Before we report on the farce that occurred at last Tuesday night’s council meeting we wish to make the following comments and ask residents to carefully consider what occurred and the questions raised.
Why is it that in Glen Eira resolutions mean bugger all – that they can be ignored, changed, forgotten about, and reneged upon at will, or presumably at the behest of vested interests? Not for the first time have those same councillors (Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling) totally ignored resident views and aspirations. It is significant that not one single councillor mentioned the fact that a petition of near a thousand signatures was tabled seeking to preserve Frogmore, nor that over 300 submissions came in supporting the amendment for a heritage overlay.
We also find it extraordinary that at the very last moment both Delahunty and Esakoff just happened to discover that they’ve got a conflict of interest. We remind readers that this conflict did not exist when both voted to go to Heritage Victoria and then to draw up the amendment a few short months ago. Surely aged relations couldn’t have aged that rapidly to suddenly find themselves in need of an aged care facility that will take at the very least two years to be operational? We certainly anticipate plenty of objections once the plans are submitted and people trot off to VCAT so it is likely to be even longer than two years.
The result is that 3 councillors – a minority – decided what happens in Glen Eira. That isn’t ‘representative government’ and nor is it listening to the community. Just as with the C60, residents are being duped and dudded and repeatedly ignored.
And as always, the level of argument is abysmal. How on earth Okotel can speak about costs, and then in the very next sentence ask for 3 additional heritage reports, is mind numbing. Or more to the point, how all her arguments suggest opposition to going to the panel and then to vote in favour of going to a panel is equally mind numbing.
For a council that repeats ad nauseum that it is ‘planning law’ and ‘policy’ that determines decisions, ‘planning law’ fails to get a mention in the ‘debate’. Not one word on ‘planning law’ from councillors and not one word from the officer’s report. Instead it’s all smoke and mirrors and pure unadulterated gibberish and misrepresentation of the facts – as so clearly pointed out by the National Trust (see link below). Further, how dare Hyams and Okotel argue that cost should be the determinant of whether or not something goes to a panel, or (worse) what is financially ‘viable’ for the prospective developer. Even here, Hyams’ claims are far from the truth when he asserts that ONLY a 120 bed facility is worthwhile for the developer. In Glen Eira there are currently plenty of aged care facilities that offer far less than 120 beds and have managed to stay in operation for eons – eg: Estia Health Bentleigh has 45 beds; Claremont Terrace has 94 beds; Lovell House has 40 beds; Victoria by the Park has 70 beds; Hammond Care has 60 beds and Montgomery has 30 beds and there are plenty of others in this category.
We might also quibble with Hyams’ assertion that the Churches of Christ were forced to sell because 60 mere beds is ‘not viable’. In the first place, the current owners are based in Queensland. They only have 3 aged care premises in Melbourne and are currently looking to invest far more heavily in their own home state as their Annual Reports and corporate strategy documents indicate. Perhaps it’s simply the old adage of ‘charity begins at home’ – ie Queensland – and not because a 60 bed home that has been in existence for decades is suddenly going to the wall?
All of this leads us to ask these fair and reasonable questions:
- Is it coincidence that Delahunty and Esakoff suddenly discovered a conflict of interest? Or is their ‘maybe’ conflict nothing more than a political shirking of the necessity for a vote?
- Have some of these councillors learnt their lesson about Planning Panels and Heritage – ie remember the Esakoff Seaview property fiasco where the Panel came down in favour of objectors? Is that why going to another Panel was deemed too great a risk– especially in light of the damning comments of the National Trust and the most recent (and hence valid) heritage assessement? See: http://www.trustadvocate.org.au/frogmore-soon-to-be-no-more/?
- If the prospective buyer was other than Jewish Care would the Frogmore case now be firmly set for a panel hearing rather than demolition?
Here’s what happened. Please read carefully.
