Well, the doors were unlocked tonight! However, strange things always seem to be going on – ie. two page 51 of the hard copy agenda items – and with different in camera items included on each! We’ve also learnt that several public questions that had been (a) hand delivered, and (b) emailed were simply not read out. Another ‘clerical error’ perhaps?
We highlight below the discussion on Item 9.1 – the 5 storey planning application and the resulting lack of consensus, vision, and we suggest, clear planning policy.
Motion: instead of 5 storeys, 4 storeys, 1 shop (with loading bay) and up to 30 dwellings instead of 42 (HYAMS/PILLING)
HYAMS: ‘appropriate site for large development’ because in Urban Village….’question is ‘how large?’….(busy area, single storeys across road)…’it will be the highest building in Carnegie…(supermarket carpark available but not for) ‘developers to take advantage of so I would support reducing that requirement….(shops should have loading bays)…’visually I don’t think it’s such a bad development…(conditions will add trees)…’one per 5 visitor (car parking) spaces’….’taking into account the nature of the site and the nature of the surroundings…appropriate compromise (in what’s been asked) and what residents might prefer….
PILLING: Supports motion…’good size development’…’large site, corner site…addition of loading bay…(no 5 storeys in Carnegie, 4 storeys approved before, so ‘appropriate’ (and this is what the) ’emerging streetscape is’….very busy site, very busy intersection…(the motion goes)’ some way to solving some of the issues raised…
PENHALLURIACK: (against and foreshadowed alternative motion)…Argued for 5 storeys because ‘we do need to provide accommodation’….’this is one of the better sites in this area…good off street parking…..I think this would be a good site for development….
LIPSHUTZ: Supports Penhalluriack since ‘ordinarily …I would not support a 5 storey development in this area….5th storey is recessed back (and looks like 4 storeys from street)….’if anywhere else …I would say ‘no to this’…it’s a unique site, it’s a large site….(carparking) there is a supermarket car parking….(and not every space there is going to be used especially on weekends) ‘reality is there will be some visitors….so for that reason I doubt that is an issue….(supported loading bay area)….(will go to VCAT and developers will get what they want) ‘I would have thought this is a perfect site for 5 storeys…If this doesn’t get up I will support
Penhalluriack’s motion…..
FORGE: supports Penhalluriack’s alternative. Spent time ‘wavering between 4 and 5′ (must look at future and how railway lines develop)….’there will be increased traffic to some point’…(in a couple of years down the track more development sites will be put in)…
LOBO: Supports Hyams’ motion which will help ‘reduce traffic and allow people to park quite easily’. Esakoff asked what he’s supporting – the 4 or 5 storey. LOBO: ‘4 storey’.
MAGEE: ‘2 storeys becomes 3, 3 becomes 4, and 4 becomes 5 and on we go’…(Argued that the city is unique and that its incumbent on councillors to try and maintain this uniqueness. When looking into the future and people ask ‘where will Glen Eira be I’d like it to be much) ‘like it is today’…(Hoped that minimal change areas remain as they are today)…(If someone can build 5 storeys then next person can ask for 6, ‘maybe 7’….’we have to be consistent’…’I’m not particularly happy with 4 (would prefer 3)…
TANG: ‘My position was one in favour of refusal…(but recently seen amendments made to planning and then done away at VCAT) and ‘leads to confusion in minds of councillors….and bad planning decisions….particularly around the elsternwick area where we’ve been looking at 14 storey applications….(with) some councillors supporting 14 storeys, some supporting 10, some supporting 7….what’s scared me is if I knock back the proposal (then there’s Penhalluriack’s 5 storeys) ‘which is even worse’….(outlined history of area and)’whilst there is some policy support for higher density areas…I found overwhelming reason to support a refusal…(urged councillors to knock back this motion and) ‘see if we can put together a motion of refusal’…’no less confusing but it’s the best outcome that I can see’….
ESAKOFF: Supports motion (for 4 storeys)…My preference is not for a 5 storey building…..doesn’t abutt other residences….it doesn’t overshadow other residences…it’s an appropriate site for a building of this size….
HYAMS: Size is ‘two or three blocks’…I wouldn’t be supporting a refusal and if I had to choose between (a refusal) and 5 storeys I’d probably go with 5 storeys….’so councillors might want to take that in mind when they’re considering how they might vote on this motion’….(spoke about full supermarket car parking; if it goes to VCAT and the argument that the loading bay would be lost that council has to) ‘stand by principle’….I don’t think this site is worthy of a refusal….(and if it came to a choice between refusal he would go for original recommendations).
