GE Planning

Archived Posts from this Category

September 17, 2012

Time For A Change – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

The June 26th 2012 Special Council Meeting  to consider the budget and the community plan listed the term ‘open space’ 73 times in the minutes of this meeting. Time and time again lip service has been paid to the importance of ‘open space’ – how to acquire more, how to use this to enhance liveability and recreation, and how ‘open space’ is important for all residents. That’s the spin. The reality is far different.

We’ve commented in the past on how little this council has done in regards to open space levies and how out of step they are with the current thinking of many other councils. On the one hand, they bemoan the fact of how little open space is available in Glen Eira and how much it would cost to purchase. Yet, in the same breath, this council imposes minimal financial costs on developers who seek to subdivide land and erect anything from 3 to 4 to 20 storey high density dwellings! They can’t have it both ways!

Even more telling is that these councillors have again turned a blind eye to the inadequacies of the Planning Scheme. Instead of ensuring that subdivisions bring in some real money to pay for open space, our woeful lot have allowed the current rates to stand from at least January, 2006. If the following isn’t an enticement for more and more development, then we don’t know what is! The current levies are:

CRITERIA

PERCENTAGE   OF CONTRIBUTION
The   number of lots in the subdivision capable of containing a   dwelling.

3   lots – 2%

4   lots – 2.5%

5   lots – 3%

6 or more lots –   3.5%
The   site is in McKinnon, East Brighton, Ormond or Bentleigh.

0%
The   site is in Carnegie, Murrumbeena or East Bentleigh.

0.25%
The   site is in Caulfield, Caulfield North, Caulfield South, Caulfield   East, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick or St Kilda East.

0.5%
The   site is not within 300 metres (walking distance) of a park listed in Table   2.

0.25%
Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   less than 40 square metres of private open space, not including   the area in the front setback.

0.25%
Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   more than two bedrooms (a study is regarded as a bedroom).

0.25%
A   six or more lot subdivision which does not provide useable   communal open space that has a minimum of 4   metres and provides a minimum area of 60 square metres,   and is not part of the front setback, service area or   driveway.

0.25%

Compare this to:

KINGSTON: about to introduce 5% and 8% in Major Activity Centres

CARDINIA – in all residential Zone 1 – 8%

PORT PHILLIP – all municipality 5%

GREATER DANDENONG – “Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south (except for Lot 2, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 885 and Lot1, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 884). 20%”. Other residential zones – 5%

KNOX – “Subdivision of land into lots having an area of 725 square metres or greater in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 5% of the total land to be subdivided.

Subdivision of land which includes lots having an area of less than 725 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 8.5% of the total land to be subdivided.

MANNINGHAM – 5%

MAROONDAH – “All subdivisions 5 per cent. Land at the south west corner of Canterbury Road and Dorset Road, Bayswater North 8 per cent”,

MOONEE VALLEY – “Subdivisions of greater than 10 lots 5 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land 5 per cent or greater subject to negotiation of the density and layout of the development where provided as land. All other land 5 per cent”.

MORELAND – Location as defined by Plan 1:

1. Brunswick East / North Fitzroy 2.8%

2. Brunswick 3.1%

3. Brunswick West 2.5%

4. Coburg 6.8%

5. Pascoe Vale South 3.4%

6. Coburg North 4.3%

7. Pascoe Vale 3.7%

8. Oak Park 3.1%

9. Fawkner 5.7%

10. Hadfield 4.3%

11. Glenroy 4.0%

12. Gowanbrae / Tullamarine 4.7%

We could go on and on! Suffice to say that the hypocrisy of Glen Eira council is mind blowing. Residents are on the one hand fed the tripe about halting overdevelopment in such areas as Bentleigh and Carnegie, yet every possible enticement has been offered for more and more development in these areas. We can only speculate as to the stupidity and/or ignorance of our councillors, or their complicity in the Newton and Akehurst pro-development vision.

