Please listen very carefully to the following audio from last night’s council meeting. It features one resident’s questions that exemplify everything that is wrong with this council. Needless to say, the responses to her queries were anything but satisfactory!
This is not the first time that applications have gone to VCAT and been ‘settled’ at what is known as Compulsory Conferences. Countless times we have the situation where councillors have refused a permit outright, only to find that the planning delegate at VCAT has caved in and the developer got everything he wanted. Since these compulsory conferences are ‘confidential’ residents have no idea as to the reasons behind the cave in. Caving in at a compulsory conference also means that there is no full hearing and no decision published. Perfect for avoiding full transparency and accountability!
Here are some decisions that were agreed to by council’s delegate at VCAT compulsory conferences. More disturbing than anything is the fact that some of these decisions fly in the face of councillor resolutions to refuse the permit outright. We doubt that councilors are even aware of what officers argue in these compulsory conferences and certainly not the grounds upon which permits are granted. Since no decision is published since a full hearing was averted, the community has no idea why some of these applications got their permits. This in itself says heaps about the lack of transparency and accountability.
Here are some examples of cave ins at compulsory conferences:
2/4 Blair Street, Bentleigh. Councillors refused permit for 4 storeys and 24 apartments. A consent order granted 4 storeys and 22 apartments!
12/14 Howe Street, Murrumbeena. Councillor refusal. Permit granted for 10 x2 storey dwellings.
670 Centre Road & 51 Brown’s Road. Councillor refused amendment for addition level (up to 6 storeys). Permit granted for 6 storeys.
233/47 Glen Huntly Road. Councillors refused permit for 13 storeys . At compulsory conference permit granted for 12 storeys and 105 dwellings.
777 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield. Councillors refused permit for 4 storeys. Permit granted at compulsory conference.
8 Egan Street, Carnegie. Councillors refused permit for 8 storeys. Permit for 8 storeys at compulsory conference.
Besides these major cave ins, there are plenty of others which were refused at officer level (ie never even making it to council) and then suddenly they get their permits at compulsory conferences. Admittedly, some developers might compromise and adjust their plans. This does not however excuse the granting of permits for high rise that were refused overwhelmingly by councilors.
So the questions remain:
- Do councilors even know what happens at compulsory conferences in regards to the planning officer’s position on the application?
- Have councilors voted or even agreed to the planning delegate’s position?
- Why do Glen Eira councilors continue to allow unfettered delegations that excludes councilors completely from their rightful roles as decision makers?
Finally, we provide the following screen dump (from Boroondara council meeting) which shows clearly that not all councils operate in the same manner as our lot. Until our councilors have the balls to stand up to this planning department and insist on full transparency and accountability, then nothing will change. Residents will continue to be the casualties of a planning department allowed to run riot!
None of the above listed applications came back to council for deliberation.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 3, 2019 at 1:40 PM
Well done to the resident and shame on these councillors. They’ve got no idea what goes on and probably don’t care. I am gobsmacked that Torres doesn’t know what is required and Hyams bit about using the money from selling off aged care is rubbish. They will get anything from 6 to 10 million and all of it is to go to the “vulnerable”, whatever that means. What a joke. It will disappear into general revenue and we won’t have a clue how that money is spent.
July 3, 2019 at 2:11 PM
Councillors are effectively sidelined on all important matters to do with planning. Their job is to rubber stamp whatever comes up. Since Silver has to ask if councillors can have a look in reveals how much they are on the outer. Seven storeys fits in very well with the change in status for Caulfield South from ordinary run of the mill neighbourhood centre to now large neighbourhood centre. That is the planning department’s thinking and supermarkets fit this bill to a tee. I would bet that not one single councillor had any idea about the seven storey approval that’s on the cards.
July 3, 2019 at 3:58 PM
The application for the 9 storey Hawthorn Road development is dated November 2018 and refused on the 13/3/2019 according to council’s planning register. If we are to believe Hyams assertions that councillors are ‘informed’ as to what is really happening, then the minutes of the Assembly records should provide ‘evidence’ that the topic was even discussed. There is no mention of this application in the minutes of the Records of Assembly. Two conclusions are therefore possible:
1. Either there was no discussion and Hyams is being entirely disingenuous, or
2. It was ‘discussed’ but not entered into the minutes as required by the Local Government Act.
Either way, we either have a councillor not presenting the full facts or a breach of the Local Government Act.
July 3, 2019 at 4:13 PM
Thanks for the recording!!!
Suzie
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 at 1:12 PM
July 3, 2019 at 7:11 PM
Beautifully said Suzanne. Agree with every word.
July 4, 2019 at 7:15 AM
Totally agree with you Suzanne.
July 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM
Sadly its true. Who attends these meetings? Is it the same people and what guidelines has council provided them? Or are they just sent in blind?
July 3, 2019 at 9:49 PM
Bravo Suzanne – thanks for expressing the outrage felt by many local residents at Council’s apparent unwillingness to oppose inappropriate development in our city!!!
July 3, 2019 at 10:35 PM
Sick to death of the bullshit about how much work this mob have to do. Most of it is already done. Bentleigh, Carnegie structure plans are waiting for Wynne to okay them. Maybe a little fiddling here and there but council has basically finished this off. East Village is mostly done by the developers and VPA. That’s been going for ages and also 90% done. There’s no reason why they can’t start on south Caulfield, East Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond right now. They won’t because they don’t want to until its too late and everything is 7, 8 9 and even 12 stories.
