Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 1, 2014

Open Space Levies

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

As a result of objections, council has gone out of its way to fudge the facts and to assert what can only be described as unreasonable ‘pressure’ on two objectors to withdraw their concerns and thereby avoid a Panel hearing. The argument as presented in the officer’s report is simple: cave in, don’t object, or you will cost the community $2 million. Utter rubbish we say! Some basic facts:

  • The cited $6 million dollars as ‘revenue’ is NOT cash in hand. This includes the so called estimated land contribution value. Council’s Strategic Resource Plan provides figures of a paltry $2.2 million in cash for the next ten years. We also remind readers that when council was granted the status of ‘manager’ of the Booran Road Reservoir it entered the ‘value’ of this land ($24m) onto its books but it was made absolutely clear that this had NO IMPACT on its financial and operational base. See the minutes of 3rd November 2010.
  • Here’s another incorrect assertion – Public Acquisition Overlays are more likely to be disputed. It would be unfortunate if an Amendment was not supported by a Panel because of a proposed acquisition but the Amendment also included the higher contributions rates which were, as a result, not approved. A panel can disagree with one or two points and still make its recommendations to accept the amendment overall. Many panel decisions include some rejections or modifications of council proposals. It then comes back to council and they have the choice of accepting the panel’s full recommendations as they stand, abandoning the amendment, amending the amendment, etc. It is never an ‘either/or’ situation as these sentences pretend. Ultimately, this is nothing but scare-mongering.

There’s much, much more we could comment upon based on this agenda item. We will conclude with the view that every single resident has by law the option of objecting to amendments. Every resident also has a right to expect that when an amendment is advertised, it is devoid of errors, widely available, and easily accessible. None of these fundamental aspects of process have been carried out by council. The C120 Amendment (that is an actual draft of the amendment) has NEVER been included in council’s agenda papers, nor in its minutes – unlike some of the less contentious amendments! Even for tonight’s decision, the amendment itself is not available in the online agenda items. Residents would be hard put to find any announcements on council’s website for example or, if they happen to have missed the one and only advertisement in the local paper, then they also wouldn’t be any the wiser. Being hidden away behind the desks at libraries also does not fulfill our expectations of fully ‘engaging’ the public. So much for the Community Engagement Strategy with its empty promises and motherhood statements. Actions always speak louder than words and that remains the only worthwhile standard of evaluation.

Council has had years and years of doing nothing about its open space levies. Now suddenly, amendments are rushed through and, as so often happens, are full of errors that can only be ‘fixed’ up later. Instead of thorough planning that looks ahead and avoids countless further amendments to rectify anomalies or gaps, this council appears content to allow such poor practice. The residential zones and lot sizes are the most recent examples of inadequate planning. Other councils like Kingston for example, saw this ‘problem’ straight off and included lot sizes in their first draft of the schedules. Not Glen Eira! Not good enough we say. And to then blame residents for holding up ‘progress’ simply does not wash.

 

 

June 28, 2014

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[23] Comments 

Audit Committee

There finally appears to be some ‘movement at the station’ with the following statement – The Chairman recommended that the process for the recruitment of a new Independent Audit Committee Member commence. The in camera items suggest that this process is near completion with this one liner – under s89 2(a) “personnel” which relates to the Audit Committee. Conclusion? That the reign of either Gibbs or McLean is about to end. Reasons for one of these departures is of course not mentioned, and nor has there been any public announcement that we are aware of for the advertising or recruitment of a new member.

Several other items also drew our attention –

The CEO noted that post implementation reviews of previously sub-contracted major projects, had resulted in the tender and referee evaluation process focusing more on how companies managed their subcontractors.

Following consideration of the Land and Buildings valuation paper, the Chairman requested that Council’s top ten open space assets be verified for accuracy of area size.

And from the Charter – An independent minute taker shall be responsible for keeping the minutes…… . A few sentences later there is this sentence – An appropriate officer shall act as independent minute taker to the Committee. We remind readers that for Councillor Assemblies, the municipal inspector had recommended, and council took up the recommendation (for at least some time) of obtaining a completely external minute taker.

