Hyams moved to accept the Akehurst report on the new zones ‘as printed’. Sounness seconded.
HYAMS: began by quoting the figures on the influx of new people to Victoria and that ‘obviously they need to go somewhere’. Said that the zones were introduced in 2013 and that Glen Eira had its minimal change/housing diversity from 2003 and that was after ‘at least two years of consultation’. ‘The new zones exactly mirror the old zones’ ‘except for one property in North Caulfield’. Claimed that all that is different is that because of the schedules council has ‘increased the protection to any resident who lives in those zones’ (ie Residential Growth, General Residential Zone and Urban Villages). Repeated that the there’s nothing that developers couldn’t do before. Gave example of an old application in Mavho street that council refused but it went to VCAT and got a permit. But what might have got built before ‘now can’t be built’ because of the height restrictions. Also said that even though there’s a height limit that doesn’t mean that everything will be built ‘to that height’. Therefore there are plenty of developments that previously got permits but now they wouldn’t with the new zones and that includes the RGZ and GRZ zones. Went on to say that there are lots of people blaming the zones for all the new applications but that’s not true because ‘Carnegie has had this sort of stuff going on for a while’ and the same holds for Murrumbeena and Elsternwick where an 8 storey building went up. So all this was happening before and even though ‘they have accelerated’ it isn’t ‘because of the new zones’. But it’s only ‘now that they have reached Bentleigh’ and he thought that it was ‘inevitable that they have spread out from the centre’.
Referred to the argument that council should have ‘consulted’ before ‘bringing in the new zones’. But council wanted to ‘achieve the best possible results’ for the municipality , Claimed that in ‘all’ the discussions with the government it was about ‘convincing them not to expand the high density zones’ and even though they might have wanted to make them smaller ‘no government from either side’ would allow this ‘no matter how much we consulted’. Said that ‘I haven’t heard anything from the ALP on the new zones’ so Labor has ‘no interest in challenging or changing those zones’.
Admitted that post zones there was criticism but this came from the ‘development industry’ about how restrictive the new zones were. Quoted various sources. So by ‘getting in early’ council was ‘able to achieve these height limits’ and ‘other councils haven’t been so lucky’ and Kingston has had their 13.5 metre height limits ‘preferred’ and they are ‘not absolute as they are here’. Government now looks like it’s ‘leaning’ towards higher limits so Glen Eira has ‘done very well’. Thought it was important that people understood the zones and not what some people are saying about ‘encouraging sales’.
SOUNNESS: Said that the report is ‘brief’ but identifies that there are opportunities for development but also ‘tools’ to ‘limit inappropriate development’. Sadly they ‘have to allow development to take place somewhere’ like urban villages and close to transport.
DELAHUNTY: wanted to ask Akehurst a question because the report was basically about neighbourhood residential zones and there were plenty of people ‘here’ who are facing applications not in the residential zones. So she wanted Akehurst to explain how those zones came about and what they mean.
AKHURST: admitted that the paper he wrote was basically about the Neighbourhood Residential Zone but that there are other zones. Said that the Mixed Use Zone is common to all councils and is determined by the government as is the Commercial zones. Neither have height limits and the commercial zones have different uses and explained how these changed with the introduction of the zones.
LOBO: said that height limits ‘sounds good’ but that it is ‘an umbilical cord to the residential zones’. Hyams explained ‘nicely’ how the zones had been ‘transcribed’ from the old zones but in the old zones with minimal change and housing diversity ‘councillors had the option of either accepting or refusing’ as they did with 32 Mavho street where council refused and vcat gave the permit. Said that VCAT doesn’t always ‘get it right’. Said that there is ‘certainty’ but that ‘this certainty is for the builders’ and for ‘real estate agents’ both of whom are ‘laughing to the bank’. (applause). Said that residents vote councillors in and that their role is to uphold what it says on the front of every agenda. Read out the blurb about working in the best interests of residents. Said that he recognises that Ministers have been given ‘carte blanche’ about planning but that ‘we should have gone to consultation’ and at ‘least give a chance’ to people. Said that ‘I asked for it’ and that he ‘voted to be part of the team’ when he was ‘deputy mayor’ and he now thinks ‘I have done wrong’ and ‘mea culpa’. Thought that ‘now we have to do something about it’ and for the next government to ‘do something to repair this damage’. (applause)
OKOTEL: ‘acknowledged’ what Hyams said about ‘direct translation’ of what was there before. However her position was that instead of ‘simply adopt policy’ that ‘council should have engaged in community consultation before making a submission to the planning minister’. (applause) This was because the consultation goes back to 2003.
