A comment by Reprobate, reproduced here as a post:
If Council has all the information it needs to make a decision, then it should make a decision. In that sense its not indecent haste. I seriously doubt though that Council *does* have the information it needs, and I further doubt the Special Committee has mastered the detail.
Regardless of the merits of C60, it is appalling that Council has failed to provide an up-to-date Incorporated Plan for residents to inspect. The members of the Special Committee have a moral obligation to ensure the documents being published under their imprimatur are kept current, especially before the recent meeting that ostensibly was to listen to the community. Those who attended might still not be aware that what is being proposed doesn’t match the published Incorporated Plan (dated 2008). [The Panel commented on this.]
I’ve explained before why this matters, but as a reminder, C60 removes third-party rights except in very narrowly defined circumstances involving the Incorporated Plan. The Explanatory Report, published under the aegis of Council, reveals why. Its to help the developer make more money (thats the reference to “facilitate”).
There is no compelling need to make the area a Priority Development Zone (PDZ), despite the claims of the Explanatory Report. The proposal is primarily for residential development in a Residential Zone (R1Z) and mixed development in a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). It does however seek to obtain Crown land and change its zone to build MRC’s beloved tower. Additionally it seeks closure of some inconvenient roads. This can all be done without a PDZ.
Loss of third-party rights is something *every* non-developer resident of Glen Eira should be concerned about. Council has already argued, successfully, at VCAT that standards designed to protect residential amenity should be waived when it involves multi-unit development. While most attempts to insist on compliance with the Planning Scheme are doomed, nevertheless third-party appeal rights keeps pressure on Council to have to explain itself. Its a sad fact that Council rarely explains itself until it appears before VCAT.
At both the recent C60 community meeting and planning conference re an MRC 8-lot subdivision, Cr Lipschutz has attempted to intimidate attendees. This is unacceptable. Far from helping people understand the process and listing all the matters that the Responsible Authority *must* and *may* consider, he has provided his own, and I would argue erroneous, interpretation of the Planning and Environment Act. This has extended to mentioning VCAT explicitly in his assessment of planning permit applications in Council. Somebody as aggressive and clumsy when dealing with the public on controversial topics is not an ideal choice for chairing such a Committee.
There is a curious double-standard used by Planners (spelt with a capital P), whereby they cling to anything that supports what they want, and ignore anything that contra-indicates support. So it is that Cr Lipschutz (without apparent consultation with his Committee colleagues) has decided narrowly what matters the committee will consider, regardless of the considerable powers PAEA confers. It was the MRC that thought it appropriate to include photos of a few thousand cars parked in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse And Public Reserve. In a submission from their partner, Monash University, parking in the centre of the racecourse was explicitly mentioned. Further, both Council and VCAT disagree that a Use of land should meet its own parking needs. That’s why non-compliance with parking requirements as specified in the Planning Scheme are so universally waived for developers. Creating traffic and parking problems is a de facto Council policy in and around Activity Centres.
The Panel probably correctly identified the interface with existing residential areas as the most sensitive interface. The published Incorporated Plan as far as I can tell seeks to build 4 storeys closer to existing single-storey dwellings than the Standards (guidelines if you’re VCAT) specify. If increased traffic isn’t an issue (the Panel doesn’t think it is), and proximity of 4 storeys to existing single-storey dwellings isn’t an issue (Council doesn’t think it is), then its time to scrap the Minimal Change Area policy as being manifestly unfair (fairness is a key Objective of Victoria’s Planning Provisions).
There is something really really odd when so many documents that Council has published re C60 have “Supporting_document” as part of their name. Its almost as if the matter has been prejudged.
I repeat that nobody knows what the development that C60 is designed to facilitate will look like. Not Council, not its officers, not the MRC, not the Panel, not successive State Governments. There is a rough concept, which has met considerable community resistance. The powers that have aligned behind the proposal desperately wish to silence critics up front, secure their funding and valuable crown land, and move on with the development, safe in the knowledge they cannot be scrutinized by people whose amenity they are impacting
Glen Eira Debates 
April 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM
Here’s my forecast for the 28th meeting. Lipshutz will get up and mouth some appalling little platitudes about how carefully he’s listened to what the community says, but that his duty as a councillor is to make all the “hard decisions”. He’ll then go on to explain that council’s role is “quasi judicial” and that they have gone through a panel report, extensive consultation, and now they have to act. He’ll also emphasise that their role is simply to implement the legislation and that means only looking at C60 and nothing else. He’ll also tell us how many hours has been put into this by the wonderful planning officers and that this area is “ripe for development”. Hyams will then get up and talk about the legal implications and that council has done everything according to Hoyle, otherwise the MRC could have sued council, or at least taken them to court. He will also emphasise that there has been plenty of opportunity for discussion and consultation, but that they can’t leave the amendment in abeyance forever – a decision has to be made, and we’ve elected him and his buddy to make those “hard decisions”. Esakoff will keep her mouth shut and Pilling will echo Lipshutz and talk about “appropriate development” and that this is the “right plan for the right place”. The word traffic will hardly be mentioned and neither will congestion, sustainability, environment, centre of the racecourse, parking and impact on local residents and streets. Each will end up congratulating the officers on the wonderful, wonderful work they have done on this major project. We can then vote them all out, but the damage will have already been done and it will be with us for a lifetime. Newton will then invite them all back for a congratulatory drink after the meeting closes and thank them so much for the “hard decision” they’ve just made – of course with a gigantic smirk on his face. They can all then sit back on their laurels and pretend that democracy has been served!
April 18, 2011 at 5:51 PM
I too am concerned about an up to date incorporated plan. Without such detail how can anyone make any decision. The MRC says it will provide 2000 car parks within the buildings – since the number of parking spaces is determined ratios of number and size (1 brm vs 3 brm) of residences, pre 100 sqm of retail and commercial space etc. these plans have to exist. How can Council come to any decision if they do not exist and what is Council hidding.
April 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM
Ben, you got me thinking so I reviewed my planning panel notes and found the parking ratio’s. I also checked the original incorporated plan.
Before the increase in heights my results are
• 1200 residences = 1200 car parks
• 15000 m2 retail space at 2.18 parking spaces per 100m2 = 327 car parks
• 20000 m2 Commercial space at 2 parking spaces per 100m2 = 400 car parks
• Total = 1927
Note: a supermarket requires 5.5 carspaces per 100 m2, a supermarket is included in C60, however, I was unable to find the square metres.
Also before the height increase the following details
• Estimated no. of Jobs = 3000
• Estimated no. of Daily Patrons = 6000
• Caulfield Village Brochure (2008) – “Caulfield Village’s design requirements include the provision of over 2,000 parking bays”
So factor in the building height increases of between 30-50% and see just how far we have come and how Council really really listened at the exhaustive indepth community consultations and how good their own analysis is.
Throw in the Monash Development and 1000 daily patrons of the proposed MRC Function and Convention Centre and I am beginning to wonder just how successful this development will be. With traffic congestion, inadequate parking and public transport and plenty of alternative well established, accessible precincts nearby, why would you bother.
April 20, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Will the developer be required to provide tidy bicycle racks and could they be required to provide travel tickets as a right attached to the titles of the units as was the case when the popular Gascoine Estate in East Malvern was developed and sold? This may cause a control on the number of cars.