February 11, 2014
The Leader: C60
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[19] Comments
[19] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- February 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM
- Category :
- Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
February 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM
Beck admits to 1785 apartments but “this could change”. You bet it will and council wants us to believe the bullshit that the incorporated plan had all the detail so there’s no point in objecting to anything. I’m waiting until they admit they want to cram in 2500 flats.
February 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM
Off topic, but nevertheless related to planning in Glen Eira. The Leader features another story on page 3 about VCAT and how ‘outraged’ councillors are about the permit for an 8 storey development in Riddell Parade. Whilst VCAT is not without blame, the old problem still remains – ie lack of local planning and failure to implement height controls for the past decade. It’s far too easy to repeatedly blame VCAT for everything instead of addressing the shortfalls in the actual planning scheme. Below we feature some of the most pertinent comments by the member in arriving at his decision – none of which are acknowledged by council in its report, or by councillors in the article –
• The absence of a Design and Development Overlay specifying a preferred maximum height for new development on the review site influences our interpretation of the site’s policy setting. It implies that a development’s height is only limited by the specific combination of the policy and physical context of this, or any other, site in this Major Activity Centre that is not encumbered by such an Overlay.
• We found it relevant that numerous other 7 to 10 storey buildings have been approved in this Major Activity Centre, with many of these buildings having direct abuttals to low scale residential development. These buildings all display a different character to what currently exists and indicate that buildings of a comparable height to what is proposed have been considered acceptable in this centre.
We find the concept that the Heritage Overlay restricts the height of a new building on the review site is not valid as the site itself is not subject to this Overlay and because the building’s height will not have a significant impact on the heritage significance of the Glen Huntly Road shopping strip.
We do not accept the concept that only the western end of Glen Huntly Road can accommodate taller buildings, as it is not reflected in State or local policy nor is reflected on the ground. The local policy does not distinguish between the eastern and western sides of the railway line nor does it call for ‘gateway’ buildings along Glen Huntly Road.
Rather, it separates the centre into precincts where particular development outcomes are anticipated. We note that the zone boundaries make an intentional deviation to include this site. It anticipates larger scale buildings at heights compatible with adjacent buildings in the precinct containing the review site and identifies Stanley Street as a ‘point of transition from larger scale to the north’ to ‘lower scale to the south’. We find this explicitly encourages larger scale development on the review site, despite it lacking a frontage to Glen Huntly Road and despite it being on the east side of the railway line.
We find local policy is not clear on whether a gradual or an abrupt transition is required. To this extent, Mr Barber’s interpretation is credible yet we consider it is not correct. The policy guidance for Precinct 4 does not imply taller buildings are discouraged in Precinct 6, rather Precincts 5 and 6 require a ‘transition’ between the Stanley Street precincts. We see the term as standing on its own and being capable of interpreted as either an abrupt or a gradual transition.
In summary, we find the policies of the Planning Scheme support the height of the proposed building.
February 11, 2014 at 2:35 PM
When the decision was finally handed down in the 450 dwelling Orrong Road Lend Lease Development case (Stonnington Council took it to the Supreme Court), Planning Minister Mathew Guy is on record as saying it could have been avoided if Stonnington had done structure planning.
Glen Eira Council admits that Structure Planning (which includes height controls) is a valuable tool for targeted areas such as activity centres or urban/neighbourhood villages (now known as Growth Zones), yet although the Council has had since 2002 (when the concept of targetted High Density areas was introduced) to undertake planning they have consistently refused to do so. The State Government was so aware of the advantages of Structure Planning that they offered subsidies to Councils undertaking Structure Planning – Glen Eira returned their subsidy..
I totally agree with you the VCAT does have its problems but the main culprit/s is Glen Eira’s crappy planning scheme and Councillors (who have never read it) listening to the Administration rather than the residents (even those well versed in planning matters).
February 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM
VCAT is a big development sponsor… in a recent decision on Dandenong and Tooronga Roads this body not only approved of 16 storeys but made the recommendation that the properties which backed onto other commercial properties on the boundary to the north could if they wish apply for commercial status as well. Bad luck for those residents of period homes on the north side of the street. no protection whatsover for anyone these days except perhaps (MODERATORS: phrase deleted)
February 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM
The Riddell Parade/Stanley Street decision highlights just how much of a farce the planning system has become. I see an earlier comment raises structure plans. There is actually one, albeit nowhere near as comprehensive as Activity Centre Design Guidelines and Structure Planning For Activity Centres expect. It’s a Reference Document, in 22.05 Urban Village Policy. The document makes the usual range of spurious claims, but does stress it was prepared by Council in conjunction with residents and traders.
The site is located [in the Structure Plan] in Precinct 5 Medium Density Housing. Amongst the Recommendations [that Council adopted] are:
* Retain the present character of the established streetscape with residential development being no more than two-storey in height and the size and style commensurate with existing buildings.
* The North side of Stanley Street is appropriate for commercial activities that support both the nearby residential and retail areas. Buildings should retain a residential appearance, and appropriate parking should be provided on site at the rear.
Since VCAT gratuitously refers to 10-storey buildings in the Retail Precinct, here’s what the Structure Plan says: “The terrace buildings on the south side of Glen Huntly Road have visual and historic significance, and should be used as a benchmark for scale”.
Another tidbit that has been casually discarded along the way: “Retail and commercial activity should be concentrated along the retail strip and actively discouraged from encroaching into the residential area”.
Of course back then traffic volume and movement, as well as lack of parking, was considered a threat to the attraction of the Centre. The situation hasn’t improved, just redefined.
February 11, 2014 at 6:24 PM
Proves the point that the person made I’d say. A reference document isn’t a structure plan so vcat can pay it far less attention than a formal, endorsed and government stamped structure plan.
