The latest outrage in development applications concerns 9-13 Derby Road, Caulfield East. Advertising has now finished for an application that proposes:
- 18 storeys
- 158 student accommodation units ranging in size from 15 square metres to 32 square metres. Please note that both Monash and Whitehorse have a requirement in their planning scheme about minimum size of apartments and Monash stipulates that for ‘self-contained’ units the minimum size be 24 square metres of floor area. Such clauses are absent in the Glen Eira planning scheme!
- 1 shop of 151 square metres
- A car parking waiver of over 40 car parking spaces
- Under a Heritage overlay
The fact that this has not been refused outright at manager level is astounding given that various other applications of the recent past have not been advertised at all. Recent manager refusals include the Development Plan for Precinct 2 of Caulfield Village (400+ units); 8 storeys in Hawthorn Road; 7 storeys in Neerim Road and another 8 storeys in Rosstown Road. Yet this one gets through unscathed! Why? We can only surmise that this is because of the state of the current planning scheme and the wheeling and dealing that is going on between Monash, the VPA, Council, State Government, and other vested interests in the Phoenix Precinct area.
To rub further salt into the wounds the planners can’t even proof read properly, or don’t even know where the site is located – ie Hawthorn East! Because the area is zoned Commercial 1 it is therefore okay to have zero permeability and 95% site coverage on a 540 square metre block.
Finally, here is what it purports to look like –
April 21, 2017 at 8:31 AM
Disaster written all over this, why wouldn’t the Manager knock it back. This Council is seriously dysfunctional. As another example setting up a consultation group to find out what the community want. After all the feedback from the Planning Scheme Review and other forums with only very minor changes they will now consult more. Absolute joke but not funny at all.
April 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM
My bed is about 4 square metres, and they want a whole unit to be 15.
I don’t think that is good enough. Students are people, not cattle to be penned up for someone’s profit.
April 21, 2017 at 9:18 AM
This area is chockas day and night and its rubbish that students these days dont have cars.
April 21, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Hard to believe that this even gets to first base. It looks disgusting and the whole area is heritage. I can imagine what the shadows will be doing. You can forget sunlight or any natural light if this get up.
April 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM
The plans have already been removed from online planning applications register. Extraordinary that Council is so prompt here and so lackadaisical about builders and developers who transgress its Local Law. Clearly the application fails to comply with the purposes of the Heritage Overlay; doesn’t meet the Better Apartments “standards” [although technically it is exempt]; falls well short of some key requirements in the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. All in all, it’s a crock. That won’t stop VCAT though—it’s not a 1968 office building designed by Yuncken Freeman.
April 21, 2017 at 12:25 PM
This exemplifies the term “inappropriate development” on all counts – heritage, neighbourhood character, apartment sizes, traffic and parking, density, open space, overshadowing and so on.
April 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Heritage a joke for council. Pack em in.
April 21, 2017 at 1:24 PM
Welcome to sardine city!!! A shocking skyscraper in a congested area. We are doomed. Really need a new political party to challenge all of this excessive immigration and development.
April 21, 2017 at 4:29 PM
Absolutely correct. Add in another 1000 or so apartments for the mrc, plus at least 800 student accommodation for Monash and even sardines wouldn’t stand a chance.Grid lock and dead lock all round. 51 bicycle racks for 158 cubby holes and only 14 on site car parking spaces and no visitor parking I assume will for sure solve the problem of transport.
Council has forgotten this commercial area completely in all their talk of structure planning. What a surprise!
April 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM
https://m.realestate.com.au/property-residential%20land-vic-caulfield+east-201757470 2 houses sold as one in nrz. Please explain
April 22, 2017 at 5:50 PM
Developer would have bought the properties as a ‘consolidated lot’ and given the size (1600sqm) and the removal of 2 per block mandatory requirement this is set for major development.
April 24, 2017 at 5:50 PM
If I am looking at the map properly, those are two beautiful old homes. OMFG.
May 3, 2017 at 1:12 PM
They knocked it back last night at Council. Now off to VCAT I suppose…