We have learnt that the Alma Club application has already been sent off to VCAT PRE-EMPTING, in all probability, any council resolution on Tuesday night. Why? Because Council did not finalise the application within the required 60 day limit.
This is both extraordinary and inexcusable and, in our view, raises serious questions about process, and potential secret deals that may have to ability to completely sideline both councillors and resident objectors. To refresh people’s memories here are the facts:
- The application was received by Council on the 19th March 2013 according to the planning register.
- It was not until EARLY MAY that the yellow notice went up. Residents had until 14th May to register their objections. That makes it roughly 6 weeks that Council sat on this application before presumably doing anything about it or informing residents.
- A planning conference was held on the June 5th.
- The item was set down for decision this coming Tuesday – the 2nd July.
There cannot be any excuse for this inaction, especially since Council would have been fully aware of the contentious nature of the application and its value in monetary terms. All stops should have been pulled out to ensure that the time limits were adhered to. Why weren’t they? What are the possible outcomes for the current situation – given that we’ve learnt that mediation and a 5 day VCAT hearing has been timetabled for several months down the track? Several potential scenarios now rear their ugly heads:
- Any possible councillor resolution on Tuesday night is now a moot point and probably won’t go ahead
- The developer ‘in consultation’ with officers will either submit amended plans directly to VCAT, or again in consultation with officers work out various ‘conditions’. In both cases the parameters will be set and both residents and councillors will not have a say.
- Since a permit has not been granted, the prospect of ‘amended plans’ coming to a full council is most unlikely.
All of these scenarios raise serious questions about governance within Glen Eira; the role of the planning department and most importantly, who knew what and when. For example:
- When did council officers know that the developers would be going to VCAT?
- When did officers know or decide that the 60 day limit could not be met?
- Do councillors know? Or do some councillors know since we’ve been informed that one particular councillor has been telling objectors to forget about appealing since VCAT will overrule anyway?
- Even MP Southwick has got in on the act with an offer of ‘mediation’! Why, and what does he know that residents possibly don’t?
- Why didn’t this well paid planning department get its act together on time?
- Was this ‘delay’ in fact planned right from the start?
- What ‘discussions’ went on between developer and planners? How often? When did these ‘discussions’ start?
- Was there ever any discussion about time lines?
- Has any officer actually kept records of these meetings and/or discussions as required under the Records Act?
There are many, many, other such questions – all of which only cement the already existing perception that all is not 100% kosher within Glen Eira– especially when it comes to planning matters!
Glen Eira Debates 
June 30, 2013 at 10:21 AM
The Wilks St proposal isn’t supported by Council policy, so there is a chance that the delay is deliberate on the part of the proposal’s supporters amongst Council staff. Cr Lipshutz used the same tactic, but for different reasons, with the MRC’s application for the centre of the Racecourse Precinct [the MRC wanted a delay]. It remains a lousy planning approach to redesign a proposal through permit conditions—eliminating a storey here, shifting setbacks by several metres there, knocking off 1 or two units, such that nobody has seen a plan for the result.
Council should continue to make a decision on Tuesday regardless of what happens at VCAT. That way, Council staff would have at least a moral obligation to represent Council’s decision to VCAT whatever their own personal views are. I’m sure VCAT will overturn any attempts by Council to make the proposal less inconsistent with its policies, just as VCAT has done everywhere else. For the 100th time we’ll hear “emerging character” and “contemporary” and “positive contribution”.
With the new Residential Zones only a day away from gazettal, its amazing that we still don’t know what Council’s plans are—what Zones will be applied where, and what specific standards will be specified in the schedules to each Zone. Like everything else about Planning, its a mess. How a government “Fact” sheet can claim anything is mandatory is extraordinary, as Planning Schemes are purely discretionary—they only have to be considered. While you can read the new Zones, there’s no hint whether s55 is being changed to make it consistent or whether PAEA is being changed to give legislative support to the differences between the words “must” and “should” in Schemes.
Like many people, I pointed out problems with the Scheme circa 2010 during the last “review”, but the opportunity to improve it was flubbed by the then-councillors. Instead we got a self-congratulatory puff piece from the Planning department saying what a wonderful job they’re doing. Council refused point-blank to consider improvements to amenity protection for most existing residents or to plug the gaping holes, so it has no moral authority to vary residential amenity standards to less than what they are currently [if “should” is translated to “must”]. Council does have an opportunity to handle the new Zones as part of the mandated periodic review of the Scheme, although past practice is to involve the community in the review, and that is something the Director of City Development has little enthusiasm for.
Anyway, Wilks St is a Minimal Change area, and the closest match to the existing and preferred character is the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Wonder if Council would have the courage to zone it NRZ along with its [mandatory?] height limit. It wouldn’t stop VCAT, but it would add some clarity to the current mess.
June 30, 2013 at 3:08 PM
I agree with every single word here. Planning in Glen Eira maintains its abysmal record. The Alma club is merely the latest example of departmental incompetence – if not worse.