 

September 15, 2012

Super Indecent Haste!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Geoff Akehurst’s benign ‘interpretation’ of Matthew Guy’s proposed planning reforms (which we’ve already commented on) is clearly out of step with other councils. Several motions that are to go before the MAV board meeting illustrate this. (See motions 21-23 under ‘State Council Business Papers’ at: http://www.mav.asn.au/publications/bulletins/mav/Pages/issue-898.aspx).

Then yesterday we get this Media Release from Guy. Of further concern is the composition of the ‘expert advisory committee’ all from the gung ho, pro-development lobby, and the helter skelter intent to rush through legislation that will create mayhem for residents whilst denying them most of their objection rights.

Final step for Victoria’s zone reform

Friday, 14 September 2012

From the Minister for Planning

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has today announced the final step in ensuring the Victorian Coalition Government’s zone reform package delivers productivity growth and drives investment and liveability outcomes for Victorians.

An expert advisory committee consisting of Ministerial Advisory Committee Chairman Geoff Underwood, Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will review all submissions and provide advice back to the Coalition Government.

With the ten week consultation closing on 21 September the expert advisory committee will report back to the Coalition Government by 30 November 2012, ensuring that zone reform will be in place early next year.

“Having council and industry representatives provide thorough advice back to the Coalition Government and a fair and reasonable review of submissions will ensure that zone reform reflects the views of all Victorians,” Mr Guy said.

“This is a marked departure from Labor’s sham consultation processes,” Mr Guy said.

Earlier this year, the Coalition Government introduced a package of sweeping reforms to planning zones.

Proposed reforms to Victoria’s residential, commercial, industrial and rural planning zones include:

  • The introduction of a new Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a new      General Residential Zone and a new Residential Growth Zone;
  • Improvements to the existing Mixed Use Zone, Comprehensive      Development Zone and Activity Centre Zone;
  • New and more flexible Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 Zones replacing      five existing Business zones;
  • Reform to support tourism activities in Farming Zones, the Rural      Conservation Zone and the Green Wedge Zones; and
  • Significant reforms to rural zones to promote the growth of      agricultural activity.”The Coalition Government considers planning      zone reform as a key part of its planning reform agenda and an important      step to provide greater certainty to residents, councils and      investors,” Mr Guy said.

“Modernising Victoria’s planning system is not optional; it is a vital plank of social and economic reform for our state’s long term future.”

 

 

September 13, 2012

Setting The Record Straight!

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

We’ve received the following comment, which we believe deserves to be featured as a separate post.

“I know the objector and the lengths she has gone to in order to try and ensure that residents get a fair deal. Unlike so many of us who are prepared to sit back and whinge, this lady has put her money where her mouth is. At the vcat hearing on the subdivision she hired a barrister which probably cost her thousands of dollars. She didn’t have to do this, and god knows, she’s not flush with funds. But she was determined to at least try and get some justice and a decent hearing. She lost of course.

Then there was the centre of the racecourse. I’ve seen her objection and to me it made plenty of sense. She did her homework, running all over Melbourne to see how other councils dealt with pathways. She took photos of these alternate tracks, costed them, and backed this up with medical journal articles that showed how jogging on hard concrete injures people. She met with the MRC, and they were supposed to get back to her and organise another meeting. Of course they didn’t but literally ploughed ahead, with the acquiescence of this council to create their yellow concrete monstrosities throughout an area that is supposed to be a recreation and park land.

It’s incredibly easy to blame one individual as Hyams, Esakoff and now Southwick have done. Just because there is only one objection, doesn’t mean that the rest of the municipality accepts what is happening. I certainly don’t. But I was too lazy, and despondent, to write up a formal objection.

Ultimately she did withdraw her objection. Not because she thought she was wrong, or because the fire had left the belly. I suspect it was simply that the threat of paying out the mrc’s legal costs, which I’ve no doubt they would have tried, was a risk too great to take. Idealism and a social conscience can come at a great cost when you’re fighting unscrupulous councils and a mega industry who don’t care one little bit about who they want to crush and how much it will cost. For council, they simply put their hands into our pockets. For the mrc, well they got Napthine and the whole damn government supporting them.

Southwick’s, Hyams and Esakoff’s attacks are totally without foundation and tell us more about them and their dirty tactics, than they do about the objector. She should be awarded the Citizen of The Year!”

