Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 4, 2014

Thank You Council!!!!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

PS: We’ve received notification that there is currently an online and hard copy petition doing the rounds of Glen Eira. The petition is basically asking that this council review the damage it has wrought via the zones and that full community consultation be included. We urge all readers to follow the links and to voice their opinions on the various sites. GE Debates fully supports any group that seeks better outcomes for the community.

Please click on – http://geresidents.wordpress.com/

There’s a new tactic being employed by real estate agents and their buddy developer friends throughout significant areas of Glen Eira and it’s all due to the new zones. So, thank you Newton, Akehurst, and councillors for unleashing this tsunami of inappropriate development into our quiet residential streets – all done of course in secret, and behind closed doors.

We urge all readers to note the following screen dumps carefully because they reveal exactly what is happening and the tactics that are now being employed.

Instead of planning applications there are now ‘concept plans’ inviting developers to buy
No planning permit exists for this site, according to council’s planning register. No application has even come in as yet.
Height and density are the biggest selling points
Note the idealistic glorified design – with so much green, green, open space around!

PPS: we just couldn’t resist this stunning offer to be ONE OF 83 UNITS in Elsternwick. Design of building is something else again – like the Mad Hatter’s tea party perhaps?

October 3, 2014

Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion: How Much?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the residents of Glen Eira had a council that was upfront, direct, and fully transparent? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if residents knew how much money was going down the drain, wasted, misspent on lawyers, stuff ups, and countless other ‘irregularities’? Alas, this is definitely not the way council functions.

Last council meeting saw a public question asked about Duncan Mackinnon pavilion. Readers will remember that apart from being years and years behind schedule, plus the fact that originally the stated price was around 6 million and then ballooned out to 10 million, there were plenty of other problems. Maxstra, the original main contractor ostensibly got the boot and another contractor replaced this company. The pavilion is still not finished! Here’s what the public question asked and council’s response –

What exact sums of money has Council paid to Maxstra Constructions prior to their dismissal as major contractor for the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion? Are funds still payable to Maxtra following the termination of their contract? And, what were the total invoiced costs for legal advice regarding the termination of the contract?”

“Maxstra Constructions have been paid $2.81 million. Whether any other payments are due them cannot be determined until all works are completed. As the balance of the work was taken out of Maxstra’s hands no legal costs have been incurred in relation to a termination because a termination has not occurred.”

Going back into history, it’s worthwhile considering the following as well.

On the 22^nd May 2012, council awarded the contract to Maxstra for the amount of $9,744,651.52
On the 10^th June 2014 a new contract was awarded to Fimma for $8,185,711.67

Doing our maths, things just don’t add up. If Maxstra has already been paid $2.81 million, with the possibility of receiving even more, then does this mean that the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion project is literally MILLIONS OVER BUDGET?

We also can’t accept that there will not be any further wrangling over these sums, which potentially means more lawyers, more courts, more settlements, and more cost to residents. Nor can we believe that a company like Fimma would undertake work for a set price and then be prepared to have that sum whittled way down.

For years now there has been a stony silence concerning this project – no upfront public announcements of what’s really going on. Just a buried sentence or two in annual reports (that 99% of people don’t bother to read). So, how about a simple, honest answer to these questions councillors?

How much over budget is Duncan Mackinnon pavilion?
Can residents expect more legal battles? And how much is this likely to cost?

October 1, 2014

Bentleigh – Very Definitely Gone!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

Bentleigh garden supplies land sells for $4 million, developer plans multi-level retail and apartment complex

Troels Sommerville
Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
October 01, 2014 1:41PM

Kevin Broadbent of Broadbent Garden Supplies, recently moved his 70-year-old, three generation Bentleigh business, and the land has just sold for over $4 million. Picture: Derrick den Hollander

A Bentleigh garden supplies centre has sold for just over $4 million, cracking the $4000 per square metre mark for the first time in the suburb.

Frank Ruffo, director of Hodges Bentleigh, which managed the sale, said auction of the generations old business, Broadbents Garden Supplies, attracted 22 bids, with 14 bidders vying for the prime piece of real estate on the day.

He said the international developer who bought the property for about $4600 per square meter, has plans to turn the 324 Centre Rd site into a multi-level retail and apartment complex.

