We must admit to being quite amused when certain councillors start spouting the inviolability of the law in Glen Eira – especially planning law. We’ve already had instances of the nonsense surrounding ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’; the same is now happening with planning! It is sacrosanct ONLY WHEN IT SUITS. All one needs to do is look at countless recent planning decisions to see which standards and guidelines happen to be applied and which are conveniently ignored. To therefore turn around and argue that the Planning Scheme and its ‘prescriptions’ are set in concrete is hypocritical in the extreme.
We’ve also digressed from our usual format in that we’ve added a slight commentary to some of the statements made by councillors in this post. It concerns Item 9.1 – The 3 storey Glen Huntly Rd development. Apologies for the length, but it’s important that residents receive the full picture of what went on last night.
Penhalluriack: Stated that the motion ‘concerned’ him and that he moved it be adjourned until next council meeting. There was no seconder.
TANG: Moved, with changes – permit granted (3 storeys and 12 dwellings). Motion amended to include 40 square metres of open space for some of the units. Pilling seconded. Tang began by saying that this was a ‘difficult’ application because it is ‘unique’ in that an ‘agreement’ had been reached between the developer and immediate neighbours. His motion is “not in accordance with the agreement reached’ between the developer and neighbours and that he is urging the upholding of ResCode requirements (Ie open space). Mentioned some of the objections (parking, visual bulk, etc) made by objectors. Talked about “applying planning scheme’ such as ‘increased set backs’. Said that increased open space and set backs helps to ‘try and preserve Glen Eira’s streetscape’. ….Said that the ‘agreement tries to address the primary concerns’ of people adjacent to the site and this is a ‘novel way’ of addressing their concerns. But ‘where I have an issue (with this is that) we need to first apply our town planning policy’….(and) ‘have regard to the objections of all ….’we can put weight on the objections’ (from immediate neighbours)…..(prefers the council way since this) ‘allows all objectors the opportunity if they wish to appeal the decision’ (and if there are amended plans these will go to all parties who objected) …’If any other objector who hasn’t been a party to this agreement (therefore approving the agreement) ‘would I think result in those parties having an unfair disadvantage’ (sic)….
COMMENT: Wouldn’t this very same principle apply regardless of whether the ‘agreement’ between developer and neighbours was passed by council in that the objectors who disagree with this would then have the opportunity to go to VCAT?
PILLING: Noted that this is along a tram corridor. Supported the motion because it ‘improved’ on private open space . Thought that the ‘agreement’ was a ‘bit presumptious’ and ‘we need to follow proper process’ and that this ‘would set a poor precedent’.
ESAKOFF: supported. ‘I think to do anything else would be very bad precedent’….(agreement) ‘doesn’t meet council’s transition policy’ (which is there to) ‘protect’ (residents in Housing Diversity Areas, although this policy is) ‘yet to be adopted, I understand that’. Said that in the past VCAT have ‘tended to agree’ (with this abuttal issue in that )’there does need to be sensitive planning and good set back”…..’and vcat has actually supported us in the past on various applications’….’problem….on principle I feel disinclined to do that (go back)….’we need to maintain that policy…it would set a terrible precedent and would continue all along our Housing Diversity Areas’. Said that the ‘problem’ will continue along Balaclava Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, etc. ‘along all our tram routes’….’the amenity of the properties which sit behind these developments needs to be protected’
COMMENT: such concern – yet all that the ‘Transitions policy proposes is a setback NOT A ZONE. Thus a single storey house can still have double or triple, or worse, levels peering into people’s backyards under this ‘guidelines’! Why not a zone, councillors? Election time is definitely closing in!
LIPSHUTZ: Started off by saying that at first he was inclined to agree with the officers recommendations ‘but then I ….thought about it longer’ and he will now support the Tang motion. ‘We have laws’ (that have to be obeyed)….’if we allow the objectors …to make private arrangements…then we’ve got no policy…. (people think) ‘we’re allowing our suburbs to be ruined’….’we’re fighting very hard against that’ (but if this arrangement goes ahead) ‘we will be giving away everything we have fought for for so many years’. (The transitions policy is for all areas)…..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’….
COMMENT: Amazing how ‘flexible’ this policy can be when it suits! So much for the “law”. This would of course explain why so many car parking waivers are granted; why of late, disabled parking is turned into visitor car parking spaces, and why 20 or 8 storey proposals in various areas are okay. That’s surely ‘protecting neighbourhoods isn’t it Cr Lipshutz?
PENHALLURIACK: Said this application ‘concerned’ him ‘because we are turning our back on what (residents) want…we are elected to represent our constituents’. Speculated that if the developer and neighbours had got together before the application went in, that there wouldn’t be ‘any fuss’ and ‘probably go straight through’. Said that the only dangerous precedent set here would be ‘in ignoring’ what people want and ‘then applying from the outside some policies’. Stated that he’d met with the two couples living behind the development. His concerns were ‘assuaged’ because they had ‘professional advice’ (town planner) ‘and they were happy with that development’ and it’s ‘foolhardy to go against’ what constituents want.