 

September 4, 2012

Selling For A Song!

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

Council is about to sell just under 100 square metres of its land to the MRC for the paltry figure of $140,000. Stuck in the middle of the current car park it is admittedly useless to Council but extremely important to the MRC. This is where the 4 storey buildings are to go.

This leads us on to several important questions:

  • Has council ever received ‘rent’ from the MRC for this land?
  • Why wasn’t this discovered when the C60 was being planned?
  • This is the second time that odd little pieces of land are changing hands. What does this say about the planning department’s fingers on the pulse and their vigilance?
  • Why is Council prepared to sell this 100 sq metres for a song? Most real estate experts value the price of land in this area as between $2,000 – $2,500 per square metre if not more. That would make it at least double what council is prepared to sell for. Why and how has this bargain basement figure been determined?

 

 

September 3, 2012

Fact & Fiction

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Fact & Fiction 

Many councils are now publishing their draft submissions to the Minister’s planning changes. It’s therefore fascinating to compare the rose-coloured spin presented by Akehurst and his bosses with what other councils see as major problems. Below is the City of Yarra’s response from the upcoming September 4th agenda papers. We urge readers to compare and contrast this vision with the PollyAnna scenarios presented by Glen Eira. Of most concern is the removal of third party objection rights. It’s also worthy of repeating that countless other councils have met with resident groups (as has Yarra) and organised ‘information evenings’ in order to fully inform residents of the potential ramifications of these draft proposals. Again, this has not happened in Glen Eira! Here are some extracts from the Yarra Council response –

” A preliminary assessment of the new zones indicates a major reduction in the capacity for Council to control some aspects of new development and land use, as the proposals generally increase the land uses in the ‘no permit required’ category. Two of the proposed residential zones propose ‘no permit required’ for smaller shops, cafés and offices within 100 metres of a commercial zone or mixed use zone and for a medical centre up to 250sqm anywhere in the zone.

The implementation of the proposed new residential zones presents Council with some complex choices about where and how to apply them. These zones include scope for mandatory height limits and variable restrictions on a range of building form and subdivision matters. The proposals do not indicate, however, the strategic justification required to support Council proposals.

In all three proposed Residential Zones no permit is required for medical centres (up to a floor area of 250sqm). This is far less restrictive than currently, where a planning permit is needed in a Residential 1 Zone. This will remove the capacity to control operating hours and other aspects of operation which might impact on local amenity.

The changes to this zone are significant and include a new objective ‘to provide for housing at higher densities’. The range of no permit required land uses has increased and the scope to specify the limits to floor-space has been removed from the Schedule to the zone.

The economic and amenity implications from these proposals include potentially undermining the viability of strip shopping centres, local traffic impacts in residential streets and conflicts between household amenity and nuisance and pollution from neighbouring cafes and shops. If no permit is required, there is no scope to apply conditions on hours of operation, managing odours and other local impacts.

There are likely to be both intended and unintended impacts from these changes. Some of the implications are difficult to predict. It seems likely that if the new zones come into effect the City of Yarra could potentially change in the following ways:

(a) there will be more small supermarkets in a wide range of fringe commercial / industrial locations;

(b) there will be more shops, cafes and small offices in residential areas on the fringes of commercial areas;

(c) there will be more retail activity outside the existing centres; and

(d) a range of nursing homes, hostels, aged care facilities and other types of accommodation could begin to occur in semi-industrial locations.

While the implications and impacts are not certain it is clear that Council will, as Planning Authority, have much less capacity to control and respond to how the city develops and changes. The new zones also mean that particularly in mixed use neighbourhoods which in many ways characterise Yarra residents, business owners and others with an interest in the future of their city will have much less say or influence over the outcomes.

