A new record low in public relations has been reached by Glen Eira City Council. The issue relates to the draft amendment for McKinnon Road, McKinnon. In an unprecedented move the Planning Conference was arbitrarily designated as ‘by invitation only’. No sound reasoning was provided for this new move to stifle community involvement. Instead, anyone who bothered to question the rationale behind such a decision was provided with the pro forma response sent out to all questioners by Delahunty. She wrote:
As you know we are currently reviewing all aspects of our planning process, including our Planning Conference processes. As part of this review we will trial different approaches, and seek community feedback before implementing permanent changes.
From time to time there are contentious or sensitive applications that, in our view, require a slightly different approach in order to ensure that community views are able to be heard in a safe, welcoming and respectful environment. This Council is absolutely committed to transparency, but we are similarly committed to a no tolerance approach to racism, bullying and inappropriate behaviour.
The application for 88-100 McKinnon Road is an example of a more sensitive application. For this reason only those who have made a formal submission through the advertisement process will be able to attend.
Please encourage those who are in contact with you to give me a call if they need further explanation.
But the best was yet to come! At the actual Planning Conference held last week, POLICE WERE PRESENT. Residents were told that they were there in order to PROTECT THE DEVELOPER from angry residents. It is indeed a very sad state of affairs when residents, who have every right to attend such a meeting (regardless of whether or not they are formal objectors) are firstly denied access, and secondly, treated as potential hoodlums.
Surely council would be better off spending our hard earned dollars, not on hiring armed police, or drafting obnoxious and spurious excuses for its decisions, but instead accelerating its stated planning scheme work!
There are many questions that need to be answered on this set of events:
- Did all councillors know that these decisions had been made?
- If they did, then did they support them?
- Who made the decision? When was it made?
- On what basis was such a decision made? – and please no bogus claims about ‘damaging’ developer’s property or his need for ‘protection’!
- Is this the course that council has set itself for the next few years? Is there actually a ‘policy’ which outlines the circumstances that police are ‘invited’ and residents excluded?
- How will any of these actions solve the root problem of inadequate and negligent planning?
- Given all the community angst, how on earth can council still claim that there is enough development potential in Glen Eira for the next 100 years as stated in their submission to Infrastructure Victoria?!!!!!!!!
Finally, what on earth was council trying to achieve through such actions except to alienate more of its constituents and to again prove how little respect is held for residents.
February 26, 2017 at 11:01 PM
Outrageous. We’re not living in bloody Putin’s Russia.
February 27, 2017 at 12:43 AM
Where land prices and not capital improvement rule the market place. Residents get thrown to the wolves. And the developers have the big stick of building a multi storey building on your fence line. This has been the practise in parts of Glen Eira and The City of Caulfield before Glen Eira existed, these practises have been going on since the early 1960’s, close to 60 years now.
This trial or new Planning Conference Processes could be more accurately be described as the latest perversion that demonstrates that democracy exists for some and not for others.
George Orwell wrote “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” Maybe George had the greed driven wolves that are stalking the streets of Bentleigh and McKinnon in 2017 in mind.
February 27, 2017 at 6:47 AM
Whatever someone is planning here must be huge. If it needs an amendment before any application is made they must have lots of influence.
I thought only the MRC would be involved in this stuff.
February 27, 2017 at 8:45 AM
The land is currently zoned as ‘industrial’ – hence no residential development allowed. Rezoning to Mixed Use will allow apartments.
February 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM
Intimidation? Maybe. Plain dumb? For sure. Council has laid an egg of monumental proportions this time.
February 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM
Impossible to reconcile council’s stated commitment to open and transparent government that works for the community with what has happened here. Delahunty’s response, regardless of whether she wrote it or not, does her no credit. Sending in the police is even worse. Is this now going to happen every single time there is a planning conference? People are angry over development and so they should be. That doesn’t mean that police and the expense involved is the first recourse of council. Residents deserve an apology.
February 27, 2017 at 10:01 AM
Who formed the view that the public should be excluded, that police should be in attendance, where is this documented, and where is Council’s policy stating the criteria to be used for such a decision? There is no transparency around it. I find it extraordinary that Council claims it has a “no tolerance approach to racism, bullying and inappropriate behaviour”, when it has repeatedly tolerated racism, bullying and inappropriate behaviour by councillors. It is also inappropriate to permit only those who have submitted a written objection to attend the planning conference: if anything, the planning conference should be for those who have NOT put in a written submission. The refusal should now be automatic grounds for anybody to be a party to the matter if taken to VCAT. I do hope somebody has requested a change to the Amendment so that if Council chooses to proceed it will at least be examined by a Panel.
