We report on one planning application from last night’s council meeting. Two others will follow. We ask readers to carefully consider the contradictions from all three sets of arguments; the repeated attempts at gagging free speech, and the basic mistruths that have been uttered time and again.
ITEM 9.4 – TUCKER ROAD
Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded by Pilling.
DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had discussions on this and ‘went over it in great detail’. Application is to amend earlier permit and increase dwellings from 13 to 20. The Bentleigh area is a ‘very popular place to be’. ‘It’s a wonderful place to live’ and those living there are ‘very lucky’. ‘More people want to live there’. Councillors have taken into account objectors’ views but the permit should still ‘be issued’. A 2009 VCAT hearing allowed the 13 dwellings, so there’s ‘been some history’ and subsequently the land has been subdivided and now the application wants to extend the dwellings on the rest of the site. Meets height, mass under GRZ schedule. Parking and traffic is ‘within an acceptable limit‘. Amenity also ‘complies with ResCode standards’.
PILLING: there have been other 5 and 6 storey application in Murrumbeena and this is on a main road and is ‘quite acceptable‘. Development is ‘in the right area’.
HYAMS: councillors have a responsibility to the planning law and not necessarily to ‘what residents would like us to do’ even thought ‘this might be the easy thing to do’. ‘We need to apply planning law’. Said that ‘most of us’ take this ‘very seriously’. He ‘would like’ to refuse but the planning grounds don’t give the option of refusing – especially since the ‘permit that’s already there’. Whilst Tucker Road ‘isn’t a main road’ it is ‘certainly not a side street’. Height is within limits, and setback from front is better than permit granted. Side setbacks ‘aren’t as good as they were but still within acceptable parameter’. Conditions have increased setbacks and by removing study wall that makes it 3 bedroom and therefore more parking spots to be provided. Overshadowing will be the ‘same as current permit’. Regurgitated rest of officers report about waste management plan. etc.
LOBO: referred to Lipshutz saying on the Heritage Amendment (9.3) that ‘officers don’t get it right all the time’.
LIPSHUTZ jumped up with a point of order. ‘I did not say that’. (NOTE: LIPSHUTZ DID SAY THIS!). Claimed that he was ‘misrepresented’ by Lobo.
PILLING asked Lobo to retract comment. Lobo said ‘okay’.
LOBO: Asked why council says that ‘the new residential zones were established to maintain certainty for all?’ Said that ‘experience’ has shown him that ‘developers have more advantage’ than residents and that ‘residents are the downtrodden people in all this decision making’. Said that apart from the minimal change areas, the ‘flood gates have opened up’ and those ‘waiting in anticipation of these new zones have now come out of the woodwork’ and ‘anticipate’ increase and putting in their applications.
HYAMS: sprang up with a point of order saying that the Local Law requires ‘honesty’ in that Lobo is saying that the new zones are letting developments that previously weren’t and ‘we’ve said time and time again that that is not the case’.
PILLING: ‘I agree with’ Hyams and ‘what you are saying is incorrect’.
LOBO: said that he is ‘free for my opinion’.
PILLING: ‘you need to make factual statements’ if you’re speaking on behalf of council. Said that Lobo can ask the ‘director to clarify’ if he wants’.
LOBO: answered that he couldn’t ‘clarify because we have not gone to public consultation’. And ‘because it is a law, I have to agree with this’. Said that ‘internally, Cr Okotel and I did not agree’.
PILLING: told Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.
HYAMS: another point of order that what Lobo was saying about disagreeing with council on the need for consultation that ‘that’s not true either’.
LOBO: ‘it is true. Ask Cr Okotel’.
PILLING: told Lobo that he had already ‘corrected’ him on the information and that he should talk to the application.
LOBO: said that Hyams is ‘interpreting all the time’.
PILLING: again tried to stop Lobo while Lobo kept interrupting and saying that people should be allowed to talk.
HYAMS: said that Lobo is accusing him of ‘racism’.
LOBO: ‘I didn’t say that. I speak 5 languages’.
