GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

May 6, 2014

Media Release

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[3] Comments

Government kick-starts independent and fully funded planning authority

Tuesday, 06 May 2014

The Victorian Coalition Government today committed $62.8 million to drive a greater range of jobs and investment opportunities supporting the city’s continued livability and prosperity, Minister for Planning Matthew Guy said today.

“The Coalition Government has provided $51.6 million to the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) over four years to implement Plan Melbourne,” Mr Guy said.

“Plan Melbourne supports the Coalition Government’s commitment to building a stronger Victorian economy by working with development industry to create more jobs right across the State.

“This funding is an important boost for jobs and productivity, by helping the growth and development of significant employment hubs across the metropolitan area and driving the expansion of the central city.

“It will kick start the major employment clusters at Monash, Latrobe, Sunshine and Fishermans Bend, urban renewal a framework for expanding the central city and a metropolitan-wide open space strategy, to promote growth and investment, further increasing their attraction as great mixed use places for businesses, workers and new residents.

“These job centres are a fundamental principle of Plan Melbourne, our new plan for the city, and they mean more jobs and services in Melbourne’s middle and outer suburbs,” Mr Guy said.

Planning will also commence for urban renewal areas at Cremorne and Collingwood and along railway corridors from Huntingdale to Dandenong, Brunswick to Batman, and North Richmond to Victoria Park.

A further $11.2 million will be provided over four years to deliver key short term actions from Plan Melbourne including:

supporting Local Government delivery of major urban renewal sites;
a local pocket park fund; and
a 20-minute neighbourhood fund.

This funding will be available to the MPA and other government delivery bodies.

“Unlocking land opportunities across Victoria and expanding our central city and urban renewal areas will not only deliver more jobs, more housing and transport options, it will be a major boost for the State’s productivity and economic growth over the next 50 years,” Mr Guy said.

The funding to deliver Plan Melbourne initiatives and a more streamlined planning system will be provided through a new levy on planning permit application fees for projects worth more than $1 million.

The levy will be at a rate of $1.30 for each $1,000 of the estimated development cost. It will apply in addition to the permit application fee, which will still be paid to the local council as currently occurs.

The levy will raise an estimated $17.1 million per year and will take effect from 1 July 2015. It is estimated that approximately 6 per cent of all planning permits will be charged the levy.

Projects below $1 million in value will not be subject to the levy and designed to ensure that permit application costs remain competitive against other States, while delivering increased certainty for Victoria’s development and construction industry.

Mr Guy said that the increased costs of the levy would be more than offset by a more efficient planning system.

“Developers face millions in land holding costs every week across Victoria. A fully funded MPA will reduce overall development costs over time by bringing land to market earlier,” Mr Guy said.

“Properly funding the implementation of Plan Melbourne will ensure we maintain our globally recognised livability, while becoming Australia’s most efficient and attractive location for financial and business services, the knowledge economy, tourism attraction, freight, logistics and manufacturing.”

+++++++++

May 4, 2014

Coming Soon?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Transport
[3] Comments

High-rise plan for railway hubs

Date:May 4, 2014

Royce Millar and Adam Carey

Residents of Melbourne’s politically sensitive south-east face the possibility of high-rise development at their rail stations including Murrumbeena, under a confidential deal between the Napthine government and a consortium led by the city’s private rail operator.

The deal for the proposed multibillion-dollar upgrade of the Pakenham-Cranbourne rail corridor – contained in documents leaked to The Sunday Age – includes a specific clause about development around sites identified for level crossing removals.

”Key” issues to be negotiated with the Hong Kong-based rail operator Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) and its partners include ”exploring value capture opportunities associated with land development at grade separation sites”.

The Sunday Age is aware that MTM views the Pakenham-Cranbourne project – including property development – as the first of a series of schemes across the Melbourne network.

The ”commitment deed” spelling out the in-principle understanding between the government and the consortium, is one of a batch of high-level leaks to Fairfax Media about ”Project Flinders”, including cabinet-in-confidence documents.

In March the government made a surprise announcement about the upgrade, which it said would deliver a 30 per cent capacity boost along the congested Dandenong corridor. The revamp includes removing level crossings at Murrumbeena, Koornang, Clayton and Centre roads and rebuilding Murrumbeena, Carnegie and Clayton stations.

At the time no mention was made of the potentially controversial property development component of the project. Detail, such as the precise areas to be developed, and planning issues such as height, are yet to be finalised. So too, it seems, is any agreement about the millions of dollars likely to be generated from the sale of apartments, and commercial space.

In Hong Kong, MTM’s parent, MTR, has overseen skyscraper development around its celebrated rail network. Melbourne’s planning politics is unlikely to allow such building height or density.