Community Consultation Committee

Once again, two of the selected community representatives were absent! If memory serves us correctly, this would mean that only once have all four reps been present at such meetings. Hardly a result to write home about!

Amendment C120 – Open Space Levies

There is much in this item that we will comment upon in the coming days. One thing however is staggeringly clear – the inability of this planning department, plus the State Government’s offices to get something right the first time around. How an amendment can be drafted, sent off for permission to be advertised, given the go-ahead and STILL CONTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS of fact and accuracy is simply beyond belief. Who is responsible for vetting such documents? Why do these errors occur? What does this say about the entire shemozzle that is the process of drafting and implementing amendments? And most importantly, what does this say about the processes adopted by council. For example: submissions on the amendment closed on the 23rd of June. Submitters were notified on the 24th June that there would be a planning conference held on the 25th June. More indecent haste? More disregard for the public?

 

June 25, 2014

Council: The Developer’s ‘Friend’!

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

If anyone ever doubted that Council was the developer’s ‘friend’ then the photos below will provide plenty of food for thought. For over a decade now the issue of a significant tree register has been waltzed around by councillors and administration. In the meantime countless properties have been moonscaped and countless mature and significant trees have been butchered and removed so that another unit can conveniently be built. Technically, permits to chop down some trees are required but only if an application has gone in. If a tree is chopped down and an application goes in before a year is up then council may ‘fine’ the developer (generally a slap on the wrist) or insist that another tree is planted in its place. How ludicrous – since the original tree is already gone and no new planting can equal what 80 or 90 years of nature has produced.

The facts of this case are:

  • The property was sold to a developer in September 2013. It has been rented out since then
  • The tree is at least 70 or 80 foot high and is a major feature of this quiet residential street
  • No application for development is currently before council – that will follow. We have previously asked what happens if an application goes in one year AND ONE DAY after the tree is removed? No fine in that case according to the current ‘law’ in Glen Eira.
  • What makes this particular case even more outrageous is that the owner of the property claimed adverse possession against council to further extend his property line. In other words, there was this added bonus of additional land for literally NOTHING!

The abject failure of this council and its councillors to protect such trees, to dilly dally for a decade, to promise a local law that is still to be sighted, is in our view unconscionable. Yes, development will occur, but it must be regulated so that profit does not always come before the destruction of the environment.

P1000300  P1000297

P1000301

PS – 24 HOURS LATER!

P1000302

P1000303

 

June 24, 2014

Another $1.36 Million For Duncan Mackinnon!

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

Untitled

As we’ve reported in an earlier post, the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion fiasco is ongoing, yet residents are continually left in the dark. Even more alarming is this throwaway line from the amended budget papers set down for decision tonight –

increased funding in the 2015-2016 capital works program to complete Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion ($1.36m)

The original published draft budget stated – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – (to complete construction during 2014-15)

Not one single word has come out from councillors or administrators as to what is really going on with this project. There has been no explanation of:

  • why the increased costs?
  • why the nearly 2 year delay?

Since The Leader is now providing a glimpse of the Maxstra (the original contractor) position we believe it is worthwhile to ponder the following questions and to seek answers:

  • will this ‘dispute’ also end up in court?
  • if so, how much will this cost ratepayers?
  • is the extra $1.36 million to demolish what is already standing?
  • why oh why can’t this council get major projects delivered on time and on budget?
  • Is it simply a case of inability to handle, oversee, and manage major projects (aka GESAC)?
  • how can a council contract two different builders yet face the same allegations of poor ‘communication’? Either the tender process and selection is poor, or there is some major validity to the contractors’ claims. Either way, it is residents who are ultimately short changed.
  • Finally we remind readers of the Pilling claims as to keeping residents informed. As per usual, nothing eventuates just empty and broken promises!
 

