A petition was handed in regarding parking problems at McKinnon primary school. Burke announced that only part of the submission would be accepted, since the signatures weren’t all on ‘original’ papers as per the guidelines – some had been “attached to the document”. Penhalluriack then requested that all signatures be included since he was of the opinion that this was a technical issue rather than an attempt to ‘forge’ or misrepresent numbers. Esakoff responded that in order to be ‘valid’ each page had to have the identical ‘heading’. Burke explained that council had to ensure there was nothing untoward. Tang then moved a motion that the petition (minus the questionable signatures) be accepted and that ‘council investigate petitioners’ concerns’ and A REPORT BE PREPARED ON THE ISSUE. This was voted in unanimously. This is the first time in living memory, that petitions have not merely been ‘noted’, only to then disappear into the dustbin of history! Our congratulations to councillors for this one small step forward on the road to democracy and taking charge of matters!
Item 9.1 – 95 Nicholson St. – Rejected application (unanimous)
Esakoff declared 2 conflicts of interest. Magee/Lobo moved motion to reject permit application on grounds of ‘excessive mass’, ‘overdevelopment of site’, ‘excessive scale’, and fails to respond/respect to neighbourhood character, etc. Gallery was informed that this property had been ex Mayor Bob Bury’s residence. Magee lamented the loss of Jacaranda trees from the property and that someone could come along and put up ’22 little boxes’. His language included ‘monstrosity’, ‘decimate’, ‘eyesore’’, ‘height shouldn’t be… (anywhere) that should be in Glen Eira’ (yet 8 storeys were ok for elsewhere, Cr Magee?). A developer friend from elsewhere told Magee that ‘he hates developing in Glen Eira’ because our rules ‘were too strict’!!!
Rest of councillors spoke pretty much in the same vein. Pilling was on the ‘borderline’ because he would ‘like to see more development’. Penhalluriack, Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams also warned residents that this site was ripe for development and that it would occur.
Magee concluded by stating that Elizabeth Miller, MP was also an objector and hence she was ‘really criticising’ her own government’s policy. He challenged her to stand up in Parliament and state this. “I don’t want her to be involved to be popular, I want her to be involved to make a difference’. Also went on to claim that VCAT members who have no idea of the local area, don’t see the site, make decisions for ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of residents. [We wonder if Magee has ever read VCAT judgements and noted that in at least 95% of such judgements, the member DOES VISIT THE SITE and does ‘smell the roses’!!! We suggest that instead of grandstanding, Cr. Magee first establishes his facts!]
Item 9.2 – Centre Rd. – Application rejected (unanimous)
Hyams – nothing else of this height; too bulky; ‘shows a lack of respect for….neighbourhood character’. Pilling concurred stating ‘it just doesn’t fit there’. Tang also spoke of ‘overdevelopment’, ‘very bulky’, ‘landscaping’ and ‘visual amenity’. Magee wondered what’s in ‘developers’ heads’, they put up boxes and ‘let’s see how we go’. ‘We’re not gonna pass it, just a bloody waste of time’.
VCAT REPORT
Lipshutz skimmed over very quickly the VCAT decision on the 10 storey building on Glen Huntly Rd where the member had basically stated that since council had approved 8 storeys he couldn’t see much difference between that and granting the 10 storeys. Hyams stated that he could tell the difference. Tang also spoke about MP Miller and related it to past practice of Rob Hudson in coming out against council decisions. That ‘we need to see this followed through with action’ through their colleagues. In a direct reference to we presume Glen Eira Debates, Tang then stated that he had read how ‘people’ say that the fault lies with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. However the real fault in his view lies with VCAT because ‘they ignore our policies’. All this ‘indicates a lack of respect for council decisions’. Tang then explained that he was in favour of 7 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd., because this was the height of the existing church spire, so that the 7 storey development would not ‘tower’ over the spire!!! We respectfully suggest, that a tapering spire, is vastly different to a square, massive tower block of equal height!!!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
April 7, 2011 at 10:51 AM
No doubt about it. Magee’s started his election campaign for mayor. Very ironical that this bloke accuses Miller of being populist. Every word that’s reported as coming from Magee here is doing nothing else but playing to the gallery and what they want to hear. Grandstanding on a huge scale. Mr community minded, the bloke who wouldn’t want to live next to an eight storey development yet voted for it, is suddenly concerned about heights in Glen Eira! Gimme a break!
