DELAHUNTY: stated that Magee has got a ‘special place in my heart’ because ‘in one sentence’ you can find yourself disagreeing with him and then when he gets to the end you go ‘yeah’. Didn’t know whether she could ‘endorse’ all of Magee’s comments especially on structure planning and ‘proper strategic conversations’. Said that the review is an important strategic document that should help residents ‘shape’ the community. Said that some councillors think that ‘we should be doing what other councils are doing’ like ‘going down the path of structure planning’. So ‘perhaps if these had been done some time ago’ then ‘we would have had the discussion about’ the strategic vision and maybe the same issues with VCAT but ‘with more influence and the greater ability to more strategically manage the outcomes’. This is ‘what structure planning does’ even though it might ‘still have ambiguities in it when it comes to appeal rights’ that ‘sort of conversation with the public is very important to have’.
Gave an example of a planning application for East St. Kilda where it is a very ‘small block’ surrounded by 5 and 6 storey buildings ‘all around it’. But at the ‘other end of the municipality’ the same planning rules exist – such as in Bentleigh and when an application comes in ‘you are standing in a quarter acre vegie patch’. ‘It just feels like such a different part of the world’. So in order to ‘properly’ define these neighbourhoods and ‘how they should grow’ and ‘how we manage the rate of change is an incredibly important piece of work’ and ‘it should have been done by council a long time ago’. Said that she isn’t ‘having a go’ at others but that ‘we thought we had the right policies in place’ but ‘you always need to check whether you’re doing things in the best manner’. Thought that ‘we were a little left behind’ in this. Said that the Minister ‘is right to point out that we have some inconsistencies’ compared to other councils and that ‘it is right for us to come up with this work plan’. Thought it was proper to set aside ‘time’ and money in order ‘to have this conversation with residents to develop structure plans’
COMMENT
Some slack can admittedly be granted to Delahunty given that she has inherited the decisions of previous councils and was elected in 2012. However, her above comments also deserve some major criticism.
- Is Delahunty hedging her bets? – ie on the one hand admitting council’s slackness in not achieving anything for years and years, but then on the other hand, excusing this inaction by claiming they thought they had got the policies ‘right’. All one needs to consider is the constant complaints about VCAT and it is obvious that the so called policies were not ‘right’.
- Delahunty has publicly stated that she ‘lost the argument’ on community consultation on the new zones and that she is glad she lost the argument! In other words, this is condoning the decision to exclude the public. Now we get the motherhood statements of how important it is to have community consultation. Sounds a little like Magee we suggest – inconsistent and opportunistic.
- Delahunty voted for this draft review, yet there is barely a word about the time lag of the work plan, nor any of the other recommendations. As for ‘setting aside money’ that won’t be until the next budget so more delay. Surely if someone votes for something the least that residents should expect is an insight into the rationale of why, or why not, the recommendations are acceptable?
- Delahunty has also not been averse to voting for plenty of developments. Here is a list of her voting patterns. Many of these motions to grant permits were moved or seconded by Delahunty –
15-19 VICKERY STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 47 units
670-672 CENTRE ROAD & 51 BROWNS ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 67 units
10 & 12 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 35 units
9 & 9A Truganini Road, Carnegie – 20 units
23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 34 units
30-32 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 12 double storeys
1100 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE – 22 units
337-343 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 33 units
247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 48 units
143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY – 32 units
817-819 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 26 units
629-631 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – 15 units
1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 117 units
14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 55 units
339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 35 units
14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE – 21 units
495-501 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK – 7 storeys, 32 units
670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storeys, 50 units
168 Hotham Street ELSTERNWICK – 4 storeys, 67 units
29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 42 units
22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 41 units
15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 52 units
150 Tucker Road BENTLEIGH – increase of dwellings form 13 to 20
401-407 Neerim Road Carnegie – 5 storey, 57 units
67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 storeys, 30 units
Glen Eira Debates 
August 15, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Delahunty’s record isn’t anything to write home about. She’s an aspiring politician meaning she will say and do what suits and what she thinks people want to hear. Don’t think if elected she will see out the term. State preselection is her go.
August 15, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Ah Delahunty!!! She very quickly adopted “the work for three months after getting elected, then sit back and do buggar all until 6 months prior to the next election” approach to representation.
Her favourite comment when voting for a development is “Residents are claiming their streets are being ruined by development but I’ve yet to see street ruined”.
August 15, 2016 at 12:51 PM
Mary Mary quite contrary
How does your city grow?
Up, stupid
Mary is a Labor hopeful, she has larger ambitions than being a small town councillors. Hanging around with the likes of Lobo and Magee clearly aint her thing. She wants, like so many in her family to live off the taxpayer purse, meaning she is never going to put herself offside with their developer mates, developers are a major contributor to Labor’s campaign funds, and they don’t want to lose a cent to the Libs.
August 15, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Delahunty will never have hopes to be a MP as she is nothing but a drama queen. Mary may have a place in her ‘questionable heart’ for Magee but I doubt she has any regard for Lobo. Being an opportunist, Delahunty is portraying to be what she is not. She likes developments and particularly so to accomodate low family income etc She has to visit “streets to see the chaos of parking.”
August 15, 2016 at 5:25 PM
Around half a dozen printed agendas were available for last council meeting. Over 20 people in the gallery. Minutes were stuffed up completely and no apology. Now just on a week later, minutes still have to make an appearance.
August 15, 2016 at 6:24 PM
This is the 5th in a series of posts about what our councillors think of the Planning Review, and yet none of our councillors have responded to what should be in a Review as per Planning Pratice Note 32 Review of Planning Schemes or commented on what is missing from the Report. GECC seems to be unaware that DELWP provides guidance for Structure Planning in Activity Centres eg PPN 58 Structure Planning for Activity Centres and Activity Centre Design Guidelines. While I don’t think the Department is particularly competent, I think GECC should at least explain why it rejects the advice contained in those documents.
The reasons for past failures to review the planning scheme remain unacceptable. If councillors believe it appropriate to outsource planning for the municipality back to the State Government they should say so and campaign on it at election time. Not a single councillor is comfortable saying what “inappropriate development” means to them; the Planning Scheme currently is pathetically weak; and VCAT has repeatedly set aside Council decisions. It amazes me that none of them have shown any interest in improving the scheme to reduce VCAT’s freedom. Instead of moaning, they should be drafting Amendments to plug the gaping holes.
Looks like we can expect only minor tinkering from our councillors, assuming they are reelected. Still no explanation why they considered it appropriate to rezone land from R1Z to RGZ in established residential areas. As things stand, Council can’t control rate of change, density, dwelling diversity. Council doesn’t even assess planning applications against the Decision Guidelines in the Planning Scheme. You might think they’d at least have checklists against which to verify compliance.
August 15, 2016 at 7:29 PM
They are clearly not interested in developing a quality planning framework. The incompetence displayed by some is merely a facade for pro-development support. The incompetence displayed by others is just that, incompetence.