On the 28^th April 2011, the select group of 4 councillors passed a resolution that a Section 173 Agreement be entered into with the MRC. It is our contention that:

• This Agreement must be redrafted and renegotiated PRIOR to any approval of the Development Plan
• The existing Agreement represents a financial windfall for the MRC and a burden on Glen Eira ratepayers.

Here is what the Agreement states:

1. Certain infrastructure requirements are listed as ‘Required Infrastructure Projects’ and pertain almost exclusively to land within the boundaries of the Incorporated Plan – apart from traffic management at the corner of Koornang and Station Street and as listed in the works contained in Schedule 2.
2. ‘Additional Infrastructure Projects’ is defined as being tied in with Part 3B of the Planning and Environment Act. Since this part of the legislation refers to Development Contributions, and Council has removed this section from its Planning Scheme, there is no way for council to exact payment from the MRC for anything ‘additional’ without the MRC’s agreement.

What the Agreement ensures is that approval for its Development Plan (even with conditions) comes first! Then there is the necessary argey bargey for ‘additional infrastructure’ works. In other words, Council is signing a blank cheque! Having approved the Development Plan, they would then need to go cap in hand and ask the MRC for ‘additional infrastructure works’. Nothing would compel the MRC to agree with any such request once they have got their Development Plan approved.

Here’s some extracts:

The development of the land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan will generate a need for certain infrastructure to be provided. Some of that infrastructure is identifiable as at the date of this Agreement while the need for other infrastructure may only become apparent upon the approval of development plans under the Schedule to the Priority Development Zone.

Required Infrastructure Projects means infrastructure works not included in Schedule 2 that are fairly and reasonably required as a result of the development of the Subject Land under the Planning Scheme and which are included as a conditlon in the approval of a development plan or a planning permit pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Priority Development Zone.

We then get to Additional Infrastructure Projects with the wonderful ‘escape clause’ for the MRC –

the Additional Infrastructure Projects may benefit other land owners in the vicinity of the Subject Land and that it may be fair, just and equitable for contributions for the provision of this infrastructure to be provided by other persons in addition to the Owner.

if, at any time, Council introduces a development contributions plan, pursuant to Part 38 of the Act or otherwise, then any payment made by way of contribution for an Additional Infrastructure Project may be credited towards any payments required for works, services or facilities pursuant to the development contributions plan.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that:

7.1.1 the plans and specifications required for the Required Infrastructure Projects are intended to facilitate works to a standard required only by the development of the Subject Land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan and not to a standard required to compensate for any inadequacy in the infrastructure that currently services existing developments or as a result of development on any other land.

7.1.3 the amount of contribution required for the Additional Infrastructure Projects will be determined as far as practicable having regard to the principles developed through relevant Victorian law which would apply to the assessment of a contribution pursuant to an approved development contributions plan under the Act.

COMMENTS

Approving any Development Plan without first analysing the overall potential impact on surrounding areas and demanding adequate compensation is sheer folly. It is simply not good enough that the Transport Plan only looks at a handful of adjoining streets and totally ignores the flow on effects of 2046 units and 13,500 square metres of retail/commercial space.

It is also not good enough that in catering for a possible 2046 units that the MRC be responsible for drainage and other service infrastructure ONLY within the bounds of the Precincts and expect residents to pay for the additional necessary upgrading of infrastructure that exists outside of the land’s borders.

Here we have a Section 173 that is not only reliant on the MRC agreeing to pay for anything that someone might struggle to define as ‘reasonable’ but is largely reliant on a Development Contributions Levy which does not exist and even if it did exist would not go anywhere in meeting the costs of the additional infrastructure that is undoubtedly required.

For this situation we can thank our brilliant ‘negotiating’ team of Newton, Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. Having stuffed up once before, it is imperative that this not happen again. Development Plan approval must come after a fully detailed and updated Agreement that itemises all necessary works throughout the entire 3 precincts and all the surrounding areas. Ratepayers should not be subsidising the profit making enterprises of any developer.

PRECINCT 1 (with more to come!)

442 dwellings comprising 5 buildings and 8 double storey townhouses that are either 3 or 2 bedroom.

THUS 58% OF PROPOSED NEW DWELLINGS ARE SINGLE BEDROOM! Only 28 dwellings (excluding the 8 townhouses) will be 3 bedroom apartments, equalling a paltry 6.45%!

How many of these little boxes will have direct sunlight is never clearly enunciated. Instead we have such qualifications as – Where possible, new dwellings have been orientated to achieve optimum solar access to balconies and internal living areas. We can only surmise that this means that most bedrooms will be devoid of natural light!