ESAKOFF: point of order that ‘when I asked about consultation’ she was told that it wasn’t 2003 but 2010.
PILLING: said that the review of the Planning Scheme was in 2010. Said there were 2 consultation: one in 2003 and the last in 2010.
OKOTEL: said that she ‘didn’t feel comfortable’ about not consulting but that she notes that the new zones’ do preserve 78% of the municipality’ and that she does support the report and its comments that ‘compared to other councils’ that Glen Eira’s ‘protections’ are far more than these other councils. But she is also ‘sympathetic’ to the remaining 22% of the municipality ‘which don’t have those protections’ and ‘weren’t invited for consultation’. Even though there are the new zones council still has to ‘refer’ to its policies that ‘require us to look at’ things like Neighbourhood Character. Read out part of a VCAT judgement on an application for Prince Edward Avenue where the member rejected it and said that in terms of Neighbourhood Character it didn’t fit the street even though it was zoned for medium density. Okotel then went on to say that even though there are height limits council still needs to consider policy.(applause)
DELAHUNTY: said she was ‘confused’ about what’s going on. Referred to Hyams and his views about Labor. Said that Brian Tee has made a public statement on the zones and so has the current Labor candidate Nick Staikos who was in chamber. Said that there were ‘conflicting views’ ‘around this table tonight’ and that she was ‘confused’. Said that when they ‘discussed going to consultation’ on the zones and ‘bringing them in quickly’ and ‘with some certainty’ she was ‘certainly on the side of some public consultation’ and ‘I thought I was very much alone there but I’ve got some friends tonight’. Said that the information she got was about the consultation of 2010 and that ‘the arguments’ that were put up then ‘won me over’. Said that in 2010 people wanted ‘height limits and they wanted certainty’. So if the community ‘hasn’t changed’, with the new zones she thought that they were giving people what they had asked for. Post the new zones at a public forum held by LARGE she thought it would be a ‘good idea’ for council to have some public meetings to explain the zones and she remembers ‘being friendless at that time too’. So ‘I am very confused about the sentiments’ being expressed tonight. Wants sensible decisions on the applications before council tonight and hoped that the group could do that. ‘We have to be very careful about saying one thing inside and another thing outside’.
PILLING: supported Hyams and said that ‘these are the correct analyses’. Reminded councillors that ‘this was a unanimous decision a year ago’. The time ‘was to speak out and vote then’ so ‘trying to rewrite history now is a bit rich’. Repeated that it was ‘a unanimous decision fully supported by every councillor here’. Said that 97% of the municipality is protected except for the commercial zones by height limits and Glen Eira is probably ‘the only council in Victoria to have that’. Said that council had been ‘vilified’ by developers and academics but when ‘you get attacked’ by these people then ‘you’ve got the balance about right’. The zones have ‘restricted development into certain areas’. Thought that over time there would be ‘less intense development in these areas’. Said that in Murrumbeena they were applying for 5 storeys and above but now ‘you can only get four’. Repeated Hyams’ words about taking a while to get to Bentleigh but it was inevitable that it would also ‘happen in those areas as well’. Thought that council had done ‘the right thing by the community’ and that ‘we should stand by that decision’. Said that other councils are struggling and that for many it’s a ‘mess’. Said that they had given protection and that it’s something that council ‘should be proud of’ ‘I certainly am’.
