GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

February 16, 2020

One Size Does Not Fit All!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this council is not working for residents. Its major beneficiaries have been, and remain, developers. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its latest strategies, namely, the Open Space Refresh and the appallingly named City Plan.

The outcomes that will eventuate from such policies will only further assist in encouraging more and more development to the detriment of residents.

OPEN SPACE  

Councilors were patting themselves on the back at the last council meeting proclaiming how wonderful an 8.3% open space levy was. Admittedly, this is an increase on the current 5.7% levy. The question that residents need to ask themselves is whether or not an 8.3% levy is sufficient to meet the open space requirements of this municipality. It is not!!

Why is council opting for this sum when other councils such as Monash and Darebin are currently seeking 10% and municipalities such as Yarra are also contemplating up to 10%. In terms of existing open space, both Monash and Darebin have far more than Glen Eira. They are also much larger with Monash being 80 square km compared to Glen Eira’s 38.7 square km. The rate of multi unit development in Glen Eira is also outstripping what happens in these councils. Yet, Glen Eira sees fit to ask for much less. Why? Surely the only feasible answer is that they do not want to put too much of an impediment in the way of developers! Residents’ needs for open space is second to facilitating more development!

Here are the proposed amendments from these other councils:

CITY PLAN

Here’s another policy that leaves much to be desired and is an insight into the shoddy strategic planning that has been endemic in Glen Eira for decades. With no up to date, genuine housing strategy, with no real activity centre strategy worth the name, council has been forced to do another slap dash, one size fits all ‘refit’. If planning had been done properly years ago we would not be in the position we are in now.

Nowhere is this ‘one size fits all’ approach illustrated more clearly than in the proposed five storey height limit for our local centres. Each centre is treated as if they are identical and all will be allowed to have 5 storey discretionary height limits. No thought has been given to the differences that exist between each local centre in terms of surrounding residential areas, transport, amount of commercial space, etc. All are treated as identical! Again, this is not planning. It is policy without strategic justification.

Once again Glen Eira stands in the shadow of how other councils go about their planning. Bayside for instance in its Amendment C126 had this to say about its local and neighbourhood centres:

Only when councillors stop endorsing such poor planning will they be doing their mandated jobs of proper oversight. Thus far they have failed dismally.

 

February 13, 2020

Open Space: Fact Versus Fiction!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

The lack of public open space in Glen Eira has been noted again and again by residents and council. It is therefore important to review council’s performance over the past 6 years since the introduction of its 2014 Open Space Strategy to see exactly what has been achieved. Not much we would say and is evidenced by the following public question (and response).

The spin merchants are really out in force with this response. Here is why:

  • After nearly 6 years only 34% of the 2014 ‘very high’ priority recommendations have been completed. Most of these recommendations were for the creation of additional open space. Not achieved!
  • Aileen Avenue cost over $2m and has been rented for the past 3 years. It is a stone’s throw from Princes Park. In the latest open space ‘refresh’ the idea of arterial roads being barriers has been jettisoned. So Aileen Avenue was bought with the argument that Hawthorn Road was a ‘barrier’ despite the fact that there were lights providing safe crossing to Princes Park. We are now at the stage that part of this road will be converted into ‘open space’ together with the property. Another year or so of waiting is in line and despite strong community opposition.
  • Perhaps council should define exactly what ‘connectivity around Virginia Park’ really means when they are in favour of at least 3000 new apartments in Virginia Estate?
  • We have to laugh at their so called ‘achievements’ when we read ‘input into Caulfield Racecourse Reserve land planning’! etc.etc.etc.

The best example of smoke and mirrors comes with council’s claim that in 6 years they have added 4000 square metres of public open space. We remind readers that council counts public open space as the TOTAL AREA of a site. That means that pavilions, car parks, shelters are included in the calculation. So now we have the reverse argument: because two scout halls have been demolished this is supposed to mean that we now have additional open space. Council can’t have it both ways. Either these structures are not counted as part of open space and hence the municipality’s open space is much less, or these structures are counted and hence the removal of 2 scout halls adds a big fat zero to the amount of public open space available.