More likely is the kind of development already overseen by the government-owned rail property agency VicTrack, such as the $70 million, 10-level apartment and commercial development at Glen Waverley. Other VicTrack projects either under way or in the pipeline include stations at Jewell in Brunswick and Alphington, Hampton and Pascoe Vale.

University of Melbourne transport academic Chris Hale said development around a station like Murrumbeena should be 15 levels at least.

Dr Hale said many people want to work in the CBD, and live near rail stations, but could not afford inner-city houses. He said there was a lack of housing opportunities near stations in the middle suburbs, within a 30-minute train trip to the CBD.

He called for care in planning such high density schemes. ”Rather than concrete canyons they should be lively green zones with plenty of trees and grass and great architectural qualities. State and local government needs to become more effective in their stewardship of transit-oriented design and planning.”

On Saturday, Treasurer Michael O’Brien confirmed the government would ”explore” development opportunities through the Pakenham-Cranbourne upgrade. But he stressed the government would drive a hard bargain in any such deals.

”It is the Victorian government, not third parties, that will determine whether and how any value capture opportunities are pursued.

”Any suggestion that the Coalition government has sold a right to develop land around level crossings as part of the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail project is barking up the wrong tree,” he said.

Project Flinders is Victoria’s first ”unsolicited proposal”, a new and controversial policy that allows the private sector to propose new infrastructure, even if the projects identified are not government priorities. It is Australia’s biggest rail public-private partnership.

While the government spruiked the scheme as a $2 billion to $2.5 billion (in today’s dollars) project, The Saturday Age reported yesterday that Victorians would have to pay up to $5.2 billion, or almost $1 million a day in annual services payments to the consortium until 2034.

The Saturday Age also revealed the project had been expedited to ensure contracts were signed before the November state election and that a key ”milestone” was ”contractual close” by September 29, two months before the election

Project Flinders also includes buying 25 ”next generation” high-capacity trains, high-speed signalling and a new train-maintenance depot on green wedge land at Pakenham East.

May 1, 2014

Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[30] Comments

Next Wednesday, the 7th May, will see the Planning Conference for the Big Screen at Caulfield Racecourse take place.

TIME: 6.30pm

CHAIR: Cr Jim Magee

VENUE: Town Hall

We can only hope that this time:

doors will not be locked
that clear directions are provided to residents so they can find the exact location
that enough plans are provided to go around
that the MRC deigns to appear and answer questions, and
that in future Council consider that 6.30pm is NOT the best time for such meetings if their objective is to truly engage with residents!

+++++++++++++

PS: and if any further evidence was needed to prove how Glen Eira City Council operates in contrast to its neighbours, we provide the following:

Residents and councillors reject State Government call for greater housing density in Boroondara

Greg Gliddon
Progress Leader
May 01, 2014 10:36AM

Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew Guy for an increase to the proportion of residential growth zones in the municipality. Source: News Limited

ANGRY residents and councillors have rejected last-minute planning zone changes that would see more neighbourhoods opened up to 13.5m-high residential developments.

More than 600 residents packed into the Camberwell Town Hall this week to hear councillors unanimously reject a planning scheme amendment that would see a greater proportion of residential areas allocated the Residential Growth Zone.

It was originally planned for 0.8 per cent of areas to be given the zone, under amendment C190. Planning Minister Matthew Guy asked for this to be increased to 2.5 per cent, under amendment C199.

A total of 123 residents wanted to speak at the special planning committee meeting, of which 52 were heard. The meeting stretched into the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Cr Jim Parke described the proposed changes as “utter nonsense”.

“What was put forward (originally) is a great outcome for Boroondara and council had every right to expect they would be approved by the minister,” Cr Parke said.

“Not for one moment did council tend to alter the protection of our city. It goes to show with the depth of feeling here tonight, that should also be conveyed to our local state members.”

Boroondara Residents Association President Jack Roach said there had been an unnecessary delay in approving the C190 amendment, which many people had found “unacceptable and detrimental” to the region.

“We request the minister approve C190 without delay,” he said.

‘There are 700 people here tonight who do not like this growth. These added bits are an insult to us all and the minister has to be told the people are not happy with this.”

The Leader asked Mr Guy’s office for a response to the meeting and details of when he plans to finalise planning scheme amendment C190.

A spokesman for Mr Guy said “An independent advisory committee is considering the merits of this issue and will give a recommendation back to the minister.”

++++++++++

And from Council Minutes 29/4 –

It has become apparent overtime, the Gallery feel we should have the opportunity to be able to speak as we are a democratic country. Instead we’re being gagged. Afterall we the ratepayers are paying the Councillors wages. So a motion should and needs to be passed on the above. During a meeting with the Mayor (Neil Pilling) last month he said he would agree to the idea of the Gallery being able to voice questions with certain restrictions. EG: time restraints. If the Councillors are discussing a particular subject the Gallery should be able to interject and ask a question by raising their hand, which is allowable in VCAT. What’s the point of attending Council Meetings monthly when we the ratepayers can’t voice our opinions.

