The prize for the most disingenuous, misleading, and completely ignorant or politically expedient comments for the year must go to Delahunty, Magee and Athanasopolous. How anyone in their right mind could even contemplate uttering the sentiment that 20+ storeys of dog boxes is acceptable, given the community’s outcry about height and inappropriate development is simply staggering. But that’s what has happened as exemplified in the following ‘debate’ on the option of seeking mandatory height controls for the Caulfield Village Smith Street Precinct.
First, some explanation is necessary. The approved Incorporated Plan for the entire Caulfield Village project includes the following:
- All stated heights are ‘preferred’ and are not MANDATORY.
- The cited heights are listed according to AHD and for the Smith Street precinct the highest is nominated as 120 metres which is then recorded as ‘typical 20 storeys’.
AHD, or Australian Height Datum involves calculating street level from sea levels. In other words, how much above sea level is the land under discussion. The image we present below comes from the State Government’s Land Services division. It shows the contours of the land. Readers should note that the lie of the land varies from 46 to 49 metres. Since the Incorporated Plan specified 120m AHD that means that the 46 or 49 metres needs to be subtracted from the 120 metres to get any idea of the ensuing height. If we subtract 50 metres from 120 metres, the result is 70 metres above ground level that the building can reach – unless of course the MRC decides to push the buttons on the ‘preferred’ aspect and go for higher. The Building Code of Australia sets a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres. Thus even if we have larger floor to ceiling heights for the commercial ground floor areas, that would still leave approximately 60 metres available for residential purposes. The possible results are that the developer could quite easily construct a building of 25 and above storeys. Nothing binds the developer to a mere 20 storeys as this council would like residents to believe! – and especially not when we have a ‘preferred’ height limit rather than a mandatory one!
Please read the following carefully and decide how well these councillors are representing the community and how much they really understand as to the implications of their voting!
Delahunty moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Magee seconded.
DELAHUNTY: thanked the resident for bringing council’s attention to the issue of ‘additional’ controls concerning heights at a recent council meeting and ‘whether or not we should look at some height controls’. Said the report gave the option that ‘we could apply to the minister to change the height controls’ or they could ‘reserve’ action until after the structure planning is done. Went on to say that ‘at the moment’ the Smith St precinct has height that varies from ’12 to 20 storeys’ and if the developer wanted to go over this height limit then ‘they would have to go through a planning application’. She therefore ‘supposes’ there is a ‘large disincentive’ for the developer to do this. Said she wasn’t ‘of a mind to impose anything additional’ on the developer that ‘isn’t in keeping with that particular precinct’. Her concern was getting ‘nice apartments’ and ‘not how high’ those apartments are. ‘I’m not particularly concerned about that’ or the ‘height of the Smith Street precinct at the moment’ because ‘I do not believe it will go over 20’. Admitted that it has been ‘much debated, much hated, but it is what it is’. It’s on an ‘incredibly major transport hub’ with no open space, but this ‘will change’. ‘So it’s right and proper that it takes a fair bit of development’. ‘So the height is of less concern to me personally’ than who will live there – ie affordable housing. This is where ‘I am suggesting we focus our energies’ and that’s why ‘I endorse that we reserve our considerations’ until the structure planning strategies are done. Said that it was ‘good’ to have to consider this and to have the reminder that there is a ‘built in disincentive for the developer’.
COMMENT
- As to the Incorporated Plan being a ‘disincentive’ this is utter hogwash. If anything it and the history of this project are INCENTIVES, since the MRC has won every battle it has chosen to pursue at VCAT – and all with council’s complicity, or cave- ins. There is no reason to suspect that any future visit to VCAT will result in a different outcome if council does not strengthen its controls. And that, this motion has explicitly refused to do. Readers need to question why?