Delahunty declared a conflict of interest under Section 78(b)(1a) of the Local Government Act in that she’s a ‘manager of a company’ that ‘may have an interest’ in the proposal. Pilling then assumed the chair. Esakoff then declared a conflict under Section 79(b) under ‘conflicting personal interest’ in that she has ‘very close relatives’ who are ‘currently looking for aged care places’ and that she ‘feels’ that this wouldn’t be out of the question for them as a residence. ‘On that basis I request leave’ to declare the interest.
Pilling said that ‘I understand that I have to put that to a vote’. Hyams then said that ‘our current practice’ is for those making the request to leave the chamber. Esakoff left the chamber, vote was put and passed unanimously.
Lipshutz then moved to accept the motion (ie abandonment of heritage amendment) ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: said that he had gone down to have a look at the Wahgoo property and it is ‘old’ and just because it is old does not ‘make it heritage’. Said that council had gone ahead with Heritage Victoria and they reported that the building was ‘not significant’ and that ‘in my view council should abandon the proposal’ for a heritage overlay.
HYAMS: called this item a ‘tough one’ since he claimed that ‘I do care’ about history and heritage as a member of the Historical Society. Also said that ‘council’ cares a lot about heritage and ‘that’s why there are 3,893 properties’ in Glen Eira listed under heritage zones and this includes over 100 individual properties. Said that ‘we conducted an exhaustive heritage assessment between 1996 and 2003’ and Wahgoo property was ‘not quite considered worthy’. Reason for this is that ‘it can’t be seen from the street’, and ‘modern additions obscuring it’ and there have been ‘fairly significant changes made’ to the building. Heritage Victoria ‘looked in detail’ and from the 8 criteria ‘determined that 3’ are ‘likely to be satisfied’ but ‘not at the State level’. Said that the 3 criteria relate to ‘historic’ and not ‘aesthetic’ reasons. Read out some of the judgements – ie that Frogmore is ‘one of a vast number’ of this type of buildings throughout Glen Eira. It also doesn’t have ‘novel or outstanding features’. The report ‘certainly doesn’t state’ why it should be heritage protected. If the additions hadn’t been added and if it was visible from the street then he thinks it would be ‘heritage worthy’. Council needs to balance the ‘benefit to the community’ and that would be ‘120 beds’ for aged care. ‘We have to accept’ that aged care places need this number of beds ‘to be viable’. So it’s ‘not a matter of having fewer beds’ and the ‘previous facility’ was ‘shut down because it was not viable’ and it had 60 beds. ‘We also need to respect the integrity of our planning system’ and the ‘would be purchaser’ and the current owners ‘rely on our planning system’ and that ‘we did exhaustively assess the heritage value’ of properties in Glen Eira in 1996 to 2003. Thus it is ‘preferable on the balance’ that the amendment is abandoned and that ‘we allow’ the plan to be submitted. ‘It is a reluctant decision on my part’.
SOUNNESS: said he was against the recommendation and concerned about ‘process’ – that if there is benefit that needs to be ‘documented’ and looked at closely and ‘that is the process that is in place for amendments’. Said that this ‘isn’t due process’ and it should go to those people who have greater ‘understanding’ of heritage. If it goes to a panel they might decide against heritage or they might determine that there is heritage value. What’s going to happen to the site ‘is not finished’ because plans are ‘sitting to one side’ and there are ‘many good sites’ that make an ‘effort to do heritage interpretation’. Acknowledged that when heritage ‘was done’ years ago the ‘problem’ of significant vegetation ‘wasn’t mentioned’. Said he suspects that many residents would believe that council isn’t really protecting minimal change areas and that this ‘is further proof that Glen Eira is not doing things effectively’ and not protecting minimal change areas ‘in the way that residents feel it should be done’. He is voting against because ‘at the very least due process’ means going to a panel. It will ‘delay things – that’s the process’ and that from the purchasers point of view this is being held up. He ‘regrets that’, but ‘we have a process’ and that’s the role of council who has the ‘authority’ and is representing residents. If the motion is defeated, then he is foreshadowing a motion to send to a planning panel.