PILLING: again asked Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.
LOBO: said there is overshadowing. Residents also said that privacy, devaluation of property is no concern to the ‘three tiers of government’. ResCode is ‘simply a joke’ in terms of parking. Said that Guy’s powers were ‘extraordinary’.
PILLING: interrupted again asking that he stick to the application.
LOBO: said that his comments ‘were true’
PILLING: didn’t want discussion on ‘political stance’ but wanted discussion on the application. Lobo kept interrupting and Pilling said that he would tell him to stop unless he spoke about the application. Lobo claimed that Pilling was ‘pre-empting’ what he was about to say. Pilling disagreed.
LOBO: said he had a call from a resident who on talk back radio asked why the zones ‘had been introduced’ and that guy had said ‘it is the fault of the Glen Eira City Council’.
PILLING: again asked Lobo to stick to the application.
LOBO: claimed that all this can be ‘dirty, selfish’
LIPSHUTZ: another point of order and asked Pilling to tell Lobo to ‘sit down’
Lobo then needed a time extension. The motion was put and seconded by Delahunty. On the vote only Sounness and Delahunty voted for time extension. Motion was lost and Pilling told Lobo to sit down.
MAGEE: said that this application only ‘survives’ because it’s on Tucker road which is more than a residential street. The ‘impact before and after’ is ‘minimal’. Shouldn’t condemn developers for wanting to ‘maximise return’ because they also ‘maximise opportunities for families’. Tucker is the ‘entry point’ into Glen Eira because it is ‘most affordable’. ‘If we are to save the small suburban streets’ then this kind of application has to be ‘accommodated’. Although ‘not ideal’ it in the end ‘does comply’. On the ‘positive side’ it gives ‘opportunity’ for families to move ‘into the greatest suburb in Australia’.
HYAMS: said that Lobo had talked about overshadowing and he wanted Akehurst to say whether the overshadowing was ‘worse’ than the current permit.
AKEHURST: said that with the conditions imposed the overshadowing is ‘no greater’ than what the permit allowed.
SOUNNESS: found the application was ‘consistent with good, orderly planning’.
DELAHUNTY: said that objectors should be reassured that the conditions council has imposed ‘protect them from no greater harm’ than the original permit. Said that ‘people have to live somewhere’ and that we ‘can’t prejudge what type of people might move in’.
MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM
Hard to make up my mind which is the most appropriate response to this shambles. Howls of laughter would suit, as would buckets of tears over what characters we’ve elected. Biggest disappointments – Delahunty, Pilling and Magee.
September 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM
WOW!! Way to go Cr Lobo!! For those who get stuck into him because of what he may or may not have done or voted for in the past, I think what matters is what he is saying and doing now. He may have all sorts of motives, some personal, some altruistic – but I don’t think that anyone should underestimate the behind the scenes flak he must be experiencing because he is prepared to be outspoken and break ranks. He is probably committing career suicide with whatever political party he is aligned to by doing this and that’s not an easy thing for anyone with political ambitions to do. I don’t envy him walking the corridors of GECC today.
In the end, don’t all of us want GECC to reverse / reconsider their positions from last year? No good waiting 2 years for next election and booting them out, bearing in mind most of the 80% will think the current regime is just fine (or not give a toss one way or other).
If more councillors were prepared to break ranks and speak up publicly, we might actually get somewhere. IMHO, let’s not look backwards and criticise any of them for past conduct, but encourage and support ANY of them who are prepared to speak up publicly. Who knows, maybe more might break ranks and support residents if they feel the momentum swinging against them.
PS What utter nonsense to blame it all on the ‘planning law’ as if it was some external third force they had nothing to do with! It is THEIR planning schedule, prepared by GECC and approved by Matthew Guy, without community consultation or public notice (until after the fact).
To any GECC officers or councillors who may be reading this forum, please, please stop insulting ratepayers’ intelligence by regurgitating the two most irritating “sound bites”:
1. That community ‘consultation’ in 2002 and 2010 = consultation in 2013 / 2014
2. That the height controls are for our ‘protection’ – if that were so, why has there never been before been a 3+ story, high density apartment building, in the quiet suburban streets of McKinnon, Bentleigh and Ormond?
