We continue our analysis of the Urban Design document and remain astounded at the continued lack of accurate information this contains, plus the failure to provide all the necessary data to provide readers with the opportunity to make fair and objective comparisons.
The screen dump provided below is supposed to represent a matrix of ‘comparable’ developments.
What is not stated in this matrix, or what is completely misleading is the following:
- McKinnon and Ormond stations can only be less than 2km away if we interpret this measurement as meaning ‘as the crow flies’. Driving or walking distance is well over 2km for both McKinnon and Ormond. Nor is there any commentary from the other documents as to where all these potential residents are to park their cars at either of these stations!
- Left out of the matrix is the summary that the French example also has ‘light Rail and Metro running through the precinct linking it to other parts of the city’. Nor is the 35 hectares of public open space highlighted! This equates to 23.33% of the entire site being public open space in contrast to the Virginia Estate proposals of approximately 1.25% open space if we’re working on an area of 3000-4000 square metres in total.
- The residential density for this French site would also amount to 33 dwellings per hectare in contrast to the Estate’s proposals of 125 dwellings (and that’s working on the stated 3000 dwellings which we predict will be much higher)
- The Alphington Mills development is also well blessed with public transport – ie It is approximately 1.5kms from Fairfield station and 850m from Alphington station, and is well connected to the bus network.
- What is not revealed in this matrix, or anywhere, about Alphington is that of the proposed 2500 dwellings, the vast majority are to be no more than 4 storeys in height! The 2013 Development Plan for the site only has one small corner fronting Heidelberg Road at 14 storeys. The Yarra council commenting on the revised Development Plan had this to say – Council was pleased that the DPO secured maximum building heights of three to four storeys for 70% of the site” (https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/the-area/yarras-future/alphington-paper-mill-site-redevelopment/development-plan-overlay). This then begs the question as to why Virginia Estate is destined, according to the drafts, to have approximately 85% of the entire 24 hectare site geared up for 8 storeys!!!!!! And of course, with no strategic justification whatsoever for these proposed heights!
- We’ve already commented in our previous post on the nonsense that is stated about the Caulfield Village development.
- There are plenty of other ‘errors’ as well. For example: 324 Centre Road (page 11) is not 9 storeys. VCAT granted a permit for 8 storeys. Whilst perhaps a trivial example, we repeat that there can be no excuse for incorporating statements and information which is untrue, inaccurate and hence misleading – especially when such facts have been known for ages!
Here is part of the gazetted Development Plan for the Alphington project. Please note carefully the size of the various height proposals and how much is destined for 2-4 storeys!
November 29, 2017 at 1:18 PM
What pisses me right off is their claim that Alphington has got higher buildings in the centre. They’re either blind or hellbent on not telling the truth. The development plan shows nothing above 4 stories in the middle.
November 29, 2017 at 1:45 PM
Great job of selective editing by the consultants. Put in whatever sounds good cos you are being paid by the developer and leave out anything that makes what you want less viable. Then pray that all the dumbo residents won’t see through the tricks.
November 29, 2017 at 2:36 PM
From a planning scheme perspective it doesn’t really matter that the document is full of errors—what matters to Gillon is that they get their coveted rezoning through with a generous building envelope. Then they can proceed to build what they want, which will be whatever maximizes their profit [apartments, not offices or employment]. That’s why they’re desperate to get rid of the Commercial 2 Zoning. The bogus comparisons are for soundbites and not to be taken seriously. Developments that haven’t yet been built or proven to be successes can’t honestly be said to be exemplars of “best practice”.
November 29, 2017 at 2:39 PM
You are correct. We are simply pointing out that these documents are meant for public consumption. Residents are invited to respond. Residents cannot make worthwhile comments if:
1. the data is vague and lacking real detail, and
2. the data is inaccurate and bogus.
November 29, 2017 at 3:03 PM
The aim is to get as much land rezoned as possible so that dwellings can be built. For all the talk about “structure planning” what we are looking at is either another incorporated plan followed by various development plans for each area spread out over several years and which will change again and again to allow more dwellings. All of this consultation is useless. There won’t be a chance to resist until the amendment to rezone is published. Then after some wait we will get the actual plans that won’t bear any resemblance to the guff that is being put out now.
November 29, 2017 at 4:27 PM
One of the only things that can save this east village is that it must have much more public open space within the site. It cannot and should rely on annexing the amenity of two existing reserve on it boundaries and Duncan McKinnon over on North Rd.
Decent sized open space linear links from east to west and north to south should be possible in this sized development, anything else in just relying on using the existing public open space of Marlborough Reserve and Virginia Park to enhance this over development. This equates to theft of public amenity, ultimately leading to the degrading of these reserves from overuse.
The Gillion Group shouldn’t be able to get away converting existing public amenity into their development for their private profit without a fair recompense via an decent public open space contribution.
Remember The City of Glen Eira has the least amout of public open space in the Melbourne Metro area, and to put that in perspective, we have of on average 13% of that average, that is a staggering 87% deficiency on average.
This East Village development should pull its own weight and add to our open space average, not detract from it.
November 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM
More open space is a non negotiable. If a new school is built it becomes even more essential.
November 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM
Yes, good point, I think they want a vertical campus with only token open space. Rooftop gardens should also be considered as this could add a lot of green useable open space to the site, If all the rooftops on this site were designed to be green open space with vegetation, places for residents to grow veggies etc. this development could be a lot for amazing than the weak stuff they are offering.
November 30, 2017 at 1:42 PM
You can tell what a decision-maker thinks is important by looking at their decisions. Can anybody name a planning decision where the lack of nearby public open space resulted in a tempering of the scale of development? My own experience is that VCAT doesn’t give a shit, and has never criticized a development for their repeated failure to leverage roofs for open space.
November 30, 2017 at 4:21 PM
Someone please bring Jeff Kenneth back!!!!! He is the only person who knows how the Councils operate in Victoria. The Victorian government needs to seriously consider evaluating whether the Councils are assets or liabilities to the rate payers instead of turning their heads elsewhere. Reorganising Council roles is bound to save millions of dollars. Refusing to accept rate capping by Councils was nothing but a charade to protect jobs and mid six figure salaries.
November 30, 2017 at 7:41 PM
Yeh that’s right, bring back Jeff to close more schools to flog them off to his developer mates. And call this municipal areas “The City of Glen Eira” after a boring road, or a mansion that disappeared generations ago, and was demolished, subdivided and developed, that fits.