In August last year Cade voted against the Carnegie structure plan. She has also voted against the housing strategy but was absent for the determinative vote. On East Village she voted in favour of mandatory heights. So what has now changed? Why are we suddenly seeing a trend in Cade’s voting that largely supports the admin’s and planning department’s agenda of high rise and more and more development in our activity centres?
Cade’s voting patterns since being elected deputy mayor are very interesting. Together with Athanasopolous and Magee she voted AGAINST the refusal of a permit for an application in Grafton Street Elsternwick. Other interesting voting patterns include:
- Cade moved the motion for the Bentleigh Structure Plan
- She voted against reducing the height of one section in the Caulfield South Activity Centre
Admittedly she has voted against various permit applications (ie Bentleigh RSL in Huntley Road) but on all the recent major strategic planning strategies, she has been an ardent supporter – which contrasts strongly with her previous position(s) on these matters. So we have to ask: Could this possibly have anything to do with her election as deputy mayor and earning the princely sum of $59,659 PLUS 9.5% p.a for a grand total of just under $66,000? Or has she undergone some religious ‘conversion’? If so, then she needs to explain this.
Cade’s motion of support for the draft on Tuesday night, was staggering in its deception, the obvious pre-arranged Dorothy Dix questioning of Torres, and failure to disclose the full picture in so many instances – ie the sins of omission! Nor can it be seen as a genuine councillor contribution to the debate when much of Cade’s version of events mirrored precisely what appeared in the July edition of the Glen Eira News – basically, ‘don’t blame us, it’s all the government’s fault’! This has now become council’s escape clause for their repeated failures and refusal to (1) listen to the community and (2) adhere to sound strategic planning principles that actually enhance and preserve what residents see as vital aspects of residential amenity.
Here is what Cade stated. Please listen carefully.
“The Victorian government sets the agenda………”. True, but there is still plenty of scope within planning scheme for councils to create their own strategies. Approximately 25% of all planning schemes allow councils scope to introduce what they see as necessary for their communities. That’s why heaps of other councils have had structure plans for at least the past 15 years. That’s why other councils have implemented both ESD and WSUD (environment & water) in their planning schemes. Here in Glen Eira we are still waiting for a community infrastructure levy on developers, a car parking levy, or a WSUD policy – despite all being promised in 2016. In short, there is plenty that councils can do if they have the will. Whether or not a council’s proposed strategies will be approved by the Minister down the line is irrelevant at this early stage of structure planning. The focus should be on implementing sound strategic planning in line with community aspirations and which provides overall ‘community benefit’. There is no ‘community benefit’ in having potentially ten storey buildings overlooking single storey homes in a heritage overlay. Nor is there community benefit in flogging off council owned land for potential ‘mixed use’ development or for social housing. If council was really serious about social housing then it would not have endorsed a policy which seeks a meagre 5% of dwellings as social housing. It would have included a percentage of at least 10=20%! All of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and everything to do with this administration and its lackey, pro-development councillors!
Cade’s question to Torres repeats past practice on the Carnegie/Bentleigh structure plans of several years ago. What happens if the draft isn’t passed Cade asks? Torres’ response once again resorts to straight out fear-mongering when he says: ‘If tonight’s recommendation did not get supported, our structure planning process for Bentleigh would not proceed’!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Why can’t improvements be made, or does council believe everything it sets out is perfect? There is nothing that stops a council from revisiting its drafts (as has happened previously) and ensuring that it is as sound and strategically justified as possible. Furthermore, the issue is not about abandoning the draft. Those councillors who voted against it simply wanted improvement and implied that this was not up to scratch. Given that council still has 18 months to get it right, the suggestion that everything will lapse or be abandoned is outrageous. Nor is it a valid argument to say that the community wants structure plans for ‘better controls’ and so council is providing structure plans. This of course ignores the central question as to whether the final plans do in fact offer ‘better controls’.
Torres then goes even further with the statement that if the motion fails, then the Minister could ‘quite possibly remove those (interim) controls’ from Bentleigh. Fear mongering at its best!!!!! And without a shred to evidence to support this claim. We know of no other instance in planning history where a minister has removed existing interim DDO’s in their entirety prior to the date nominated.
Cade then goes on to a supposed explanation as to why the draft hasn’t included the recommendations of the government’s Urban Design Guidelines. She says that the guidelines are a ‘background document’ and therefore aren’t in the planning scheme – so presumably council can ignore them is the implication. What is not stated is that STRUCTURE PLANS are also considered as background documents and are NOT IN PLANNING SCHEMES either!!!!!!! What does get into planning schemes are the amendments which introduce the Design & Development Overlays. In Glen Eira all of the most important strategic plans are ‘background documents’ –ie East Village structure plan; City PLan, Activity Centre plans; Urban Design Guidelines, etc.