At least brief your PR / communications people to try a little harder to come up with some half-way believable spin, or shock horror, maybe even call things as they really are. Now that would be a novel approach!
September 24, 2014 at 2:01 PM
When the zone implementation was announced, it was clearly stated that planning permits granted prior to the date of zone implementation (23/8/2013) would be assessed under the former Housing Diversity/Minimal Change Policy and that permits lodged post implementation would be assessed under the Zones.
This is an amended application that was clearly lodged under the old system and decided upon by determined by VCAT in 2009.
Jamie Hyams current favourite saying of “nothing can be built now that couldn’t be built before” falls flat on its arse (as it should always have done).
The implications for permits, granted prior to 23/8/13, is humungous. Council has admitted it has no clue about (and even less interest in) permit extensions. Land banking with permits has been going on big time for years in Glen Eira. Just look at this one, granted in 2009 and yet to be built in 2014.
This decision opens the floodgates for any permit granted prior to 23/8/2014 to apply for an amendment to expand up to the maximum heights permitted by the zone implementation.
Will it also mean, that permits granted in NRZ which exceeded 2 storeys and 2 dwellings will now be reduced. Not bloody likely.
These Councillors don’t have a clue – no wonder that even they don’t listen to themselves.
September 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM
How anyone could think that going from 13 dwellings to 20, with three double storeys already built isn’t going to have an impact is just beyond me. Magee’s statements should be shot down in flames. The developer hasn’t even tried to “maximise” his property for families. It was a condition put on by council to get around the parking shorfall where they decided that a study could be turned into a third bedroom and therefore up the number of required car parks. I can imagine the size of this third bedroom! Developers wanted two bedroom places and that is it. Not what Magee is saying that their objective is to provide diversity for families.
Delahunty is another one who has joined the ranks of the developers. Bentleigh will no longer be such a wonderful place to live when these cheap nasty places turn into our future slums. I drive around and see pieces falling off the sides of buildings that were only put up a few years ago. Rendering is terrible and everything looks dirty and run down in such a short space of time.
I’m very curious why a permit that goes back for so long can be referred to as “current”. It should have expired by now and the applicant forced to put in an entirely new application and not an amendment. I’d also like to ask Delahunty what she means by “acceptable limit” and whether not being able to get out of the driveway is acceptable.
There’s a lot more I could say about this post but it leaves me shaking my head and wondering why certain councillors can get away with what would appear to be their usual lawyer tricks of “misrepresentation” or pulling the race card when it suits. If the post is correct and Lipshutz did say what he is alleged to have said, that means that like Hyams previously with the whinging bitch business, he has lied. Pilling would be a far better mayor if he happened to read the local law and the meeting procedures and give reasons why he supports these people to the hilt. No explanation looks like it was given for any of his decisions and that says a lot about the way proper governance doesn’t work in Glen Eira.
I’m not excusing Lobo either. He should have spoken out in public well before the zones were brought in if he was so opposed to the lack of consultation. The same could be said for Okotel.
September 24, 2014 at 3:44 PM
It was highly inappropriate for this massive redesign to be done as an Amendment rather than an application for a new Permit. I agree the previous permit should have expired by now, based on Kantor criteria. Wonder why councillors were silent on this. Also, the new proposal doesn’t comply with Council policy or its Planning Scheme. Having only 1- and 2-bedroom dwellings fails the test for diversity of dwellings.
Had the application been for a new Permit rather than an Amendment, I hope Council would have been more careful in its assessment. I’m very suspicious of the leading question put to Jeff Akehurst about overshadowing, rather than verifying the proposal complies with the prescriptive standards in the Scheme. As it stands there is no evidence the proposal complies. It isn’t good enough to rely on past VCAT decisions. VCAT doesn’t represent anybody, isn’t accountable to anybody, and doesn’t have an established mechanism for Quality Assurance of its decisions. A decision dating back to 2009 has passed its use-by date.
