The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.
GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT
Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.
DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.
LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.
ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.
OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.
AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.
Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment
MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)
We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 27, 2012 at 9:57 PM
For some more real compassion from Hyams, here’s the link to Channel 7’s news tonight on Street Parties. http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/article/15490583/grinch-melbourne-councils-crash-street-parties/
November 27, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Oh what a warm, fuzzy and jolly family, community minded man our dear Mayor is. Less treat the community with disdain yet again…
November 27, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Here’s the Channel 10 version with our Mayor wonderful comments –
November 28, 2012 at 8:18 AM
Do Jewish people celebrate X-mas?
November 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Hyam’s words are deplorable and false. The local law permits the Mayor to decide who will address council and when. Claiming that only councillors can speak at council meetings is not only untrue, but coming from Hyams, the lawyer, the ‘expert’ on policy and process, and especially when he has wielded the local law on previous occasions to silence Penhalluriack, these statements are 100% out of order. Even if the law is as Hyams claims, it would not have hurt him to permit this resident to say his few words. Instead through sheer arrogance and incomprehension that his job is to serve residents, this person has obviously left with a rotten taste in his mouth about council, its councillors and how everyone operates. If I was him I would think what a pack of rotten bastards and no-one could blame him. Well done Jamie. You’ve really put your stamp on the Glen Eira brand of arrogance and treating residents like total morons.
November 27, 2012 at 10:39 PM
is Jaimie a lawyer? Says he is like Lobo claims he went to a respectible Uni, like Southwick claims he was a Professor at RMIT……
November 27, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Might have confused Councillor with Counselor! Honestly, how did this imbecile get re-elected, especially after being sacked by the State Government. Gotta question the intelligence of voters.
November 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Council’s Local Law is very clear. Section 230 says:
Members of the public may address Council and Committee meetings:
(1) at the discretion of, and under direction of, the Chairperson; or
(2) as provided in section 223(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1989,
in accordance with any guidelines for public participation in Council and
Committee Meetings adopted by Council from time to time.
I do not recall ever seeing any policy regarding “public participation” at council meetings so the above must stand as applicable in this instance. Colin is correct. Hyams has the legal authority to allow anyone to speak at anytime. He chose to silence this resident and not allow him to utter a word about an application that he was involved with.
This also calls into question the entire nature of planning conferences and the information that is given out to residents. Either this person totally misunderstood the rules or the letter he referred to was poorly expressed, confusing, and non-informative. The worst case scenario is that he was not informed that there was a planning conference being held. It doesn’t really matter which of these is the right interpretation. What matters is that the way that this council goes about its planning applications and interactions with residents is nothing short of disgraceful. I remember the Mahvo St. example where residents complained bitterly that even at the planning conference Lipshutz tried to gag questions and call a halt to the meeting. There have been other examples where developers do not even bother to show up and face objectors. In such instances residents are left with nobody to “negotiate” with or to even ask questions since planners often have no idea of what is going on. Everything favours developers and that is the undoubted intention.
In refusing to allow this resident to say a few words Hyams has again stamped himself as completely out of touch with common decency and certainly many in the electorate.
November 27, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Forgive my sarcasm, but I’m annoyed by the arguments put up by Okotel and especially Esakoff. Here’s a proposal to do away with 2 car parking spots and both of these councillors start saying that the planning scheme must be enforced. Hypocrisy in spades when one considers how many applications have had the car parking requirements waived and some have even gone to the extent of disabled spots being reallocated for visitors. I suppose that it’s just too much to expect a consistent argument and approach from these councillors. But it sure does sound good when you can get up on your hind legs and pretend to actually want to implement the fine print of the planning scheme. The tragedy for residents is that this only happens once in a blue moon and not when it really matters like for the major monstrosities that they’ve passed in the last couple of years.
November 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Actually Peter I am staggered at the logic Council has used to waive it’s own planning requirements with regards the provision of on-site visitor carparking – a lousy 2 carspaces, hardly a football field. The logic is basically
. the developer has decided it is to install carstackers (a better financial option for him since carstackers require less space than conventional parking and by freeing up that space the developer can increase his saleable space a.k.a. profit)
. carstackers are not suitable for visitor parking
. therefore we will waive the requirement to provide on-site visitor carparking.
Why isn’t the on-site visitor carparking requirement enforced and where in this logic is there any consideration of the residential amenity of those nearby. All I can see in this logic is consideration for the developer
November 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Car Stackers!. I have heard it all. Does that mean that if someone has a car stacker next door I have to look at a car above the fenceline out the lounge room window. Welcome to the slums.
November 27, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I’d like to know what Lipshutz regards as “the future”. Another 4 years without structure plans? Sounds like the battle lines are now drawn out clearly – Lipshutz the die hard Liberal conservative versus the new Labor kid on the block. Should make for some fascinating viewing. Well done Mary for at the very least bringing some issues out into the open and using that taboo phrase – structure plans. I wonder if Lipshutz even knows what they are, or even cares.
November 27, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Jamie me boy, I reckon ya should put a sock in ya mouth and keep it there forever. Lately not only ya foot is stuck in ya gob but ya whole damn leg. Ya becoming a real liability nearly as bad as good ol Oscar.
November 30, 2012 at 1:58 AM
Smart Aleck – you are a bloody fool – you are no smart Aleck – You are ignoramus Aleck.
November 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Smart Aleck – you are a bloody fool – you are no smart Aleck – You are ignoramus Aleck.
I am not the author of the post in italics GE.
November 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Thanks for this clarification Autonomy. It’s most unfortunate that some people sink so low as to hijack other people’s identity and don’t have enough imagination to assign themselves a unique pseudonym.