The Davis motion to revoke the Ormond Tower Amendment was passed in the upper house today. The vote was 21 for and 16 against. The Greens voted with the Liberals.
We’ve uploaded the document HERE. Please turn to page 7 to start reading – that is, if you have the stomach for the political games on display here from all sides!
By way of summary here is a list of points –
- All seemed to believe that council’s position on eight storeys had community support – that council had in fact ‘consulted’ with its residents!
- Hypocrisy all round – as pointed out from both sides of the political fence
- Asher Judah’s previous role on the Property Council highlighted by Labor
- Nick Staikos’ silence and no such developments proposed for Bentleigh & McKinnon seen by the Libs as protecting a marginal seat. (Seems that Council is doing the govt’s dirty work on this one via their draft structure plans!)
- The total inconsistency of the Greens – on the one hand arguing that 13 storeys is too high for a Neighbourhood Centre and this would be even higher than what exists in the Urban Villages, but then arguing that 8 storeys is fine!
The level of debate that exists in our parliaments and council chambers is frankly appalling. The only winners are lawyers and the development industry. Certainly not communities!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 16, 2017 at 8:20 AM
Ha, it’s duck & cover time, the Liberal Party through Davis and Crozier were pathetically expedient, from my experience it doesn’t take too much imagination to know what would be going down at Ormond if they were in control. They are happy to bang on like half-wits for ever, whilst real issues relating to the overall sustainability of Ormond, Glen Eira, and Melbourne as a whole never ever get a mention.
So where is Ormond Station development now, completely back to the drawing board?
The station areas has lost a great deal of car parking that was there before all this development. Cadby Ave opposite the station is under going a major building boom, and is for the time being is choc-a-block with work vehicles to the point of being almost dysfunctional as a roadway, it must be hell for the local residents there.
Maybe a sensible use for this multi million dollar concrete pad designed to take a 20 storey building apparently, would be to use it for commuter parking. As this mess could take years to sort out.
November 16, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Planning is hopelessly political. In this particular case what has happened is that Amendment C170 has been revoked. That Amendment made the Minister the Responsible Authority and introduced a Comprehensive Development Plan for the site. It also made changes to local policy to justify what the government was doing.
A 13-storey tower can still be built. Maybe it’ll be 20 storeys. Somebody can apply for a planning permit under the current Scheme and the Minister can approve it. Politics may mean he won’t do it, but Planning Law allows it.
There’s been a bunch of comments from various members of the development industry about the decision. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment form Mary Delahunty about spending thousands on lawyers when Council forgoes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from waiving compliance with its Local Law. Alan March [associate professor of planning] felt revoking Ministers’ excessive use of powers of intervention would “change the face of the planning system”. PCA’s Sally Kapp thought using the Minister’s powers of intervention qualified as “properly vetting” a project. Those of us who have read Panel reports are aware of how inadequate they usually are.
We don’t have marginal seats along the Caulfield-Dandenong rail corridor so nobody in a position of power gives a shit about it. It wasn’t even subject to the same scrutiny as C170.
November 16, 2017 at 5:28 PM
Okotel’s selection as vice pres of federal libs shows the state of politics in this country. Woeful performances on radio and q & a and today’s stuff in the Age makes it worse.
November 17, 2017 at 5:02 PM
Ms Okotel has self inflicted this pain of embarrassment on herself.
November 17, 2017 at 6:05 PM
Is it the same Asher Juddah (?) who has been selected as a liberal party candidate for Bentleigh in 2018 works in property development??. Was it not the liberal government who wanted to keep the property development organisation happy and ordered for inappropriate buildings? Richard Wynn has not done much other than some powdering from powder room.
November 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM
Off topic. Last nights mayoral vote saw the end of the ratepayers being ripped off with the very part time mayor losing the vote. Delahunty has spent little time in the past 12 months in the town hall when compared to past mayors. She has been happy to collect the near $100,000 for the year plus baby sitting allowances. She continued to work in her normal job which involves considerable interstate travel. The ratepayers deserve more of a commitment from the mayor. Lets hope Tony will show more respect for the office. The mayor is there to serve the people. Mary had it the other way around.
November 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM
who voted for who?
November 18, 2017 at 10:08 AM
Tony and Mary nominated. Tony won. Deputy mayor. Hyams, Nina and Clare. Hyams won. Mary was obviously disappointed as she didn’t expect opposition. She left straight away.
November 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM
Pleasing scenes. Mixed views on Tony but nonetheless a most welcome change.
November 18, 2017 at 8:41 PM
Live by the sword and die by the sword – Is Tony a member of the labour member?
November 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM
In that case was she a user? What is Tony’s profession? Tony needs to sharpen up his scissors before anything else.
November 18, 2017 at 2:15 PM
Tony is a “giver” not a “taker” as was the last mayor.
November 18, 2017 at 10:14 PM
Yes, lets give him all of the chance he deserves, if he turns out to be Hyam’s beholden handmaiden, that’s another story
November 18, 2017 at 10:36 PM
Anon, you seem to know the givers and takers. Are you able to say with conviction who are the givers and takes from the lot?
November 18, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Why Hyams as Deputy and not Clare or Essakotf. Would any one share some light? If O’Kotell was in Council she would be the mayor. Talent wasted.
November 18, 2017 at 12:20 PM
It’s hypothetical but No, I doubt if anyone of her colleagues would have had the confidence in making Okotel Mayor, as she didn’t shine to bright, she hardly ever said a word in the Chamber, and on the rare occasions she did, it was just a repeat or veiled copy of what Hyams or Essacoff had said before her.
November 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM
Very interesting scenario that Oketel quit as she wanted to run for the senate. Her thinking was that people on the a government payroll are not eligible to enter Parliament. Bloke in Tasmania, current mayor of Burnie has a different view which is supported by past High Court Judge Kirby and several experts. They say that a councillor is not an office of the Crown. It seems that the High Court may go along with this. There has been many councillors over the years given up the job to run for Parliament and ended up with nothing.
November 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM
Thumping loss for Labor in Northcote byelection. Wonder if that will produce in changes in their policies or if it’ll be full steam ahead with their Melbourne 2050 “strategy”.