The reliance on GRZ1’s height limit of 10.5m is inflammatory. Prior to councillors secretly deciding to change zoning without consultation, there was a 9m height limit. If every development in the area in the future is 10.5m then there won’t be any visual interest from graduation in height either. There are supposed to be structure plans to define the preferred character for these areas of higher density. GRZ1’s prescriptive standards aren’t a substitute. When will Council do the additional “strategic work” it has been promising for 10 years?
The proposal doesn’t comply with the design standards for carparking [52.06-8], particularly Design Standard 1 Accessways. Our decision-makers were silent on this too. Why do they give so little thought to pedestrian safety?
Reference to “Planning Law” is misleading. The Law says the RA can grant a permit; grant a permit with conditions; refuse to grant a permit on any grounds it thinks fit. There are matters it “must” consider, such as the Planning Scheme. There are a few mandatory constraints on the decision. That’s about it. GECC wasn’t compelled to grant the Amended Permit.
The behaviour of councillors continue to deteriorate, especially those of Crs Pilling, Lipshutz and Hyams if the report is accurate. Continually interrupting a councillor when they have the floor is a violation of Local Law. Cr Hyams failed to identify which of the 5 grounds he was relying upon when raising points of order, so it is poor form for the Mayor to uphold them and then fail to give reasons—Local Law requires the Mayor to give their reasons.
September 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM
Ahhh Dela, why oh why did we elect her…
September 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM
Political ambition overarches all. Council is nothing more than a stepping stone to state parliament. Pre-selection depends on winning friends and influencing people. It doesn’t hurt to have on your cv that Elsternwick park, Gisborne St and a few other little pocket parks all going into Elsternwick and nowhere else was due to yours truly. As for the rest of Glen Eira? Well that doesn’t get votes and accolades in Camden. Could be useful to ask her what else Newton promised in order for her to be a good little girl and go along with the gang?
September 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM
Whatya know. Magee gives a stuff about small streets. Can’t wait for his vote on Penang.
September 24, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Dear Mr Evans
Thank you for your comments.
As I said before, I do read the Glen Eira Posts and if necessary I respond.
I heard people saying they do not read this blog and I am happy to take their word as it is not my business. I am not found of narrating fairy tales, as I stand in what I believe and if I am defeated in the chambers during debates I do not and have not mentioned Local Law including Code of Conduct in the Council and my behaviour dealing with our residents. I consider integrity and honesty and I do not use it negatively when I am cornered. Our lives are based on Character. Whilst you may be right in your judgement “ I’m not excusing Lobo either. He should have spoken out in public’ well before the zones were brought in I wanted consultation but was out numbered in the name of democracy. As you know, patience is the mother of virtue but patience has its limit.I am reminded here of the saying ‘Beware the fury of a patient man’
When the residential zones came to the Council they came as a law because the Ministers of Planning is given a carte blanche authority to build anything and everything wherever he/she wants..
Yes, I did not have the foresight of the effect on residential zones on our residents. I have seen with my own eyes after the implementations of the new zones, the plight of the residents as I was called to the residence homes even by those that do not come under Tucker Ward and saw them in the planning conference full of anxiety not knowing what is going to happen to their only asset i.e. house on which they have spent their life savings.
I was told that it was a law from the Minister and not being well to do; I could not challenge the law and had no alternative but go along.I am sure you will appreciate the saying ‘How big is a piece of string’ and in my judgement I used scriptures now that says ‘The truth will set you free’.
Hope this explains your statement.
September 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM
Dear Cr Lobo,
thank you for your comment. If you could please explain and answer the following, I am sure that our readers would appreciate it –
1. You state that it is ‘law’ that the Minister brought down. Could you please explain why many other councils saw fit to introduce anything from 4 to 13 GRZ zones?
2. Do you think it is ‘adequate’ that the Glen Eira Housing Strategy has not been reviewed since 2002?
3. Did you personally have discussions with the Minister, or relied exclusively on what was reported back by officers and Cr Hyams?
