Source: http://www.probuild.com.au/projects/caulfield-village/
Click on image to enlarge.
August 13, 2013
Chaos Til 2028?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
Glen Eira Debates 
August 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Burkey wrote this for sure. Pure bull.
August 13, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Amazing how C60 just keeps growing, once the public was excluded through Council fiat. Its now “more than 1500 dwellings” versus the general concept that assumed 1000-1200 dwellings and was the basis of the Panel Report. Makes you wonder where the updated traffic projections are located, or if the amount to be contributed for open space is still appropriate. Whether the development chaos is managed depends heavily on the integrity of the developer and the level of engagement of Council. Council doesn’t have a great track record, what with allowing developers to rip up footpaths for years and for failing to ensure developers have Traffic Management plans. Wonder what amenity Lot A will eventually receive.
August 13, 2013 at 6:41 PM
I remember an earlier post going up here that quoted the size of the commercial and retail sections also expanding. Of course these will have car parking waivers applied and accepted by council and it wouldn’t surprise in the least if 1500 blows out to 1700 units comprising 1000 of one bedroom cubby holes.
August 13, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Doesn’t matter about the traffic congestion or the parking conditions – even at the original 1200 units
1) the famous panel report and the infamous four (Pilling, Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz) all agreed that while the traffic congestion on main streets (surrounding residential streets were ignored) would be awful, it would be no worse than some other places (lucky for them the some other places have also become worse)
2) as for parking, the skillful negotiating team of Andrew Newton and Esakoff managed to negotiate “a higher than any comparable development in Melbourne”. It’s just a shame that their definition of comparable development was a 3 storey unit development in a the Glen Huntly Housing Diversity area. But the good news for residents is that they got the MRC to agree to pay for the restricted parking signs (at $40 a pop) for all surrounding residential streets. So increasing to 1500+ units just means more signs in more residential streets paid for by the MRC. Thanks again to the rubber stamping infamous four.