Worth pointing out is that Booran Reserve has 11% of its 17,800 square metres sealed off from public use behind huge iron wrought gates! Also council has had ‘management’ responsibility for this site since 2010 and the land did not cost them a penny. The play ground was opened in April 2017. Again, 7 years and close to $13m to create this park. Would also be interesting to know how much concrete covers this site?

Gardenvale park has an interesting history. It had a public acquisition layer placed on 53 Magnolia road shortly after the park opening . This was then removed by council in 2008. Then in 2015 the public acquisition overlay was put back on. But only after the house had stood derelict and abandoned for years and was being used by squatters and druggies. The land size was a paltry 253square metres according to this link! (https://www.onthehouse.com.au/property/vic/gardenvale-3185/53-magnolia-rd-gardenvale-vic-3185-9626138). Council claims it was 497! Thus, years and years of doing nothing resulted in increased pricing for the land and the addition of perhaps 18000 square metres to our total public open space.

Further, the Mimosa/Mile End road measures approximately 1100 square metres. The public acquisition overlay was applied in 2016. Thus another 4 years have gone by without any progress. How many more years residents will have to wait until open space is provided is anyone’s guess!

The bottom line is that this council is more concerned with ‘show’ than with the acquisition of new green open space. Here’s an example of the 2016/17 budget. Nothing has changed where the vast majority of the open space levy goes on ‘development’ rather than the purchase of new open space.

Time and time again residents have been promised at least a 50% split between the acquisition of NEW open space and development of existing open space. That’s what the 1987 open space strategy promised. Even better was that council passed several resolutions that all of the levy was to be used for new open space in 2014. That of course went out the window with the gazetting of Amendment C120.

Council’s record in acquiring new open space in a municipality that has the least amount of public open space per capita is really appalling. This new strategy does nothing to fix the problems. The message from residents is absolutely clear. Stop squandering a fortune on needless ‘redevelopments’ and start creating new and viable open space.

 

February 7, 2020

The Secret Agenda?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[9] Comments 

Presented below is the statement/question from one resident concerning planning for Caulfield South. We urge residents to listen carefully to the question the response from Torres.

COMMENTS

Given what has been happening in South Caulfield in recent times it is extraordinary that this council has refused to progress the work on this centre in any meaningful way. We do not for one instance buy the excuse of lack of resources, or for that matter the need to provide sufficient strategic justification that will take another 2 years at least. One could very well ask:

  • How much strategic justification was submitted for the first interim height amendment for Bentleigh & Carnegie in 2017? One FOI result clearly indicated that practically nothing was submitted to justify the minister’s intervention. The outcome was surely ‘political’ rather than based on sound housing strategy!
  • Torres would like readers to believe that the so called City Plan is something entirely new compared to the Quality Design Guidelines that were accepted by council years ago. These guidelines had already stated on page 4: Protection of character and lower scale of shopping streets Community feedback has demonstrated a clear priority to protect the character, heritage and lower scale that define Glen Eira’s shopping strips. These strips are the communal centre of Glen Eira’s diverse neighbourhoods and as such they are a physical representation of the community’s collective culture. Recent planning applications for taller buildings in the heart of these shopping strips, have demonstrated the community’s strong concern about the potential erosion of the character of Glen Eira’s shopping strips.

The Quality Design Guidelines seek to address this aspiration and concern by developing

appropriate guidance for the traditional shopping strips that encourage:- protection of heritage facades and street scale; and– limiting building heights to a maximum of 5 storeys.

Hence, the proposed height limits had been set years ago and not as Torres implies with this latest document!

The Implications 

One thing is abundantly clear. The longer council (deliberately) delays and delays then it will become almost impossible for any Design & Development Overlay, or any Structure Plan to successfully argue for 5 or less storeys, when permits have been granted for 9 storeys. Is this the secret agenda?