OKOTEL: said that this isn’t ‘an easy decision’. Said the prospective purchasers acted in ‘good faith’. They did their research, and searches. As councillors they have the ‘initial assessment’ from heritage which said that there was no ‘heritage significance’ and ‘provided a grading of C’. If it had been C+ then ‘it would have been put in the register’. ‘More recently we’ve had the independent assessment’ and that decided there was ‘local significance on 3 grounds’ . Council then went to Heritage Victoria and they decided there ‘wasn’t any state significance’ but ‘acknowledged and agreed with the 3 grounds’ of the independent assessment’ but stopped short of endorsing ‘heritage significance’. (Member from gallery then stated – ‘at the State level). Okotel corrected and said ‘state level’ but it ‘didn’t conclude that there was’ significance at the ‘local level’. (again gallery comment – ‘they didn’t have to’) Okotel – ‘all right’. So the two reports are saying opposite things – early one no heritage value and independent assessment that there is heritage value. Okotel’s ‘difficulty’ is that there isn’t ‘sufficient detail as to whether or not’ to ‘warrant heritage’. Said she asked Heritage Victoria whether there was ‘evidence’ to warrant ‘local signficance’ and they replied that any ‘written’ statements would not ‘be specifying whether or not’ there was local significance’. Didn’t think that there is ‘enough evidence at this time’ for council to make the decision about whether Frogmore is worthy of local heritage protection and to ‘refer this matter to a panel’. Said that if referred to a panel as Sounness wants, then this would ’cause delay’ and would put the parties involved into ‘significant financial expenses’ such as ‘engaging lawyers’ planners and other ‘experts’. It would also ‘cost Council about $10,000’ and would ‘likely cost other parties that amount’. This would result in ‘two non-profit groups’ experiencing ‘significant additional expenses’ and even cost community groups is ‘they were to advocate on this issue as well’. So ‘it would be unfair to progress the matter’ to a panel. She thought it ‘would be more appropriate’ for Council to get ‘more information’ by engaging ‘three additional independent heritage assessors’ so then’council might make a decision, a more informed decision’ about whether to go to a panel.
LOBO: said that Frogmore mightn’t be ‘heritage’ listed but it’s been in ‘existence since 1889-90 so ‘it has been a part of people’s upbringing, culture, education’. He ‘understands the needs of an ageing populating’ but deciding on the issue ‘without another opinion’ from the panel is also fraught. The site ‘may or may not be an ideal place’ for an aged care facility. In order to vote on this, he said he needs to ‘depend on an independent panel’.
PILLING: thanked residents for their strong campaign and emails, posters, and ‘kudos for raising the issue’. Said he is trying to ‘make a balanced decision’ and looking at the ‘long term best interests of the community’. In 1996 they had a heritage assessment and ‘at the time the property wasn’t protected’ and the most recent assessment did recommend protection. The director of Heritage Victoria found that of the 8 criteria, the building only met 3 of the criteria and ‘last Thursday Heritage Victoria voted’ not to grant state level protection. Said ‘all councillors’ visited Frogmore ‘this morning’ and the pictures that some of the gallery are holding isn’t what the site looks like now. Said it is ‘a compromised site’ and at present is ‘derelict’. The two parties want to settle and Jewish Care wants to put in a 120 bed facility. He ‘feared’ that if this wasn’t ‘settled’ then the site ‘could be rezoned’ for residential and have ‘multi-unit developments on it’. He would ‘much prefer a community asset’. Said that ‘if someone wants to come along with $10 million to develop’ like Ripponlea then great but ‘I don’t think that is going to happen’. As Lipshutz said ‘we live in the real world’. Said he ‘understands’ the issue of ‘losing our older’ buildings such as the Boyd House in Murrumbeena but they are now faced with making a ‘decision on balance’ as to what is best for the community. Going to a panel when state institutions ‘won’t protect it’ and just because a former mayor lived there, and there are other houses where councillors/mayors have lived ‘does that make it heritage?’ This ‘is a compromised site’ and ‘it is not pristine’ and ‘I will be voting in favour of abandoning the amendment’.
LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘perhaps’ they should have ‘preserved heritage’ before. There was a property in Bambra road that was an ‘old mansion’ and was ‘turned into a hospital’ and ‘someone came along’ and put a home there and he thinks ‘it’s great’. ‘this property has been certainly compromised’ and isn’t the ‘pristine property it was when it was built’. Also ‘it doesn’t accord with the requirements of heritage’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED ON CASTING VOTE OF PILLING. VOTING IN FAVOUR OF ABANDONING AMENDMENT – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, PILLING. VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL. PILLING, AS CHAIR, THEN HAD THE DECIDING VOTE.
And for the last few bits of info, see The Age article at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/residents-fail-in-attempt-to-preserve-historic-frogmore-house-from-demolition-20150610-ghkyz7.html
Also an audio interview with resident Jan Armstrong – http://www.magic1278.com.au/news/historic-home-to-face-the-wrecking-ball-20150611-ghlcfs.html
Plus a posting from Glen Eira Residents’ Association – http://geresidents.wordpress.com
and last but not least, the Leader’s contribution –
June 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Great post. Good questions asked. Plus, level of discussion belongs in kinda and not in council chamber. Take home message? Heritage means nothing if it stands in the way of development and mates.
June 16, 2015 at 3:36 PM
I’ve tried my hardest to give officers and councillors the benefit of the doubt on this one and to look at things objectively and to try and see things from their point of view. I can’t. There is no excuse or justification whatsoever for not sending this off to a planning panel. I daresay that most reasonable people would end up being entirely suspicious of the motives, the serendipity of two councillors with conflicts of interest and one councillor away giving those “arch conservatives” as Danby called them the numbers to achieve what they wanted. Decisions in this council have been suspect for a long time and this only adds to the list.
June 16, 2015 at 4:38 PM
Can’t for the life of me understand how a 2015 Independent Heritage Advisor Assessment which finds that
““Frogmore is significant to the locality of Carnegie and Murrumbeena and City of Glen Eira and should be conserved as one of the cultural assets of the city. ”
can be ignored in favour of an ancient (2003) one that, as Age says, fits the “deal in play”. The deal being redevelopment of land that has yet to be acquired for a proposed development that has yet to lodge plans with Council and apply for a planning permit.
As for good faith of the proposed developer
– what about the good faith of the residents who expected Frogmore to be protected by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay way back in 2003
– or of the multitude that have moved in since 2003 – don’t they get a say?
– are the residents acting in “bad faith” by exercising their rights, rights which Council acknowledged.
And as for the unnamed substandard Officer’s Report that reckons residents should have spoken up in 2003,not now – don’t get me started!!!
Pilling, Lipshutz and Hyams are once again protecting the Administration and vested interests rather than representing the residents.
June 16, 2015 at 5:03 PM
You are so right Bill, and I will as that Pilling quit the Greens and has turned Jewish
June 17, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Doesn’t matter who the proposed developer is – Council’s shenanigans suck
June 17, 2015 at 8:48 AM
sure does matter if ya mates hand out how to vote cards for ya an then want development two weeks later and they get it.
June 16, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Pilling Hyams Lipshutz Esakoff have to go. All they do is divide communities. That’s not serving the community. C60 was bad enough and this is another example of them not giving a cracker for what people want only what their friends want. They shouldn’t be let anywhere near any planning decisions.
June 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Put together conflict of interest, shocking governance, and back room decisions and Glen Eira council (administrators and councillors) should be sacked on the spot and all the dirty linen brought out into the open.