Mr Ruffo said his agency knew the prime spot would garner interest, but the final price surprised even them.

“We had aspirations around $3 million and something, we just didn’t think the extra something would be an extra million and ten thousand dollars” Mr Ruffo said.

He said the 14 bidders on auction day were all developers, which was indicative of the “seachange” happening in Glen Eira.

New planning zones and changing demographics have made Bentleigh a “highly sought after suburb where developers were keen to get a foothold,” he said.

Recently another developer, Launch Corporation, also bought up seven neighbouring properties on the corner of East Boundary Rd and Centre Rd for just over $6.5 million.

On the 3,415sq m site they plan to invest somewhere between $60-$70 million to build a mixed-use development of about 100 apartments and five retail outlets.

“There are a lot of developers inquiring about finding land in the area, and it’s a trend that’s growing,” Mr Ruffo said.

“Over the next 10 years, we’re going to see a dramatic change in Bentleigh.

“When you walk down Centre Rd, instead of seeing the traditional two-storey Art Deco buildings, you’ll start to see four or five storey buildings in their place.”

For the record, Broadbents is still operating, having moved to South Rd, Moorabbin.

COMMENT

Forget 4 or 5 storeys. The land is zoned Commercial and in order to fit in 100 apartments chances are the building will be more in the order of 7 or 8 storeys.
Where are the cars from 100 units going to park? How many will be single bedroom chicken coops? Broadbents is close to Aldi, and other popular shops – not to mention Mavho and Loranne Streets that are now seeing applications for 4 storeys and heaps of units.
Where is Council’s parking precinct plans promised over a decade ago but yet to materialise?
Will resident rates be paying for all the extra drainage infrastructure required rather than the developer?
When will councillors start grappling with the planning problems they have so successfully unleashed? – when everyone currently living in Bentleigh, McKinnon, Carnegie sells out to more and more developers so that Bentleigh can officially turn into the next decade’s slums? This like everything else (environmental sustainable design, size of apartments) is never council’s problem but always a state problem!
And what of open space (both private and public). Oh yes, we mustn’t forget the Centre Road rotunda that was also the subject of ‘community consultation’ over three years ago and not a whisper since. But Bentleigh is not Elsternwick, is it?

PS: Just to highlight the insanity, if not straight out incompetence of the new zones, the planning map below is worthy of consideration. If the Broadbent site does reach 8 storeys, then what ‘protection’ is provided for those residents living directly behind in a neighbourhood residential zone (Campbell Street) or even those residents living the other side in Mavho? Allowing NRZ to directly abut commercial is not strategic planning – it is lousy planning in spades!

October 1, 2014

Development Applications & The World Of Fiction!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments

Two things stand out like sore thumbs when it comes to development applications and the submitted plans:

They are often inaccurate and simply WRONG
Council has no intention of doing its own required homework. They are more often than not content to rely exclusively on the developer’s documentation – especially on such vital aspects as traffic management and overshadowing.

Recent planning conferences verify the above completely. There have also been some incredible statements that have issued from the various architects and planners working for the developer. For example:

On the Belsize, 4 storey and 52 dwelling application the planner conceded that the balconies (which encroached on setbacks) were largely there for ‘aesthetic’ value. Otherwise the building would look ‘like a box’!!!!!! Topping this off was the comment from the project architect when it was pointed out that the ‘standards’ on permeability, etc. had not been met. His response? – Under the standard it allows for breaching. Needless to say this was met with howls of laughter!

When residents raised concerns about the water table and what damage excavating for a double underground car park would do to the table and surrounds, the response from both the council and developer planner, was that there was no Melbourne Water Overlay on the property. That of course doesn’t answer the question and nor does it safeguard residents since the permit can be issued, problems subsequently confronted, and the damage is done. The $64 question is whether any of these things will even get a mention in the officer’s report and recommendation? And even if it is mentioned, has there been ‘consultation’ with appropriate engineering expertise?

