This is what happened at the Panel Hearing yesterday.
- Chair outlined the rules for the hearing but also noted that she had received an email from council the previous Friday correcting the Housing Diversity information – ie. that this did not apply to Seaview St. The report would be completed in about 4 weeks and Council had to make the report public within 21 days of their receiving it.
- Council (via a lawyer) made its submission. Powerpoint presentation showing Housing Diversity areas and Minimal change areas. Admitted that report was wrong in that Seaview St is not in Housing Diversity but in Minimal Change Area. Stated that this is a ‘peripheral’ issue and doesn’t have any bearing on the heritage question. Showed photos and highlighted development in area surrounding the property – that is heaps of developments. Also showed photo of another building in Caulfield similar to 466 Hawthorn Rd. Talked about ‘administrative anomaly’ and owners not notified.
- Officers sought authority to rectify this but councillors voted against recommendation. Said that submissions supporting removal of heritage had argued that building wasn’t ‘sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated and cost to refurbish is astronomical; ‘restricts development; unfair that people weren’t notified; two objectors to removal and their arguments that this property is worthy of preservation and enhances area; removal would allow development and further traffic congestion.
- A planning conference was held and there were two objections one of which was queried because the person lived far away. Chair asked if objectors were notified. Council rep said ‘yes’ but objector at hearing said that no notification arrived.
- Council rep then argued that council does support heritage but only if the property is ‘worthy’ of heritage protection. In this case council doesn’t think that this property is that significant and thus heritage should be removed. Repeated time and time again that the property doesn’t have sufficient architectural, cultural or social significance. Because of the Housing Diversity then the development of 466 Hawthorn Rd is ‘unnecessarily constrained’. Minimal change area is meant to protect neighbourhood character but allows some development.
- In regard to objectors, said that no experts were present; no development plans had been submitted; since there are 3 owners then redevelopment would be harder and ‘more complex’. Also a restrictive covenant exists. So objections are ‘premature’ and people don’t have to worry about a 5 storey residential development occurring.
- Ended up by showing photos of 445 Balaclava Rd (another Frank Lloyd Wright influence) and thus removal of heritage from this site wouldn’t remove Wright’s presence in Glen Eira – even though the Balaclava Rd property is different!!!!
- Chair commented on the fact that council hadn’t called expert witnesses and that the reports she’d read had all recommended maintaining heritage listing, so why is council considering ‘otherwise’? Answer was that council thought it was ‘appropriate’ for its view to be heard.
- Chair asked that if the Panel found that there was heritage significance then the development argument of council would be down the drain and council rep answered that it would be ‘compromised’.
- Since council didn’t call any expert witnesses and neither did objectors Chair then explained that a report is one thing but that the best way to test the report was to have the expert there for questioning. This would carry ‘greater weight’.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM
First they stuff up the planning maps, then they stuff up in notifying people, then they can’t even read their own bloody planning scheme and tell what is housing diversity and what is minimal change and then to top it all off there is the incredible argument that getting rid of the heritage listing is okay cos there’s another property down the road which is also Frank Lloyd Wright’s legacy. If all this isn’t sheer unadulterated incompetence then I don’t know what the hell is. And Akehurst is only earning about $230,000 per annum. How about he pays out of his own pocket for all these stuff ups. And jeepers how many more are there that we don’t know about!
August 18, 2011 at 11:18 PM
No expert witnesses were called because none would have supported council’s position. Objectors obviously didn’t want to go to the expense and with 6 experts already proclaiming that the building is worthy of preserving then there wouldn’t have seemed to be a need. Judging by the arguments put up by council they’ve got as much hope as a snowflake in hell. The only sore point is that the costs will fall on residents and that’s unforgiveable.
August 18, 2011 at 11:44 PM
If you don’t provide expert witnesses they can’t be cross-examined. You can’t find out what research they’ve done if their report accidentally omits all citations. The origin of dubious statistics can’t be established. Opinions can’t be tested in the face of material not previously unconsidered. I don’t know why its acceptable at VCAT, but maybe this Panel has more backbone.
August 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM
Again, there needs to be an investigation into this matter and Councillors would also be subject to examination.
August 19, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Couple of interesting concepts expressed above
1. If an objector lives ”far away” that objection can be queried
2. “far away” doesn’t apply to buildings
August 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM
This is farce on an unparalleled level. In the face of six expert reports there’s this poor lawyer having to repeat ad nauseum that council doesn’t believe that there’s any cultural, architectural or social value to the property. The poor sod has had to defend the indefensible and it shows. It also sounds as if the chairperson is doing their job properly for once.
August 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM
In the light of Jack statement that he never ever talked about it with his wife, you would have to dismiss every thing the Esakoff’s have said up to now. ….(MODERATORS – Sentence deleted).
August 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM
All this publicity will serve Margaret very nicely should she decided to re-contest the elections in November 2012. The last election saw her get a record number of votes. She is very well liked by most people and she is a very popular mayor. You should run against her and see how you go. Or maybe you have done that before.
