•  Minutes of last meeting were accepted unanimously. Readers should recall that Penhalluriack had indicated his dissent from Esakoff’s ruling and requested that this be included in the minutes. The subsequent minutes failed to record any of this. Last night’s meeting in effect wiped history – without a murmur from anyone! There is now no official record of what actually happened. Any future investigation (since we presume audio tapes will be wiped as soon as possible) will only have these so called ‘official’ minutes to go on. So, what happened behind those closed doors? What pseudo-legal argument(s) did Newton, Burke and co. propose to stifle discussion and debate on this most important point? Why did Penhalluriack not mutter a word? What about Lobo? Magee? Pilling? Why this continual complicity of silence? At the very least, the community deserves some explanation as to why a councillor’s request has been ignored. 
  • Lobo commented that Co-ordinator of Godfrey house has resigned and that they’re ‘in trouble’; ‘council may need to look at this vertically’!???? 
  • Assembly of Councillors reports: Esakoff/Pilling to accept – not a word said by anyone. These ‘records’ were not included in the online version of the agenda! Error? Deliberate? Competence?
  1. Item 9.1 Station St. Development: (Hyams/Penhalluriack) –  resolution passed unanimously  – ‘up to 48 dwellings’. Hyams praised the application as an ‘interesting development’ and for being ‘innovative’ as well as ‘fitting in with planning guidelines’. The fact that it’s a 5 storey building ‘may be a bit high’(!) but because it’s part of Phoenix Precinct and c60 it fits in. 
  2. Item 9.3 Morgan St application: (Pilling/Esakoff) – Pilling had ‘some concerns’ conceding that ‘it is true that there are no side by side in the street’ but that there were other applications in waiting for this! Ultimately ‘it’s a reasonable application and I support it’. Esakoff also conceded that ‘side by side’ is ‘not popular in glen Eira’ but the alternative of one behind the other ‘causes the same angst’. Further with all the conditions imposed that this will ‘ameliorate the angst of the neighbours’. Penhalluriack stated he was in two minds over this since it does represent ‘huge bulk for the street’ and is ‘out of character’. Tang endorsed Pilling and stated that since there were already two storey developments in the street it would be hard to oppose this application. Vote – 8 to 1 Penhalluriack voted against motion. 
  3. Item 9.9 Packer Park (Esakoff/Forge): petanque gone; lemon trees gone; reorientate bowls area to a north/south aspect; ‘as a matter of urgency pursue’ links between state and federal government arrangements for kinda (ie -no kindas), and developments to be implemented (barbecues) when funding is available. Esakoff went into the 20 months history of this site; consultation ‘methodology’ was also elaborated upon; ‘from all of these methods 78 comments were received’ with (of course) the vast majority supporting the concept plan. “it should be noted that….80% were in support…20% suggested changes’. The gallery were then treated to an expose of the limited amount of open space available and the prediction by the VEAC paper that as density increases open space will decrease. Admitted that kindergartens were suggested but ‘considered unfeasible for a number of reasons, including town planning restraints’, ‘high cost of development’, and ‘compatability with adjoining areas’. Reported that council carried out a ‘quite extensive’ investigation in response to government Universal Access Policy (which as far as we know has never been made public!) and which looked for suitable kindergarten locations in Glen Eira. The report apparently proposed 7 appropriate locations and Packer Park was not one of them. Esakoff then went on to state that Packer park is actually in the McKinnon zone for kindergartens and that there is greater need in Murrumbeena. Carnegie is the ‘ideal site’! Esakoff did however note that if the kindergarten HAD BEEN AN OPTION THEN THE RESPONSES WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DIFFERENT!  ‘Kindergartens are important, they are emotive and they require long term solutions. But, it must be the right solutions and…not anything will do’. ‘at the end of the day …will be a valuable addition to Packer Park, for all residents, young and old… and should provide many, many hours of enjoyment..’

Forge: ‘I am happy to support everything that she (Esakoff) has put forward’

Magee: ‘$370,000 is a lot of money….at last count I think we still had 60 odd children’ for next year that didn’t have a place…$370,000 of ratepayers money to pull out a bowling green to put in a bowling green’. Magee basically stated that he would not be happy to do this until Glen Eira reached a situation where it had fixed up all its other needs. Carried 8 to 1 Magee voted against. 

  • Item 9.10 Booran reservoir (Penhalluriack/Forge)

Penhalluriack: ‘officers can go further….it’s very important that we analyse in more detail the cost…’. Penhalluriack basically argued for more research to be done before a decision could be made. Forge also stated that ‘we need to get to the nitty gritty’ before deciding. Lipshutz claimed that Penhalluraick’s motion was ‘non-specific’ and that it should contain more detail. Penhalluriack went on to state – ‘the officers had a motion to work to…(their report) I believe is rather superficial . Penhalluriack wanted to know – strength of walls; whether surface is clay, what weight can they hold? ‘I want to know…whether we can reclaim this reservoir tomorrow….’

Pilling was ‘happy with the report’ and asked ‘why take a step backwards’? In summing up Penahlluriack said ‘we need to know. There’s nothing worse than flying blind. We need to know..we need to know all the facts before we start…..’Penhalluriack’s motion was lost. FOR – Magee, Forge, Penhalluriack 

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed.

MOTION WAS CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION 

This post is now long enough. We’ll conclude the report on public questions, delegations, etc. in the next few days.