On the 20th May (ie tomorrow) a Planning Panel hearing will be held regarding Amendment C80. To refresh people’s memory, this concerns the rezoning of part of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS an application for a 5 storey development consisting of up to 62 units!
When this first came up before council in 2011, councillors voted unanimously to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit – even though Esakoff proclaimed some ‘concerns’ over the application part of the amendment. Then on December 18th 2012, following the Minister’s approval, and after much argey-bargey in council, this resolution was passed unanimously –
Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff
1. That Council request the Minister for Planning to refer Amendment C80 to an Independent Panel to consider the submissions, but limited to the rezoning application.
2. Advise the Minister and the Independent Panel that Council has abandoned planning permit application GE/PP-24474/2012.
So what is Monday all about? Here’s the Department’s blurb on what this Panel Hearing is about (taken from the DPCD’s website) –
Given the history of C87 where residents were literally duped, mislead, and deceived we have little faith that the fate of the C80 will be any different. With the C87, Lipshutz and Hyams in particular were at great pains to tell residents that they could forward their objections and recommendations and that the Panel would consider them. However, when it came to the Panel Hearing it turned out that the TERMS OF REFERENCE had been set and that the panel could not consider anything extraneous to these terms – for example, why other properties could not be included as part of the Significant Character Area. Our suspicion, given the notification above, is that we are probably heading down the same path – ie the Panel terms of reference stated above INCLUDE the application for the 5 storey, 62 unit development. It will therefore be most enlightening to see what and how Council’s planning department argues on this one. Will they actually carry out a Council resolution and desist with the arguments for the application, or will they simply toss their hands in the air and use the woeful excuse that the Planning Panel has the legal authority to make a decision on the application as well? Will residents be screwed once again? And it would be most enlightening to know if the Minister was ever notified of the existence of this resolution as stipulated?
If tomorrow’s hearing includes consideration of the application together with the rezoning of the land, then residents have once again been duped. Far more important is the question as to the value of any council resolutions and whether these councillors really know what they are doing.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Did the planning authority “agree to consider the application for the permit concurrently with the preparation of the proposed amendment” as per PAEA S96A(2)? If somebody made an application under S96A(1) then notice should have been given under S96C. What really stinks is the proposal to use a Business Zone to support what is predominantly a residential application, knowing that BZ2 offers no protection of residential amenity. Residential development is not one of the purposes of BZ2—that’s the job of Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). However Zones have been rendered effectively meaningless by Council and VCAT since decision-makers are not obliged to apply them. Despite all the talk about the proposed new Zones, there has been very little discussion about changes to PAEA. “Prohibitions” or “Minimum/Maximum/Mandatory Standards” in a Scheme are meaningless unless they’re legally enforceable.
May 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Going to a panel is the safest bet for this council and improves the chances of getting everything through. There’s only one hearing that went against the gang and that was the obscene Seaview heritage property one where Esakoff’s hubby was involved. All others have come up with the goods for developments.
What this means is that there’s a ready made scapegoat to pin your arguments on. Look people, we’ve gone to an independent body and here’s what they think and you’ve had the chance to have your say. All fair and above board and it’s not our fault. Like hell it’s not. If Hyams and Lipshutz didn’t know what was happening with the C87 then they’re stupid, incompetent, or told everyone a pack of lies. Suspicion is warranted for the C80 with this history.
May 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Panels are not an “independent body”. Many of their members are also VCAT members, and all are beholden to the Government for their positions. They don’t make decisions though, only “recommendations”, and Council must then consider their report. Panels typically downplay the costs and consequences of what they recommend and make no attempt to assess matters from the viewpoint of a municipality and its ratepayers.
May 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Reckon you’re correct. But it sure sounds terrific when you can say that the panel represents objective independent analysis and that this is only stage 1, 2 or 3 of the long drawn out process when everyone knows what the end result of the process is going to be. Spin, spin spin – full stop.
May 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM
The vast majority of amendments that have been introduced and passed by Council come from developers. I can’t remember too many that originate from sound planning principles and auspiced by Council itself to improve the public sphere. The lasting impression is that council acts at the behest of those with the most to gain – that is property developers and not residents.
May 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM
Esakoff’s hubby was canvassing like mad with some councillor friends and few officers about their Seaview Heritage property. The gang is of the strong belief that they own the Council and no one can claim that the Council is of everybody in Glen Eira.
(MODERATORS: next two sentences deleted)
May 21, 2013 at 8:16 AM
You couldn’t be more wrong. The council operates as a sole proprietry business. One owner. Have a guess.
May 20, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Slightly off topic, but related to planning. See the reference to Monash Uni.
Councils to take on big projects
Date
May 21, 2013
64 reading now
Henrietta Cook
Pin It
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions
Matthew Guy.
Matthew Guy believes local councils are best suited to manage local planning decisions. Photo: Luis Enrique Ascui
The state government will hand back planning powers to local councils for 21 significant sites across Melbourne including South Wharf and the Whitten Oval redevelopment.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy said local councils were best suited to manage local planning decisions and he would return powers to them for some strategic sites in the next few weeks.
”A number of these sites to be redeveloped, such as the Fountain Gate Town Centre, are sites of local significance and will require detailed council input and as such the Coalition government believes that the relevant local council is best placed to manage them.”
A number of the sites are completed developments in the CBD area and include the Malthouse Theatre, Victorian College of the Arts Secondary School, Melbourne University, Melbourne Theatre Company and Recital Hall.
Advertisement
Other sites include the Supreme Court, the Northern Sewerage Project, the former Greenvale Hospital, the CBD’s Wesley Church property, Monash University in Caulfield’s Western Precinct redevelopment and the Whitten Oval redevelopment in Footscray.
Eleven sites are located in the City of Melbourne and the rest are in metropolitan municipalities.
Municipal Association of Victoria chief executive Rob Spence welcomed the move, and said it would give the community greater input into local planning decisions.
”When matters are called in by the minister you lose that input,” he said.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/councils-to-take-on-big-projects-20130520-2jwzk.html#ixzz2TptQZWPQ
May 22, 2013 at 6:28 AM
Actually, Guy is giving nothing back – he is complying with the rules re the Monash University development. Council voted the Monash half of the Pheonix Precinct a Priority Development Zone (PDZ) in 2002. The PDZ classification required development to start within 10 years or it would lapse. Clearly development hasn’t started – Monash is still at the drawing board stage and, with the recently announced Federal funding cuts, is likely to stay at that stage for a long time to come.
This is not a “hand back” as such, it is further recognition that the introduction of PDZ’s in Melbourne was a failure (C60 being the last one standing) and is in compliance with the PDZ creation rules.
May 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to hand back the Monash University Project and not the Melbourne Racing Club’s C60 – individually both projects are under served with parking and will create horrendous traffic issues and public transport demand, that go way beyond the municipality. One body overseeing them both could at least ensure some synergy (shared parking facilities, easy pedestrian access between the two) and take into consideration impacts on the major aterial roads (Dandenong Road and the Monash Freeway).
Additionally, this Council’s myopic view of planning, which allows them to view every development in isolation and thus ignore the cumulative impact of development (eg. traffic, parking, provision of utilities, inadequate public transport, drainage, open space, etc. etc., the development push in Stonnington along Dandenong Road), does not bode well.
But knowing how Govt. and this Council works (or doesn’t work) perhaps it’s a good thing only half is being considered to be handed back.