MOTION CARRIED 5 to 4
COMMENTS:
- 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys, 10 storeys, 14 storeys, ‘compromise’, ‘refusal’ etc. etc. etc. This is not the first time, nor the last, that the arguments will continue on height limits and parking. Once again this ‘debate’ highlights the arbitrariness of decision making in Glen Eira. With no attempt to achieve interim or permanent height controls for certain areas within the municipality, we can only expect more of the same! Piece meal decision making!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 31, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Yet again Councillors, when discussing an inappropriate development, trot out the argument that they are restricted to making a decision that will be acceptable to VCAT rather than following the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (which admittedly is ill defined, poorly drafted and pretty much provides open slather to developers).
Interestingly, yesterday was the closing date for submissions to the State Planning Ministerial Review – the review’s stated goal is a “significant overhaul of the Victorian Planning System”. Since the announcement of the review (July 14, 2011), no mention of a Glen Eira submission has been made at Council.
So, has Glen Eira made a submission?
. if so, why hasn’t it been openly discussed and endorsed by Council?
. if not, why not?. Development within GE is hot issue with residents and GE Council has a responsibility to present those issues on behalf of the residents (neighbouring Councils have rightly made detailed submissions).
Most likely GE has failed the residents by not making a submission. If this is the case the least Council can do is stop blaming VCAT and start taking responsibility for their failure to provide an adequate planning scheme and consistent decisions on development applications.
August 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM
I do find it strange that the person who reads out the Public questions is also the person who most probably writes the answers and in the case of the questions re GESAC last night the same person holds a pecuniary interest in the outcome. Councillors can excuse themselves from being involved so why can’t the officers?
August 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM
I don’t think the issue is who reads out the questions but who writes them. Burke has been named as responsible for giving the Warriors gesac. If he wrote the answer then there’s definitely a conflict of interest. Trouble is that these councillors put their John Hancocks to it.
August 31, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Brendan, what were the questions?
September 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM
Dear Councillors, a few questions regarding the Warriors ad which appeared on page 7 in the Caulfield Leader on Tuesday 16th August, 2011.
1. Who gave warriors permission to use council logo? If no permission was given will council prosecute as other councils have done?
2. Has the ombudsman’s decision been handed down? Has council finalised it’s position following legal advice? If yes, then when will council make a public announcement as to who will run basketball programs at GESAC.
3. Was any funding for the ad provided by council, or any ‘advice’?
September 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Most organisations regard logos as their sole intellectual property. Even charitable groups need permission to use logos in their publicity or to announce events and conferences. It would be most unusual then if the Warriors hadn’t approached council in order to use the logo in their recent Leader publicity. Permission must have been granted by someone, somewhere. If the Warriors didn’t seek permission then they are plain stupid because they could then leave themselves open to a law suit. There’s obviously a lot going on here that everyone is keeping mum about.
August 31, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Elections are firmly on the agenda given these grandstanding speeches. No need to worry about contradicting previous decisions. The idea is just to sound good and pretend that these lines actually amount to anything. If councillors were genuine in resolving such issues they would insist on a total overhaul of the planning scheme; they would have got a submission off to the Minister and they sure as anything would not say one thing one week and then turn around and say the opposite a few months down the track.
August 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM
This is a comment that we put up on the East Bentleigh Community site a few weeks back. It remains relevant to all of the above:
Hansard records the following tabled petition from yesterday:
Planning: city of Knox
To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
The petition of the residents of Boronia and municipality of
Knox draws to the attention of the house Knox planning
scheme amendment C62: implementation of the Boronia
structure plan.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative
Assembly of Victoria that the 7.5-metre (two-storey) building
height limit the Knox City Council approved in October 2006
under the Boronia structure plan continue to apply to new
developments within the Boronia activity centre, recently
rezoned as residential 1.
Residents need to note the following:
The fact that here’s another council that has Structure Plans for activity centres.
The fact that here’s another council that has sought interim or permanent Height controls.
The fact that here’s another council that believes 2 storey limits are more than enough.
The fact that here’s another council aware of what was happening 5 years ago and decided to do something about it.
The fact that the community and council are working in unison to achieve objectives that will protect local amenity and lifestyles
AND FINALLY, that Glen Eira has none of the above!
East Boundary Rd and all areas with tram lines will steadily become high rise development under this regime. With no adequate transition zones neighborhood after neighbourhood is being sacrified pure and simple.
August 31, 2011 at 7:31 PM
On the basis of the evidence available to us, the mug public, Councillors have not read their own Planning Scheme. When M2030 was first foisted upon us, it contained the comment “increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity”. The government was lying of course, and has had to resort to increasingly desperate measures to force its will upon us.
