Item 9.3 – Heritage status
Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.
Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling
PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.
PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.
TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’ and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.
LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….
HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…
PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)
Motion – Pilling/Forge
PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’
FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.
PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).
HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.
TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.
PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…
MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM
It would certainly be wonderful, and most surprising, if just once the utterances of some councillors were entirely factual and upfront. Hyams’ little dummy spit typifies the attempt to defend what is impossible to defend. Residents are now supposed to believe that their money has been well used rather than wasted. Sorry, can’t accept that nor the pathetic arguments put forward to justify extra heritage advisors, lawyers and a panel. There is no legal requirement for council to request a panel – regardless of whether there are objections or not. Councils have the power to accept submissions if they want without going to the additional expense of a panel. I quote from the DPCD – “A panel will not be required if all submissions requesting changes are accepted and the amendment is changed accordingly, or the amendment is abandoned. Otherwise, a panel will be required”. But Hyams is allegedly saying that it would have had to go to a panel anyway. Not so it seems according to Hoyle. A panel was sought in this case on the wild hope that heritage would be removed. It should never have gone to a panel given the department’s letter that queried the lack of ‘strategic justification’. No doubt about it – last night’s performance by councillors certainly rings very hollow when we read what occurred.
As for Hyams’ repeated dummy spits, well the truth hurts, doesn’t it councillor?
September 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Mr Hyams, why would you say….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…
Are you saying we should pat her on the back for not breaking the Councillor Code of Conduct because she did not lobbying all of you. Whether she has lobbied all of you or not behind closed door we will never know, but we all know what strategy you are applying in silence. Ohh she has left the room, that makes it ohh so Kosher.
September 21, 2011 at 5:58 PM
I find myself agreeing entirely with these comments. Councillors made the decision to go to a panel. The costs are borne by ratepayers. There was absolutely no need to go this extra step, not when 6 Heritage experts had already presented their opinion that heritage status should remain. One has every right to question the motives behind this manoeuvre and the arrogance of Lipshutz in his proclamations that he does not agree with the experts.
The c93 is another example of costs to be borne by us and without the necessary justification. These councillors seem to think that they are beyond reproach in the manner in which they decide to waste monies. We now have another two legal opinions on the GESAC basketball courts. Why are two more legal opinions necessary? As Hyams wrote a little while back, why not 4 or 5 or 6. When is enough opinion, enough? What is these little extras costing and is council simply fishing about until it gets the answer it wants? All of these examples reinforce my conviction that we have voted in a bunch of incompetents who are in serious peril of breaching their obligations under the Local Government Act. It’s beyond a joke how money is repeatedly squandered by this motley crew.
September 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Everything is just first step in the process. Problem is outcome is already predetermined. Special committee for c60 was the first step. Second step was the panel and whatya know – the gang okayed it. First steps my backside. It’s a slippery slide downhill real fast.
September 21, 2011 at 3:20 PM
C60 was always going to happen. The Council stayed in the game until the end. That would not have been the case if objectors had their way. It would have been called in and the Council would have had no say. As for anonymous bloggers, you would still be squealing. There are always a few poeple that whinge about any progress.
September 21, 2011 at 5:55 PM
Your post says it all Anon – C60 was always going to happen. Predetermined, pointless consultation process. Would have been called in by the Minister – ask yourself Anon is this really what good governance is about? And while at it, you might also like to explain how the horrendous C60 can be considered progess.
September 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM
Has anyone ever heard Magee or Lobo talk? You would have to wonder who they represent, except of coures themselves. They both get more than $20,000 each year and appear to do very little for it. Good thing next year they will miss out on one months pay due to early elections.
September 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM
Magee seems to be reasonable but narrowly focused on a pool, Lobo says little, Esakoff Is a fence sitter, Lipshutz and Hyams say a lot but contribute little, Pilling only thinks of a future political career but he is dreaming, Tang is lazy, Forge vague and Penhalluriack should be on $180,000 a year and the others nothing as he is the only one contributing on this Council. Time to start again only trouble is we have to wait a year.
September 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Penhalluriack, Magee and Lobo voted against the amendment on commercial centres. The post only tells us what Penhalluriack said. I can only assume that both Magee and Lobo didn’t speak on this motion. All they did then was raise their hands when the vote was taken. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this. I expect councillors who are really doing their jobs to stand up and explain their vote in public. I want to hear their reasons. I don’t want silent dummies.
September 22, 2011 at 8:21 AM
I suspect both Magee and Lobo see themselves as serious mayoral contenders. They think that they can make themselves a small target and this will add to their appeal. They do not pull their weight and are stupid enough to think that their colleagues will support them. No one likes lazy oppportunists. I expect that we will see a flurry of activity from both of these lazy councillors from now until the next mayoral vote. Their biggest failing is that they are taking their fellow councillors as idiots. This, in politics is fatal.
September 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM
Tang’s comments if accurate are unacceptable. We are being asked to believe that not one of these councillors saw “’strategic justification earlier than this point” when they were informed that the amendment lacked “strategic justification” by the Department. This was in the officer’s report and the final minutes. Either they don’t read what’s put in front of them or Tang’s claim are entirely bogus. Whichever is the correct interpretation, councillors have been negligent and the attempt to justify this negligence makes matters worse. It’s really an insult that such lame excuses can even be uttered and that they expect their integrity and credibility to remain intact.
I’ve also looked over the minutes of the various committee meetings contained in the agenda. There were 7 reports. Of these, 5 had Tang down as an apology. Two things should happen. If he can’t fulfill his role on these committees then the honourable thing would be to stand down and have another councillor take his place. Missing 5 out of 7 meetings isn’t what I expect of my elected representative.
September 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM
He’s also missed at least two trustee meetings. Such a busy, busy lad, but not too busy to get over $70,000 a couple of times as mayor and now over $20,000 for doing bugger all.
September 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM
Never underestimate the power of the holy dollar.
September 21, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Pretty amusing lines coming from Tang and Hyams about amendment c93 potentially resulting in a better policy because the process gives people the opportunity to comment. Nothing could be further from the truth judging by the past record of this lot on consultation and actually listening to what residents have got to say. Yes, this amendment is the first step on the road to doing away with the commercial policy – full stop. We will go through the expense and pretence of consulting but you can bet your life that the outcomes have already been planned and are in place. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, gullible, naive.
September 22, 2011 at 7:42 AM
I agree with you wholeheartedly Peter. Consultation in Glen Eira is not about listening to residents concerns and incorporating those concerns (some, not all) in policy, it is all about “being seen” to give residents an opportunity to comment then pushing ahead with the predetermined policy. In this case the policy will be to the detriment of both local businesses and residents.
What I am scratching my head about is that all recently permitted developments in the vicinity of local strip shopping centres involve retail shops on the ground floor (with X no. of appartments on the top floors and reduced carparking). So on the one hand we have the potential to grow the local commercial activity centres but on the other hand we have the removal of the commercial activity centre policy with insufficient justification.
Sounds like it’s goodbye to easily accessible diversifed strip shopping centres to me.
I am appalled that only Penhalluriack questioned the quality of the reasoning for removal of the policy and requested time to further review and discuss the motion.