When big money is involved (for both developers and council) then transparency and truth are the inevitable victims. We revisit the Virginia Estate proposal since the claims by the developer, council officers and councillors appear to be at odds and are strikingly reminiscent of what occurred with the Caulfield Village enterprise. Here’s why:
- Gillon cites 1250 new dwellings in this week’s Leader articles. In the officer’s report the figure of 4,400 was stated. Magee even claimed 5000 new dwellings.
- Caulfield Village started off with a proposed figure of 1100 dwellings. At this stage it has ballooned out to over 2000 – on a site that is half the size of Virginia Estate. We anticipate further increases once the remaining development plans are submitted.
- How council can cite 4,400 new dwellings and Gillon only 1250 needs explanation – especially when the existing amendment (or equivalent of the Caulfield Village Incorporated Plan) grants permission for towers ranging from 4 to 10 storeys.
- Council quotes directly from the ‘Retail Impact Statement’. Hence detailed documentation by Gillon does exist. It would also have existed when they approached the department and the Minister. Undoubtedly private discussions between Gillon and Council have been going on for some time. Requests for changes to setbacks and other conditions of the current amendment are not agreed to without some clear indication of why this is needed. Setback reductions can only mean more land for more development. Council’s reasons for agreeing to this are top secret as revealed in the non-answer to this public question –
“In 2011 Council resolved that the schedule for Amendment C75 maintain the 8 metre setback to East Boundary Road. The officer report now states: “The DPO will be amended to require that any land development within 6 metres of the East Boundary Road must be to Council’s satisfaction”. Why and on what basis has it been recommended to renege on a previous council resolution and the terms of the gazetted Schedule 2?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“The request to change the existing DPO is a new amendment process and is totally separate to Amendment C75. The proposed changes to the existing DPO will be required to go through a full
public exhibition and independent panel process. At the conclusion of the amendment process, Council can decide to either support or reject this amendment.”
And as with the Caulfield Village fiasco, residents are the last to know what is really going on. Yes, a ‘public information event’ might be held. But how much veracity residents can rely on from both council and the developer is the real question! Finally, as has already been noted – when each and every councillor basically spoke against the requested amendment, why on earth did they vote to exhibit rather than reject! Given Andrew Newton’s email to the Minister’s Office, the writing is on the wall that the proposed Amendment will be pushed through – aka Caulfield Village!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 25, 2015 at 11:35 AM
Hell of a difference between 1250 and 5000. Someone is bullsh*****g big time
March 25, 2015 at 1:20 PM
It is inconceivable that there should be such a large discrepancy between the two versions of the proposed development. I’m also struggling to understand how Gillon’s claims that this would be ten times smaller than Chadstone could be allowed when the previous amendment put a cap on further retail in one of the precincts at 2000 square metres. Much does not tally in any of this and I can’t find anything in the officer’s report which mentions this. It leaves me skeptical that the end result will be good news for existing local retail businesses and residents.
March 25, 2015 at 3:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadstone_Shopping_Centre
The link says that Chadstone contains around 130,000 square metres of retail space today. If this development is to have retail at “ten times smaller than Chadstone” that makes it around 13000 square metres or 10.4% of the total site by my arithmetic leaving up to 90% for housing and enough land to build multiple times more than Gillon’s 1250 dwellings – particularly when there will be heaven knows how many ten storey blocks and numerous six storey blocks.
March 25, 2015 at 6:13 PM
I reckon the town planning bods are right out of their depth.
This is mega stuff. The caulfield village went through lots of hoops and
took some years.
March 25, 2015 at 8:12 PM
The town planning bods do what they are told. Planning has got nothing to do with anything
March 25, 2015 at 6:16 PM
Onr tenth the size would be a clearer expression
March 25, 2015 at 9:17 PM
im am worried about the MRC. Most of their carpark is now a construction site. Where will patrons park their cars?
March 25, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Right in the middle of the park.
March 26, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Maybe the MRC thinks no-one much willl like to attend their meetings when the vision of the track as in the screen which is bigger than any in the hemisphere will send patrons elsewhere and parking well be no question. Otherwise they will just take over our “park” in the centre if we don’t all contact the Minister for Dept. Environment,Lands Water and Planning (DELWO). I think this ALP Govt, has really taken Auditor General’s “Study of the Management of CAULFIELD Racecourse Reserve” (it is on internet released 18 Sept 2014) as needing action. The more letters/emails telling the Dept, Of the urgency and “robbery” public land the better. The study of the “entry points” on page 38 of the report is a point well worth raising with the DELWP as our 3 “wise councillors” are obviously not working on this issue and according to a letter from the mayor they are at CRRT meetings as individuals so we must keep on keeping on at this issue as we are to have perhaps eight thousand new residents on the whole 5.5 hectares*MRC Carpark area) in no time and they will need a breath of fresh air. There will not be foot room at Caulfield Park for them and all the other new residents who are to occupy many new developments which are taking place.