Calls from gallery ‘’There’s no democracy’
HYAMS: their aim was to get ‘the best result’. Said that they could have ‘consulted until the cows come home’ and could ‘have gone to the government with anything’ and they would have knocked it back. If they had gone to consultation they ‘would have taken so long to get around to it’ that ‘other councils’ would have got in before them to show how ‘great they were’. If council had waited then ‘we would have got the deal that Kingston or Bayside’ got with ‘larger residential growth zones’. Even though people mightn’t like it ‘we got you the best deal’ and that was by ‘putting popularity’ aside unlike other councils who tried to be popular. He prefers ‘sticking to our decision’ and ‘acknowledging’ that they did the ‘best we could’. Said that in 2010/2011 there was consultation about the whole planning scheme and the results were that people wanted neighbourhoods protected and this was achieved with the Neighbourhood Character Overlays; height limits ‘which we now have’ and ‘transition zones’ and ‘we now have that as well’ via the ‘schedules to the new zones’.
Said that his ‘memory’ is different to Delahunty because he remembers Okotel also arguing for consultation. He also was persuaded that consultation wouldn’t get them a ‘better deal and might get us a worse deal’. Said that there was a ‘rush of applications’ last ‘July and August’ and the reason for this was that ‘all the developers knew that we were about to put these new zones in’ and they knew that what they could get before the zones they couldn’t get with the new zones. So they ‘rushed their developments in’.
GALLERY : how did they know in July when the zones didn’t come in until August?
HYAMS: referred to Lobo’s comments about options to refuse previously. Said he ‘doesn’t follow that’ because they ‘still have all the options that we previously had’. Picked Lobo up about VCAT ‘answering to the Government’ but VCAT ‘independent from the government’. Said that councillors have to carry out their ‘functions’ and that means ‘applying the planning law’. ‘We did the best we could’ and those people who are criticising the zones are doing it for ‘legal purposes’ or ‘have a lack of understanding of planning law’.
OKOTEL: asked a question about ‘adopting the new zones were not unanimous’ and reiterated that ‘my position has always been that we should have engaged in consultation’ and she was never ‘persuaded otherwise’. Said that looking at the minutes of 13th August the ‘achievements’ about height controls ‘was not carried unanimously’ and said that she can’t find ‘the minutes’ relating to the ‘adoption of the zones other than that’.
PILLING: said he would be ‘happy to get the details’ and that it was an ‘unanimous decision by council’
OKOTEL: said that the decision to ‘ratify them’ was unanimous but that the ‘decision to put them to the Minister without consultation was not unanimous’. ‘I did not vote in favour of that’ and repeated that her position was that there should be consultation. (applause)
PILLING: said he would take her question on notice..
MOTION PUT. ONLY LOBO VOTED AGAINST.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM
I am gobsmacked by this post. It confirms the divisions that exist between councillors and their abject failure to work in the best interests of residents. If this post is an accurate report on what was said then every single one of them should be hauled before the courts for acting contrary to the law and for lying repeatedly about what they did.
October 15, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Although the conduct of the councillors may be questionable. The Council secured a favourable outcome in comparison to surrounding municipalities.
October 16, 2014 at 8:43 AM
There is no “although” about the behaviour displayed by Councillors at the meeting – quickly frankly it showed lack of respect for each other with particular distaste directed at two specific Councillors. As for securing a better outcome than other municipalities you can keep buying that line if you want but at the last Council Meeting over 150 showed they weren’t buying it and who can blame them!
Council has provided little information on the zones and that which it has provided contains more unsubstantiated statements on what a good job Council did rather than providing real details on the potential impacts of the zones. Additionally there is no statement on what actions Council is taking to ensure that the cummulative impacts on current and future residential amenity are mitigated ie. traffic, parking, open space and drainage. Each and every application last Tuesday was assessed as having no impact on these issues as all facilities in place could handle the excess load generated by each development – yeah sure!!! all you have to do is open the eyeballs to see evidence to the contrary.
October 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM
It appears from the above that Cr Pilling is admitting that Council has made decisions outside of Council Meetings, and that there is consequently no record of who said what to whom, and no basis for the then-Mayor, Cr Hyams, to tell the Minister and Department what Council’s position is without a supporting resolution.
If Cr Okotel or Cr Delahunty are aggrieved, then they can help by putting on the public record where decisions concerning the new residential zones were made, the information supplied in support of Council’s decisions, who supplied the information, how each councillor voted on each decision, and a summary of what they said for or against each decision.