The latest example of what’s happening is the newly advertised application for the old bowling centre in Hawthorn Road. It seeks:

  • 9 storeys
  • 90 apartments
  • A supermarket
  • 182 car parking spots (with waivers of 10)

Some statements from the actual application are worth citing given council’s pathetic definition/interpretation(s) of ‘community benefit’, its archaic Municipal Strategic Statement and the abject failure to provide anything in the planning scheme to ensure sustainable development (ie landscaping). All of these gaps the developer naturally uses to his advantage:

The height of the proposal is considered appropriate on the basis that it clearly addresses its principal Hawthorn Road frontage, with the provision of a community benefit through an activate road corridor which integrates with the streetscape, the design response appropriately considering its relationship to neighbouring land uses and built form. 

Clause 21.-01-2 recognises that Glen Eira’s population will continue to increase slightly over the next 20 years, however the size and growth of households are anticipated to be noticeably different. It highlights the State Government’s projection that the city will have 58,000 households by the year 2021, resulting in an increase of 13,000 dwellings from the recognised 45,000 households in 1996 

Given the neighbourhood centre context and otherwise the locational circumstances of the site relative to existing built form, the site does not lend itself to extensive landscaping. Nor is there an opportunity to provide deep soil planting areas. This arrangement is not uncommon within this part of the activity centre. The insistence on the provision of this would unreasonably compromise the development and would be inconsistent with the activity centre context. 

If this application does get up, then Hawthorn Road will look like this! Plus, the possibility of 3 supermarkets within a 70 metre radius, plenty of car parking waivers and the potential creation of a great wind tunnel given recent proposals. Well done council! Everything appears to be working to plan!

 

 

 

 

 

February 5, 2020

Election Mode Already!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

Last night’s council meeting, to say the least was ‘interesting’.  All the ingredients were there: wonderful grandstanding, the inability to answer questions directly from residents, and of course, the ‘gift’ of Wynne and labor culprits to camouflage the failures of Glen Eira City Council for the past few decades. Note: we certainly are not endorsing the woeful changes introduced into planning by Wynne. But to simply pass the buck and agree to everything is not in residents’ best interests either.

Here are some of the results from last night:

  • The Nepean Highway 9 storey development was refused. Delahunty was the only councillor to vote against refusal.
  • The Hawthorn Road 4 storey (heritage) development was also refused with an unanimous vote. Suddenly heritage was important, despite the fact that in Derby Road, these same councillors allowed a 12 storey development!
  • The changes to the Bentleigh & Carnegie structure plans carried with only Magee voting against and arguing that heights should be mandatory.
  • Open space strategy lauded as wonderful as is the 8.3% levy. Of course, no one mentioned that other councils were either pursuing, or had already achieved 10% for their entire municipalities! One comment from Delahunty was instructive when she implied that 8.3% was high enough not to stop development! Here is the bottom line we suspect: a 10% levy would greatly reduce developer interest and thus put some break on development in the municipality. That’s anathema to our council!
  • In response to a public question council revealed that not too much of the 2014 open space recommendations had been achieved. Six years then of getting money and hardly anything to show for it!

Until these councillors are prepared to stand up and fight for residents, then we do not anticipate that there will be any positive changes in this municipality. The argument that everything is imposed by government does not mean that councillors and council remain silent and accepting

 

February 3, 2020

Planning 101

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[10] Comments 

A long post, but an important one.

The agenda for Tuesday night contains two officer recommendations for planning approval that are nothing short of staggering. In this post we will concentrate on the first one, which proposes:

217 Nepean Highway Gardenvale. A 9 storey building with 21 apartments; waiver of 4 parking spots; 88 square metres of retail and 182 square metres of office space.

Why the recommendation for a permit is unacceptable

The site is zoned Commercial 1 and hence is permitted residential development. There are no mandatory height limits. It is designated as a LOCAL CENTRE in council’s planning scheme. These are assigned a much lower priority in the development pecking order, behind Urban Villages like Bentleigh, Carnegie, Elsternwick etc. and then Neighbourhood Centres such as Ormond, East Bentleigh, McKinnon, etc.

