Please forgive this very long post, but we believe it’s important. Before we present the rest of the speakers’ comments from Monday night we wish to highlight 2 things – part of a recent VCAT decision and a resident’s comments on the whole mess that is C60.
VCAT decision
“The existing character is not how the area will remain if the Council’s policies are successfully implemented. The Scheme directs change to take the form of more intensive buildings and more residents. The site is in the Carnegie Urban Village, a major activity centre, where the highest residential densities are sought….. Mr Marinelli (resident objector) expressed surprise at the policies and said these were unknown to residents. I accept that some residents may not fully appreciate the consequences of the changes to the Scheme that have been through processes of public exhibition but I am nonetheless bound to decide these proceedings based on the provisions of the Scheme as I find them. Lack of knowledge by residents is not a matter that itself causes the proposal to fail but it does influence their expectations for development of the land….. ”.
We’ve cited the above because it goes to the heart of the problems with this Council. One speaker on Monday night accused council of poor ‘communication strategies’. We have witnessed this time and time again – lack of real publicity, lack of consistent and comprehensive information provision, and total lack of real engagement with the community. When this occurs with something as important as planning schemes, then the consequences could be immense for the individuals involved. Would they have bought their property, if they knew and understood the planning scheme? Would they have protested at the time long and hard? etc. etc. Council repeatedly claims it ‘consults’, but does it adequately INFORM? Or does it simply fulfill the meagre legal requirements?
A Resident’s View
In the same vein. we highlight a comment received yesterday from ‘Reprobate’.
“I have just noticed that my collection of documents re C60 has reached 67MB. So were entrusting 4 individuals to read, digest, absorb, understand, critique and respond to more than the collected wisdom of the Bible, Koran, Torah, Bhaghavad, Mahayana and Book Of The Dead. Fat chance. They need help, and they’re not going to get it from those who have a vested interest in C60 being adopted. Something that emerged from last night’s meeting is that few people could possibly know what C60 *is*, including its proponents, and certainly not Council. Council officers haven’t decided what it is yet. In effect, C60 is the planning equivalent of a blank cheque. “Sign here and trust us”.
C60 removes third party appeal rights from people so that the MRC can implement something that might or might not look like what its suggesting in one of the incarnations of the Incorporated Plan. Even that is only half true. What matters (if it was to be enforced) is the Development Plan, which doesn’t exist. Theoretically the Development Plan should be in “general accordance” with the Incorporated Plan, but that’s up to the responsible authority, which really means Council officers. As for the Incorporated Plan, it too is in a state of flux. The Panel strongly urged (demanded) multiple changes be made, but we don’t know which changes Council will insist upon if they choose to adopt C60. Despite Cr Lipschutz’ insistence that the racecourse itself is outside C60, the Incorporated Plan contains a prominent photo of the racecourse replete with 2000 cars parked in the Public Reserve in the centre. Hmmm.
At the meeting the MRC representative did tell the meeting that the development would meet all its parking needs from within the development, a total of 2000 parking spaces. Maybe. Yet the draft changes to the Planning Scheme that Council has published clearly show a requirement of 0 spaces for retail shops other than a supermarket [PDZ Schedule 2 8.0]. Flood victims denied an insurance payout would be aware that these things matter. What is the building envelope that adoption of C60 would authorize? We don’t know–the public hasn’t seen the final draft of the Incorporated Plan. [I’m assuming this because the Panel wanted lots of changes.]
At the current rate of growth (about 1 storey a month) the focal point of the development will become Australia’s tallest building. One of the myths of planning is that proposals are assessed on their merits. That is so wrong its unfunny. First you decide what you want, then you seek the policy elements that support your decision. That’s what the Panel Report did, and they’re experts at it. There are some tricks to this. Use weasel words. Avoid if possible quantifying anything. Emphasize the policy elements that support your view. Don’t mention the others. If you have to mention them, then downplay, such as “not considered fatal to the proposal” or “can be managed at the Development Plan stage” or “an unreasonable constraint given the circumstances”. Reemphasize “strong policy support”. Ignore residential amenity. Planners ultimately rely on public ignorance, so its in our interests to be better informed than they are.