4. Do you believe that such far reaching and important decisions should be conducted in secret, behind closed doors and without any community consultation?
5. Do you believe that residents are now far worse off following the introduction of the new zones?
6. Do you believe that residents should be subsidising drainage infrastructure around new developments since council has removed its development contributions levy?
7. Do you believe that the governance of this council is in accord with current legislation at all times?
8. And the most important question – are you prepared to rescind the current Amendment C110 and start all over again with full community input?
September 26, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Dear Author of Glen Eira blog.
I will answer your questions to the best of my ability and my views are personal.These answers are not on behalf of the Council.
1. I wish I could answer/explain what others decide and the manner of their decision. I am one of nine at Glen Eira. That is how democracy works.
2. This question can be better answered by the Mayor who represents the Council and being elected by the majority of the Councillors.. It’s content is probably more important than its age.
3. Someone had to report back to the Council. One has to be sensible about these things.
4. Before making any decisions that may impact our residents, I believe one needs to go to the people (who have put us in the position of trust) for community consultation.We do this as required. The talk of secrecy and conspiracies is off the mark.
5. As I commented, it was a Rude Awakening for the residents as they were not prepared for these new residential zones. I personally saw the distressed look on the residents when we as Councillors were asked to meet the residents. As recent as 2 weeks ago, the residents of Penang street called the Mayor and I for a meeting in this street. I did not hesitate to go even though Penang street is in Rosstown Ward. I was taken aback from an anonymous post that I am only interested in getting votes. One has to prove that one is genuinely interested in the residents and not wait during elections to knock on the door and promise the world to them. As I said the 20/80 rule applies here.
6. This is an obvious question. Taxation is all about spreading and apportioning revenue. I believe that it is a sign of a civilised country.
7. You will need to address this question to the Mayor through proper channels.
8. Not without substantial reasons for doing so. If you have substantial reasons, please let me know them. There are also other Councils who seem to think Glen Eira has got it correct. It can be very confusing can’t it?
Thank you.
September 24, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Surely Cr Lobo if you were outnumbered “in the name of democracy” there would be a record of it in Council’s Minutes—it would be highly inappropriate for such a decision to be made in an Assembly of Councillors. The record of the meeting between Cr Hyams, Mathew Guy, advisors and Department on 25 July 2013 states unambiguously the views of “Council”, without a vote to verify they were Council’s views. Only now it emerges that at least 2 councillors disagreed with the changes being made unilaterally. It has always been the case that the changes weren’t neutral. We’re now seeing applications for developments that previously were discouraged.
You are dealing with ruthless and ethically-challenged colleagues. On planning matters my advice is to quote relevant sections from policies and the Planning Scheme in support of your views; insist on compliance with standards and policies; fight for their tightening wherever they are underspecified or easily abused; challenge your colleagues to spell out what they mean when they use vague, nebulous terms such as “well-served”, “appropriate”, “generally acceptable”; treat any VCAT decision that varies a Permit in favour of a developer as seriously as a plane crash in which you explore ways to regain democratic control of the outcomes affecting our community; and insist on fairness. Fairness is supposed to be a key Objective of Planning in Victoria.
September 24, 2014 at 6:16 PM
Cr Lobo, I’m not shying away from my previous comments. I still believe that if you and Cr Okotel were so opposed to the new zones that you should have spoken out earlier. It’s been over a year now and if you are only realising the repercussions now then either you and others were not on top of the proposed changes or officers mislead you. Neither possibility does you or council any credit I think.
September 25, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Actually, I don’t dispute Councillor Lobo’s claim that he spoke against implementing the zones without consultation with at least one Councillor – it could well have happened.
What however this claim does indicate is how rotten to the core the decision was to implement without consultation and that all Councillors were complicit.
