The MRC and/or its developers have submitted an ‘amendment’ to the approved Development Plan. We urge all residents to view the documentation at – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Planning_and_building/Planning/Caulfield_Village/Amended_Development_Plan
The main points of this amendment, following a very brief perusal of the documents, are:
- An increase in the number of dwellings from 442 to 463. This has been mainly achieved by reducing the number of three bedroom apartments and increasing the number of single bedroom apartments! So much for a ‘family’ oriented ‘village’!
- Building envelopes will be increased for some of the housing blocks
- Balconies will be ‘adjusted’ – meaning that they can be reduced in size, or be permitted to impinge even further into the declared setbacks
We also have to marvel at the sheer gall of the ‘summary’ (uploaded HERE) – in its continual use of euphemism and gobbledygook, as well as its insistence on the Incorporated Plan as the planning ‘bible’, rather than the Development Plan which surely is the equivalent of a set-in-concrete planning permit. We remind readers that council’s support for the Incorporated Plan included the argument that it was only a ‘conceptual’ document and that the Development Plan was the important one in terms of gaining planning approval.
We’ve dug up the Rocky Camera report on the Development Plan from December 2013 in which he stated:
This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village
Finally, here are some quotes from the proposed new amendment:
The amendment sought under this cover are a combination of necessary design refinements informed by these processes, as wellas realising an opportunity to optimise the efficiencies of the development within the general parameters of the approved Development Plan and prescriptive guidelines of the Incorporated Plan.
The majority of changes described in the Schedule are very minor cosmetic changes that will have no impact on neighbouring properties.
It is considered that the changed described above are so minor in nature as to be de minimis and entirely consistent with the approved development as endorsed.
Whilst it is acknowledged that most dwellings comprise one or two bedrooms, within each of the approved buildings there is a broad range of dwelling layouts, types and sizes provided ensuring that the development makes a meaningful contribution to dwelling diversity.
The increases to the building envelope at the fifth floor level are very minor and will servie to enhance the functionality of the apartment without compromising the usability of the balcony areas. The increases are so minor as to be negligible when viewed from Bond Street.
There’s much, much more that could be quoted. Interestingly, in a 7 page document the word ‘minor’ is repeated 17 times! As always, the ball is now in councillors’ court!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 3, 2015 at 12:31 PM
No bloody point in sticking up pdf plans that can’t be read Mr Newton. Could be that thats the idea.
March 3, 2015 at 1:55 PM
good point. too small to read. maybe that is because they are small!
March 3, 2015 at 2:24 PM
That leaves Rocky with egg all over his face, what’s his next trick
March 3, 2015 at 2:58 PM
Mayor Magee who claimed kudos that he is the champion to expose MRC has an egg on his face as nothing has happened after the Auditor General’s report. Does anyone know if Magee has followed up the issues? MRC’s amendment show a ‘Care a hoots’ attitude’. Magee got the fame he seeks for and mayoralty, through newspapers and television something he loves.
March 3, 2015 at 3:51 PM
The history of this project is the history of continued cave-ins and manipulation by council. The mrc are on a fantastic wicket and they know that they can get their way with everything they want from council.
We can look forward to more apartments and more amendments once the other development plans come in for the Smith Street and other precinct. The 2046 apartments are history. My guess is that the end figure will be closer to 2200. Add on Monash’s proposed student accommodation and East Caulfield is well and truly on the way to being the new slum centre of the south east.
March 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM
I think it is a good thing that the disadvantaged can have an abode near public transport. Better than being out on the street. Build as many flats as you can I say.
March 3, 2015 at 4:47 PM
Your comments might have some validity if they were accurate. When the panel recommended acceptance of the C60 the vision was to include “social housing”. When the development plan reared its ugly head councillors wrung their hands and cried so much over the lack of social housing in this development. They promised that it would be included in the other precincts. I wouldn’t be holding my breath on that one.
The prices that are being asked for one bedroom rabbit holes are way beyond the means of the “disadvantaged”. There is nothing in this development that caters to the “disadvantaged”. The target market is foreign students and foreign investors. The only people who will be “disadvantaged” are locals who live near this and the wider community because the open space levies imposed are a total joke. If council had done their job properly I would wager that millions more could have been gotten out of the mrc. As it stands, the “disadvantaged” will remain “disadvantaged” and the mrc become a whole lot richer.
March 3, 2015 at 6:40 PM
Council embodies The Peter Principle [“In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”]. Once again the plans are illegible at scale because they have been scanned into jpeg format. It’s even worse than the original Development Plans because they’ve been shrunk by 3x in both X and Y dimensions: 3310×2340 vs 9930×7020. They could have used PNG at high resolution and converted to greyscale or index format with reduced palette to produce legible plans at scale yet smaller size. There is, or at least has been, one officer who understands the technology—are they languishing beneath the weight of the bureaucracy, prevented from rising higher by the superincumbents above?
March 3, 2015 at 7:23 PM
That’s why you need councillors to prop them up, ask no questions, demand nothing and to do as they are told. Perfect 9 wise monkeys who can’t hear see or think for themselves.
March 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM
In another 20 years when this catastrophe is finished people will sit back and realise that for every inch they gave away the mrc took a mile. Incremental changes have happened on my reckoning at least 5 times and all been supported by council. The same tactics will be used again. Ask for a, get it, and then ask for a little more. Get that, then ask for a few more changes that will earn them a few more million. It’s all legal but it still stinks. If council had said no right from the start then we wouldn’t be in this situation now.
March 4, 2015 at 8:59 AM
The MRC can do anything they want and no one is going to so much as raise a finger to them. State Govt, Dept of Enivronment, Local Council, Local Govt Inspectorate, Ombudsman – all useless. Auditor Generals report lays out many concerns but does not have the power to take any action. A great pity.
March 4, 2015 at 7:21 PM
The whole process has been classic salami tactics. At each step the development has got bigger, met fewer planning objectives, and created more problems. The end result bears little resemblance to the original masterplan. What we now have is a clear overdevelopment, by GECC’s own not very exacting standards. So many of the balconies don’t even meet the MINIMUM of 8sqm and minimum width of 1.6m. The plans show a line that is labelled “RES CODE 55.04” but doesn’t comply with the set of standards contained in 55.04. That is unconscionable behaviour. Council should refuse to allow further expansion of the building envelope, especially where it impinges on the amenity of existing residents, and it should attempt to repair the damage it has done by approving the previous substandard Development Plan. A change of personnel providing advice to Council is also required.
March 4, 2015 at 9:48 PM
For those readers interested in seeing how one council has dealt with the issue of a racecourse major development, and how much effort has been put into the issue by the council and local residents, please see Item 9.5 in the following link – http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Governance/Council%20meetings/2015/24%20February%202015/Agenda%20%20Ordinary%20Meeting%20of%20Council%20to%20be%20held%2024%20February%202015.pdf
This document alone puts the efforts of Glen Eira, its administration and councillors to shame when one compares their advocacy on behalf of residents in the dealings with the MRC. Of real importance is Moonee Valley’s insistence on an open space levy contribution of actual open space plus a large cash contribution and height limits of 10 -12 storeys.
Moonee Valley may not have succeeded in everything it aspired to, but it certainly has achieved far more than Glen Eira has in its dealings with the racing industry. Of even greater significance in our view, is the extent to which MVCC encouraged and welcomed community participation and involvement throughout the several years process
Another item of interest in this agenda is the Notice of Motion related to Construction Management Plans in development applications. Please read the officer response and consider whether such a scenario could even be possible in Glen Eira (that’s if we had Notice of Motion to begin with!)