The plans for the development of Virginia Estate have taken a new turn with the proposed ‘partnership’ between council and the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA). This government body is primarily charged with the responsibility of overseeing ‘urban renewal’, especially in growth areas. They are also involved with large development sites within the metropolitan area such as the Monash/Clayton precinct and now East Village. Here is what their brief states –
All of the above would indicate that government, developer and council are keen to push through rezoning and amendments that will set the ball rolling for Virginia Estate. There is no doubt that at the latest stated figure of 24 hectares, Virginia Estate will be developed, and a very large component will feature residential accommodation. What concerns us is the role that the community will play in this development. The letter from the VPA, included in the agenda, outlines a brief timetable schedule. Please note carefully the following:
- The time frame for the ‘delivery’ of a draft structure plan for the site is basically 3 months. Yet, the officer report keeps insisting that this will be part of council’s review of its ‘activity centre strategy’ – not due to be completed until 2018 at the earliest. Thus, what porkies are we being fed?
- Why aren’t the community involved right from the start instead of having the draft structure plan thrust down their throat and then asked to comment? We all know what this means and how little is changed once the ‘draft’ of anything is completed.
- Why does the officer report emphasise ‘business’ and ‘residential’ barely rates a mention?
We’ve uploaded the proposed schedule. Clearly discussions between government, developer and council have been ongoing for some time given this timeframe. We’ve also uploaded the full agenda item (HERE) so readers can see for themselves the lack of real detail provided.
In conclusion, VPA does have a role here and council is undoubtedly better off financially if much of the cost comes out of government and developer coffers. What we are concerned about is the level of genuine consultation with the community and whether development gets the go ahead well and truly before infrastructure, transport, etc. is completed.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 5, 2017 at 10:16 AM
Has taken Glen Eira 10 years to commence the structure plan process for some small areas and the Virginia Park one will be finished by July. On the back of the Officer recommendation for mandatory eight levels in Ormond, are the Councillors working for the people of Glen Eira or the State Government?
State Government objectives should not be put ahead of the local long term requirements though the exploitation of a very very very very very poor Planning Scheme. Councillors must protect this weakness from being further exploited and this is now a water shed period for them. Have they got the integrity to represent our best long term interests or are we back to where we started from?
February 5, 2017 at 10:07 PM
10 years to start structure planning and council still wants another 2 years to get 3 done but they can get this one done in 3 months. Incredible.
February 5, 2017 at 10:35 AM
VPA is a property developer. GECC is the responsible authority and planning authority for the site. A “partnership” would be a major conflict of interest. The reason why the developer wants the site rezoned is so they can build more units and make more money. The reason why they can’t is because a portion of the site is explicitly zoned to encourage employment. Without that protection there would be minimal employment.
The whole site is poorly located with respect to public transport. The bus service is infrequent, and State Government demonstrated its contempt for the area when it refused to reroute key bus services. C’mon Council, publish how long it takes on average for a round trip from Carnegie Urban Village to GESAC by bus.
I see in today’s Age yet another article exposing poor planning practice by GECC, VCAT, and State Government. GECC’s response to the known issue about lack of dwelling diversity has been to argue with the Minister that the planning scheme shouldn’t be reviewed, and when finally forced to, decided that only the commercial zones in activity centres would be given much attention. As the article reveals, Council has absolutely no clue what the diversity of dwellings within the municipality looks like, yet the scheme is riddled with references to the topic.
February 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM
Property developers 100%. All you have to do is take a look at who is sitting on the board of the VPA. All come from the private development industry or ex bureaucrats and one ex politician with a controversial past. A couple of community people should have been on this board too if it was to have any credibility.
https://vpa.vic.gov.au/about/our-board/
February 5, 2017 at 7:39 PM
The vultures are gathering, this little East Boundary Rd baby can line many expensive suit pockets.
February 5, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Don’t like any of this. They wanted 4000 boxes on 12.5 hectares so what are they going to want on double the size now.
No train, no tram, mega cars, and no decent exits to north, centre or east boundary. A nightmare around the corner for anyone travelling along here or living nearby. Plus you don’t come up with these arrangements in 5 secs. There’s been plotting and meetings going on for ages I bet. Dumb residents and even councillors would be the last to know.
February 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM
We’ve checked the legislation and there is currently the Victorian Planning Authority Bill 2016 up in parliament. It has had its second reading and will now proceed to the Upper House. Part of this bill, which isn’t different to the previous authority we believe, states –
“The Authority must not give advice or provide
assistance under subsection (1)(b) unless the
Minister, or a person authorised by thhe Minister,
has approved the giving of advice or the provision
of assistance in a specified case or class of cases.”
Given this and previous ‘requirement’ it is clear that if councillors are being asked to accept this “partnership”, that much water has already flowed under the bridge – so to speak. Backroom machinations are seemingly alive and well.
February 5, 2017 at 1:21 PM
https://www.domain.com.au/news/melbourne-apartments-number-of-bedrooms-hard-to-pinpoint-as-developers-reign-20170203-gu35rn/
February 5, 2017 at 6:11 PM
Council voted unanimously to reject Amendment 126. It is well known that when residents are included in the planning process from the beginning the best outcome is achieved. Council was able to vote unanimously to reject Amendment 126 because residents provided them with sufficient information not to have to go to a planning meeting. What has changed? We still need to know what council plan to allow developers to do. Everybody acknowledges that this site is large and unique. What an opportunity to do something worthwhile that will benefit all the residents who live near this site not just build more apartments, traffic jams and parking problems. Let’s work together to be proud of the decisions made to develop this site.
February 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM
This doesn’t sound good for residents. When the Caulfield village was being decided the council line was that the government wants it and there’s nothing we can do so we had better compromise. Now with direct government involvement and Gillon company dollars, I don’t see how the argument will change much. The con is up and running big time.
February 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM
How typical. Followed tip above to check out the board of VPA. Not reassured—it’s stacked with members of the development industry. Saw the claim: “Victorian Planning Authority’s project list is set out in the Victorian Government’s statement of expectations for the organisation”. Thought I’d read it. Neither their website nor google can find it. Noted a blurb that “it is MPA’s [sic] role to ensure that we continue to enjoy our world renowned liveability by retaining access to jobs, affordable and quality housing, public transport, cycling and walking paths and the services we need”. Doesn’t sound much like the Virginia Estate deal.
February 6, 2017 at 11:09 PM
Don’t trust any of THEO’S THEOPOULOS’S DECISIONS AFTER HE SOLD OUTTHE UNFORTUNATE RESIDENTS OF KEW COTTAGES IN THE INTERESTS OF RICH DEVELOPERS AND AT A COST TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IN THE INIRECT SUBSIDY OF A FAILED VENTURE.
THE BIGGEST LOSERS ARE STILL THE FORMER RESIDENTS OF THE KEW COTTAGES.