Residents also picked up numerous ‘clerical errors’ and what can only be described as inadequate traffic reports from developers. The Penang Street planner admitted that the submitted plans included dwellings that were marked as two bedroom, which were in fact single bedroom dwellings. But it got a lot worse. According to the submitted shadow diagrams, everything was hunkey dorey! There was no overshadowing that did not meet the ResCode standards. Or so they would like everyone to believe. It was only when one resident pointed out that she had photographic evidence of a current room full of sunshine that would now be facing a three storey blank wall, that the ‘inaccuracies’ of the plans were revealed.

Some of the best quotes however came from the Loranne St (4 storey, 42 dwellings) planning conference. Hyams, who chaired the meeting, is literally starting to sound like a broken record! Once again he began the evening with assertions that the new zones did not add to development and that anyone who was telling people something different must have ‘political motives’. The plans that were available were practically indecipherable so that it was impossible to ascertain the sizes of each apartment. Also missing from the handout was the requisite shadow diagram for the equinox – ie September 22^nd at 3pm!

Rachel Bowden represented the developer. We remind readers that she was at one time a senior planner for Council. And didn’t she sound it! Council’s public relations department could not have done a better job than the praise that Ms Bowden lavished on council! We guess that the planning/development circles are small, and certainly incestuous! When it came to answering questions about ‘quality’, all Ms Bowden could provide as an answer, were statements about setbacks, height, and how everything was in accordance with the planning scheme. Not a word of course about basic internal amenity in relation to quality – except that the developer would ‘keep’ some of the units and therefore have control over the Body Corporate. The implication being that this was unlike other developments. When pressed as to whether this meant they would be ‘rented’ out, the answer of course, had to be ‘yes’. Oh the games that these people play!

Our advice for all future objectors on any development is:

Check the developer’s plans carefully and ensure that they are accurate in every single respect
Check the accompanying traffic report – make sure that the ‘survey’ was conducted at a reasonable time and on more than one single day – ie the Penang Street traffic survey occurred on one single day at 9am and again at 7pm. Totally inadequate since there is a retirement village right next door and visitors are not likely to be parking and filling up the streets before 9am and certainly not much after 7pm. Some of the Penang people also went to the trouble of ‘measuring’ the supposed car parking available spots. Guess what? – the plans were wrong again!
Harass, harangue every single councillor. Get publicity! Tell your neighbours, tell your friends. Tell anyone who will listen that your problems will soon become their problems because of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the councillors who permitted this to occur in secret and without community consultation.

Finally, that old chestnut of planning decisions. Each and every time residents are told that the officer’s decision on the application will be made available on the FRIDAY afternoon. Council meetings are on the following Tuesday evening. As we’ve stated ad nauseum – people work; people may be reluctant to intrude into councillors’ weekends. That basically leaves two days for residents to absorb the detail, and attempt to lobby councillors. Not good enough. We see no reason why officer decisions on any planning application should not be made available far earlier. Councillors receive their agendas at least 8 days prior to the council meeting. Why should residents only have a few days?

And why oh why are all of these extremely important planning decisions all being crammed into the one single council meeting? What that means is that we estimate that each item will be lucky to receive 5 or 10 minutes of ‘debate’ time. Not good enough when people’s lives and lifestyles are being decided. The advantage for council is of course that everything is done and dusted in the one 2 or 3 hour period. The more the merrier, so to speak, so that everything blurs into one time slot and the pressure cannot be repeated meeting after meeting. This has traditionally been council’s tactics. All decisions of major import somehow manage to find themselves on the one single agenda. Coincidence? Not bloody likely we say!

September 30, 2014

Movement At The Station?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[8] Comments

Thank you to one of our readers for alerting us to the changed Trustee website. Changes have occurred in that:

Minutes are now published
Financial reports are now published

However, the minutes clearly reveal the ongoing reluctance of the MRC to fully embrace the reforms recommended by the Auditor General. Leases remain in limbo with extension upon extension and master plans ‘progress’ at glacial pace. At this rate we have no real confidence that total reform is even close. It must also be borne in mind that on the topic of the removal of training there is stunning silence from all and sundry – including our councillor reps.

