The number of notifications versus the number of objections maintains the current trend of fewer notifications garnering the greatest number of objections!
| Location | Notifications | Objections | Recommendation |
| Station Ave., McKinnon
(7 double storeys) |
8 properties
20 notices |
10 objections | Permit |
| Kooyong Rd., Elsternwick
(Medical centre) |
10 properties
36 notices |
67 objections
1 support letter |
Permit |
| Duncan McKinnon Reserve (pavilion/grandstand construction) |
104 properties
186 notices |
2 objections | Permit |
Item 9.4 Heritage Overlay (Hawthorn Rd.)
Officers’ recommendation was to “abandon(s) Amendment C83 (which seeks to remove the heritage overlay)”, reason being – “The lack of technical heritage justification to proceed with the amendment.”
Readers will remember that this is the Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property and that Jack Esakoff is owner of one of the properties in the proposal. It will be incredibly interesting to note how Lipshutz, Tang, Hyams and Pilling vote on this one, given their previous support of removing all 3 properties from Heritage listings. Of course the real stumbling block in this case is the Department’s findings –
“The authorisation to prepare the amendment is not an indication of whether or not the amendment will ultimately be supported.
The Department is concerned with the lack of strategic justification provided in support of the amendment. I encourage Council to provide further justification to support the amendment”.
QUESTION: What does this say about the original recommendation?
Item 9.6 – Strategic Plan (alias Community Plan)
This item calls for council to hear submissions. We wish to point out the following anomaly:
Any alteration to a budget such as happened at the recent Special Council Meeting with the carried Amendment, must logically impact on the Strategic Resource Plan. Adjustments must be made to both the budget and the plan to account for the drop in rates and the halving of proposed regrassing of ovals. Yet, Council is now accepting submissions on something that no longer exists!! This is a total farce. The new version of the Plan and budget have not been made public – yet councillors will decide on a new version without public comment and without ratepayers even sighting this new version!! Is this what is called ‘good governance’?
Here’s one paragraph from the single submission in regards to open space: The councils draft Community Plan seems to be all about providing infrastructure development for the future. More people, more building, roads, concrete paths and artificial sports grounds. As the demographics show Glen Eira population is rising and will continue to rise, and so willthe needs of these residents to enjoy our parks and gardens.
Other items of interest, in particular Newton’s response to Penhalluriack on the issue of ‘Notice of Motion’ will be addressed in the next post.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM
While reviewing the agenda for Monday’s Council meeting, when I read the recommendation to abandon amendment C83 I thought that Council deserved congratulations. However, then I read the comments of the DPCD and reaslised that congratulations should go to the DPCD rather than Council. Congratulations DPCD.
Let’s just hope Council accepts the recommendation and properly notifies all property owners this time.
June 3, 2011 at 7:00 PM
This is a real test for the gang. Solidarity to Esakoff or playing politics and seeing that the writing is on the wall and the Minister is unlikely to approve this. They will weigh up the options really carefully and do their sums. They can’t be seen to be flogging a dead horse, but then they have to at least pretend that esakoff has got their support. What a terrific night of wheeling and dealing and backpeddling Monday night should be. If I was Jack I’d go out get myself a good lawyer and see how much compensation I could get for them not notifying me that I’m buying a dud of a development property. Poor old Jeff Akehurst he’s really doing such a terrific job – it must be all of his staff who keep getting things so very very wrong. That’s why they’re now appointing another officer with delegated powers. More staff – just what Glen Eira needs to bolster this wonderful wonderful department.
June 3, 2011 at 4:28 PM
I just wanna know one thing – is the budget legal? What an absolute joke this is and what it means is that there will be no community consultation on the community plan and probably the budget. All comments and submissions are null and void. Newton should be sacked over this and reported to the Minister. It’s appalling administration. But I reckon it’s typical of a council that doesn’t give a stuff about residents or hasn’t even considered them.
June 3, 2011 at 5:25 PM
The Duncan McKinnon proposal which I’ve just read has sent alarm bells ringing through my head. Parking on site will be reduced by 7 spaces. This I just don’t understand. If ratepayers are spending over $7 to build a new pavilion and grandstand, I would expect that they assume it will be used more and more. That means more people, more often, and more cars. Yet, the application states that the Traffic Engineering department doesn’t see any real problem with this for the “large majority” of times. I find this incomprehensible.
There’s also statements about the need to get approval from Melbourne Water as the “management authority”. Apparently Melbourne Water wanted more information but they didn’t get this in on time (ie 21 days). Glen Eira is thus ploughing ahead regardless of what Melbourne Water comes up with.
Even the sporting clubs themselves don’t appear to happy with this plan. One of the objections is that “the proposal will not be able to accommodate the needs of individual sporting clubs”. I’ve also just discovered by reading this that there’s going to be a “community centre” – whatever that means. Could someone please tell me how many “community centres” any council really needs? They seem to be sprouting up like mushrooms in Glen Eira and I can only wonder if they’re worth the extra money that is being spent on them. Everything is just rushed and not properly advertised or planned. This could be another white elephant.
June 4, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Re Agenda Item 9.4 Heritage Overlay (Hawthorn Road) – I see we now have 6 hertiage advisors reports all of which agree that the Heritage Overlay should be retained. Since ratepayers paid for these reports (probably at 2 thou a pop) is there any reason why the original report (October, 2000)is always trotted out?
Perhaps, instead of constantly seeking a heritage advisor who will agree with this pro-development at the expense of heritage Council, a considerably smaller sum should be spent on investigating the caveat lodged on one of the 3 properties.