July 4, 2019 at 7:18 AM
Yep, there are no excuses for these never ending delays only suspicions. Torres not even sure what resources are required to put in controls says much about planning in Glen Eira.
July 4, 2019 at 11:20 AM
I completely concur with what others have said in applauding the comments by Suzanne. Development has got out of hand in Glen Eira and council has done nothing to oppose it. Instead they have ensured that more and more is welcome.
Councillors are supposed to represent residents. So far they have not. They have done everything they’ve been told to do against community wishes.
July 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM
Not good enough that Suzanne should even have to get up in front of Council and tell them as it is. The description of waffle that Suzanne gave is polite, more accurate is absolute bull****.
July 5, 2019 at 4:06 PM
The whole process stinks. The Planning Scheme doesn’t reflect community feedback for a start. When something is rejected, possibly without even being advertised, there is no transparency or accountability for that decision.
Suzanne did a great job in calling out that the responsible Director didn’t know what resources his team would need in order to develop structure plans for South Caulfield. Some councillors have expressed a private view that they believe they could leverage the “work” done for Bentleigh, Carnegie, Elsternwick, but that would potentially mean discretionary height limits of up to12 storeys.
At the time of the meeting the compulsory mediation hadn’t taken place. I’m curious what Ron Torres considers to be subject to confidentiality prior to that meeting, and what legislation or rule imposes confidentiality.
8 Egan St is an example of a previous Council decision where the application for 8 storeys was rejected, went to mediation, and council’s delegate agreed to 8 storeys. Council should explain what it achieved in mediation that addressed each of its concerns.
If an area is zoned Commercial then there is no need to consider neighbourhood character, but there is still a need to consider amenity of nearby residential properties. Not good enough to ignore standards, no matter how weak. Waiving compliance should ONLY be in those circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the alternative design solution truly solves the problem that the standard addresses. I’d go further and argue that mere compliance isn’t sufficient. As per the Act, the responsible authority can refuse an application on any grounds it thinks fit.
July 5, 2019 at 4:27 PM
We have repeatedly posted about delegations in Glen Eira. When councillors allow over 95% of planning matters to be decided by officers, and without the necessary limitations and checklists on their authority, then residents are in deep trouble. It was only due to the fiasco of an application for 8 storeys in Centre Road Bentleigh, and then an application for a time extension which council approved by an ordinary planning officer that residents had to take up the cudgels and lobby long and hard for limited success. Now the online register lists those time extension applications. Problem is that probably 95% are granted and we still do not know why. No reasons are published and we doubt that councillors even get a say, except for the contentious ones. There is no transparency and certainly no accountability surrounding planning applications.
It is worth pointing out that many other councils have the equivalent of our Delegated Planning committee. The difference is that in Glen Eira we have 3 officers sitting in judgement. No councillors are included, again in stark contrast to the way other councils operate. No minutes of these meetings are published and they are held during office hours making it difficult for many objectors to attend without giving up a day’s work or foregoing other duties and responsibilities.
We repeat what we have stated countless times. Councillors who refuse to ensure that it is they who hold the reins rather than unelected officialdom are not representing their community. They are mere lapdogs, and it is literally a case of the tail wagging the dog. Residents pay the price in so many ways.
July 5, 2019 at 5:52 PM
When Council delegates its powers and duties, it should be clear about what limitations are placed on each delegation, and should have procedures in place that monitor how delegated powers are being used. Delegation should never be used to avoid public scrutiny. GECC has traditionally handed over power to its officers without adequate procedures.
On the wider planning front, our problems run deeper. Nothing gets into our planning scheme without the Minister’s consent, and he or she takes advice from their Department, who have their own vested interests in their long-term career prospects. The Department is just as uncomfortable with public scrutiny as our council. Council could ask for 6-storey mandatory height limits somewhere and get told it has to be 8-storeys and only discretionary. We the public are not kept informed about who is demanding what, crippling our ability to exercise true democratic power. FOI is an unfunny joke and the excessive reliance on secrecy, confidentiality, exemptions from FOI, all add up to poor governance.
July 6, 2019 at 9:16 AM
Our CEO Rebecca McKenzie in her role as President of some LG Organisation (which I cannot remember) gave a fairly long interview on 774 yesterday afternoon.
The topic in question was the rise of physical and verbal assaults on Council workers/officers across the board, (Glen wasn’t mentioned)
In this interview see went on and on about the falling lack of respect the general public has when it comes to dealing with council staff.
What I found it interesting was her very myopic view she put forward for this declining public respect. I noticed her reasons she loaded onto residents for this civil decline are the same behaviors she and her staff practises daily at the Town Hall.
What’s disappointing is as CEO of GE she hasn’t even vaguely considered the role of her organisation has in this decline in civil respect.
July 6, 2019 at 10:09 AM
Yesterday was Sally Capp from Melbourne. A regular with Faine. Didn’t hear all of it so maybe McKenzie came on later?
July 6, 2019 at 1:05 PM
Afternoon on 774
July 6, 2019 at 11:46 AM
Maybe it could be replayed
July 8, 2019 at 4:00 PM
Interesting! 12% loss on sale reported in Glen Eira and more inBoroondara and Stonnington. https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/the-sydney-and-melbourne-suburbs-where-up-to-a-third-of-homes-are-selling-at-a-loss-20190708-p5255g.html
July 8, 2019 at 4:57 PM
I’m not surprised at all, the latest news putting all responsible back on the owner for defects or substandard products or building practises, like flammable cladding, or building evacuation due to serious cracking because of substandard building methods. It’s all become a bit of a free-for-all barroom brawl, except lawyer ain’t free.