The following summary was in many respects the ‘highlight’ of the evening. It involved the developer’s representative (Amanda Ring) who did not ‘speak’ but rather read out a prepared statement.

AMANDA RING: introduced herself as a planner with SJB Planning and that she was ‘speaking on behalf of the developer of the land’. Said that the ‘MRC is not the developer of this land’ and that they have ‘effectively sold the land’ to Beck and Probuild so ‘the community is no longer dealing with the MRC’. Went on to say that as the ‘new owners of the land’ Beck and Probuild were looking ‘froward to being part of the community for the next 10 to 15 years’. The aim is ‘to integrate’ a site that is currently ‘grossly underused’ and to develop this land ‘consistent with government policy’. Said that she ‘gathered’ that people don’t support ‘intensification’ of housing in the neighbourhood but the ‘reality’ is that the ‘decision has been made with the approval of amendment C60’. Whilst Beck and Probuild weren’t involved at that stage they now share the hope that the controls set by the Amendment and the incorporated plan will be ‘implemented’ appropriately. Said that they and council would now be ‘working together’ to ensure that the outcomes are of ‘high standard’. Admitted that the neighbourhood would change and that it would become a ‘thriving mixed use centre’. Said that the ‘consortium is committed to keep you up to date with its development activities’. Introduced ‘George’ as the place manager and who would be dealing with all public liaison issues. Went through the basics of what the Development Plan proposes. Then said ‘I’ve noted your point that there has been a change to dwelling numbers’ but that this has been ‘offset’ by reduction in commercial ‘floor space’ because they couldn’t be ‘confident in putting that into a future plan’. Admitted that there ‘has been change to dwelling numbers’ but that the traffic engineering ‘outcome is absolutely minor‘ and as ‘Rocky pointed out‘ if there are other changes then there will have to be another submission plan to council. Went on to say that the consortium ‘to the best of its ability’ is trying to ‘predict’ how the land can ‘feasibly’ be developed.

Said that these plans have taken about 9 months to ‘pull together’ since the C60 ‘sets high standards for building design’ and ‘as of right height and setback controls’. These controls (plus landscaping, etc)of the C60 set the standards so that large projects like this can be undertaken properly. Whilst council hasn’t yet decided anything Camera’s ‘job is to ensure that’ the development plan is ‘generally in accordance’ with the C60 demands. Said that incorporated plans give the ‘parameters’ of the project but ‘not to the extent that every t is crossed and every i is dotted’ – that’s the job of the development plan. They are ‘confident’ that all the issues have been addressed in the documentation and they concede that ‘not everyone is going to be happy with the plan generally’ or even with some aspects of it. Accepted that some people will continue to be ‘unhappy’ especially about the MRC and the ‘land at the north of the course’ but the developers are not the MRC now and both are ‘highly regarded’ for their ‘residential work’. They’re looking forward to council ‘considering’ the plans and work starting ‘later this year’.

Pilling then asked for questions but Ring said she wasn’t ‘planning to take questions this evening’ and was ‘fearful’ that it would end up in a ‘debate which is not going to end anytime soon’. Pilling said he would be happy to facilitate and that people ask questions and not make statements.

Questions then came about about childcare and what they would do with their children, tradesmen and how they would manoeuvre in and out without parking on carriageways.

MAGEE: ‘as soon as my heart stops beating…..from what I’ve just heard’. Asked Ring to ‘explain to us when the Melbourne Racing Club sold the property?’

RING: said she ‘can’t answer but probably about 12 months ago’.

MAGEE: ‘was council aware of that?’ and ‘how much did the MRC get for the land?’ No real response so Magee said ‘so it’s a secret’. Pilling then intervened and basically wanted Magee to stop, saying ‘these are the applicants’. Magee responded by saying that he’s ‘too angry’ to continue with ‘the debate’. Pilling said it wasn’t a debate but about asking ‘courteous questions’ . Magee claimed that he thought it was a fair question and apologised if he offended.

Another member of the audience then asked if it’s already been ‘established’ that the development plan is in ‘accordance’ with the Incorporated pLan.Pilling replied that it’s still to be ‘determined’. They will consider everything and the officer’s report will be available on the Friday before council decides (April 4th)

Another member quoted from the Town Planning Assessment document that wrote about street frontages being ‘articulated by strong vertical elements to reflect the rhythm of neighbouring residential landscape’. Resident asked how this reflects neighbouring residential landscapes that are basically single storey. Said he objects to this development that doesn’t ‘make any attempt to blend’ in with the residential landscape.

