Here is part of the blurb that the developers for the Virginia Estate have published.
Source: http://www.eastvillagemasterplan.com.au/future-needs/
Population Growth and Make-up
- Melbourne’s estimated population of 4.5 million in 2015 is projected to reach 5.3 million by 2025 and almost 6 million by 2031.
- At this growth rate Glen Eira will not be able to accommodate its share of Melbourne’s projected population growth in the next 15 years.
- Of the established local government areas in metropolitan Melbourne, Glen Eira has the highest proportion of its residential areas covered by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) – the zone that gives the greatest protection to existing residential character and densities.
- The 84% coverage of Glen Eira’s residential areas by the NRZ will be a major factor in slowing population growth levels, limiting housing diversity and choice.
- Bentleigh East has no appropriately zoned land for higher density housing other than the possible redevelopment of small areas of business land in the Centre Road shopping area.
- Based on the latest State Government ‘Victoria in Future’ population projections (2015), there is a projected need for an additional 7,500 dwellings in Glen Eira over the 15 year period from 2016 – 2031 of which 68% will be either ‘couples without children’ or ‘lone person’ households.
COMMENT
There are several unsubstantiated claims in the above which need to be seriously challenged. For example:
On what basis is the statement made that Glen Eira ‘will not be able to accommodate its share’ of population growth when the total number of new net dwellings in the municipality has risen by at least 350% for the past 3 years in a row? The planning scheme claims an average of 600 new dwellings per year is required. In 2014/15 Glen Eira had over 2000 net new dwellings. In the first quarter of 2015/16 (July to September) the figure, according to Planning Permit Victoria was 559 net new dwellings. For the second quarter this number rose to 634 net new dwellings. Thus, at least another 2200 new dwellings in a year if this rate continues. We also mustn’t forget that Newton and Hyams promised Guy an 80+ year supply of land and an 89 year supply if the comnmercial zoning is taken into account. Thus the ability to ‘accommodate’ new dwellings is well and truly there without the grand vision of potentially thousands more at Virginia Estate!
Given that ‘residential’ remains undefined, we seriously query the statement that Glen Eira from all its neighbours has the highest percentage of land zoned as Neighbourhood Residential. Bayside for example claims over 80% of its land is zoned NRZ whilst Glen Eira only claims 78%. Even this figure is a myth – NRZ constitutes just under 70% of the municipality and if the number of LARGE sized lots which can legally have many more than 2 dwellings are taken into account, then Professor Michael Buxton estimates that the Neighbourhood Residential Zones in Glen Eira amount to a paltry 55% of the municipality.
The most unbelievable claim however is that Bentleigh East has only ‘small areas of business land’ available for ‘higher density’ development. Not true! Bentleigh East has more land zoned as Commercial 1 than Elsternwick or Carnegie – both of which are supposed to be Major Activity Centres and Bentleigh East is a Neighbourhood Centre. Only Bentleigh (a Major Activity Centre) has more land zoned as commercial than Bentleigh East. The figures (in square metres) are:
Bentleigh East – 136,551
Bentleigh – 149, 768
Carnegie – 134, 415
Elsternwick – 125,628
Gillon et al are correct however in stating that the latest government population projections (ie Victoria in Future) state that there will be a need for another 7500 dwellings from 2016 to 2031. This figure will be well and truly met within the next 4 years at the current rate of over 2000 net new dwellings per year. And, please remember that this doesn’t include the additional 1500+ dwellings for the Caulfield Village Project that will be coming up pretty soon. In short, Glen Eira will well and truly have fulfilled its fair share of ‘accommodating’ population growth by 2020 – much less by 2031! Of course, no one dares say what figure equates with this ‘share’, nor what ‘capacity’ is and how much all of the necessary infrastructure upgrades will cost and whether or not any of this over-development is sustainable!
Gillon et al also claim that ‘couples without children’ and ‘lone households’ represent 68% of the required 7500 new dwellings. Not so! The Victoria in Future figures which they rely upon (see below) forecast that there will be 16,810 ‘couple only’ households, and 19,690 ‘one-person’ households in 2031. That makes a grand total of 36,500 households. The overall projection for 2031 is 67,295 households. Hence, the percentage is not 68% as claimed, but rather 54.23% on these figures.
We make these points not because we want to indulge in nit-picking, but when information is put before residents so that they can have an ‘informed’ say, then it is incumbent on the distributors of that information to ensure that it is accurate, honest, and not designed to obfuscate at best and mislead at worst.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Thank you for this post. I will never ever trust what developers put out in their spruiking. I also don’t trust this council. It is heading down the same road as the c60 and you can bet that there has been plenty of secret discussions with officers and some councillors already.