 

September 2, 2012

Crystal Ball Gazing!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

It is quite clear that this administration and its lackey councillors have absolutely no intention of either listening to residents or changing the direction of its planning policy. Item after item for Tuesday night’s council meeting confirms this. It will be more of the same – no consultation, no up-to-date local analysis, and certainly no let up in over development. We come to this conclusion based on the following:

Akehurst’s ‘review’ of the proposed VicSmart legislative changes is overwhelmingly supportive and even self-congratulatory in that the current Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change Areas as practised in Glen Eira will easily be reconfigured into VicSmart. In other words – no change is necessary in Glen Eira –  “It is assumed that there will be an expectation on behalf of the State Government that the new zones will be applied in as neutral way as possible having regard to our existing zones and policies. The strongest likelihood is that this transition from our one existing residential zone (Residential 1 Zone) and policies (Minimal Change/Housing Diversity) to three new residential zones which incorporate our policy intents will be able to occur via a Ministerial (fast track) amendment. If this can be achieved it will occur relatively smoothly and ultimately with an improved outcome”. Of course, what this ‘improved outcome’ will be is not clarified, much less justified and proven. The message however is inescapable – much, much more of the same.

Whereas other councils (Manningham, Boroodara, Kingston to name just a few) can hold information sessions and urge their residents to become involved and put in submissions, all Glen Eira can do is present a self serving report that barely questions the removal of third party rights and other major drawbacks. What we get are nonsense paragraphs such as – “Third party rights (the involvement of neighbours) are not changing. It must be acknowledged however that the flip side of greater land use opportunities for land owner applicants is less involvement by others.”

Next, there’s the C87 Amendment where residents were excluded from having any say prior to the drafting of the Amendment and hence their voices and protests were ruled out of order. Even when the Panel report recommends that Heritage reviews be undertaken PRIOR to removing several properties from Minimal Change Areas and placing them in Housing Diversity, the response is:

This recommendation is not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that a heritage control in a Housing Diversity Area may be perceived as a mixed (stop and go) town planning message, a heritage control would take precedence over potential development opportunities. It is considered that the two planning controls (i.e. heritage and housing diversity) can co-exist. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate for this area along Balaclava Road to change to a Housing Diversity Area(as exhibited). This policy should not impact on the potential for this area to have heritage protection in the future.”

We should also note that the Panel’s urging for Heritage reviews and other Amendments are barely mentioned. No time lines are provided, no sense of urgency detected. In the end, residents shouldn’t hold their breaths. What they can be certain about is that unless most of these councillors are voted out, then this municipality will continue to bend over backwards to support (over) development anywhere. This is the legacy of Newton and his toadies.

 

August 31, 2012

Trust Me – I’m A Councillor!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

The Panel Report on the C87 Amendment is now out (uploaded here). No surprises as to what the recommendations are. But that’s not the end of the story. The story itself would appear to be one of back room manipulation on the part of administrators and councillors. The only plausible excuse that councillors may have is that they are just plain ignorant or stupid, but ultimately compliant with the questionable agendas implemented by this administration. Here is what we know:

  1. Every important draft amendment has been subject to a Council Resolution to forward it on to the Minister for permission to exhibit. Following permission for exhibition, there is the compulsory ‘consultation’ phase, a potential Panel hearing if objections are raised and then the final Council Resolution as to accepting, adapting, or rejecting the Panel report.
  2. With c87 no such formal resolution to seek permission to exhibit from the Minister has ever been passed. The Minister’s approval was however gained in June 2011- we presume under officer delegated powers with no clear, open council resolution supporting it. In other words, residents did not get to see the proposed Amendment until it had already gone off to the Minister – far too late to change anything!
  3. Following the consultation period and the number of objections, both Lipshutz and Hyams encouraged residents who wished to add properties to the list to put in submissions in the hope that the Panel would listen to their objections. Utter nonsense as we stated in previous posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/c87-crocodile-tears/ AND https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/move-over-sir-humphrey/). No panel was ever going to exceed its terms of reference, and those terms were set solely by the officers. Hence, we need to ask how honest were both Lipshutz and Hyams in their encouragement of residents to waste their time in writing submissions that would without a shadow of a doubt be ignored? Or perhaps we should ask whether Lipshutz and Hyams were just plain stupid and didn’t know any better? Or were they simply indulging in some political face-saving in order to take the heat off themselves and their colleagues for once again dropping the ball and not exercising their duty to set policy that involved the community at the outset? Or finally, as the examples keep piling up, supporting the administration to the hilt at the expense of residents?
  4. The proposed amendment NEVER gave councillors and residents the right to have any input at the most crucial stage – that is, which properties might be added, removed, etc. The officers’ report in fact stated clearly that once an amendment was exhibited it could not be changed and if properties were to be included then this would involve ANOTHER amendment! Yet Lipshutz and Hyams persisted in telling residents that they should put in their submissions to the very Panel that would reject them. If they did not know that this was a useless exercise, then they should have known. If they did know, and continued to perpetrate this myth, then they should be hauled before a code of conduct panel for deliberately misleading the public!
  5. The upshot is that the community has been duped; councillors have either been duped, or been fully complicit in perpetrating this deceit. It once again illustrates exactly what goes on in this council and how the normal and expected processes are abused, distorted, and manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes that do not in any shape or form benefit the vast majority of residents. In Glen Eira, residents are personae non gratis. Their views do not count, their objections do not count, and their aspirations do not count. All residents are good for is to continue forking out higher and higher rates to cover up poorly managed projects (ie GESAC) that do nothing except serve the gigantic egos and current power structures.