June 21, 2014

Amendment C120: Open Space Levy

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

Amendment C120 proposes to introduce an open space levy of 5.7%. Whilst certainly a vast improvement over the previous contribution rate, the draft Amendment is NOT the universal panacea to the problem of acquiring more open space that council would like residents to think it is!

In introducing a schedule (ie the 5.7%) council CANNOT mandate the contribution of land instead of cash – hence the deliberate terminology of ‘may’ in the map presented below. Council also states that ‘land contributions for public open space will be preferred over cash contributions…..’. But here’s the rub. According to the map practically 90% of the municipality is earmarked for LAND contribution rather than cash. Problem is, that according to the Land Subdivision Act, the ‘value’ that council can extract in lieu of cash CAN ONLY BE TO THE MAXIMUM OF 5%. Does this therefore mean that developers will again be given a bonus from ratepayers – ie instead of paying 5.7% in cold, hard cash, they will now ‘negotiate’ with council officers and at the maximum, will only have to cede land that amounts to 5% of unimproved value?

Further, there is not one single sentence in either the proposed amendment, or in the consultant’s accompanying paper that is supposed to be the ‘rationale’ for this approach, as to WHY LAND IN ALL THESE AREAS IS PREFERABLE TO CASH. Further, council’s Strategic Resource Plan, for the next ten years only designates a paltry $2.2 million in open space levy contributions each year. Given the amount of development in the municipality, this is hardly a sum to write home about.

What makes things even worse, are the stated criteria upon which land will be accepted. We quote:

Should be of a size to meet its intended purpose or be able to meaningfully contribute to the assembly of a parcel of land. Minimum size parcels for each type of open space are as follows:

– Neighbourhood open space, minimum 1 ha.

– Local open space, minimum 0.26 ha (up to 0.99 ha).

– Small Local open space, minimum 0.05 ha (up to 0.25 ha) with a minimum width of 20 m in at least one direction.

– Small Local Link space, with a minimum width of 5 m.

Should be accessible or have the potential to be accessible.

We cannot see any large development willingly ceding 1 hectare or even 0.26 hectares from their very valuable land. What we fear will happen is that council will make its little sweet heart deals and what will be ‘negotiated’ are pocket handkerchiefs of land abutting developments – ie 0.05 hectares is literally a joke! That is basically one house block! Surely if the average unimproved land is conservatively valued at let’s say $500,000, then 5.7% is not a negligible sum to add to the coffers!

Stonnington has disavowed this approach precisely because it becomes a higgledy piggledy, ad hoc, non-strategic process. Here’s what their current amendment (that seeks 8% for residential and more for commercial) has to say –

Cash in lieu of land provision can be useful where the council seeks to pool contributions to provide a consolidated open space network – or improve an existing network – as opposed to obtaining a disjointed series of pocket parks. This is particularly important in established and densifying areas where strategic investments are required as opposed to sporadic land contributions.

To sum up, Council has not provided any evidence-

  • As to why land contributions in 90% of the municipality are preferable to cash in hand
  • As to why the prognostications of $2.2 million in open space levies will in fact be sufficient to even purchase one block of land per year given that part of this money will still be used for ‘development’ of the open space
  • As to why no area or individual site has been earmarked for a PPZ acquisition overlay (ie eventually turning such properties into parks and open space).
  • Nor has council provided any explanation as to why the following significant clauses that are part of the existing open space schedule have now been magically removed. Again we quote:

Encourage the protection and enhancement of significant vegetation on properties abutting areas of public open space.

Requiring the provision of open style fencing for new residential redevelopment that directly abuts public open space.

Requiring the retention of significant vegetation on properties that directly abut public open

In a muncipality that is crying out for open space, especially with ever increasing rampant development going on, and which the 1998 Open Strategy so clearly identified, asking developers to contribute tiny pockets of land all over the place is not a solution, nor is it ‘strategic planning’. Instead, it has the potential to hand another gilt edged ‘present’ to developers at the cost of the community!

