This council has had no qualms in spending tens of thousands of dollars in pursuing Frank Penhalluriack over an alleged boarding house violation that in effect was only in existence for several weeks. It would appear that the same diligence, persistence and consistency of law and principle does not apply to all residents and properties. We are referring to the new application for 8 -10 Springfield Avenue, North Caulfield. What councillors are now being asked to do is grant a ‘retrospective permit’ for an ‘education centre’ and we believe a ‘shared accommodation’ site.
The question of double standards centres on the following:
- If there is a component of this ‘education centre’ that provides a 10 month course and offers ‘accommodation’ for these students (some of whom are from overseas) does this constitute a ‘boarding house’?
- Why has council turned a blind eye to this and not pursued the owner in a manner that is commensurate with the approach taken to Penhalluriack? We refer readers to the boarding house registry where they will find that NO PERMIT exists for this property (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/types-of-rental-agreements/public-register-of-rooming-houses?rs=Glen+Eira+City&sz=20&pg=1&ct=4
- Why does the Ron Torres report not mention the fact that the 10 month course also offers ‘accommodation’. All that we are told is: The intensity of the current version of the proposal has been reduced compared with the previous version that was refused. For example, the 2 week intensive MerkosWomen course will not be offered and a maximum of 10 women will be enrolled in the 10 month course rather than 15. Whilst the maximum number of boys is not proposed to be reduced, the hours of operation will no longer include any Sunday classes. Similarly, there will be no evening classes for the MerkosWomen that were part of the original application.
- Yet, the current website of Merkos Women, makes it absolutely clear that the site provides for live-in accommodation, and according to the VCAT member the 10 month course charges US $12,000!
Participants are provided with beautiful accommodation in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community. The accommodation includes comfortable shared bedrooms, modern formal and informal lounging areas and a large kitchen in which the girls are guided in preparing communal based meals and are given the opportunity to explore the cultural aspect of food preparation. For the hotter summer months, there is a swimming pool and outdoor area.
Source: http://merkoswomen.com.au/general-info-for-overseas-participants
This ‘new application’ is ‘retrospective’. In other words the site has been operating for years without the appropriate permits. And what has council done? Very little it would seem! The earlier VCAT decision even included this admission by Council’s representative (Mr Leary) – Council’s Enforcement Officer having apparently had problems in the past with being granted access on to the subject land. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1157.html)
As to the merits of the ‘new’ application we only reiterate that for years neighbours have complained to council about the operation of this site as a school and they have basically been ignored. Now council proposes to grant a permit despite traffic concerns, and entirely overlooks the question of whether or not the site is in part operating as ‘shared accommodation’. Thus our question of double standards and why the law is not applied equally to all?
Finally, we draw readers’ attention to the following Age/SMH article and especially to the alleged council position as stated in the penultimate sentence – The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2nUskMgpk
Glen Eira Debates 
December 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Well Frank isn’t an Orthodox Jew (not many of us are). The use of the word “retrospective” is a reminder that the Kornhausers haven’t in the past respected the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, but then, few developers do. Looking at the purpose of Neighbourhood Residential Zone, it allows educational uses “to serve local community needs in appropriate locations”. The overseas student element surely doesn’t meet the “local community need” element, and I note that VCAT was dubious about the location being appropriate.
The planning scheme specifies 0.4 car spaces per student, but the new proposal uses a ratio of zero spaces per student! The usual baloney about on-street parking being able to be relied upon is trotted out, despite it very very clearly being against Council policy [and the area has 2-hr parking restrictions, and has to service demand generated by Masada Hospital]. If Council’s Enforcement Officer has had difficulty gaining access for the purposes of assessing compliance with GEPS then the “clarification” about staff numbers should be regarded with some suspicion.
The proposed Permit still doesn’t address the “boarding house or mini-residential college” use identified in the previous VCAT decision. It only talks about use as an educational centre. Shared bedrooms for students rooming there, but no need for a Permit for that use??
Another oddity that violates “Writing Planning Permits” [V2 DSE 2007] is the tying of the use to a particular operator, as if other Orthodox Jews, or heaven forbid, other religions couldn’t operate a small scale educational centre. Perhaps the Kornhausers donated money to a councillor’s election campaign.
December 15, 2013 at 6:28 PM
What a disgrace and a perfect example of “reverse racism”. There is no other religious group that would be afforded such bias, I would love to see a middle eastern Mosque apply for the same conditions on a site next door. What hope would they have?
December 15, 2013 at 7:31 PM
When it comes to substandard this officer’s report sinks to a new low
The school will comprise 15 boys (3 of whom are the applicant’s sons) and 10 young women on a 10 month course and the officer’s report states
“It is considered that noise from children playing in the rear yard of 10 Springfield Avenue will not unduly disrupt the amenity of the local area particularly given that the applicant’s family includes 8 children who would also regularly play in this area.”
