As we’ve stated repeatedly, every aspect of the Caulfield Village planning process for the past 9 years has resulted in council’s rolling over and granting the MRC everything they have applied for. The latest application for Section 7 & 8 development continues this sorry and pathetic tale.
Please note the following:
- The Incorporated Plan of 2014 stated that there would be between 1000 and 1200 apartments. We are now well over 1200 with the Smith Street precinct (the largest and highest) still to occur.
- The Incorporated Plan had maximum preferred heights of 5 storeys in the residential precinct. We got 6. The second precinct stipulated 8 and we have 10. The current proposal wants 9 when the incorporated plan says 8 and 6 for the centre. We get 9 and 7. These additional heights are because council refused to fight for MANDATORY provisions plus the fact that they did not stipulate the number of storeys. Instead they simply worked on height according to the Australian Height Datum (AHD) which looks at ground level. In other words, if the land slopes, plus lowering the ceiling heights and it is possible to fit in several more storeys (meaning more apartments) whilst still meeting the AHD requirement. We envisage that the last Smith Street Precinct will be anything from 22 to 24 storeys in height given past history.
- Following amendment after amendment the developers have succeeded in: decreasing the initially proposed commercial/retail component and instead increasing the number of apartments. Money these days rests in residential, not commercial. All agreed to by council!
- Council has made much of its ‘social/affordable’ housing policy. When they had the chance to enforce this at VCAT, council voted to abandon the proposed amendment with the argument that it would cost too much. What is still to be determined is whether the ambition of a 5% social/affordable housing component is 5% of the entire project, or simply 5% of the current application. Even this has been watered down to 16 apartments instead of 21!!!!! Again acceptable to council going by the officer’s recommendation.
The Current Proposal
Here’s the breakdown of the major aspects of the proposal:
- 437 apartments
- 4 buildings of 7 storeys, 2 of 9 storeys
- 94 studio apartments (average size 40 square metres)
- 191 single bedroom apartments (average size 50 square metres)
- 142 two bedroom apartments (average size 70 square metres)
- 10 three bedroom apartments
That makes it 2.28% of dwellings that are three bedrooms. Council calls this satisfying the planning scheme’s clause regarding ‘diversity’
Worthy of mention is that there is not a single word in the officer’s report that mentions size of actual apartments, no figures are provided on overshadowing or overlooking. Basically we get an officer’s report that is devoid of all detail and strategic justification for the recommendation of a permit. Instead we find the following nonsense:
As part of the Whole of Land plans, it was originally anticipated that the Mixed-Use Precinct (which encompasses Stages 4-8) would have a residential yield of 732 dwellings, a supermarket space of 4000 sqm, retail space of 3,658 sqm and 798 sqm of office space.
The proposed mix is now 834 dwellings, 3,800sqm of supermarket space, 2,646sqm of retail space and 798 sqm of office space. This represents an increase in dwelling numbers (102 additional), a decrease in supermarket and retail space (by 400 sqm). The proposed office space remains the same.
The increase in dwelling numbers has been managed within the permissible building envelope while maintaining an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes. This is considered to be consistent with the Incorporated Plan.
Are we then supposed to accept the statement that 2.28% of apartments represents an ‘acceptable mix of dwelling sizes’? What then becomes ‘unacceptable’? And how is this considered to be ‘consistent’ with the Incorporated Plan when nothing is stated in the plan except the desire for ‘diversity’?
Interestingly, nothing in the officer’s report mentions the fact that a previous amendment to the development plan increased the size of the Mixed Use precinct. Council did not object and hence granted the MRC land that could then be developed even more as opposed to its original designation as ‘residential’!!!!!
Parking Waiver(s)
Since council is such a stickler for claiming that everything is established via the Incorporated Plan, it is therefore amazing that the developer has asked for a car parking waiver of 154 spots and council officers think this is okay!! So much for the ‘certainty’ that residents were told again and again was provided as a result of the Incorporated Plan.
Here’s the council’s excuse for another cave in:
Council’s Transport engineers have reviewed the information provided and agree with the reduced rates for the supermarket, retail uses and the reduced rate for the 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings.