See the following links in order to access the minutes:

February 2014 – http://www.crrt.org.au/Portals/0/Downloads/Sep14/CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_180214.pdf

August 2014 – http://www.crrt.org.au/Portals/0/Downloads/Sep14/CRR_TRUSTEES_Minutes_070814.pdf

September 28, 2014

The Future & Hidden Agendas!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments

September 26, 2014

Are We Worse Off?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

Council’s continual spruiking that the zones represent a ‘neutral translation’ and that nothing can now happen that could not happen before is sheer bunkum. Countless properties are now under threat for greater building heights, and far more intense development than previously. This is particularly evident in those areas now zoned as Residential Growth. The following VCAT cases illustrate this perfectly.

CASE ONE – The Silver Arc Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 320 (20 March 2013)

This application was for a THREE STOREY DEVELOPMENT and 10 dwellings at 32 Mavho St, Bentleigh. It is now zoned RGZ and hence ‘suitable’ for a four storey development. There is also a current application for 24 Mavho Street for a FOUR STOREY DEVELOPMENT and 28 dwellings!

Council’s refused the earlier (32 Mavho St) application. VCAT approved the application. At the hearing, Council’s representative, Mr Crack, argued that Mavho Street has experienced a moderate amount of redevelopment in recent years and he submitted that although the emerging character is varied, ‘it is typically one of larger buildings not exceeding a two storey scale, with three storey apartments style development confined to business zoned land at the southwest corner of Mavho Street and Centre Road and a converted former church building situated at 12 Mavho Street where the third storey is largely contained within the roof space’.

Whilst Mr Bastone (for developer) agreed there were to date no three storey infill developments in Mavho Street and the parallel streets, south of Centre Road, he submitted policy strongly supports such developments. He highlighted several higher developments that have or are to occur in Centre Road and noted that the character of the area will increasingly change.

Conclusion? – Developers can now with confidence apply for 4 storey developments of far greater density and know that their chances of success with both Council and/or VCAT are practically assured!

CASE TWO – Fredman Malina Planning v Glen Eira CC [2012] VCAT 197 (22 February 2012)

This case involved an application for THREE STOREYS AND 26 DWELLINGS at 23 Bent Street, Bentleigh. It is now zoned Residential Growth – again ripe for 4 storey development. Council had refused this application – VCAT granted a permit. At the hearing council argued as followed – Council acknowledged that a site of this size could accommodate a three storey building however had concerns regarding the extent of the third level combined with its side setbacks, in that it would provide an overly dominant form particularly when viewed from the private open space of 25 Bent Street to the north which is a single storey dwelling.

So, what was ‘dominant’ 2 years ago, now morphs into acceptance of 4 storeys.

The other important factor about this development is that the size of the land was over 1000sqm. Recent multiple lot sales in Bent St are in the order of 1300sqm. According to a past item in The Age, the developer’s dream is a four storey and 60 unit development!

There are countless other such cases that we will continue to highlight over time. But the take home facts are clear:

Residents living in Residential Growth Zones have been materially impacted to their detriment by the new zones.
Residents living within cooee of Activity Centres and main roads are also in the same boat.
Prior to the introduction of the zones, very few applications (apart from Carnegie and in Glen Huntly and commercial centres) came close to the densities applied for now. With no real protection provided, residents in these areas are in for an almighty shock given the current rate of development.

PS: And here’s another example that gives lie to the claim that the zones represent a ‘neutral translation’. The image below is for a 2 lot combined sale. It is zoned Residential (ie. minimal change). However, due to the size of the land it will now come under the standards/guidelines NOT OF THE minimal change area, but the GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE. Potentially, 3 storeys and countless units! How many other large blocks of over 1000sqm are there in so called ‘protected’ minimal change?

September 25, 2014

What Could, And Should Have Been Done!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

We have repeatedly stated that we believe that Glen Eira council has been derelict in its planning processes regarding the new zones. Apart from the lack of consultation, Council has not done the necessary strategic work to ensure the best outcome for residents. When major housing policies have not been touched for over a decade, and when reference documents in the planning scheme go back to 1996, then something is drastically wrong.

It also begs the question of why, and how, other councils such as Stonnington, could get the Minister to approve their zones that clearly are far superior to the ‘one size fits all’ model adopted by Glen Eira. It’s important that residents realise what could have been done, and hence, was NOT DONE!

Below, we present an overview of what Stonnington has achieved via its GRZ and RGZ schedules.

