A tiny sample:
Lipshutz stated ‘that there is nothing wrong with developers making profit’ (11/2/2011)
LIPSHUTZ: he ‘took umbrage’ at Lobo’s comments about council and developers. Said that ‘there is nothing wrong with profit’ and that the developer purchased this industrial site and now want to make a profit and that ‘this is a good thing’ because ‘that’s how we grow our society’ (2/3/2015)
Glen Eira Debates 
January 12, 2016 at 10:33 AM
Tweedledum and tweedle dee at it again – saying whatever suits the occasion. Best of all is the “united front” assertion. After carving up the city and giving developers the keys to the kingdom the only united front is that of residents fighting these useless councillors determined not to do a single thing to stop over development.
January 12, 2016 at 10:47 AM
No structure plan, no height restrictions, minimal advertising of development application, no Council ruling within 60 days so straight to VCAT, ect, ect. All the role of Council. Now Cr Jamie Hyams is urging residents to go to VCAT with Council to oppose this “arrogant” development. It is the arrogance of Council that has again been highlighted through this process. The “blame VCAT strategy” will be the next step, all so predictable.
January 12, 2016 at 4:04 PM
You have summed it up superbly.
January 12, 2016 at 11:00 AM
The lack of information and misinformation continues. To clarify, Hearing Dates have been set as follows: Practice Hearing 15th Jan at 10am, Compulsory Conference 10th Feb at 9.30am and Final Hearing 29th Feb at 10am (four days). Resident responses closed on the 11th Jan so not a surprise that Councillor comments regarding the application are in the press for the first time on the 12th Jan! All so predictable.
January 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Glen Eira I normally agree with you but this is unfair and a beat up. This blog does the overriding subject harm.
January 12, 2016 at 2:39 PM
I cannot see what the “beat up” is that you are complaining about. It is undeniable that council is in favour of development. The only times that you will find those paragons of virtue showing any concern for residents on applications is when there is a huge public outcry and they will refuse the permit. With an election year around the corner this will become more common. In the end there is always the bogey man of vcat to blame even if an application is refused.
January 12, 2016 at 3:01 PM
You forgot to mention the tactic of not meeting the 60 day time limit. It’s especially handy for highly controversial, large fast track projects which the planning scheme allows and will invariably go to VCAT and be approved.
The tactic proved it’s worth in 2013 for the Alma Club, Caulfield North, development and it will do the same for Centre Road, Bentleigh in 2016.
January 12, 2016 at 2:50 PM
Not sure what you mean by “does the overriding subject harm”.
First and foremost, the “overriding subject” is woeful town planning in Glen Eira and the devastating impact it is having the municipality. For years Hyams and Lipshutz have claimed planning expertise that they don’t have and have consistently resisted any changes to the planning scheme that would have curtailed their carte blanche approach to development.
And that quite simply is the “harm” being done to the overriding subject. Name one thing in the Planning Scheme that would prevent this 9 storey development. The fact that the permit application was submitted for public consultation after Officers had assessed it’s compliance with the scheme speaks volumes.
January 12, 2016 at 12:42 PM
It must be an election year, after 3 years of passing everything with a nothing is too big or too ugly mentality, Cr. Sounnous finally squeaks-up and makes a half-assed joke on development, hopefully residents know who the joke is
January 12, 2016 at 2:10 PM
Hyams and Lipshutz’s comments make for great sound bites that are attempt to hide their seriously flawed approach to town planning.
Unfortunately, they are asking residents join Council in presenting a united front at VCAT which is unlikely to occur because Council’s performance at the application’s planning conference was pathetic (Lipshutz threatened to close the meeting down three times) and even more pathetic has been Council’s non existent planning for developments in the Commercial 1 and Mixed Use Zones.
Council doesn’t have a leg to stand on in arguing against this development, because it has failed to undertake Structure Planning in the Activity Centres and therefore lacks the necessary data and strategic justifications required to implement Design and Development Overlays which would have enabled heights and set back requirements. Structure Planning and the implementation of DDO’s was promised way back in 2003 and never delivered. And guess what, “get Glen Eira Council to undertake Structure Planning and implement DDO’s” was the comment made by the Minister when the residents (without Council knowledge or support) met with Wynne to complain about Council’s inadequate town planning..
No doubt residents will be mounting a campaign to present at VCAT but I doubt they’ll be asking Hyams or Lipshutz to join them.
