Let’s talk standards and how these are mangled one by one if circumstances so dictate! Today there was the Panel hearing for the c83 amendment. To refresh readers minds it involved the 466 Hawthorn Rd property – the one where councillors voted against 6 Heritage Advisors recommendations to retain heritage listing on the 3 unit, Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property. The arguments put up were: heritage listing ‘restricts’ development; it’s a Housing Diversity Area near public transport; the property is not maintained, etc. etc.
What is remarkable about this case (apart from the fact that the Esakoffs are involved) is that Heritage listing was applied in 2003. Yet the proposals for Housing Diversity Areas were cooked up years previously and based on a report dating back to 1999. Thus, in 2003 numerous properties were designated as ‘heritage listed’ and worthy of protection, regardless of their location. We now have the absurd arguments that because a Heritage Listed property is in a Housing Diversity Area it no longer deserves protection and will ‘restrict’ medium to high density development. Council cannot have it both ways! Either properties are worthy of protection wherever they are, or there is no property that should have protection if they are in an area designated as Housing Diversity.
To top it off, we’ve learnt that council’s Heritage Advisor refused to be a witness at today’s Panel Hearing – declaring a potential conflict of interest. It seems that the Chair of the Panel was none too pleased at this point since attendance was mandatory!
And we mustn’t forget the most cogent fact that it is ratepayers who will be bearing the costs for this Panel hearing. It is ratepayers who forked out for an extra 4 Heritage advisors recommendations – whose ‘reports’ by the way were NOT INCLUDED in the documentation presented to council and which councillors never clapped eyes on! Perhaps if they had, then the above expenses might never have occurred? So, whose fault is all this? Councillors who don’t demand full information in order to make informed decisions? Or an administration that drip feeds councillors only the information it wants them to have? And the most important question: how can councillors vote to go to a Panel in the face of 6 recommendations and the Department’s reluctance to endorse the amendment straight off? And are ratepayers really expected to believe that any ordinary citizen would be accorded the same
treatment and course of action that has been bestowed on 466 Hawthorn Rd?
Glen Eira Debates 
August 17, 2011 at 8:39 AM
When the heritage overlays were proposed 11 years ago everyone whose property was listed was given the chance to object, all except the Esakoffs. This was because someone made a mistake and did not tell them that their property was to be listed. They were denied their chance to object. I am dead certain that if one of the people that operate this blog were the recipient of a town hall mistake they would be screamimg for justice and a fair go. You seem to think that someone elected to public office must forgo their rights that are afforded to all Australians. Justice and a fair go.
You do yourself no credit in this matter.
August 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM
I’ve said before that I have sympathy for the individuals involved. That’s not the issue here. If errors have been made then compensation is due. This aside, I agree with the post that the perception is that councillors have bent over backwards in this case. To ignore experts opinion is one thing and then to send off to a panel on top of this is hard to accept especially when it sounds like the government’s reluctance to accept the removal of heritage status in the first place precipitated this last resort type action. It’s also very strange that the advisor who wrote one of the reports should not appear at the panel and offer their testimony. There are just too many looopholes in all of this.
August 17, 2011 at 10:41 AM
There needs to be an investigation on how someone could hold or purchase a property without knowing the property was Heritage listed.
August 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM
There is no doubts about what happened. The council heritage advisor made a mistake and admitted as much. They thought it was one residence when there was
3.
August 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM
Sorry, Anon, I don’t buy it. Council minutes state that the 2003 decision was subject to a “rigorous process”. Should this be investigated? Back in 2003, Council was claiming the same sorts of awards it now claims – so are it’s procedures and processes really up to scratch and should the awards be questionable?
My dealings with Council, current and past (10 years) make me lean to the questionable, actually that should be highly questionable.
August 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Just because the outcome is anticipated is no reason to deny a person their
rights. We are talking about laws. Principals should not be pushed aside because a few people jump on a blog and think they have unearthed corrupt behavior. As I said earlier, if the people that operate this blog were wronged by the town hall they would be screaming like a stuffed pig. The absence of an objector would have saved time and money. The objector has the right to submit as the Esakoffs have to access to have what they were denied. Good thing to do is put yourself in their shoes and that of the other councillors. Opinion are shaped from where you are looking from. You find plenty of legitimate issues to have a crack at the councillors and staff but this is not one of them.
