The C87 Amendment was passed unanimously as expected. What was, in our view, most revealing was the superb crocodile tears performance put on by several councillors. They literally shed buckets in bemoaning the fact that the Amendment was incapable of including residents’ recommendations for inclusion into the Significant Character Areas – especially Normanby Rd. We shake our heads in wonderment and ask:
- Are councillors that impotent or stupid or guilty of collusion not to realise that when they allow the cart to be put before the horse this will be the inevitable outcome? One of our previous posts commented on the fact that the only recommendations sought came from council officers and Planisphere. Even councillors and of course residents were totally excluded from making suggestions! To now turn around and say that our hands are tied is indeed laughable. All that was needed was a motion that residents could submit their own proposals for inclusion. Simple and democratic – but obviously something that is anathema to those running Glen Eira.
- Instead, we now have further expenditure on ‘legal advice’ to ensure that nothing can be done with this amendment! It all has to start again via a new amendment if residents are to have a say. Oh yes, the crocodile tears flowed in Oscar winning performances.
- We also suggested in our earlier post that the chances of the Planning Panel actually accepting, much less listening to residents’ submissions on areas that should be included was buckleys and none! We stick with this conclusion!
The ‘debate’ went as follows:
Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Lipshutz moved that C87 be exhibited with the removal of properties from Poath Rd. Seconded by Penhalluriack.
LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that VCAT ‘basically ignores’ council’s policy and that policy by itself is not the ‘appropriate method to ensure’ that neighbourhoods are protected. ‘The way to go about it’ is to pass the motion so that there’s an overlay on these areas. Said that this was a ‘vexed’ issue because some people didn’t want it and others did. Said that the Normanby Rd people ‘believe that their street has such significance’ that they should be included. ‘Unfortunately the motion…..does not provide for this…..the motion seeks to preserve their current position and will allow for a panel to consider their submissions….‘. People who think that their properties shouldn’t be there are also free to make a submission to panel. Spoke about The Highway and if the amendment would ‘restrict’ the possibility of ‘dual occupancy’ in that street. Said that wouldn’t impact adversely and that ‘panel can consider this’ and that council ‘can then determine the issue’. Amendment ‘starts the process’….‘we’ve had the submissions, we’ve had the conferences’…’the intent of c87 is to provide stronger safeguards’….(and those areas outside heritage) ‘can at least be preserved’.
PENHALLURIACK: The motion is ‘disappointing’ since ‘so many’ people around the c60 and racecourse, especially along Normanby Rd ‘are missing out’. Said he looked at old maps of the area and that there are some beautiful old homes and ‘I can’t read the mind of the town planner who said this area isn’t worthy of being included’….’but because he made that decision we are now caught between a rock and a hard place’. Said that people can go to the panel, but the amendment is ‘lacking the jewel in the crown’ (Park, Kambrook, Normanby Rd). ‘I can’t do anything, I’m tormented, I think this is a tragedy….but the officers assure me there is no option….(ultimately has to come back to council and start whole thing again. Said that maybe council should look at heritage overlays as well).
HYAMS: Reassured everyone that the status quo remains until the ‘amendment goes through’. Explained that the Significant Character Area only covers double dwelling and doesn’t protect against someone building a terrible single dwelling..’policy doesn’t have the strength at VCAT…these are less than heritage….you can demolish….pros are …protects the neighbourhood….cons are….restricts what people can do with their own houses….so not something we would impose without going through….thorough community consultation process’. Said that community does generally support this as spoken about in the various community forums. Claimed it was ‘disappointing’ that after all the letters sent out council only got 59 submissions back ‘you could read that as people being apathetic’….’people happy with the amendment’ so no need to write in. Said that the planning conference that was held had more people in favour than against the amendment. Claimed to have ‘door knocked a couple of the streets’ to get a feel for what people wanted and ‘overwhelming majority’ supported the amendment. Admitted that some areas are ‘out of character, but still worth preserving of what remains of character’. Agreed that Normanby Rd is ‘a very nice area’ and that he was ‘disappointed’ that it wasn’t included. Said that there was some discussion at the planning conference whether it could be included and that council had obtained ‘further legal advice’ which concluded that once something is ‘exhibited’ you ‘can’t put other areas in’ because it ‘denies natural justice to those people’ in that area…..’that’s the legal advice so we can’t do that unfortunately’. Summarised the processes of the panel, what they will do and how they will look at the submissions ‘in depth’….’still quite a few steps to take’.
