In return for 2046 dwellings (at this stage) which will comprise the Caulfield Village, our great negotiators exacted the paltry sums of 4 and 5 percent as the open space contributions. We estimate that this will provide a return of around $5 to $6 million by the time the money starts rolling in. Similar, long term ‘negotiations’ have taken place over the Moonee Valley Racing Club’s development plans.
Matthew Guy recently gazetted the amendments necessary – declaring the area the equivalent of a Priority Development Zone and, also similar to Caulfield, the creation of an Incorporated Plan approach. An Advisory Committee had been set up to consider the proposals and public hearings were held over ten days. Guy admittedly over-rode many of the committee’s recommendations regarding height and density. However, the following conditions were exacted from the racing club and outstrip by light years what our wonderful negotiating team achieved. We cite directly from the council minutes and remind readers that when queried about the open space within the Caulfield Village development there was no answer forthcoming from our planners and negotiators.
In the end, the Moonee Valley Racing Club were forced to cough up some substantial concessions since council and community worked together. In Glen Eira, residents have to wonder who the negotiating team really worked for? According to the figures below, the Moonee Valley Council can look forward to about $12 million in levies, and countless other millions worth in public facilities. Not so in Glen Eira!
This will allow for the provision of cash and land contributions up to the value of $6,000 per dwelling.
The contributions are to comprise the following:
- A public open space contribution in the form of a single park equivalent to 5,000 square metres, and additional open spaces up to 2,000 square metres.
- A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of 2 full sized AFL/Cricket playing fields, including lights and car parking.
- A financial contribution equivalent to the construction of a 500 square metre sporting pavilion.
- Delivery/upgrade on-site or off-site for physical and community infrastructure,having regard to the demand generated by the anticipated additional populationwithin the precinct, including:
- Contribution towards or provision of public art on the site.
- Financial contributions equivalent to 30% of the construction cost of a Multi-Purpose Community Facility on-site (based on a 500 square metre facility)
November 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM
Here we are crying out that there aren’t enough sports fields, open space, pavilions falling down, costs going up, and all these people could get was a piddling 4% for residential and 5% for the other two commercial precincts. Woeful, pathetic, incompetent, and arse licking. Then three of these become trustees. Wow and double wow. Makes you wonder, no?
November 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM
We got diddled left right and centre an the mrc is laughing all the way to the bank
November 2, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Well, this is the final insult to injury. We should count ourselves lucky that these negotiators are so skilful and astute. Otherwise we might have had to forego even the 4 or 5% levy. (tongue firmly in cheek here).
November 2, 2014 at 8:13 PM
Ah come on you folk are forgetting the huge win they had with parking. Not only did they manage to get “higher parking rates than in a comparable development” (their words not mine – that were never substantiated naming the comparable developments or the actual parking rates). True that once the actual rates came out their spin dissolved – the parking rates are just the same old basic Rescode standard for a residential only 3 storey development. Their huge win was to get the MRC to agree to pay for the time limited parking signs in the surrounding residential streets (cost per sign is less than $40, cost of at street level parking $10,000 per space, who knows the per space cost of basement parking).
So not only did they save the MRC bulk bucks they also saved themselves money (a pittance in comparison but still a saving)
Mind you it is a shame that the development (2000+ dwellings) was not excluded from the residential parking permit scheme or that they overlooked that fact that the mixed use zone is the size of a neighbourhood centre and therefore will generate considerable patronage (reliant on parking in residential streets). But all is not lost – some years later Council introduced a policy excluding all developments in the Housing Diversity Areas (now the growth zones) from the residential parking scheme and ipso facto “supposedly” the policy also includes the C60 development. Negotiating the cost of signage has not been lost.
November 2, 2014 at 9:01 PM
It appears that the MRC got the council over the bench and had their way, well and proper.
November 4, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Where is our man Jim Magee? Calling JM, come in Magee. Your job is not over. You need to keep pressure on MRC. You are capable in doing that.
November 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM
The names of Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff here are unsurprising. They are true blue Libs who are pro development at almost any price.Pilling, on the other hand, was elected because of his Greens credentials. What a rat!
November 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Don’t leave out Southwick the “chief negotiator” and Newton the chief architect
November 3, 2014 at 10:51 AM
We should calling for an investigation, this smacks of possible criminal behaviours, who knows what under the table deals may have been cut.
November 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM
If you live in Caulfield district electorate you would have received a flyer from David Southwick outlining his and Libs achievements. What they do not tell you is who they support, like:
* dirty diggers and their coal;
* frightful truckers and their trucking funnels;
* racing gamblers and their bookie protectors – hello MRC we’ll protect you;
* developer angels and their heaven reaching skyscrapers in Caulfield http://www.probuild.com.au/current-projects/
If you do not want these things, stir like hell and support yourself and your friends.
November 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM
yes Southwicks flyer is full of interesting claims on what he has done including ‘Secured a $1.8 million investment to improve public use for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve’. What he neglects to mention is that this was part of the deal of the century land swap with the MRC. The facilities are also crap. At the moment you couldn’t even look at them anyway as all the gates to the racecourse are locked till next year whilst the track upgrade happens unless you take your chances through the horse dung tunnel!. Neglects also to mention that MRC has fenced off more public land for training without paying for the privilidge during Southwicks tenure.
November 3, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Álso included in the Southwick’s brochure is that claim he (and I quote) “Successfully led negotiaton to secure a 15 year lease with two 5 years options for the Elsternwick Plaza redevelopment”. This has been a long standing committment, a top Council priority since 1998 – only settled in 2013 – without any mention of Southwick. Neither can be believed so who knows is David the self proclaimed whiz kid or is Council to be believed because they have finally done something.
November 4, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Yes, it may have been in the pipeline for a long time. Southwick pressured the Minister to do something. Previous Labor (1999 to 2010) ministers were never going to do anything in a seat that has always been Liberal. Why would they?
November 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM
Caulfield village is going to be the biggest development in the history of Glen Eira. There is literally no open space within the development except for a narrow pathway that will probably be less than 20 metres across and is only there so people can walk through to Caulfield Station.
A 4% and 5% open space levy is not nearly enough and these negotiators should be condemned for this agreement. Council is now asking for 5.7% from small subdivisions yet they’ve allowed the Melbourne Racing Club to get away on the cheap. The entire amendment process and the special committee that was set up was atrocious. That alone deserves a full inquiry as well as the landswap that made this all happen.
November 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM
Off topic, but readers might like to compare this Leader article with what’s going on in Glen Eira. The final sentence reads –
“Rate rises in Frankston over the past three years have been 4.6 per cent, 5.9 per cent and 5.5 per cent.”
In Glen Eira 6.5% has been the norm for years!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/bayside/frankston-ratepayers-plea-for-capped-rate-rises/story-fngnvli9-1227108480530
November 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM
Be reasonable. Someone has to pay for the extra council staff !!