The prize for the most inane, devious and arguably dishonest Councillor comment of the year goes hands down to Hyams in the ‘discussion’ on the Caulfield Village amended Development Plan.

For someone who is so meticulous about quoting ‘planning law’ back to residents time and time again, it is literally inexcusable for a councillor to make the following comment – ‘I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. . So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity.

Not only is this a flagrant misrepresentation of council’s own Planning Scheme it is in total opposition to State policies – which we are sure that Hyams knows. Clause 55 of the State provisions reads:

To encourage a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.

Developments of ten or more dwellings should provide a range of dwelling sizes and types, including:

􀂃 Dwellings with a different number of bedrooms.

􀂃 At least one dwelling that contains a kitchen, bath or shower, and a toilet and wash basin at ground floor level

It would seem that Hyams and Pilling would stoop to any level in order to defend their previous decisions on C60 and the development plan! Readers should also take careful note of the nonsense presented by Okotel. Below is the full ‘discussion’

Pilling moved to accept the motion ‘as printed’. Lipshutz seconded.

PILLING: said he chaired the planning conference and that this has a long history going back to 2011 and the C60. Went through the details of the amended plan – ie increase in dwellings but that the ‘building envelope doesn’t change greatly’ even though there are ‘some changes in setbacks’ and ‘increases the size of balconies in some apartments’. These are all ‘relatively minor changes’ and the ‘main change is in the makeup of apartments’ – reduction of three bedroom and increase in one/two bedroom apartments. ‘This is a relatively minor change’ given the overall number of dwellings. Said he was ‘happy to accept the recommendation as printed’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he ‘looked very carefully’ and because of the more car spaces thinks that this amended plan ‘is a better outcome’. Increased dwellings ‘wouldn’t cause any detriment’ to people. He thought it is ‘appropriate and I am supporting it’.

DELAHUNTY: was against the amended plan for same reasons as she was against the original plan – lack of social housing when the Incorporated Plan ‘quite unequivocally’ said that it would provide social housing. With the changes in ‘housing stock’ that the amendment proposes, this gives the developer a ‘great opportunity’ to provide for social housing – but it doesn’t do this. ‘It is absolutely against every value that I hold’ that social housing isn’t provided ‘in a variety of manners’ on such a huge site. Said ‘they can’t’ put social housing until the very last precinct goes up and ‘then shove some very cheap apartments on top’. ‘Social housing should be provided at all levels’ of the development. Here’s the opportunity to do this, but they haven’t and they won’t ‘until someone forces them to’.

HYAMS: said there will be more apartments, thus more people, but the ‘building still stays’ within the parameters of the incorporated plan. Said that objectors raised the issue of ‘lack of diversity’ but ‘I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity. As for social housing ‘that is a requirement’ for the end of the development but ‘I don’t think there was a requirement’ for social housing in ‘every single part’ of the development. Didn’t think that it was ‘appropriate’ for council to ‘move the goal posts’ now in regard to social housing. He was ‘sure this would be enforced in due course’.

ESAKOFF: said there were ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ and that initially she thought that 442 dwellings ‘was sufficient’ but when 3 bedrooms were the ones ‘becoming’ one and two bedroom she noted that there were some ‘improvements’ in balcony sizes and setbacks and that agents had said that 3 bedroom apartments ‘don’t sell’. She asked Torres ‘how many’ three bedroom apartments ‘have been removed’ from the original plan.

TORRES: ‘I can’t find the precise number’ but he thought that there was a ‘noticeable reduction in three bedroom’ apartments.

ESAKOFF: said that leaves about 26 3 bedroom apartments but in terms of ‘percentage isn’t fantastic’ but still better than in other developments across Glen Eira. Was still ‘tooing and froing’ on the motion and was happy to listen to what others had to say.

SOUNNESS: thought that council has a ‘weakness’ in that they don’t have a ‘model’ for housing in diversity areas. Having ‘large apartments’ to ‘accommodate families is a very good thing’. Thought this would end up being student accommodation and that 3 bedroom apartments ‘should be protected’ and he was voting against.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because there are ‘design benefits’ like increased setbacks and ‘improved amenity’ for some of the apartments. Like Esakoff she was ‘concerned’ about the reduction of three bedroom apartments but she accepts that these could ‘be difficult to sell’ and ‘nobody wants to see vacant dwellings’ especially when ‘there is such a need for housing’. ‘It’s better that apartments are built and purchased’.

LOBO: ‘people accepted’ the first application ‘althougn they were not happy’ and now ‘we are trying to rub vinegar on their wounds’. Issue isn’t about an extra 21 dwellings since they are increased ‘to maximise profits’.

MAGEE: agreed with Delahunty. Said that ‘over half of the apartments do not provide sufficient open space’ and nor is there the ‘appropriate diversity of housing’ nor social housing.

