The Panel Report on proposed Amendment C83 has been released. Below are edited highlights –
The Panel is satisfied that the significance of the entire apartment building supports its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel does not support the deletion of HO114. Rather, the Panel recommends a Ministerial amendment to correct the description of HO114 in the schedule to the HO which omitted 2A and 2B Sea View Street in error. This will ensure that the protection of heritage values is taken into account in future planning decisions.
The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment C83 process, including the Panel process, has provided the affected landowners with an opportunity to make submissions with respect to HO114 and for the merits of the Amendment to be evaluated. This addresses the mistake made when notice was given of Amendment C19.
‘In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over‐painted on the front apartment).’ (Council’s current Heritage Advisor‐ Gabrielle Moylan 27 July 2010)
‘I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted.” “ Property is significant and will not write any strategic justification for removal of this overlay‘ (John Briggs 15 November 2010)
‘This building justifies the current Heritage Overlay….The two rear dwellings are integral parts of the whole, the building being basically symmetrical on the Sea View Street façade (which is somewhat unusual as side street frontages of such buildings are often simpler). This building is of unusually good quality’ (David Bick 26 November 2010)
‘In my view, both publicly visible facades, while different from each other in composition, are integral to the strong overall design, and hence to the heritage value of this prominent building. I do not believe it would be appropriate to remove the current heritage protection.’ (Dale Kelly 14 December 2010)
‘The site is clearly worthy of heritage controls…further research might be undertaken which would have the likely effect of amplifying the heritage attributes of the place’. (Roger Beeston 14 December 2010)
It was Council’s decision not to call expert evidence and this limited the ability to test at the Hearing the expert advice provided to Council. This does not mean that the views and the consensus opinion of these experienced heritage experts should be disregarded. Nothing was presented to the Panel that would justify setting aside the views of any of these heritage experts.
The Panel accords significant weight to the consistent expert view that the heritage value of the Site warrants the application of the HO. There has been no expert view to the contrary.
Council responded to the query from the Panel about why the Council did not accept the expert advice provided by stating that Council may form its own view. These responses do not support removal of HO114. Planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that planning schemes have a sound basis. There should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance.
The Panel does not accept the argument put by Council that removal of HO114 is justified by the fact that one quite different example of development influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright will be retained and all examples would not be lost.
The Sea View Street properties are in a Minimal Change Area, whereas 466 Hawthorn Road is in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive housing development. These strategic designations do not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives.
The Panel agrees with ….(objector)… that it would set ‘a dangerous precedent’ if a strategic designation for more intense redevelopment was deemed sufficient justification for removing heritage overlays. The protection of heritage values remains a valid planning consideration in planning decisions. It could even be argued that heritages places make a particularly important contribution to the urban fabric in areas undergoing significant change, such as along Hawthorn Road in the vicinity of the Site.
The Panel was not provided with any justification to disregard the clear view of heritage experts that the significance of the entire apartment building, in its current condition, supports its inclusion in the HO.
The Glen Eira Planning Scheme includes 466 Hawthorn Road in a Housing Diversity Area, which identifies areas suitable for more intensive development. This strategic designation does not override or take precedence over all other planning objectives. Rather, where the Heritage Overlay applies in a Housing Diversity Area, local policy (Clause 22.07) highlights the continued relevance of heritage considerations and makes it clear that development should not compromise heritage values.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM
The report is a total condemnation of councillors and council. Perhaps now Lipshutz will stick his head in and stop pretending that he is a heritage expert. It also raises much more important stuff about planning and the arguments that have become the catchcry of this council in regard to Housing Diversity areas and how this alone justifies permits for developments – even without heritage considerations. Much could be said about the appalling ‘defence’ that council put up as well. What’s really clear is that nepotism has played a major role here and it has cost us plenty. It should never have gone to a panel and 4 extra heritage advisors should never have been hired. This is literally our money being used in what can only appear to be the desperate attempt to help a mate. It doesn’t make for good governance and transparency and certainly leaves an almighty stench. There is no way that I will ever believe that the same bending over backwards would have been done for an ordinary resident whose name didn’t happen to be Esakoff.