August 19, 2011 at 5:17 PM
Wake up Glen Eira she is a complete fake
August 19, 2011 at 5:30 PM
Why not run against her. The City needs more good Councillors. You have plenty to say and seem to take an interest in this blog. If she is a fake as you say then you should be successful. She does however go by her real name.
August 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Yes Anon the Municipality certainly needs good Councillors, definitely much better than the current crowd. And I have to disagree with you about her being well liked – perhaps you should join a few community or sporting groups to really sample the public opinion. And as for doing a good job – may I point out that fence sitting is not a high on the leadership skill list nor is fobbing off the tough questions to the Deputy Mayor (refer her handling of C60 and this current heritage issue).
Ask yourself Anon how popular can she be when even her own husband doesn’t talk to her!!!!.
August 19, 2011 at 11:48 PM
How dare they treat us like that, they claim they never spoke about it, they are more arrogant than I originally thought. This is a total disgrace, then again I dont expect anything more from this bunch.
August 19, 2011 at 11:52 PM
Yes Getagrip. Clearly the thousands of voters who have elected her first at the last two council elections are far less an indication of her popularity than a couple of people you claim to speak to. I’m sure we’re all grateful for your novel reinterpretation of democracy. How much did she beat you by when you ran against her? It’s also a bit unfair demanding that she answers questions about this heritage issue when she has declared an interest and left the room every time it’s been discussed. Perhaps you would like her more if she was telepathic.
August 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM
All credibility is lost in this case when the alleged statements by Mr. Esakoff states that he has not spoken about the issue with his wife and yet he has lobbied all councillors. Add to this the further denial that councillors and she have not discussed the matter also stretches credibility beyond breaking point. Yes, declarations of conflict of interest were made. However, this application has been on the horizon for well over a year. I for one, cannot believe that no comments relating to the issue have ever been made between husband and wife and councillors and mayor. This is not to say that I don’t have sympathy for the participants. What I don’t have sympathy for are the alleged comments and treating the public as a group of gullible imbeciles.
August 20, 2011 at 9:27 PM
I think you should get yourself another hobby……really.
August 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Blogs site gets boring when you get silly twats say things “she does however go by her real name” … well whacky doo.
I suppose you have personally discussed her intimate details of her on-line life, have you.
August 20, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Winner are grinners and losers can please themselves. Run for Council.
August 20, 2011 at 11:39 PM
There goes Jamie defending the indefensable again.
August 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM
Nice try anonymous but you’re going to have to guess again. The series of positive posts above about Margaret are not from me. Surely if this blog is as well read as you all like to claim, it could be expected that someone other than me would write in defence of Margaret. After all, she did get well over 6,000 votes in the last election, and 86% of people surveyed in the last community satisfaction survey did not feel the Council needed to improve. That is unless this blog is not really representative of the community, and is really just a handful people blogging under more than one alias to make it look more important. Of course, with all the anonymity, no one would ever know.
Interestingly, the ABC’s Drum website is intending to make any one who wants to comment register first under their own name and then only allow them to comment under that name, to stop all the anonymous abuse. Perhaps if you did that here you would get some credibility. People are far more likely to try to ensure what they say is accurate if others know who they are. For an example of someone not bothering to check their facts because no one knows who they are, see below.
August 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM
Credibility is such a loaded word especially when it comes from councillors who have basically failed to gain the trust and respect of countless residents. You can go on all you like about credibility Cr Hyams but the arguments and figures presented on this blog win me over every single time compared to the skewed reports that come out from you and officers. If credibility is an issue then I not so respectfully suggest that you look in your own back yard and ensure that transparency and accountability are your top priorities.Finally, your unflinching support of Esakoff is legendary so why shouldn’t people believe that you are the ‘anonymous’ commentator here? Where there’s smoke there’s always fire I think.
August 22, 2011 at 11:48 PM
“Peter”, in relation to the way the residents regard Council, I again point you to the community satisfaction survey, where only 14% of those surveyed said Council needs to improve. Also 22% said we had improved since last year and 7% said we had deteriorated. As for your certainty that where there’s smoke there’s fire, I love the logic. I support Margaret so therefore if anyone supports her, it must be me. Following the same logic, I know of one former councillor who isn’t too fond of me and her, so clearly any time anyone critcises us on this blog, it must be that former councillor. Thanks for your assurance that we only have one critic.
August 22, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Cr. Hyams, occasionally the writers on this blog post some questionable comments, however, for the most part I find their comments to be well reasoned arguments appropriately questioning Councillors and the Administration. Unlike other elected governing bodies, Councils do not have a sitting opposition to question decisions or present alternate views. Because of this, and Council’s effectiveness in restricting residents ability to express concerns, this blog site developed and it’s growth has been phenomenal.