PILLING: benefits of increased carparking. On profit council has to look at the ‘planning process’. 26 3 bedroom places ‘are a plus’ but’ not for us to determine’. Said that council ‘can encourage but we can’t actually have that law’. And this also applies to ‘social housing’. This will ‘happen’ at some point and ‘it’s up to the developer to provide it’ even though council might like it in ‘every part of the development’. Just because council doesn’t ‘like’ it isn’t enough reason to vote against. Council has to make its decisions on ‘good planning’ processes such as the planning scheme, incorporated plan and development plan.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – VOTING IN FAVOUR – PILLING, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS

VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, MAGEE

Residents should not be surprised that the latest MRC effort to increase the size of their development is fully supported by the officer’s report. The report itself is typically and conspicuously short on detail, justification, and analysis. Instead there is the much repeated phrase that the various council departments “are satisfied’ with this amended development plan.

In summary approval is sought for:

• Increase in dwellings from 442 to 463. The increase is achieved by the creation of many more single bedroom units and the reduction of 3 bedroom units. The final makeup will be – 282 will be one bedroom; 155 will be 2 bedroom and only 26 units will be 3 bedroom. That means that 60.9% of this ‘village’ will comprise single bedroom dwellings. And the Rocky Camera comment? – The mix is considered to satisfy the Incorporated Plan.
• Car parking basement spaces will increase from 478 to 489. Without visitor carparking of course!
• On the one hand we are told that there will be – Increases to the size of balconies for a number of apartments. However, the reality is that the vast majority of these balconies will actually be REDUCED in size thanks to council’s previous ‘cave-in’ at the VCAT mediation hearing. This of course is also presented quite disingenuously when Camera writes – The developer subsequently appealed a number of conditions of the Development plan approval to VCAT. On the 15th September 2014 VCAT issued approval of the Development Plan. This approval altered a number of conditions issued by Council such as minimum balcony sizes and the design of the basement accessway. We remind readers that this WAS NOT A VCAT FULL HEARING. It was ‘mediation’ and as such, council was under no obligation to accept the conditions proposed by the MRC. They had the option of refusing and going to a full VCAT hearing.
• The upshot of this is that the following configurations for balconies are now permissible –12 apartments with less than 6 square metres of balcony; up to 150 with between 6 to 7 square metres and up to 75 with between 7 and 8 metres. Hence 51% of this ‘village’ will have balconies that don’t even match what council stipulates for housing diversity areas.

There is one sentence in this report that deserves special mention. It reads – The Amended Development relates to Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Residential Precinct and Mixed Use Precinct. Whether or not this is a ‘typo’ or actually means that these new ‘conditions’ will also apply to the other precincts is anyone’s guess. If the latter then surely it is incumbent on Council to be open, transparent and inform the community exactly what is going on!

In summary we have no qualms in calling this another cave-in to the sad and sorry saga that is Caulfield Village and all Council dealings with the MRC.

Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect interest’ and left the chamber.

Moved to accept ‘as printed’ by Pilling. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: Thought that the conditions imposed by the officers addressed the ‘concerns’ of objectors such as ‘timing, the sound’ plus that the screen is ‘well away from residential areas’. Admitted that this is a ‘different usage’ but with all the ‘checks and balances’ he is ‘supportive of this recommendation’.

OKOTEL: said that there is ‘no designation’ for use of the land so council has to consider the application under ‘planning grounds’ . With the imposed conditions she thought it ‘appropriate’ since the cinema will only happen when ‘other uses are not occuring’. The screen is ‘350 metres away from the nearest house’ and that is ‘quite a considerable distance’ and hence ‘wouldn’t affect the amenity of the neighbours’. The liquor license is ‘available already’ and there won’t be any ‘additional’ licenses.

SOUNNESS: said that he was ‘speaking against the motion’ only because he felt that ‘there should be someone speaking against it’. The racecourse is a ‘site that is somewhat vexed’. Said that the reports and decisions that have ‘come down’ suggest that the operational aspects of the racecourse show that it isn’t ‘always a clean operation’ . He ‘supports’ the motion and the chance of use. Although the conditions ‘seem to be quite useful’ he doubts whether council has got the ‘capacity’ to ensure compliance. Was ‘sure’ that there were answer to such questions about who operates the land.

DELAHUNTY: asked Torres the question about the state of the lease.

TORRES: said he understood that ‘there is no current lease’

DELAHUNTY: would vote in favour but thought that the conditions were ‘perplexing’ since ‘they can’t be met under the current arrangements’. Said that in chairing the planning conference it was ‘interesting to hear the different interpretations of language’ from residents versus the MRC. Said that the department has ‘sent a letter to the MRC suggesting that’ it’s in favour of the permit if the Trust agrees to it. The MRC therefore has ‘interpreted this as under existing use’ and current lease, but there is no current lease. She will vote in favour because she is all for ‘more people using their land’ even though there will be ‘some profit taking’. She hoped that since the conditions can’t be met it ‘forces the parties back to the table’ to negotiate.

