If residents thought that the Caulfield Village was a mass overdevelopment then they should think again! Item 9.6 of the current agenda features the latest plans for the Virginia Estate on East Boundary Road, Bentleigh. In short, what is proposed is the following:
- Rezoning all of the land to Commercial 1 – meaning that there is now the legal entitlement for far greater residential development
- Buried in the documentation for this rezoning is this paragraph – At this stage any detailed information about the likely development for the estate should be regarded as indicative. It seems clear however that significant development is envisaged. Likely or possible developments are a shopping centre including a supermarket, office development and some 4,400 dwellings
- As with the Caulfield Village, the same approaches are being used – namely, an Incorporated Plan, constant rezoning, and then we assume the eventual rubber stamping of a Development Plan!
- The ‘magnanimous’ open space contribution by the developer is for a 20 metre width ‘open space link’ – specifically the developer has offered to provide a strategic open space link of approximately 20 metres width within Virginia Park Estate to connect Virginia Park Reserve and Marlborough Street Reserve. No 1 Barrington Street is owned by the developer and could form part of the open space link.
- For a 12.5 hectare site and over 4000 dwellings the developer will only be required to pay 5.7% in an open space levy. Again laughable especially when other councils have successfully included in their open space schedules the options of exacting a higher levy than for ‘normal’ subdivision for ‘strategic development sites’. Glen Eira refused to entertain such an idea in its recent amendment.
We should also point out that in this current agenda, officer reports give the green light to a further 153 new dwellings.
There is also, after years and years of waiting, a two page report on the Significant Tree Register. Most of this is unmitigated waffle and the recommendations so limiting that they basically mean nothing – except in maintaining the current status quo! We will comment in detail in the days ahead.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM
Caulfield and now this. Gesac and East Boundary Road are congested now. I can’t imagine what it will be like when this is built. Council population will double in ten years. Insane, stupid, greedy planning.
March 13, 2015 at 2:13 PM
let us hope council go for a open space contribution instead of the money with this monster. A wide green strip running from East Boundary Rd, running through the estate connecting to Marlborough Street Reserve at the rear would be a good town planning outlook
March 13, 2015 at 2:21 PM
Community is being sold the same bullshit that they copped from the mrc and caulfield development. Setbacks are whittled back from 8 to 6 metres and there is other fiddling too. The developer and council would have had plenty of private little chats and there is even a retail impact statement so council can pull the other leg about this being “indicative” and they’ve got no idea what the development plan will look like. Bullshit and double bullshit. That’s how this council always bends over backwards to assist gross over development and residents get not a cracker of any value in return. It’s a done deal like the caulfield village.
March 13, 2015 at 4:31 PM
I would offer up the proposition that Glen Eira is reaching its critical point in terms of adequate infrastructure required to cope with the massive increase in developments. Drains have not been coping for decades in certain areas. Traffic is at a standstill in countless main and local roads and sufficient open space does not exist. All population predictions look like they will be exceeded by thousands in a quarter of the time predicted. The “green, gregarious, garden” city of Glen Eira is rapidly becoming a “grey concrete” nightmare.
March 13, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Anyone know if the 4400 dwellings are exempt from third party objection rights like what happened with the mrc?
March 13, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Despite all the deliberate obtuseness of the language, it is our understanding that residents do NOT HAVE third party appeal rights. This amendment mirrors what occurred with the C60. Although the language of ‘incorporated plan’ is not used in this instance, the end result is identical.
For those residents interested in the history, and the ongoing shenanigans regarding this site, we urge them to revisit the following, and to note very carefully the council resolution from 2010. We also wonder why the call for a Section 173 agreement with the developer (if it exists) has never been made public, and does not rate a mention in this latest report. Please see:
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/residents-beware-another-caulfield-village-around-the-corner/
March 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM
The Virginia Park is a big site. That doesn’t mean that it is suitable for this kind of housing density. By the time it is built more and more commercial or retail sizes will be cut back so that they can place extra residential housing onto the land. Exactly the same that has happened with the Caulfield Village site. Also like the Village this has been going on for about ten years. A well organised incremental step by step invasion with council’s complete blessing.
March 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM
None of the people making these decisions live in Glen Eira. They do their work then get in their car and drive to other places that are blessed with open space and administered by people with foresight.
March 16, 2015 at 11:13 PM
None of the officers may live in Glen Eira but councillors for sure do. They end up making the formal decisions. They can knock this on the head right off if they want to. They don’t want to because they won’t go against what Newton and his mates want or they are just plain stupid and swallow all the guff that is put under their nose.
March 14, 2015 at 6:11 PM
Another amendment that stinks to high heaven
March 15, 2015 at 9:39 AM
hey, we should all be getting a rate reduction with all this future inflow of rates
March 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM
It’s hard to know what GECC is trying to achieve since they keep contradicting themselves and make inconsistent decisions. The area is obviously poorly served by public transport, certainly by “fixed route” transport [trams and trains]. Creating a dense residential precinct without matching employment in the area is a poor planning outcome. C2Z is intended to provide intensive employment; C1Z much less so. I don’t doubt the property’s owners can make more money if the whole area is zoned C1Z and developed primarily for dwellings. Developers are permitted to purchase influence in planning decisions in Victoria through their [mostly undisclosed] donations. There is an existing “Development Plan” covering the area but what is proposed, in my view, is not generally in accordance with that Plan. If so, this has the side-effect of temporarily restoring Review rights. These rights will again be extinguished if the proposed Amendment is eventually adopted.