February 27, 2017 at 12:06 PM
We’ve lived here for 28 years and things are getting worse and worse with this council in the way they treat residents. I hate the idea of police being called in when all people want is the opportunity to have a say and be heard. What if the developer hadn’t bothered to show up as they sometimes decide. What a waste of resources both ways.
February 27, 2017 at 12:20 PM
What the hell!! Who pays for the police? Where is the evidence of incidents that have put developers and councillors in such fear of their safety that require a police presence! Mary, Mary, how could you be a party to such a ridiculous state of affairs. The general public needs “further explanation”, not just those who received Council’s letter of invitation.
February 27, 2017 at 1:35 PM
Council would pay for the police. They have to be “booked” and wouldn’t have arrived uninvited. I’m told the meeting went on for hours. If they get paid by the hour quite a few bucks has come out of council’s (meaning our) pockets. This only adds a bit more to the wastage that has been happening since time immemorial.
February 27, 2017 at 1:37 PM
Mary deliberately does not want to see through as she is playing games that she may learnt from the pros.It is clear why old Councillors despite their highly paid full time jobs are wanting to return back to the Council not once but half a dozen times to cover all their wrong decisions on file.
February 27, 2017 at 12:34 PM
Complete overkill on the Council’s part. Unbelievable waste of resources. Let the police get on with their real job. this amendment should be abandoned. Four storeys right next door to a single story house is outrageous. This intersection has been inadequate to take the traffic up Wheatley and McKinnon Rd for years. This needs a rethink.
February 27, 2017 at 1:48 PM
Off topic – in a way – but relates to our previous post on the council agenda –
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/community-action-group-wants-90-million-19storey-proposal-corner-kooyong-rd-and-saturn-st-caulfield-south-rejected/news-story/d8ce8fa3f1f82a69f5d48dbe29aa7b10
February 27, 2017 at 2:47 PM
I submitted an objection and wrote to two ward councillors. Very unhappy about the lack of justification in officer report for the decision to regard the tower as exempt from “mandatory” height limit. One error in the HUN article is the implication the development is exempt because it is an aged-care precinct. Height limits apply to “residential aged care facility” because that is part of the definition of “residential building”. Absolutely agree with Mr Hope the “Independent Living Units” are dwellings so not exempt on that ground either. Crazy that people can reside in a building with kitchens, toilets, showers in their self-contained apartments yet it be considered non-residential.
February 27, 2017 at 4:38 PM
Off topic but wasnt a condition of the cinema at the racecourse that mrc had a lease. Dont have one do they? Apparently theu are holding off building another grandstand till they get a long term lease. Not that many go to the races do they?
February 27, 2017 at 6:42 PM
Chris Padovani of DELWP in an undated letter withdrew the Department’s previous insistence on MRC having a valid lease before the Department would grant consent. In the same letter the Department acknowledged the purpose as being “gourmet cinema”, so it was well aware of MRC’s intention to serve meals in conjunction with screen-based entertainment, all in an environment providing sporting, amusement, entertainment and leasure facilities.
In support of Amendment C60 MRC advised that “there has been a general decline in racing attendances and other racing-related revenue over recent times and it is therefore important to identify other commercial land uses which guarantee alternative long-term revenue streams for the Club”. So yes, interest in horseracing is diminishing year-on-year. Nevertheless MRC maintains its hegemony.
A February 2011 update to Victorian Environment Assessment Council [VEAC] from MRC includes a copy of a Joint Communique between MRC and GECC which states that both parties desire horse training to “relocate…from the Caulfield Racecourse and desire this to happen as expediently as can be facilitated by the Industry. The MRC will provide Council with an annual update on progress.”
Curiously the same Communique reveals that MRC and Council agrees “ball sports should be located outside of the Caulfield Racecourse Resesrve”. Looks like all parties negotiated in bad faith. In the meantime Newtons’s barriers continue to push pedestrians onto Queens Ave roadway into the path of vehicles.
February 27, 2017 at 7:48 PM
You have to seriously question the motivation of whoever made the decision to bring in the police and councillors for going with that decision if they were aware it was going to happen. I didn’t lodge an objection. I am interested in hearing what other residents and the developer had to say. I would like to know why he and council think it is alright to have four stories in this spot. In making this invitation only I have been denied my access to information and the ability to make up my own mind as to any merits or detriments. If this is what council wants then we are on the slippery slope to rule by nobody or rule by the non-elected. Either way this isn’t what residents expect or will tolerate.