Documentation is emerging indicating that Council (CEO Newton, Director of Planning Akehurst and then Mayor Jamie Hyams) was presenting a case against consultation to the Minister as early as May, 2013 . Residents had been asking specific questions on the consultation issue both directly to individual Councillors and formally as public questions to Council prior to May and right up to the time of the Zone announcement (5/8/2013). Those questions always received a “yet to be determined” response. Lobo’s comments, confirm that Councillors behind closed doors were well aware of the lack of consultation and knowingly flouted the Local Law that requires that such a decision be discussed and approved at a full and open Council Meeting prior to the implementation.
The decision to approve the zone implementation was made in retrospect (announced 5/8/2013, Council approval 23/8/2013). The accompanying Council Meeting verbage included
. much praise for the planning department
. “direct and neutral translation”
. substantial planning review undertaken in 2010 = Council knows what people want
. couldn’t achieved a better outcome even if we had consulted.
Not one Councillor questioned the fact that the 2010 Review was based on woefully inadequate growth predictions (144,000+ in 2026, which had were already reached 141,000 in 2014 or that the predicted dwelling growth rate 500 pa was out the window before the ink dried). That
such out of data required a dramatic review of the zones (boundaries and definitions) to ensure that the growth provided in the zones was met with associated Council infrastructure (drainage), amenity measures (in particular traffic and parking, open space) and the consensus approval of fully informed community.
When the vote for retrospective approval was passed, only two Councillors (Delahunty and Okotel), prior to casting their vote to approve, mentioned, almost in passing, that they would have preferred more consultation.
September 24, 2014 at 11:25 PM
Is Lobo “right or wrong”, can you now build things now, that could be build before the changes? This has to be the crux of the matter, truth or lies.
September 25, 2014 at 9:06 AM
I’ve read the AG’s scathing assessment of the Racecourse Trustee’s Management and I’ve been comparing it to Council management of the Municipality.
The Trustee’s have failed to set up the required functional rules and regulations (a.k.a. good governance requirements) and the end result is an appalling shambles that favours the MRC’s vested interests at the expense of the community.
On the other hand, although Council has the required functional rules and regulations, Council (Administration and Councillors) continually flouts them. The end result is an appalling shambles that favours the goals of the unelected administration and the vested interests of developers at the expense of the community.
In both cases, there is a long history of repeated failings that will/can not addressed unless a complete change of management and culture is made.
September 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM
From the Leader –
Glen Eira residents gather to oppose high density plans
Andrea Kellett
September 25, 2014 12:00AM
RESIDENTS fighting mass development plans in Glen Eira’s residential streets near shops and public transport are making their voices heard.
About 50 people attended a council planning conference on Monday to voice and hear objections against a planned three-storey apartment building in Penang St, McKinnon.
It is one of the largest planning conference turnouts in years, behind the Caulfield Village conference held earlier this year, and comes amid concern Glen Eira’s landmark new planning zones are eroding some of the city’s best streets.
For more than 90 minutes residents spoke against a proposal they say will destroy their family friendly neighbourhood and “swallow’’ up their small leafy street.
IS THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATE IN GLEN EIRA? TELL US BELOW
They want a rethink, they want protection and they are angry.
Penang St is now zoned General Residential, where higher density residential development up to three storeys is encouraged.
The meeting heard from the daughter of a 94-year-old retirement village resident who said her elderly mother’s living area, where she spends most of her time, would face the building.
It heard from long-time residents arguing their family street already lacked parking and those who said the zone was the “thin edge of the wedge’’.
Cr Jim Magee, who chaired the meeting, said it was one of the biggest planning conferences he had seen.
“I certainly went away with a sense that this is a serious issue to these people,’’ he said.
“Are we expecting a flood of these? Yes.’’
The development received 47 objections and the council expects it will go to the October 14 meeting for a decision, along with other permit applications for multistorey developments in predominantly single storey streets.
September 25, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Surely it must be clear by now that Lobo is only interested in vote getting. He will say anything to anyone to get their vote. The man is (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). See him for what he is.
September 26, 2014 at 7:12 AM
The Council elections are in 2016. Why on earth would someone be interested 2 years in advance? You make no sense. Remain in the closet.