Glen Eira Debates

PS: A reader has sent us the following image which clearly illustrates the woeful traffic situation in Morton Avenue. Please keep this in mind as you read the ‘debate’.

Below is our continuation of the Morton Avenue ‘debate’ aka debacle. Just for the record, we have also gone through the minutes of this new council in order to highlight the hypocrisy, lack of consistency, and sheer humbug that represents planning argument by these councillors. On each of the decisions listed car parking requirements were waived – whether this be onsite resident parking, visitor parking or loading bays, or a combination of all.

ESAKOFF: moved motion for 5 storey, 33 dwellings, 1 shop and a visitor car parking to 4 spaces. Seconded by Okotel. Esakoff didn’t say much except that this was ‘more in keeping’ and that since there’s already a permit for 5 storeys then ‘this was more in keeping’ with the area. On car parking Esakoff stated that this was a waiver of 3 and ‘this was fair’. Moreton Avenue is ‘busy’ so ‘it’s important that onsite visitor parking is provided’ and her motion would make it ‘nearly adequate’.

OKOTEL: even though this is ‘overdevelopment’, 5 storeys is ‘more resonable’ than 6 storeys and with the increased parking requirements and the ‘reduction in dwellings’ that residents ‘in that street’ will be better off.

PILLING: claimed it was ‘ironic’ that in providing more car parking spaces it could be seen as inviting ‘more cars to the area’ and ‘that’s the  opposite of what we probably want’. Went on to say that if people are worried about ‘congestion’ then giving more car parking spaces will only ‘bring more cars in’. Spoke about ‘precedents’ and how other councils have given permits for developments near railway stations minus any car parking provisions. Glen Eira needs to be more ‘flexible’ on this because the result will just be ‘bringing more and more cars’ into these areas ‘which doesn’t help anyone’.

MAGEE: ‘everyone knows’ that in Glen Eira there’s an ‘unprecedented need for housing’ and there are plenty of areas where ‘we struggle to build’ places. ‘We have to supply affordable housing in those areas’ that they think are ‘acceptable’. Said that ‘we’re failing with this motion’ by not accepting the ‘opportunity’ that the site presents. Stated that every time in sites like this if they keep taking off a floor then it ‘reduces the opportunity to maximise not just the investment’ but ‘returns to us the community’. Went on to speak about ‘amenity’ and the impact of 4 more ‘units doesn’t stack up’ to the ‘need for community housing’. Thought that ‘we need to be a little bit braver’ and ‘seize the opportunities in front of us’. ‘It doesn’t get any clearer than this’ and council is ‘missing a great opportunity’ here.

SOUNNESS: said that things are a ‘little bit incongruous’ and ‘wished that we as a council group can form a clear picture’ of what’s the future for these areas because ‘we can’t have dense development and car parks’. Said he saw this happening in other areas like Murrumbeena, Elsternwick etc.

DELAHUNTY: didn’t want the discussion on parking and encouraging users onto public transport be ‘laid to rest’ and that there should be a ‘look at impact on future traffic flow’. There was the need to determine ‘what we want’ things to be like and ‘how we can actually make that happen’. Said that she would ‘bring this up at a later date’.

HYAMS: thought that the issue boiled down to whether visitor car parking ‘encouraged people to drive’ or whether ‘they are just going to drive anyway’. He thought that the ‘reality’ is that people will drive regardless. Therefore ‘incumbent on developers’ to provide parking spots. He’s therefore in favour of visitor car parking because not having this won’t stop people from using their cars. So ‘visitor parking is still important’.

ESAKOFF: didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the building ‘one iota’. Problem is parking and ‘it will be a long time’ before behaviour changes so there’s a need for parking. What will hapen is that with no parking then people will park ‘in the nearest possible’ side residential streets and ‘impact’ on these people’s amenity. She’s therefore ‘trying to avoid that impact on the wider community’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST. Hyams admits that now ‘I don’t know what to do’!!!! Chaos now reigns supreme for about 5 minutes whilst everyone runs around trying to figure out what to do and drafting another motion. At one point Pilling wanted to move the original motion again!

Pilling then moved the motion for 4 car spaces and seconded by Lipshutz. Pilling didn’t speak to his motion at this point.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he voted against first motion because his ‘concern’ is parking.

OKOTEL: asked if they made the application include car parking spaces ‘where would they go’ on the plan?

AKEHURST: basically said that this would force down ‘the number of dwellings’

OKOTEL: asked if the top storey was removed whether the developer would have to ‘reduce the amount of greenery’ around the site and the setbacks?

AKEHURST: said he didn’t think this would happen.

OKOTEL: asked if he thought there would be ‘a reduction in open space’

AKEHURST: the decision is being made on ‘the basis of the plans submitted’ and the conditions imposed would be making one change.

PILLING: this was a ‘compromise’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Here are previous decisions, all taken directly from the minutes. Readers should note the previous comments from Lipshutz and Hyams and how they stack up against the comments represented above! 

127-131 Gardenvale Road (November 27^th 2012) – motion carried. At the time this is what Lipshutz said: 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’. Hyams in turn stated the following: “‘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 

At least on this occasion, Esakoff and Okotel were consistent on their advocacy for visitor car parking.

483-493 Glen Huntly Road (Feburary 5^th, 2013) – Lipshutz and Sounness moved this motion for reduction of car parking, visitor car parking, loading bay, etc. Motion carried. On this one even Esakoff and Okotel voted to accept. 

687-689 Glen Huntly Rd (February 5^th, 2013) – Lobo and Delahunty moved to reject application. Motion lost and subsequently Pilling and Lipshutz moved to accept. Motion carried. 

645-647 CENTRE ROAD (April 9^th, 2013) – Magee and Delahunty moved to accept. Motion carried. 

451-453 South Rd (2^nd July, 2013) – Pilling and Magee moved to accept. Motion carried unanimously. 

261 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH (August 13^th, August) – delahunty and lipshutz moved to accept. Motion passed unanimously. 

674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST (24^th September 2013) Pilling and Okotel moved to accept. Passed unanimously.