February 11, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Time for this Council to finally make a stand on Riddell Parade/Stanley Street and take on VCAT just as Stonnington did successfully. Or have VCAT been used as an excuse?
February 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM
I agree with all the above posters that the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is a piece of crap. Even with all it’s defects, the real test of how good both the scheme and its planners are is when clear breaches are glossed over with a “considered acceptable” determination – it’s frequently applied to car parking layouts and accesses, internal amenity (ie access to natural light and ventilation and private open space). One bedroom apartments being the favourite to take a hit to internal amenity.
Council itself admits to approving developments where 25% of the dwellings are fail to meet the internal amenity (light, ventillation and open space) standards and therefore sustainability stanards. The justification for doing so is that’s what VCAT does. Aside from being an terrific piece of reasoning that clearly indicates the collective intellectual capacity of the Planning Department, the CEO and Councillors, it also shows a total disregard for the supposedly wonderful planning scheme (which already has enough holes) they themselves are responsible for.
February 11, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Caulfield Heath already exists on the site of the old Glenhuntly Depot. The apartments plans have changed a couple of times to end up eventually as dwellings for students with smaller units and higher density then initially proposed. The site is well on the way to become a slum.
I wonder how the Post Office will treat existence of 2 Caulfield Heath name sites within 1 km. I imagine another future slum in the making.
February 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM
You sure it’s Caulfield Heath – just looking at the attachments to the pathetic traffic assessment for stage 1 and states “Caulfield Health” in the Appendix.
February 12, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Nickname now is “Caulfield Slums”. Get me out of here.
February 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM
GERA has put up 2 posts recently:
1. open space and
2. their information sessions on the Development Plan
See: http://geresidents.wordpress.com
February 12, 2014 at 11:48 AM
question do you really think there would be any more demand for student accommodation. They already have Dudley street. There seems to be a huge glut. Interesting that if it did happen because wasn’t one of the proposals that Monash would be set up at Caulfield Racecourse in the 50’s instead of Clayton. Would have been much better transport wise. I would prefer that than the current state of a private company controlling all this public land
An example of this glut is this piece of vacant land between the railway lines they have been trying to sell for 2 years http://www.realestate.com.au/property-residential+land-vic-caulfield+east-200797315
February 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM
The MRC is a gambling company that pays no tax and has unrestricted access to public land without even paying full rates. Where can Buy their shares?
February 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM
Punters should use other venues in the area rather than the one our Crown Land for the following reasons:-
This gambling co. is also blessed as they, unlike other machine proprietors pay only 25% tax to Vic govt because it is a “non-rofit sporting organisation”.
The local hotel proprietors are shackled with a much lerger proportion of betting tax as well as land tax on the car poarks and enormous commercial rates. From memory (GEC minutes) the Cailfield establishment had
$11 million in revenue for a year.
The MRC profit last year was about $22 million (up 50%) in a year.
The MRC owns over 700 poker machines in many locations. It owns so many locations it had to establish a company called Pegasus Leisure. The financial sisutation was so favourable about four years ago as the MRC became the proud owner of about a dozen hotels across Melbourne … all with poker machines and the consequent low rate for the gambling tax.
Alll attempts to bring about justice and equity to all other hoteliers has failed.
February 12, 2014 at 9:40 PM
It’s not obvious or even necessarily true that the MRC is a not-for-profit organisation. It would have to satisfy the definition that applies in Victoria first. While it makes its alleged Mission, Vision and Values prominent on its website, it is rather coy about the objects or objectives of the club. You don’t see “ripping money out of the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged” for example, or “becoming Victoria’s largest non-government property developer”. Fortunately all the assets that the MRC have acquired over the years cannot be distributed to its members should it be wound up.
It’s good to know that the club is specifically empowered and authorised to lay out and prepare lands for “all kinds of athletic sports games and competitions including cricket football bowls golf hockey baseball tennis polo agricultural horse dog flower and other shows exhibitions and competitions and other forms of amusement recreation and entertainment and to promote hold and conduct or assist in holding or conducting all or any of the same”. Yeah right.
February 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM
ONE IMPORTANT FACT TO NOTE REGARDING RACING IS THE FACT THAT PAKENHAM RACING CLUB HAS NOW CLOSED AND THE NEW TRAINING FACILITY PROMISED YEARS AGO AT TYNONG SHOULD BE READY FOR ALL THE HORSES AT CAULFIELD TO GO AND LIVE AS WE HAVE BEEN PROMISED OVER RECENT TIMES.
It’s also good to remember that al lthe ground surrounding the racecourse which the club has managed to obtain as freehold title, so as they have a “protective area” around the Crown Crown Grant to keep us out rather like the castle walls (in days gone by) and of course by one means or another they do keep us out.
This expansion has been so easy as the MRC has had near exclusive cheap use of the Crown Grant with low expenses has managed to obtain the whole of the 5.5 hectares with the handsome profit of racing over the years. Once the club gave money to hospitals but in past decades all income is as far as the spending goes is all on the club. The track is to have a multi- million update in the near future. Last year the club installed the synthetic all weather track at cost of a million or two on yet more land .. robbing the pub;;ic again as we are not [ermitted to put our toe on this track.. They are unaccountable to anyone and usually write off their income within their tin fences, by employing many but all exclusively to the advantage of the club itself.
Oher gambling venues give money to worthy causes for eg. hospitals etc in their own areas. Not a cent passes outside the racecourse.
February 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM
i wonder if the trainers will be paid to stay. Otherwise MRC would lose their car park in the middle
February 17, 2014 at 11:06 PM
I think Annon was mistaken… instead of no more racing at Pakenham only the last cup event was held ther so Tynong is not ready yet.