April 7, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Stuff about the petition is good. Problem though is what kind of bullshit will be reported back to councillors and when. This is only the first step. The problem is not yet solved until councillors are really and truly in charge of this house of bedlam.
April 7, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Comment from online Caulfield Leader re Elsternwick highrise –
My husband and I are devastated by the new high-density living plans and multi-storey developments planned for Elsternwick. We LOVE this suburb as it is. Our home and our suburb is our castle. As resident Kirsten Wright says in this week’s Caulfield Leader: “The charm of Elsternwick is it’s strip shops and community feel. These massive blocks are going to destroy that.” Why would the council deliberately destroy this suburb in this way? It is appalling, shocking, insensitive to the residents, so many of whom love this area as it is.
Residents are angry!
Would the council and VCAT members want THEIR suburbs and streets changed in this drastic, permanent way? High density living in Elsternwick is to the detriment of the suburb, the community, the residents.
Never to be the same again. It’s horrible!! Where is your vision? You are ruining our wonderful suburb. You have ruined it already!!
April 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Magee as mayor, you would have to be joking. Being mayor calls for the incumbent to be, amongst other things, hardworking, diligent and honest. Cr Magee lays claim to being an engineer but at a recent Council meeting he stated that he could not vote on an item as he did not understand what a “folio number” meant. That is the sort of detail engineers understand. It does raise the question of his sincerity. Maybe someone can ask him at which illustrious college or university conferred his degree.
April 8, 2011 at 5:06 PM
The minutes of Council Meeting now INCLUDE PENHALLURIACK’S MISSING PAGE – 2 PHOTOGRAPHS (BARELY DECIPHERABLE!). The other item of interest is this public question to Lipshutz and his reponse:
“Why has Cr Michael Lipshutz stepped in and circumvented the planning
department’s policies in respect of Planning Application GE/PP-22972/2010 for a
townhouse at 8 A’Beckett Street St Kilda East which has only received 2
objections? The applicant has told neighbours that Cr Michael Lipshutz promised
him this decision would go to a formal Council meeting (not a Delegated Planning
Committee) even before the advertising period had concluded and would not be a
problem to get approved.
A planning application in the same street 12 months ago for a 3 storey 18
apartment development with 7 objections went to Delegated Planning Committee as
it did not have 10 or more objections, so why has this planning application received
such special treatment, is it because the applicant works for the Council of
Orthodox Synagogues?”
Councillor Lipshutz responded. He said:
“1, I cannot comment as to what the applicant may or may not have said but
insofar as there are statements that have been attributed to me such
assertions are completely false.
2. The applicant contacted me in my role as a Camden Ward Councillor to seek
my advice as to a planning matter. I regularly am contacted by applicants and
objectors alike and I gave advice to the applicant as I do and would do to any
resident.
3. I neither made any promise to the applicant as alleged nor did I contact the
Council’s planning department. I have no ability to influence the planning
department and it would be unlawful to give any Council officer direction.
4. Insofar as I am aware the applicant has not received any special treatment.
5. Had Ms Carobott’s questioned ended there it would have been sufficient but
she then also raised the issue of the applicant’s role with the Council of
Orthodox Synagogues. His employment has no relevance to any issue before
the Council and to raise this is not only to be deplored but further the clear
innuendo is that favourable treatment is given by me to a co-religionist. Such
a comment is both factually not true but more so I consider such comment to
be offensive and anti Semitic. “
April 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Lipshutz can either be on board and work with Frank Penhalluriack in helping Glen Eira, change residents view of him as being Newton’s lap dog and be highly regarded as a Councillor and be re-elected or continue on his current way, lose the next election and be remembered in the same way as Peter Gouge. I know which path I would choose.