Esakoff declared 3 conflicts of interest – as a director of company who owns one of the properties, and as her husband is also a director. Lipshutz Moved motion to accept/Pilling seconded
LIPSHUTZ: Reminded everyone that this had been before council previously as a result of an ‘anomaly’ in the Heritage Overlay in that 466 Hawthorn is the only property listed under the Heritage banner – thus ‘there is a mismatch between the map and the schedule’. The matter has gone to the Department and now there’s this new report where the heritage advisors state that ‘this is a property worth maintaining heritage’ over…..‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’ that heritage should be kept, especially when one of these sites ‘is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything. Since there were submissions the proper thing to do is go to a panel.
PILLING: Stated that he had chaired the planning conference and with the advisor’s reports, council should adopt the ‘cautious course’ and go to a panel.
TANG: ‘Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. ‘Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors…’it’s a difficult issue’….’there’s also a councillor involved’….’doesn’t mean that we treat them any worse than any other resident’….’I feel comfortable seeing this going to an independent panel’….’I note the heritage advice and would be prepared to see the heritage overlay clarified’ on all properties if that’s what the panel wants, but ‘in fairness to those who bought the property’ …’I think we should let this go to an independent panel’.
HYAMS: ‘This is a bit of a mess…..I don’t think we should be looking to apportion blame here…that one building would have addresses on two streets’….’owner of 2B didn’t know and ‘planning department only found out when there was an application for property next door’…’took all of our planning department by surprise’…..’several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….’only two objectors neither of whom came to the planning comference’
..’and this despite the blog that likes to consider itself as influential….readers of that blog…usually the greatest sin a councillor can commit is apparently is to heed officers’ advice, especially unquestioningly….the blog is professing outrage….(that the heritage advisor’s recommendations are being ignored) …simply because a councillor has an interest ….with such breathtaking hypocrisy it’s no wonder that the people on this blog prefer to stay anonymous’. Councillors will ‘do what we always do’, look at advice …..’and make best decision’.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENTS:
We assume that Hyams’ little fit of pique against the ‘blog’ to be a reference to Glen Eira Debates. That’s the second time in two council meetings that the ‘real’ Cr. Hyams has maybe stood up? We accept this as a sincere compliment, since it indicates that we are definitely ruffling a few feathers and rattling a few cages. However, we need to correct some assertions made by Hyams. We are accused of ‘hypocrisy’ in that we have berated councillors for accepting ‘unquestioningly’ officers’ reports. If Cr Hyams would bother to look back at our post on this issue he would find the following as part of our commentary –
QUESTIONS:
- What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
- Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
- Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
- Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties?
- Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?
This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors…….”. We continued that what we recommend is surety for all concerned. There’s also a post that we put up but did not author – it comes from a resident expressing their personal opinion.
Finally, in relation to this current item, perhaps Cr. Hyams has not read the rehashed officers’ report as closely as he should have. The report notes: “Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants (David Bick, John Briggs, Roger Beeston and Dale Kelly). All concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection”.
So that makes it 6 Heritage Advisors in total. How much did this recourse to ‘external’ advisors cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? How much will referral to a Panel cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? Why in the interests of transparency did you not once refer to this additional ‘evidence’ from ‘independent’ experts? And since it was at your urging that the current Councillor Code of Conduct contains the injunction that councillors read all material placed before them, we ask you -“Did you really read the new report?”. Or is the failure to mention these additional 4 expert opinions merely an example of ‘hypocrisy’? We welcome your response Cr. Hyams!
Glen Eira Debates 
June 8, 2011 at 7:53 PM
I must admit to having a great deal of sympathy for the Esakoffs. None of this is their fault. Whether it’s the planning department’s error should be fully investigated and strategies introduced to ensure that this never happens again. I also can’t help wondering whether your average citizen would also be accorded all this attention and, in my view, privilege in the same way that council appears to be bending over backwards to squirm out of a really tricky dilemma. I doubt that Joe Blow and his innocent involvement would have instigated a request for an amendment, a request for heritage removal from all properties, and now a request to go to a panel. When conflict of interest is involved, then perceptions are just as important as guilt or innocence. Hyams called this a mess. It certainly is but I doubt we’ll ever know who the culprits really are.
June 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM
The gang of five are once again together – mates that look after each other – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Tang, Hyams and junior gang member Pilling. Yes Pilling will throw up a motion every now and then to diatance himself from the gang of four but C60 highlighted that he is a key member of the gang. Pehalluriack and Magee need to hold it together until lobo returns and hope that Forge can regain composure until reinforcements arrive at the next Council elections next year. HELP IS ON ITS WAY, JUST HANG ON…
June 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Hey Jamie me boy, just spotted the fact that this rotten blogsite will probably hit 100,000 sometime tomorra. You really sure it ain’t what ya called it “influential”?