RING: said she would ‘like to answer that’. Acknowledged that many people were ‘expressing’ concerns about height and intensity and she ‘understands that’ but people need to be ‘mindful’ of the fact that ‘strategic decisions how this land will be developed’ (ie height and intensity) ‘were made a long time ago’.’The decision has been made’. Even though people might think they got ‘short shrift’, ‘the reality is the Minister has approved a planning control’ that will mean major change and high rise buildings. Resident interjected and said that she isn’t answering the question. Ring responded by saying ‘I believe I have’. ‘As a result of strategic decisions to develop this land’, the end result will be ‘typological variation from single dwellings’. The resident again insisted that his question hasn’t been answered. Pilling intervened saying that ‘Amanda has’. Resident went on to say that he doesn’t ‘care about strategic planning’ but wants an answer to how a ‘6 storey building blends into a landscape of one and two storey’ buildings. ‘It’s language, it’s rubbish’. Another resident said that if these planners have ‘written those words they should be able to explain them’.

Another resident asked for the number of on street car parking spaces are available within the site. 164 are ‘being removed’  but there are no figures for numbers of on street car parking. A mumbled answer from planners that they haven’t got the figures. Another resident asked ‘you haven’t got them now, or you haven’t got them full stop?’

Cheryl Forge then said as a former Trustee the land sale had never been discussed up until 2012 and she wanted to ask the current trustees if and when  they knew about the land sale.

HYAMS: said that the ‘land in question’ isn’t under the Trust so it didn’t come up and he’s only been a trustee since April 2013 so wouldn’t know what happened before. Said that everyone knew that there had been a partnership between Beck & Probuild and the MRC but that he wasn’t aware of the ‘exact details’. Questions then arose from audience as to whether this was sold or a ‘partnership’. Answers were that this was ‘commercial in confidence’. Hyams then said that the Trust governs crown land and this was ‘land owned by the MRC’ and ‘none of the land comes under the jurisdiction of the Trust’.

FORGE: noted that 8 members of the Trust are also members of the MRC.

HYAMS: repeated that ‘it doesn’t come under land governed by the trust’.

There were several more questions about car parking and renting of car parking. One resident wanted to know if Council was going to do something about the MRC using the centre for car parking more than 5 times a year and whether council was going to charge them for this since it was ‘land that belongs to us’. More questions started coming up and Pilling then wanted to close the meeting, claiming that ‘we’ve all had a good say’. People disagreed and wanted to continue but Pilling closed the meeting.

SPEAKER 11: worried about traffic and parking and what happens on event days like the Caravan and Camping show. Didn’t think that the traffic studies gave ‘due attention’ to these problems. Raised a possible legal issue about staging and said that councillors should be worried about letting stage 1 happen before the Smith St precinct and was worried if council could be sued in the future for its bad decisions in that buyers of stage one might find themselves overshadowed by what ultimately happens with the towers of the Smith Street area. Wanted developers to put this section up first or both together to avoid future ‘legal liabilities’.

SPEAKER 12: also worried about parking on major event days and thought there was a ‘miscalculation’ since the report didn’t include the Guineas and Kambrook Road car parks that are not available when big events like the Caravan and Camping shows are on.  Spoke about the environmental aspects and the ‘benchmarks’ that were in the development plan. Said that the sustainable design elements such as the STEPS guidelines are ‘minimal’ and have been around for some time. Didn’t think that ‘this meets the standards that we should be setting for this development’. The development will be finished in 2017 and the current standards will then be well out of date. So even if criteria are met now, they won’t be met for the criteria that will be in in 2017. Asked if the standards set can be ‘rectified’ in future development plans and ‘set higher’. Pilling responded that this depends on what the State Government ‘does in the future’. Camera then added that if things change ‘in the future’ then ‘there might be a need’ for the developers to also change but all they have to do is meet the current standards. The Speaker then asked if state amendments are needed first off. Camera replied ‘yes’ and that the building code would have to include these new standards. The speaker also asked about Water Sensitive Design Standards that other council have been introducing. Pilling again responded that it’s a state matter.