The officer report cites the planning scheme objectives for these local centres and it is acknowledged that Gardenvale and Patterson local centres may be candidates for more intense developments. However the objectives as stated in the planning scheme refer to a 2 storey height limit overall and the possibility of somewhat higher in Gardenvale and Patterson.

What is completely mind boggling however is the following spurious ‘justification’ for 9 storeys in Gardenvale:

The Gardenvale Local Centre is specifically mentioned within the policy, noting that a taller built form may be accepted. The policy requires consideration of potential offsite amenity impacts such as overlooking, overshadowing, visual bulk and noise. These are important considerations and will be addressed later in this report (under the section ‘offsite amenity’).However, in terms of residential context, the site benefits from having only one residential abutment (and even in this case, the land is zoned commercial). 

The outstanding issue, and one which has been raised by objectors, is that this development exceeds anything that is currently approved or constructed in this local centre. While this statement is correct, there is nothing in the local policy which explicitly prohibits a development of this height, in this location. 

With this final sentence, we have a clear indication of the sham that is this council’s planning department and its agenda for anything goes. Just because there is a gaping hole in the planning scheme, does not mean that going from a stated preferred 2 storey height or even a 5 storey height to 9 makes it acceptable. Council often uses this strategy ie if not stated we don’t have to do it, or the reverse. If nothing is explicitly stated we can do it!

Even worse is that council has completely ignored its own policy documents already embedded in the planning scheme. We refer to Glen Eira City Council Quality Design Guidelines– Commercial and Mixed Use Areas (March2018) which is in the planning scheme as a Reference Document and covers all commercial and mixed use areas in the municipality. Under the heading of Shop Top (Standard) on page 424 of this document we find the following statements:

To provide commercial and mixed use buildings that maintain the low-scale and fine grained streetscape character of traditional shopping strips and respond appropriately to sensitive interfaces. 

Preferred height > 3 to 5 storeys (subject to site context), unless otherwise defined in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme or a locally specific strategic plan. 

Well, one could argue that 2 storeys is noted in the planning scheme although nothing is specifically ‘defined’ or made mandatory. Hence the question remains why we now have the recommendation for a 9 storey building which flies in the face of council’s planning scheme and its associated policy documents. Please note that even the latest document included in this agenda, specifies a 5 storey height limit for its neighbourhood and local centres! A four storey differential is simply ignored. Existing and proposed policy is ignored. Also ignored completely is this from the planning scheme:

Encourage gradual changes in building heights between existing buildings and new developments in the commercial areas of the Patterson and Gardenvale local centres 

Council’s interpretation of ‘gradual change’ becomes at best 4 storeys, and at worst,7 storeys.

Ultimately, the question basically boils down to why have a planning scheme at all? Why spend a fortune devising policies that in the end are dispensible and useless? Why is this planning department ignorant of its own guidelines or sees fit to override them? This will truly test the mettle of our so called ‘representatives’ who have repeatedly stuck to the mantra that ‘policy is policy’ and should be adhered to (in particular: Delahunty and Esakoff).

More to the point is the question of how and why a planning department can recommend that permits be granted when the proposals are so out of kilter with their own planning scheme and current strategy documents. Perhaps the answer is quite simple? If 9 storeys can go in this section of Nepean Highway, then anything goes along the current car yards and fits in perfectly with council’s ambitions for high rise development as part of the Urban Renewal South of Elsternwick. This is merely the first step in the process. Precedents are set and they are all in the developer’s favour!

This is NOT planning. It is fulfilling a predetermined agenda set in secret and without community input.

 

January 31, 2020

Who Does Council Really Support: Developers Or Residents?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

The new year has not got off to a great start in our municipality with the release of the latest agenda. Planning in Glen Eira remains incompetent, ad hoc, and entirely pro development. The current agenda proves this in spades. Council can of course now cite Wynne and the Labor government as a very convenient scapegoat for the proposed changes to the current amendments/structure plans for Bentleigh & Carnegie. This however, does not absolve them of years upon years of inaction and disastrous strategic planning.

