Item 9.1 – Glenhuntly Rd/Beavis St, Elsternwick – Motion to oppose amended plans – Carried – Hyams, Pilling and Tang voted for accepting amended plans.
Esakoff and Penhalluriack both declared a conflict of interest. Hyams took the chair. Lipshutz explained that the original application had been rejected by council and that this is for amended plans. ‘at first blush’ the plans look all right since they represent a ‘down grading’ but when looked at closely this represents ‘a small street that is being choked by traffic’….there’s traffic all day long and there’s a school there…..(and will be) chaotic to the residents’ but not just the residents since this will flow all the way back into Glen Huntly Rd. He went on to say that ‘whilst the character of Elsternwick is changing and is certainly ripe for development’ this plan isn’t ‘appropriate’…one also has to look at carparking……if one looks at the modern trend of cars, that is use of cars one expects this development to be of a high quality….what you see is with high quality housing people have two cars and with two cars ….you’re going to get all that traffic coming out of Beavis St……argument is that people ….will use trams..(but trams are woefully inadequate)…until government takes real notice of insfrastructure planning ….I oppose it.
[One might very well ask: what happened to the argument that people won’t need that many cars living alongside a transport corridor? What evidence is there that ‘high quality’ dwellings will attract people with more cars? Please note: Report states that 22% of the 99 proposed dwelling will be ‘studio apartments’ and only 4 will be 2 bedroom apartments! What should also be remembered is that in the past Lipshutz has stated living close to transport will alleviate the reliance on cars – here we appear to have the opposite argument since the building will be of ‘high quality’!!!!]
Forge – ‘in the wrong place and will cause chaos’
Pilling: (against the motion) – ‘support this….(since) a vast improvement’ on previous application….I think this is appropriate for this site…..public transport, a huge shopping centre…..
Tang: at planning conference there was support for developing the site but ‘no one enjoys’ the experience of shopping there and the car park situation. ‘we saying this site would be good for urban renewal’….one of the strengths (this proposal has is that it does propose) more car parking…..from of development will be approved eventually when they get it right…..it’s also a good spot for housing because we want to see housing utilised in that particular spot…..but not at the level that this is proposing…..it doesn’t fit in….four storeys is what I would be expecting at this site’.
Hyams: ‘regardless of what we do it will be VCAT that is making the decision…..significantly different to what we rejected originally’. Hyams then stated that one reason which influences his decision is that the 10 storey application in Elsternwick was upheld by VCAT…’disappointing but that’s the way VCAT appears to be interpreting our Urban Villages policy….if we oppose it I fear it will go over our heads’ so better to accept with conditions.
Item 9.7: Flooding – Melbourne Water Overlay (Passed unanimously)
Esakoff moved alternate motion (seconded by Pilling). It consisted of asking for further representations to Melbourne Water and Government about improving drains and preventing flooding; and to prepare a report on the damage to Glen Eira from last Friday’s flooding; how the emergency response from council was during and after the flood; look at Melbourne Water and Council’s maintenance to ensure that drains are free of blockages; for council to review and ‘if necessary’ improve response; options to reduce the risk of flooding.
Esakoff went on to read a prepared statement which said that as a result of the flooding ‘some residents believed that council had been slow in response’….Since her statement in the press there was ‘information received which showed this was not the case’. A report from Human Services showed that council was not slow and relied on data received from the SES and other services. 152 properties were listed as flooded. On the following two days council officers ‘visited all of these properties’…’including the residents reported in the Leader saying that no-one from council’ had visited them until Thursday. The website contained information; and at the customer service centre.