Pages from Glen+Eira+C120+Supporting+Documents+-+City+of+Glen+Eira+Open+Space+Strategy+Public+Open+Space+Contributions+Program+March+2014

 

June 20, 2014

How Sustainable Is All This?

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

According to the State Government’s Planning Permit Activity data, Glen Eira welcomed another 237 new dwellings in the month of May alone. But there is much, much more waiting in the wings. We’ve taken the trouble of itemising some of the standout applications for the past six months. Please note – amended permit applications have been ignored, as have subdivisions, and two double attached dwellings. Hence, what is presented below is merely the tip of the iceberg! What also needs to be noted is the number of applications that include the waiving of car parking, visitor spots, or loading bays. This is now par for the course with multi-unit development. Here’s what’s on the books currently (and some have already been granted permits!). The grand total for just this smidgeon of applications is 450 apartments. How many are destined to be single bedroom units is anyone’s guess. We have no doubt that Council would be very loathe to publish full figures as to the makeup of all new dwellings since this would fly in the face of its public relations spin of “encouraging” diversity!

132 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC Construction of a three storey building containing eighteen (18) apartments above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor parking
144 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC Construction of a six storey building comprising shops at ground floor and forty-one (41) dwellings above a basement car park, reduction of the car parking requirement for the shop and visitors and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1
383 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD SOUTH VIC Construction of a four storey building comprising a shop and four (4) dwellings with associated car parking at ground floor
288 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 Construction of a three storey building comprising up to ten (10) dwellings above a basement car park, waiver of the requirement for visitor parking and alteration of access to a road zone category 1
251 Koornang Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising of two (2) ground floor shops, three (3) dwellings, one (1) caretaker’s house and reduction in the associated car parking requirements on land affected by the Special Building Overlay
33 Jersey Parade CARNEGIE VIC 3163 Construction of a four (4) storey building above basement car park comprising of twenty-eight (28) dwellings, reduction in visitor car parking requirements and construction of front fencing (1.7-1.75m)
30 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 Construction of thirteen (13) double storey dwellings
328 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 Construction of a four storey residential building comprising up to 16 dwellings with associated car parking, and alteration of an accessway to a road in a Road Zone Category 1
135 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 Construction of a three storey building comprising of up to forty (40) dwellings above basement car park and waiver of visitor car parking requirements
5 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 Construction of a three storey building comprising of 13 dwellings above basement car park and reduction of visitor car parking requirements
14 Laurel Street BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising ten (10) dwellings and associated basement parking
3 Faulkner Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 Construction of a three storey building containing twenty-nine (29) apartments above a basement car park
39 Mavho Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 Construction of a three storey building comprising twenty seven (27) dwellings above a basement car park and reduction of the requirement for visitor parking
348-352 Centre Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising three (3) shops, twenty (20) dwellings and basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay
1 Faulkner Street BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to ten (10) units
14 South Avenue BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 Construction of a three storey building (over basement car park) comprising of ten dwellings
551 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 Construction of six (6) apartments above an existing medical clinic
7 Ormond Road ORMOND VIC 3204 Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings above a basement car park
289 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204 Construction of a three storey building comprising seventeen (17) dwellings above a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1
534 North Road ORMOND VIC 3204 Construction of a four storey building for use as 2 shops and 20 dwellings, a reduction of standard car parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements
115 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 Four storey mixed use development (plus basement level) comprising two retail premises, two offices, thirty three dwellings (33), a reduction in the associated car parking and waiver of loading bay requirements
124 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA VIC Construction of a three (3) storey building (plus basement level) comprising fifteen (15) dwellings and alteration to access in a Road Zone, Category 1
67-71 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163 Construct a part six (6) storey and part seven (7) storey building comprising four (4) shops, forty (40) dwellings, and associated ground floor and basement car parking; reduction in car parking requirements for shops and visitors; and waiver of the loading bay requirement.
254 Jasper Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 Construct a four (4) storey building comprising a shop and eight (8) dwellings; reduce the car parking requirement for the shop and visitors to zero; and waive the loading bay requirement for the shop on land affected by the Special Building Overlay
224 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204 Construction of a three storey building comprising four (4) apartments, ground floor shop and waiver of the car parking requirement associated with the shop

 

 

June 18, 2014

Thank You Council!