PS: For those with an eye for looking at plans, we’ve included a ‘snap shot’ from part of the Development Plan which is repeated throughout. Please note at the top right hand corner the size of apartment and the size of balcony – a miniscule 4.0 sq. metres. This should be read in light of the following Age article where the City of Melbourne is considering plans to ensure that apartments do not become chicken coops because of size and where London has enforced a 50sq.m minimum size for one bedroom places. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-considers-minimum-floor-size-for-citys-shrinking-apartments-20130727-2qrhi.html

This post concerns what happened at the final council meeting of last year (December 17^th). In response to an earlier Request for a Report, the following motion was put and carried. We draw readers’ attention to the fact that Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz voted against the motion. We also highlight the fact that what purports to be the actual motion/resolution is NOT what Delahunty said. Two significant words have been omitted from 3 (a) and 3(b) thereby totally changing the outcomes and meaning of the resolution. The entire motion as presented in the now accepted and doctored minutes reads:

Crs Delahunty/Magee

That Council notes:

1. A further part of the process for the amendment of C60 is the consideration / approval of development plans which will involve further community consultation.

2. The first development plan has already been submitted to council and will be the subject of community consultation in early 2014.

3. The report sought to address the area surrounding the Caulfield Racecourse as a whole not just the area comprising C60 and as such further requests:

a. That the recent traffic study conducted on Queens Avenue, Caulfield East including the area around the Neerim Road intersection and the Sir John Monash Drive intersection,

b. That the recent traffic study conducted on Eskdale Road Caulfield East showing the impact, if any on the local street of the changed traffic conditions on nearby Kambrook Road; and

c. That any studies of pedestrian movement along Queens Avenue be examined for potential improvements to safety and accessibility.

4. That the Minutes of this Item incorporate the Resolution of 9 April 2013 in full and the Planning Conference held on 4 April 2011 in Attachment 2.

When Delahunty moved this motion she included in Clause 3 (a and b) the phrase “be provided”. In other words, Delahunty’s motion was asking that the traffic reports which have already been done be given to councillors, or possibly even be made public. By omitting these words from the minutes the entire resolution is exiled to some never-never land of inaction.  Yet, not one single councillor at last night’s meeting commented upon this omission. We have to wonder if Delahunty herself would have asked that the minutes be corrected.

The full significance of all this becomes obvious when one follows the ‘discussion’ that took place on the motion and the pathetic and duplicitous arguments proposed by Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. Here’s what happened:

DELAHUNTY moved motion. Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: stated that some traffic studies had been done in the ‘Caulfield East area’ and that ‘a number of residents have contacted’ her about the traffic and she doesn’t want to be ‘dismissive’ of these people.  Said that she thought that residents need ‘actions now’ and that it’s ‘wise’ to understand ‘what might occur in the future’. Wanted this done in a more ‘informal discussion’ and ‘incorporated into community consultation’ and wanted the community consultation committee involved in this. For now, she just wanted that councillors ‘get more information about’ traffic studies on top of what was done in 2011.

MAGEE: Magee did not speak to the motion.

HYAMS: began by saying ‘it’s not so much the substance’ of the motion but the ‘timing’. Said that there would be lots of ‘changes’ to the area and that noone could say that they were ‘all right’ and that there were still going to be ‘a lot’ of changes in the next couple of years especially to the ‘road structure’ and that council had ‘put in’ a ‘lot of conditions’. Thought that all this ‘might be a bit premature’ and didn’t want to have ‘all this effort’ put into ‘producing reports’ when it could all be ‘out of date reasonably soon’. Conceded that it’s important to ‘keep an eye’ on things but wasn’t sure ‘whether this is really the time to do this’.

SOUNNESS: started off by saying that the C60 is ‘controversial’ and that residents were worried about what was ‘going to happen’ and how it was going to work. Said that the processes are ‘confusing to the community’ and therefore there was a ‘need for help to explain to the community’ what is happening. ‘It’s a process of being clear and transparent’ and that’s the role of council. Developers can work within their own area, but the changes and processes should be made clear. Thought that the motion was a ‘good way’ that ‘council does do its communication’ and that the community consultation committee would be ‘a very good place’ to explore all the options. Reiterated that this was ‘confusing’ and that there is ‘uncertainty, there is doubt’ and ‘Council has a role in trying to mitigate that fear’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Hyams in that the motion is ‘too premature’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Sounness that there was ‘angst’ in the community and although Delahunty’s motion is something that ‘should happen, but not right now’. Said that the ‘first step is to let the development plan come through’ so the community ‘can see’ what’s there. Only then should council ‘look at the whole precinct’. What’s happening now is that the motion proposes to look at roads without knowing what the whole precinct is going to look like. ‘When it does come in things may change’. Residents need ‘to know from an informed position’ and ‘doing it now is not an informed position’. ‘What we should be doing is allowing it to happen and then have consultation’ once the development plan is in so that then ‘everyone can become involved’.