January 12, 2016 at 4:34 PM
Council is on public record as stating that inappropriate developments are those that don’t “comply with the relevant planning law”. Most development complies with relevant planning law, in part because PAEA is so weak: it only describes a process, not what planning decisions should be.
GECC has also expressed its belief that the new Zones allows it to make clearer what it considers appropriate. It will be fascinating to hear Council argue just how clear its policies and Planning Scheme are when defending its non-decision concerning this 9-storey development in a Commercial Zone at VCAT.
There are multiple developments even taller who have obtained planning permits in Carnegie. Council has argued that these huge developments shouldn’t have to comply with residential amenity standards, and can disregard the need to ensure an equitable distribution of development potential, and shouldn’t have to fund the infrastructure they require, and don’t need open space within safe convenient walking distance. VCAT agrees, but because it is accountable to no-one, can be even more reckless.
Remember too that Council lobbied the Minister to rezone sufficient land to provide 85 years’ supply targeted for “higher density” at “current development rates”. VCAT subsequently increased that to 115 years by massively increasing the yield developers were encouraged to expect. Of course, there isn’t really 115 years’ supply if the development rate trebles, which appears to be the effect of the recent Residential and Commercial zone changes.
Neither VCAT nor Council has been game to state publicly what the projected population would be under this scenario. What IS clear is that they all expect us to subsidize developer profits, and that is what is so offensive about Cr Lipshutz’ ill-judged comments.
January 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM
Correct. 9 stories and more have gone up in Carnegie. There is nothing to stop 9 stories in Bentleigh either because nothing exists in the planning scheme to say that this height is not on. That is not vcat’s fault or even the state government’s fault. It is entirely council’s fault.
January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Fresh air lover It will be great if the Bentleigh block ibuilder is ableto ensure ALLoccupants of the box construction all have windows for fresh sea air and direct sunlight which the VCAT woman member and CR ESAKOFF THOUGHT UNIMPORTANT FOR 17 RESIDENCES AT THE PRINCE DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE GLICK’S FACTORY STOOD IN Dandenong Road, Carnegie.
January 12, 2016 at 9:53 PM
What do you mean? the peasants need fresh air, the resident wretches should be grateful that their meager rates go to keep the elite bureaucrats and councillors in the life they are accustomed to, as well as, make the world masters of poisoning the air, water and food, that would be Chinese developers, lots of profits, to once again overpopulate the world, can you not see the beauty and sustainability in this plan, our cultural ambassador that very practised kowtowing Cr. Deal Willing with all his green sensibilities see’s it clearly, that’s till the pollution levels in Carnegie reaches that of Beijing, like I said who needs fresh air, when you have poison baby formula in a can, it’s a beautiful plan.
Confucius said, if you want to rid yourself of a problem, get another bigger one, sounds very wise
Confucius also said …. He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.
I say …… head for the hills, when a pack of idiots control your destiny
January 12, 2016 at 8:17 PM
Hyams and Magee were heard loud and clear in Bentleigh Club in 2014 Forum organised by Glen Eira residents that they were proud to get the best residential zones for the community who were booed throughout.
January 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Ditto, ditto, ditto! Residents are very well informed!
January 13, 2016 at 7:19 PM
I thought Okotell and Lobo were there too. Okotell boldly said that she and Lobo were not in favour of the zones whereas Lobo did not speak a word. Was he silenced by the gang as they do in the chamber.
January 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM
Okotel’s and Lobo’s comments were focused on community consultation and the new zones – not the zones per se. As far as we can tell they were agreed to in secret by all councillors.
January 14, 2016 at 6:41 AM
Actually Okotel had the gall to lecture the 150 outraged residents who were attending about the importance of communicating with your Councillors and since the residents not Council organised the event was a pathetic display of her political acumen.
Rumour has it she’s standing as a Liberal for an upper house seat in the next State Elections. While it would get her out of Council, it’d be a waste of an opportunity to elect an effective representative to the upper house.
January 13, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Just read the Caulfield Leader of this week. On page 5 Lipshutz has stated in Council that the application for nine-storey on 322-328A Centre Road “This is simply a money making exercise.
Glen Eira you state Lipshutz said “He took umbrage” at Lobo’s comment about developers making profit and in the paper he says the above. He is ignorant of the fact that developers can submit applications for any number of floors according to the zones and sky is the limit with no bloody structural plan. He has begun loosing his marbles. He is a very honest person!