It is outrageous that somebody who didn’t even have delegated authority has written to the Planning Minister requesting he exercise his discretionary powers to bypass normal planning processes and that Minister did as he was asked without even seeking evidence of a Council resolution to support the request.
There’s a lot of people that should resign or be removed from their positions over this.
However the planning industry juggernaut will roll on regardless, fueled as ever by vested interests. It’s been 4 years since residents were last given an opportunity to be ignored about the Planning Scheme being imposed on us, but most unlikely Jeff Akehurst would agree to another public review.
October 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM
There is not doubt the council acted above and beyond its powers to secure a favourable outcome for the community by secretly requesting the minister exempt himself from the community consultation process. I commend them for that.
I understand Mathew Guy’s autocratic management style. For better or worse he is a man of action. Under these circumstances engaging in a community consultation process would have ment a less favourable outcome.
Although I agree that council should acknowledge the lack of community consolation and its importance, I don’t understand why Delahuntly and Okotel are distancing themselves from their own vote. The right compromises were made, they should be proud to be apart of it.
October 15, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Reasoning seems to have deserted you my friend. When someone or a group act beyond their powers then they are committing a crime. That should not be commended in any way whatsoever. There’s also no evidence to suggest that consultation would have resulted in a less favourable outcome as you claim. There is nothing to be proud of here.
October 17, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Hyams Hyams Hyams Hyams Hyams Hyams Hyams please leave the Council. You sell the residents instead of your liberal buddies more so because you do not live in Bentleigh.
October 17, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Delahunty is nothing but me, myself and I. The decision for no consultation was done in close doors as can be gauged from the remarks made by Okotel and Delahunty. Public are now seeing the difference between the two.
October 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM
i’ve been critical of Cr. Lobo in the past and I probably will be again in the future but at last nights Council Meeting, although making a few gaffs, he at least was the only Councillor who said they were wrong to put in the zones with out consultation. He then added that Council should apologise and set about making the necessary amendments.
Knowing how this Council works, that was an enormous break in the ranks and he got resounding applause from the gallery.
October 16, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Are you saying Lobo, the little master has broken the bondage from the dark side? Lobo, the little master on the Council has now removed the blinkers put on him by the gang.
October 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM
See the latest Leader article –
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/glen-eira-residents-rally-to-watch-councillors-decide-on-multistorey-residential-developments/story-fngnvlpt-1227091435360
October 15, 2014 at 3:58 PM
Must have been quite a night last night. Councillors contradicting each other left right and centre so that no one knows where the truth lies. The only certainty is that they can’t all be correct and that someone is fibbing. Lobo reckons he was for consultation – did he so say when it was discussed in secret? Delahunty has got amnesia and is confused so her word can’t be taken as gospel. Hyams and Pilling are dead certain that an illegal vote took place. Good stuff all this – sure to interest the municipal inspectorate and the ombudsman and Guy might have a few nightmares about his role in all this. Okotel is clinging to shreds of decency by saying she didn’t vote for this. For what exactly I’m not too sure since no resolution was ever put in front of council.
Pilling thinks that other councils are a “mess”. He should start looking at Glen Eira and maybe then he might finally cotton on to what “mess” really means when a bunch of no hopers let some two bob dictators have control. Oh, before I forget, what about the silence of the chief villains in Lipshutz Esakoff and Magee? Not a coincidence I’m sure.
October 15, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Pilling lives in his own little bubble along with his mentor Burke. His genuine Green credentials have been at least in part sacrificed at the alter of personal political advancement in my opinion.
One would have thought that his significant loss of voter support at the last poll – at a time when other incumbents increased their vote – would have rung a bell. Apparently not.
October 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Selling your soul and principles for $90k+ makes up for a thousand or two lost votes.
October 15, 2014 at 9:27 PM
If councillors could only get their stories straight then they might be able to salvage something of their credibility but they seem incapable of even doing that. On the one hand there’s Hyams saying that people in the grz zones are better protected because of the zones and on the other Okotel bemoaning the 22% of those areas who aren’t protected enough as a result of the zones.
