The Alma Club application for 75 units raises countless questions about process and the planning scheme itself. Here are a few:
- Why should developers be allowed to submit CONCEPT PLANS that are vague and wishy-washy? Why should council planners then decide on the basis of such plans? Or could it possibly be that the developer is expecting some major changes that will then become the endorsed plans which will not be in the public domain – especially if these ‘new plans’ come within cooee (30%) of what is currently envisaged? That is, some sweetheart little deals between applicant and council?
- Even if there is an appeal to VCAT, then there is the problem of amended plans, or council’s position – which will not feature in the public domain and certainly not go before council again. As with the C60, there is a proposal, but no real detail.
- What also needs to be borne in mind is that if councillors agree to a downsizing on Tuesday night and objectors appeal this decision then the newly announced VCAT fees could be extremely expensive. Again, the developer is in the box seat! Councillors of course will then have their usual scapegoat – VCAT – and they come up smelling like roses instead of addressing the crux of the matter – ie the deficient and suspect planning scheme!
We’ve been forwarded these ‘concept plans’. Below are some extracts taken verbatim from these documents. The comments, conclusions and developerspeak are truly amazing!
The proposed development includes the construction of a medium density residential complex comprising a four storey residential apartment building, 17 two storey townhouses and 8 three storey townhouses with associated parking and landscaping.
The existing site levels provide the ability to achieve higher built form elements in parts of the site without any off-site amenity impacts. Different residential building typologies exist as part of the character of the area, and the introduction of an integrated medium density development would contribute to housing diversity in the area.
With regard to the relocation of the existing telecommunications facility, an indicative new location is shown on the roof of the building.
The subject site is greater than 7,000 sqm, and it is more than three times the 2,000sqm threshold noted above. The proposal also removes an existing non-residential use. For these reasons, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to pursue the type of development being proposed.
More specifically, the proposal will:
- Deliver a greater diversity of housing;
- Improve and protect the liveability, neighbourhood character and amenity of the area;
- Promote environmental and social sustainability;
- Assist in stimulating the viability of the Alma Village neighbourhood activity centre; and
- Integrate with the existing neighbourhood
Turning to the provision of private open space, a schedule of areas is provided at Attachement 3. This demonstrates courtyard sizes for the townhouses ranging between 41.5sqm and 136sqm with the average being 61.96sqm. The Schedule to the Residnetial 1 Zone recommends provate open space provisions for dwelling in the Minimal Change Area of 60sqm, and therefore the average provision is considered acceptable.
Today’s Caulfield Leader also featured this article:
Resident ire over plans
Glen Eira residents opposed to development plans for the Alma Sports Club in Caulfield North have formed an association and are raising a war chest to take their fight to VCAT.
They have registered the name Glen Eira Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc with Consumer Arrairs Victoria, and are looking for moral and financial support.
Committee spokeswoman Vardit Sacks-Davis said the association was formed in response to the Wilks St permit application. The group’s long-term plan beyond that was not yet clear.
“Our aim is to protect, and advocate for, the rights of Glen Eira when threatened by inappropriate development,” she said. Monark Pty Ltd lodged a permit application with Glen Eira council seeking to demolish the historic Alma Sports Club and replace it with a four-storey apartment building with 50 apartments and 25 two and three-storey townhouses. The 7100sq m site is in a minimal change area.
Director Bill Michaelides told the Leader his team had taken a “very balanced approach” but residents maintained it was inappropriate “for many reasons”.
“If this goes to VCAT we intend to fight it there as well so it could be veryk expensive,” Ms Vardit Sacks-Davis said.
Email the group at almaclubobjectors@gmail.com
Glen Eira Debates 
June 25, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Calling this “medium density” is way off the mark. Putting a tower on top of 4 storey buildings is only adding insult to injury. Parking isn’t considered as it should be. The only scrap that they can cling to is the size of the property. That shouldn’t be the deciding point when all the other matters are taken into account. Council should have bought this and turned it into open space when they had the chance.
June 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Who knows what deals were already been cooked up before auction. They can spend millions on car parks but not open space in areas where there isn’t any.
June 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Council must be pleased with this development proposal because at last someone has provided a definition of medium density. Something no Council or Government Planner has been able to do. Of course it took a developer to do so, “medium density residential complex comprising a four storey residential apartment building, 17 two storey townhouses and 8 three storey townhouses with associated parking and landscaping”. Unfortunately, very few will consider that this definition is more suited to Hong Kong than it is to any middle ring suburb in Melbourne and totally ignores the sites severely restricted access (and associated traffic and parking issues) and the inadequacies of Melbourne’s public transport system. Not to mention the huge drainage issues arising from the topography, underground springs and density of the development on an historically “undeveloped” site.
But what’s truly deplorable is that Councillors will be fed the medium density density line (without the accompanying developers definition) and that it complies with the wonderful planning scheme. Not one of them will actually
look at the
. plans and the site and recognize the plans deficiencíes (apartment building lack of internal amenity and open space provision, lack of car parking, restricted emergency services access, drainage issues, traffic issues), and
. the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and ask themselves how, if the GEPS is as wonderful as Newton and Akehurst proclaim, this development can comply with the scheme and how the planning department can justify the plans many breaches of the planning scheme/laws.
. residents objections. At the planning conference, all residents accepted that the site would be developed – their objections were against the scale of the development and it’s failure to address, rather than whitewash, issues that will adversely impact the amenity of local residents and future “Alma Club” residents.
Needless to say if Councillors pass this development the developer will walk away with huge profits and Glen Eira residents, both individually and collectively, will be footing the bill ($’s and amenity) for ever.
June 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM
It will be very interesting to hear what the ‘gang’ has to say on Tuesday night about Alma Club application for 75 apartments, particularly after they favoured the Jewish retirement proposal last year, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) one of the directors who helped them distribute the election material at the pre-polling booth every day without cost.
Danby is correct that the Conservative gang needs to be thrown out of the Council; they have been fooling people, councillors and officers for the last 10 years. They come to the Council (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) a fact which Lipshultz has confirmed recently in their community newspaper. The gang does not believe in Karma
June 27, 2013 at 10:14 PM
This proposal is in a “Minimal Change” area, and there are several elements of the proposal I would reject. These include the 3-storey townhouses located only a few metres from existing residents’ secluded private open space, the 4-storey boxes-on-top-of-boxes dominant element, and the reliance on street parking for most visitors. Lack of nearby usable public open space for active recreation is another concern, although Council has a bizarre definition of “close proximity” that doesn’t match its own published policy.
The proposal doesn’t maintain the existing character of the area, and it disingenuously claims what is being proposed is the preferred character for Minimal Change areas. The next “medium density” proposal in the same area will of course refer to the 4-storey box as being the “emerging character” to justify its own 5- or 6-storey envelope, just as this proposal tenuously relies on a 3-story building on Dandenong Rd to justify itself. It is lousy planning practice to use the average of all properties’ secluded private open space to mask the fact that many of the units fail to meet the relevant amenity standards. Failing to provide adequate visitor parking is not sustainable, especially since the narrow street is not going to support transverse parking similar to what Council has done to mask previous planning failures in the municipality.