C60 AMENDMENT
Moved to accept by Esakoff and seconded by Sounness
ESAKOFF: said that council could only express its view on this since it came from the developer to the Minister and it’s the Minister’s decisions as ‘to whether he approves this or not’. Council can’t abandon the amendment. Said that the over-riding document is the ‘incorporated plan’ and whether the applilcation would meet ‘the requirements of that’. On the various divergences (height) Esakoff said that ‘it’s usual practice to allow for that intrusion’ and for plant equipment ‘sometimes there is a height adjustment there’. Balcony intrustion are also ‘common practice’. Third request on the development plans is ‘simply’ a ‘trigger’ if outside the stipulations. The final change regarding sequencing of building is there to ‘allow flexibility’ within the ‘precinct boundaries’ and ‘that’s considered to have’ ‘no impact and is considered reasonable’. It’s not council’s role to ‘oppose’ the amendment, merely to ‘add some words’ especially about height in the Incorporated Plan and ‘this already applies’ so it’s just a matter of ‘repeating’ the stipulations.
SOUNNESS: thought that developers should have the opportunity for ‘minor’ ‘cosmetic changes’ to ‘facade’ and ‘structure’ of buildings. Admitted that the C60 is ‘contentious’ and ‘I had very little dealing with it’ and that he’s new and that there are ‘strong feelings’ about it. Said that it was ‘worthwhile’ for council to ‘provide helpful commentary’ and that he thought this was ‘quite reasonable’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT: not for the first time does Sounness claim ‘innocence’ . That is, he wasn’t involved, he knows nothing. Whilst true, we do not believe that after serving on council for a year that this excuse carries weight any longer. Surely it is not too difficult to ask for previous reports? previous decisions? previous background on all matters? Surely when making decisions for the future of the municipality it is incumbent on councillors to ensure they have a good grasp on what has occurred and why. We note that no councillor and certainly nothing in the officer’s report even came close to justifying why something is earmarked as ‘reasonable’ and why, oh why, not one iota of real information as to what these ‘intrusions’ might mean has been provided. It is council once again acting blindly, or willingly, and making decisions based on no upfront evidence.
KOORNANG RD TREES
Moved by Esakoff and seconded by Pilling
ESAKOFF: said it’s not a ‘simple’ decision because there were ’11 for and 11 against’ the proposal to remove the trees. The ‘best outcome’ is a ‘compromise’ and that’ what she’s looking for. Said that most people against removal of the ‘very old’ cypress ‘hedge’ were concerned about the traffic on Koornang Rd and noise. Said that her proposal would provide something like a ‘buffer’ to the noise. These new planting would replace the ‘partly diseased’ and ‘stressed’ cypress trees. Claimed that these cypresses had ‘been there for a very long time’ even when she was a young girl. Spoke about Caulfield Park and Duncan McKinnon suffering the same fate because the cypresses there were ‘at the end of their useful life’. Hoped that people would be ‘satisfied’ with her ‘compromise’ and that this would ‘bring all parties on board’.
PILLING: thought that Esakoff’s motions addressed ‘some of the concerns’ that people had raised. Was in favour of making parks ‘accessible’ to the community. Said that the cypress trees are ‘in a fairly poor state’ but ‘accepts that there are some concerns’. Said that the concept plans went out to 1500 nearby residents so the responses represent only a ‘small number’ but he still supports the motion.
HYAMS: congratulated Esakoff and Pilling on ‘their efforts’ for a compromise because both council’s and residents’ concerns are dealt with. Council has in the past removed trees but they will be ‘replaced’ so the place won’t be ‘bare’ and then said that one of the most vocal opponents to removal of trees at Duncan McKinnon had rung him months after they were removed and told him that he ‘was right’ and that the place is improved.
MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
October 16, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Dont yas love the word reasonable. Yup its reasonable for 25 stories an reasonable for balconies everywhere so theres not much setback anymore and reasonable that these no hopers are controlling multi multi millions. The 3 monkeys ain’t got nuthing on Sounness – I see nuthin, I hear nuthin, I know nuthin.
October 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Gotta be scratching your head at Esakoff’s comments on C60. Even though a member of the select C60 approving panel and now a trustee – she really needs to take an objective look at the monster she helped create.
First off there is no explanation of how big the C60 development has become – what was loudly protested by residents was, as per the so called overriding “Incorporated Plan”, for 1200 units and 13 stories on the triangle near the station. The last comment, put out by the MRC to members, mentioned 1500+ units and 20 stories on the triangle – yet according to Esakoff this increase meets the requirements of the incorporated plan – GULP!!!!. She hasn’t made the connection that the development is already at, if not exceeding, it’s upper limits – raising the upper limit higher is not an appropriate solution.
As for her comment on balconies intruding into the public realm as being “common practice” it is pure bullsh*t. It is not – it is anomaly that Glen Eira has allowed to occur (particularly in housing diversity areas) that gifts about $50,000 per apartment to the developer (a no land cost increase in the size of the apartment) and sacrifices the feeling of openness that is extremely important for physical well being in high density areas. Margaret needs get out of Glen Eira more often and check out other municipalities before she starts talking about common practice.
October 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM
Take a look at a block of units on the corner of Hampton St and Marriage Rd in Brighton. Plenty of overhang. Huge balconies. It does happen all around Melbourne. Maybe you need to get out a bit as well.
October 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM
I know the area fairly well. What you don’t acknowledge is that this spot is in a commercial area whereas I remember that in Glen Eira there was a post a while ago concerning overhanging balconies that were in ordinary residential streets. A big, big difference and Bayside would more than likely charge the developer. In Glen Eira it would be a gift and described as “reasonable”.
October 17, 2013 at 10:37 PM
One building in Brighton does not even come close to substantiating the Esakoff’s “common practice” statement.
It also utterly fails to address the issue of the significant impact on public well being that incursions into the public realm have in high density housing areas.
October 16, 2013 at 7:48 PM
I just can’t get my head around why trees are so hated by this council. Noone talks about the cost of this like the removal and then planting and how long it will take for these new saplings to get to a decent height. Everyone else in the state values their assets. Glen Eira council wouldn’t care less, not if they can put more concrete in.
October 16, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Three cheers for the tree hating Green councillors, so the compromise was the story telling bureaucrats get want they want served up by the councillors and the local residents that want to preserve the trees get done over once again
October 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Readers might be interested in the following sentence from a recent VCAT judgement. Please note the Council position in the final sentence –
With regards to landscaping, the site currently contains a series of trees and shrubs as part of the existing garden. Notably, the front garden contains a Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), while the rear garden contains a large Liquidamber (Liquidamber styraciflua) and Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia). Council has offered no objections to the removal of the existing vegetation from the site.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1713.html
October 16, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Greens are now irrelevant thanks to the likes of Pilling, Sounness and Milne. Next Council election and there won’t even be a Greens party and no one will miss them, just like the Democrats.
October 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM
If the Greens keep clearing trees at the rate the bureaucrats keep serving up, people will become irrelevant.
The Greens councillors should know better than to follow the conservatives down the drain of environmental destruction.
I guess they just haven’t got the balls to standup for what matters.
October 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Two major issues before council and each appears to have been dealt with in the most offhand manner. I can’t locate one statement in what’s been posted from the main players like Esakoff that diverges from the respective officers’ reports. I expect much more from councillors. They are not meant to be the mouthpiece of officers yet this seems to be the golden rule for Esakoff and Lipshutz. Some originality of thought would be appreciated and a detailed exposition of why someone votes the way they do would also be most welcome. If all the community has to go on are rehashed officer statements then we could well do away with councillors all together and save hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe then a few more trees and proper attention to those trees might be ensured.