September 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM
As an anonymous blogger that can’t see past their own ideas no one really cares what you think. Esakoff went through the process that was denied 12 years ago. She probably got the better of you at some stage and you can’t take it. Keep blogging loser.
September 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Hey mate, obviously you care or you wouldn’t write back! and I care. Anon has got some really good poionts. If you like seeing your dough being spent by arrogant so and so just make some donations to the Lipshutz fund.
September 2, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Anon, nobody denies that the owners of a property impacted by an administrative stuff up have a right to appeal. However, in this instance, the lengths that this Council have gone to are quite extraordinary and very few would argue that those same lengths are applied to everyone or all the time.
And by the way, your comment that “she probably got the better of you at some stage and you can’t take it” is repugnant. Perhaps you should look at the issues dispassionately. Not everyone believes in one-up-manship or self first and foremost.
September 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM
How about getting Lipshutz and the gang to pay for the expert advice, the lawyers, and the panel chairman? They’re all bloody responsible for this disaster. Well done objectors. Just shows what can happen when people fight back.
September 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM
This is a disgraceful episode and smells.The Municipal Inspector needs to be informed of this matter and an investigation launched. Something smells.
September 2, 2011 at 12:45 PM
This panel report should provide plenty of food for thought for council’s planning department and councillors. It makes it crystal clear that planning schemes are meant to be adhered to and that sections cannot simply be ignored willy nilly. Reprobate has posted numerous comments on this aspect and how council repeatedly ignores its own planning scheme when it suits them and mostly to the benefit of developers.
The second point I want to make is that regardless of why this happened the perception will linger long that certain liberties were taken to assist a member of council. I won’t offer an opinion on that, and I’ve stated previously that I do have some sympathy for Mr. Esakoff. But, and this is a huge but, the ombudsman has written numerous times that perceptions are just as important as realities. The reputation of this council is already well tarnished by its colourful history of investigation after investigation. This latest episode cannot erase the growing conviction of many in the community that decisions are continually made in assembly meetings and that transparency and openness are invariably missing.
The decision to go to a panel was, from memory, voted in unanimously. This doesn’t do councillors any credit whatsoever. I can’t believe that none of them had any qualms about such a motion. Not when the department had not approved it and when 6 heritage advisors said heritage should stay. Nobody rose to vote against the motion. The result is that everyone is tarred with the same brush. I’d simply offer this advice to all those councillors who might have had a gutful of being associated with the infamous ‘gang’. Stand up in council and say what you think! Not only would that be honest, but it would certainly challenge the self proclaimed importance and born to rule mentality of certain councillors.
September 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Plenty crap written about this heritage on Esakoff’s property. There was no heritage overlay on their property ever, until now. When Esakoff’s understood that there had been a mistake made by the staff at the at the town hall they notified the Council. This set in place the process that they should have been afforded years ago. The right to object etc. Had they chosen to simply shut up and say nothing they would not have a heriage overlay on their property as they have today. Now I reckon that alot of people would have put the property on the market and sold it without saying anything. Quite OK as there was no overlay at all. None, Zilch. I guess that being in public office has its drawbacks. Nothing wrong with public accountibility. You cop crititism from people that don’t like councils and are prepared to try to besmirch the name of people.
The worst part is the some of the people that are doing trhe mud slinging know the mayor and don’t have the guts to speak to her about this matter to her face, they will however get on a blog site and have a go. One word….gutless.
September 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM
I resent these comments. They are totally uncalled for. Why don’t you just read the report and see for yourself the lack of substance to councillors arguments and then comment in a rational way. Or are you perhaps a friend of the mayor and simply don’t like the decision that has gone against her husband and their company?
September 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM
You obviously can’t read. There was no heritage on the property and now there is. Do you get it. Regardless of what the councillors did that is for others including yourself to decide. I am talking about the mayor. She did nothing wrong, in fact tried in every regard to do the right thing as we all should expect. You resent the comments. Give us a break. I think you are one of these pedants that get a power kick out of anonomously knocking successful people. How do you know what their feelings are about the decision. Just a stab in the dark. eh. Like many people like yourself you make judgements based on the outcome that will make you feel good. Your writings go a long way to characterising yourself and we can all see it, Colin. You do yourself no credit.
