It looks like all chickens have finally come home to roost with VCAT’s decision to allow the Elsternwick 10 storey development to go ahead. Readers will remember that:
- Lipshutz’s argument was that if council doesn’t approve 8 storeys instead of ten, that the developers will go to VCAT AND GET WHAT THEY WANT
- Tang equivocated by arguing that 7 storeys is better than 8
- Magee said that he wouldn’t like to live anywhere near the development but still voted for it
- Lobo called it a ‘monstrosity’.
The sheer stupidity (and we use this word advisedly) of such arguments has finally been shown up for what they are – vapid, empty rhetoric with no foundation in law, fact, or good planning policy. Councillors should be ashamed of their efforts on this one and the ramifications of such decision making. Will they now, on the 14 storey application, vote in favour of 12 storeys and use the argument that since VCAT has approved the Ripon Grove development we can’t do anything?
The VCAT member made the point clearly and logically when he stated:
“Council recognised the importance of this key site in granting a conditional permit, however restricted the height of the building to eight storeys rather than the ten storeys applied for. One need to ask what difference either eight or ten storeys would make to the locality or the broader context of the major activity centre of Elsternwick”.
What this decision demonstrates is not the arbitrary nature of VCAT, but the failure of council planning policies (NO HEIGHT LIMITS, NO PRECINCT PARKING PLANS, NO STRUCTURE PLANS). Councillors have now successfully opened the flood gates in Elsternwick and they will bear the brunt of resident disaffection.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 30, 2011 at 2:46 PM
It’s incredibly sad that councillors who, after all, are elected to serve their constituents have repeatedly failed to recognise and act upon this fundamental precept. I for one do not buy the NIMBY argument that is so often trotted out by proponents of applications and their supporters. Most people would not object to developments if they were appropriate in terms of scale, design, infrastructure requirements and so on. Council’s record on supporting what most people would consider as inappropriate development is reaching ridiculous proportions – and as stated by Glen Eira, the arguments are spurious, ill thought out, and obviously facile.
If councillors do not have the courage to reject applications then they do not deserve the title of councillor. Surely developers will get the message that if applications are knocked back time and time again they will have to lift their game. But when they have such closet supporters as Newton and Lipshutz, then there is no need to try and be reasonable, or to accommodate residents’ concerns.
The last two posts also show us exactly where the problem lies – and it’s again to do with councillors that either do not care, understand, or are not willing to rock the boat – the planning scheme. No-one has yet provided a reasonable answer to the basic questions asked by Glen Eira – why don’t we have interim or permanent height controls like other councils do? Why don’t we have structure plans for activity centres like other councils do? Why don’t we have parking plans as other councils do? Why have these councillors signed away almost completely any control they have to officers under delegations? Why is their planning delegations again so different to other councils? Unless councillors can provide valid answers to this question then they deserve to be turfed out as quickly as possible.
March 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM
What’s next? 14 storeys in Centre Road? Well done Lipshits, Hyams, Magee and the rest of the croneys!
March 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM
FYI – a list of some of the metropolitan councils that DO HAVE STRUCTURE PLANS. Many ‘rural’ areas also have them –
Banyule
Bayside
Boroondara
Cardinia
Darebin
Frankston
Greater Dandenong
Kingston
Knox
Marybyrnong
Maroondah
Melbourne
Monash
Moonee Valley
Moreland
Port Phillip
Stonnington
Yarra City
March 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM
I am using my 3 minutes at the Caulfield Racecourse Committee meeting on 4 April to discuss my general planning concerns and would encourage others to do also. We need to make a stand on planning in Glen Eira and this is Glen Eira’s alamo!
March 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM
The Americans were wiped out at the Alamo by Mexico.
March 30, 2011 at 8:47 PM
Lipshutz needs to be told in no uncertain terms that his days are numbered as a councillor. He’s a Camden ward representative only in name. Everything he’s done has been against local opinion, even going back as far as the Caulfield pavilion sham and then having the gall to call the Friends of Caulfield Park dishonest.
Pilling also needs it pointed out to him that as a supposedly green candidate he has been a major disappointment to heaps of people. Let these buggers see, hear, and feel the anger of the people.
March 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Outcomes like this can destroy people’s lives as much as their homes. Council and councillors do not seem to care one iota for the human cost of all this development. They refuse to fight and refuse to fund well prepared defences. Nor do they offer much support to objectors and other interested parties. The whole objective is to get as many developments into these areas that they possibly can and to hell with the well being of residents.
The consistent refusal to even contemplate proper planning is indefensible. More reprehensible is the refusal to justify such non-decisions. It’s that old mentality of ‘we know what we’re doing” and “leave it to us”. History has proven that nothing should be left to the likes of Lipshutz and Newton in particular. Their legacy will continue to wreak havoc in Glen Eira for generations to come – and this has got absolutely nothing to do with state planning laws and VCAT. Council is responsible for its planning schemes. The buck passing must stop and answers provided to the community.
March 30, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Glen Eira this development is a shocker but I need to be reminded of the Officer recommendation.
March 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Check the minutes – 21st September 2010. The Officer’s recommendation was:”Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit (for up to 137
dwellings”