SPEAKER 13: queried the 5 days centre of the racecourse parking since ‘it’s far more than 5’. 3 of the 5 ‘would have to be this weekend’ with the Caravan & Camping show. The car parking analysis ‘rested on the heroic assumption’ that the MRC car parks ‘satisfy the total demand for cars’ but residents would say something different because ‘there are hundreds of cars parked’ in ‘restriction free residential areas’. Queen’s Avenue residents are ‘hit’ with race days and Monash Uni development and there will be ‘major traffic congestion problems’. Wanted council to be ‘proactive’ and make streets 1 hour parking on race and major event days. Said the racecourse was a ‘parking lot’ and that’s ‘what it’s there for, that’s what it’s become’. Wanted council to ‘draw a line in the sand’. The MRC ‘got what they wanted’ with the C60 so now council shouldn’t ‘go for any compromises’ because residents will be the ones to bear the ‘enrionmental and social costs’.

SPEAKER 14: wasn’t sure how 8 stages would proceed and queried whether ‘sewerage and water’ can be done bit by bit or ‘the whole area before it starts’.

SPEAKER 15: attended the panel hearing and ‘we gave the MRC far too much then’. Pilling then interrupted and said ‘we’re not talking about the past’. Speaker said that after spending days listening to the panel that the ‘documents meant something’ but now ‘it’s all changed’ and the ‘scales’ have grown. Asked that if the development is ‘self sufficient why are they robbing street car parks’. Spoke about the importance of open space for ‘human needs’ and the ‘con’ about the open space levies is evidenced tonight ‘sitting’ in the pavilion because ‘this is how open space’ is viewed (ie as a building) and car parks. Council has lost any idea of ‘what open space means’ and that the levy isn’t what open space is about.

SPEAKER 16: said that the developer had ‘no rights at all to the Guineas car park’ and the centre of the racecourse. ‘That is crown land and they cannot use that for private parking’. Council ‘must take a stand’ on this.

SPEAKER 17: worried about lack of open space and that ‘at least one’ of the building shouldn’t ‘be allowed’. Also racecourse ‘access’ is ‘only in daylight hours’. Said that during the ministerial enquiry the car parking couldn’t be talked about becuase it was ‘obvious’ that everyone assumed that the centre of the racecourse ‘would be made available’.

SPEAKER 18: was ‘right next to Building B’. Asked why if the incorporated plan said that this was a ‘typical 3 storey building’ and now it’s ‘four storey’ so there will be a ‘huge amount’ of extra ‘windows overlooking me’. Said that speaking to council and asking about overlooking the response was that ‘balconies would have to be 1.7 metres’ and windows frosted glass, ‘but in the plans I see nothing like that’. In the plans there is a drawing of a ‘huge tree’ there to ‘shield my property’ but that’s in 20 years and the area ‘is narrow’ so ‘they are never going to be that big’. Asked if it’s ‘right’ that the balconies would be 1.7 metres. Pilling then said that this would be what’s ‘considered’ by Camera in his ‘recommendations’ to council. Council ‘don’t just accept’ but they can make ‘modifications’. Pilling went on to say there had been ‘some changes’ from the Incorporated Plan but it would need to be ‘evaluated’ whether these were still ‘generally in accordance’. Speaker then said that 6 apartments ‘have a secondary entrance onto the lane’ and therefore people will be using this for ‘walking up and down’ so it becomes ‘a roadway’.

SPEAKER 19: couldn’t understand why townhouses weren’t extended along all of Kambrook Road so 2 storey would front an area that is ‘predominantly single storey’. So what is there now is some townhouses and then the developers have ‘simply chucked a 1970’s style 4 storey block of flats’ behind these townhouses. Said this showed that all developers want is ‘more money’ instead of thinking about ‘impact on the environment’ and streetscape. Spoke about a VCAT decision for 2-4 Station Street where the decision said that 5 visitor car parking places had to be provided for 54 units. That means that for the Caulfield Village site there would need to be at least 45 on site spots and ‘478 spots isn’t going to cut it’. Said that if only 15% of units have visitors that means 64 car parking spots ‘are gone’ and these will go into residential streets. Said there were many ‘false assumptions’ such as parking on Station Street which will become a ‘feeder lane’ into Bond St. Some of the plans show Bond St. as ‘open, but it is going to be cut off at Heywood St.’ so car parks in Bond St. will be gone. Said that for all the wonderful talk about access to transport there was nothing in the plans about pedestrian access to the racecourse. ‘You just can’t get to it from the village development’. There’s ‘lack of detail’ about waste collection and the plans state a 2.1 metre minimum height for the basement car park. Problem is that the plans say ‘they need a minimum of 2.2’ clearance so ‘someone’s got the maths wrong’. As for the traffic analysis it was ‘conveniently terminated’ at Kambrook Road and didn’t look at the impact on surrounding streets on such days when caravan and camping shows are on. Said that the statistics are ‘irrelevant’ and that a ‘lot more care and consideration’ is necessary. Wanted a kilometre diameter around the development to be timed parking.