Yes, this blog site does allow residents to post anonymously or with pseudonyms, however, as already mentioned the arguments presented here are predominantly of a much higher standard and are more informative than anything presented by Councillors or the Administration. Criticism or dismissal of this blog on the grounds of anonymity is “shooting the messenger”.
The success of this site (137,000 hits – roughly the population of Glen Eira) cannot be solely attributed to “a handful of people blogging under more than one alias”. Admittedly, not everyone who reads the site makes a post but the numbers show that there are a lot of people out there regularly using this “informal” site because they are finding “formal” communications and Council actions sorely lacking.
Council and the Administration would do well to consider this.
For the record, I do not know (nor do I care) who runs this website but I am grateful to those responsible for maintaining it. As long as it maintains its current standards I will keep reading it and it’s popularity will continue to grow.
August 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Jamie, good grief, another fake, runs as a independent, tell the real truth next time you run and see if you win.
August 21, 2011 at 10:11 PM
The Liberal party does not endorse Council candidates, so it would be inappropriate and misleading to put the party on campaign material. However, any time any one during the campaign asked if I was a member of a party, I said I was a member of the Liberal Party. That included at candidate forums and in the Leader candidate survey, which I had assumed would be in the paper but which they chose only to put online. This is a good example of someone anonymously writing something untrue, but not caring, because no one knows who they are, and why anonymous blogs like this have no credibility.
August 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM
Cr Hyams,
Are you and Cr Pilling the only Crs who actually read this blog site. My wild stab is that all Crs read this blog site and quite possibly make comments under pseudonym names also.
Do you claim that no other Cr has ever posted on this website under the name anonymous.
August 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Some of my colleagues look at it. Some don’t. I’m not aware of any of them posting comments anonymously.
August 22, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Jamie, I do appreciate that you take the time to contribute to this blog.
I’m sure it must be read by all councillors and that you and Cr Pilling are the only ones to comment is a credit to you.
However, I think you ought not dismiss the anonymous comments so lightly. The popularity of this blog demonstrates council’s failure to engage with it’s community in any meaningful way.
Here’s a suggestion for you. Why doesn’t council run a blog on their website where residents can ask questions publicly, discuss issues and have councillors respond? Wouldn’t that be an effective way for council to engage the community? I’d be happy to put my name to that.
But as for your ridiculous comment that “it would be inappropriate and misleading” to include your political party membership on your election material, you ought to know that it would be quite the opposite. It would be entirely appropriate for candidates to acknowledge their political affiliations in election material. I would have thought that this would be more honest than claiming to be “independent”. As for your statement that you told people who asked and put it in the Leader candidate survey – well enough people know you to call you a liar if you had denied it and the Leader wouldn’t publish your details unless you answered that question, so I don’t really consider that to be particularly bold.
And as you also know, the Labor Party do not endorse candidates for the City of Glen Eira (in fact I think they only endorse candidates for one Victorian council). So isn’t it strange that the only candidates I can recall including their party affiliation in their election material were Labor Party members. So much for openness.
And I hope you are not so naive as to suggest that party membership is irrelevant to local council elections. When campaigns like yours and some of your colleagues were organised and supported through the Liberal Party – unofficially of course. After all, you are independent.
August 23, 2011 at 12:02 AM
I never claimed to be independent. I also never said I was brave. The Liberal Party does not believe in the parties getting involved in Council elections, and therefore does not approve of Liberals campaigning as Liberals, including as party members. The ALP and Greens have a different policy. In the case of Liberals, party membership is pretty much irrelevant because the party never tells candidates who they must preference to, or how to vote when on Council. By contrast, ALP members have been expelled from the party for supporting the wrong person for mayor, and can be expelled for preferencing a non party member above a party member in a Council election. I organised and funded my own campaign. I had support from many friends, some of whom were Liberals. The party did not organise my campaign. Again, it’s easy to make baseless allegations when you’re anonymous.
August 24, 2011 at 8:53 AM
The LGA prevents candidates from claiming to be supported by a political party unless a letter is provided to the returning officer. Neither the ALP or the Liberals provide this endorsement. The laws relating to conflict of interest were changed to allow ALP councillors to caucus prior to council meetings. This in itself is contrary with other parts of the Act that outlines the responsibility of councillors. Why not bsng on about this and leave Jamie alone.
August 21, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Ok Mr Credibility, I except all the above, but that’s only half the truth about being independent isn’t Jamie ……………….. now for the rest ……………. don’t hold your breath waiting bloggers.
August 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM
Why not stand for council? We all reckon that your previous attempts were failures. Third time lucky.
August 21, 2011 at 11:05 PM
Jamie me boy ya just don’t get it do ya? Yous are all on the nose. Better still yous are all on the way out. Face it you bring up red herrings all the time cos ya can’t stand the fact that more and more people are reading what’s up on this blog. You wouldn’t bother commenting otherwise would ya? It’s something ya can’t control like yas all do in council with your prepared pathetic little performances and back slapping. Long live glen eira debates and anonymity.