TANG: question to Penhalluriack on the other 31 objectors. ‘how would you correlate giving the constituents what they want without dealing with the other 31 objectors’?
PENHALLURIACK: ‘that’s why I moved for this to be adjourned for 3 weeks’ so that the views of the other objectors can be sought during this time ‘and hopefully consensus reached without the cost’ of VCAT.
ESAKOFF: another question to Penhalluriack. ‘If a similar deal….in a minimal change area….(where limit is 2 dwellings)….if the neighbours agreed to that would you also agree to that (ie 4, 5 or more dwellings) ‘and not see that as a precedent’?
PENHALLURIACK: Answered that the transiition isn’t yet a policy and still needs to be ‘ratified by Council’. ‘If it’s going against the town planning requirements then of course it will be a precedent’.
MAGEE: Said that this application probably was ’12 months in the planning’ and that it now ‘seems odd that at the 12th hour’ there’s this agreement and people ‘doing deals’. There has been a planning conference, numerous opportunities for developers, architects and objectors to be in touch, ‘we run a great risk in our city being planned on the run’…..’I can only assess this application on what I read…..’not privy’ (to the conversations between developer and neighbours or objectors)….’all I’ve got to go on here is what I read and what I hear from around the table….(didn’t like the fact that after all this time there is now this ‘agreement’ and) ‘it doesn’t sit well with me’….’this is something they should have done four months ago, not 24 hours ago’.
COMMENT: Dereliction of duty perhaps? Hard to believe that of 33 objectors none contacted councillors directly! If this is the first that Cr Magee knows about the application, then we suspect that either he has not taken the time to familiarise himself properly with the issues, or that the entire process of delegation to officers is inadequate when the decision makers have very little notion of what is going on!
HYAMS: Was also at the meeting with objectors living behind the development. ‘we made sure they knew what they were doing’….’they knew what they were doing’…(seeing this as) ‘the lesser of two evils’…..’I was inclined to go along with it, then I started thinking about the implications of that….’if we do accept this deal which is less than what we hoped for with our transition zones…..(and this area will be further developed and that policy states that) ‘applications have to respect their surroundings we might be setting a precedent for other neighbours’. Some of the other 33 objectors mightn’t feel greatly affected but ‘most would feel that they prefer 12 units to 14’. Said it was ‘unusual’ that objectors want something that is ‘less strict’ on the developer. Referred to Penhalluriack’s point about representing contituents ‘when it comes to planning we are actually elected to apply planning law’ (as well as representing people and who are likely to have) ‘other developments built near them’….(Said that they’re still waiting for permission to exhibit the transition policy and therfore can’t be seen to be) ‘backing away from it’. Said that the ‘philosophy set out in that policy is actually council policy’.
COMMENT: top marks for gobbledygook must go to Hyams’ last cited comment.
TANG: In response to Magee’s points about timelines, Tang said that ‘council does offer opportunities to get together’ BEFORE via the ‘pre certification process’.(so that developers can amend the application before it goes any further and there’s a formal application)…..’The agreement does support 14 dwellings in an altered configuration’ but doesn’t ‘talk about….visitor parking….agreement may deal with a couple of the primary objections….it doesn’t deal with all of those….(He then went on to address ‘misconceptions’ in that ‘half of Glen Eira’s policies’ (ie Housing diversity versus minimal sites) and that the transitions policy tries to add some ‘prescription, tries to give certainty and further guidance’. (The policy therefore needs to apply here and a lot of work has been done to ensure that the site is appropriate to the neighbourhood)…..’there is a mediation process at vcat’ (which will avoid costs and could be ‘cut off at the pass’ at this mediation ‘point’).
MOTION CARRIED WITH ONLY PENHALLURIACK VOTING AGAINST.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM
I blame Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Hyams for forcing my sister out of her home over the C60. That they can now turn around and talk about protecting people and streets is disgusting.
The other thing that’s struck me in this report is the attack on Penhalluriack. No one else cops this inquisitioin over every word he says and they should. Everything that Penhalluriack said makes good sense. If this development has been going on for 12 or so months then another three weeks and more talking with the other people wouldn’t do any harm. I’d like to think that when three storeys are going up next to me that councillors would give a damn and be prepared to wait and listen. This isn’t the case in this council – that’s pretty obvious.
June 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Ya got it wrong. What they’re scared witless about is residents and developers getting together and council being left out in the cold. Ya can’t have residents dictating what should happen in their burbs now can ya? That would for sure show up the rubbish in the planning scheme.