June 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM
I would like to be afforded the same special consideration as Cr Esakoff to get things changed. Council decided without my knowledge to include my area within the boundaries of an “urban village’. I don’t like it and it is having a major affect on my family and I. I am starting to lose the neighbourhood to high density development because councils planning department thought it was a good idea – hey councillors why don’t you afford those residents stuck in the middle of your crappy unwanted high density plannning mess the same interest and special consideration as you are giving the ‘poor’ Esakoffs. There are heaps more of us than just one wealthy family with an investment properrty who are significantly adversely affected by poor decisions made by a bunch of council bureaucrats..
June 8, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Why are council wasting our money on 6 “so-called” heritage experts when they only needed to ask Michael Lipshutz?
June 8, 2011 at 11:27 PM
Dead right. He only costs 26,000 but he’s costing us heaps more. Let’s figure this out. 4 outside experts at probably $200 per hour. They go, look, write the report, maybe 3 hours work for each of them. That makes it around $2,500 for their consultancy. Then we have the independent notetaker for councillor only meetings. Maybe a lot cheaper. Let’s say $100 per hour and so far 6 hours work. That adds another $600. Then there’s the special tuition that was given to make sure that our councillors really understood what ‘standing orders’ means and so other stuff like that. A lawyer doesn’t come cheap. Here again, I reckon maybe $300 per hour and maybe 4 hours worth. That adds another $1200 to the bill. So far, maybe around $5000 and add another couple of hundred for all the grog, sandwiches, lunches, dinners that are thrown in at our expense. This is only what we know mind you. Probably heaps and heaps more going on that is costing us a pretty penny and as Manuel would say I knowwwww nuuuthhhing
June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Lipshutz must absolutely be made in the image of God himself. Plus such a wonderous boon to mankind. A heritage expert, a lawyer well versed in every single aspect of 1000 years of black letter law; an architect and engineer so that he knows when to redevelop and when to reconstruct; an accountant and financial whiz who oversees the audit committee with such aplomb; a committee member of so many organisations that they simply can’t do without him – that’s until they boot him out. Glen Eira Council may be very very lucky to have such a man of infinite talens. But I’m not sure the same can be said for ratepayers.
June 8, 2011 at 11:47 PM
I’m fascinated by Hyams, and undoubtedly Lipshutz’s claims that they make the ‘best decisions’. As far as I know, no concrete, quantitative evidence has ever been produced to justify such a claim. Residents never get to see assessments, evaluations, about anything. Lobo has called for cost benefit analyses as has Penhalluriack. I walk down streets and see waste staring me in the face repeatedly. I pick up the newspaper and read about synthetic grass costing $50,000 being put on traffic islands. Then there’s that marvel of a mulch shed which cost $160,000. I’d really like to know how Hyams can even have the gall to say that he makes the ‘best decisions’. This is ignorance writ large and incompetence on the grandest scale. To top it all off there is now going to be nearly 9 million on a pavilion and grandstand that will end up with a loss of parkland and major disruption to traffic. If this was a private company then the directors and all the underlings would be long gone.
June 9, 2011 at 7:02 AM
This all reminds me the late 80s when Alan Bond would try and get his accounts signed off. Each accounting firm refused until a firm by the name of Arthur Andersen agreed. Of course the company was broke but my point is if you shop around for an opinion long enough, you will find someone who will do as you ask…just like the Melbourne Racing Club did with their “risk assessment” of the Queens Rd fence.
June 9, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Cr Hyams,
If this blog is just a “nothing or “non influential” site or what ever you want to call it, how do you know about it, why are you reading it and more importantly why are you commenting on it at a meeting?
You allude to hypocrisy and why people stay anonymous on this site. This is just a total wild guess with no evidence to back it up, but I assume that you or certainly some of your fellow Councillors might have made a few cheap comments under the pseudonym “anonymous”?
Whilst we are on the topic of hypocrisy, have you and your fellow gang members seen the 14 page “Frisbee report” tabled by Council officers and previous issues with external turf consultants. Have you noted their recommendations based on factual evidence which you totally ignored for some strange reason? Which carpet did you sweep this report under? Since you and the gang obviously haven’t seen or read it because it’s so damning what address shall I send you all a copy too? Its a good word hypocrisy isn’t it?
Have you ever put two heads together at council and said maybe we can use this website to our advantage and encourage and engage with community consultation and opinion?
I’d love to hear replies to these questions but I probably won’t because most of you “anonymous” Councillors are so weak and insipid.
June 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Some very interesting quotes here (and from Councillor’s who rejected the notion of motion concept for fear that future Councillors would make idiots of themselves)
Lipshutz – “I have been there, I have seen the property … is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything”. For a lawyer (now building expert) to argue this is a valid reason to remove a heritage overlay is mind boggling.
