On 4th September 2012 Council passed a resolution to refuse an application for a 3 storey, 11 unit development in Cromwell St, North Caulfield. Officers had recommended the go ahead arguing the usual – housing diversity, near a tram line and commercial centre, etc. On the same night, there was another application for a 4 storey development in Howitt Road. Lipshutz and Esakoff sought to reduce this second application to 3 storeys. It abutted a Minimal Change Area. In the end the 4 storey motion got through. Whilst it could be argued that we are comparing apples and oranges, it’s perhaps worthy of noting that the Cromwell St application (for 3 storeys) was rejected. We also ask, how many other 3 storey applications have got the gong from these councillors in the recent past? There was also this declaration –
Cr Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest in this item pursuant to Section 78E of the Local Government Act being an indirect interest by reason of his mother being an objector to the application.
8.19PM Cr Lipshutz left the Chamber.
The Cromwell St. saga now features in today’s Leader.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM
The Planning Conference for the Alma Road 79 unit development is being held TOMORROW NIGHT (Wednesday) at 6.30pm at the Town Hall.
June 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM
I can’t see the details of the planning conference on the Council website – how do you know? Where in the Town Hall?
June 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM
See Mary Delahunty’s Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/MaryDelahunty2012.
June 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Wots the chance that this woulda got thru if the personal relationships were different? Sounds like heritage all over again.
June 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Council’s decision re Cromwell St does sound extraordinary in light of how it has handled most multi-unit developments in the municipality. It is much more common for it to grant a permit with stricter conditions when it doesn’t like various aspects of a proposal. At least the Minutes give Council’s reasons for refusal, but they would apply to most developments, so the question remains why Council [and Council staff] don’t demand the same design standards elsewhere.
Council could start with 175 Balaclava Rd, which is right on the fringe of the same “Caulfield Park Neighbourhood Centre”, adjacent to residential dwellings, zoned R1Z. Why is it hanging over the footpath, with no front setback, looking completely incongruous and disrespectful of its neighbours? Is Council claiming its in the Commercial part of the Centre??
As for Howitt Rd, the officer makes the claim that its really only a 3-storey development but is called 4 storeys because the basement protudes 1.2m above ground. Makes you wonder how 24 Woorayl St was able to be described as 4 storeys, fooling even VCAT. Consistency and accuracy are not Council’s strong points, and an audit of all officer recommendations and VCAT decisions that use the expression “emerging character” is long overdue. Wonder if we’ll hear it yet again, for Wilks St [Alma Club].
June 5, 2013 at 8:26 AM
I wish anyone objecting to a development anywhere in Glen Eira good luck. You are dealing with a pro-development Administration and Councillors who can’t be bothered to even find out any details of the development (or actually read the planning scheme) and a planning scheme that is devoid of definitive rules (heights etc) and so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that the developer gets exactly what he wants either from Council or at an appeal to VCAT. If that’s not enough you get a traffic department that happily drives to work and parks at the townhall deciding that neither traffic congestion and/or parking are issues. As for the impact on safety of road users, that can be ignored too because they only have to do something if, at the exact same spot, three people are physically injured in a five year period.
June 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Previous – when I first read your comment, I thought you were overly cynical. A few weeks back I lodged by first ever objection against a planning application – the Alma Club – and ever hopeful attended the Planning Conference tonight. For 1.5 hours we residents, approximately 50 of us, raised a number of very valid issues and with each passing minute it became apparent that the decision was already made. Developer 1, Residents 0.
It was bad enough to hear the developers representative describing himself as the one responsible for ensuring our amenity is protected but the real kick up the backside was the sight of the Mayor, sitting in the audience, chuckling as each objector spoke about their concerns.