The Caulfield Village Planning Conference was held last night with a very good turnout of articulate residents who quite forcibly put forward their views on the development plan. Of councillors, only Lipshutz and Esakoff were non attendees. What follows is a summary of the evening.

Pilling began the evening by introducing the planners (Rocky Camera and Ron Torres) who would be explaining the plan and answering questions. Went over the ‘procedures’ for the meeting and said that there would be a rep from the applicants who would ‘speak’ and ‘also possibly’ answer some of the ‘queries you’ve raised’.  Wanted to confirm that no decision had been made and that the evening was ‘purely about explanation’ and ‘clarification’ and giving people the ‘opportunity to ask questions’. Admitted that there was a lot of ‘history’ involved but that this wasn’t why everyone was present.

Rocky Camera, using overheads  explained the application and pointed out that there would be 8 stages of which the current one represented three stages. Stated that buildling heights for this precinct ranged from 2 to 6 storeys and all were within the preferred heights of the incorporated plan. Went through all the ‘internal’ referrals to other Glen Eira departments such as traffic, landscaping, etc and that they were waiting for feedback which would be ‘available’ in the council report. Said that council had received 26 submissions and that some the ‘key concerns’ were: neighbourhood character, amenity, car parking and congestion, trees, lack of open space, infrastructure and inconsistency between the incorporated and development plan. Camera then listed 3 main issues as he saw them –  accordance with the incorporated plan, car parking and ‘design elements’ as well as internal amenity. Pilling then asked for an overview of the C60 and the incorporated plan. The audience was then told of the approval of C60 which resulted in rezoning into a Priority Development zone and approval of the incorporated mixed use plan. Said that the latter was a ‘blueprint’ for future development and that it includes building heights, setbacks and this lead to the Development Plan which has ‘finite detail’. The project could take 15 years to finish.

Pilling asked that appeal rights be explained as well. The officer then explained the impact of Amendment c111 and the ‘minor impacts’ that this allowed like balcony intrusions and ‘no appeal rights’ since this wasn’t a ‘typical application’ but if there is a difference then it would go to the normal planning application process. Pilling then asked people to give their names and addresses before they spoke.

SPEAKER 1 – talked about the need for recreation facilities and ‘recreational support’ and that ‘increased volume’ of people means increased support for ‘community based clubs’.

SPEAKER 2 – from Queen’s avenue. Density and scope had greatly increased. Was also worried about ‘lack of public space’ and car parking. Said that ‘most of the car parks’ were currently being used at the racecourse for the Caravan and Camping show so there’s ‘very little car parking’. Didn’t think that the Monash plans had ‘been taken into consideration’. ‘It’s all smoke and mirrors as far as I’m concerned’.

SPEAKER 3: was concerned that only some of the development plan documents concerned the entire 3 precincts but the discussion was being focussed only on the one precinct and the published Incorporated Plan is incorrect. Asked whether council was going to approve plans that ‘relate to the whole of the development’ without details of these other precincts. The officer replied that the developer has to submit plans for the ‘overall project’ so council would be approving all the other documents. The speaker then stated that if the developer changes their mind about the amount of commercial space, there’s the situation that the car parking plan is then ‘set in concrete’. Planner stated that ‘that would need to be amended’ if there were changes and these amended plans would have to ‘show those changed details’. Residents would be able to ‘comment’ on these changes. Speaker than asked about the ‘validity’ of the discussion since the Incorporated Plan doesn’t include building height. ‘Why are we comparing (the development plan) to a document that council knows is incorrect’? Camera replied that this was about the Smith St precinct and it was ‘an error made by State Government’ and that this is currently being ‘rectified’ but in the mixed use precinct the height control ‘is correct’. Speaker said again that residents are being asked to compare the plan which isn’t correct and that there should be an expectation that residents are given the ‘correct information’.

SPEAKER 4: said that he’s heard what the ‘developer is doing but what is council doing in relation to’ traffic management. Pilling then answered that there’s no decision as yet and the application is being considered. Speaker said again that this answer only tells him how council is dealing with the developer and not what they are doing off their own bat especially in relation to the areas outside the site. The officer then spoke about the Section 173 Agreement which requires the MRC to put in ‘some key infrastructure’ projects about traffic management such as the ‘creation of a new road’ and making it safe for pedestrians around the railway station. Went on to list all the requirements of the Section 173 Agreement. The speaker then asked again what council itself is doing about the limited car parking in areas surrounding the site. Officer responded that the ‘car parking rates’ are now ‘set’ as a result of the C60 and it was the ‘Minister for Planning’ who ‘set those rates’. Said these are ‘ResCode rates’ (ie 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom places, etc.). Speaker again said that the answer was all about the specific site and that ‘I am asking’ about the surrounding areas and what council has done about ‘trying to accommodate the overflow’. Camera again said that the developers have put in their Development Plan a submission about what ‘happens to displaced car parking’ and council has to decide whether ‘we are satisfied’ with the proposals. Speaker then said that from what he’d read Newington was named as a ‘low priority’ street and disagreed very much with this labelling. Said he didn’t know when this study was done nor by whom and when the cars were counted but it was wrong. Since Eskdale Rd now has 2 hour parking along one side of the street it is now Newington which is receiving the ‘overflow’. Camera again said that council has to decide whether they will be ‘satisfied’ and advised the resident to look at the displaced car parking figures.

SPEAKER 5: in regards to the agreement with the MRC on centre of the racecourse parking, there was originally only to be 5 such days. Said that this appears to have ‘gone by the by” and requested confirmation whether the agreement still stands. Pilling said that the agreement ‘is still in place but that is a separate’ issue to the development plan. Speaker then said that parking is an issue and race days make this even more significant. Pilling restated that the agreement stands but has little to do with the application. Several audience members disgreed claiming that they are ‘interlinked’.

SPEAKER 6: asked what is the precise amount of open space and how many apartments were not going to receive natural light. Camera said that the Guidelines for High Density development cover open space and that ‘unlike ResCode that doesn’t give you a broad figure’. Said that for apartments ResCode recommends 8 square metres so ‘there’s no figure’ for council to ‘assess against’. Said that council would look at this and they might specify a figure for the apartments. Speaker then asked about the ‘public open space’ and not ‘the private’. Camera then said that ‘there is a provision for public open space’ and that this is through a ‘contribution’ (ie the 5 and 4 percent open space levy). Speaker then stated that the question hasn’t been answered in that the question referred to ‘exact acreage’ of public open space and not about money to be collected. Said that ‘here’s a plan where nobody knows the amount of public open space’ and that it was ‘incongruous’ that councillors would be ‘deciding on something’ when they can’t answer such basic and specific questions. Camera then replied that about access to sunlight ‘we don’t have a figure right now’ because they are ‘still going through the plans’. Conceeded that some apartments don’t have sunlight and that this was raised with developers via a council letter. This would form part of planners recommendations to council.