Following meetings 621 information packs were sent out to residents that included letters inviting residents to contact council ‘to arrange a visit by an environmental health officer’. Esakoff then went on to outline all the support that was given, including 11 requests for emergency accommodation. Also, all concerns raised by residents at a community meeting ‘have been resolved’. Officers were diligent providing information about financial assistance, clean up advice and personal support. Unfortunately ‘in events like this, there is always a great deal of emotion and we all understand this’, ….’it’s easy to pass the blame but in this case…Council has responded appropriately’. The report is to make sure that ‘no stone is left unturned’
Glen Eira Debates 
February 23, 2011 at 7:15 PM
I’m sure that the people who got flooded, and have been flooded 4 times in the past year will be most gratified by Esakoff’s and Newton’s assurances that council performed adequately! What an unmitigated load of codswallop!! Yes, we’re “emotional” and got every damn right to be when streets haven’t been swept for years and when drains that belong to council haven’t been touched in ten years. Why wasn’t a report demanded on such aspects as how many drains that belong to Glen Eira caused flooding and not Melbourne Water and how often have they been cleaned in the past two years and why isn’t more money spent on this instead of sporting pavilions? You bet I’m angry and emotional when I read such crap!
February 23, 2011 at 8:00 PM
I agree and disagree. I see the street cleaner going down the street all the time (well at least regularly) and the streets of Glen Eira, I believe, are relatively clean especially compared with other Councils. But I agree with your comments regarding drainage. The drains are never cleaned or maintained. Whoever is responsible for this function clearly does not do their job and should be sacked.
February 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Flooding isn’t only about cleaning drains. It’s about where you let people build and the regulations which cover those buildings. Yeah, make them have a concrete slab that’s six foot high if you like, but that won’t stop the water and the concrete itself becomes a blockage. The bottom line is lousy maintenance and lousy planning and its always look for the scapegoat. In this case it’s Melbourne Water. I’d love to see people start suing this council for the damage that has been caused to their properties because of the bungling fools who run this council. Maybe then they’d swing into action real quick. Newton has got the highest ranking in the state he keeps telling us for risk management. Let’s see him handle a few hundred suits about inept planning and duty of care.
February 27, 2011 at 1:14 PM
Specifically with respect to Item 9.1, Council is clearly schizophrenic. Its Planning Department has ruled that under no circumstances is traffic to be considered in assessing an application because “the problem will go away in 20 years”. This comes down from the Grand Poobah himself. Not that he has explained the obvious policy violation with GEPS.
There is another interpretation though, which is that Delegated Planning Committees care less about amenity than Councillors. It is infuriating to see DPC decisions being made in which they fail to comply with the Planning Scheme that Council has foisted upon us. They were given an opportunity to make recommendations for changes to the Scheme, which one would expect would be to remove any of the clauses they don’t like and repeatedly ignore.
Traffic chaos *is* a good reason for rejecting an application *if* the applicant fails to demonstrate the increase in traffic from their development will not reduce residential amenity. Any proposal I’ve seen uses “weasel words” to address this. “Increase will be insignificant”, “considered acceptable”, “marginal” are examples. Not good enough. Detailed traffic projections, especially the predicted increase in travel times through congested areas, should be the bare minimum required by Council in making an informed decision.
The car parking requirements are problematic. All high density developments seek a waiver of carparking, because it affects their profit. A portion of the traffic generated by a development they expect to park on the street, which violates Council policy. The trouble comes as more and more developments fit in the one area, each expecting the same treatment. That’s what we’re witnessing in Carnegie. VCAT has gone so far as to suggest occupants can park in railway carparks, excluding rail patrons, a blatant form of trespass.
Arguments about not needing cars because they’re near public transport might sound reasonable, but lack substance. You would need detailed statistics about projected patterns of travel–where people live, where they work, their social aspirations, well out into the future. We simply don’t have them. Council doesn’t believe in public transport either. While located on two modes of public transport, it provides the majority of its carpark for Council officers.
All Glen Eira residents live within 1km of public transport. If public transport is to be used as a reason to justify high density development, then lets apply the policy across the municipality. Maybe then people would be more strident in demanding compliance with standards designed to protect residential amenity. The current policy (“We will protect 80% of the municipality” — senior Planning Officer) stinks.