Pretty obvious that Ron Torres, the reports author, doesn’t have kids and doesn’t know anyone who does.
December 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Council would have spent close to $200,000 on legal fees in their efforts to firstly get Penhalluriack off council and now to further sully his reputation with this boarding house case. The council lawyers have already shown that they’re not worth the expense when they had to pay over $12,000 for the useless day in court recently. Council keeps persisting though so more money is likely to be wasted on this purely vindictive pursuit.
When it comes to protecting the amenity of residents then council is often nowhere to be found. They keep granting permits to applications and developers who have a poor history in compliance or they issue infringement notices that are never paid and then don’t follow up with court prosecutions. Even sporting clubs get their grounds reallocated despite continual instances of drunken and loutish behaviour.
I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask why this application is favoured despite the failures to abide by the legal requirements and a former councillor, who probably kept asking too many uncomfortable questions for Newton, has been bullied, harassed and pursued all at ratepayers cost.
December 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM
I think your estimate of $200,000 is extremely conservative. As per the recent Leader article, for a half days appearance in a magistrates court Penhalluriack’s costs of $12,000 were awarded against Council because of lack of preparation.. Even if you assume Council’s costs were the same an Pehhalluriack’s, which is a big assumption, thats $24K for a half day. The case has been going on for almost 2 years, aside from this last appearance. there have been number (4?) of other appearances in the magistrates court. Add in all the preliminary work and it really begins to mount. I’d say Council’s costs are rapidly approaching $500k
December 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM
follow the money follow the money follow the money
December 16, 2013 at 1:20 PM
We’re supposed to believe that because the owner has 8 kids that the increase to 35 (or 27 if you discount these 8) won’t make any difference to noise impacts on neighbours. We’re supposed to believe that the additional comings and goings of staff, parents, visitors to Masada won’t be an issue for parking on the street. And we’re supposed to believe that this is all done according to planning law. Well if it is council’s planning scheme then all the more reason for that scheme to be chucked into the bin. Councillors keep talking about how they have to apply THE PLANNING LAW but none of them have ever said let’s look at the law and try and figure out how to improve the thing for residents. They swallow every single half truth that Newton shoves down their necks and ignore the planning scheme altogether. It stays the same and continually gives the green light to inappropriate development and abuses.
December 16, 2013 at 3:13 PM
The school has been operating illegally for a year, the first application was rejected by Council and VCAT and is pending in the Supreme Court.
A second application has been received with minor mods and Council Council now recommends to approval of the application (which saves the applicant $s but has no impact on Council since Council has already agreed not to contest the applicant’s supreme court appeal)
How can this be. It’s easy peasy – just a matter of interpretation.
. You determine that 15 local children and 10 non-local Merkos students fulfills serviing the local needs and takes precedence over any thing else
. You then decide that what defines an appropriate location is proximity to trams. This allows you to ignore the fact that it is on a narrow dead end street that has major traffic and parking issues.
. You confirm that the nearby residential amenity (noise, traffic and parking) is already so dreadful (from Masada and the illegally operating school) that any further adverse impact won’t make much difference.
.You then decide that although the school has been operating illegally for 12 months (and you have done nothing about it) you will resolve the issue by granting a retrospective permit.(and can continue to ignore legalities).
. You also ignore the fact that “shared accommodation” requires a permit.
December 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM
BTW, was it not the toss of the coin Mayor Hyams who said that Pehhalluriack’s boarding house was a ‘death trap’.? Hopefully sooner rather than later someone puts up an applications for Mosque, Temple or Christian churches in Caulfield.
December 16, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Well said Cr Lobo
December 16, 2013 at 10:15 PM
It would be fascinating viewing to see another religious group get their hands on a Jewish application……… And then copy it!
December 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM
Not sure you’ll find much sympathy for the former Council around Glen Eira as his thumping at the last poll amply showed. Despite his considerable expenditure on his re-election campaign.
December 16, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Still polled a lot more votes than Souness even after Newtons campaign.
December 16, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Am afraid you’ve missed the point
. Penhalluriack’s alleged (almost 2 years on and Council has yet to present its case despite about 4 – 5 appearances in the magistrates court) illegal rooming/.boarding house lasted less than 2 months. Cost to Council estimated to be $200 – $500K.
. Kornhauser illegal school operating 12 months, permit rejected by Council and VCAT. Pending Supreme Court hearing/decision. Council agreement with applicant not to contest in Supreme Court. Retrospective permit recommended.
That’s the issue in a nutshell and it smacks of double standards – slinging mud at Penhalluriack is irrelevant to the issue
December 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Perfectly understand the point. Just saying that whether the injustice is perceived or real Frank won’t have too many people in Glen Eira weeping over it.