MAGEE: ‘like you’, I ‘certainly don’t have any issues with a 20 storey building on that site’. Said it can already be ’22 storeys because what we’re talking about is height’ and by lowering the ceilings for each storey they can fit more storeys in. So on the ‘number of apartments’ there is ‘room to move’ but the overall height ‘can’t change’. ‘If you’re not going to put this sort of density around major transport’ hubs then ‘where are you going to put it?’ Went on to say that it does lack open space so ‘where can we find open space’ and implied the racecourse. Said that the precinct will also have commercial areas and that will bring ’employment opportunities’ and ‘right next to a railway station is a great incentive’. Didn’t think they should go to the government and try to get anything that’s ‘not there right now’. What’s there was ‘put in place many years ago and I believe we’ve moved on from that’. Went on to say that this is ‘really a great opportunity for people who don’t want to have a car’ to ‘live in a precinct’ that will give ‘unprecedented opportunities for public transport’ and ‘overlooking’ one of the most valued and ‘new open space’. With developments of this size there are ‘security’ issues but what council is ‘talking about today is not security, not open space, but height limits’. What’s there now is ‘may be not’ what was originally wanted but he thought it could be. ‘detrimental if we try and change that’ because ‘it could be changed the other way and we could see something that is quite significantly higher’
COMMENT
- Money is NOT IN RETAIL, but in residential. That’s why the MRC has almost halved the originally mooted amount of commercial space in the development. For Magee to therefore spruik the ‘employment’ benefits of commercial space is a nonsense. We would not be surprised to find that the next development plan intends to cut the already reduced commercial space by another few thousand square metres and instead go for more apartments. Since nothing about this entire project is ‘mandatory’ the MRC can do what it likes – and it has!
- Just because something has ‘been in place’ for years and has time and again shown to be inadequate is NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT TO TRY AND REMEDY THE SITUATION.
ATHANASOPOLOUS: asked if there was any site within the area that could provide space for ‘consumer car parking’ and whether ‘we’ve ever looked at the opportunity’ provided by the racecourse for ‘visitor car parking’?
TORRES: said it was a ‘private development on private land’ and so ‘the approval doesn’t envisage private car parking but it does envisage providing enough car parking for the various uses’ that will be ‘developed on this land’.
COMMENT
- Athanasopolous’s question to Torres displays not only ignorance of the history of this project – for which admittedly some slack may be given – but surely when a councillor is about to vote on an important issue, he should make it his business to find out about the history of the project. If Athanasopolous had bothered to do his homework he would have found that on the issue of using the centre of the racecourse as a car park, both the community and council for that matter were strongly opposed.
- Torres also needs to be ticked off on his response since it is only half true. The ‘various uses’ may be met, but there is no visitor car parking – agreed to by council!
MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
June 15, 2017 at 12:46 PM
Glen Eira must be the only place in Australia where a 20 storey development could occur in an area without a structure plan.
June 15, 2017 at 1:51 PM
I hate councillors saying it is what it is, or that it’s all in the past. That’s like saying we can’t do anything about it or won’t do anything about it. Like the post says, leaving things be is not an option when residents have been taken to the cleaner so many times already. If you see something isn’t working out then any normal person attempts to change it. This simple rule of thumb applies to everything from the zones to this project to the local law and tree protection. All council and councillors seem to be doing is saying “too bad. It’s the past and we’re stuck with it or we will wait a few more years for Andrews to get things moving”. That is deplorable and negligent. By the time anything is done it will be far too late. Can’t these councillors see that? Maybe they don’t want to.
June 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM
Is Newton workin for the mrc yet?
June 15, 2017 at 2:59 PM
If Mary wants to gain a blue ribbon labor seat to contest one day, this is how it’s done. Stab the residents in their backs, kowtow to the big end of town, and up the track get a nice little donation to cover your campaigning costs. This is the merry-go-round of the career pollies in this town.
Let’s hope they put fire resistant cladding on the Delahuntly Towers or she’ll be toast, like the poor residents in London’s Grenfell Tower.
June 15, 2017 at 4:18 PM
So thats the mayors agenda, makes sense.
