Before a packed council chamber of at least 150 people Matthew Guy entered the fray via Twitter following a comment put up during the meeting by the Leader reporter –
What was clearly evident in the farce that took place tonight was the following:
- People power does exert enormous pressure on councillors. If enough people get together, get publicity, and have reasonable and logical arguments then the unshakeable faith in the efficacy of the new zones is tossed out the window. So much for consistency and strength of policy.
- For those groups who haven’t organised themselves or who haven’t garnered enough support, well, they are history!
- Divisions abound within the councillor group highlighted in the most childish fashion by Delahunty’s deliberate speed reading of her request for a report in response to Okotel’s request to have the exact wording since she did not have a copy of the request. Council has indeed descended into Kindergarten Playtime with such antics!
- Council is in damage control – ie they even saw the need to place on every single chair prior to the meeting a copy of the pathetic Akehurst version of reality – ie Item 9.1 on the zones
We will go through each of the pseudo arguments on the applications in the days ahead but for now – just the outcomes and the voting:
Mavho Street – Hyams moved and Lobo seconded to reduce to three storeys and 25 dwellings instead of 4 storeys and 28 dwellings. Pilling was the only councillor to vote against the motion.
Penang St – Okotel and Esakoff moved to reject granting permit. Vote carried with Pilling and Sounness voting against rejection.
Belsize Ave – Hyams and Esakoff moved motion for four storeys and increased setbacks. Motion carried unanimously
Bent St – Okotel and Delahunty moved to increase setbacks. Motion carried unanimously
Hotham St – Lipshutz moved motion for 5 storeys and 57 units. Seconded by Pilling. Motion defeated. Voting against were: Okotel, Magee, Lobo, Delahunty and Hyams. Okotel then put up motion for 4 storeys adn 54 units but no seconder. Delahunty then put up motion for 4 storeys and back to 67 units. Sounness seconded. Motion passed with Lipshutz, Okotel and Esakoff voting against.
Loranne St – Sounness moved and Pilling seconded for 4 storey and 28 units.Motion passed with Lobo and Okotel voting against.
Throughout the evening there was applause plus abuse on the Hotham St application and of course so much predictable humbug and grandstanding from various councillors. It was indeed a night at the circus!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 14, 2014 at 11:47 PM
This was all about Southwick getting his Lib mates on Council to rush through a bad planning scheme without any public/resident input, all to make him look good, and all the other suckers went along for the ride. Its more than pathetic.
October 15, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Tonight was not a 3 ring circus. It was a 9 ring circus and you can guess I reckon what the 9 refers too.
October 15, 2014 at 7:11 AM
Everyone attending last nights meeting and thinking that the motion voted on in the council chamber is what the outcome will be need to be very cautious. Experience has proved that the recommendations of the planning officer included in the agenda have much, much more weight at VCAT than councillor statements in the chamber. In fact, council votes and views are most often disregarded – the administration and councillors know this! The great words in the chamber on Penang Street and Mahvo Street last night were made so that some councillors can appear to be thinking and caring about residents in these growth areas – please don’t be fooled anyone – they don’t care at all – councillors voted for the planning scheme we have! They made all the planning recommendations to the minister. The councillors supported the administration in their strong and long term efforts to shaft the lifestyle and amenity or residents in these zones.
October 15, 2014 at 8:52 AM
This posting is correct, the councilors weep in the gallery, and mock the residents behind closed doors
October 15, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Councillor’s are notorious for voting for stuff in chambers then walking away from it and leaving the Administration in charge. End result is the Administration which via planning officers who recommended the planning permit are the ones that represent Council VCAT. Not good for residents!!!!!!
October 15, 2014 at 5:52 PM
Hey, don’t rain on our parade! Of course you are right about the probability of a VCAT appeal, and things may go the other way, but it is a much much better position to be in than if council had approved the original recommendations. It is always preferable (tactically and from a cost perspective) to be in the position where it is the developer who must seek to overturn the council’s decision, rather than the other way round. I wouldn’t like this gloomy prognosis to discourage others from rallying all the support they can muster to lobby council to get the best outcome they can at council level, thinking they may as well wait for the ‘main course’ at VCAT. The developer also has to assess the cost and risk associated with VCAT affirming council’s decision.
I also wouldn’t be so sure about the weight given to the planning officer’s report at VCAT level, at least for Penang St. There were material errors which arguably undermined the recommendation. Again, reinforcing that it is vitally important for residents to analyse these reports in close detail, and lobby councillors to point out all mistakes and ommissions. Yes its not great that the same officers who recommended the development are now reluctantly required to argue the opposite, but this is why residents can and should stay actively involved in any VCAT proceeding.
One more point, yes, sure there was posturing – but there was a hell of a lot of work done in the background to remind councillors that there are strong VCAT precedents that make clear that black and white compliance with ResCode standards isn’t enough, and they must consider qualitative and site specific issues – and its their job to consider and decide on these things too. Some of this came through in the submissions made by Okotel and Delahunty in particular.
From my perspective, Sounness, Pilling (and the planning officer) were the only ones who still don’t seem to get that planning decisions aren’t black and white, but grey as well, and its their job to consider and decide on the lot. I am frankly more disturbed by what appeared to be Sounness’ reluctance to commit one way or another, just because VCAT might decide differently. Though his mumbling delivery means I’m not really sure what he was saying.
October 15, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Penang St Cheer Squad- You are spot on! We’ve also been advised that it won’t be the planning officer who wrote the report representing the Council at VCAT. This is quite obvious and given the innumerable errors in her report and developer’d submission, the VCAT panel will no doubt be annoyed by their level of ineptness.