PILLING: thought the motion had enough ‘merit’ for it to be passed.

DELAHUNTY: said that she had ‘changed what I originally wanted to ask’ as to whether there was an ‘additional work’ and there wasn’t because the traffic studies had already been done. Said that the motion isn’t asking for additional or any consultation but the methods of consultation are the focus. Wanted to ‘include the whole precinct’ and not just one area. Wanted to know how council or the consultation committee could ‘increase the scope’ of consultation. Wanted some ‘scope’ to ‘understand pedestrian movement’ along Queen’s Road because people had notified her about ‘safety’

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ VOTED AGAINST.

COMMENT

Residents should consider very carefully WHY Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz voted against a motion that requested information on traffic and parking. Their nonsense argument of ‘premature’ is an insult to the intelligence of residents. This is akin to saying ‘let’s wait til the tsunami hits and then see what our emergency plans are like’!!!! Utter rubbish! When the MRC proposes 2,046 units, with no provision for on site visitor parking, no real and plausible explanation of what is going to happen to the displaced MRC members’ car parks on race days, and when Monash is booted out of its current car parking arrangement at the racecourse and staff and students have nowhere to park, then residents have every right to ask that information is supplied BEFORE any of the disasters happen. Making matters worse, nothing in the MRC parking plan, and absolutely nothing from councillors, talks about the flow on effects of both parking displacements and the hordes of new residents congesting an already over-congested area.

Further, if council has actually done some traffic analysis of nearby streets then how can this be ‘premature’? The accompanying report states unequivocably that the Development plan was already in council’s hands. Hence, Lipshutz knows full well (if he bothered to read it) what the plan entailed. If by chance he wasn’t privy to it, then this is just another black mark against an administration that keeps its councillors (or some of them) completely in the dark until things are sufficiently ‘massaged’ and vital decisions are made on the basis of LACK OF RELEVANT INFORMATION.

Regardless of whether or not all councillors had clapped eyes on the Development plan by December 17^th, any information that may shed further light on decision making must be available. Council will be deciding again in a piece meal fashion – development plan, by development plan. Who knows when the next Development plan for the second precinct will be forthcoming. But in the meantime, the MRC will already have ‘cemented’ the residential component of the project and the traffic mayhem will have been let loose on unsuspecting residents.

A truck could literally be driven through the gang’s arguments. Lipshutz wants to ‘wait’ for plans for the ‘whole precinct’. Somebody should tell him that the documents DO REVEAL the plans for the ‘whole precinct’ – however briefly! Also included in this first Development Plan are 3 documents relating to traffic management for the entire area. But, and this is a big BUT, the MRC have basically only looked at 4 streets and not Queens Ave, Sir John Monash Drive, Eskdale Road, etc. If council has done what the MRC ignored then this is crucial information that should be given not only to councillors, but provided to the public at large.

What Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are in fact doing, in our view, is to push the MRC agenda. We have no idea when the subsequent development plans will be released. It could be years away, but in the meantime, the residential precinct will be underway and traffic chaos will ensue. And that’s what Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are basically arguing for. Let’s wait and see they say. Our view is ‘forewarned is forearmed’. And once this particular development plan is rubber stamped by the gang, whatever follows will be too little, too late. The wheels will be set in motion and undoing what’s been done becomes an impossibility. You can’t undo something after the fact. Traffic analysis of all the area, especially those streets not included in the MRC development plans, are essential to decision making now. They are essential for the public to understand what will happen and will provide residents with the grounds for objections – that of course assumes that the council investigation is indeed ‘objective’ and honest. We have our doubts.

Governance overall continues to be a major problem. How many more times will minutes create fiction out of fact? How many more times will this councillor group allow inaccurate and distorted versions of what really occurred to enter into the formal record and thus aid and abet the continual rewriting of history?

But most important is the very fact that these three councillors are Trustees. This inevitably calls into question whether or not they really have the interests of residents at heart, or are basically MRC stooges. Remember, they and Newton are responsible for C60; they and Newton are responsible for setting up a Special Committee where 4 councillors (a minority!) decided the fate of thousands, and they are responsible for the failure to listen to the community. This latest incident is only further evidence of why their actions, their words, and their hidden agendas, require a full Royal Commission.