Stonnington has RGZ2 at 13.5metres height. It also has, in both the RGZ1 and RGZ2 Schedules, as well as ALL the GRZ schedules, the following requirement under site coverage –“Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area”. This is important because it means that underground car parking excavations have to be well contained within the site envelope. This helps avoid earth anchors onto neighbouring properties and problems with earth movements that might affect adjoining houses.

Stonnington also has countless other requirements for the GRZ zones in their respective schedules – none of which appear for Glen Eira. Here’s a sample –

Fences – Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category 1. Other streets 1.2 metres maximum height.

Walls on boundaries – Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

Side and rear setbacks – For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Landscaping – In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one canopy tree should be planted on the site.

The most telling difference however, and as we’ve stated before, is the number of GRZ zones that Stonnington applied and the HEIGHT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH. In other words, they have dissected their suburbs, planned according to recent developments, and didn’t adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach as Glen Eira did. When we keep in mind that the heights for GRZ in Glen Eira is an all encompassing 13.5 metres,(PS: oops, this should read 10.5m) it is remarkable what other councils could, and did, achieve. Here are the Stonnington GRZ schedules and their respective height limits –

Grz1 – 13.5m

Grz2 – none specified

Grz3 – 12m

Grz4 – 12 m

Grz5 – 9m

Grz6 – 11.5m

Grz7 – 10.5m

Grz8 – 12m

Grz9 – non specified

Grz10 – 9m

Grz11 – 12m

Grz12 – 9m

Grz13 – none specified

September 25, 2014

Myths & Mistruths – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

We’ve previously commented on two separate planning applications – both in mixed use/commercial areas – and how one is recommended for approval and the other one a refusal. We have queried the difference and the rationale behind such decision making. Here is the report from Tuesday night. We ask that readers carefully consider what councillors have said on the following:

The use of railway car parking as a ‘substitute’ for forcing developers to include adequate car parking within their boundaries!
Neerim Road will develop more so council has to be cognisant of this. Yet, Hawthorn Road which will also be ‘developed’ somehow escapes the guillotine completely
Internal amenity is okay for Hawthorn Road, but no mention made of internal amenity for Neerim Road.
No mention made of how many ‘standards’ the Hawthorn Road application meets in contrast to the Neerim Road one, where countless standards are not met!

Item 9.1 – Neerim Road Application

Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest and left chamber. Okotel moved motion and added that car parks be ‘at grade’ and number of visitor car parks be added. Hyams seconded.

OKOTEL: started off by saying that there had been many applications for Neerim Road and that there would certainly be ‘a changing face for that area’ and that council had to ‘keep that in mind’ when ‘future applications’ came in. Went through the officers’ report – ie objections like car parking, bulk. Said that the conditions imposed ‘addressed’ the objections. Reiterated that there was already a 4 storey and 3 storey nearby. The application included a ‘large setback’ so not to impact on residents. Said that there was some overshadowing but that ‘officers advise’ that ResCode standards are met even though this application doesn’t need ResCode standards because it is for 5 storeys. Because Neerim Road is being ‘more and more developed’ she wanted 11 visitor car parking spots and not the 7 put forward by the developer. Said that visitors will come to the area ‘at different times’ and ‘that road will become busier’ so council has to ensure ‘that there is adequate visitor car parking’ since it ‘will have negative impacts on the street for years to come’. Went through some of the other conditions such as construction and waste management plan.

HYAMS: called this the ‘right place’ for such a building because it is next to a 4 storey building and commercial buildings and near the station. Traffic is ‘bad’ now but will be ‘better soon’ because of the grade separation. So by the time this is built the ‘traffic conditions’ will be ‘greatly improved’. Talked about ‘generous setbacks’ and how he thought that visitor car parking was important and that the 57 car spots weren’t in stackers. Stated that one objector complained about developments where ‘sand’ was going through their houses, but with the construction management plan this would be avoided because they would have to ‘control dust’. Said that the conditions would ensure that this doesn’t ‘overly impact’ on amenity. Said that originally council allowed a three storey building but VCAT gave them four but if that ‘happened today VCAT would not have been able to’ do that. Went on to say that ‘I know that many residents are hearing’ that the ‘new zones are creating more development’ and that ‘this is not true’. ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.

