Council enter into a Section 173 Agreement with MRC prior to adoption of the Amendment.
The MRC can then determine how it will allocate those obligations with its purchasers should it sell the land. The agreement will also ensure that any
‘site specific’ infrastructure that arises in the course of any particular development plan, must be carried out or provided by the relevant land owner.
To this end, Council prepared a draft legal agreement ( a ‘deed’ as opposed to a Section173 Agreement), to be jointly signed by the MRC and Council prior to adoption of Amendment C60. The draft agreement required the
MRC to comply with a Car Parking Management Plan which would set out:
• the number of events (racing and non racing) at the Racecourse;
• where the parking for these events would be;
• the number of days in a year that the centre of the Racecourse will
be used for parking; and
• MRC’s commitment to paying for the implementation of a parking restriction scheme in the residential streets surrounding the Racecourse.
The undertaking given by the MRC in their letter, whilst falling short of the certainty of the draft agreement, goes some way towards addressing the issues of displaced cars onto the Racecourse/residential streets and future
community use of open space.
Heights are consistent with a Major Activity Centre. Important podium levels are contained in the Incorporated Plan.
RACE COURSE CENTRE
Accordingly, Council’s assessment of the proposal is limited to the appearance,location and scale of the works. On each of these tests, it is considered that the
proposed works are reasonable, site responsive, and an in an appropriate location central to the Reserve.
It is intended that the playground, sporting and fitness equipment, amenities and the carpark be available for public use. Recreation opportunities for the community will
be enhanced as result. Parking will be provided alongside the new facilities in order to maximize use and convenience of access for the public. The provision of on-site
car parking (24) is not a relevant consideration, as this is a use component.
However Council’s Traffic Engineering Department recommends some conditions to improve the proposed car parking area. These form conditions in the Appendix.
December 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM
Hey guys, anyone notice where our rates are going? Look carefully and you’ll find that councillors discussed getting Iphones, getting bound folders for agendas and that these are printed in glorious technicolour no less, and the piece de resistance – under ‘confidential’ the real possibility that their legal fees for lawyers when fronting up to the municipal inspector will be paid for by us!!!! reckon we’re also paying for newton’s legal bills. How much all this amounts to is a bloody good question.