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

The future is writ large in the following article from The Leader! Not that we object to residents using their noggins and making a profit. What we most strongly object to is the failure of this administration and its councillors to do the necessary homework in order to ensure that residential streets are given the maximum protection possible. Unlike other councils’ approach to the introduction of the ‘reformed’ residential zones, we remind readers that our glorious council introduced the zones in total secrecy, with zero consultation, and with such indecent haste that there are countless stuff ups that will now take years to remedy. For example:

  • No minimum size lot for subdivision – meaning that developers can subdivide and then subdivide again
  • No dwellings cap on any lot of above average size
  • No attempt to equal permeability requirements that other councils stipulate – ie. 25% compared to up to 40% by others
  • No ‘buffer zones’
  • Dividing streets and neighbours for no logical and accountable reason. For example Mavho St. (pictured below) where there is now a new application in for a 3 storey, 27 unit development and a reduction in visitor car parking. If this property was on the other side of the street and 8 or so houses down from Centre Road, it would be counted as ‘minimal change’. Why the eighth house is designated as minimal change and the 9th house as ‘housing diversity’ boggles the mind. But that’s the planning in Glen Eira!

 

Melbourne homeowners team up to take advantage of law changes and net $5.76m windfall

  • Donna Carton
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
  • June 18, 2014 11:01AM

THREE savvy homeowners joined forces to sell their properties collectively, making upwards of $1 million profit.

They took advantage of recently changed zoning laws and the growing Asian investor interest in Melbourne.

The Bentleigh trio sold their houses in an off-market deal through Savills Australia.

Neighbours at 14, 16, and 18 Bent St sold their adjoining homes to a Chinese developer for $5.76 million, up to $1.8 million more than could have been expected from separate individual sales.

The undisclosed purchaser intends to apply for permission to develop a multi-level apartment building on the combined 1985sq m site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich, who negotiated the sale, said the neighbours could reasonably have expected to fetch $1.3-$1.5 million in separate sales, but the combined property provided a much more valuable development opportunity.

“This was an exceptional result where three astute neighbours realised the opportunity they could create by combining their properties to form an attractive development opportunity and it could not have been a better result,” Mr Heatherich said.

“As far as we know this is the first sale of this type based on an opportunity created by recent residential zoning changes and the current Asian penchant for Australian and particularly Melbourne property.”

Recent zone changes allow for multi-unit development within activity centres.

City of Glen Eira implemented the changes in August with the new ‘Urban Village Policy’ allowing for multi-storey development of up to four levels.

“Glen Eira was the first municipality to implement the zoning changes and with Bentleigh one of the main high density areas in Glen Eira, it was subsequently reclassified as Bentleigh Urban Village,” Mr Heatherich said.

Bent St runs off the busy Centre Rd shopping strip and is near the train station.

PS: here’s the link for the Channel 7 News of today. Please note the mockup of what a four storey building, containing  60 units might look like next to a single storey dwelling – https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/video/watch/24268737/teamwork-pays-in-savvy-land-sale/

+++++++++++++

And here’s the view of countless local streets carved up by whim or officers sitting at a computer and drawing lines on a map.

Untitled

 

 

 

June 15, 2014

Hyams: ‘Lend Me Your Ears’!

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

 

See also: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/hyams-little-temper-tantrums/

 

June 12, 2014

Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion: Silence Is Not Golden!