This is considered worthy of support because there will be a number of residents across this development who are attracted to the location because of the excellent public transport options which negate the need for a private vehicle.
Affordable Housing
Instead of achieving 21 apartments under the banner of ‘affordable housing’, we now find that this has been reduced to 16 only. We have no problem with the provision of 2 or 3 bedroom apartments. Our problem is with the proviso that the ‘net floor area’ originally planned remains the same! There is nothing in the Incorporated Plan regarding net floor area for social housing. Another brilliant move by our council.
Even more disquieting is the fact that these arrangements will only be for 10 years!!! What happens after that? Will tenants be tossed out and the apartments sold off? And what of the entire precinct since it is not earmarked to be sold but 437 apartments to be rented out! The potential slums of the future perhaps? Also, neatly sidestepping the requirements for student accommodation, the studio and single bedroom apartments are not called ‘student accommodation’. What are the chances that they will be anything but student accommodation given their size and proximity to Monash Uni? Again, nothing in the officer’s report about this loop hole!
CONCLUSION
The willingness of this council to bend over backwards to facilitate more and more inappropriate development is again being displayed. Every aspect of Glen Eira’s dealings with the MRC has been disastrous for the community. This latest application is simply one more in the long line of disasters!
PS: we forgot to mention that because of the ‘wisdom’ of Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling & Lipshutz at the beginning of the proposals, there is NO VISITOR CARPARKING ALLOCATION for anything that is developed on this site!!! Thus over 2000 apartments will not have to provide for visitor car parking.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 24, 2020 at 2:52 PM
The rot continues. I’ve lost count after all this time but I would guestimate that by the end the makeup of this incorrectly labelled “village” will be 95% at least one and two bedroom places. The mrc have been aided and abetted every step of the way by council, by government (both Lib and Lab) and the racing fraternity. They’ve paid a pittance for open space and the racecourse is still a no go for sport and residents. All gone according to plan with the help of a crop of useless self serving councillors and admin that wouldn’t know any different.
February 24, 2020 at 3:19 PM
Yup all going to plan. Can’t wait for the next application with 1500 doggy boxes and twenty plus stories going up. Will really make Glen Eira famous for its open arms to development. Come on guys. Come on in. We are ready to do business with yous. Guaranteed you will get your permits. And you don’t need to worry about councillors. They are to dumb and scared to say no. Yous could also offer them a little side package that would do the trick for some who might be a tad reluctant. nudge nudge wink wink.
February 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM
The curse of Pilling & Lipshutz are still with us, like zombie that won’t die.
The other two are just living idiots.
February 24, 2020 at 5:33 PM
Remnant of the Newton era and the infamous 8-councillor committee he designed to exclude Cr Penhalluriack from anything to do with the racecourse and/or MRC. That later morphed into the 4-councillor committee that approved C60 despite being aware how it failed to comply with residential amenity standards for existing residents.
The MRC did manage to pull a sleazy trick, underquoting the number of stories that could fit within in its height limit as specified using AHD. Nobody thought to check the difference between ground level and AHD and using a 3m rule-of-thumb per storey.
The current recommendation is still just the opinion of council officers, until such time as Council resolves to adopt it. Officers are not members of Council and have to keep an eye on their future employment options in the lucrative private development industry.
A hallmark of Council’s decision-making is just how ad-hoc it has been since 2001. This has encouraged officers to make recommendations that lack any credible strategic justification. Can anybody point to any document that has established 2.28% as being the appropriate target rate for providing 3-bedroom apartments in any development providing 10 or more dwellings?
If Council truly thinks only 2 or 3 hours of sunlight is appropriate for buildings in residential zones, the planning scheme should say so and Council should be able to point to where this “standard” has been documented. Otherwise it is yet another example of ad-hoc decision making that violates the objectives of planning. For all the public knows, its undocumented standard might only be 1 hour of sunlight. How did the council officer arrive at a number that is far less than the planning scheme specifies for NRZ, GRZ and RGZ?