September 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM
“This report is presented to Council to consider steps to rectify an anomaly (error) in the planning scheme. The Heritage Overlay HO114 map indicates that 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Sea View Street, Caulfield South are all covered by this heritage overlay (see photo on front page of this report). However, 466 Hawthorn Road is listed as the only address for HO114 in the written schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Thus there is a mismatch between the Heritage Overlay (map) and the schedule to the Heritage Overlay (words)”
If you can understand the above it tells us that there is, and has been a heritage overlay since 2003. The “anomaly” is the “mismatch” between map and schedule.
September 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM
That is their view. No one mentioned what sort of title is in place. Very important!
I contend that there was no heritage on Esakoff’s land. I can’t imagine what would have happened if they lawyered up. You do not know as much as you think you do.
September 2, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Hello Councillor
September 2, 2011 at 9:55 PM
The fact is they didn’t lawyer up – their freely made choice. They have had ample opportunity to present their case. An independent adjudicator, requested by a truly “sympathetic” Council, has reached a decision.
Since the decision has only recently been made, I suggest that it is an appropriate time to spill the beans you imply you have knowledge of. Otherwise, please stop making inane comments.
September 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Perhaps you are technically correct in saying that there never was a heritage listing on the Seaview Street properties – whatever. I agree that the owners of the Seaview Street properties have a right to redress an administrative stuff up that they had no control or knowledge of. I’d suggest these owners should sue Council – not only for the original stuff up but also for the pathetic arguments and reasoning Council put forward in justifying it’s actions.
What is the outcome arising from this sorry saga –
• An independent panel recommendation for Ministerial intervention and that Council should formally abandon the Amendment.
• The Seaview Street owners finally had an opportunity to express their views that was previously denied to them. Unfortunately, the outcome is not what they desired but they have definitely had access to due processes.
• Council has egg all over it’s face – the panel report is very scathing.
• Residents are extremely angry over Council ineptitude, wasting of public money and the implications of wrong doing and favouritism.
Not desirable outcomes by any stretch of the imagination.
I am wondering what event triggered identification of the long dormant anomaly. Could it be an application to redevelop the site? There seems to be a distinct difference between the objections included in Council Minutes and those included in the Panel Report. Such a trigger would also be in line with Council’s arguments.
September 3, 2011 at 9:16 PM
One word….gutless
And this is coming from Mr or Mrs Guts themselves who goes by the name Anonymous…..What a Hypocrite.
September 2, 2011 at 6:11 PM
I’ve had a reread of the posts on this blog, the comments and gone back to the council minutes. There’s some really strange things that people seem to have forgotten -1. the officer’s report never included the extra heritage advisors reports. Why not? 2. a public question made it clear that councillors never saw these reports. Why didn’t they ask for them or why weren’t they given them? 3. Lipshutz just stated that he disagreed with them. How on earth can you disagree with something that you’ve never read. How many other things doesn’t he ever read? But he’s never shy to come forward and tell everyone how he is always right and that he makes the hard decisions.
Everyone involved in this should be hauled over the coals. Councillors are ultimately responsible and here they didn’t act responsibly – they wasted funds on wild goose chases and they weren’t diligent in doing their jobs. Officers also need a caning. Their reports failed to provide all the necessary information so that councillors could make proper decisions. Then at the actual panel hearing they failed to properly defend their position. A real cock up from the beginning by incompetents.
September 2, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Thank you, thank you. At long last, a voice not advocating “over development regardless of the cost to the community” is finally heard.
I have been following this heritage issue since it was raised on this blog and as a long term Southie I am grateful that this beautiful building is to remain. The charm and character of the building will only grow as this Council doggedly persists in turning Hawthorn Road into a high density canyon. As I brace myself for the coming traffic congestion, lack of parking, overlooking and overshadowing I can take solace in the fact that this building remains.
While I am delighted to read the planning panel decision I am definitely unhappy to read the arguments presented by Council:
• Council sought and paid for 5 heritage advisors (current Heritage Advisor and 4 Independent Heritage Advisors) reports then, “without justification” set them aside to form their own view. A view which is contrary to their own planning scheme.