A brief summary of the agenda is in order.

  • All heights for strategic sites/urban renewal sites have now become ‘discretionary’ rather than mandatory as they currently are. That of course means that developers can go for broke in terms of heights.
  • Our estimation is that about 180 sites in Bentleigh and Carnegie have been ‘upgraded’ so that they will now go from 2 storey height limits to either 3 or 4 storey height. Others that are currently 3 storey will now be permitted 4 storey. No justification for any of these changes has been provided. Nor is there any explanation provided as to why Godfrey Street in Bentleigh from number 9 to 27 will now be assigned a 4 storey height limit. Why not number 29 Godfrey Street, especially since the argument proposed by council is that they are attempting to ‘fix’ the problems of 2013 when single streets had multiple zonings. This kind of decision is simply repeating the mistakes of the past. Literally unbelievable! The same questions apply to changes to other streets throughout these suburbs.
  • We also have an admission that council’s ‘uplift’ policy, that was based entirely on what Melbourne City Council had created was a definite ‘no/no’ in order to determine what constitutes ‘community benefit’. They have now been told that what is required is a Development Contributions Levy. Of course, council’s response to this (after promising it in the 2016 planning scheme review) is:

Incorporating a Development Contributions Plan into the Planning Scheme for Carnegie will not be able to be undertaken as part of Amendment C184 due to the length and complexity of this process and may be worth examining at a later date.

So is this another council promise out the window?

  • Gone as well is the useless Quality Design Guidelines that was so vague and nebulous that you could drive a truck through it.
  • Most important is the simple fact that this council does not have an up to date Housing Strategy. The last one was done in 2001. Instead we now have the smoke and mirrors exercise of a ‘city plan’ that is supposed to do the work of examining closely every single street in the municipality. It doesn’t come within cooee of a decent housing strategy. Also worth pointing out to readers is that countless other councils have had housing strategies for well over a decade and have reviewed them continually. Not Glen Eira. The question that then needs asking is how can you perform decent strategic planning when no such overall strategy or policy exists. As per normal, this council does things arse backwards. First, and only because you’ve been ordered to, you get structure plans done, and then worry about a housing strategy!!!
  • Wynne and the department also recommends the use of Neighbourhood Character Overlays. For the past few years, council has been bent on removing NCOs from the planning scheme! So is it back to the drawing board again on this one?
  • As for the schedules to the zones themselves, council is quite happy with what already exists, instead of improving things like permeability, site coverage, etc. We’ve pointed out previously how other councils make a mockery of Glen Eira in that they have even 40% permeability in the GRZ zones whilst Glen Eira is stuck on its meagre 20%!!! Another big opportunity lost to do something positive! RGZ 4 is the most remarkable. Here site coverage can be 90% and permeability a fabulous 5%! Well done council!

There is much much more in this agenda that requires commenting upon. We will provide updates in the coming days. However, we believe that it is important that all those residents who will be affected by changes in zoning to fully comprehend what the changes will mean.

Below is council’s list of the proposed changes:

 

 

 

December 31, 2019

Happy New Year!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

Wishing all our readers a healthy, peaceful and fulfilling 2020.

Reflecting on the past year, change is definitely needed as highlighted in the image below. We require:

  • a council that fights tooth and nail for its residents
  • a council that is open, transparent and accountable
  • a council that engages in genuine consultation
  • a council that listens and acts upon majority views
  • a council that implements immediate height limits for all mixed use and commercial zones
  • a council that has councillors equipped to deal with their oversight obligations

 

December 19, 2019

Simply Not Good Enough!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

The year is fast drawing to a close, so we thought it worthwhile to consider the ‘achievements’ and ‘failures’ of this council over the past few years.

Below is a list of things that spring to mind. We’ve probably ignored or forgotten some, so please feel free to point out any we might have missed. There is no specific order to the following list.

