On July 3rd 2013, Hyams uttered these incredible words in regard to the Alma Club development application – ‘council’s role is not to necessarily represent the people’. Perhaps Hyams needs to revisit the Local Government Act, where part of its objectives for local councils is the injunction to act ‘as a representative government!’ Not for the first time was the gallery assailed with the double-speak of ‘quasi-judicial’ functions and ‘planning law’ and the inference that all planning decisions and processes are therefore objective and strictly ‘neutral’. Council’s published ‘information’ on planning objections enshrines this notion of ‘impartiality’ when it states – Planners must act impartially as an assessor of an application.
So, we are left with the conundrum of – who does council really represent? The answer is clear in this screen dump!
Source: http://pillarandpost.com.au/topics/neighbourhood-character/
Glen Eira Debates 
February 17, 2015 at 11:47 AM
It’s well know which section of he community Hyam’s represents
February 17, 2015 at 2:02 PM
No help for residents facing 55 rat holes next to them. All the help in the world to maximise developer profits.
February 17, 2015 at 4:11 PM
Message is loud and clear to developers – go for broke and we will support you to the hilt council says.
February 17, 2015 at 4:29 PM
Council’s role is defined by LGA s.3D and contradicts Cr Hyams—no surprises there. Comments about complying with “planning law” are, I suspect, intended to intimidate people into believing the decision Council has to make is tightly prescribed. It is a matter of fact that under Victoria’s “performance-based” system there are few constraints, and no effective enforcement mechanism to ensure that PAEA is complied with.
The rules of the game are stacked in favour of the person with the most money, power or influence. As has previously been discussed here, we can’t even get planning officers to assess applications impartially when making recommendations to Council. Overwhelmingly what happens is that the reports are written to manipulate Council to support the officer’s preferred outcome. This is clear from all the matters that Council putatively *must* consider that are routinely omitted from the reports. Council would know this if ever it had a comprehensive checklist and audited reports against it.
The Scheme is full of vague, ill-defined notions, leaving it wide open to abuse. There is an irony in Council writing to the Minister requesting the Act be modified to require VCAT to *apply* its Scheme, rather than merely take it into account or consider it. If a policy or standard or guideline or objective is inconvenient, it is legal to give it zero weight. There’s a lot of decision-makers that should be out of a job, but I don’t know what else such people singularly ill-equipped to contribute to the economy could do.
February 17, 2015 at 6:17 PM
If council did stick to “planning law” then residents would be far better off as you say Reprobate. Over the years there must be hundreds upon hundreds of car parking waivers, set back concessions, plus financial bonuses in terms of open space levies and development contribution levies. All of these exemptions have a direct and negative impact on neighbours and the general community.
The worst aspect of this is Hyams proclamation that he does not see his function as representing residents. If that is his view then he should not be a councillor. Of course, since he and most of the others do not represent residents, then there is no need to consult residents and so we have the new zones that were ushered in without any warning and without public consultation.
February 17, 2015 at 7:54 PM
Pillings ignoring of almost 1000 Murrumbeena residents who signed a petition (re-Frogmore), to support his two Liberal mates, show just how far the rot has set in. Shame, Pilling, Shame, you’re are a traitor to your Rosstown residents, you should have the courage to come onto this blog site and explain your behaviour