The skullduggery that has gone on over Frogmore and the Jewish Care aged care facility is literally scandalous. A permit application is currently waiting to be decided. It proposes to remove 88 of the 92 trees on site. Well, those trees no longer exist!
This says plenty about this council and its attitude to the environment. With no tree register and no will to stop moonscaping of sites, this is the result. We are also confident that council will not seek to impose any fine on Jewish Care for removing trees under the 12 months period stated in the planning scheme. We remind readers that the heritage report nominated 4 trees as having ‘significant’ status and to be given heritage status themselves.
It is quite appalling that this can happen. But since it is Glen Eira council, where profit and vested interests are far more important than environment, no-one should be surprised – merely outraged!
This Nearmap shot is dated 13 September 2015 – three weeks ago. They sure move fast!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 8, 2015 at 3:03 PM
Words fail me. This is the most disgusting action I can think of by any developer and they know that they will get away with it without any repercussions. I hope that Lipshutz Pilling and Hyams are suitably rewarded for their treachery.
October 8, 2015 at 3:17 PM
Jewish Care and Council – an abominiable combination that just keeps getting worse and worse.
Forget the charges of anti-Semttism – this is not about religion, it is about about Jewish Care’s arrogance and despicable behaviour that is totally valid regardless of the religion of the perpetrator.
As for the inept and absolutely unrepresentative Council – the above criticism is equally applicable.
While we can’t do much about Jewish Care, Council has definitely over stepped the bounds of decency and acceptability on first on Frogmore and and now the trees.
Elections are coming up and I sincerely hope the result of those elections reflect Council’s handling of the whole Frogmore issue. Of course the only contradiction in this is that the loss of this Council (and subsequently the CEO) is no loss, whereas the loss of Frogmore was an undeniable permanent loss.
October 8, 2015 at 4:18 PM
I am shocked st the lack of understanding that we need trees for fresh air, to keep soil from eroding, for shade and for birds and animals to survive. No we would prefer concrete monoliths, sitting in the polluted air on the pavement drinking coffee! What has happened to us? I love my trees and garden and every day i see them disappearing from the landscape! Wake up council before it is too late.
October 8, 2015 at 4:42 PM
We also need treees to stop climate change galloping ahead. A deliberate planting program of decidious trees in Rockhampton has brought rain back to a previous “rain shadow area” another type of climate change!!.
And as for the Jewish Care Facility their representative spoke of oit to be a facility for exclusively Jewesh people, so don’t be thinking you may book in if you are a gentile or atheist!.
October 8, 2015 at 5:11 PM
Frogmore brings to a head what residents have been screaming about for years on end and which councillors like Lipshutz Hyams Okotel and Esakoff have continually opposed with the help of others – the desperate need for a tree register. This site has had numerous posts on the issue that I remember and how resolution after resolution has not been carried through on. The laws committee is stacked with the likes of Lipshutz and other lawyers who are supposed to ensure that all aspects of life in Glen Eira is orderly. What they have done is to protect developers and not residents. Not once has any documentation come from this committee as to why it adopts the stances it does. Governance does not exist in Glen Eira with councillors and administrators who continue to ignore the basics of transparency and listening to the community. I am disgusted at the arrogance of Jewish Care and the undoubted complicity of some councillors.
October 8, 2015 at 7:18 PM
Mr Evans is quite right in writing that we have featured the issue of the non-existent tree register countless times here. As far back as the 1998 and even the 1987 open space strategy, residents voiced their views on the importance of trees for the municipality. The situation that we have now is that this administration, together with the likes of the gang of 4 (Lipshutz,Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel) and with the hired help of Pilling, have successfully sabotaged the call for a mere local law – much less including this important component into the planning scheme.
As a refresher, we urge residents to read what these councillors said time and time again and how out of step they are with the community. We sincerely hope that at election time these actions will linger long in voters’ minds.
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/vale-tree-register/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/bye-bye-tree-register/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-saga-of-the-tree-register/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/the-non-existent-tree-protection/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/lipshutz-a-true-community-representative/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/still-going-round-the-mulberry-bush-10-years-on/
October 8, 2015 at 6:36 PM
The developer has exploited a gaping loophole in Glen Eira’s shambolic planning scheme concerning trees. In Glen Eira, unlike most councils, there isn’t a definition of “significant tree”. A developer is entitled to claim all trees are insignificant here. Under 22.02-4 Landscaping local policy, only “high priority significant trees” should be retained “where possible”.