SPEAKER 20: concerned about amenity and that the Incorporated Plan had very little to say about ‘amenity standards’. So it becomes difficult to ‘assess’ any application against ‘standards which haven’t been specified’. Wanted council when it’s dealing with such big developments to ‘make clear upfront what their minimum amenity standards are’. ‘In this development there are none, or very few’. Asked if a balcony went out over the setbacks in the Incorporated Plan, whether ‘a permit would be required’. Was confirmed by Camera. Said that putting 5 or 6 storeys next to a ‘street edge isn’t satisfactory’ and that council can ‘refuse’ the plan and ‘argue for increased setbacks’.

SPEAKER 21: ‘was horrified’ to learn that ‘open space can be traded off for money’. Said that 63 perimeter trees would be lost and that this was ‘completely unnecessary’. Might look good on paper but it’s a ‘waste of perfectly serviceable trees’ that have existed for over 30 years so ‘for the sake of a few metres and a few more dollars’ these trees will be removed. Also huge trees inside the development that would be perfect to have surrounded with open space. Wanted to ‘keep the existing trees that are serviceable’.

PS: We’ve received several emails and photos from residents living near the proposed Caulfield Village (see below). The issues they raise are significant and also have implications especially for all Housing Diversity Areas within Glen Eira. The first photo depicts a notice placed on a rubbish bin outside a block of flats several weeks ago. A car was parked along the kerb. The result is that an entire block of flats did not have their rubbish removed for two weeks. Secondly, why should residents be held responsible for drivers who park in their streets? Residents aren’t police who can tell drivers where to park. Thirdly, is it beyond reason that the driver of this garbage truck could have jumped down and moved the bins so that they could be emptied? After all, putting a cross on a notice and taping it carefully to the bin has already meant that the driver had to exit his truck and spend time on doing the ‘bureaucratic’ nonsense that this illustrates. What could also be asked is whether being forced to keep household rubbish in a plastic bin over the hottest part of the year does in any way constitute a health risk? Given the number of multi-unit dwellings and the number of cars, then this is a problem that Council needs to sort out immediately.

The other problem is the old perennial one of Road Closures on Major Events Days. As per usual the organisers have stuffed up and as per usual Council will presumably do nothing. A notice went out to residents that surrounding streets would be blocked off on the 8th March. Well, someone decided differently and local streets were blocked from early on today – that is the 6th March. Who makes these decisions, and how they accord with any parking management plan, has yet to be fully explained. Nor does the specific role that council plays in these continual stuff-ups! The following photo was taken early this morning.

SPEAKER 7: was concerned about the impact of the development on open space and the pressure put on Caulfield Park which is already ‘over used’. Said that no consideration had been given to the impacts and the necessary facilites required to cater for all this increase in population and parking needs.  Playgrounds are already overcrowded and is ‘on the doorstep of the depot’. Council should remove the depot or making it a lot smaller so open space is increased for the playground. Another problem is safe access since the park is on ‘major roads’ with much traffic and accidents have already happened and the issue of safety and increased use has to be taken into account.

