The current agenda features the ‘final’ (Council’s wording) Caulfield Station Structure Plan. If residents were hoping for some major changes they should be mightily disappointed. Adding to the disappointment are the usual characteristics of council’s reporting procedures – ie
- A befuddled ‘summary’ of the community consultation and no publication of all responses
- No detailed strategic justification for any of the minor changes included. For example: why in the first version was it thought that 25 storeys was okay and now it has been reduced to 20 storeys (all discretionary – but this is never stated clearly!) What is the rationale supporting such changes? Where is the ‘evidence’ for the first version and now the second?
- All ‘planning controls’ are consigned to the never-never land of sometime in the future.
- No mention per se of parking; traffic; social/affordable housing; quantifying all open space, etc. etc. etc.
- No clear indication of objector rights – language is typically vague – ‘could’, ‘may’ etc.
- Relying on 8.3% open space levy. Why? If Virginia Estate claims to have 10% levy and far less potential dwellings (3000), then why should the MRC only be expected to fork out 8.3% when the potential number of dwellings here will be at least an additional 2,500+ on top of the 2000+ for Caulfield Village?
- Given that the need for ‘housing diversity’ is the cornerstone of the justification for the countless proposed zoning changes in the draft Housing Strategy, then why is council content with allowing high rise towers that will predominantly consist of single and two bedroom apartments. This has already been acknowledged in the published Charter et al document from the first version.
- No rationale provided to support the creation of 8 storeys in a Heritage Zone along Derby Road
Below we feature some direct quotes from the officer’s report. Please note carefully the spin, the deliberate omission of detail, plus the lack of all strategic justification. Yet councillors are expected to vote this in next Tuesday. What this amounts to is voting for something that cannot in any shape or form constitute ‘informed decision making’!!!!!!!!!
The Structure Plan provides direction for the Caulfield MAC to accommodate significant population growth due to its proximity to Caulfield Station (Metro rail improvements) Monash University, Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and a range of shops and services. In the context of Glen Eira, the Caulfield Activity Centre is positioned to accommodate some of the “heavy lifting” with regards to population growth across the municipality.
COMMENT: So if we combine East Village (3000 dwellings) and Caulfield Station (another additional 2,500+) that’s at least 5,500 of the 12,500 ‘required’ by 2036. With all this ‘heavy lifting’ why do we therefore need a Housing Strategy that proposes zoning and heights that will facilitate far more than 7000 over the next 25 years?
Drafting of planning controls will consider situations where notice and review rights in the ACZ schedule could be switched on. This may include specific sites or applications which exceed proposed development guidelines and where the community should have an opportunity to comment, including the more sensitive residential interface precincts of Kambrook, Booran and Grange. This detail will be further explored and refined in the next stage, during the drafting of the planning controls. Importantly, adoption of the Structure Plan as recommended in this report does not pre-empt any future Council resolution on draft planning controls.
COMMENT: Activity Centre Zones as written in the Victorian Planning Provisions, do not have objection rights. This can be changed by Council and several councils have already done this. In Glen Eira, residents and councillors have to rely on ‘could’ and ‘may’ instead of any firm commitment as to what council hopes to achieve – regardless of whether or not it is accepted by the Minister for Planning! Furthermore, if we are to wait for planning controls that might eventuate in 12 months time, then council will undoubtedly argue that the structure plan has set the stage and these ‘planning controls’ are simply implementing what the structure plan says. We go back to our previous point – how on earth is it possible to vote on something that will set the future when so much detail is not forthcoming?
The CSP (Caulfield Structure Plan) will bring many benefits to new and existing populations. This includes review of gaps in community and development infrastructure in the area. Affordable housing needs and provision may also be addressed through advocacy with public land owners and through negotiated development outcomes.
COMMENT: Here we go again – ‘may be addressed’. Whatever ‘gaps’ currently exist in infrastructure is unknown yet the recommendation is still to vote on something so unclear. Given that council’s pathetic Social Housing/Affordable Housing policy only aims for 5% we will be lucky to achieve any significant increase of such housing from this development. Once again, the MRC will be laughing all the way to the bank!
September 18, 2022 at 10:37 AM
Twenty stories is going to stick out like a sore thumb. What does this do to overshadowing in winter? I don’t care that it’s along a main road. It still is right next to heritage.
September 18, 2022 at 11:58 AM
I’ve spent some time trying to make sense of the community consultation report. I’ve failed because none of the tables and the provided numbers add up. They are confusing at best and at worst do not add anything to understanding what the community thought and wrote.
My biggest criticism apart from the actual questions asked remains with the labels of “key stakeholders”. This isn’t defined. Is the term referring to developers, the Melbourne Racing Club, nearby councils? Who are we talking about here and why have they been given preference? I would have thought that community and residents would also be included as part of “key stakeholders”. It doesn’t appear that this is the case.
September 18, 2022 at 1:41 PM
Every single aspect of what’s happened here is an ‘abomination’. The vpa and the planning department must be held to account. There hasn’t been any community consultation worthy of that name. Questions were either loaded or so biased they were irrelevant to the proposals. We keep getting told that council has spent heaps on consultants and is doing all the required research. Where is it then and why can’t residents see the stuff? If they want decent consultation then all the facts have to be laid out on the table at the start so the community knows why something is proposed. I guess this wouldn’t go down to well with a council that will do anything to get more and more development into its suburbs.
September 18, 2022 at 2:57 PM
For over 20 years we’ve been waiting for the “further strategic work” listed in the planning scheme to be done. Utterly ignored. Again. What we have seen are decisions to grant permits that fail to meet the decision criteria listed on the scheme due to the pretext that if it isn’t illegal then it is acceptable. Sad reality is that Council has no amenity standards and is inconsistent in the application of the few weakly-specified standards provided by the state government. This is especially true of anything taller than 4 storeys. The proposal is a “collaborative” effort between two groups of members of the development industry: the department, and council officers. Nothing in the report really reveals who wants what and why. Under no circumstances would I support something that fails to ensure reasonable amenity standards for existing and future residents. A clue as to how badly Council has done its analysis is the lack of accurate shadow diagrams.