LOBO: said that Carnegie ‘has been overdeveloped’ so it has ‘gone with the wind’. He wasn’t ‘on a journey of publicity’ but to ‘represent the residents’ who have put him in ‘the office’. Said that he was ‘surprised to read that all dwellings are of reasonable size’. Asked who council is caring for – ‘residents, developers, or future residents?’ Said that the zones ‘are supposed to protect 80% of Glen Eira’ and the other 20% are the GRZ, RGZ and commercial and ‘this has caused a rude awakening’ by residents ‘as can be seen’ from ‘recent planning conferences’. Stated that 80% of ‘the effects’ therefore come from ‘20% of the causes’. Referred to the real estate agent quoted in the Leader and that like all real estate agents he would say it’s an ‘advantage’. Residents are ‘awaiting salvation’ ‘whenever’ and if the ‘review of the zones’ takes place. And that ‘is a million dollar question’.

MAGEE: said that councillors are ‘responsible authority’ and not ‘popular authority’ so they have to assess applications ‘on merit’. When there’s an application like this, near a railway station and with ‘minimal impact on three sides’ then council has to find ‘affordable’ housing for people and ‘we can’t put a gate around’ Glen Eira. ‘It’s incumbent on us as a community to look after the community’. Yes, 57 dwellings ‘is a lot’ but it faces a road that is ‘predominantly a commercial centre’. It’s housing diversity and this is what council ‘has planned’ around railways and shops. The time of 2 storey dwellings ‘is long gone’. Cited Matthew Guy as saying that Victoria’s going through the ‘biggest building boom since the goldrush’ and therefore it’s everywhere. Now it’s happening in Glen Eira but soon in Springvale and other suburbs. This is a fact of life and ‘it is incumbent on council to do it locally, respectfully’. Repeated that council is the ‘responsible authority’ and not merely the ‘popular authority’.

SOUNNESS: said his ‘understanding’ is that it is a ‘suitable zone, suitable plans’ and ‘suitable location’. Didn’t think that there was ‘capacity’ for council to object on ‘strategic planning grounds’. So he supports motion.

HYAMS: asked Akehurst if the new zones now allow people to build what they couldn’t build before

AKEHURST: ‘The short answer is “No”‘

LOBO: ‘I’m not playing politics with the government’ and that if he has anything to say ‘I will say the same’

PILLING: agreed with Hyams and said that the Leader article was ‘not quite right’. Said that ‘the inference is that the new zones mean more development’ but ‘nothing has changed’ and in fact it’s better because ‘we’ve put height limits on’. He also ‘gets information from real estate agents’ and the bit about ‘cashing in’ is not true and ‘it’s all spruiking’ and like Hyams said it’s ‘misinformation’. ‘What’s happening now is more surety’ and this application is ‘in the right place’ and ‘we need to have boundaries’. Claimed that in ‘surrounding councils’ ‘it’s a mess’ in contrast to Glen Eira and he ‘endorses’ the application.

OKOTEL: said that since councillors are also residents that they do ‘take these decisions very seriously’ and do take residents’ concerns ‘into account’. Councillors have to ‘apply planning law’ when deciding on applications. On what Lobo said about Carnegie, she thought Carnegie is ‘fantastic’. Everyone ‘I’ve spoken to’ who lives there ‘loves the suburb’. It is ‘thriving’ and new businesses are moving in and council is going to improve the pool, the library forecourt. Repeated that decisions are based on ‘planning law’.

MOTION PUT & CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST

ITEM 9.2 – HAWTHORN ROAD APPLICATION

Delahunty moved to accept motion as printed. Lipshutz seconded.

