Dirty tactics would appear to be in plentiful supply when it comes to the two largest developments to ever occur in Glen Eira ie Caulfield Village and now East Village.
CAULFIELD VILLAGE
With wonderful timing, we have another development stage for Caulfield Village that will grow the site by another 437 apartments. Residents can submit their views (not officially ‘objections’ since there are no third party objection rights) by DECEMBER 24TH, 2019. No need to comment on how inappropriate this is!
Please consider the following facts:
- The developer’s submitted documents are dated from August to September 2019
- The actual application went into council on the 1st October, 2019 according to the developer’s letter of submission.
- Given that there would have been plenty of discussions already between council and the developer prior to this date, we do not see why the plans could not have been made public at the November council meetings. We also note that council states that they only announced the application on the 3rd. Again over 8 weeks after it was received. So, is this dirty tactics by the developer and/or council, we ask? How convenient that Christmas Eve is the deadline! Machiavelli couldn’t have planned it any better!
Next we have the actual proposal itself:
- 4 buildings up to 9 storeys high
- 94 Studio apartments with an average size of 40 square metres
- 191 single bedroom apartments with an average size of 50 square metres
- 142 two bedroom apartments with an average of 70 square metres
- 10 three bedroom apartments
Even more startling is that NONE of these properties are to be sold. They are all for rent! And that includes 21 dwellings that will be offered at 20% rent reduction for ‘social/affordable housing’. So magnanimous of the developer when they fought tooth and nail to avoid any social housing component, even though this was stated in the Incorporated Plan. And so magnanimous of council to cave in and not fight this tooth and nail when they had the opportunity!
Bear in mind that we still have the 20 storeys and more to go and that will probably add another 1500 dwellings to this monstrosity, ably abetted by council. The 2014 Incorporated Plan that was passed by Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Pilling (only 4 out of the existing 9 councillors) specified a dwelling component of 1100 to 1200 apartments. We are already past this figure with this application and still have the Smith Street Precinct to go which will include at least 20 to 22 storeys!
Even more outrageous is that the Incorporated Plan states that if any of the site is to be listed as ‘student accommodation’ then third party objection rights would come into play. Nothing in this current application designates this as ‘student housing’. Yet it is a stone’s throw from Monash Uni and with dog boxes (studios and single bedroom) the majority, how can they be anything but student housing?
This is simply another application in the long history of the Caulfield Village fiasco and a council that has aided and abetted the developer at every step of the way.
EAST VILLAGE
The Planning Panel for Amendment C155 has now concluded. In an attempt to possibly placate residents councillors resolved for the following in their updated Comprehensive Development Plan and Schedule in October 2019.
- Mandatory heights of 8 storeys
- Mandatory 3000 maximum apartments
- Mandatory setbacks
- Mandatory overshadowing conditions, especially at the winter solstice
In private discussions between the developer team and council’s team we now have the possibility of:
- NO MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMITS
- NO MANDATORY SET BACKS
- NO MANDATORY OVERSHADOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE WINTER SOLSTICE
- 4 storey podium along Central Park instead of 3 storeys
- Trigger points for road construction relaxed and/or removed entirely
The only mandatory condition that council maintained was 3000 apartments when the vast majority of residents stated this was an ‘over development’.
Whilst there is no guarantee that the panel will accept these compromises, our guess is that when the two major stakeholders reach agreement it is unlikely that the panel will adjudicate differently.
Plenty of questions come out of this episode, namely:
- Were councillors informed of this change of heart by officers? Judging by Hyams’ comment on social media they certainly weren’t!
- Since this was a formal council resolution and has not been rescinded then it still stands
- Given that we are now dealing with an entirely different amendment to what was put out for comment, shouldn’t this be readvertised to the public?
- What legal authority is granted under delegation for officers to change/alter a council resolution, especially without consultation and further decision making?