Finally, Cade states that ‘I am not going to talk about building heights and setbacks’ or ‘parking’ because ‘I am sure my fellow councillors will address’ these issues. Really? How on earth can you move a motion to support a structure plan without even mentioning the most important aspects of it, and the most contentious? If you support something, then the onus should be on providing evidence as to why potentially 10 storey developments are appropriate, or why a 5 metre setback (discretionary) is okay when other councils have managed 6 metre setbacks in their major activity centres? But we guess it is easy to ignore the contentious issues and to simple promulgate more propaganda about everything being in the state’s control!
Cade’s conclusion is equally bizarre when she claims to want to hear from other councillors not only on what they like or dislike about the plan, but what they would ‘propose’ as an ‘alternative’. This is completely out of order since the possibility of an ‘alternative’ motion has already been rejected by Magee. Councillors are debating the motion as it stands and NOT what might be a feasible ‘alternative’.
Cade’s sudden ‘conversion’ is a concern. She is also doing the community a major disservice by simply regurgitating officer reports and presumably being complicit in staged Dorothy Dix questioning of officers only to provide them with the opportunity to further the set agenda. We remind her and our readers that stage managed debates are the antithesis of ‘robust’ discussion and serving the community with original thinking!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 10, 2023 at 1:24 PM
Wow 60K for doing bugger all except what you’re told to do. I wanna be a councillor for this kind of dough
July 10, 2023 at 2:41 PM
Rarely do I have the time to attend council meetings, but last Tuesday I did. We wrote and voiced a line of action to have a period of “review” before circulating the structure plan to the community. But this was not considered or voted on.
It does make us frown, the statement (paraphrasing – but evidenced on the tape of the meeting) that decisions are made prior the meeting -and there is no place for surprises. Under this methodology, to take it to the extreme, one could issue the minutes of the agreed outcome of the pre-meetings and decrease the time taken in Ordinary Council Meetings.
The agenda, which included the Bentleigh Structure Plan, was made available to the public the previous Friday, and some of the community wanted to quickly discuss it on the basis things were missing” with the council before moving on to the public consultation. Why? Once a structure design is subject to public input, the community must invest a significant amount of time and money, some of which can be avoided. We all work regular jobs, so if there had been a tiny delay for checking, the level of anxiety and time might have been lower.
In our opinion, the council approved the DRAFT to be shown to the public is a “council” supported structure plan; if not, the phase of public comment ought to have been postponed. This is predicated on the reasoning that if there is no public comment, then there is no need for Councilors to vote against the Draft after already supporting it at a previous council meeting.
We all debate, and somewhere in the middle of those conversations, there is a balance. But structure plans and the basis for decisions should be fact and evidence based.
1. The verbiage on Plan Melbourne needs to be brought into balance. Plan Melbourne has more Principles than just Principle 2 (Melbourne provides housing choice in locations close to jobs and services), as Plan Melbourne draws in a required balance of Outcomes and Directions supporting Livability, Quality Design and amenity, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods, sustainability and resilience. It also prioritises Climate Change Greening of the City and the instruction to contend that planning must consider the entire landscape, all of the land.
There are more principles and outcomes required than the one Principle 2. Plan Melbourne demands integrated planning.
2. The Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria are policy guidelines, a section of the State Planning Policy Framework of the Victoria Planning Provisions. The guidelines – quote -“must be considered” when assessing the design and built form of new development where relevant. The Victorian Planning Provisions are written / included in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (and all Planning Schemes) within Clauses 10 – 19. As such Urban Design Guidelines are included in Clauses 15 (Planning Policy Framework)
15.01-1S 31/07/2018 VC148 Urban design – Policy documents Consider as relevant: Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017)
15.01-2S 10/06/2022 VC216 Building design – Policy documents Consider as relevant: Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017) Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2021) Waste Management and Recycling in Multi-unit Developments (Sustainability Victoria, 2019)
15.01-3S 10/06/2022 VC216 Subdivision design – Policy documents Consider as relevant: Page 92 of 1136 GLEN EIRA PLANNING SCHEME Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017)
15.01-4S 31/07/2018 VC148 Healthy neighbourhoods – Policy documents Consider as relevant: Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017)
A small part of the Urban Design Guidelines (of which the Victorian Planning Provisions state “must be considered”) contains requirements to retain winter sun on key streets – and this was designed/included to assist with east / west main streets and strip shopping centres.
The Department of Environment, Land, Water, and Planning had previously written to Glen Eira on other housing planning matters (C184). This letter was included into the Ordinary Council Meeting on February 4, 2020.
The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning’s advice/letter directed (for that occasion) that housing capacity is not the sole consideration. [Quote]: “Housing capacity is not the only consideration; adhering to Plan Melbourne Principles and state planning policy is paramount.”
We have spent enough time on this already – and probably will not have the time going forward, so we hope others support actions that are factual, evidenced and compliant to State Policy, that the Bentleigh Structure Plan is re-set to have such elements of balance – that conforms to state planning policy and integrated Plan Melbourne outcomes.
Good luck with the now community consultation.
