East Village -The Grand Finale for Residents

This Tuesday’s (7/7/2020) Council Meeting will focus on the Planning Panel Report and proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C155 for the East Village Development on East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East.  Documentation for  discussion is available in the Council Meeting Agenda

It has taken  5 years for the initially proposed, much smaller Virginia Estate redevelopment (12.3 ha, 4,600 dwelling) to morph into the massive East Village redevelopment (24.0 ha, 3000 dwellings).   Mega dollars have been spent by developers, State Govt., VPA and Council without addressing either the

  • land locked sites access issues or
  • defined maximum height limits and dwelling densities, or
  • concerns of residents of the surrounding area

Residents who have been actively involved throughout this process expect Council will pass the Amendment on Tuesday and are extremely disappointed

  • with Council’s consistent planning decisions in favour of the developer, and
  • the absence of any restrictions of any consequence in the Amendment, and
  • limitations on future third party objection rights

Below is a copy of a letter forwarded to Councillors by the residents.

**************

Panel Report

The Panel Report was received by Council on 11 February 2020 and was made available to the public on 5 March 2020. A copy of the report is also included on Council’s website. The Panel supported Amendment C155 and recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to a number of recommendations which are listed in the attached Panel Report.

In summary the main recommendations include:

  • Mandatory heights for residential areas within the precinct.
  • Increased heights along residential south sub precinct from 3 to 4 stories. = more shadowing of Virginia Park
  • Discretionary heights for all other areas within the precinct.
  • Building setbacks recommended as discretionary guidelines.
  • Mandatory overshadowing controls for Central Park and Town square based on the winter shadow controls.
  • Discretionary overshadowing controls for Virginia Park and Marlborough Reserve.
  • Reduced road widths for the proposed internal roads within the precinct. = more traffic jams
  • Discretionary controls referring to number of supermarkets within the precinct and their floor space.
  • Mandatory control referring to location of supermarket within the precinct.
  • Town Centre guidelines ensuring that the town centre is designed as a street based village rather than internal mall.
  • Council’s requirements (or triggers) as to when the road intersection projects need to be constructed (with redrafting from Panel).
  • Reviewing the traffic cost apportionment to determine if the average of the AM and PM peak hour traffic flow has a superior outcome.
  • Re-running the Development Contribution Plan and including the latest and additional costings that need to be reviewed. = original contribution $64 million now $64 million.
  • Changes to intersection works and corresponding costing upgrades. = traffic jams and nowhere to park.
  • The Panel’s revised recommended version of the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 2.

Deletion of maximum limit of 3,000 dwellings within the precinct. = build many more than 3000 – look at what happened with Caulfield Village.

At the Panel hearing Council put forward its preferred version of the CDZ2 which changed the dwelling yield from a discretionary ‘soft cap’ to a mandatory ‘hard cap’ with the addition of a Section 2 (permit required) condition in the table of uses that states:

Must be no more than 3,000 dwellings in the precinct boundary shown in Plan 1.

The Landowners’ preferred version of the CDZ retains the Section 1 (no permit required) ‘soft cap’ for dwellings and deletes the condition that prohibits any dwellings in excess of 3,000. The Landowners also proposed that additional affordable housing could be provided, where a soft cap of 3,500 dwellings was exceeded.

The Panel considers the best way to manage dwelling yield is a soft cap with the ability to consider applications for dwellings in excess of 3,000. The Panel does not believe a mandatory dwelling cap is strategically justified but also does not believe that an exceedance of the soft cap is an automatic entitlement.

The Panel does not expect that the cap could be significantly exceeded as this could have implications on the traffic network. The officer supports the recommendation to apply a soft (discretionary cap) of 3,000 dwellings.

Dwellings will be prohibited from the commercial sub precincts which will allow for the precincts’ overall vision to be achieved without being compromised by an oversupply of dwellings.

The CDZ Schedule includes as an application requirement for buildings and works applications to demonstrate how the development will contribute to the provision of 3,000 dwellings within the precinct, including a plan showing the location and total number of existing dwellings within the precinct. This allows for a monitoring mechanism on the number of dwellings provided within the precinct

Infrastructure for East Village is to be provided through a number of mechanisms, including the Development Contribution Plan.

