Council has decided to cave in on the 10-16 Selwyn Street application for two 10 storey towers, and a major supermarket. All done in secret at the last council meeting. The minutes did not record the vote. This decision flies in the face of what has been determined over the past few years. Please note:
- 2 unanimous councillor decisions to refuse the permit
- VCAT refusing the first permit
- Council’s refusal to employ anything ‘higher’ than a solicitor for this second VCAT hearing
- May street status still left uncertain and council unwilling to share their legal advice on this issue
- For all the talk about the Jewish Cultural Centre, and access to this ‘pedestrian’ mall, council has (deliberately?) dragged its feet in its stated objective of closing off part of the street. Two years down the track, we still have the same traffic conditions.
As far as we know, the only ‘concessions’ made by the applicant are to remove one storey from the proposed 10 storey tower, and to increase setbacks for this tower. At best this is likely to be nothing more than a 3 metre reduction. Nothing has been stated on traffic, the objective of pedestrianising Selwyn Street when there is an admitted potential for 5,000 additional cars in the street, the loading bay directly opposite a primary school level crossing, etc. etc. etc.
The end result is that objectors will be fighting both council and the applicant at the upcoming VCAT hearing. Why these new plans were agreed to by council remains secret. We can only conjecture what occurred last Tuesday night, but it is worth remembering that:
- Only 7 councillors were in attendance – Zhang and Pilling were absent
- We very much doubt that the decision was unanimous. Hence a minority of Glen Eira councillors decided council’s position on this application.
- What arguments were used by the pro permit lobby – ie costs involved for council? Heritage can be ‘sacrificed’ as has happened plenty of times before? Some secret deals involving May Street – maybe a section 173 agreement where council is paid off?
Whatever the reasons and the arguments, we maintain that the lack of transparency and accountability by this council is unconscionable – as is their responsibility to ensure that ‘net community benefit’ is the result of all major planning decisions. This cave in benefits no-one except the developer and those parties who were provided with a so-called ‘discount’ of millions by supporting the application.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 19, 2022 at 11:57 AM
I would bet my life that both Magee and Athanasopolous voted for the new permit.
March 19, 2022 at 3:00 PM
The almost non-existent Minutes doesn’t record the address of the proposed development, doesn’t contain a summary of information considered, has no details of resolutions made. Admittedly when the Andrews Government gutted the Local Government Act to remove key transparency and accountability measures, there isn’t a need for any records to be kept. We DO know that the meeting was closed because allegedly confidential information was being considered (very hard to see how legal professional privilege applies to it though). Days later a letter from Ron Torres emerges revealing some of that confidential information. How did it suddenly become no longer confidential? Why is the address of the development confidential?
On the substantive matter, this is a familiar playbook that Council is following: decide everything is acceptable provided one storey is lopped off. VCAT may choose to reinstate that storey because Council has admitted that the traffic impacts and overshadowing and other amenity impacts are only negligibly different with that extra storey. There are also other parties to the matter, who appear to have been excluded, and indeed not consulted by Council.
March 19, 2022 at 8:39 PM
The perfect environment corruption, who would ever know.
March 21, 2022 at 9:23 AM
Why not make a freedom of information request to council to get details of who said and did what in regard to the turnaround meetings etc ?
March 21, 2022 at 9:35 AM
Unfortunately, when an item is labelled ‘confidential’ and decided in camera, it remains so until there is a resolution to remove the confidential nature of the item. Secondly, the ‘without prejudice’ ‘offer’ is completely legal and is seen as an effort to negotiate. Furthermore, whatever has been offered (if rejected) cannot be then used in any court proceedings. The newly accepted plans will be available to objectors in the coming weeks, since it is still going to VCAT.
March 21, 2022 at 12:05 PM
The confidential aspect may have already been removed. Ron Torres has published details from the item. It is questionable whether the entire item should have been treated as confidential. The plans for example shouldn’t have been. Somebody has in effect asked, if a planning permit was applied for using these plans in this location, would you support it or reject it. That’s something we should all know, and how each councillor voted. I wonder how seriously the “without prejudice” plans are an attempt to resolve the matter since other parties were excluded. The alleged grounds for treating everything, including the address of the development, as confidential is “Legal Professional Privilege”. That could be disputed. If it is accepted that everything is confidential then yes, under Council’s Public Transparency Policy it can keep it all hidden. Council could do that anyway by invoking the “contrary to the public interest” escape clause.