July 10, 2023 at 3:09 PM
You have written –
“It does make us frown, the statement (paraphrasing – but evidenced on the tape of the meeting) that decisions are made prior the meeting -and there is no place for surprises. Under this methodology, to take it to the extreme, one could issue the minutes of the agreed outcome of the pre-meetings and decrease the time taken in Ordinary Council Meetings.”
With Magee’s statement it is abundantly clear that decisions are made in councillor briefing sessions. That is illegal. Secondly, there is no such thing as a “no surprises policy”. If it was a “policy” it should be up on council’s website. It isn’t. Thirdly, even is something like this did exist, it is only another mechanism to keep councillors in line. It flies in the face of good governance and decision making. Nothing has changed in Glen Eira in the past twenty years to the detriment of democracy and good government.
July 10, 2023 at 2:46 PM
It is quite insulting to the intelligence of residents that some councillors believe anything they say will be treated as gospel regardless of the implausibility of the claims.
I wholeheartedly agree with much that is in the post. Residents deserve to be treated with respect and not fobbed off with spin and generalities. Especially not on something as important as a structure plan. If councillors and council are so confident that their planning is A1, then there should be no qualms in addressing the issues head on. All details should be up front and divulged in a clear and precise manner.
We have been down this track numerous times. Calling this the first stage in the process and suggesting that what residents think is integral to decision making is a fantasy. All this does is provide the illusion of consultation because it is a legally binding condition on all councils and then heading off to a planning panel that in 99% of cases will accept councils’ propositions. The first step of any process is to ensure that it is the best possible vision that can be achieved and is in accord with resident views as much as possible.
July 10, 2023 at 2:49 PM
Further to our earlier comment the following Clause from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme may be of interest:
“71.02-2 24/01/2020 VC160 Operation
The Planning Policy Framework sets out the planning policies that form part of this planning scheme. It comprises Clauses 10 to 19.
A planning authority must take into account the Planning Policy Framework when it prepares an amendment to this planning scheme.”
July 10, 2023 at 3:03 PM
Cr Cade moved A motion, but nobody could know what the motion was. I heard the mayor ask “As printed?” but what was printed? How would we know if other councillors had the same motion in front of them? Surely Council’s Local Law re Meeting Procedure requires reading out the Motion or at least providing a brief summary.
Now that the Minutes have been published we get to see the text of what the Mayor believes councillors were voting on. So we know 5 councillors ENDORSED the misinformation that the temporary DDO is due to expire in June 2023.
Part 2 of the published motion asks for “next steps in finalising the Bentleigh Structure Plan”. That makes clear that Council’s intention is make only very minor changes, if any, to the draft Structure Plan. The “consultation” is not to generate any substantive changes.
Sure, there’s a lot to criticise in the arguments used in support of the minimum heights Council is encouraging developers to pursue (discretionary heights is a euphemism to indicate to the industry to ask for AT LEAST that amount). Either Council believes the Apartment Development standards are pathetically weak, or they don’t believe in them. I don’t for a second accept Cr Athanasopoulos’s attempt to convince us it’s not a problem.
Council’s conduct during the preparation of the Strategic Plan has been dreadful. Instead of keeping the community informed about who is asking for what and why, EVERYTHING has been negotiated in secret. In a representative democracy information about decision-making is critical for citizens to hold elected officials (and officials with delegated authority) accountable.
There has been no attempt to address the rampant corruption that affects the planning system. One reason for having mandatory height limits is to limit the extent of that corruption. Council should explain why it has ignored Practice Note 60. Does it truly believe it hasn’t undertaken comprehensive strategic work? Is corruption so rampant it is no longer considered exceptional? Does it believe exceeding its “preferred heights” wouldn’t result in unacceptable built form outcomes?
July 10, 2023 at 4:27 PM
Any Tom, Dick or Harry can read out or summarise officer reports. That shouldn’t be the role of councillors. Their job is to provide oversight, to question, analyse, criticise, suggest improvements and so on. Sure there will be disagreements and various views. That’s okay if things are done out in the open and no deals are made behind closed doors. The job of councillors is to win their arguments not with bullshit and quoting vague officer reports, but providing the evidence which would substantiate their views.
That’s impossible in Glen Eira because this site has presented what certain councillors have said about not getting the evidence before they have to make a decision. In Glen Eira it’s basically the planning department that says yeah or nay, and even this isn’t supported by some decent consultant reports. We don’t get to see what people really think. All we get are summaries that are full of holes.
My advice to Cade is stop and think and act in the best interests of your constituents. You certainly aren’t doing it at the moment.
July 10, 2023 at 6:39 PM
Commiserations and condolences to the residents of Bentleigh when your three council representatives, who are supposed to be looking out for your interests all voted in favour of the structure plan. Shame on Magee, Zhang and Cade.
July 10, 2023 at 8:07 PM
Cade never struck me as being an overly intelligent person. Very difficult to decipher what she actually trying to say. Just another turncoat Liberal conservative bum on a seat.