Other mechanisms include subdivision and construction works by developers, Section 173 Agreements, utility service provider requirements, capital works projects by Council and State government and Works in Kinds (WIK) projects undertaken by developers on behalf of Council and State government agencies. The East Village DCP:

  • Establishes a framework for development proponents to make a financial contribution towards the cost of identified infrastructure projects;
  • Ensures that the cost of providing new infrastructure and services is shared equitably between various development proponents and the wider community;
  • Provides the details of the calculation of financial contributions that must be made by future developments towards the nominated projects;
  • Provides developers, investors and local communities with certainty about development contribution requirements and how they will be administered. At the hearing both Council and the landowners agreed that further discussions were required to finalise the DCP. Council stated in its closing submission that the DCP needs to be re-run and to do this the project costings must be finalised. The Panel noted that as the author of the DCP, the VPA should be part of discussions. The Panel stated that it did not have sufficient information to make final recommendations on these unresolved matters.

The Panel agrees that the DCP costings should be updated, where necessary and that the DCP should be ’re-run’ to reflect those changes.

This includes new drainage costs provided by the VPA and updated costs for realignment of the North Drive/East Boundary Road intersection and suggested changes to other intersections.

Council has engaged an external consultant to re-run the DCP. Both the landowners and the VPA have reviewed the revised DCP. The updated DCP includes revised costings for infrastructure, development infrastructure levies, revised calculation of equivalence ratios based on AM/PM average and overall a mechanism for development proponents to make a financial contribution towards the cost of identified infrastructure projects.

Planned Development at 14-16 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield North. Application GE/DP-33521/2020

GERA has been contacted by a Caulfield North resident asking for assistance in raising residents awareness for a proposed development at 14-16 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.  Details of the proposed development and the objection process are included in the below letter forwarded to us.

We encourage readers to consider lodging an objection to the development should you wish to do so.    If you would like to contact the resident co-ordinating the objections please do so by emailing GERA (geresidents@hotmail.com)

**************************

Dear Neighbours,

Plans have been advertised for a 4-storey, 31-apartment building with 62 car spaces to be constructed at 14-16 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield North. The two historic houses built in the early 1920s at 14 and 16 Hawthorn Road on the corner of Wanda Road would be demolished.

We only have until early July for to lodge objections. The development is inappropriate for this residential area of Hawthorn Rd. It would add an unsustainable traffic load to Wanda Road, which has already been negatively impacted by parking and traffic from the Emmy Monash aged-care facility.

The link to the council page for you to view the plans and register an objection is supplied below. Please consider submitting an objection as a matter of urgency. If we cannot prevent the two historic homes at numbers 14 and 16 Hawthorn Road from being demolished, we hope to at least have the plans for the new building modified so that the impact on our neighbourhood is not so great. If we cannot block the development, we would aim to convince the council to reduce the size and height of the building, and have the underground parking accessed from Hawthorn Rd. We feel strongly that a two, or maximum three-storey development with parking access from Hawthorn Rd would be the only acceptable option.

Please also be aware that we were able to block the development of the adjoining block at 12 Hawthorn Rd over a year ago, and a 4-storey apartment building was rejected for 14 Hawthorn Rd over 3 years ago. This current proposed development would pave the way for future inappropriate developments and fundamental changes in our neighbourhood.

It is also worth pursuing the issue through Heritage Victoria, as the two existing houses are beautiful and well-maintained examples of early 20th century architecture that is rapidly disappearing from our area. If any of you have expertise in this area, it would be terrific if you could investigate this.

We have included below: the links to the plans, the council website for objections, and a Guide to Objections. Please email me if you would like an emailed copy of this letter so you can open the links directly.

The Council Application Number for the development is: GE/DP-33521/2020

Advertised plans

Council link to submit an objection.

Scroll down to click on the  online planning portal link. Enter Application Number GE/DP-33521/2020, then click the number. Scroll to the bottom of the page to make a submission.

The Glen Eira Residents Association has an excellent document: “Planning Permit Objection Guideline

We hope to successfully block this development that threatens the character and amenity of our neighbourhood.   Thank you for your involvement.