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

From the minutes –

Crs Esakoff/Lipshutz
1. That Council appoint Fimma Constructions Pty Ltd, ACN 101 232 320 as the contractor under Contract No. 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion New Building including Civil Works and associated Landscape Works and demolition of existing facilities at Duncan Mackinnon Reserve, Murrumbeena for the sum of $8,185,711.67 (GST incl.) in accordance
with the terms tendered.
2. That a Contract be prepared in accordance with the Conditions included in the tender.
3. That the Contracts be executed in an appropriate manner including by affixing of the Council Seal.
4. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

Since the public who are forking out the $8 million are once again being kept in the dark like mushrooms, we can only speculate as to what is going on with what is fast becoming the disaster of Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion. Residents deserve to know:

  • Will what is currently standing of the Maxstra work be demolished? If so, what does this do to time lines for completion of the pavilion?
  • How much has Maxstra been paid and is this amount IN ADDITION to the new figure of eight million?
  • Is there more legal argey-bargey going on, and how much is this costing?
  • Why is every single major project under this regime always late, and seemingly always running into problems? What does this say about our decision makers?
  • And, since the decision was ‘carried’ and therefore NOT UNANIMOUS what were the reasons behind the contrary views?
 

June 12, 2014

The Art Of Sophistry

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

Tuesday night’s council meeting was replete with bouts of amnesia, inconsistencies, and some wonderful (unconscious?) irony found in the bombast of Lipshutz and his cronies – these latter examples still to come!

This was evident in the item on Amendment C102 (Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas). Amazingly, not one single councillor referred to the watering down of conditions; not one single councillor mentioned that this was a deferred item from 2010, and not one single councillor provided any explanation as to why what was unacceptable two years ago should now be lauded as wonderful.

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Delahunty

HYAMS: started off by saying that there’s ‘a need to update’ policies from ‘time to time’ and this is one of those times. Said that the only contentious issue was the stipulation that heights be consistent with what the current zones dictate. There had been one objection. Argued that it would be a pity if the zones provided protection elsewhere but if here ‘they were disregarded’. Said that there are ‘objectives’ and that if an application ‘basically’ complies with policy and doesn’t cause ‘undue’ ill effects on ‘amenity’ then ‘there is a bit of latitude there’. Said that council isn’t making a decision but sending it off to an ‘independent panel’ and objectors can then present their views to the panel and the report will come back to council for decision.

DELAHUNTY: agreed with Hyams about need for policy so that residents would ‘understand’ what is required and the ‘basis of how we make decisions’. Spoke about ‘measures’ and said that even if the measures ‘aren’t met’ then the application can still meet ‘the objectives of this policy’. This is just part of the ‘deliberate ambiguity that’s built into the policy’ and this allows places like schools to ‘lobby council’. There are other measures which ‘aren’t set in stone’ so it’s ‘wise’ to go onto the next step in sending it off to a panel.

OKOTEL: noted the two objections from private schools and how they were opposed to the height limits and the ‘limiting of set backs’. She agreed with the objectors. Gave an example of a doctor’s surgery opposite her parents’ house which wasn’t taking any more new patients because they were already so busy. Same applied to schools and in order to cater for the increase in population and demand that the best way to go was to ‘build up’ and this would also help people recognise and ‘see a GP practise’ from the street, rather than if it was set back. ‘It wouldn’t be set back with a garden at the front’ so people wouldn’t be able to easily identify that it was a GP practice. Therefore didn’t think that the policy should try and limit heights.

LOBO: said that he’s never been in favour of non-residential uses in residential areas because ‘everything has its time and place’. Noted Regent St application as an example. Said that this ‘was fine 15 years ago’ when population was smaller. Said that the policy has to be ‘rectified’ so that ‘no further damage is created’. Said that council need to ‘look after’ residents since they are the ones ‘who pay the rates’. Didn’t like gyms in streets, bars and that these sorts of establishments ‘shouldn’t be put in the streets’.