DELAHUNTY: it’s for a 6 storey building and shops but ‘unfortunately’ this application had ‘so many grounds’ upon which to reject, that that’s the only alternative. Thought that this was the first time she’d seen a recommendation from officers to reject application rather than conditions. But ‘the issues are so great in this application’. Said that there will be more development here, but with this application the ‘bulk, height’ is unacceptable. Hawthorn Road doesn’t ‘have parking that is associated with a railway station’ where they can waive car parking. Car parking therefore ‘was a massive issue’. The application also ‘fell down’ on buffer zones to residential areas and amenity. Overshadowing was ‘considered acceptable’ but 6 storeys was ‘considered to be too abrupt’ even if the land around this is ‘ultimately developed in accordance with the zoning’. ‘No internal amenity impacts that were of concern’ but there was the concern about a ‘really substantial pipe’ for infrastructure. Height was ‘excessive’ and therefore there would have been too many changes necessary so it was recommended to be refused. Said she would ‘like to see a development that is a lot more responsive to the needs of the area’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that it’s a ‘poor application’ and ‘fails on almost every ground’. Admitted that ‘it’s a big site’ and should be developed but if people go down Hawthorn Road they will see the parking problem which is ‘woeful’. Also thought that 6 storeys was ‘too high’. There aren’t other 6 storeys in the area and ‘that’s not to say there shouldn’t be one’ but this one is ‘totally out of character’. It would be a ‘travesty’ to see a 6 storey building in ‘that shopping centre’ when there isn’t anything approaching this height. Didn’t think that the developer had ‘looked at this whole thing properly’.

SOUNNESS: he was speaking against only on the basis that their reasons for refusing ‘weren’t substantive’. Said that he ‘recognised’ that they didn’t have the conditions for approval and that it was probably going to VCAT. Thought that council ‘does want to facilitate the development of this site’. On drainage and parking he ‘would have loved’ for these issues to have been resolved with the applicant.

MAGEE: said a four storey would have been acceptable but there’s a lot to dislike about the application as it stands. It ‘doesn’t give you a benefit to the amenity’ or ‘help with parking’. So there’s nothing in the plans that give ‘grounds to work with the developer’. There’s no ‘transition’ to shops around. Said he would have ‘been surprised’ if there was anything else but a refusal recommended. Said council has to ‘look at the amenity impact’ and ‘how that translates’ and the ‘protection of that amenity’.

OKOTEL: said that it would have been good to find a ‘happy medium’ where objectors could be satisfied by conditions but if council put on conditions then it would mean a ‘significant redesign’ because ‘it fails on so many counts’ so the ‘only option available is to refuse it’.

DELAHUNTY: briefly summed up.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. PILLING, SOUNNESS AND LOBO VOTED AGAINST

September 24, 2014

Myths, Mistruths & Dorothy Dixers! – #!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments

We report on one planning application from last night’s council meeting. Two others will follow. We ask readers to carefully consider the contradictions from all three sets of arguments; the repeated attempts at gagging free speech, and the basic mistruths that have been uttered time and again.

ITEM 9.4 – TUCKER ROAD

Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded by Pilling.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had discussions on this and ‘went over it in great detail’. Application is to amend earlier permit and increase dwellings from 13 to 20. The Bentleigh area is a ‘very popular place to be’. ‘It’s a wonderful place to live’ and those living there are ‘very lucky’. ‘More people want to live there’. Councillors have taken into account objectors’ views but the permit should still ‘be issued’. A 2009 VCAT hearing allowed the 13 dwellings, so there’s ‘been some history’ and subsequently the land has been subdivided and now the application wants to extend the dwellings on the rest of the site. Meets height, mass under GRZ schedule. Parking and traffic is ‘within an acceptable limit‘. Amenity also ‘complies with ResCode standards’.

PILLING: there have been other 5 and 6 storey application in Murrumbeena and this is on a main road and is ‘quite acceptable‘. Development is ‘in the right area’.

HYAMS: councillors have a responsibility to the planning law and not necessarily to ‘what residents would like us to do’ even thought ‘this might be the easy thing to do’. ‘We need to apply planning law’. Said that ‘most of us’ take this ‘very seriously’. He ‘would like’ to refuse but the planning grounds don’t give the option of refusing – especially since the ‘permit that’s already there’. Whilst Tucker Road ‘isn’t a main road’ it is ‘certainly not a side street’. Height is within limits, and setback from front is better than permit granted. Side setbacks ‘aren’t as good as they were but still within acceptable parameter’. Conditions have increased setbacks and by removing study wall that makes it 3 bedroom and therefore more parking spots to be provided. Overshadowing will be the ‘same as current permit’. Regurgitated rest of officers report about waste management plan. etc.

LOBO: referred to Lipshutz saying on the Heritage Amendment (9.3) that ‘officers don’t get it right all the time’.

