The 2010 Planning Scheme Review promised the following actions on heritage :
- Heritage review of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land
- Include draft heritage guidelines as reference documents in scheme
- Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements
None of these ‘promises’ have eventuated three years down the track. Glen Eira still languishes under ‘reviews’ and ‘strategies’ that date back to 1996. Given that there are many ‘heritage’ properties currently in Housing Diversity areas, we fear for the future given the inability of this council to actually get its planning scheme in order so that it does protect what it’s supposed to.
Below are some extracts from a recent VCAT decision which illustrate why residents have cause to ask what this council has actually done in the last 15 years except pave the way for developers?
- Importantly, the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document does not form part of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and has therefore not been subject to the transparent scrutiny and comprehensive assessment that is an essential part of modifying the planning scheme through the formal planning scheme amendment process. This document has been in existence for over ten years and Council has never sought to include it in the planning scheme by undertaking this process.
- The document which has been subject to the scrutiny and rigour of the planning scheme amendment process is the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan prepared by Andrew Ward & Associates in 1996. This document is formally identified as a reference document in Clause 21.10 of the planning scheme. It is this document which I am bound to consider as part of my deliberations. Because the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan is the relevant reference document, I have not given any weight to the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document in my assessment and findings.
I find that the demolition of the subject building is acceptable as it will not have a detrimental impact on the significance of the heritage place (that is, on the significance of the area identified by the Heritage Overlay No. 75) as:
- It is not identified as a ‘contributory building’ in the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan;
- It has been identified as a ‘building defaced’ in the Andrew Ward Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan;
- Mr Bick’s evidence confirms that this assessment is correct, and this has been confirmed by my site visit; and
- I have not given any weight to the Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines July 2002 document for the reasons already provided.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2136.html
Glen Eira Debates 
December 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM
The explanation Council has provided in the past when something promised doesn’t happen is that it’s “not a priority”. Now that the next review of the Planning Scheme is imminent it is time to revisit everything that Council didn’t do and refused to do last time. As the eventual report makes clear, most of the community input was misused to justify what council staff wanted. If the community didn’t utter something that could be so bent, then the recommendation was to “review” those matters internally, away from public scrutiny. This included pretty much the entirety of the Municipal Strategic Statement. Council of course endorsed the report unanimously [with a messy pair of motions to work around Cr Esakoff’s interest in a property in a “significant character area”].
December 30, 2013 at 6:52 PM
It makes me nauseous to read VCAT decisions. The dyslexic Member [Tracy Watson] uses the very odd expression “underling” in the justification for her decision. It’s hard to believe that the order to give the developer everything they asked for is really the “conclusion” as alleged: it appears the decision was first made, then justification sought. Only a “rivet-counter” [model railway enthusiast subspecies] would be so preoccupied by the replacement of rotten sash windows in a California Bungalow. Now that the decision has been made to replace the poor building with something incongruous, the sensible thing is for Council to remove the Heritage Overlay from that corner of the precinct, especially as the replacement clearly adversely affects the significance of the heritage place. In the future I expect we’ll see more decisions like this, maybe citing TV antennae as “proof” of degradation.
December 30, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Council (Esakoff and the gang) didn’t succeed – the independent planning panel slammed Council by shooting down every argument presented (including ignoring ratepayer funded heritage adviser reports recommending retention of heritage listing).
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mayors-husband-lobbied-on-heritage-listing-20110817-1iy85.html
December 31, 2013 at 3:29 PM
If a Government introduced a law that retrospectively penalised you I bet you would scream. One would have to be a financial idiot not to complain. The value of Esakoff’s investment has decreased. When a property is sold it comes with a section 32 that reveals all about the property. It is unlawful not to disclose heritage overlays where they exist. The fools at the Glen Eira Council made a mistake. Not an anomaly, a mistake. Because of their mistake Esakoff loses property value. The Councillors could see the unfairness and you would like to think would have set out to protect any property owner in the City in a similar way. In the end it was dealt with and they lost their case. Fair enough. The heritage merits of the property were never questioned. It was the process. In fact one of the flats is now painted a non heritage colour. Is the council going to take action and fine the owner for breaking the law. Hardly not as the owner didn’t know there was a heritage overlay when he painted it. What would have happened if Esakoff had modified the property later to learn that it had an overlay. Would the Council chase them down and insist on full restoration? I am pleased that people that take a view of the law as yourself do not end up as a judge.
December 31, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Perhaps you should read the independent planning panel report.
http://dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/shared/ats.nsf/WebViewUniqueID/9897f73734f3d1d3ca257844007e6e49?OpenDocument&G&Glen%2520Eira&Gannawarra%252CGlen%2520Eira%252CGlenelg%252CGolden%2520Plains%252CGreater%2520Bendigo%252CGreater%2520Dandenong%252CGreater%2520Geelong%252CGreater%2520Shepparton&Click=CA256DC800080C18.476caac79d318ee2ca256dee001434f7/$Body/0.2C98
December 31, 2013 at 6:44 PM
State Governments do from time to time introduce retrospective penalties. It’s generally immoral and unethical to do so, but that doesn’t stop them. It’s also irrelevant to the Esakoff matter concerning HO114.
Their property was covered by a Heritage Overlay, and they should reasonably have known that to be the case. The Overlays are defined by maps, their property was shown in the relevant map as being covered by HO114. There was an inconsistency in the description of HO114 in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, but a property report would still disclose the Overlay. It cannot reasonably be said that they lost money because of the anomaly. It is counterfactual even to claim that there is a loss. Nor is reduction of property values a relevant consideration in planning matters. Other, less special, residents suffer at the hands of Council for decisions they have little input into.
Your assertion that the heritage merits of the property were never questioned is patently false. Council’s advocate at the panel hearing did indeed question the heritage merits despite having 6 expert reports all disagree with Council’s position. Cr Lipshutz also argued in a Council meeting that the property should be removed from the heritage overlay, relying on his own “expert” opinion about the architectural merits. The panel report was damning about Council’s position, as Council failed to produce any expert evidence to support its position. There went several more thousands of dollars down the drain.
Your comment that one of the flats is “now painted a non heritage colour” and implying this is “breaking the law” suggests you haven’t read the Planning Scheme. Take note that the intersection of the column labelled “External Paint Controls Apply?” and the row for HO114 in the Schedule contains “no”.
Frankly a Heritage Overlay isn’t the same as heritage protection. It adds additional, weak [discretionary], criteria that decision-makers are free to ignore when considering a planning application. If the Esakoffs can’t get what they want out of Council, they have VCAT to fall back on.
December 31, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Once any overlay is put on a property the market shrinks. This is a natural law. People lose money. It was a mistake that never should have happened.
January 1, 2014 at 11:42 AM
The right decision was made in the end. Good lesson for any Councillor trying to abuse their position. Time to move on.
January 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM
I think she has one more term as mayor. She does a great job.
January 3, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Actually, she is well past her use by date – over 10 years as a Councillor (once sacked) and 3 terms as Mayor. It’s time bring in new blood with fresh ideas and stop recycling the old ones
January 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM
But recycling the oldies is the Glen Eira way. Newtons been there 15 years and receives another 5 years, Gibbs and McLean been there 20 years and will be extended. Jobs are til death in Glen Eira, with no consideration as to performance or governance…and the only way it will ever change is for a coup to overthrow the evil empire of the gang.