February 28, 2017 at 12:11 PM
You and other residents have voted us in. We know what is good for you. Talk is cheap. Keep complaining while we plan more initiatives.
February 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM
I was at the planning conference for 88-100 McKinnon Road. Residents were understandably emotional. 177 objections were received for this. 177! Another point I would like to add is this: The developer has already drawn up plans for the apartment complex (an envelope). Go to the council website and see. They (the developers and the council) did not exhibit these plans during exhibition phase or provide copies of it at the conference. It wasn’t revealed that they even existed until the very end after almost four long hours when somebody asked the council what the thing would look like. This is negligence, lacks transparency, or dare I say it, bordering on corruption?
We looked at the plans and the abutting properties directly effected by the development are not even drawn into the plan. Not factored at all. The developers must assume that we will all cave in and sell off to developers. Even worse, the applicant, Aimee Dash, explained that the complex would have setbacks AND a 60% site coverage. The drawings indicate none of this. More like 75-80% coverage and no side setbacks. 50 apartments, I reckon. Exiting and entering near Wheatley Road. And using the ROW. Great. Just. Great.
February 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM
As this is a rezoning, Council can veto without any recourse at VCAT. On merit this is a poor plan of 4 storeys surrounded by 2 and 3 storey residential areas. Using the ROW as an entry is also horrible, etc. The new Council should oppose this on merit and due to the over development within Glen Eira. If they don’t oppose it we are all doomed!
February 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM
How can they conduct a Planning Conference with no plans on display? And what a waste of police resources.
If the developer wants a rezone he should compromise with a smaller footprint. Any argument that the developer needs to make a return on his investment is rubbish as he bought the land knowing the risks, but probably confident he will get what he wants. Councillors are on notice. Worth attending the Council meeting tonight just to see how the new councillors perform on this issue.
February 28, 2017 at 5:10 PM
The Explanatory Report doesn’t explain why the land should be rezoned MUZ as compared to other options. It ignores that it would create an island of commercial activity separated from McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre. It grossly distorts the truth when it makes the claim that it is surrounded by commercial uses, despite having residential land, either NRZ or GRZ, on every border. It couldn’t even find anything in the Municipal Strategic Statement to support a view that Council wants to expand dramatically the footprint of the commercial area of the precinct. I do wonder why Council isn’t proposing rezoning all the properties that would be sandwiched if proposed Amendment is adopted. Need a Panel to examine this mess.
February 28, 2017 at 5:59 PM
There are plenty of other applications up for decision which we haven’t commented upon as yet, but which leave us scratching our heads as to the recommendations contained in the Camera report.
1. Multiple units in Bent St, Bentleigh. Camera recommends REFUSAL Since council has granted countless permits already for Bent St is this more ‘damage control’ by council. Far too little, too late!
2. Centre Road – application to go from 5 storeys to 6 storeys. This started off as a 4 storey application yonks ago. Council granted permit. Next came an amendment for 5 storeys. Council fought this with arguments about “neighbourhood character’ and too high, blah, blah, blah. Now that there is another amended permit for another increase in height, the Camera report recommends A PERMIT be granted!
Residents need to go through all of these reports to see the nonsense they contain as well as the absence of real justification for any of the recommendations.
February 28, 2017 at 4:43 PM
The main culprits are the ones who stand for elections time and time again to cover their conspiracies and decisions taken in closed doors such as residential destruction zones,guns in the park and whatever pleases their political parties interests. The Councillors are dying to be in the Council to cover their agendas Does any one know how many years has (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) been on Council and asked ourselves and them why on Council?
Maggie is a non event who gets elected from the scraps of Andanapoulous’ table and Ballony O’Kotell’s preferences who were set up for Maggie to win.
February 28, 2017 at 9:42 PM
You are distributing “fake news”. Esakoff got 5593 votes ….Andanapoulous got 3080. She got nobodies scraps, In the end the hairdresser got Esakoff’s scraps.
March 1, 2017 at 7:30 AM
Incumbents have certain natural advantages over name recognition. That combined with relatively low awareness by the community about councillors and their performance helps maintain the Peter Principle. A truly awful performance can still see an incumbent turfed. Hasta la vista Neil Pilling.
March 1, 2017 at 9:20 PM
Pilling has (moderators: rest of sentence deleted)