Item 9.3: BOLINDA ST APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept officer recommendation to refuse application and Magee seconded.

PILLING: began by describing location – ie minimal change, alongside park – and then went on to say that it’s been rejected because ‘for the last ten years’ council policy has ‘discouraged’ second store dwellings at the rear of properties. Admitted that on ‘corner block(s)’ they allowed such applications but with ‘appropriate setbacks’ and because this was near parkland it shouldn’t have ‘special dispensation’ from policy. Thought the recommendations were ‘appropriate’ since ‘this is contrary to what we’ve tried to achieve’ and ‘sets a precedent’ about houses alongside parks. Therefore ‘we need to try and apply our policy’.

MAGEE: started by saying that the site would have to be ‘rated amongst the top sites’ in Glen Eira. He didn’t ‘think for a minute’ that ‘local amenity’ wouldk be affected but the recommendations are a ‘sensible outcome’ and the ‘simple fact that we do have a policy’ and then the ‘personal view comes into it or it doesn’t’ and the question of whether ‘this is the right thing to do’. ‘It wouldn’t be allowed in the house next door’ or behind so councillors are ‘conflicted’. Overall ‘it’s not consistent without current policy’ and ‘not fair to residents’.

LOBO: called the site ‘an ideal place’ and promised ‘not to bang the table’. ‘I don’t believe that we have not made an exception’. Stated that this ‘looks at the park’ and that there’s another development that ‘looks at the kittens’ and asked ‘what is good – to look at the kittens or look at the park?’. Said that since no objections and ‘residents are happy with neighbours’ he doesn’t see ‘any problem’. ‘Policies, policies, policies – who made them?’ Asked whether these policies were the ‘ten commandments’? ‘Policies can be bent’ but not the commandments. Thought that the recommendations were ‘cruel’.

ESAKOFF: said this was ‘difficult’ and that it ‘should’ be seen as a corner block  and allowed double storey in rear, but on the other hand ‘I don’t necessarily agree with that practice’. There are always neighbours. Said that what complicates this further is the lack of objections. ‘Suggested that to approve this may cause a precedent at VCAT’ but she wasn’t ‘so sure’ about this since it would be seen as a corner block and ‘that doesn’t create an issue at VCAT’. Admitted that the application ‘complies’ with other standards apart form 1m front setback which she thought ‘is no fatal flaw’. Claimed that she didn’t know ‘how I’m going to vote’ so wanted to listen to the debate and ‘vote accordingly’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’. Went on to say that since there weren’t any objections and that it ‘abuts’ open space he would ‘reject’ the recommendations. Foreshadowed another motion on conditions. Reiterated that ‘we have to look at each case on an individual basis’. Said he was ‘concerned’ that council ‘should be adhering to policy’ and that VCAT wouldn’t be impressed if they didn’t stick to policy – but ‘equally VCAT’s record’ is that they ‘look at things individually’ so since VCAT ‘is so all over the shop’ he thinks that ‘no harm is done’ and that it’s ‘appropriate’ to make an exception on this application.

SOUNNESS: said that ‘this is a park’ and council is the ‘custodian’ of such facilities so council shouldn’t set aside ‘the requirements and policy’. Was worried that in the future all properties abutting parks would suddenly ‘bob up’ with two storeys.So this is an ‘uncomfortable precedent to have’.

OKOTEL: agreed that there is policy and it’s ‘important that we do apply our policy’. Stated that you should look at the reasons why there’s specific policies and in this case it was to prevent ‘overlooking’ and ‘visual bulk’. She felt though that the policy ‘doesn’t consider situtions like this’. Thought setbacks could be better but overall when applying policy councillors ‘need to look at the purpose of those policies’ and ‘what we are intending to protect’ so the ‘recommendations perhaps goes too far’.

HYAMS: this is ‘tough one’. Noted that those in favour of policy here weren’t in favour of policy in the previous item (Morton Ave. Thought that the policy on back yard double storeys was ‘pretty black and white’ and it was ‘to protect neighbourhood amenity’. Even though there are no objections, the policy is put in place not just for the ‘current owners of land’ but also for ‘future owners of land’ and if ‘future owners don’t like it, they don’t need to buy it’ and that would answer that argument. Thought in the end that ‘it is appropriate’ and they can’t complain that VCAT ignores their policies and then they do so themselves. But ‘we do need to look behind those policies’ to see the objectives and if amenity isn’t affected then maybe it’s not so bad. And council does put in side by side 2 storeys all over the place, with setbacks anyway. Said he looked at another motion if this one is lost about increasing upper floor setbacks.So since noone is affected here apart from the developer Hyams set that he is ‘going against gut feeling and policy’ and rejecting the recommendations.

PILLING: objections are ‘only part’ of the process and only ‘one consideration’ and besides ‘residents move on, owners change’. Saw this as ‘contravening’ policy and if the application was successful then he didn’t like the idea that this could be seen as ‘special treatment’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

Lipshutz then moved an alternate motion that LASTED LEAST 10 MINUTES IN READING OUT. During his recitation it was literally musical chairs with councillors getting up and leaving chambers. Seconded by Lobo.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to repeat what he’d previously said but the conditions imposed were ‘appropriate’ and looks at overdevelopment in the future.

LOBO: ‘now we are talking’. Said there were residents who sent in photos of brick walls that planners see as ‘visual bulk’ so there’s a brick wall between Renown and Bolinda St. Said that ‘residents were fooled by the real estate company’ in the first motion. Pilling raised a ‘point of order’ at this point on relevance and Lobo responded that the ‘relevance’ is why ‘they put in this application’. Said that the ‘reason I”m standing here is that the house was about to be collapsed’ and that’s why there’s this application since the house is ready to be bulldozed. That’s why ‘the motion’ is ‘fully justified’.

DELAHUNTY: said she would support the motion because it ‘does represent’ a ‘compromise’ and ‘was a hard decision to make’. They have to decide the application and ‘what is acceptable to the area’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that this is ‘a compromise’ and the reason why an application comes in is irrelevant.

MOTION PUT AND LOBO REQUESTED A DIVISION.

IN FAVOUR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams, Magee, and Okotel

AGAINST: Pilling, Sounness.

COMMENT

Ah, the inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and past comments really come back to bite some of these councillors on their backsides. Here are just a few gems from the past, taken from our reports on previous council meetings and councillors’ utterances.Dates provided relate to the dates of our posts.

ESAKOFF : “an application either meets policy or it doesn’t” (March 24th, 2013 )

MAGEE: ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’ (March 24th, 2013)

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme. (March 24th, 2013)

LIPSHUTZ: ..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’…. (June 13th 2012)