• Glen Eira doesn’t need two examples of buildings influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright, one is enough. This argument is hard to align with Councils Mission Statement of protecting heritage.
• That heritage can be ignored when the opportunity for more intense redevelopment arises. (Just imagine what this Council could do with Ripponlea if it was in their hands).
Reading the Heritage Advisor’s comments I am astounded that Councillors failed to ask appropriate questions. The Heritage Advisors reports were available months before C83 was prepared and presented. As was the DPCD letter questioning Council’s strategic justification for removing the overlay. This information is available in the meeting agendas/minutes. So why weren’t questions raised?
Admittedly the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco rests with Councillors, however, one has to question the role the administration played in all this. Closed door meetings and secrecy means we, the residents, will probably never know. Councillors were privy to those discussion/briefings and they would do well to consider how they were briefed and how the administration has skilfully avoided being tarnished while hanging the Councillors out to dry.
September 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Sorry to bring up what is possibly old ground but as a first time writer to this blog what happened to Tudor Court and how was heritage protection not provided to this site? History seems to be an ugly word at Glen Eira Council!
September 2, 2011 at 7:56 PM
A Jewish school bought the site, quickly bulldozed the building and flogged it off for big bucks. A very sad day as I was married in the beautiful gardens and had our reception in the grand old building afterwards.
September 3, 2011 at 12:08 AM
Previously I have posted against the removal of this heritage listing. My posts have always favoured retention of the heritage listing based on the architectural merits of the building. I applaud the Planning Panel decision.
I am thankful that this blog exists. Council derides this blog because it allows anonymous postings, yet in most cases this blog has raises issues that otherwise would have gone unnoticed and allows residents to make comments on those issues. Residents are capable of judging the quality of the posts (vs. the quality of the Council provided info) and the numbers show that residents do not consider anonymity is an issue. GE Debates should be congratulated for providing this forum and ensuring this issue remained in the public domain.
September 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM
Just for your information a very minor part of Tudor Court was declared Heritage, and there was no way this large parcel of land would not be developed. The land was sold by Scopus and will now be developed into an Aged Care Facility, a great outcome for our aging community.The site could not be demolished without lifting the Heritage listing and a demolition order provided by Council. Tudor Court was a fabulous asset for the community however it was sold because it was no longer a viable business .
September 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I hear Mr Esakoff could not live in the property at 2 Sweaview Street South Caulfield because it is going to be surrounded by multi storey buildings. I wonder if his business partner(who he does not speak to) and other councillors remember the problems when they cast their pro-development votes. Cr Esakoff often has two votes in the case of a locked vote and it is usually in favour of development.
Referring to the comment regarding the closure of Tudor Court who could not continue to exist as a viable business we look to the Glen Eira City Council (and concessional rates) also concessional car parking requirements, AND the State Governments of Victoria both past and present which offer concessional tax rates for the electronic gambling machines on our Caulfield Racecourse. I believe their community contribution of income is always spent inside that war like green fence and not on the community such as local schools and hospitals as is the case of the Kyabram Club for example.
And it is no wonde rthat the prices of the Melbourne Racing Club’s social arm is much cheaper than any other business can provide for the reasons above and many other obvious reasons.
I think I only know of one other reception rooms which still runs as a business as apart from this fiasco which we all subsidise and move around in the better interests of the MRC.
September 5, 2011 at 10:39 AM
I really loved looking at htis home on Net I wonder if editor could give us the pleasure and repost this photo???
Also it ould be good idea if the heritage office were to produce an article and photo of heritage buildings for the Glen Eira News instead of so many photos of the Mayor. It woud be far more interesting and in two years a booklet could be produced so as we coud all share these beauties.
In some country towns a system of identification is placed outside the selected buildings with a short description. If the heritage officer wished she could go to Inglewood to see the blue signs in practice it is certainly very iteresting and would gove us all the opportunity of learning about our heritage as we walked by! These days all these buildings would become as precious to us as Captain Cook’s Cottage.