Item 9.6 Virginia Park Estate
Prior to reporting on this item, some background information is vital so that readers can put the following into perspective.
- In the past few council meetings alone, 3 proposed draft amendments have been rejected by councillors. Not one single councillor stated why this should not occur with this particular amendment. Instead there was the ad nauseum repetition of the ‘first step in the process’ etc. Past history shows that this is generally nothing more than double-speak for ultimate ‘approval’ of the amendment.
- Not one single councillor stated that third party objection rights did not exist beyond the amendment. For all the talk about the community expressing their views (when they know absolutely nothing about the ‘detail’ of the proposed plan) is precisely what happened with the Caulfield Village fiasco. The only difference between this proposal and the Caulfield Village is that it will be 9 councillors to decide instead of the annointed 4, and the doubling at least of the number of dwellings.
- The machinations and back room dealings over this site go back many, many years. Amendment C75, restricted residential development to only the centre of the site. Only one tiny sentence in the original officer’s report mentioned the fact that ten storeys was envisaged. Now it is proposed to make the entire site ‘suitable’ for residential. Magee claims that council and councillors were left in the dark and the Gillon letter of June 17th was asking ‘assurance’ that Council would support the amendment. Then in an email written by Andrew Newton on the 30th July 2013 to Richard Brice of the minister’s department, as an ‘inducement’ for the introduction of the new residential zones, he wrote – Viginia Park industrial estate (12 hectares): Amendment to be exhibited to rezone all to C1. Expected to be finalised next year. We have to query whether councillors knew of this ‘promise’! Needless to say, no resolution has surfaced which would support such ‘approval’. Nor is Virginia Estate mentioned in any of the Records of Assembly for this period. Again, either the records are are not an accurate representation of the topics discussed or councillors were not informed that this new upcoming amendment had received the nod of approval from the bureaucrats!
- There has been no explanation provided, following a public question, as to why the limited constraints of Amendment C75 are now to be removed with this new amendment (ie setbacks in particular). Basically, we fear, that this is another Caulfield Village in the making and all the bluff and bluster that follows is nothing more than individual grandstanding, and ensuring that all the legal t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted!
- As for Magee’s silencing of Lobo, we suggest that Magee refer to the Local Law meeting procedures. Any councillor has the right to raise a point of order as to ‘relevance’. Gagging councillors with ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that’ is in our view not only incorrect but abuse of his position.
Magee moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ from the chair. Sounness seconded. We point out at this stage that in other councils Mayors must vacate the chair if they move or second any motion. Not so according to the Glen Eira Meeting procedures. More on this throughout the ensuing discussion!
MAGEE: said that the last council group passed an amendment on this in ‘2011 or 2012’. Said that the amendment is up again because it is currently commercial 1 and commercial 2 and with the new zones this gives the developer the ‘opportunity’ to have it all rezoned as commercial one. Claimed that the ‘reasons’ for rezoning are ‘all fair’ but that he has got some ‘serious concerns’. Council got a letter from the Gillon group on the 17th June a ‘few years back’ in 2013. Quoted from the letter which said that they had had ‘discussions with senior officers of the department’ who are in favour of rezoning and that this was to coincide with the introduction of the new zones on July 1st. ‘We seek written confirmation from Council that they would be supportive’ of this rezoning. Magee then said that the ‘developer went straight to the Minister’ and that ‘they had in principle support from them’. Then on the 28th June councillors got ‘some advice from officers’ that the owners hoped this would happen ‘without public consultation’ and that the ‘minister was supportive of this process’. Then there was a ‘follow up letter’ from Elizabeth Miller dated the 24th June when ‘councillors aren’t even aware of this as yet’. Magee quoted her as writing she is ‘supportive of the proposal’ and that this would ‘serve as a model for other precincts to replicate’. Said that the last to ‘know about this were us” the ‘residents of East Bentleigh’. Called this the ‘perfect storm’ and here’s commercial zone in a ‘predominantly’ residential zone with the ‘potential’ for 12, 4 and 6 storeys plus ‘four and a half thousand’ apartments. It would be a ‘mini chadstone’. It will affect amenity and ‘will not be good’. Said every school is ‘full’ with no ‘railway station’ and only ‘one bus that runs along North Road’. Ultimately ‘there is nothing here to support this’. But ‘this is the process of putting it out’ and of ‘going to the community’ and that’s what council ‘wanted’ all along. Magee didn’t think that the community ‘would be supportive’ of the amendment. Went on to say that there is an ‘opportunity’ to develop the land and that the ‘developer has every right to do that’. Magee would prefer that the developer ‘went for a neighbourhood residential zone’.