October 15, 2014 at 7:30 PM
It is not that simple unfortunately. When council rejects an application and the developer decides to go to VCAT, council must then submit a proposal that it would be willing to accept. Our experience in the past has been that such proposals are generally a regurgitation of what the original planning officer’s report stated. What also tends to make matters worse is that VCAT (quite rightly in some people’s views) pays greater attention to what the so called professionals have recommended, rather than to what a councillor group may have decided when they rejected the application outright.
As for ‘independent’ advice – all well and good. However, even outside ‘expertise’ is hamstrung by what council submits and the planning scheme itself. We reiterate – until councillors see fit to alter the Planning Scheme then residents will always be at a disadvantage.
October 15, 2014 at 8:11 PM
I’m not meaning to rain on your parade – go ahead and enjoy the moment and the results of your hard work. You did a great job in rallying the troops and making the Councillors do a job that they seldom bother to do (even though they are paid for it).
From my experience with going to VCAT – between now and the VCAT hearing the developer and Council (ie. the planning officers only. Under the delegations Councillors have given to the planning officers, Councillors are now out of the loop) can “negotiate” and don’t have to advise the residents of the results until 7 days prior to the hearing. The game is now changing – what was submitted to Council may not be whats submitted to VCAT. Eg. The recommendation for increased setback of X.5 meters may be changed to Y.2 meters which the Council (i.e. officers) considers acceptable.
I’ve been there – the proposal was rejected by Council, the officers negotiated and compromised on most the conditions imposed by Council and the Council’s position at VCAT was the development was now considered acceptable. Me and my fellow objectors were hung out to dry.
My advice to you is keep on top of the planning department and I wish you good luck with that.
October 15, 2014 at 7:15 AM
I attended one of the consultations in 2010 – Funny but I didn’t hear anyone supporting these new zones – I heard people expressing great concern and a desire to see their neighbourhoods protected. Councillors refer to consultation but they wipe aside what people were saying and try to make out community wanted this planning situation. WELL WE DON’T – THOSE OF US IN THE 22% DON’T WANT THIS PLANNING SCHEME.
October 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM
It was absolutely astounding to hear Jamie Hyams get up and say
. that the Minister was keen (i.e. willing to make concessions) to get a Council to implement the zones and
. if Glen Eira hadn’t jumped at the chance and complied they doubt they would have been as successful as they were. Not undertaking community consultation enabled them to get in early.
. what a great job they did and how they had heard what the community wanted (i.e. height limits, transition zones and neighbourhood character) and they got these.
. that anyone who criticises their zone implementation is either politically motivated or unaware of the zones.
There is so much in his comments that is repugnant that it is hard to know where to start, so I’ll keep it brief
. Council and the Minister indulged in political game playing hidden behind a veil of “best planning practice” which it wasn’t. Bad planning has horrendous permanent implications for the community yet political game playing trumped any serious analysis of either the previous zones and what improvements the zones offered. The “direct and neutral translation” unequivocally shows just how much analysis was undertaken.
. Hyams comments on their success re height limit, transition zones and neighbourhood character were made to an audience of 150+ (an astronomic number for a gallery that usually numbers 4 or 5) that were there to tell Council that they had got the detail wrong and Council’s failure to consult them on the detail was an imposition they didn’t want to accept.
. claims of criticism being politically motivated are quite ludicrous given the political games played by Council in both their dealings with the Planning Minister and selling the zones to the community. Equally, the claim of “”unaware” is ludicrous – anyone reviewing the objections to the proposed developments will see that they are based on a detailed knowledge of both the planning scheme and the zones (more knowledge than the Councillors displayed when discussing the various applications).
Despite Council’s claims that this spike in development isn’t related to the zone implementation, residents are becoming increasingly more savvy and simply not buying it. Council have to do better than this.
October 15, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Good on ya Pilling and Sounness for realising that there were insufficient grounds to reject the Penang application.
Now would you continue the good work and make the connection between the insufficient grounds to reject, the zones that you implemented and resident opposition.
October 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Maybe you could explain why the Penang St applications should have proceeded. Both Pilling and Sounness seemed way out of their depth and were unable to articulate themselves to residents and planning experts alike.
You sound like someone who has been spurned!
October 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM
In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything.
With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.
–Abraham Lincoln
October 17, 2014 at 10:46 AM
Concillors and Major should please stop telling us residents, that the new zones have nothing to do with the NEW DEVELOPMENT in the BLUE ZONES (GRowth Zones). The new zones give the developers certainty. 3 Storey apartment buildings proposed were a no-go before. Or how come there is not a single 3 storey apartment block in the Now Blue Zones, which where General Residential before. The government has created a paradise for developers and Realestate Agents. Entire streets are experiencing the Exodus of residents to make room for apartment development. Bent Street, Prince-Edward-Street etc. Just to name a few. When do we stop? When the entire growth zone is built up with apartments and areas are congested with traffic?
Birgitta Winkler
resident of McKinnon
October 17, 2014 at 10:48 AM
HI everyone….
pls sign this petition. So that our housing market and the apartment boom gets back to a normal level.
Toughen the regulations for Foreign Investment in Australia.”
http://www.change.org/p/the-executive-members-toughen-the-regulations-for-foreign-investment-in-australia?recruiter=164362354&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
Can you help this petition win by asking your friends to sign too? It’s easy to share with your friends on Facebook – just click here to share the petition on Facebook.
There’s also a sample email below that you can forward to your friends.
Thanks again — together we’re making change happen,
Simon Hosking