From today’s Caulfield Leader –
Set higher standards
SINCE my resignation from the Glen Eira council in July, I have been inundated with letters.
With fellow councillors, I raised my genuine concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the need for decisions to be made transparently and on merit. I would like to encourage all residents and ratepayers to involve themselves in council matters and to demand transparency and accountability; attend council meetings every third Tuesday at 7.30pm at the council chambers and submit questions in writing; become informed about issues, individual councillors’ attitudes and behaviour that may affect their decision-making on particular issues, and communicate opinions to your councillors and read the most recent report by the municipal inspector and his criticisms of some councillor behaviour.
The election of the Mayor for 2011 is now due. This is a time for a new start to bring about the renewal the council sorely needs. I remain interested and concerned for the long-term future of our city.
Helen Whiteside
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Flat out protesting
Residents rally against apartments
PLANS for two apartment blocks within 400m of each other have riled Murrumbeena residents.
Picture: JASON SAMMON. N25CK302 Murrumbeena residents show their opposition to development planned at 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd.More than 75 residents objected to the buildings planned for the corner of Emily St and Neerim Rd, and 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd.
Combined, there are 69 new units planned for the area.
Real estate agent Toby Primrose, who lives on Emily St, set up the SOS (Save Our Streets) website and organised a letter drop to highlight the issue.
He said the plans were a ‘‘gross misuse’’ of the properties – particularly in Murrumbeena Rd where peak-hour traffic congestion at the Redspot level crossing was already a problem.
‘‘I can’t see how they can even consider trying to get that sort of thing on the site,’’ Mr Primrose said.
Twenty-six residents objected to the four-storey building with 49 apartments planned for Emily St and Neerim Rd, because of overshadowing, inadequate parking and traffic congestion. Thirty-two units would be at 389-395 Neerim Rd with 17 twostorey units in Emily St. Glen Eira Council approved a three-storey building with 25 units and a double-storey block of 12 units at its November 23 meeting. A three-storey building with 32 apartments at 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd drew 50 objectors and will be discussed at a planning conference on Thursday.
Council spokesman Paul Burke said a decision was likely to made at the first meeting next year.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM
from Bayside Leader – interesting times are ahead!
Thompson set to deliver No to big developments, yes to schools, hospitals and better public transport
VETERAN Sandringham Liberal MP Murray Thompson says planning and education are big ticket items to be fixed now the Liberals are in power.
With a 7.25 per cent swing to him at last month’s election and a statewide victory, Mr Thompson’s party can change policies he believes hamper the electorate.
He said stopping Bay Rd becoming a ‘‘mini-Manhattan’’ would be a good start.
An ambitious proposal for an eight-storey complex complete with hundreds of apartments and a shopping centre is before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
‘‘There is a very strong voice to retain neighbourhood character; we need to keep a close eye on developments,’’ Mr Thompson said. ‘‘I wish to preserve the habitability of Bayside into the future and rows of eight-to 11-storey towers along that road won’t achieve that.’’ He said the State Government would have to wait for the umpire’s decision on the application before considering any changes. A decision on 220-228 Bay Rd application is expected next week. Mr Thompson said education was also a key aspect of his role, guaranteeing an election promise of $6 million over the next two years for Sandringham College.
He said details were still being worked out but the project was definite.
‘ ‘ We will ensure a strong Sandringham hospital, new train services and improved transport safety.’’
December 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I voted Liberal in the last election only because I thought the Labor Party had become the Liberals, and the Desalination Plant was a stupid decision. Now we have a reality check in that the Libs are in and have made many bold promises. The question is are they able to perform? With regards Bay St if Mr thompson was that committed to stopping this development his Government could at least try to do something rather than utter empty words.
December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Surprise, surprise! More protests, more unhappy chappies, more inappropriate development. This mob of councillors had better get used to it. They are going to be swamped with angry residents time after time after time after time – unless they get their act together and change the planning scheme. That’s what they’re there for – to do the necessary strategic planning and create a vision. Not to let the prodevelopment moguls with the abetting of Newton destroy people’s lives. If they can’t see this then they’d better start looking for new jobs.
December 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM
From the online Leader article:
Barry D
writes:
Posted on
14 Dec 10 at 09:18am
Government departments are happy to accept the small increase in revenue that developments like these bring in but aren’t prepared to invest in improved infrastructure needed when more people, properties and vehicles move in. Surely developments around Murrumbeena. Carnegie and Hughesdale stations must stop until the level crossings are removed.
Matthew
writes:
Posted on
14 Dec 10 at 08:28am
This is precisely why the Brumby government was voted out of office last month. It’s excessive development policies were ruining our suburbs, lot by lot. The newly elected Government is about to start and dismantle this planning mess, beginning at the next sitting of Parliament. This could not be soon enough for long suffering residents.
December 14, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Reading Whiteside’s letter is incredibly disappointing. If she had fears about the governance of this council and some of its councillors, then her first duty should have been to the public. It’s all very well to now sit back and offer advice to citizens, but when citizens are continually kept in the dark about what is really going on, then it is incumbent on councillors such as Whiteside to speak openly, plainly and to publically substantiate her claims. Now it is far too late. Glen Eira has undergone what many see as a whitewash. However, if her claims had been made at the time, in an open council chamber, then perhaps change would have occurred. Silence is always consent. Her silence allowed such poor governance practices to continue.
I’m annoyed because I expect councillors to act not only with integrity, but with courage. Their consituents must always come first – not the public image of council, nor the power struggles within. If Lipshutz, Tang, Hyams and Esakoff have a case to answer, then it was Whiteside’s duty to alert residents of her concerns. Anything less is to abandon these principles, regardless of claims of ‘confidential information’. Whistleblowers are after all protected by law.
December 14, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Oh please!! Sounds like Helen thinks she’s still a councillor – or wishes she was. But I can’t say I recall her urging community participation when she was on council.
In fact, she was only too happy to toe the line and give her support to Lipshutz et al. And she was only too willing to accept the Mayoralty delivered as a demonstration that council was aloof from community opinion and had the power to make even the most incompetent councillor the Mayor.
Helen, it’s a bit late to try to portray yourself as the champion of the people. You might have thought about that when you threw in your lot with Lipshutz and Penhalluriack in the last election to deny a position on council to some genuine community representatives – when you told voters that you and Lipshutz deserve to be re-elected and that you wanted Frank to join you. It was all happy families then. You even conscripted Cheryl Forge to stand as a dummy candidate to ensure your re-election (and I’d like to hear you try to deny that Cheryl).
If you’d stayed on council and spoken out maybe you would have gained some credibility, maybe you could have achieved something.
Let’s be perfectly clear on this – Lipshutz, Whiteside, Pehalluriack and Forge all worked together to be elected to council. Any suggestion that any of them are there for a reason other than self-interest is fantasy.
December 15, 2010 at 5:35 AM
Thanks Glen Huntly for pointing out what many (most?) on this blog fail to recognise. Do not support these people in blind faith – examine their motives.
For example: Who takes a news crew to gatecrash a meeting and then pushes around a disabled person? (YouTube it people.) Hardware, the 7 network were only there to demonstrate that you are unstable and were not remotely interested in your cause. Much like your performance as councillor – not stopping all stations.