SPEAKER 8: Quoted from the Phoenix precinct policy which talked about the provision of large street trees in ‘Bond, Heywood and Station Street’.  Said that the development plans make it hard to see how any large trees can be grown. Camera said that the Phoenix policy is still in place but that the Priority Development Zone would ‘take precedent’ over the Phoenix Policy. Speaker then asked whether this means that the Glen Eira ‘Planning scheme is completely irrelevant?’ Answer was ‘yes – the objective is there’. At this point Ron Torres spoke up saying that the planning scheme is ‘a consideration’ but that there is a detailed ‘landscape plan’ that shows all suggested plantings and that council would have to ‘determine’ and consider if this is ‘satisfactory’ and for people to make their comments as to whether they ‘agree’. Speaker then said that the issue isn’t about ‘agreement’ but ‘what the policy states’ and the policy talks about how there will be ‘canopy trees’ and how this is possible given the plans. The speaker’s next point was about car parking and that the development plan talks about parking in the centre of the racecourse and that instead of just the 5 racing days that the centre can be used ‘for the other 360 days as well’. Wanted to know is this ‘was possible’. Pilling said that this was a ‘separate matter’ between the MRC and council. ‘we’re here to discuss this application’. Speaker insisted that ‘we are discussing the application’ because the policy states there will be parking and that this ‘violates’ the agreement and the policy. Pilling again said that the question had been answered. The speaker’s third point was about ‘adverse affect’ on neighbouring areas and ‘what steps council’ has taken to ‘minimise this’.

The speaker then wanted to raise another point and Pilling attempted to move on. Speaker insisted that he and other people had spent a lot of time studying and preparing their questions and he was going to complete his questions. Pilling then repeated that he was ‘chair’ and that 3 questions are enough and others want to ask questions so ‘have to move on’. The speaker asked audience if others object to him asking questions – a loud chorus of ‘no’.

SPEAKER 9 – began by saying that Pilling was a ‘very poor chairman’ and that a new ‘facilitator’ was needed. Speaker asked about the Student Housing Policy and that the Phoenix area was the ‘number one priority for student housing’ but the Incorporated plan says that the residential precinct won’t be student housing and neither will the other precincts and this Incorporated Plan is supposed to be the ‘blueprint’. ‘Are these houses student housing by another name?’ and is this the reason why the plans have ‘so many one bedroom places’? Wanted to know the link between ‘policy and the incorporated plan’. Pilling said that the question has been answered about the Phoenix policy. Speaker said that it hasn’t been answered because the question related to the Student Housing Policy. Torres then said that the ‘student housing policy is alive and well’ and that the Incorporated Plan ‘doesn’t ban student housing’ but ensures that it ‘will require’ a planning permit application which means third party objection rights. Speaker then said ‘so that is NOT student housing’ and when ‘we see students going in there’ it still isn’t student housing? Torres then stated that ‘I have students living in my house but it is not student housing’. (Laughter from audience) Speaker then said that in 10 to 15 years none of the councillors would still be there so wanted to know ‘what kind of certainty’ residents have that things will be ‘as it stands’ in the plan. Even now numbers of residences have gone up and commercial areas have ‘gone down’ so for the next development plan will the MRC just decide that ‘what we need is major retail’. Suggested that because of the ‘deviation’ council should be ‘shelving (the plan) completely’.

Asked what the plans are for the Eskdale/Station street intersection and if the traffic signals will ‘include’ Eskdale road. The plan talks about ‘signalising’ but no detail ‘on how’. Also wanted to know how 1400 displaced car parking places will be accommodated. Also quoted from the plan that if the ‘smaller events’ at the racecourse get bigger then they can also park in the centre of the course. ‘Has everyone forgotten that the centre of the racecourse is meant to be for recreation’? The ‘obvious thing is to open up the racecourse for recreation’ and not car parking. Thought that there were lots of issues that the council needed to get its head around especially trees and how to protect them. Invited officers and councillors to go and see Station Street and the fact that 10 years ago it was promised to be a boulevard of elms and that they should go down and look at this street now and see how well the promise has eventuated. Speaker said that 55 trees are to be removed from ‘within the site’ and more along streets. The plan has got ‘whimsical dots’ for the supposed new trees but speaker ‘will be dead and buried’ before these new trees reach any height. (applause).

SPEAKER 10 – Quoted the MRC CEO from 2012 saying that ‘one of the precincts’ would include a ‘new entrance to the racecourse’. Speaker said that right through the C60 the MRC ‘promoted’ the racecourse as open space and whether there’s going to be a new entrance. Pilling said ‘the racecourse and access is a separate issue’. Speaker claimed that ‘the MRC don’t think it is a separate issue’. Pilling again said it’s a separate issue. Speaker reiterated that for years access has been part of the MRC promotions.