Many of these people admit to being “persuaded” against consultation. Delahunty wanted consultation she says to begin with, then was convinced otherwise. Hyams kind of says the same. Okotel is pretty adamant that she wanted it all the time and Lobo is the swing man – yes I want but I will vote with the others. Pilling is no nonsense so no consultation and Sounness I think doesn’t know if he’s arthur or martha or what he had for breakfast. None of them though say who did the convincing and that is the key to everything.
October 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM
Does this mean, Delahuntly can be easily convinced????? Future politician with lots of comonsense!
October 15, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Off topic – but significant
Moonee Valley Racing Club chief says their future will be in doubt if masterplan revoked
Linh Ly
Moonee Valley Leader
October 15, 2014 2:58PM
A LABOR promise to revoke Moonee Valley Racing Club’s masterplan may force the racecourse to shut down and sell up, club chief executive Michael Browell warns.
Essendon state Labor candidate Danny Pearson said his party would move a disallowance motion following the November 29 state election to revoke the comprehensive development zone, which Planning Minister Matthew Guy placed on the site.
Mr Guy labelled the move a stunt that could jeopardise the club’s future.
The rezoning advanced the club’s plan to build 2000 residential dwellings and commercial and community facilities on the Moonee Ponds site, which would fund a grandstand and racetrack realignment.
But Mr Pearson said Labor was determined to make sure development was “appropriate”.
He said the disallowance motion would only need to pass through one house of parliament to be successful, meaning Labor would not have to win the election for it to happen.
Labor candidate for Essendon Danny Pearson.
Labor candidate for Essendon Danny Pearson.
“Labor’s not opposed to a redevelopment occurring on the site, we’re comfortable that we’re having some form of redevelopment,” he said.
“The comprehensive development zone that was announced by the Minister goes against the independent advisory committee’s report from earlier this year.”
Mr Pearson said the biggest concerns was the zone did not cap the number of dwellings or height limits, and had no third-party appeal rights for residents.
Mr Browell said if Labor’s motion was successful “it would seriously jeopardise the Moonee Valley masterplan project, would seriously jeopardise the economic contribution to the Moonee Valley community, and would seriously jeopardise racing in Moonee Valley”.
“The club’s invested over $4 million in five years to get to this point.
“If an incoming Labor government makes a decision that brings us back to square one we’d have to seriously consider if we continue.” – Michael Browell.
He said they would have to assess whether they could remain operating or consider selling the 98-acre site and either merge with Victoria Racing Club or move outside Moonee Valley.
“We would have to consider everything if an incoming Labor government decides to support a disallowance motion,” Mr Browell said.
Mr Guy said it was nothing more than a “stunt to get elected” and questioned the timing of the announcement during the last week of parliament.
“The whole issue of him raising it now draws huge suspicion. Why is he (Mr Pearson) raising it now when they’ve had months to do it?” he said.
“If it is successful, what Moonee Valley will probably do is close the racecourse and put a development 10 times bigger there.”
October 16, 2014 at 10:19 AM
So what will Labor do with Caulfield.
Both Moonee Valley Racecourse and the development site is racing club freehold land.
At Caulfield the development site is club freehold land but the racecourse is Crown Land specifically for use and as a racecourse, public park and public recreation ground. The Racing industry has taken control of the racecourse as it’s own preserve and excludes the public whenever it can. The Racing industry has huge plans for Caulfield Racecourse (which they pay a pittance for) that will result in continued exclusion of the public. Yet at the same time, they will get over a half billion profit from a massive development across the street and presented a development plan that exludes the residents of it’s development using the racecourse parkland.
October 16, 2014 at 5:02 PM
C60 was initiated when Labor was in Government. The C60 proposal was written by Stuart Morris SC. for the racing club. He is was a long time Labor supporter and member. Former head of VCAT by courtesy of a Labor appointment. What happens in Moonee Valley has no bearing on what happens in Caulfield.
Staikos (Labor candidate for Bentleigh ) is a trustee of the racetrack and has never done or said anything to upset the MRC. Staikos will probably be at the Cup enjoying the hospitality of the MRC on Saturday along with all his Labor mates and some Liberals as well. Someone should get him to lobby the decision makers in between drinks and races.
October 18, 2014 at 2:56 PM
Hyams, who does VCAT report to? Just independent? Take your B.S.elsewhere.