What we’ve concentrated on are major councillor decisions that arguably fly in the face of majority community views.

Tree Register: still waiting after the issue was first raised in 2003. No guarantee that any control will include private land.

Local Law (Meeting Procedures): No notice of motion; no change to public question format or ensuring that public questions occur much earlier

Structure Plans: version(s) change from 7 storeys to 12 in Carnegie; Elsternwick 12 storeys; and Bentleigh up one storey. Strongly opposed by vast majority of residents.

East Village: 3000 apartments an ‘overdevelopment’; heights of 8 storeys on nearly 60% of the land too high; no public transport to speak of.

Neighbourhood Centres:  no height controls and won’t be for at least another 3 years. In the meantime 7, 8, 9 storey applications coming in. Council’s ‘excuse’? Resources and working very hard on major activity centres, yet nothing is adjusted in budget to facilitate this undertaking.

Environmental/Sustainable development: no WSUD in planning scheme as promised in 2016. Position is ‘advocacy’ and state problem

Winter Solstice Overshadowing: again do nothing but ‘advocate’

Aged Care Sell Off: no consultation and huge angst created for all concerned. Back flip we suspect because price not agreed upon. No guarantee that they still won’t be sold down the track.

Open Space: purchase of Aileen Avenue for $2.1m and then leased for approx. 3 years. No public acquisition overlays except for Mimosa Road property in past 5 years. Millions in fund but council content to spend a fortune on ‘redevelopment’ rather than purchase.

Caulfield Village: cave in on ‘affordable housing’ and overdevelopment of site

Heritage: too little too late for Seymour Road, Elsternwick. Plus how important is heritage to these councillors when a 12 storey permit is granted for Derby Road in a heritage precinct.

Planning Scheme Review: change after change in ‘action plan’ so that years are added on to completion of promised actions. Some ‘actions’ simply disappear ie structure plans for all activity centres becomes ‘urban design guidelines’.

What all of the above illustrates is the nonsense of the utilitarian arguments about ‘greater good’. If that was truly the motive behind some of the above decision making then we would already have more open space, a tree register, height controls in all our commercial zones, and a council that fought tooth and nail to protect residential amenity.

PS: The recently published Wynne letter to council spoke about 2 months of working with the department to ensure that the permanent Amendment for Bentleigh & Carnegie is progressed. We now have an extension on the existing interim controls gazetted until MARCH 2021. Another 15 months of dithering and opportunity for developers to go to VCAT and argue their case about ‘interim’ controls that have not been tested at panels, etc.

 

December 15, 2019

Dirty Tactics: East Village & Caulfield Village

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments 

Dirty tactics would appear to be in plentiful supply when it comes to the two largest developments to ever occur in Glen Eira ie Caulfield Village and now East Village.

CAULFIELD VILLAGE

With wonderful timing, we have another development stage for Caulfield Village that will grow the site by another 437 apartments. Residents can submit their views (not officially ‘objections’ since there are no third party objection rights) by DECEMBER 24TH, 2019. No need to comment on how inappropriate this is!

Please consider the following facts:

  • The developer’s submitted documents are dated from August to September 2019
  • The actual application went into council on the 1st October, 2019 according to the developer’s letter of submission.
  • Given that there would have been plenty of discussions already between council and the developer prior to this date, we do not see why the plans could not have been made public at the November council meetings. We also note that council states that they only announced the application on the 3rd. Again over 8 weeks after it was received. So, is this dirty tactics by the developer and/or council, we ask? How convenient that Christmas Eve is the deadline! Machiavelli couldn’t have planned it any better!

Next we have the actual proposal itself:

  • 4 buildings up to 9 storeys high
  • 94 Studio apartments with an average size of 40 square metres
  • 191 single bedroom apartments with an average size of 50 square metres
  • 142 two bedroom apartments with an average of 70 square metres
  • 10 three bedroom apartments

Even more startling is that NONE of these properties are to be sold. They are all for rent! And that includes 21 dwellings that will be offered at 20% rent reduction for ‘social/affordable housing’. So magnanimous of the developer when they fought tooth and nail to avoid any social housing component, even though this was stated in the Incorporated Plan.  And so magnanimous of council to cave in and not fight this tooth and nail when they had the opportunity!

