The audio below also comes from last Wednesday night’s council meeting. It presents a resident’s question on the development rate in Glen Eira and how council can justify its proposed structure plans, especially the nominated heights, when this is in complete opposition to what residents have stated repeatedly they did not want.
We urge everyone to listen very, very carefully to the response that Hyams gave. He is certainly not averse to embellishment (being kind) or straight out misleading and erroneous statements. Needless to say, the resident’s question was not answered in any shape or form.
Some observations:
- Hyams’ claims that structure plans are there to present a very, very long term vision (ie 50 years) in order to cater for projected population growth. Nothing could be further from the truth! Structure plans have a time span of roughly 20 to a maximum of 30 years and certainly not 50 years as claimed. Secondly, even the State Government’s Plan Melbourne Refresh, only goes to 2050. That is a time span of 34 years. No reputable institution, and certainly no council, plans ahead for 50 years. This is a blatant untruth. Something that Hyams knows, or should know given his time on council since 2003!
- As an example of how other councils view the function of structure plans, we present below two screen dumps on CURRENT structure planning consultations by Bayside and Kingston. Please note the duration of both these plans! Hardly 50 years!!!!!!
- We also note that the resident’s question has not been answered! Nothing Hyams has stated explains why these councilors so willingly adopted heights of 12 storeys in the face of constant community opposition and outrage. Where is the justification for this? The recent VCAT judgement made it stunningly clear how sub standard planning is in Glen Eira!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 20, 2019 at 5:40 PM
Remarkable to be spinning 50 years on when this council can’t even correct what they did the previous year.
October 20, 2019 at 8:04 PM
It’s really hard to know why Hyams bothers running for council as he demonstrates time and time again he not at all interested in the welfare of residents or even representing residents views, his contempt for residents seems to grows and grows as our planning mismanagement and problems snowball. He seems to enjoy spending his time covering the backsides of our blundering bureaucrats and seeking for the best outcomes for the developers. I for one have become very suspicious of his motives and actions. It would be good if residents of Tucker Ward moved him on in the next election. Sadly since most of the damage he inflicts is in either Camden or Rosstown Wards they may well give this little pipsqueak another run.
October 20, 2019 at 9:13 PM
The damage is everywhere and Tucker ward is now also in their sights with it being changed to a large neighbourhood centre and 3000 boxes to go into the East village. Love the way they still call it a village. All of these councillors have got to go.
October 21, 2019 at 9:24 AM
Another dreadful response [can’t be called an answer] from Council. There isn’t a publicly available evidence trail to substantiate any of Cr Hyams’ claims. We do however have Planning Practice Note 60 concerning heights and setback controls for Activity Centres telling us that “Structure plans should be formulated in a collaborative manner with the local community”. Council is now walking away from that, blaming it on the Department [athough it is only the Minister, Richard Wynne, that has the authority to refuse Council permission to prepare Amendments].
One issue that was conflated in the question and response is number of dwellings vs population. You can squeeze more 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom dwellings into a given space but that wouldn’t meet the needs of the municipality since we’re projecting the number of families requiring 3+ bedrooms to increase, not decrease. Sadly Council’s response has been to promote a monocultural approach, pushing for only 1- and 2-bedroom apartments in and around activity centres [themselves poorly defined], with poor solar access and without convenient access to public open space for children’s recreational needs.
October 21, 2019 at 11:07 AM
CarnegieResident, I’m glad you mentioned “solar access” as this is a very pressing and important issue that is often overlooked.
October 21, 2019 at 2:25 PM
So much spin happens at the local council level; most of which is the result of secret council dealings/meetings. Why is the labor element so quiet on this front and yet at the federal level today they advocate freedom of speech and disclosure. Both major parties need to stop and open the books so we the voters can pass judgement on an informed basis. Then again most of the current crop of councillors would more than likely lose their seat if they did that?
October 21, 2019 at 2:45 PM
You’re assuming that councillors even know, or have bothered to find out what goes on behind closed doors. Most wouldn’t have a clue. The rest wouldn’t care. Even if they did, they’re warned off. Dictatorship rules again.
October 21, 2019 at 5:16 PM
all correct observations, and also add if you think you have career in politics “ie. living off the pax payers purse” you have to demonstrate to your controllers you can kowtow to the parties developers mates and all their other donors, rock the boat and you are out.
October 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM
Can I say I told you so!!!!….page 4 Herald Sun 23/10/2019 “Victoria singled out for lack of transparency”, seems to have filtered down to council level. We need both major parties to show leadership and transparency.