Both of these examples illustrate completely how ineffectual our councillors are when it comes to representing the community. It also illustrates who runs the show at this council and that all important decisions are made by officers, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so. Councillors can change this via their voting on delegations. The fact that they continually cede more and more power to officers is against the public interest and certainly shows an inability to either understand what is happening or the will to change it. Either way, these councillors are failing the community!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM
The goal is to help developers wherever they can. Full stop and to hell with residents.
December 15, 2019 at 1:37 PM
Any developer worth a cracker will ask for everything to be discretionary. It should be council’s job to insist that this doesn’t happen. Judging by this post they haven’t.
Out of sheer curiosity does anyone know whether a single councillor bothered to show up for any of the planning panel days?
December 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM
To the best of our knowledge councillors were conspicuous by their absence.
December 15, 2019 at 2:59 PM
very conveniently engineered. Xmas eve. What a joke
December 15, 2019 at 3:17 PM
And yet the IBAC says that ‘it must be said a function of council is to advocate and promote proposals which are in the best interests of the community’, I guess we need a clearer definition of community – as high density is reducing the livability for the existing residents and without best practice sustainable development will not do the incoming residents any favors. Vienna, Lyon, Paris manage to limit new build height and density and retain livability and are highly respected for doing so. The late December deadline is deeply concerning. Also, long overdue for Glen Eira, more protection of our existing trees and increased replacement of tree loss ASAP, the new developments are further reducing our tree asset.
December 15, 2019 at 3:53 PM
Does not look like they care about current or future people living here. It’s all about the rates they get in from the dog boxes they let through. Wynne must be really happy with them.
December 15, 2019 at 3:25 PM
Roll on IBAC!!!
December 15, 2019 at 11:22 PM
It’s an election year very soon, and Hyam is already crying like a baby, and no doubt will be insisting he’s on the residents side when it comes to any inappropriate development in Sucker, I mean Tucker Ward, Our perpetual councillor who seems so very well adjusted to hardships of living his life attached to the ratepayers purse, but somehow now seems happy to admit he knows nothing about what happening in his backyard. And uses his old election year defence strategy of Sergeant Schultz “I know nuffink, I know nuffink.
December 17, 2019 at 10:44 PM
We had a good look for a sign advertising the Caulfield Village application and to our surprise we could not find, however, we found an application (again) for 9 – 13 Derby Road.,, we could hardly stand near the one to the west of the site due to the restaurant rubbish stench freely being emitted from the up-lidded industrial bin. We hurried away thinking of the vermin visitors which will visit after dark. We then went to the front of the two shops and eventually found the signs hidden in dark doorways (ort of hidden. Only appeared within last day or two but objections required by 21 DECEMBER.
ALSO WISH TO CONGRATULATIONS ARE DUE TO MRC FOR HAVING SUCCESSFULLY PURCHASED THE GEELONG FOOTBALL CLUB’S POKER MACHINES IN THE DEN AT POINT COOK. The club will be the owner with the most poker machines very soon.
December 19, 2019 at 11:17 AM
We visit Zagames frequently and already we see GEC not able to address health issues. Juist imagine how hard it is to read the Planning app. for 9-13 Derby Road beside the overflowing industrial bin probably laden with discarded fish from the restaurant in Derby Road. Then when we went to read the street front signs they are both well hidden in doorways.
Have notified GEC by Email twice and telephone and it still remains there.
How can this organisation possibly approve of more rubbish making residents coming to live in more slummy conditions if Council is not prepared to issue and enforce clean up orders and large fines.
In our street there is a large rooming house and the stinking rubbish bins are often overflowing with food waste in bags then along come the crows and Indian miners and rats and mic after dark.
And unfortunately none of these vermin stay t those bins… the neighbourhood then shares them ungratefully.
December 20, 2019 at 8:59 PM
It is intriguing and disturbing that the mandatory height limits, mandatory setbacks, and mandatory overshadowing conditions seem to have been abandoned by Council representatives in behind closed door discussions. Council needs to explain the legal basis on which its representatives made those concessions, given the clear Council resolution to the contrary.