Bear in mind that we still have the 20 storeys and more to go and that will probably add another 1500 dwellings to this monstrosity, ably abetted by council. The 2014 Incorporated Plan that was passed by Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Pilling (only 4 out of the existing 9 councillors) specified a dwelling component of 1100 to 1200 apartments. We are already past this figure with this application and still have the Smith Street Precinct to go which will include at least 20 to 22 storeys!

Even more outrageous is that the Incorporated Plan states that if any of the site is to be listed as ‘student accommodation’ then third party objection rights would come into play. Nothing in this current application designates this as ‘student housing’. Yet it is a stone’s throw from Monash Uni and with dog boxes (studios and single bedroom) the majority, how can they be anything but student housing?

This is simply another application in the long history of the Caulfield Village fiasco and a council that has aided and abetted the developer at every step of the way.

EAST VILLAGE

The Planning Panel for Amendment C155 has now concluded. In an attempt to possibly placate residents councillors resolved for the following in their updated Comprehensive Development Plan and Schedule in October 2019.

  • Mandatory heights of 8 storeys
  • Mandatory 3000 maximum apartments
  • Mandatory setbacks
  • Mandatory overshadowing conditions, especially at the winter solstice

In private discussions between the developer team and council’s team we now have the possibility of:

  • NO MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMITS
  • NO MANDATORY SET BACKS
  • NO MANDATORY OVERSHADOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE WINTER SOLSTICE
  • 4 storey podium along Central Park instead of 3 storeys
  • Trigger points for road construction relaxed and/or removed entirely

The only mandatory condition that council maintained was 3000 apartments when the vast majority of residents stated this was an ‘over development’.

Whilst there is no guarantee that the panel will accept these compromises, our guess is that when the two major stakeholders reach agreement it is unlikely that the panel will adjudicate differently.

Plenty of questions come out of this episode, namely:

  • Were councillors informed of this change of heart by officers? Judging by Hyams’ comment on social media they certainly weren’t!
  • Since this was a formal council resolution and has not been rescinded then it still stands
  • Given that we are now dealing with an entirely different amendment to what was put out for comment, shouldn’t this be readvertised to the public?
  • What legal authority is granted under delegation for officers to change/alter a council resolution, especially without consultation and further decision making?

Both of these examples illustrate completely how ineffectual our councillors are when it comes to representing the community. It also illustrates who runs the show at this council and that all important decisions are made by officers, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so. Councillors can change this via their voting on delegations. The fact that they continually cede more and more power to officers is against the public interest and certainly shows an inability to either understand what is happening or the will to change it. Either way, these councillors are failing the community!

 

 

December 10, 2019

East Village: Amendment C155

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

The East Village Planning Panel has now been going for over a week and will continue until this Friday. Barristers, solicitors, expert witnesses abound. There are also reps from the VPA, Council, and landowners. The most disappointing aspect is that only 4 residents have decided to show up and present their submissions directly to the Panel. It is admittedly an onerous task given that people would be required to give up a working day, plus plough through at least 6000 pages of documentation.

What is clear thus far is:

  • The developer/landowners do not want MANDATORY conditions placed upon them which would prevent more than 3000 dwellings. They also do not agree with mandatory shadow conditions that would impact on the height(s) of the buildings
  • The developer/landowners want a reduction in the infrastructure costs potentially saving them millions (bearing in mind that the 1.2 hectare school site has been paid for by the State Government). A great windfall we say. So money comes in and the developer is still arguing to pay less.
  • Council on the other hand appears to be quite happy with 3000 apartments as a mandatory condition despite the lack of public transport and the already congested surrounding arterial roads.

The Panel Report will definitely make for interesting reading!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »