There are many hefty documents associated with this proposal. We will examine each in detail and comment in due course. For starters, we have uploaded the Retail Impact Statement which we are certain will go down like a lead balloon for all traders not only in East Bentleigh, but throughout Glen Eira. Document is available HERE
PS: Since Council doesn’t seem able to get its act together and publish all of the documentation on its website, we’ve taken the liberty of uploading the documents below.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 7, 2015 at 2:00 PM
If my maths is correct I add up 4462 dwellings plus the same amount of retail that is supposed to go into the C60. Adding both together my guestimate is that will mean at least 10,000 new residents from these two megasites together. Might as well forget ever travelling down North and East Boundary plus Centre Road. They will be gridlocked and impassable. Newton’s dreams coming true all in one hit. Hey Delahunty what about social housing? Does that get a mention anywhere? I’m sure that nearby folks will be delighted with the concession of a 20m walkway through to Marlborough Reserve and that’s supposed to be open space.
May 7, 2015 at 2:05 PM
Congratulations to Gillon Group for this excellent analysis of Glen Eira’s trading activities, Glen Eira’s lack of planning in this important area and the business planning Gillon Group is doing to properly develop Virginia Park opportunity.
As an initial first comment I’d say Glen Eira Council should restrict population expansion to commercial zones only and concentrate on supporting trading activities along transport routes to improve accessibility to supermarkets and trading, in particular along Glenhuntly Rd, the Elsternwick and South Caulfield areas.
What a pleasure to read a good strategic document from Deep End Services. Councillors please note.
May 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM
As far as I can see the retail impact statement is fraught with assumptions and some incredible statements. I’ll try and comment in some kind of order.
1. There’s the claim that the development will foster the 20 minute neighbourhood/city pronounced in Plan Melbourne. With no public transport, and huge traffic on North and East Boundary Road, the idea of people walking to the centre to use the supermarket is a myth. Plan Melbourne is supposed to evolve into a 20 minute city that includes employment, services, and walkability. The supermarkets might serve the eventual residents of the site but everyone else will be reliant on cars.
2. The study does admit that local shopping strips in East Bentleigh and others will be impacted. They provide some statistics of between 5 and 9% in lost trade. I would like to see any proprietor or owner of a business – especially ones like Coles and Woolworths, who would be happy with their takings cut by 5% or 9%
3. Council has conveniently removed the commercial centres policy from its planning scheme. Even without this, there is still the obligation to protect local shopping strips. They’ve ignored this in the past with the Caulfield Village development and now there is this. Shopping strips in Glen Eira have much reason to despair in regards to how this council treats its traders.
May 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM
My response to those points:
1. initially, 1250 dwellings are to be built to support the retail hub, with over 4,000 dwellings eventually. In comparison to Carnegie Virginia Park will be a much better and denser arrangement for 20 minute neighbourhood activity centre. I’d say it will be the only one such NAC in Glen Eira.
2. Agree that some traders will lose some business. I doubt that large supermarkets in other areas will lose any business, as Carnegie example shows. I agree with authors that Glen Eira should encourage more large supermarkets in its MACs and NACs.
3. Totally agree that this Glen Eira Council has not and is not protecting shopping strips and their viability. Shame on them. To do it properly they would have to do some structure planning as Gillon Group has done.
May 8, 2015 at 11:03 AM
4000 dwellings with an increased population of say 6000 that has to rely on cars since there is no adequate public transport is not the ideal 20 minute neighbourhood centre. The plans rely on the already overcrowded Gesac for recreation and child care centres in the surrounding suburbs. How many people will live and work in the area is highly questionable too. Nor do we as yet know how many of these apartments will be single bedroom which caters largely I think to a transient population. Putting in 2 supermarkets and a few thousand square metres of other shops and offices is not creating a “neighbourhood” or a sense of community.
May 7, 2015 at 4:01 PM
Bloody hell….
May 7, 2015 at 6:47 PM
Been reading the traffic stuff. A total joke and they want 0.1 spaces per 5 apartments as visitor car parking instead of 1.0 for every 5 apartments. The surveys are a total joke and completely out of date and unbelievable anyway. You can obviously get the results you want when you pay for it.
May 7, 2015 at 7:54 PM
http://localworks.org/pages/supermarkets
http://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/issues/supermarkets-in-australia/
May 7, 2015 at 8:00 PM
‘developments galore’ has a point. Get Glen Eira Council to get rid off the Residential Growth Zone like Bayside and focus on high rise developments only in commercial zones with proper plans for shopping strips. I wonder if any trade associations would be prepared to support residents groups on that? If that would happen there would be an interesting election next year.
May 7, 2015 at 8:27 PM
How many of trade associations reside in Glen Eira? Until the RGZ’s are curbed considerably then only the labor government in Victoria have chances of survival for next term.. Bayside has proved that they have a wise Mayor and Councillors. As regards GE, you know the answer!
May 7, 2015 at 9:56 PM
There is much in these documents that need a full and transparent explanation by council. Otherwise the perception is, and will continue to be, that there is something not quite kosher going on.
On pages 18 and pages 20 of the Community Infrastructure document we find the following respective sentences –
“The 11% public open space contribution agreement that has existed for Virginia Park for some time should be also be taken into consideration as part of these discussions.”
“As per the discussion above in relation to passive open space provision the 11% public open space contribution agreement that has existed for Virginia Park for some time should be also be taken into consideration when discussing with Glen Eira City Council what the most appropriate open space measures should be.”
This is the first mention of any 11% levy! Is this part of an earlier Section 173 agreement? Is it a Development Contributions Levy? How long has this been going on? Has money exchanged hands? If so, where is it and where is it accounted for?
Secondly, this is an AMENDMENT TO REZONE land. Full stop! It should therefore be straight forward. So why are we presented with some documents that resemble Development Plans – yet are lacking as ‘real’ Development Plans aka the C60? Or is this an attempt to bypass entirely the need for a ‘proper’ Development plan?
Any suggestions/answers to these quandaries are welcome!
May 7, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Great questions. Shame that residents have to find out what is going on via developers and not council or councillors.
I can’t make up my mind if these are development plans or incorporated plans or something entirely different nor why they are even here if as gleneira says this is a rezoning amendment and that is all. My gut feeling is that this is setting the scene like with the Caulfield Village and down the track council will say that its already been accepted so anything goes.
May 7, 2015 at 10:35 PM
There are no third party objection rights to Vcat on this one as there wasn’t with C60. Rezoning is necessary in order to cram 4000 plus dwellings onto the land. Putting in all the positives via the numerous associated docs but without really committing themselves to anything is one way of convincing a Panel that it’s a good idea to rezone. Once the rezoning gets through all that is required is council to sign off on any new planning application. And given the C60 experience I wouldn’t want to take any bets that council will reject anything that comes from the developer.
Inroads into the original Schedule are already there in the reduced setbacks. That’s the first wedge. Plenty of others will appear afterwards, once this first hurdle is overcome.
May 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM
C60 was a classic application of salami tactics. Each proposal along the way was carefully crafted to get the approval needed to move to the next step where an even bigger proposal could be submitted but with less scope for affected residents to have a meaningful say. We still don’t know what the end result will be because it continues to grow.
A similar approach to the one used so successfully for the developer of C60 is now being trotted out for C126 [Virginia “Park”]. The extraneous detail is surprising, but almost certainly is less than what the developer will ask for once the Amendment goes through. Council staff is already on side—note the use of various rhetorical devices in the “Explanatory Report” arguing for the Amendment. It’s almost as if council staff just copied whatever the developer sent them.
July 16, 2015 at 10:01 AM
East Bentleigh was recently considered one of the finest suburbs to reside in Melbourne. If this development goes ahead, it’s likely to resemble Manhattan, New York. That might be kosher for some, but not myself who is born & bred in East Bentleigh! As a current resident, it’s only been in recent days this has come to our attention. I believe this is due to the Glen Eira Council, looking to avoid considerable public awareness.