Although M2030 specifically identifies Rescode as the basis for protecting amenity, and through the Victoria Planning Provisions all planning schemes contain these standards, our Council has unilaterally decided not to apply them when it suits. They had an opportunity through the planning scheme review to turf all the elements that protect amenity that they find so distasteful–that would at least spare them the embarrassment of having to ignore them.
As we heard in several speeches, particularly from Crs Penhalluriack, Forge and Lipschutz, their main concern is to keep high density development away from where they live. They each acknowledged the loss of amenity involved in higher density development particularly as practised in Glen Eira, and wanted it confined to Carnegie, a ward that none of them represent. Cr Lipschutz went to so far as to say he supported 5 storeys in Carnegie, without drawing any distinction between the “Urban Village” and the rest of the suburb.
Cheryl admitted she wavered in her decision, between 4 and 5 storeys. In the end she favoured developers over residents or compliance with the Planning Scheme. One senses she was merely supporting Cr Penhalluriack. The surprise was Cr Penhalluriack who went out of his way to alienate the few friends he has remaining. His bizarre logic was that we had to house people so that made the proposal acceptable. His strident demand for open space at Caulfield Racecourse is in complete contrast to his desire to pack people into an area with no open space within safe and easy walking distance. If Councillors *do* believe they should provide accomodation to allow Melbourne to grow without bound and that open space is not required, then it has a number of parks that could accomodate towers of 14+ storeys. In a vomit-worthy display of obsequiousness, Cr Penhalluriack thanked Jeff Akehurst for a draft C90 amendment appearing a year after the planning review.
Cr Tang did try to flag a motion to refuse a permit rather than set about redesigning a flawed proposal at the meeting, but this was unacceptable to Cr Hyams. Cr Hyams’ view was that he would rather grant a permit for 5 storeys than ask the developer to submit a more compliant proposal for 4 storeys. He did acknowledge some of the problems, and its to his credit that he proposed an alternate motion for 4 storeys, seconded by Cr Pilling, but its a serious concern when Councillors decide the planning process should be perverted to save some time.
I sense that Cr McGee is aware of what Council is doing to established traditional residential communities and desperately doesn’t want it done to the people in and around East Boundary Road. While I share his concerns, I don’t see the solution to be to remain in a timewarp. What we desperately need are more prescriptive standards, less capable of being discarded for the sake of profit. [How ironic that Council voted unanimously for C90 to progress.] His horror at a single 3-storey development in his area can be contrasted with Council’s delight at 5-, 10-, 14- and 23-storey developments elsewhere.
Again Cr Lipschutz waived the VCAT bogeyman to justify his personal complicity. Nothing that Council does changes the rights of the developer at VCAT, but he insists on making it more expensive for residents to protect themselves from the consequences of Council failing to apply its own Planning Scheme. His horror at VCAT decisions in his own ward is in marked contrast to what he supports elsewhere. His later contribution, re C90, put it all in perspective when he wanted “greater certainty for developers”. How touching.
August 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM
Planning decisions after planning decisions are all going one way. This isn’t compromise as Hyams wants us to believe. It’s total cave in with the big bad bogey of VCAT as the scapegoat for everything. Reprobate tells it straight – a refusal to apply a planning scheme all to the advantage of developers. What’s even more suspect is Forge’s association with Save Our Suburbs and her voting patterns on high rise developments and increased densities. Either she has no idea of what she’s doing, or has been completely won over by the gang. All in all it doesn’t augur well for residents, especially those living in Activity centres.
September 1, 2011 at 9:10 PM
Patience my friend.
As for Magee, he does not have a clue. He thinks by mentioning Moorabbin he will strike a chord with voters and become the “go to man” in the district. He complained that his end of town misses out on funds. $45 million on a pool in East Bentleigh will take a bit of catching. The bloke is a dunce and a dreamer. If he spoke sense then people may take him seriously. Saying he wants 2 storey buildings as a limit shows insanity. Problem is he takes himself seriously. He was a great Rob Hudson supporter and helped alot in the his campaign. Too bad he lost.
September 1, 2011 at 9:55 PM
You’ve forgotten to add that he was also a five minute Green!
September 2, 2011 at 8:59 AM
People that think they can be all things to all people always fail in the end. Magee is still at it. Once a councllor blows there credibility with both their constituents they can never recover. He makes outlandish statements thinking it will be a headline when in fact most people simply roll their eyes and move on. One would think that he has been around long enough to learn. At least Lobo is smart enough to shut up.
August 31, 2011 at 8:44 PM
I don’t follow the arguement. Every answer to any question I have asked has been signed by the Mayor of the day.You want to shoot the messenger.