Year after year that the results of the community satisfaction survey highlight planning and traffic, plus the lack of consultation, as the major issues residents feel aggrieved with. Council and its councillors have not even attempted to rectify this situation. Reprobate is totally correct in his assessment of “fluff” and self-congratulatory cliches as the outcomes from the 2010 “review”. It was never a review. It’s purpose was to serve the vested interests of many on council and to maintain the status quo of all out inappropriate development.
I certainly do not expect much to change this time around since there has not been a squeak out of council for nearly a year when other councils are holding information sessions, forums, and moving amendment after amendment to try and forestall the worst features of the new zones for their residents. A recent post here showed what Kingston is doing. The Glen Eira power brokers stay silent. The inevitable conclusion is that they have much to gain in their role as handmaiden to the greedy and unscrupulous. When just about every single councillor has promised to stop inappropriate development (whatever that might connote since they’ve never defined it) and nothing has been done, then the only other conclusion is that residents have been well and truly dudded. I hope that all hell breaks loose when this realisation finally sinks through and that those who are guilty of such treachery receive their just desserts.
June 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM
The whole history of this business should raise plenty of eyebrows. First off there was the refusal to even think about purchasing the property. No discussion and nothing brought to council for decision when the land was going for a song and the club was begging council for some attention. Now we’ve had concept plans, whatever that means. Suddenly the super duper professionals can’t get things done in the specified time. I don’t believe a word of any of this. The whole thing reeks of collusion and some people are going to make a lot of money out of this.
June 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Think about an 8 million dollar investment just for the land. Add another 100 million for the development and we’re talking big bikkies here. Some pretty big heavy hitters would have to be involved who have got friends in the most helpful places. Some of these friends might even be within council. I certainly smell a rat that has the unmistakeably familiar stench associated with the C60.
June 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM
The whole joint needs to be disinfected and gone thru with a laxative like never before so the crap is removed. I’d start at the top cos the buck stops there.
June 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM
yep what a waste of money buying some land in Glen Eira. We have a huge parcel of public land smack in the middle of GE. Enough to wipe out the grounds shortage in the area all together. However it is being used for commercial purposes. At the moment it might be that one team gets an allocation over another but that wont solve the problem. We need to unite to demand it back.
June 30, 2013 at 2:57 PM
It must be arrogant Lipshultz who is telling objectors to forget about appealing since VCAT will overrule anyway. He is famous for making such statements in the council meeting. Why is Lipshultz on the Council and for that matter Hyams and Esakoff. They are gainfully employed and enjoy returns on investments in Glen Eira, a petty allowance of $25K is most certainly not the reason. They are in for their joint agenda (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
The gang is fully responsible for approving C60 and residents shouldn’t have voted them in.
June 30, 2013 at 9:01 PM
I’m against this development because it is far too big and no one seems to care about the end result if this goes through. We were never asked what we think. We were told that this is going to happen. There was no intentiion to ever listen to what people had to say. The plans were set and they were not interested in changing a single thing that residents asked for. People are not important when there are millions to be made as profit.
July 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Southwick needs to stay out of this if the residences are to get anywhere. Remember his mediation on the centre of the racecourse, who did that benefit the most? His mates. Who will fund his next Victorian state election campaign in November 2014 his mates.
July 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM
It would be interesting to hear our councillors put some direct questions to Ron Torres. Does the application comply with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy? If not, why was it not refused under Manager Delegation? Does the application as modified by the recommended permit conditions comply with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy? If not, why is it being recommended? Just curious if councillors have read their dubiously-prepared Council Plan and are aware of the strategic activities, actions, and measures listed.
Sloppy Journalism #31415926: ABC News stated tonight Glen Eira has already implemented the new residential Zones. The DPCD website doesn’t agree.
July 2, 2013 at 10:39 AM
The Age today claims that Stonnington and Boroondara will be “the first to come under new eight-metre height limits and stricter rules”, which is an implicit statement that they’re applying NRZ first. Wonder how The Age could even know who will be first—there are no relevant Amendments listed on DPCD’s AmendmentsOnline page. Of course the Planning Minister could prepare an Amendment in response to a covert request from a Council, then “exempt himself or herself from any of the requirements of sections 17, 18 and 19 and the regulations in respect of an amendment which the Minister prepares”—meaning that changes to Schemes can be made unilaterally, without scrutiny, by somebody who has already hopelessly compromised the integrity of their Office through make planning decisions based on criteria other than planning merit.
July 2, 2013 at 12:57 AM
Oh well only to be fair one corner has the ugly GESAC and its unresolvable transport problems due to dependance on the motor car, others have the C60 which is to be like Hong Kong so why cant the Alma Club be a little developed too? iTS LIKE BALANCING THE SCALES!!!!1
One thing to be noted is that there is no high development near any of the councilors homes! How’s that for influence!