LIPSHUTZ jumped up with a point of order. ‘I did not say that’. (NOTE: LIPSHUTZ DID SAY THIS!). Claimed that he was ‘misrepresented’ by Lobo.

PILLING asked Lobo to retract comment. Lobo said ‘okay’.

LOBO: Asked why council says that ‘the new residential zones were established to maintain certainty for all?’ Said that ‘experience’ has shown him that ‘developers have more advantage’ than residents and that ‘residents are the downtrodden people in all this decision making’. Said that apart from the minimal change areas, the ‘flood gates have opened up’ and those ‘waiting in anticipation of these new zones have now come out of the woodwork’ and ‘anticipate’ increase and putting in their applications.

HYAMS: sprang up with a point of order saying that the Local Law requires ‘honesty’ in that Lobo is saying that the new zones are letting developments that previously weren’t and ‘we’ve said time and time again that that is not the case’.

PILLING: ‘I agree with’ Hyams and ‘what you are saying is incorrect’.

LOBO: said that he is ‘free for my opinion’.

PILLING: ‘you need to make factual statements’ if you’re speaking on behalf of council. Said that Lobo can ask the ‘director to clarify’ if he wants’.

LOBO: answered that he couldn’t ‘clarify because we have not gone to public consultation’. And ‘because it is a law, I have to agree with this’. Said that ‘internally, Cr Okotel and I did not agree’.

PILLING: told Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

HYAMS: another point of order that what Lobo was saying about disagreeing with council on the need for consultation that ‘that’s not true either’.

LOBO: ‘it is true. Ask Cr Okotel’.

PILLING: told Lobo that he had already ‘corrected’ him on the information and that he should talk to the application.

LOBO: said that Hyams is ‘interpreting all the time’.

PILLING: again tried to stop Lobo while Lobo kept interrupting and saying that people should be allowed to talk.

HYAMS: said that Lobo is accusing him of ‘racism’.

LOBO: ‘I didn’t say that. I speak 5 languages’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to ‘speak to the application’.

LOBO: said there is overshadowing. Residents also said that privacy, devaluation of property is no concern to the ‘three tiers of government’. ResCode is ‘simply a joke’ in terms of parking. Said that Guy’s powers were ‘extraordinary’.

PILLING: interrupted again asking that he stick to the application.

LOBO: said that his comments ‘were true’

PILLING: didn’t want discussion on ‘political stance’ but wanted discussion on the application. Lobo kept interrupting and Pilling said that he would tell him to stop unless he spoke about the application. Lobo claimed that Pilling was ‘pre-empting’ what he was about to say. Pilling disagreed.

LOBO: said he had a call from a resident who on talk back radio asked why the zones ‘had been introduced’ and that guy had said ‘it is the fault of the Glen Eira City Council’.

PILLING: again asked Lobo to stick to the application.

LOBO: claimed that all this can be ‘dirty, selfish’

LIPSHUTZ: another point of order and asked Pilling to tell Lobo to ‘sit down’

Lobo then needed a time extension. The motion was put and seconded by Delahunty. On the vote only Sounness and Delahunty voted for time extension. Motion was lost and Pilling told Lobo to sit down.

MAGEE: said that this application only ‘survives’ because it’s on Tucker road which is more than a residential street. The ‘impact before and after’ is ‘minimal’. Shouldn’t condemn developers for wanting to ‘maximise return’ because they also ‘maximise opportunities for families’. Tucker is the ‘entry point’ into Glen Eira because it is ‘most affordable’. ‘If we are to save the small suburban streets’ then this kind of application has to be ‘accommodated’. Although ‘not ideal’ it in the end ‘does comply’. On the ‘positive side’ it gives ‘opportunity’ for families to move ‘into the greatest suburb in Australia’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo had talked about overshadowing and he wanted Akehurst to say whether the overshadowing was ‘worse’ than the current permit.

AKEHURST: said that with the conditions imposed the overshadowing is ‘no greater’ than what the permit allowed.

SOUNNESS: found the application was ‘consistent with good, orderly planning’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors should be reassured that the conditions council has imposed ‘protect them from no greater harm’ than the original permit. Said that ‘people have to live somewhere’ and that we ‘can’t prejudge what type of people might move in’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates