Council has published its ‘draft’ Structure Plan for the development of Virginia Estate. It has also announced that in the next few weeks it will be calling for expressions of interest for residents to partake in a Community Reference Group. A tad too late we suggest since the ‘draft’ has already been formulated and given past experience very little is likely to change.
The only ‘improvement’ that is clear is the statement that a 1 hectare public open space will be included. Issues regarding schools and transport are still being ‘negotiated’ with the State Government.
The most disturbing aspect of this ‘draft’ Structure Plan is that council’s nominated height limits are in fact even higher than the proposals from the developers. We’ve uploaded the Gillon & Co draft plan as well as the Council nominated version below. Please compare carefully!
No information is forthcoming as to potential number of residential developments, the number(s) and area of retail, etc. More to follow in the days ahead on this item.
PS: Council claims that the above draft is in response to community feedback thus far. At the May forum we reported that residents stated the following:
- Problem with language – people did not know what ‘innovation’ referred to – far too vague.
- More clarity required about the term ‘affordable housing’ and this should be changed to ‘diversity of housing’
- Questions about what ‘village’ means and is this a ‘village’
- Traffic and car parking are major problems
- Desire for low rise townhouses. Some tables nominated a maximum height limit of 3 storeys and others up to 6 storeys.
- Diverse views on the need for another school and whether this should be part of McKinnon High or another new school entirely.
- Open space that wasn’t covered over in concrete
- A new supermarket required but also not a threat to other existing businesses in the area.
- No waiving of car parking spots
- Environmental sustainability across the entire centre including flood mitigation
Council has now decided to amend the ‘vision’ statement. It remains full of gobbledy gook, and DOES NOT address the responses listed above. Below is the original ‘vision’ and then the latest updated version.
East Village will be a thriving, mixed use precinct with a focus on employment, innovation, education and housing affordability. (Version 1)
‘East Village will be a sustainable mixed use precinct with a focus on innovative employment and education opportunities. Enhanced by green spaces and places for people, it will be supported by a diverse range of high quality housing and retail that caters for all.’ (Version 2)
Glen Eira Debates 
June 30, 2017 at 1:38 PM
Of course Mullen’s summary of feedback from the consultation processes made mention of anything and everything except height…..
June 30, 2017 at 3:08 PM
Not a single sentence that even attempts to justify the need for the suggested heights. Parking is ignored completely. I’d like some definition of “high quality” housing.
June 30, 2017 at 2:58 PM
Mixed use includes residential. Potential for 8 storeys to hover over 3 storeys. No mention of passive space but more active and sport areas. The developers should be very pleased.
June 30, 2017 at 3:13 PM
Was it Gillon Group or Council who decided this should be called East Village? And if the former (which it may not be – I honestly don’t know), why do Council refer to it as such?
June 30, 2017 at 3:39 PM
We believe that the first use of the term ‘village’ was a Gillon invention. The MRC also decided to call over 2000 dwellings ‘Caulfield Village’!!!!!!!
June 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM
So is Council’s use of the name not a bit inappropriate?
June 30, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Read the Mullen report and also missing is anything to do with setbacks and building design. That’s what a structure plan is supposed to include I would have thought.
June 30, 2017 at 5:11 PM
This site could have a reasonably large setback unlike the MRC development that duped everyone.
June 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM
Maybe. Then why isn’t it in the report?
June 30, 2017 at 3:58 PM
Gee, I’m very much hoping that the design of the so called east village ends up nothing like that blocked out schematic diagram mapped out by the developers bureaucratic mates at the town hall. It’s a shocker of Alfred Hitchcock proportions, and what’s happening with Elster Creek that cuts through the sites north, east corner. The creeks presents should kill off any attempts at underground carparking on a large proportion of the site. The site will also be under pressure from industrial pollution, so to turn a profit, they are going to have to pull the proverbial white rabbit out of their hat. I guessing ratepayers will pay for the rabbit and hat, and Gillon & Co will make the money disappear, and the town hall mob will do the clapping.
June 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM
I bet knowing our council that the public open space is also for school use. More flats anyone!
As usual the council, well planing dept. Dont give a toss what residents want.
June 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM
Residents are being drip fed info. A bit here, a bit there, and the important stuff is not out in the open. No point in having consultation when nothing that people say gets included.
June 30, 2017 at 8:59 PM
I attended the May meeting. Not one person said anything about 8 stories. Most were in favour of low rise of 3 stories. How the hell does council come up with this height?
June 30, 2017 at 11:25 PM
Developers are now the largest donor group to our political parties, they donate over the table and under the table to our local pollies and word get passed down if you want any future in our town here is what you’ll do.
Recently I saw our Federal member happily coffeeing himself in our local, with two very flash real estate agents. How did I know they were real estate agents, because they had there paraphernalia scattered around the table. 10 to 1 we taxpayers footed that bill.
July 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM
PS. Elizabeth Miller ex MP for Bentleigh is a now working for a prominent local real estate agency.
June 30, 2017 at 10:40 PM
Why criticizing everything?
can you also look at the good things?
July 1, 2017 at 9:28 AM
What a very nice comment, I enjoyed reading it
July 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM
There’s talk about 1 hectare open space. The area is 24 hectares. There’s supposed to be a 5.7% money or land. One hectare doesn’t come close to meeting this.
July 1, 2017 at 10:17 AM
There’s likely more than that 1 hectare amount in the flood zone or directly on top of Elster Creek within the proposed Village Site. it will be interesting to see what Melbourne Water and the newly constituted Elster Creek Catchment Working Group of four councils will have to say about the use of this flood zone and open space.
Below the Core Principles of the working group
Councils and Melbourne Water are committed to cooperating across municipalities and with
water utilities and State departments for the purpose of exploring a whole-of-catchment
approach. Engagement with community members is paramount in developing a common
understanding of effective ways to address the problem.
Specifically, the parties will:
1. Be transparent in all interactions and share information with the intent of establishing a
shared understanding of the factors influencing the problem.
2. Embed a common community engagement language and process that is constructive and
meaningful for community members.
3. Be considerate of each organisation’s respective circumstances, including but not limited
to, community interests, commercial imperatives and strategic contexts.
4. Collaborate to identify evidence-based and innovative solutions with a best-for-regional
catchment community benefit.
5. Ensure opportunities to build community resilience are explored and actively pursued.
July 4, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Something doesn’t add up. The reason for C2Z and its prohibition on Accommodation was to ensure land would be available for employment. The Structure Plan glosses over how many people vs how many jobs will be in the precinct, or even what combination of planning controls are being proposed. It would appear that Gillon is to gets its wishlist and have the entire area rezoned C1Z, in which case GECC will have no control over the outcome.
Also puzzling is just how quiet the report is on the topic of public transport. If fixed-route public transport isn’t considered necessary and buses are adequate, then the entire strategic basis of past Council planning crumbles. Even the choice of the euphemism “East Village” for an area that is NOT a Housing Diversity area is dodgy. North Road/Murrumbeena Road/East Boundary Road intersection is a significant existing problem. What is VicRoads’ plan for it? So many questions, so little information, as always.
July 9, 2017 at 11:50 AM
Consultation by Council is designed to keep residents uninformed. Reality is that it is now twice as big as when the amendment was rejected. The only facts tabled in this document is the map which shows massive high rise development. Let’s not get fooled by the VPA and GEC.