Amongst the Objectives contained in the Planning And Evironment Act 1987 is to provide for “the fair…and sustainable use…of land” and “to secure a pleasant…and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It didn’t say “shaft 20% of a municipality so the other 80% can have their amenity fully protected”. That’s an invention of our Council, subsequently ratified by that most odious of public undemocratic institutions, the Planning and Environment List of VCAT. C60 ultimately is what Council wanted, and now its got it.”
Finally, the rest of the comments made on Monday night –
SPEAKER 21 – cars are ‘bumper to bumper’ – ‘have a look’. No discussion of what will take place when construction going on. Lost track on how many times the plans have changed. C60 is about private development only. Quoted planning frameworks and how this development doesn’t fit into any of the major criteria. ‘This is about the applicant wanting to achieve maximum profit’. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 22 – all of the objectives can be met by an ordinary planning permit and need not go through this process. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 23 – not against development and not against strip shopping. You’ve been elected by the community and you’re supposed to represent them. ‘All of us here expect that you represent’ those views. C60 is large development and economic development in the end is between 10 and 20 billion dollars. The impact will be huge and can’t be looked at simple on the immediate surrounding area. The impact will be far greater and wider. C60 hasn’t considered the larger picture – gardens, open space, etc. Application is on basis of private property but function of council is to look at impact on area around it. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 24 – we chose Caulfield because it’s a quiet suburb and a development like this will change it. Trying to get out of Eskdale Rd there’s a long queue. How will trains, trams, schools, rubbish amenities that are required, will be supplied. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 25 – appropriate development is three storeys. Students should have accommodation but if it fills up with all student accommodation then ‘you can say goodbye’ to upmarket shopping strips. Work out how much of crown land has been encroached on by the racecourse and use this amount of land for open space as a park.
SPEAKER 26 – understands Penhalluraick’s conflict of interest. But since Penhalluriack was voted in on this platform then he represents the views of his constituents and ‘if you councillors want to stay in government’ then they should consider his views. (very loud applause). Told Southwick that he should consider a career in gymnastics since he can ‘backflip’ so easily.
LIPSHUTZ ‘I’m not going to permit’ what he termed ‘personal abuse’. A member of the audience then said that it’s important that he outline what he considered to be the ‘personal abuse’. Lipshutz – ‘I’m not going to get into a debate’ – audience – ‘It’s not a debate, it’s a question’ Lipshutz: ‘we as a council have to make a decision and that decision may be a very difficult one’, we want to hear what people have got to say ‘but it’s got to be on track’
SPEAKER 27 – third party rights of appeal and urban design. All rights are for applicant. Cited MRC consultants reports and said that according to this will mean ‘4000 extra people in our backyard’. Scale of development is awful. Cited changes in planning law and what the Liberals had amended since they came to power. Also quote VCAT tribunal member who said that whilst redevelopment is encouraged in activity centres it shouldn’t proceed ‘at all costs’ that neighbourhood character is important. Tribunal has said ‘time and time again that a balanced approach needs to be taken’. Pointed out that where development abuts neighbouring properties that height should be reduced. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 28 – there’s nothing in the report about proper site coverage and in view of the recent floods this is important. Also missing was detail about diversity and ‘styles of accommodation’ since most will be single units. There should be a range of accommodation to suit a diversity of demographics. Public transport needs development and natural wildlife since with development birds, possums are losing their habitat. We need holistic lifestyle that looks at environment or is this separate entirely from the development? Statements that are dubious need to be verified before amendment is passed. And also what’s plan b if found that the statements are incorrect – ie. traffic projections? (loud applause)
SPEAKER 29 – have lived here for years and just seen the traffic increase and increase. I used to be able to play everywhere on the racecourse and now I can’t. Spoke about current ‘use rights’ but now there are many, many more events. MRC is not replacing existing car park not giving extra car parks. (loud applause).
SPEAKER 30 – spoke about the history of the site. ‘I think council is as bamboozled as we are but they won’t admit it’. Everything’s run by the MRC and rich backers. ‘How do we tackle this lack of respect for the public?’ Population growth is because ‘capitalist interests want ever increasing profits’. We can’t rely on council because ‘they are incapable of making the changes we want’. The MRC ‘runs rings around them’ and the State Government denies everything ‘because the State government is owned by the developers’. ‘We’ve got to organise ourselves’. Lipshutz then said that the ‘last speaker’ will be Southwick. Outcry from the audience since there were many people with their hands up still waiting to speak. Lipshutz: ‘we’ve had two hours’!!!!! Relented and speakers continued.
SPEAKER 31 – lived in Glen Eira all my life but never realised that the racecourse was a public park. So went over and found gate after gate locked. Gradually everything is taken over for car parks. Spoke about the similarity with docklands and why that’s a failure and this is a failure. Spoike about the need for residents, council, government mrc to sit down and ‘properly plan’. Lack of consultation all the way through this. Take a step back and ‘get some input’. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 32 – submitted on application. Should conform to every standard that every other application has to conform to and we’re talking about future generations. Environmental performance targets are needed – such as power, water, climate change in ten years time. There’s nothing in the plans about this. Meeting current standards is not good enough. Have to think of the future. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 33 – object strongly. Monash wouldn’t have got permission but it’s federal. So MRC argument that their proposal is less is nonsense. Should try to keep open space so the racecourse is important. Half the year it’s now used for different things. Have to keep what’s happening at Monash in mind. Have a look at what’s happening at the building in the city which are environmentally friendly. The MRC should look at environmental value. Has to be appropriate to our area. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 34 – area abutting is minimal change zone. It’s low density, leafy, green and space on either side. So now there’s a high rise of less than 10 metres away. Witnessed an accident in Eskdale road so safety is also an issue, especially when cars are parked on both sides of the road. Suggested that the plans be put out for tender.
SPEAKER 35: ‘no wonder the MRC is willing to pay for 1 hour parking signs’ when they get all the other parking. This makes it really cheap for them. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 36 – land that was swapped and if that land ‘could be reinstated’ as part of open space parkland. It was out land and now we’ve been given a ‘tiny bit of land’ which is no use to station, racecourse or residents.
SPEAKER 37 – spoke about trains and asked councillors if they had ever caught a train from Caulfield at 7 in the morning. Hard to get on and concerned about the amount of people who would be living in the new development and how trains could then cope with this influx when they can’t cope now. Wondered if any of councillors had spoken with Department of Transport to ensure that there would be more trains. Took Lipshutz to task saying of course ‘people are going to talk about traffic. What do you think they’re going to talk about’? Pointed out that Lipshutz hadn’t attended any of the meetings and that of course traffic would ‘keep coming up’ as an issue. Stated that looking at councillors’ faces today has ‘been a disgrace’ (applause)
SOUTHWICK : stated that many people have made many ‘valid points’ – height, transport, etc. All are important and ‘sure that council will take on board’. Important to have these sorts of these forums because council knows about the specific issues and they should be the ones to see what the specific issues are and to take that into consideration. Minister guy has said he won’t be calling the amendment in. I campaigned on this because with the previous government ‘you would have got everything and more’. We want councils to work things through so that they can take everything into consideration and we ‘need to get what is the best possible outcome for the area”. Council is given a guidelines on what they can and can’t do. Stated that he believes it’s important that crown land on the racecourse ‘is opened up’ and to ‘ensure that there is as much access to the people as possible’. Looking at the C60 again ‘need to ensure that we get the best possible result available’. The past has shown that there’s the MRC and then there’s the community and that there’s been ‘clear separation’. MRC and racing is ‘part of this community’ so important that ‘we all need to work together’, ‘open up dialogue’ and try to get ‘best possible result’ in terms of open space. Said he was sure that council would consider all these issues. ‘I’ll continue to campaign for open space in this area’ (applause)
LIPSHUTZ; stated councillors had all taken notes and that public would be informed of when the matter is to come up in council.