June 15, 2017 at 3:08 PM
Magee admits to the possibility of higher than 20 storeys. Delahunty sticks to 20 storeys. Faith in the mrc is unwarranted. My worry is that even if it’s only 22 storeys that means more apartments and lots more people and more pressure on drainage, car parking, open space, rubbish collection and the list goes on and on. There’s already permits for just under a 1000 new apartments. How many the mrc go for in the Smith Street area is anyone’s guess. They would be stupid not to try and get another 1500 apartments in when the council and its agreed to requirements are so lax. I also remember that the original number quoted was only supposed to be 1100 to 1200 apartments. Goes to show how much trust can be put in the mrc or council. The only good I find is that Pilling and Lipshutz are now gone. Unfortunately all the new councillors seem to have very little backbone and are fast becoming pale imitations of Hyams and Esakoff and Newton.
June 15, 2017 at 3:49 PM
I’m glad this has been highlighted. Council has forced many many people out of their homes because of the way the entire development has been handled. My sister thanks her lucky stars she no longer lives anywhere near this hell hole. Now that Caulfield junction is about to be upgraded to a major activity centre it will get worse and worse. I’ve long wanted a full royal comission into the whole mess that looks at government and council and how cooked the whole thing has been. When council lets the mrc get away with everything they want then the smell has become a stink.
June 15, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Nothing in the incorporated plan is worth a cracker. They put in the development plan that gets the okay and then comes an amended development plan for more apartments. Council says how high do you want me to jump and I’ll jump. The new mob began jumping the day they were elected. Tragic.
June 15, 2017 at 9:33 PM
oFF TOPIC but definitely of importance – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/london-tower-fire-could-happen-here-australian-buildings-cloaked-in-flammable-cladding-20170615-gws15r.html
June 15, 2017 at 10:01 PM
Just look at the apologists coming out of the woodwork to cover the backsides of the illegal Chinese claddings importers/developers (It’s worthwhile to remember that the fire rated compliance stickers attached to cladding on Lacrosse Tower at Docklands where fakes)
We now seeing the effects of the power donations buy from these selected people in high places, and it looks like it’s gone far deeper than the reported Lib/Lab politicians
It looks like buying powers means never have to front-up and explain, as your paid lackeys fall over each other to do this for you.
Even if it means saying things like “this could never happen here, after it already has happened here”
Absolutely astounding behavior coming to the forefront, of this very crooked and increasingly corrupt building industry spokespersons.
June 15, 2017 at 9:42 PM
I was at the meeting when a lady asked that council also take a look at the number of storeys allowed. I remember that Delahunty had to ask what the ahd was because she didn’t know. One of the officers then said that the lady was correct and there could be more than 20 storeys. If this is the case then how come there is no mention of this in what the report went on about. Selective memory I guess and since these comments aren’t in the minutes they can get away with things.
June 16, 2017 at 2:30 PM
The Incorporated Plan only ever talked about “indicative storeys”, and deliberately understated what could be built within the generous building envelope. With 2.4m ceiling height, the intention is clearly to pack in more dwellings than the Plan envisaged. It also means the amenity impacts of more dwellings has not been assessed.
Council has got itself into a mess about preferred heights, having failed to articulate strategic reasons for having them. One reason is to ensure equitable development potential for a precinct while providing reasonable amenity for current and future residents. Council has rejected that as a justification. Why did it want only 4 or 5 storeys in Bentleigh but 6 or 7 in Carnegie? It can’t be street orientation given the inconsistencies. Tall buildings cast large shadows which makes it impossible to provide reasonable amenity if several of them are constructed side-by-side.
Council has now admitted it has abandoned any pretence of maintaining amenity in its established residential areas, having repeatedly supported the Minister weakening amenity protections without public scrutiny. One manifestation is its refusal to assess large developments against the Guidelines For Higher Density Residential Development.
VCAT has formally ruled that the appropriate quantity, quality and type of social housing is NONE in the precinct, despite it being an explicit Decision Guideline for Priority Development Zone 2 [PDZ2], the alleged Caulfied Mixed Use Area. Soon the Government will remove notice and review rights for substandard developments that provide social housing on a small scale, rather than tackle the obvious plannng failures of large developments. Too much money involved.