Under 22.08-3.3 Character Elements, it is allegedly policy to “Ensure that where significant trees have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made, that trees advanced in growth that will mature to a similar size are planted in a similar location”. Note this only applies to “significant trees”, and it’s only policy, so carries no weight at Council or VCAT.
Under 55.01-1 Neighbourhood And Site Description, the developer must accurately describe “Location of significant trees existing on the site and any significant trees removed from the site 12 months prior to the application being made, where known”. It could be argued that any trees the developer has disclosed in their application have been deemed by the developer to be significant, but I’m sure Council will disagree.
Under 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives, “Development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made”. Replacement is purely discretionary, and is only for significant trees.
The same clause has a Decision Guideline [sic] that the irresponsible authority “must consider whether a tree was removed to gain a development advantage”. Council is free to ignore that trees were removed to gain a development advantage, as they have been in this case. After all, Decision Guidelines provide no guidance.
It is worth revisiting the 17 March report that persuaded Council to abandon the idea of a “Classified Tree Register”, arguing it was unnecessary. It stated: “Historically it was common for a developer to completely strip the site of all vegetation prior to lodging an application for a town planning permit. This practice is known as ‘moonscaping’ a site. Glen Eira initiated a change which subsequently resulted in ResCode being changed by the State Government to discourage moonscaping. The ResCode mechanism is that any tree removed within 12 months of a town planning application being lodged must be assessed as though the “removed” tree is still in place.”
As can be seen from the actual relevant policies and clauses in the Scheme, there is no such protection or requirement.
One thing that Council should do, if ever it replaced the chair of the Local Laws committee, is define “significant tree”. This could be as simple as specifying a circumference at a particular height above ground level, although that ignores the size of the canopy.
October 8, 2015 at 8:42 PM
Agree wholeheartedly Reprobate.
It’s just a shame that our illustrious and supposedly competent Council prefers to talk about how good they are rather than do the work that would prove how good they are.
Clearly in Glen Eira another huge benefit of trees is that they would mitigate the impact of all the hot air coming out of the Administration’s and Councillors’ ………… (insert the word of your choice).
October 8, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Bet if this was a catholic aged care we’d have a heritage zone
October 9, 2015 at 6:47 AM
So what’s it to be folks – an application for a retrospective planning permit or a planning permit amendment. I guess it doesn’t really matter because whatever it is it will be granted.
October 9, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Lipshutz’s is 100% to blame for the suppression of the tree register, his constant time wasting coupled with his conservative ideology has left us exposed to excesses like Frogmore.
Philling the so called Green now Lipshutz’s right wing lap-dog totally did-in his electorate, the man is a traitor to the Greens that got him elected and the residents that supported him.
October 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM
It is not fair to blame Lipshutz 100% on tree regeste. Margie was against a tree regester and people heard him saying that is was no once business to tell him what to do with his tree in his backyard. Get your facts right.
October 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM
Lipshutz to a tee. My backyyard and my mates forever
October 9, 2015 at 1:30 PM
Well, other have a different opinion other than “do what you like when you like Lipshutz mantra” most other councils deal with trees much more effectively than Glen Eira does. Lipshutz is a conservative dinosaur that needs to move on, like his name sake have
October 9, 2015 at 1:11 PM
notice in the council agenda they have rejected the application to put up the antennas at the racecourse. Government will have to step in soon to tell them that the MRC rule
October 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM
It was the christian church who sold Frogmore property to them.
October 9, 2015 at 3:53 PM
This isn’t about who sold what. Anyway I thought that the sale only happened once they got their permit and that’s not been approved yet. My beef is about the way this was done by Lipshutz and the rest of them and the arrogance of jewish care in not even having the decency to wait for the formal approval before they get in there with their chain saws. They will get their permit and even if it goes to vcat then vcat will give it to them. Lipshutz and his mates will argue too bad about the trees we can’t do anything now so they might as well get on with putting in a nursing home and that will be a benefit to everyone. I don’t think so. someone asked if they will take non jews. I doubt it. That means that this place will only serve one portion of the community and that is discriminatory too.