August 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM
No one is denying people their rights. The proponents for heritage removal have had their say and so have objectors. The point is whether the advocates for heritage removal have had more opportunity to not only have their say but to get their way and to boot at residents cost. Compounding previous errors is not the way to go and especially when processes appear to be stretched to the limit to accommodate certain decisions. Let’s for the sake of argument say that the additional 4 heritage advisors assessment were in favour of heritage removal. I’d hazard a guess that if this had been the case then they would have been included in the officers’ report in all their glory. But since they opposed heritage removal they barely rated a sentence. This to me is all about perceptions and process and that’s where I think this whole business has turned sour.
August 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM
What !!!!! “The absence of an objector would have saved time and money”. There is so much wrong with this statement that it is pointless to respond other than to say Anonymous’s reading of “Animal Farm” missed the point – no residents have more rights that others to use the established, democratic process to express views.
The Esakoffs and the objector have a right to that same established, democratic process is undeniable. As does the other unotified of the Seaview Road, even though this owner has remained silent throughout the whole C83 process.
So the questions begging to be answered are why this Council is bending over backwards (at considerable expense to the rate payers) to push forward Amendment C83
. when only one of two unnotified owners are appealling
. when SIX (the original, current and 4 independent) heritage advisors agree on the heritage merits of this building and advise retention of heritage listing
. when much has been said about building deterioration but, unlike the heritage aspect, no substantive evidence has been provided. (Even though in heritage issues recent decisions show that building condition is way less significant than heritage merits)
. if the advocate for removal of the heritage listing wasn’t affiliated with Council, would Council be adopting the same attitude/processes? .
By the way moderator, the fact that you have posted the anonymous’s comment indicates the way that you are true to your word of promoting a fair and open forum, otherwise denied by Council, to GE residents. It is regrettable that Council
. is not as true to its word or mission statements
. takes every opportunity it can to slam this blog on the basis that comments are anonymous
. while slamming you, takes advantage of this blog to post anonymously.
August 18, 2011 at 8:06 AM
To answer your question as to why is the Council appears to be bending over backwards. That’s what Councils do. Futhermore, no one slammed the blog. A point was made about how they would react. That’s all. They are not beyond critisism. The blog would not have credibility if they tossed off people that didn’t agree with them. They know that. The blog opertators invite people to be anonymous if they wish. Rather than use an emotive name and try to develop alto ego many just keep their identity to anonymous.
August 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM
We forgot to add one other cost to ratepayers for this Panel hearing – legal representation for council by a young lawyer from Russell Kennedy. Another couple of thousand perhaps?
August 17, 2011 at 10:55 PM
All the local government legislation I’ve ever bothered to look at talks about the need for responsible government for the benefit of the community. The past few months have been anything but responsible and prudent. This is just another example of funds being spent without proper consideration for overall community benefit. Lawyer fees, panel fees, extra expert fees all add up and that’s not even talking about the cost in time put in by officers. Add on to this the list of figures published in the public questions and we’re looking at mega dollars needlessly down the gurgler.
August 18, 2011 at 8:21 AM
Unfortunately, living three houses away from Hawthorn Road, South Caulfield, I was not one of those Council advised of the removal of heritage protection. The business of living meant I also missed the GE Leader notices – if I had seen it, I too would have objected.
This building adds character and charm to the southern stretch of Hawthorn Road and would continue to do so if Council would let it. Instead Council seems hell bent on allowing Hawthorn Road to become another canyon road similar to those being built along tram routes in the northern suburbs. Characterless 4-10 storey developments (set backs don’t offset bulk) with empty shop after empty shop at street level. One wonders how a sense of community will develop in such an environment – more dysfunctional Docklands are being created. Under the guise of Housing Diversity, character and interest is being replaced with sterile bulk. Truly amazing when one considers that diversity means variety not density.
The Hawthorn Road building’s social value to the community has not been considered and it’s heritage/architectural merits are being ignored.