June 16, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Why are there not conflicts of interest when it comes to councillors voting in Council meetings and also being on a Melbourne racing club committee. Councillor Pilling has compromised what i believe he originally stood for when voted in as a Green and has abandonded those who believed he would make a difference to governance in Glen Eira. And as for Councillors Delahunty and Esakoff, regardless of the issue to hand, the reaasons given for their withdrawal border on the ridiculous.
June 16, 2015 at 9:01 PM
It was Pilling the traitor of Carnegie who got elected by residents and he sold them with his second vote from the chair. He was also the cause of C60 and made the Greens party look like a fool during his two terms in office. was a Mayor who caused more harm to the environment himself and was a Mayor in 2013/2014,
June 16, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Pilling lacks principles and has abused us Carnegie residents who got him elected and he sold us with his casting vote from the chair. He was also the cause of C60 and made the Greens party look like bl**dy fools during his two terms in office. Pilling is killing the residents. All our eyes will be watching Pilling.
June 17, 2015 at 9:02 AM
Pilling has turn-coated time and time again, he is a lap-dog to the administration and his beloved Liberal Party, he never has a green hair on his head
June 21, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Think that’s true. He’s turned out to be a person bereft of any ethics or principles. Any person with an ounce of decency would have resigned after being elected on the back of the Greens then turning his back on those who put him there. A shallow man with shallow values.
June 16, 2015 at 10:00 PM
This is for all the home grown legal eagles out there.
The Local Government Act, 1989 has quite a bit to say on ‘conflicts of interest’ for councillors.There are 2 forms of conflict – direct and indirect interest, plus a neat little section entitled ‘conflicting personal interest’. Esakoff declared a ‘personal interest’ on the grounds of having ‘very close relatives’ who may, might, could, perhaps would, be thinking about aged care.
All well and good. However, ‘close relatives’ comes under ‘indirect interests’ of Section 78 of the Act, and not Section 79 that Esakoff used. Given the wonderful ‘expertise’ of council’s Corporate Counsel, and the CEO and Mr Burke, surely this should have been pointed out to council? Since it wasn’t, we can only of course, speculate as to why it wasn’t!
Here is the legislation for all those interested enough to plough through and consider the difference (and the ramifications) in Esakoff declaring a ‘personal interest’ rather than an ‘indirect interest’. The machinations are never ending.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 – SECT 77A
A Direct and indirect interests
(1) A relevant person has a conflict of interest in respect of a matter if the relevant person has a direct interest or indirect interest in the matter.
(2) A relevant person has a direct interest in a matter if the relevant person has an interest of a kind described in section 77B.
(3) A relevant person has an indirect interest in a matter if the relevant person has—
(a) a close association as specified in section 78; or
(b) an indirect financial interest as specified in section 78A; or
(c) a conflicting duty as specified in section 78B; or
(d) received an applicable gift as specified in section 78C; or
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 – SECT 78
Indirect interest by close association
(1) In this section—
“daughter “means a biological daughter, step-daughter, adopted daughter, or female child for whom the person has custodial responsibilities;
“direct relative” means the spouse, domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother or sister of the person;
“domestic partner” of a person means—
(a) a person who is in a registered relationship with the person; or
(b) an adult person to whom the person is not married but with whom the person is in a relationship as a couple where one or each of them provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other, irrespective of their genders and whether or not they are living under the same roof, but does not include a person who provides domestic support and personal care to the person—
(i) for fee or reward; or
(ii) on behalf of another person or an organisation (including a government or government agency, a body corporate or a charitable or benevolent organisation);
“family member” means—
(a) a spouse or domestic partner of the person; or
(b) a son, daughter, mother, father, brother or sister that regularly resides with the person;
“relative” means—
(a) a direct relative of the person;
(b) a direct relative of a person who is the direct relative of the person;
“son” means a biological son, step son, adopted son or male child for which the person has custodial responsibilities.