January 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM
The whole exercise here is admitted to be a result of poor public relations in the first attempt. I don’t know how useful it really is. Residents are being asked to comment on something that is unknown and will remain unknown until a proper development plan is put in. I can’t believe that Gillon and his friends don’t already have some firm ideas in mind about how many dwellings they need to come out with a few million dollars each in profit. They might have to give up a little more land for public open space but that is fine when the size of the land has gone up by more than a third. Most of this consultation boils down I think to window dressing and an argument that can be put to council and the minister – look people support us. The battle will be on when the plans come in.
January 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM
Never let the truth get in the way of a good self-serving story
January 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM
Probably half of what is being built now is one and two bedroom apartments. Downsizing is already well catered for. What is lacking are three and four bedroom places that families can occupy comfortably. Remember caulfield village that has half as one bedroom and they decreased the numbers of three bedrooms to one bedroom with the amended plans. The writings on the wall here too.
January 22, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Interesting thing about Caulfield Village, at the Planning Conference related to Amended Development Plans 1, held to discuss the switch from 3 bedroom apts to an increase in 1 and 2 bedrooms, was the developers contention that their sole motivation for doing so was their concern for surrounding residents.. That concern being expressed as their offering of 3 bdr residences would adversely impact the marketability of existing surrounding single/double storey 3 bdr residences.
Should have seen the “what the f**k looks” on the developers (who had obviously spent considerable time coming up with and convincing themselves that residents would buy this argument) was greeted with resident’s guffaws, The “look” was only surpassed by the developer’s inability to respond to residents questions, based on published documentation, re the overseas marketability of 3 bedroom vs. 1 or 2 bdr units.
January 22, 2016 at 9:22 PM
Gillon has good connections with the liberal party. For the first application Leader reported that Elizabeth Miller and Hyams had communications between them. Not sure of the contents unless someone remembers the specifics.
January 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
Prima facie they appear to be in breach of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and its prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct. The rezoning from C2Z to C1Z, which is what Gillon group is angling for, is intended to give them commercial advantage, and any factually-challenged argments that can’t be substantiated but may influence our unredeemed councillors should be reported to ACCC.
The proposed rezoning isn’t necessary, and it isn’t supported by current council policy. Here’s what a meeting with the Minister recorded: “Council believe that there is more than enough supply for housing development—85-year supply based on current housing construction” [25/7/2013].
We have 101ha zoned C1Z, with no height limit, and no minimum amenity standards. Imagine if 50% of it was redeveloped at 6 storeys and 80sqm average apartment size. There’s 38000 dwellings in C1Z alone. Or RGZ where a typical yield is 20 dwellings per 700sqm: another 21000 dwellings at 50% redevelopment [minus the loss of existing dwellings: edwardian homes, california bungalows, anything that provides visual pleasure].
An uncomfortable fact is that if the entire municipality was redeveloped to the maximum that the current Planning Scheme allows, we couldn’t cope. No government, state or federal, is prepared to make the sort of investment required to support that density. Under the current permissive rules, we can’t even control the density or ensure it is distributed such that the capacity of infrastructure is only “reasonably exceeded” [in lawyerese: “should not unreasonably exceed”].
Another reason I’m dead against the Gillon plan is that it involves people and institutions that simply are untrustworthy. We have C60 as an example, where at every step people lied or were indifferent to the consequences. It is karma that Matthew Guy lost his job, along with the brazen supporter of Gillon, Elizabeth Miller.
January 25, 2016 at 10:30 AM
We need to challenge the growth is good mantra & the excessive population growth that is mainly due to high immigration rates.
Australia’s immigration intakes since 2000 have steadily risen from 80,000pa to over 235,000 pa last year. Add the foreign investment boom on top of that and high rises are being hammered harder than ever.
And where is all the infrastructure to cope with this???
January 30, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Some interesting points have been raised here. We agree with the first point and have softened our statement on the East Village engagement website to make it clear it is our forecast about Glen Eira not being able to meet forecast demand for dwellings. We expect to be able to go into more detail about forecasts and other demographic issues as we progress through the consultation steps. There will be more news shortly about community sessions in late February to get feedback on this and other ideas for input in the master plan
January 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM
Good to see that you are prepared to change aspects of your statements. This begs the question of why it was allowed to be published in the first place. I see that you have altered one thing only on your website. What about the other points that have been made in this post? To be perfectly frank, I don’t like the idea that it is up to residents to point out the fallacies in your publicity. If you are paying consultants then they should be beyond questioning. Or is this another example of the public relations disaster that occured last time with the phone call outs and survey?
I respectfully suggest like the post does, that if you want residents onside, then the best way to achieve this as a starting point is to provide information that is 150% truthful and accurate.