OKOTEL: asked whether the conditions imposed would be ‘enforceable’

TORRES: said that for any planning permit that ‘conditions are enforceable’ and that not only by council but that ‘any member of the public can apply’ to VCAT.

LOBO: said he was ‘surprised that the MRC is getting everything’. It’s supposed to be for public park as well as racecourse and ‘we are running short’ of sporting fields. Another ‘sicking point’ was that there is provision for 150 car spaces but ‘they are expecting 500 people’. So are they expecting families or ‘lovers’ to come?

MAGEE: said he doesn’t have any ‘problem with the screen being there’ and the community using the racecourse. He does have a ‘problem with the Auditor General’s report’. One of the recommendations was for a plan to be produced for the racecourse and when the plan is produced ‘it may not be consistent with’ the cinema. This cinema might not be ‘consistent’ with the wishes of the Trustees or the committee of management if it is formed. Said that the condition about Trustee approval means that ‘it must have unanimous approval’ and ‘not a majority of the trustees’ because there is no ‘trust, just a group of trustees’. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘scathing’ and he is ‘surprised they haven’t all resigned’. He would have resigned straight off. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘instigated’ in part by himself since he had written to the Auditor General. This ‘could be a community asset although there will be some profit taking’ from Crown Land. He has no problem with the MRC because they only do ‘what the trustees allow them to do’. ‘They are a good citizen’ and that ‘they run the racecourse very, very well’. They’ve been ‘allowed to do the wrong thing’ for 150 years. Hoped that things change this year.

DELAHUNTY: wanted Magee to confirm that she hadn’t been misunderstood about whether the conditions were enforceable if the lease negotiations fell apart. Magee confirmed that there was no misunderstanding. Reiterated that the new lease had to be a unanimous decision by all the trustees.

PILLING: acknowledged concerns about governance but this is a planning decision and that the Auditor general’s report was a ‘separate matter’. His decision is ‘purely on planning and he thought there were ‘merits’ to the proposal in ‘allowing community people in there’.

MOTION PUT: LOBO WAS THE ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST.

COMMENT

This discussion raises far more questions than providing answers. Here are some:

• Since when does the Trustee’s decision have to be unanimous? At the last trustee meeting, the vote was clearly split. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/news-flash-the-mrc-god-given-right-to-rule/
• Or is this a condition that the department has now imposed on the ‘negotiations’? If so, then why can’t the public be informed as to what is actually going on and what the parameters of the negotiations entail? Further, why is it taking so long to achieve a lease?
• Contradictions are apparent once again. When it came to the McKinnon Bowls Club renting out their third green the argument was that public land not be used for commercial profit. Delahunty was adamant on this. Not a mention this time around. So the question becomes – why is this different?
• Magee’s applauding of the MRC as ‘good citizens’ leaves us speechless!

The Melbourne Racing Club has scored the ‘quaddy’ with our new Manager of Strategic Planning signing off on their latest application for an ‘outdoor cinema’ from dusk until 1am throughout the year! In approximately one page as a bit of ‘useful’ commentary, Council has again agreed to all of the MRC demands. That makes it the perfect quaddy in our books – ‘yes’ to an incorporated and development plan that bore no resemblance to each other; ‘yes’ to a paltry open space contribution and no development contribution;’ yes’ to the 4 storey high racing screen, and now ‘yes’ to an ‘outdoor cinema’. No mention of who will police drunkenness; no mention of how many of these ‘events’ can be held? Are we speaking of once a month? Once a fortnight? Once a week? Or every single night throughout November to March, and then some more throughout the year whenever the MRC decides it might be a good idea?

Adding insult to injury is the fact that EPA legislation for ‘noise’ from “residential” areas has a time limit up to 11pm. Music production (which we can assume to accompany any soundtrack), also has a time limit of up to 11pm! S0 exactly how does Council grant a permit until 1am and for staff to leave (without noise presumably) by 1.30am.

The Bent St application has also got the nod for a 3 and part 4 storey development with 31 dwellings. 17 properties notified and 25 objections. McKinnon is now given the new nom de plume of an ‘activity centre’ (page 33). There is NO MCKINNON ACTIVITY CENTRE!

The paragraph which concerns us greatly and which is included as part of the conditions reads:

The second floor setback a minimum of 9.0m from the eastern boundary with any consequential changes absorbed within the approved building envelope. A balcony may encroach a maximum of 1.6m into this setback.

It is our contention that such a condition illustrates fully the myriad of shortcomings of the current planning scheme and also serves as a convenient scapegoat for this administration and councillors.

The property is located in GRZ1. As such ResCode setbacks apply. When council secretly introduced the New Residential Zones, it chose not to seek greater setbacks than ResCode for GRZ1. So now we have the ludicrous situation where planning officers recommend setbacks which go against their very own planning scheme. It will be no surprise that if this goes to VCAT the member sits back, laughs, and says – ‘but that’s not what the planning scheme states’! and of course, VCAT will again be the convenient scapegoat!