It’s quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!
Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!
Morrice St Child Care Centre
LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.
Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)
LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)
PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)
HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’
MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.
FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)
TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)
HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.
TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’
PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.
LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)
MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING
Glen Eira Debates 
March 21, 2012 at 8:38 PM
This belongs to Monty Python. I can’t believe the so called debate and the amateur night that this tells us must have happened. Either there is a problem with traffic or there isn’t. If you believe Magee there isn’t; if you believe Lipshutz we’re in the middle of Shanghai traffic chaos. It should never have got to this stage if planners and traffic managers had done their jobs properly and provided statistics that actually hold up and can be verified. But the quality of officers’ reports deals with nothing like things that can be quantified. It’s all ‘reasonable”, “excessive’ and language like this. No wonder councillors follow the lead.
That’s not the way to make decisions. And the real joke is that Lipshutz again presents himself as a traffic expert here and is actually criticising the traffic department when he says that they must have taken the sample on Friday night! He gets away with criticising them and so does Lobo. But not Penhalluriack. Hyams should have stopped Tang’s question because it had absolutely nothing to do with the debate in question. It was Tang playing finding another opportunity to have a go at Penhalluriack and Hyams let him! Great leadership from the Mayor once again. But I reckon Penhalluriack handled it pretty well.
March 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM
This turns my stomach. Traffic is a problem when 120 kids come into a child minding centre but there’s no problem when 1400 units are going to be built as a result of C60 and Kambrook Road can handle all the traffic. Hypocrites should be sacked.
March 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Were are all the new people going to go, the $1.60 petrol is going to be for real one day and then $2.00 and so on. People are going to need to be close to trains and trams. Share your city with other people that want to live here, I have had a lot of new development around me, and the people that moved in are good people, its taken years but I can call most friends. Some times the shock of the new is worse than the reality.
We are all living in times of great change, and that’s not going to change in our lifetimes. The comfort of slowly moving-ahead, has moved on, and it’s doesn’t look like its coming back for a two generations or more I think.
Sometime up the track there will be people that know the comfort of a slow paced and quieter life, but its not going to be us post WWII bunch.
Don’t fight a bitter battle of acrimony. Fight for what’s right, like more clean transport, sustainable buildings, more trees and better open space, friendlier, shared roads and paths, clean air, the right to sunlight, a clean sustainable city that understands it’s place in a modern world, and plays it’s part in making the big big picture better.
In the end that’s what will be important. This is the front were people will come together and be happy, this is where we need good people with better ideas than what’s presently floating around out-there now
March 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM
All those councillors who can’t be “lobbied” aka the Victory Park people and their pavilion, are suddenly very susceptible to “lobbying”. I’ve had a read of the recent amendment on child care locations and this fitted the bill exactly. On a corner, abutting a main street, and near schools and shops and transport.
The arguments have got as much weight as a powder puff. Upcoming elections and councillors running scared are the real reasons for this vote and will be for plenty others to come. Policy is totally flexible when it comes to the middle of 2012. Newton should be worried. Could mean that most of his well laid plans are about to bite the dust if people muster enough strength and lobby damn hard. Self preservation is the name of the game from here on in. Even Lobo has come back from the dead and found his strange bed fellows again.
March 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Anonymous 4. You are talking rubbish.
March 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM
The policy also clearly discourages this type of development in minimal change areas which this is. So it does NOT fulfill the Council policy in a major way. The reason for zoning in the area is to make these types of decisions easier for the Councillors, and they definitely got it right despite all of the above commentary suggesting that the Councillors are looking after their own hides. This type of development should front main front either main or secondary roads, and this one does not do that. It front a quiet residential street not Glen Eira Road, and that does not fulfill the the intent of the Council policy. It was a very close decision, but the Councillors actually got this one right. Well done!