LIPSHUTZ: Admitted that people of Normanby Rd have been ‘badly done by’ and ‘very unfortunate that they can’t be included’….(that this is the )’best we can do in the circumstances’….(Urged people who thought they should be included) ‘to make submissions to the panel’….’Id be very supportive of inclusion’. Explained process – ie goes to panel and then council will decide whether to accept or reject. Process is ‘independent and fair’. said that heritage overlay is ‘very, very restrictive’ and that there’s a difference between Normanby Rd and council’s heritage areas.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
May 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Interesting. Hold out the carrot of the Panel Heating and that’s supposed to placate people and compensate them for having their rights to participate in democratic processes denied. Then spend their money on a bogus Panel Hearing plus lawyers plus planning officers time. We’ve got the most perfect example here of how superfluous residents and some councillors are to the decisions made in this council. I shudder at the farce the community plan, budget and strategic resource plan are likely to be.
May 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Nobody has brought up the fact that most of those areas knocked off are now going to be included in housing diversity. What council gives with one hand it takes back with two hands. poor buggers are soon going to have 5 storeys next door if Newton has his way.
May 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Gee you have to feel sorry for Normanby Road residents. First C60, then the racecourse agreement dishonored by both Melbourne Racing Club and Glen Eira Council and now this. As involved in real estate, all this has possibly cost them $500/square metre. Think you had better call a lawyer son, get a real good one to beat this (MODERATORS: word deleted)
May 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM
People shouldn’t think that this is council being innovative and giving a stuff about community. The history of this amendment goes way back to at least 2002 with the failed c56. Like everything else in Glen Eira it takes decades for things to be done. Newton believes in the old adage why do today what you can put off for ten years but still pretend that nothing is your fault and you really give a damn about the people who pay your wages. Then you get yourself a couple of real patsies like Lipshutz and the gang and your king of the castle.
May 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Lipshutz’s language is really offensive to my mind. “Unfortunate” suggests bad luck and fate. These are qualities that should not have anything at all to do with decent planning processes and their professional implementation. To try and convince residents that there is absolutely nothing that could have been done, or can now be done is bordering on a lie. Councillors did not need to accept the motion that the amendment be exhibited. It could have been withdrawn, or amended to say that officers need to redraft and resubmit to the minister to ensure that other areas are listed for decision. The catch cry that this is simply the “start of the process” for all amendments put up, is indeed wearing thin. In Glen Eira such motions are invariably the start and finish of any decision making. Worse still is that this “start of the process” never really includes residents.
May 2, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Agree totally with you Mr Evans. The offensive bit isn’t only the crocodile tears but the arrogance in washing their hands of all responsibility for the shortcomings of the whole amendment. The same peurile arguments are put up for another item on the agenda – another amendment but with the promise that this will end up with 5 storeys. Don’t worry we’re told, it’s only the start of the process. No! The process started in the backroom when Newton and Akehurst and the other lackeys got together and plotted all this. Then they got the gang together and told them what’s going to happen and maybe even wrote the academy performance scripts. All that was missing was Pilling to read his lines. That’s how things work in Glen Eira.
May 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Amid all the crocodile tears and admitted shortcomings of the whole amendment (an amendment which should have been introduced 10 years ago when recommended by an independent planning panel, and again 4 years go when again recommended by an indepent planning panel) it should not come as a surprise that not one Councillor raised the option of creating a new amendment.
All a new amendment would take is allowing the community to have some input this time (via a feedback page on Council’s website and a couple of ads in the local paper) rather than letting the officers direct which areas are to be reviewed. Then getting some expert advice and holding a planning conference then preparing a new admendment. Not a lot to ask for – and hardly as costly as the legal costs Council has incurred due to internal squabbling.
Hopefully, the planning panel will make a recommendation that Council create a new amendment and public pressure will make Council actually follow the recommendation (although there are grave misgivings about the Council following a planning panel recommendation if that recommendation is not the one the Administration wanted).
Oh and by the way, I question the fact that they can’t change the amendment as presented to the Minister. The amendment presented to the Minister over the blatant Esakoff heritage issue was changed so how come this one can’t.
May 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Both Hyams and Lipshutz tell us that policy is fairly useless when it comes to vcat and that these overlays are much stronger and offer better protection. If that is the case then it’s worthwhile asking why council hasn’t attempted to put in more overlays or ministerial approved height limits or why so many documents have got the status of only “reference documents” instead of being fully integrated into the planning scheme. Every time these councillors open their mouths they exhibit strong symptoms of foot and mouth disease.