Tang – “Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors”. While I have some sympathy here, I point out
• When you purchase a third of a free standing building your expectations of what you can do with it are not the same as when you purchase an entire free standing building
• Council minutes state that the Heritage Overlay does not impose any restrictions on internal renovations
Hyams – “several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….”. Past council minutes state that the current heritage advisor acknowledges some heritage aspects have been lost, however, the most significant aspect is the building itself. There are now four additional reports confirming this.
When will the 6 heritage reports be available to residents?
The “”breathtaking hypocrisy” is not occurring in this blog.
June 15, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Crs. Tang’s and Hyam’s sympathy for the homeowners is disconcerting. The changes to the property since the heritage overlay was lodged in 2003 (namely gates, rockery and property fencing) could not have occurred without discussion/agreement between all three owners. Was there no discussion of the heritage overlay?
Yep, their hyprocrisy and their unfailing belief in their abillity to “hoodwink” is extraordinary.
June 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM
You certainly are very sensitive about getting criticised even though you’re more than happy to dish it out. That’s another example of hypocrisy. So we should take the advice of experts now. Except, of course, when those experts are the CEO or his directors or staff, or the external members of the audit committee. More hypocrisy. Perhaps its the number of experts that matter. If so, where’s the cut off? Is it three we should ignore but four we should follow? Or perhaps is it just that we should do whatever the unelected and anonymous luminaries think is right rather than exercising our own judgment?
Also try to stay focussed beyond your selective moral outrage for long enough to remember that all we have done is send this to an independent panel for its recommendations. The original motion, which was to amend the planning scheme to ensure that all three properties are properly heritage listed, would have needed to go to a panel anyway had there been any objectors, which there undoubtedly would have.
June 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Thank you for your email Cr. Hyams.
A couple of points:
1. No, we certainly are not ‘happy to dish it out’. The sad facts are that we would be delighted if all of our posts could be congratulatory, and extolling the virtues of all staff and councillors. That would mean that we have a first class council and therefore obviate the need to examine and disseminate items that call into question certain actions, decisions, and performance.
2. Item 9.4 as we’ve stated previously hinges exclusively on heritage status. We have queried why 6 advisors views have not been accepted (as Cr. Liphutz clearly stated). That is all we have asked. In relation to normal planning applications the issues are far wider and involve everything from transport, building design, aesthetics, etc. They do not merely hinge on 1 experts view, or on one salient condition as this amendment appears to. Our stated argument is perfectly consistent.
3. As for the ‘unelected and anonymous luminaries’ we have stated on several occasions that the choice is up to our readers as to whether they wish to identify themselves. Doesn’t it appear strange that Council itself would act on ‘anonymous’ complaints, and yet you find it objectionable that people prefer to remain anonymous on a blog? Perhaps if the history of this council were slightly different, then anonymity would not be necessary. Besides, don’t shoot the messenger, look at the arguments and their validity.
4. Our recollection of recent motions on the Hawthorn Rd property is that the recommendation was to remove heritage listings from ALL THREE PROPERTIES! It would seem that when the Department of Planning failed to find sufficient justification in Council’s arguments, that the ‘escape clause’ was to then send it off to a panel. In the interest of transparency, would you please make the Department’s findings public? We’re sure this would be a most informative document.
Thank you for reading our blog Cr. Hyams – and as always we appreciate your feedback!
June 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Gleneira: Re Item 9.4, you have it wrong, the original recommendation was “to rectify”, the motion passed was “to remove”. I’m sure Cr. Hyams will appreciate this distinction.
In answer to Cr. Hyams question of where is the cut off – since no Councilor professes to be a heritage expert, seeking the current heritage advisors opinion (which agreed with the original heritage advisor) qualified as due diligence. Seeking an additional 4 reports really, really, really qualifies. It would be interesting to know the date and content of the DPCD letter and the content and dates (requested and presented) of each of the additional four reports.
June 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Nick, if you’d like to, I’d be happy for you to mail me any FoI documents you have so I know what you’re referring to. Please feel free to send them to the Town Hall.
June 9, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Oh Hello, where have you just jumped out from?
Let me guess first time reader and poster?
What would prompt you to write to a pathetic, ill-informed, meaningless and non influential website like this one?
I might just take your kind offer up and send you my FoI documents, but that’s really part of the sad issue, you probably really don’t know what I am talking about or what’s going on. You could always ask the fellow gang members. Promise me one thing if I take the effort to send them, you take the effort to read them impartially, maybe even try to look at it from our weird and unreasonable point of view.
Remember don’t sweep them under the same carpet as the last lot, someone might trip over the hump.
Is it open slather now, are the other gang members allowed on, or are they still being muzzled?
June 9, 2011 at 9:03 PM
You need serious help. It appears thatyYou simply like to fight. Why not join the army .