(2) A person has an indirect interest by close association in a matter if—
(a) a family member of the person has a direct interest or an indirect interest in a matter; or
(b) a relative of the person has a direct interest in a matter; or
(c) a member of the person’s household has a direct interest in a matter.
(3) For the purposes of the definition of domestic partner in subsection (1)—
(a) “registered relationship” has the same meaning as in the Relationships Act 2008 ; and
(b) in determining whether persons who are not in a registered relationship are domestic partners of each other, all the circumstances of their relationship are to be taken into account, including any one or more of the matters referred to in section 35(2) of the Relationships Act 2008 as may be relevant in a particular case; and
(c) a person is not a domestic partner of another person only because they are co-tenants.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 – SECT 79B
B Conflicting personal interest
(1) This section does not apply to a Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest in the matter.
(2) If a Councillor or a member of a special committee considers that he or she has a personal interest in relation to a matter that is in conflict with his or her public duty in relation to the matter, the Councillor or member may, immediately before the matter is considered at the relevant meeting, apply to the Council or special committee to be exempted from voting on the matter.
(3) If a Councillor or member of a special committee makes an application under subsection (2), he or she must give reasons in support of the application.
(4) A Council or special committee may consent to an application made under subsection (2) and must not unreasonably withhold consent.
(5) If a Council or special committee consents to an application under subsection (4), sections 79(6), 79(7), 79(8) and 79(9) apply as if the personal interest that is the subject of an application under subsection (2) were a conflict of interest specified under this Act.
June 16, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Very, verrryyyy interressting – as Shultzy would say. My gut and lay reaction on indirect versus personal interest is the former could be open to challenge or review and makes it a lot more difficult to get away with manipulating the vote. Thus we’ve got collusion with senior officers who are paid to ensure good governance. An oxymoron is there ever was one.
June 16, 2015 at 10:50 PM
The outcome was entirely predictable, and indeed just as I predicted a couple of months ago. The fact that the property met multiple heritage criteria and was worthy of including on a Heritage Overlay as assessed by multiple independent experts carried no weight. These were inconvenient to the outcome the administration and the dominant clique of councillors wanted.
Cr Souness was quite right in drawing attention to the lousy process Council has followed in this matter. Submissions concerning the proposed amendment should have been referred to a Planning Panel. Once again a substandard report has been relied upon by unscrupulous individuals on Council to thwart the objectives of the planning scheme. And this is on top of the following that Council inserted in the planning scheme in March 2015: “One of the ways that residents can ensure that heritage values are protected is to embrace the introduction of heritage controls”. It’s not residents that are rejecting heritage controls but the 3 councillors who voted to abandon the amendment.
The arguments used by the supporters of abandonment were abysmal. If visibility from a street is critical, then Rippon Lea wouldn’t have a Heritage Overlay. I took at random another HO property from the scheme to see what it looked like. Sure enough, it was not visible from the street according to Google StreetView. Time for Council to review every single HO property for visibility if that is what they believe.
The comments about “good faith” and “unfair” are especially egregious. They’re not even relevant to planning decisions. The imposition of the new residential zones bypassing normal amendment processes was unfair. That didn’t stop Crs Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling urging the Minister to make the unilateral and far from neutral change. Very unfair.
As for “good faith”, there is very little on display from Council. There isn’t a planning application listed on the register. Unless a secret decision has already been made by Council or council staff, nobody can know what the outcome will be should a subsequent planning application be made, or even what will be applied for. A councillor let slip that settlement of sale is conditional. Where is the evidence? What are the conditions? How is this a concern of Council? Why isn’t this in the officer report and Meeting Agenda if relevant? What additional secret information is Council in possession of that failed to make it into the report?
Remember too that a Heritage Overlay doesn’t in itself protect a building. It *does* require a permit for demolition, which is absolutely appropriate in this case. It adds additional decision criteria when considering a planning application. Absolutely appropriate in this case. It doesn’t mean a Permit must be refused.