Come election time we urge all residents to take these issues into account when they cast their votes.

 

August 29, 2012

News Flash: The Alma Club

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

A huge crowd witnessed the sale of The Alma Club for $7.94 million this afternoon. The buyer will have the opportunity to deduct $330,000 if he wishes to retain the telecommunications pole which is presently sitting on the property. The terms of sale were the handing over of $1 million upon purchase and the rest in June 2013.

Council has once again let the community down badly. Not only has it forsaken an absolute real estate bargain when the asking price was basically $3 million, but they have again shown what a sham the continual cry of lack of open space means to these decision makers – absolutely nothing! Residents need to be asking some very serious questions –

  • why were no real discussions entered into?
  • who made the decision to say ‘no’?
  • why wasn’t this conducted in an open council meeting?
  • is council that cash strapped because of its poor financial management? If so, then how much credence should residents place in the financial statements and budgets?
  • when will these councillors really start taking charge of this municipality and perform their mandated duties instead of leaving practically everything to unelected ‘fat cats’?
 

August 24, 2012

Are We Living In The Dark Ages?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

We thought it time to have a close look at how Glen Eira compares with its neighbours on up-to-date planning and forward thinking. True to form, most of the central planning policies in Glen Eira date back to the mid or late nineties. Even the promise to include all central policies on council’s website has never materialised. Basically the agenda is ‘business as usual’, with no real updated local analyses, no up-to-date long term articulated vision and certainly no ‘improvements’.

Below we feature the Incorporated/Reference Documents that are listed in the various council planning schemes. We’ve focused on open space, urban design/land use, and heritage. We ask that readers pay particular attention to:

  • The various dates, and
  • The Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009. This is supposedly the document upon which the Amendment removing the child care centres from the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’ was largely founded upon. Yet, it was never mentioned in the officer’s report and has certainly never been placed into the public domain! Another ‘mystery report’ that remains secret and unaccountable.

GLEN EIRA

Glen Eira Long Term Open Space Strategy, City of Glen Eira, 1998

Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan, 1996

Glen Eira Retail / Commercial Strategy, Essential Economics, 1998

Urban Village Structure Plan, Glen Eira City Council, June 1999

Economic Overview, Henshall Hansen & Associates, 1997

City of Glen Eira Business Development Strategy, 1998

Glen Eira 2020, 1996

Housing and Residential Development Strategy, Glen Eira City Council, 2002

Urban Character Study, Anne Cunningham & Anne Keddie, 1996

Glen Eira City Council Traffic Report-Child Care Centres Study March 2009.

KINGSTON

Retail and Commercial Development Strategy 2006

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage One Report”, Living Histories, 2000

“City of Kingston Heritage Study Stage Two”, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, 2004

Highett Structure Plan, May 2006 

STONNINGTON

Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007- 2031, City of Stonnington, December 2007.