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Over recent years Council has considered the issue of meeting procedures including the provision for a public question time.
Council, by a majority decision, decided not to change the current format.”

April 25, 2014

Agenda Items #1

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

Included in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting, there is a letter from the Valuer General’s office in response to Council’s missive. The letter provides an affirmative response to Magee’s motion that the Valuer General become involved in the Trustee/MRC lease negotiations. All well and good and certainly a step forward. However the letter basically concentrates only on the current lease negotiations and remains quite taciturn (and evasive?) on the request to REVIEW ALL LEASES. Whether this is intentional, or merely an oversight, we leave readers to decide for themselves.

Duration of the ‘new’ lease and the implications it has for the removal of training is yet another element that does not feature but which is vital if the Reserve is to fulfill its function as a racecourse, public park and recreation area.

We also wonder what has happened to the rest of the Magee resolution of March 18th – ie to involve the Auditor General re the landswap and hence the potential conflict of interest issues. Has Council had any response(s) to this component of the resolution? Why isn’t this mentioned in the report?

April 23, 2014

Council – So ‘Community Minded’!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

We’ve received an email from a resident which in our view epitomises everything that is wrong with the Glen Eira City Council administration and, in particular, its penchant for secrecy and putting every single obstacle it can in the way of residents.

Here’s what happened.

A resident went down to council offices and asked to see the Melbourne Transport Victoria submission on the Caulfield Village Development Plan.
An officer finally came down with the submission and told the resident that photographs or copies were verboten.
The resident, not to be put off, then started to transcribe the submission in full.
The officer remained watching the resident write for at least ten minutes and was clearly bored out of his brain and inwardly fuming. He then called in an underling to continue with the surveillance.

What is so outrageous about this behaviour is:

There is NOTHING, not a single word, in the Planning and Environment Act which precludes residents from taking a photo of a submission. The ‘embargo’ by council is simply another example of their determination to make things as difficult as they possibly can for residents. It is simply another ‘rule’ concocted by council to prevent widespread dissemination of a public document.
It also illustrates the common council practice of ‘if it’s not stated in the legislation’ then we can’t do it. Or the reverse is also true – if it’s not stated in the legislation, we can do it’. It all depends on the situation and the objective – for example: the Local Law and the Meeting Procedures and attempts to dissent from the chair!
Residents need to ask: how much did this officer surveillance cost ratepayers? How many dollars went down the drain when two employees stood around watching someone else write instead of getting on with the work they are paid (by us) to do?

Finally, here is the transcript as forwarded to us. All that has been left out are the reference numbers –

Received – 27^th February 2014

Public Transport Victoria

Ref FQL

Rocky Camera

Coordinator Statutory Planning

Thank you for your letter dated 28/01/14 referring the Caulfield Village Development Plan to Public Transport Victoria. Please find Public Transport Victoria’s comments below.

While the accompanying Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) has made references to most items as outlined in Schedule 2 to the Property Development Zone PTV requires the following additional information to be able to conduct a proper assessment of the plan.

1/ Demonstrate how Station Street will accommodate the ‘Undivided Connector Road – B’ as detailed in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development (i.e. a minimum 4.2 metres shared carriageway for both vehicles and bikes and a minimum 2.3 metres wide parking lane).

2/ Provide further information regarding the layout and location of the proposed bus stop at the intersection of Station Street and The Boulevard. Confirm that such bus stop would be funded by the development.

3/ Further detail on how existing tram services along Normanby Road and bus services along Station Street will be impacted by the proposed development (i.e. delays to journey time) including the intersection plans showing the proposed works, how they will accommodated within the road reserve and how they will operate.

4/ Further detail on the future planning for the Normanby Road / Smith Street tram stop (i.e. timing, planning location and design of a potential Superstop).

In addition, PTV does not support the introduction of a shared tram and traffic lane as suggested in Table 4.3 of the ITT on the Normanby Road/The Boulevard/Smith Street intersection. Introducing additional traffic to the existing tram right turn would cause travel time delays to the tram service. The intersection should be designed as not to detrimentally impact the current levels of tram operation.

The PTV would prefer that the Implementation Plan submitted with the Development Plan documents clearly sets out how each intersection across the development will be constructed and the timing for delivery detailed in an approved implementation plan.

Yours,

Richard McAliece

Manager

Land and Planning

24 / 2 / 2014

April 23, 2014

More Dissembling!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

Submitters to the MRC Development Plan have received a letter from council. We urge readers to note the following:

April 29th was never the set date for decision. Pilling announced it was to be April 8th. This delay far exceeds the requirements of Schedule 2 associated with the C60.
Normanby Road intersection is not the only problem highlighted by VicRoads as we’ve already shown in an earlier post. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/caulfield-village-vicroads/). Yet Council only mentions this one example. Why?
The VicRoads submission also mentioned working with the developers AND COUNCIL. In this letter the role of Council does not even rate a mention! Are residents supposed to believe that Council has no role, no function, and no say in what changes are now made? Hardly!
Why, given these objections, and the countless other problems outlined by residents has Council not simply rejected outright the entire Development Plan? Why this ongoing behind the scenes manoeuvring? It couldn’t be could it that by rejecting the Development Plan council would be providing residents with the green light for third party objection rights?
Question after question on traffic, drainage, etc. has not been answered by this council except for the stock response of ‘we’re investigating’. After 4 months Council should well and truly have determined all the flaws in the plans. They should also have conducted their own traffic analysis as any decent council would if they were truly concerned about the flow on effects. Thus far and to the best of our knowledge, this Council has done nothing but accept the developer’s version of reality as factual and sacrosanct!
Finally, it beggars belief that official missives of Council fail to include the name of those individuals responsible for their decision making. The blanket title of ‘Glen Eira Planning Department’ will simply not do! Who is responsible? Who signs off on such letters and planning decisions and why is there no accountability and/or transparency within this administration?

April 22, 2014

The Leader

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

April 11, 2014

The ‘Phoenix Precinct’ & Monash: Dead As A Dodo!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

We have UPLOADED HERE the Planning Panel Report on the URBIS/Monash University application for rezoning of the Western part of the Phoenix Precinct. We encourage all readers to peruse this document and especially the highlighted sections since they reveal how ‘reactive’ and lacking in vision, this council’s planning department is. We highlight two examples:

Council noted that this Policy is based on an urban design framework approved in 1998. Council is looking to review this policy in 2014……(page 10). So what we have here is once again a case of putting the cart before the horse. First, pass the Amendment, and then worry about ‘policy’!
Below is a screen dump that outlines the Phoenix Precinct Policy from the Planning Scheme. Please note the insistence that what is required is ‘co-ordination’ and ‘balanced planning’. Hardly, we say, when the racecourse, c60 and now Monash are each treated as INDIVIDUAL AND SEPARATE planning issues without any developer considering the overall flow on impacts to surrounding areas – be it traffic, population, high rise, commercial activity, and infrastructure requirements.

And last, but certainly not least, residents can glean some insight into Monash’s plans – not directly from Council of course – but via the submissions put forward at the Planning Panel. Here’s what Monash intends (at this stage!) –

The objective of the University is to eventually have a student population of 15,000 effective student load (ESL) in excess of the existing 10,000 (ESL) on the Caulfield Campus, and that much of the new development is to occur within the western precinct. The Masterplan provides for an increase in total floor area from 90,000 sqm to 168,000 sqm and allows for 800 student beds on, and adjacent to, the campus. The proponent plans uses for Derby Road frontage buildings that are complementary to the Derby Road commercial area including retail, food and beverage and other compatible uses. The planned increases in intensity of use of the campus site and the intended complementary uses of Derby Road frontages strongly indicates opportunities for improved economic activity in the area. The extent that realisation of the Masterplan would offset or even surpass the economic activity generated from Caulfield Plaza, is not quantified but, at a minimum, indications are that a redevelopment of the area would provide a significant economic stimulus for the area. However, this issue relating to the closure of Caulfield Plaza is largely a moot point as the existing Priority Development Zone already provides for the redevelopment of Caulfield (page 20).

Readers should note that the above figures do NOT mean that the student population is targeted to reach 25,000. To the best of our knowledge ESL means full time students. Hence the actual numbers of students accessing Caulfield campus may be closer to 40,000 given the large proportion of post graduates and part-timers.

We have yet to see anything produced by this Council which analyses and dissects the ENTIRE AREA and focuses exclusively on what this will mean for residents – and they’ve only had about 15 years to do so!

April 10, 2014

Caulfield Village & VicRoads

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

April 7, 2014

Bigger & Better & Only For $3 Million!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

An application is in at Council seeking a permit for an ‘illumated screen’ at the Racecourse. The size of this screen is gigantic as the following illustrates – the equivalent of at least a 3 storey building and approaching the height of a 4 storey. Of course, this size screen will have no impact on the surrounding areas as stated by the applicant. By way of contrast, we also include a screen dump from the Moonee Valley Racecourse and the dimensions of their electronic screens. Nothing it would seem is too big or too expensive for Caulfield Racecourse!