The behaviour and performance of our councillors and administration sickens me.
June 17, 2015 at 6:54 AM
FYI Reprobate – contrary to both Officer’s Reports (Feb and June 2015) the sale has not occurred. The October 2015 media releases of both the potential vendor and purchaser advise that the sale is conditional upon obtaining planning approval.
Agree whether or not a sale has occurred is irrelevant to the Heritage issue – is Frogmore worthy of heritage protection or not. Council has an 2015 independent heritage assessment which says it is yet has chosen to look back to 2003 to find one that says it isn’t – guess which one they have picked without any justifiable reason.
If you have the stomach for it, I suggest you attend the planning conference on the development and listen to Council’s arguments that this is a opportunity for residents to have their say and Council has yet to make a decision.
June 17, 2015 at 2:13 AM
What a sad day when we see how quickly this building was conveniently declared a Victorian building. This utter nonsence was adopted to allow the ball and chain to be applied as quickly as possible.
This large home was built in 1860s. It is of simple Georgian design with one or two Victorian decorations..eg wrought iron.. but lacking the general overkill of the Victorian features. The change was probably an encasement but as the owner Mr Lyall had 14 children, conducted his livestock farm there(with office} and they had several domestics who all had to be accomodated … the house had to be large. Mr McLaurin would not have rebuilt to any great extent as Glen Eira councillors are led to believe. I recollect homes built on Murrumbeens Road of the Victorian era. It is a shame our Australian history is so un-important to Glen Eira Council.
The site of Frogmore is very unsuitable for our frail Jewish residents as stated by the Jewish Care representative at the sham planning meeting discussion.
A new facility is too far from any community facilities and would immediately rob the residents of their limited opportunity to escape independently and go for a cup of coffee, the bank or buy a hair brush at a local business. The 500 metre walk eash way, particularly uphill all the way back, would be too far with a walking frame.
Strangely enough another application for senior accomodation in Glen Eira h suddenly became and was converted into a multi-unit development.
June 17, 2015 at 12:02 PM
All aspects of planning in Glen Eira disappoint me. Recent personal experience confirms what I had heard from others. Frogmore does not come as a surprise then. It is tragic when decisions are so blatantly one sided and people’s desires are ignored completely and no avenue for compromise is explored via the panel hearing process.
People overall want a fair hearing and a fair go. That does not occur in this council. When a developer and his planner, who used to work for council and has all the contacts, and have probably had countless meetings beforehand with their former colleagues, and residents are excluded from these meetings, then it is not a level playing field.
June 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM
That’s right, and Pilling said he would be a voice for residents and try and change all this behind closed doors skulduggery, all he did was to fold up like a wet cardboard box. He has sold the residents down the creek time and time again, the man’s a traitor in the full sense of the word.
June 18, 2015 at 9:35 PM
When Pilling stood for Council’s elections he promised us the residents that he would not renew Newton’s contract and that he would advertise the position.
Pilling delivered zero and history will show his destruction of Carnegie with all the ugly developments.
Traitor is the most appropriate name and never to be trusted his other names.
June 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM
The residents should go to VCAT and get their local MP to fight for them.
June 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Dear Anon,
this is a proposed planning scheme amendment. Hence VCAT is irrelevant. The proper process would have been:
1. Planning Panel
2. Council decision to accept, modify, reject panel’s recommendations
3. Decision of council sent off to Minister for approval and gazetting.
VCAT has no role in this. Unfortunately, Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling, ensured that due process did not occur.
June 20, 2015 at 4:15 PM
Take a demonstration to the Minister of Planning to cease these zones until some sensible ones are put in place. Is that impossible?
June 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM
There are many, including GE Debates, that are trying but alas, the age old adage still applies – the no. of people willing to let others do the work far outweighs those willing to the work.