ESAKOFF: acknowledged that the policy came in in 1999 so it’s necessary to have a ‘review undertaken’ and that it should be ‘updated’ and to ‘conform’ to the way policies work. She has ‘some empathy’ with the objectors and had ‘concerns’ about ‘restricting the growth of schools’ and also doctors surgeries. These places don’t have a ‘lot of space’ and they can’t ‘go out’ so they ‘have to go up’. Noted that schools are ‘immune to’ council planning processes so the policy only applies to the ‘private school sector’. She didn’t want to ‘restrict’ these schools potential growth but ‘has been assured’ because of how the policy is drafted there is ‘some flexibility’ for these schools to make ‘their case’ so she’s ‘happy to take this to the next level’. Noted that the panel’s report isn’t ‘binding’ and that council can make its own decisions when the advice comes back from the panel.

LIPSHUTZ: said that there needs to be some ‘flexibility in terms of heights’. Lobo’s view about no non-residential uses in residential areas meant that he wasn’t ‘sure’ where you could then put ‘schools, churches’ and that he was ‘assured’ that if schools or churces wanted more than 2 storeys that ‘we would restrict that’. He was also ‘assured’ that these are ‘guidelines’ and ‘flexible’ so since they are ‘flexible’ he supports it.

SOUNNESS: started by saying that people who live in cities want facilities and there are residential areas and non-residential assets. Said that even living in a local street people can wander down to the corner and ‘have a coffee’ and that’s part of living in a city. The amendment is to avoid duplication and update policy according to the new zones and therefore it is very ‘reasonable’. Thought that it was good to have the ‘conversation’ about height because necessary to know what ‘the height might be in an area’. But it’s all relative and in a conversation with someone they spoke about height in relation to ‘tree height’ so if there’s is a bush close by then a ‘two storey height seems enormous’ and if there are huge gums nearby then this would ‘seem tiny’. It all depends ‘on the scale of what’s in the municipality’. And this policy ‘allows this conversation to take place’.

MAGEE: said that because there are schools and churches that ‘makes our residential zones’. Said his place was near schools and doctors and ‘two hospitals’. Change was inevitable and there would always be changes to the planning scheme. Although he doesn’t ‘particularly’ want to live in an industrial area or ‘near a beach’ and he picked where he lives ‘because of the amenity around it’. This was only the ‘first stage’ and where people live is ‘what we make it’. It’s okay to say that schools should only be 2 storeys in residential areas but ‘sometimes’ they do ‘run out of space’ and they can ‘only go up’. Gave examples of packed schools like McKinnon secondary. Repeated that this is only the ‘first stage’ of the process.

PILLING: thought that it was ‘quite reasonable’ to give ‘consideration’ to the area but as he ‘understands’ it, ‘there is nothing’ in the policy to ‘preclude schools going higher’. If there was an application for a ten storey non residential use then ‘I don’t think that’s what we want’. What council wants is ‘some form of uniformity’ and that’s why the current residential zones are ‘so unique’.

HYAMS: said that all they are talking about are schools etc. and not ‘commercial uses’. Council should protect height and also heights in General Residential Zones and Growth Zones. Said that if doctors surgeries wanted to be 3 storeys then there are areas in Glen Eira where they can build to this height.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – VOTING FOR – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY.

VOTING AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO.

COMMENT

It’s worth asking why have policy at all, if it is ‘flexible’? Does ‘flexibility’ actually provide the ‘certainty’ to residents that this council always claims? Or is the desired ‘flexibility’ simply there to assist developers in building whatever they like, wherever they like? The problem with setting binding standards is that it leaves no wriggle room later on and commits council to a certain form of action. That in itself is anathema to the way this council operates on innumerable issues.

We also direct readers to the Okotel comments and point out the incredible inconsistencies in her logic. On the previous agenda item (9.1- the Ames St application for 13 double storeys) Okotel argued for protection of ‘neighbourhood character’. Five minutes later height limits should go. Surely height is the cornerstone of ‘neighbourhood character’? We are also really bemused by the argument that setbacks shouldn’t apply so that residents can more easily identify what is a doctor’s surgery!

 

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »