We thought it fitting that for the final post of 2014, we revisit the secret introduction of the new residential zones. Fifteen months down the track readers can judge for themselves the total ineptitude and complicity of councillors in the duping their community.
The following extracts all come from statements made on the 13th August 2013 Council Meeting.
HYAMS – Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’.
LIPSHUTZ – Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’.
MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’…..Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’
DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites
OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty. This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’
AND HERE’S PART OF COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC QUESTION
It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 31, 2014 at 10:49 AM
It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cracker of a comment,
Remember this another infamous answer -“we had to destroy the village in order to save it sir”
I getting deja vu, a return of the 1960’s
December 31, 2014 at 1:08 PM
It is good to be reminded of what was said at the time and how little truth these words had. I would not think that there are too many people living in most of these zones who would agree with Hyams version of “protection”. Not too many people would be happy with Magee’s worry about developers getting bank loans either. The “vision” that Lipshutz sees is entirely anti community and pro development and what was always intended. By their unqualified support for this, councillors have shown what side they are on.
December 31, 2014 at 6:49 PM
It must be remembered that more development equals more council rate revenue.
The lack of consideration for ratepayers is mere collateral damage to the neanderthals who run the business of council.
And – sadly – while the destruction is going on our elected representatives sit there acting as vindicators.
Ultimately the blame lies with us because most ratepayers don’t care or are ambivalent. Until there’s a major attitude shift – and I don’t see that happening unless there is a scandal – nothing much will change.
December 31, 2014 at 7:08 PM
The Victorian “Planning System” has been hopelessly corrupted by the various vested interests who have the ear of State Government and Council. Little wonder developers are still unencumbered to purchase favour from decision-makers in Victoria. No bans on donations from developers here.
There is no doubt about there being tension between the development community and the residents of the communities they are targetting. No developer in Glen Eira proposes a multi-unit development of 3+ storeys that complies with all Council policies and the amenity standards in the Planning Scheme. Much of the scheme is simply ignored. On the rare occasion Council cracks the shits over an excessive proposal, VCAT overturns the decision. Council doesn’t believe in its policies and standards, and neither does VCAT. The only area they don’t agree on is the extent of abuse to be tolerated.
Height is only one of many amenity standards. Height should properly be considered in conjunction with setbacks, but that’s not the way the Scheme works. Every decision that Council makes where it waives non-compliance undermines the integrity of the Scheme. Worst of all, it is blatantly discriminatory, and I DETEST discrimination. Our councillors have decided it is acceptable not to protect the amenity of residents in the areas it has targetted for higher density development. It has compounded the problem by restricting development severely outside of its “Housing Diversity” [sic] areas, such that developers naturally seek even bigger, larger, excessive developments in GRZ/RGZ/MUZ/C1Z.
There are many things our Council does badly, and in the wake of Jeff Akehurst’s retirement there is a window of opportunity to seek improvement. It should be mandatory for councillors to assert they have read the Planning Scheme in its entirety before being permitted to vote on a planning decision. All non-compliances should be highlighted in the officer report.
`
Saying something is “acceptable” shouldn’t be acceptable unless accompanied by supporting evidence, such as community feedback. Not good enough to say overshadowing is acceptable because it abuts a commercial zone. It’s the other way around. Development in commercial zones should be tempered because of proximity to residential development. That’s what the Scheme says. Not that our councillors know or care, and I’m glad some of us continue to call “bullshit” on their ill-considered public statements in support of their votes in Meetings.
January 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM
What should be mentioned is what our representative could be doing and don’t and the reasons why they don’t or cannot, it would be wrong to think that all the current councillors are totally captured by the system or if they chose this situation, they (elected councils) have become an adjunct to the corporate edifice, de-powered, dispossessed, this is a difficult working position for anybody, how much they personally chose to kick against this corporate edifice is the disappointing part, a council united could claw back some of its lost democracy and this could improve the situation, but this clearly is not going to happen with this lot, with Newton writing the Agendas, controlling the reports, and backed-up with his history of sacking councils, Newton has corralled this mob into subservient beggars in their own house, Newtons liberal party past and his liberal party affiliated councillors are a huge part of what looks like a in-house protection racket, although this doesn’t explain why people like Pilling the green very quickly became a Newtonian sycophant, switched sides and votes with the racket most of the time, in the end the councillors are to egotistical to honestly access their own positions, it far easier for them to adopted the corporate philosophy on offer, put in an occasional squeak of defiance to maintain and filament of their self respect, become anti resident to shift their shame and guilt onto others, and collect their pay
January 1, 2015 at 7:05 PM
Magee the Crazy Mayor – how dare he supports the developers, their certainty and interested in developer’s getting loans from the bank.
Residents need to pull this man and the others in the above post.