June 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Would we better off with big developments like Caulfield Village or one off developments dotted all over the place that take no account of infrastructure. (I am definitely not saying a private club should be able to develop crown land!) Go and have a look at Rosstown Road how the lovely old houses have been ripped down to be replaced one at a time by 3 storey buildings with car parking underneath. Interesting going to Stockholm it is basically the whole street is one continuous row of 4 level apartments. If you go to Prague everyone seems to live in large ugly apartment blocks but they are all completely surrounded by playing fields and much better transport infrastructure. Well we see today that urban boundary is being extended to Diggers Rest. Where is it going to stop if we dont make a change? There is no way you can provide infrastructure for this sort of plannind.
June 13, 2012 at 2:23 PM
The lack of infrastructure means that Glen Eira is even more of a laughing stock when they dropped their developers levies and the government will now introduce one for all councils to make sure that drainage is looked at. It’s beyond me why this council didn’t just charge more or get their own act together if their claim that it cost too much to administer is the truth. No properly run industry would do its accounting this way.
June 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM
C60? I thought that was dead and buried since the Melbourne Racing Club refuses to honor the agreement signed by Pilling, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams.
June 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Let’s not kid ourselves that the transitions policy is going to be the answer to those poor buggers who happen to reside alongside housing diversity. Instead of looking straight up at 3, 4, 5 stories, the view will be staggered. Second story will be slightly recessed and the third story recessed a weansy little bit more. It’s all bullshit.
June 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM
The continual harping on the dangers of setting a “precedent” is repugnant and self serving. If Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Pilling were that concerned about setting “precedents” then agreeing to at least 20 storeys is surely the mother of all precedents? Other such “precendents” are not that difficult to find. Glen Eira is distinguished by being one of the very few councils not to have a Notice of Motion. I would call that another “precedent”. It’s probably the only council to jettison it’s development contribution levies – another “precedent”. The best one however is a CEO who is continually bullied and who has been involved in numerous investigations. That is unparalleled anywhere and creates an “unprecedented” record that should stand for all time.
June 13, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Rumour has it that a second Greens backed candidate is standing in Rosstown. Could put some pressure on the Lipshutz toadies Tang and Esakoff. Interesting!
June 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM
For the greens to get two up they would need two quota’s. That would be a 50% vote for the greens. It is not going to happen. Maybe they can get some preferences from the liberals to help them .
June 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Pilling won’t be endorsed by the Greens, what with breaking policy regarding the Caulfield Racecourse. Now that the MRC have ripped up the agreement, he doesn’t say a word- not a yelp. Magee is no better as Chairman of the Trustees. What a pathetic lot we have in Council at present.
June 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Not sure I understand the problem with this one.
Yes, I accept the point that council are inconsistent in applying planning laws. But in this case they seem to be applying the laws – which is a good thing, isn’t it?
I don’t know the details – I didn’t see anything about this agreement with neighbours in the minutes.
But if I read it right, the developer has gained the approval of some of the neighbours to put up a building that breaches planning laws – particularly in terms of boundary setbacks. Why they would agree to this I have no idea.
Frank has suggested that the issue be adjourned so that the other objectors can be consulted – presumably to see if they will accept a non-compliant construction. As a developer himself (and someone who seems to have little regard for laws if they get in the way of making a dollar), I can understand why Frank might be attracted to the idea that you can build whatever you like as long as you can gain the approval of the adjoining properties. So why bother with a planning scheme?
The council decision seems to be an improvement on the original plan – so surely the adjoining neighbours would be happy with it. Won’t they actually be better off than with the plan they originally agreed to?
Also, I’m not sure how “transition zones” would help in this case. Where would the transition zone be? The land is on the boundary of a housing diversity area and a minimal change area. So would the transition zone be within the current housing diversity area or outside it? How would it help the properties adjoining this development? It seems to me that having rules about setbacks, etc on the boundaries of these areas is a reasonable way to go.
June 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM
I want to extend my comment before about designating certain areas for development. The way we are doing it willy nilly is not working. I looked up 1044 GH road and can see that the house accross the road and in Emma Street will probably fall by 30%. I cant imagine the fall in the value of the lonely house in Dudley Street. Would there be someway you could designate areas as the only places you can build these 3 story developments that were separated by a barrier from the established neighbour hoods eg railway line /road/park. An eg how about the area between the Frankston and Dandenong railway lines or the whole of Caulfield East ( I live in one of these areas). It has to be a win win situation so people in this area would benefit as the value of there property increases by about 50% and it would be worthwhile for them to upgrade to a nicer area eg East Malvern. I think a minimum size for the development should be set so the area can plan infrastructure around it ie one big 3 story building accross 3 blocks might be more efficient that 3 separate buildings. Surely this would give people more certainty that a huge set of apartments are not going to be put up next door if you dont live in the designated zone,
June 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Narrow slits of land separating two homes dosen’t make sense when the land is in short supply. Nothing will grow due to the lack of sunlight. People used to stack beer bottles in that space in the old days. That is when we recycled the long necks.I think you are right by suggesting a 3 storey over 3 blocks.
June 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Magee just wants positions such as the Chair at MRC. He also wanted to be our Mayor for 2012! He has a reputation of not getting back to the community when he is called upon for help. Grow up Magee.