Council’s heritage decision panned
Jason Dowling
September 6, 2011
A COUNCIL decision to reject heritage protection for three homes in Caulfield South – one owned by the mayor – has been rebuffed by an independent planning panel.
Glen Eira councillors ignored the advice of the council’s own heritage and planning advisers, and additional advice from independent heritage experts, to extend heritage protection to all three homes.
In a sharp critique of the council’s decision to push to have the three maisonette dwellings on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street not heritage protected, the panel found ”there should be good reasons when officer and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance”.
When asked by the panel why it had not accepted the expert advice, the council stated that ”council may form its own view”.The heritage dispute arose when the council discovered a heritage planning anomaly for the three dwellings.
While the entire building containing the three dwellings was included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one of the three individual dwellings was recorded for heritage protection.
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 has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.
When council staff discovered the heritage anomaly, they recommended extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors rejected the advice of its own heritage staff on two occasions and voted to begin a process to remove heritage protection from the entire site.
The matter was referred to an expert planning panel and the panel’s findings were released publicly on Friday.
The panel’s report recommends the council’s attempt to remove heritage protection from the building be dismissed and calls on the Planning Minister to extend heritage protection to all three dwellings.
The panel said it was not provided with any justification to disregard the view of heritage experts that the entire apartment building deserved heritage protection.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 6, 2011 at 11:08 AM
What a doozy the 20 Sept will be. Weasel words galore but no humble pie and bet ya life no apologies for wasting our dough on a wild goose chase.
September 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Where is the Municipal Inspector?
September 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Something is not Kosher here, yes an investigation is required, does the Inspector know about this.
September 7, 2011 at 7:43 AM
Despite 6 heritage advisors reports and questions re strategic justification from the Department of Planning and Community Development, Council doggedly proceeded with removal of a heritage overlay. Not one shred of evidence supported Council’s view (a fact commented upon in the Planning Panel Report) and at numerous points in the process Council could have opted to abandon amendment but chose not to do so.
So now due processes have run their course (that is unless Council has something else up it’s sleeve). The Minister for Planning will now do what Council should have done and Council has been criticised for determining that the designation of a Housing Diversity Area overrides and takes precedence over all other planning objectives.
In this instance, Council ignored the issue of Heritage and, rightly, Council has been caught out badly. However, heritage is not an issue in most other developments, in these cases it is the amenity of the city and residents is ignored. To find evidence of this, look no further than
. the approval of the racecourse development, the Glen Huntly Road highrises, Koornang Road and the full extent South Caulfield Housing Diversity area.
. the consumption of parkland for sporting facilities, carparks and loading bays.
. absence of transition zones between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas
. traffic and parking congestion.
When is this Council going to realise that all development is not good development.
September 7, 2011 at 10:29 PM
What the f–k? C83 would have removed the subject property from a Heritage Overlay. That’s it. There’s no such thing as “Heritage Protection” here, just a Heritage Handbrake. They’re not subject to the Heritage Act 1995, not on its Heritage Register. Even if they were, it might be worth the 120-penalty point fine.
They are subject to a Heritage Overlay, like many properties in Glen Eira. This means that additional policies apply when considering an Application for Planning Permit. That should give some clue to how little protection is actually afforded the property. VCAT has made it clear, they’re not bound by policy contained in Planning Schemes, and Council has made it clear, they’re not bound by their own policies. Policies are for ignoring when it suits. That’s the regime we operate under.
The Esakoffs can [maybe should] lodge an application for Planning Permit to do what they want, get the rest of the Councillors to call it in, grant a Permit, and then talk up the height and size of the proposed development, emphasize the number of apartments, the proximity of public transport and open space (more than can be found within cooee of Carnegie “Major” Activity Centre)–they’d have to be a shoe-in at VCAT. That’s how the system works.