SOUNESS: called Magee an ‘angry tiger’. Accepted that this is part of the ‘process’ and that there would be many ‘queries’ about the impacts. Said there would also be ‘infrastructure matters’ that shouldn’t fall to council to fix. Talked about the surrounding residential areas and the transition. If a large development is going to happen then he would ‘be looking for’ ‘transport opportunities’ and ‘there are none along here’. But ‘we start to go down this process and see where this process takes us’.
DELAHUNTY: said that Magee reminded them of the ‘dark times’ in planning and the ‘Point Nepean disaster’ when councillors ‘were shocked’ that ‘this sort of process would go on’ in Glen Eira with ‘such an obvious site’. Wondered if any ‘investigative journalist’ would get to the bottom of the relationship between the Gillon Group and the former government. Thought that this is ‘probably a lead worth pursuing’ and that ‘it could have gone ahead without this proper process’. So ‘Council is at step one of a proper process’. Whatever happens the ‘community will have their say’. It’s a ‘massive site’ and does ‘provide’ some jobs and she was looking forward to submissions from businesses because she understood that there were some ‘ownership rights’ involved. Repeated that this is ‘step one of a proper process’ and is the way ‘things should be done’.
PILLING: acknowledged Delahunty’s ‘passion’ but this is the ‘start of the process’ and thought it was ‘quite proper’. Said that with the ‘redevelopment of the site’ there are ‘opportunities there’.
ESAKOFF: said that she was ‘really disappointed with the sorts of comments that I’m hearing’ which make it sound like there is ‘something very underhanded’ going on and that there had ‘been some sort of dealing’ happening. Said that the ‘political side to this’ is both ‘unnecessary and uncalled for’. As a local council they are dealing with an ‘amendment’ and she is ‘very disappointed in what I’ve been hearing’. Said that ‘Mr Burke’ should make sure that ‘we retain those tapes’ of tonight about the ‘comments that have been made’. Went on to say that in comparing what ‘is there now’ to what was there ’50 years ago’. Currently it’s ‘bits and pieces’ but ‘East Bentleigh believe me is coping’ and if there are ‘some residents living there too, they will also cope’. Said she ‘grew up with the North Road bus’ and that it ‘took me ten minutes’ to walk to the bus and ‘three minutes to get to Ormond Station’ – ‘it really didn’t kill me, yet’. ‘The overdramatisation of this item is beyond belief’ plus the ‘political innuendo is moreso – very disappointing’.
HYAMS: asked Torres when the rezoning request came to council.
TORRES: didn’t remember the exact date but it was ‘relatively recently’. Hyams then asked ‘this year?’ and confirmed by Torres
HYAMS: didn’t see anything ‘underhand’ in the developer ‘approaching’ the local member and that the Labor members had also found ‘to their cost’ that they should be ‘advocating’ for East Bentleigh. Apart from the politics the owner is applying for commercial rezoning. The site is ‘underutilised’ and Amendment C75 ‘set up certain heights’ and this amendment ‘won’t change those heights’ or the setbacks. He ‘shares the reservations’ about the impact on the community but this is a ‘step’ in the amendment process. Couldn’t see ‘any reason’ for opposing the amendment ‘going out to the community’. So once they get feedback they ‘might’ decide to go to an ‘independent panel’ or ‘decide otherwise’.
LIPSHUTZ: joined others in saying that he didn’t ‘like the political aspects to this’. But he has some ‘reservations’ about how ‘this property will be developed’. Said that there’s a saying that ‘if you build it they will come’ but if this were Chadstone ‘it might be a good thing’ but whether it’s a good thing or not will ‘come down to the community’ giving their views. Regardless of what councillors might think about ‘appropriate or inappropriate’, the ‘community will have their say’. Said that it is ‘important to do that’ because it’s a huge site and ‘underdeveloped’. Said he doesn’t ‘lionise the developer’ and all this has to be ‘checked very carefully’ because this is a ‘site that can prove’ to be a ‘great benefit to East Bentleigh’ or a detriment. So ‘the community will have their say’.