Yours sincerely,

Dev

SAVE GLEN EIRA RALLY – 10/11/2019

Save Glen Eira residents group is holding a rally this coming Sunday.

This recently formed group is actively advocating for

  • genuine community consultation
  • permanent height controls for all main road shopping strips
  • protection of our neighbourhoods

Needles to say, GERA encourages our members and readers to support this group by attending the Rally.

Rally and SGE contact details appear below.

2019 AGM & Discussion

Well, it’s AGM time again.  We hope residents will continue to show their support by attending our AGM. 

As always we promise to keep the formalities short to take full advantage of our Guest Speaker – Clifford Hayes, MLC – Southern Metropolitan (Sustainable Australia).  

 

The topics for discussion are particularly relevant to Glen Eira.  Over the past year, residents and GERA have been expressing their concerns to Council re  

  • Over-development of Glen Eira, lack of height limits, traffic and parking issues
  • Protection of trees and lack of green areas
  • Lack of policy to protect heritage and neighbourhood character
  • VCAT issues
  • Council’s lack of real community consultation

Clifford’s past experience with Bayside Council together with his current MLC role and legislative changes will enable him to provide valuable insight into best way forward for residents wishing to promote much needed change in Glen Eira.

Protest at the Caulfield Cup

Late notice we know.  But, if like us, you were moved by last Thursday’s appalling expose on the cruel reality of the racing industry (and that industry’s inadequate response to that expose), we believe its worth highlighting this protest to our residents – after all it’s on your turf.

Details of the event are

 

The protest is sponsored by the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses (CPR) and they are asking you to

 “Join CPR as we educate attendees to the Caulfield Cup and call out the racing industry!

ABOUT THIS EVENT

 With the Spring Racing Carnival quickly approaching, it’s up to us to show racegoers the cruel reality of the horse racing industry.

 The racing industry has a lot to be ashamed of: whips, 2-year-old racing, jumps racing, tongue-ties and much more. Our recently released deathwatch report found that 1 horse dies every 3 days on Australian racetracks, 122 in the past year alone.

 But worst of all – the industry has no retirement plan for their horses, resulting in thousands being killed for pet food and human consumption.

 Join us as we ask racegoers to choose kindness over cruelty so that we can change the world for racehorses.

 Signs & banners will be provided

 BYO refreshments, sunscreen etc.

 Please dress smart casual at the minimum.”

 

For further information

Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses – https://horseracingkills.com/

 

 

EAST VILLAGE AMENDMENTS – SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE

It’s taken a long time (since 2015) and significant involvement by the VPA (Victorian Planning Authority), Council and residents to get to this stage ie the release of the Planning Scheme Amendments for community consultation.

These Amendments  set the requirements for the massive (20ha) redevelopment on East Boundary Road (near the North Road intersection) in Bentleigh East.  Basically, they outline what is required to be built where within the site to ensure the Structure Plan (passed by Council, 2018) comes to fruition over the next 15 years.

Residents are concerned that the

  • Structure Plans inadequately addressed
    • Land locked site – vehicle access from East Boundary and North Roads only
    • Limited access to public transport (bus only)
    • Down stream flooding impact – Elster Creek
    • Impact on proximate activity centres – Bentleigh, Bentleigh East, McKinnon/Ormond and Murrumbeena
  • Amendments, as presented, do not include sufficient detail or controls to ensure the outcomes included in the Structure Plans will be achieved. For example (but not limited to):
    • building heights are “preferred” and, therefore may be increased, no density controls
    • no requirement for provide housing diversity in the form of no. of bedrooms
    • no controls to ensure adequate or appropriate employment opportunities.

Also of major concern is that the process undertaken for the this redevelopment (known under various names – concept plan, incorporated plan or design development plan), will exclude third party objections (from surrounding residents and residents of the site) to all future plan changes – only objections to building specifics (eg. type of finish) will be permitted once the amendments are passed.   The rationale being that residents have already been provided with sufficient information and opportunities to object.

Given the above lack of details and controls and the consequences re community consultation mentioned above, a concerned residents has forwarded the below sample objection letter  and requested readers submit objections to Council by 9th October.

We encourage residents to formally object to the Amendments after considering the issues raised in the letter.  Feel free to cut, paste and personalize the below or download, sign and send the  PDF version.  Please submit by 9/10.

***

Strategic Planning Department

Glen Eira City Council

PO Box 42

Caulfield South, VIC, 3162

Dear Councillors,

Re: East Village Development

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed East Village Development Precinct Amendment C155 and request several changes to the amendment.

  • 3000 apartments represent an overdevelopment of the site and should be substantially reduced.
  • Eight storey apartment towers do not fit with the neighbourhood character. No higher than four storeys should be built. This will also take into consideration the over shadowing of Virginia Park and residential houses to the East. This must be mandated not preferred as stated.
  • Size of the apartments should reflect real housing diversity. There is no commitment required of the developer to deliver x number of three bedroom apartments, x number of 2 bedroom apartments or x number of 1 bedroom apartments. History shows that there will be a considerably larger number of 1 bedroom apartments so that they can cash in on more rather than less apartments.
  • That the developer be required to pay more than 5.7% in an open space levy and should be pay 11.4% on all land developed for commercial and residential
  • The area is poorly serviced by public transport and will result in more traffic chaos and until this is addressed the development should not go ahead.
  • Full signalisation of Cobar St prior to any development and construction.
  • An assessment of the proposed car parking provision including suitability of scale location and capacity to service the anticipated car parking demand.
  • Council displays any development plans and notifies the residents.

More information is required as it is not clear how the following will be funded:

  • Public Acquisition on 960 North Rd, East Bentleigh
  • The signalisation of Cobar St/North Rd/ Crosbie Rd intersections
  • Any necessary upgrades to those networks
  • The availability and capacity of the electricity, drainage, sewer water and digital networks

Yours truly

Name:

Address:

Mobile:

Signature:

Date:

 

Rally Update – Stop the Elsternwick Towers

Congratulations to the Stop the Elsternwick Towers (STET) group for yesterday’s well attended (hundreds) rally.

Amid existing, and under construction, high density dwellings surrounded by heritage areas, residents  gathered to show their support for the Elsternwick Village’s vision statement – ie. “a vibrant cultural and entertainment precinct, which embraces its historic character and identity”.

Their message came through loud and clear

  • the 10 & 14 stories Woolworths redevelopment of ABC Selwyn Street site is both inappropriate and excessive, and
  • Glen Eira Council’s inability to complete in less than 6 years what it originally proposed to do in 1 year – ie undertake proper planning via Structure Planning – was unacceptable to residents.

 

Stop the Elsternwick Towers

We have been requested to advise our readers of the following rally.

To learn more about the Rally and the Elsternwick Towers redevelopment (on the former ABC Administration site) please access the Stop the Elsternwick Towers  group on Facebook

 

East Village Exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendment

Below is the Victorian Planning Authority’s (VPA) notification of the Exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendments for the East Village development in Bentleigh East.  We encourage residents to review the documentation presented, attend the Community Information Sessions and to lodge submissions as requested.

Dear community member,

Glen Eira City Council (Council) and the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) are progressing the planning for a sustainable and vibrant new precinct known as ‘East Village’ in Bentleigh East.

The VPA undertook the initial planning work for East Village, and Council is now leading the planning scheme amendment process. The Planning Scheme Amendment documents will be available to you to view from Thursday 5 September to Wednesday 9 October 2019, during which time you are invited to have your say by making a submission to Council.

Details about how to make a submission are available on Council’s website

VPA will attend two drop in sessions hosted by council on:

  • Tuesday 17 September 9am -11am  
  • Thursday 18 September 4pm-6pm
Both sessions will be held at the Packer Park Pavilion, 120 Leila Road, Carnegie.

For more information about the project please visit:

If you have any further enquiries please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Ammar Habasch // Senior Strategic Planner – Urban Renewal

Victorian Planning Authority

Level 25, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne  VIC  3000

T: 03 96519677  //  E:Ammar.Habasch@vpa.vic.gov.au

*************************************

Please feel free to post comments on our Facebook Page.

Trees

Unfortunately we have encountered a glitch which we are working to over come.

The post will appear as soon as the glitch is overcome.

Our apologies.