Mayor’s husband lobbied on heritage listing
Jason Dowling
August 18, 2011
Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street Caulfield South. Photo: Gary Medlicott
A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s south-east is pushing to reject heritage protection for three homes – one owned by the mayor – despite four independent heritage experts and the council’s own heritage adviser recommending the houses be protected.
A planning mistake recently identified by Glen Eira City Council showed that while all three maisonette dwellings in the one building on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street, South Caulfield, were included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one home was recorded for heritage protection.
When the heritage anomaly was discovered, council staff last year recommended extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors rejected the advice and voted to begin a process to remove existing heritage protection from the entire site.
One heritage expert consulted by the council, John Briggs, said he would be amazed if the panel did not recommend heritage protection for the three dwellings.
One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband, Jack.
Cr Esakoff, who did not return calls yesterday, has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.
Jack Esakoff told The Age they bought the home before the council identified it for heritage protection. Protecting it retrospectively would penalise them, he said.
Mr Esakoff said he had lobbied Glen Eira councillors on the issue and taken them to inspect the building.
But he said he had not discussed the matter with his wife.
”It is something that we haven’t even discussed at home,” he said.
Deputy mayor Jamie Hyams said the councillors also had not discussed the issue with Cr Esakoff.
”She [the mayor] has also made the point of not talking to any of us about it,” he said.
He said the fact that one dwelling was owned by the mayor had not influenced councillors and it was not unusual for councillors to reject recommendations from council officers.
The Bracks government sacked Glen Eira Council, including Cr Esakoff, in 2005 after a report found the council was ”very badly governed”.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM
With this photo reckon that Lipshutz should only stick his nose into family law instead of getting up in council meetings and declaring his expertise in heritage and building design. What a beauty of a building! and why not pull the other leg? marg & jack didn’t discuss anything. Come off it!
August 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM
How many more times will our illustrious Margie not return phone calls when the going gets tough?
As for Jack lobbying councillor’s but not discussing it with his wife – that gets a credibility ranking of zip.
August 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM
There needs to an immediate investigation into this matter. How could a Council ignore the advice of 5 or 6 Heritage Architects . We all recall when 4000 properties were originally declared Heritage,virtually no property was exempted following an exhaustive procces . I don’t understand what the owner is on about in terms of retrospectivity. All Council has to do is go through the Heritage procces with the other 2 appartments.The other matter that needs to be investigated is whether any of the 3 Councillor Lawyers ,or firms they are associated with, are or have acted for the Owners.This would indicate a possible controvension of the LGAct conflict of interest section.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM
How’s business Noel?
August 18, 2011 at 11:17 AM
So the Jack says he never discussed the issue with Margaret. Things have obviously changed in the Esakoff household since the Whelan Report (p28) –
“During interviews with the Inspectors, Crs Esakoff and Marwick were accompanied by their spouses. The Inspectors observed that both spouses appeared to have a detailed knowledge of Council business. Given the time Councillors spend on Council business, it is to be expected that Councillors’ spouses have some understanding of the role of their partners. However the apparent in-depth knowledge in these cases raised questions about the protection of confidential information.”
August 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM
I agree Glen Huntly – to ask us to believe “never discussed” beggars belief, especially as the following comes from Esakoff’s bio on Council’s website.
“Cr Esakoff is current Mayor of Glen Eira City Council ….She is married with two adult children, runs a small business with her husband”
I have a bridge I’d like to sell to anyone who believes “never discussed”.
August 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Nobody has as yet picked up on how this story got to the Age. Wouldn’t have been the councillors; maybe moderators of this site? Maybe objectors to the amendment? Maybe Messrs Burke and/or Newton? Who comes out best in all of this if it isn’t the latter? Rigging the game perhaps so that once again all is squeaky clean and it’s those shocking councillors who are left holding the bag of goodies.
August 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Dear anonymous,
we can categorically declare that we have no knowledge of who, and how, the story featured in today’s newspaper.
August 18, 2011 at 3:22 PM
Jack you should sue the bastards. Both your lawyers and council for this total balls up. A planning department that doesn’t even know if it’s arthur or martha has to go.
August 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM
I have some sympathy for Jack when he claims protecting it retrospectively would penalize them. However, the same can be said for the unilateral declaration of Activity Centres (originally tagged Urban “Villages” to make them sound less threatening) and Housing Diversity [sic] areas. Long-term residents have good reason to be aggrieved at the way Council’s policies have been abused, both to help developers make more money and to keep them away from 80% of the municipality.
I share the Panel’s frustration at the lack of an expert at the hearing, and I’m unimpressed with Council’s argument that the building is unworthy of heritage protection because they’ve found another old building somewhere. That argument has been used in the CBD to devastating effect. A tantalizing glimpse of many fine heritage buildings that have been lost to us can be had at http://www.walkingmelbourne.com.
August 18, 2011 at 11:38 PM
He should sue and then we could get him and his dear wife on the stand where they can only tell the truth.
August 19, 2011 at 11:50 PM
They never spoke about it, that is quite possibly joke of the year.
August 24, 2011 at 12:44 AM
I HAVE REALLY LOVED VIEWING THE BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPH OF 2B SEAVIEW STREET, PRESENTED BY THE AGE PHOTOGRAPHER AND I MUST CONGRATULATE MR AND MRS ESSAKOFF FOR THEIR CHOICE OF COLOUR OF UNIT TWO. IT LOOKS REALLY ATTRACTIVE WHEN COMPARED TO THE STARK WHITE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH THEY CALLED UNIT 1, 460 HAWTHORN ROAD WHICH ISN’T REALLY THEIRS, BUT WAS THE ADDRESS SUPPLIED ON THE PAPERWORK. WHICH COLOUR DO OTHER READERS PREFER?