LOBO: said he could have told Magee to ‘speak to the motion’ (moderators: this comment is in regard to Magee telling Lobo on a previous item to ‘speak to the motion’)
MAGEE: ‘you wouldn’t be allowed to do that!’
LOBO: said this would turn out to ‘be a big Chadstone’ and will impact on ‘neighbouring businesses’ in Tucker,East Boundary and Mackie Roads. They will be ‘suffering’ and ‘maybe closing as a result’. Said that ‘we did not consult on zones’ and ‘we are going to consult on this’.
MAGEE: told Lobo he was ‘incorrect’ in that council did consult in 2010. Said that for ‘clarification’ his comments on Guy ‘were not political statements’ but ‘statements of fact’. He simply quoted from the letters. Said that to the ‘north there is another industrial estate’ and more commercial sites. Thought that ‘in the future’ ‘more will follow’ so if this is to have ‘5000 apartments’ then ‘next door could see the same’. Said that in East Bentleigh there would be ‘upwards of ten thousand’ new dwellings. Called all this a ‘major impact’ on the area, on amenity, and on transport and if there’s a new shopping centre then another impact on existing businesses. ‘But it is Stage 1’ where the community is asked ‘what do you think’. Councillors will then ‘adjudicate’ and have the option of a panel, or do ‘whatever we please’. Said that he thinks the ‘community has a right to know’ what is ‘in store’. Said that he ‘could bet that this has been planned to the last doorway’. Said that the developer ‘knows exactly’ what will be on the site and that the only ‘people who don’t know are you and me’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PS; THE PLOT THICKENS EVEN MORE ON WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN AND HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT. PLEASE SEE THE SCREEN DUMP BELOW AND NOTE THE DATE OF THIS PUBLICATION. Source is: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141104/pdf/42th5bhxvbgp45.pdf
March 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM
The Libs on Council are too obvious.
March 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM
When it comes to major amendments the community’s opinions do not rate. It has always been a charade and panels have invariably backed to the hilt any council position. The only time I can remember where a planning panel decided against council was with the outrageous attempt to remove heritage from the Esakoff property. This was such a bad move that even the minister’s appointments saw the futility of deciding in favour.
I’m having great difficulty in understanding why if every single councillor who spoke was primarily talking up the negatives of this proposed development, why they would then vote in favour of public exhibition rather than saying to the developer a straight out “no”. They’ve done this recently as the post suggests. It should have been done again with the comments made. Expecting coherence is another pipe dream I suppose.
Esakoff’s threat about keeping the tapes is unseemly. She might have grown up in Bentleigh but it is now not the same place. I am also cynical enough to think that the only reason that there will be any consultation on this is because they legally have to go down that path because it is an amendment as is happening with the latest amendment to the development plan for the Caulfield site. Maybe the developer got it wrong first off and he should have tried to rezone the entire site to commercial. Or maybe watching what happened with the mrc he thought that small changes every few years would get him what he wants anyway and that nobody would kick up any fuss about such small changes.
I would really have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listened in on any meetings that happened between Newton the officers and the developer. I wouldn’t hold my breath that any notes from these meetings exist or that they will ever be made public.
March 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM
Matthew Guy is no longer Minister for Planning; Richard Brice is no longer his Chief-of-Staff; Elizabeth Miller is no longer Member for Bentleigh. Of course planning is political, and the government of the day reserves the right to favour the people who donated money to achieve their success. To hell with the community—we simply don’t count.
The unanimous vote in support of the proposed Amendment is an endorsement. Forget the “stage 1” crap—it’s now a foregone conclusion, with the inevitable gradual erosion of amenity, such as further intrusions into setbacks, just as C60 did.
Cr Esakoff is seriously out of order to quote her public transport experiences of 40 years ago in support of the Amendment as if they’re relevant. Indeed it highlights so much that is broken with this Council. They are simply incapable of assessing a proposal against their own policies and those of the Government of the day.