City of Stonnington, Public Realm Strategy, October 2010

Commercial Strategy: Stonnington City Council, 1999

Forrest Hill Structure Plan; Stonnington City Council, 2005

Heritage Guidelines; Stonnington City Council, 2002

Heritage Overlay Citations; Stonnington City Council (various dates)

Late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: measuring the saturation levels Research Paper, April 2010

Prahran Conservation Study: Conservation Controls; Nigel Lewis, 1983

Prahran Data Base: Prahran Conservation Study Listing; Nigel Lewis, 1992

Prahran Character and Conservation Study; Prahran City Council, 1992

Review of Policies and Controls for the Yarra River Corridor – Punt Road to Burke Road; Consultant Report, June 2005

Stonnington Open Space Strategy; Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd, 2000

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History, 2006

Stonnington Thematic Environmental History: Update 1 Addendum, March 2009

City of Stonnington Heritage Overlay Gap Study, Heritage Overlay Precincts Final Report, March 2009

Urban Design Strategy; Stonnington City Council, 1998

Waverley Road Urban Design Framework Plan, 2008

PORT PHILLIP

Sustainable Design Policy (2006)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Implementation Plan (2007)

Port Phillip Activity Centres Strategy (2006)

Port Phillip Industry and Business Strategy (2003)

Open Space Strategy (2006, Revised 2009)

Open Space Strategy Implementation Plan Framework (2009)

Foreshore Management Plan (2004)

Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007)

Port Phillip Design Manual (2000)

South Melbourne Central Structure Plan (2007)

South Melbourne Central Urban Design Framework (2007)

Ormond Road Urban Design Guidelines (2007)

Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2010 (SJB Urban, 2010)

Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2009)

Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework (2009)

 

August 18, 2012

C60

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

Caulfield plan gets the nod

Date: August 18,  2012

Philip Hopkins

A $1 BILLION-PLUS development at Caulfield Racecourse that will create a village where hundreds of people will live and work has been given the go ahead.

The Melbourne Racing Club yesterday awarded the contract for the project to the Beck Probuild Consortium. It will be built on five hectares of land next to the racecourse, Caulfield train station and Monash University.

The development is expected to take up to 15 years to complete and will include more than 1500 dwellings of different types, and office and retail space, including a supermarket, pharmacy, cafes, restaurants, and other health and recreational outlets.

During construction, the development is expected to generate up to 5000 jobs and an ongoing 1100 jobs once completed. Construction is tipped to start within 24 months.

The Melbourne Racing Club will also upgrade the racecourse to complement the  project. The winning consortium is a joint venture between Beck Property Group  and Probuild Constructions.

A new street, The Boulevard, will be the heart of the project, which will  comprise three primary precincts:

■Precinct 1, to the west of the development, will be a low/medium-density  residential area.

■Precinct 2 will be a mixed-use precinct with active street frontages,  tree-lined laneways with retail outlets, including a supermarket, specialty  shops, and a restaurant hub established around the new Boulevard road link.

■Precinct 3 will encompass the Smith Street precinct based in the eastern  section of the site next to Caulfield Station comprising a mix of commercial,  residential and retirement accommodation.

Planning approval came after consultation with the City of Glen Eira, the  local community, state planning authorities, local state MP David Southwick and  other stakeholders.

Melbourne Racing Club’s upgrade of the racecourse infield will include five  activated precincts, exercise pods, a jogging trail, a lake pathway, lake  boardwalk, barbecue, toilets, a picnic area, a dog off-leash area, and a junior  football pitch.

Parking for the new project will be fully contained within the development,  with race-day parking staying in the existing racecourse car parks.

A communication plan will be produced to outline the timing and detail of the  development as master plans are finalised.

MRC chairman Mike Symons said the development would  bring a new vitality to  the area.

Consortium director Sam Beck said the project would deliver a world class new  suburb for Melbourne.

Probuild managing director Phil Mehrten said it was a great outcome for  Melbourne’s construction industry.

”This will mean jobs and investment, and is a vote of confidence in the  future of Melbourne’s development industry,” he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/caulfield-plan-gets-the-nod-20120817-24e03.html#ixzz23qrFe1Ed

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »