The Melbourne Racing Club has scored the ‘quaddy’ with our new Manager of Strategic Planning signing off on their latest application for an ‘outdoor cinema’ from dusk until 1am throughout the year! In approximately one page as a bit of ‘useful’ commentary, Council has again agreed to all of the MRC demands. That makes it the perfect quaddy in our books – ‘yes’ to an incorporated and development plan that bore no resemblance to each other; ‘yes’ to a paltry open space contribution and no development contribution;’ yes’ to the 4 storey high racing screen, and now ‘yes’ to an ‘outdoor cinema’. No mention of who will police drunkenness; no mention of how many of these ‘events’ can be held? Are we speaking of once a month? Once a fortnight? Once a week? Or every single night throughout November to March, and then some more throughout the year whenever the MRC decides it might be a good idea?
Adding insult to injury is the fact that EPA legislation for ‘noise’ from “residential” areas has a time limit up to 11pm. Music production (which we can assume to accompany any soundtrack), also has a time limit of up to 11pm! S0 exactly how does Council grant a permit until 1am and for staff to leave (without noise presumably) by 1.30am.
The Bent St application has also got the nod for a 3 and part 4 storey development with 31 dwellings. 17 properties notified and 25 objections. McKinnon is now given the new nom de plume of an ‘activity centre’ (page 33). There is NO MCKINNON ACTIVITY CENTRE!
The paragraph which concerns us greatly and which is included as part of the conditions reads:
The second floor setback a minimum of 9.0m from the eastern boundary with any consequential changes absorbed within the approved building envelope. A balcony may encroach a maximum of 1.6m into this setback.
It is our contention that such a condition illustrates fully the myriad of shortcomings of the current planning scheme and also serves as a convenient scapegoat for this administration and councillors.
The property is located in GRZ1. As such ResCode setbacks apply. When council secretly introduced the New Residential Zones, it chose not to seek greater setbacks than ResCode for GRZ1. So now we have the ludicrous situation where planning officers recommend setbacks which go against their very own planning scheme. It will be no surprise that if this goes to VCAT the member sits back, laughs, and says – ‘but that’s not what the planning scheme states’! and of course, VCAT will again be the convenient scapegoat!
Glen Eira Debates 
February 20, 2015 at 8:24 PM
I guess like everything else the MRC does, they the MRC will reap the profits and we the public will cover all the ancillary costs.
My feeling are , it’s going to be a flop, outdoors events are notoriously fickle, the choice of events Melbourne wide is jammed packed, sitting outside with the mosquito’s watching a film won’t rate highly with the general public as a must do event
February 20, 2015 at 8:50 PM
The entire application is cloaked in mystery and intrigue. This is supposed to be “conditional” on three things –
1. Trustee sign-off
2. Lease signed off
3. On area that is under the lease.
The trustee website is still down or gone forever. We know nothing about whether there have been any trustee meetings nor whether the trustees will or have already given permission. Is there a lease even?
Racing thinks they’ve got it in the bag so to speak so the application has gone in presumably well ahead of all these other conditions being met. Months and months following the auditor general’s report on lack of transparency and good governance not one single thing looks like it’s changed. The racing industry is continuing to thumb its nose at all and sundry and especially residents.
I will be reading with interest to find out if our councillor trustees declare a conflict of interest in this or whether they participate in the vote and show their true colours.
February 21, 2015 at 8:46 AM
Well done in explaining clearly the problems with this permit application and how our council had wasted a valuable opportunity in denying this application until the racecourse trustees or the organisation that replaces the trustees and the leases are finalised. Councillors What was the hurry !!
February 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM
The report claims erroneously that DEPI is the public land manager for the racecourse [sic]. That is not true. The public land manager is DELWP, and there is no public evidence that DELWP has given approval for this application. DEPI no longer exists, has been split, and was heavily criticised by the Auditor-General for its “management” of the land. We have a new Minister for Environment, indeed a new government. They will probably be as inept as the previous mob, but fresh approval should be sought, along with evidence that progress is being made in the management regime of the public reserve.
In the wake of the revelation that the Trustees who are also councillors don’t actually represent Council, those councillors have an indirect interest because of conflicting duties under s.78B. The officer report emphasizes once again the food and drink aspect of the proposal, making the use a cinema based entertainment facility and therefore prohibited in land zoned PPRZ.
It is extraordinary that the Planning Scheme has included so much PPRZ land into the Phoenix Precinct, and considers it to be suitable for “additional hotel and conference facilities”. The same policy reveals that Council considers the Racecourse to be MRC land.
February 21, 2015 at 9:39 AM
I don’t live anywhere near Bent street but drive down it occasionally when coming home from Centre road. Three cars can barely squeeze past each other and I’ve had to stop to let oncoming cars get through. That is now before all these buildings are finished and people live in them and they have all got cars. You cant let streets explode with hundreds of new apartments and the destruction of lovely buildings and not see the wider effects. I won’t be going down bent anymore but finding other streets to drive down. In time this other street will be the new bent street when everyone does the same.
February 22, 2015 at 9:26 AM
As the officer’s report explains, the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. It doesn’t fit in the ResCode building envelope, and it needs considerable modification to reduce unacceptable overshadowing. I disagree with officer who shows little concern about lack of daylight to habitable room windows. It represents a considerable loss of amenity—when it happened to my mother, she was furious, but ultimately didn’t fight Boroondara Council over it.
The 9m setback here appears to be driven by the need to reduce overshadowing rather than via setback standards. It should have been much more explicit about the connection between the conditions and the amenity issues.
I’ve criticized before, and need to criticize once again, Council’s decision to use jpg format for plans and line drawings in the Agenda. It makes dimensions on the plans illegible, so there is simply no way Council can assess the proposal against its Scheme or verify the accuracy of any “factual” comments made by an officer. A councillor doing his or her job would complain, and ask the CEO for an explanation why such an inappropriate format was chosen. Also missing from the Item is a shadow diagram.
I haven’t previously seen the exploitation of the notorious 1m extra height permitted when any cross-section of 8m or more has a slope of 2.5 degrees. Note that the difference in height of 2.5 degree slope over 8m is only 35cm. Permitting an extra 1m seems gratuitous. I’m sure it was deliberate on the part of our decision-makers when they changed the Scheme unilaterally.
There is another notorious rort that developers and Council are guilty of, and that’s the reckless disregard they have concerning balconies projecting into building setbacks. Balconies aren’t “minor”. They cast shadows, they expand the visual bulk of a building, and if they have a 1.7m high screen or solid ends, they dominate the facade. Some of Council’s decisions are so appalling, so truly shocking, so blatantly in violation of the Scheme, that you have to wonder just what their motivation is. It’s made all the worse by the noxious Planning and Environment Act, under which Council cannot be compelled to give reasons for its decisions to us mere mortals. Pathetic.
February 22, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Good stuff Reprobate. Proposing a 9 metre setback sounds wonderful but hasn’t got a hope in hell. This is acknowledged in the vcat reports by a sentence like this – The Tribunal held that due to the site’s location within a Housing Diversity Area, where change is to be expected, justification for greater rear boundary setbacks than what is required are not warranted.
Knowing this from previous experience at vcat the bullshit game is still on. Makes councillors feel better when they accept the report and the developer still gets what he wants. Smoke and mirrors all the time.