Lousy public transport IS a problem. Poor service frequency discourages patronage. It isn’t good enough to consider just one end of a journey either. People need to reach their destination as well, and there’s even a chance they need to make the return journey later in the day.
The comment about Paul Burke retaining “tapes” is extraordinary. GECC doesn’t provide a “Hansard service”, something that Paul is proud of. Council explicitly, by design, with deliberate intent, doesn’t want members of the public to know what is said by councillors in support of their vote. The veiled threat to defamation proceedings is typical political bluster, intended to silence critics. And who authorised Andrew Newton to make the comments he made in writing? Council? The Mayor? An Assembly of Councillors?
I’m going to make a bold prediction. The Amendment will eventually be adopted, with an expansion of the building envelope, and no commitment from Council or State Government to invest in infrastructure to support the massive residential development. There will be few jobs available, and most of the new residents will have to travel further than walking distance to employment. Unanticipated problems will emerge, for which money will not be available to ameliorate their impact. Open space per person will continue to shrink as will the size of the tree canopy. The future isn’t very attractive.
March 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM
Spot on in all you say reprobate. Esakoff’s threats are appalling but she has had a terrific teacher in Newton.
March 19, 2015 at 1:46 PM
All this clap trap about the community having a say makes me want to spew. We had a say on the mrc stuff and it all fell on deaf ears. They even rolled over when vcat came on the scene. The deal is done and dusted right now and if anyone thinks that they will get another look in at the development plan stage – forget it. I’ve checked the earlier amendment and it says that the development plan should (not must) go out for public consultation. Besides, there will be development plan after development plan. This is caulfield to a tee thanks to this awful council.
March 19, 2015 at 2:03 PM
cashing up for 5000 apartments
http://www.smh.com.au/business/melbourne-sites-fetch-40-million-for-gillon-group-20141204-1201qg.html
March 19, 2015 at 2:31 PM
The drive for rezoning is clearly to allow far more residential development than commercial development. The original Incorporated Plan for the Caulfield Racecourse had 35000 square metres of commercial/retail space in its proposal. When the development plan came in, this was reduced to one third – ie 12.500 square metres.
Residential property we allege brings in a greater return than commercial in most cases. Plus, given the economic climate currently, and the overall downturn in commercial, manufacturing, etc. the associated risks are greater. Hence, it is no surprise that Virginia Park should be moving towards more residential and less commercial – thus making a complete mockery of all that is in council’s version of the various amendments.
As additional proof of our claims, we direct readers to the following link – and please note that the original Virgina Park website is now gone. From this link, readers will see that of the 55000 available space for lease, that in late 2014 nearly half of this space stood empty. – http://web.archive.org/web/20130510171931/http://virginiapark.com.au/en/home.html
By the time the first development plan comes in we anticipate even more claims for greater residential density and a drop in the commercial sector space.
March 19, 2015 at 6:30 PM
Dates tell a story here. Magee says that council received a letter in June 2013 and Gillon had “support” from the department and then the Minister. I’m amused and bemused by the arrogance of Gillon in demanding “written” confirmation that they will have council’s support – but that’s by the by. What occurs to me is that June 2013 was over a year before the elections. Why didn’t Guy just sign off on the deal as he had done with so many others. Council at this stage was an unnecessary appendage. Sounds as if Guy wanted council to do the dirty work and must have told Gillon to apply directly to this welcoming administration and its puppet councillors. If Miller was involved then Gillon had done the rounds. That’s legal but there must have been an almighty hitch that Guy didn’t like. The next best option was to let council handle the whole thing and by that I mean Newton and Akehurst and forget about the councillors.
Some reporter should take up Delahunty’s suggestion and follow this money trail through to the source. A lot of dirty linen will need some good airing after that.
March 19, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Annoyed resident ho is one of the two. actors in the. movie. dumb and dumber? The man has. lost. his marbles. and does. not know the difference. between. day and. night ithout. doing anything. (MODERATORS: final sentence deleted)
March 20, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Magee whenever he has the opportunity has a go on Liberals. He has been well known for this. As a Mayor one would expect to be professional. Magee showed his vindication by moving the item 9.6 from the chair and then voting on it – what a piece of a man.