Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 12, 2013

Lest We Forget!

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

For the first time ever we are repeating a post in its entirety. It’s the resolution on council’s ‘position’ on the racecourse centre. Given the sudden girding of the loins by the likes of Lipshutz and company, we thought it worthwhile to revisit the shambles that took place in April, 2011. There was no fire and brimstone then – only complicity, secrecy, and in our view, the utter sellout of residents. Now, when the deal is done and dusted, these very same councillors find their voice.

What was said 2 years ago should never be forgotten. What was NOT SAID last Tuesday night is just as important. No mention of what this council has done to ensure that the MRC abides by the various agreements – ie keeping gates open; pulling down fences; proper traffic management; ensuring the clean up of Queen’s Avenue, and so on. Utter, resounding silence on all these points. Instead the gallery witnessed nothing more than huge egos grandstanding. We have to also question whether the resolution to forward a ‘letter’ to MPs and others would have eventuated if the MRC had not embarrassed council even further with their Media Releases and interviews. If this council thought it was so important to ‘restate’ its position, then why did they not decide to write to all and sundry at the previous meeting? Was this even discussed in those secret assemblies? If so, how did the gang respond? Did they reject this idea a month ago? Our guess is that council were forced into the letter by the outcry against them! Again, everything is too late and useless!

Here’s our post from April 28th, 2011.

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. Critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversarial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…

PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenities’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’

PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.

ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.

LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..

FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge responded ’to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….

Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.

PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO because the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. Reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. Doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!

FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.

ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.

HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms, ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….

ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’.

HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.

FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.

HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.

TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council

PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps

LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?

PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete

MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION

Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.

April 11, 2013

Council’s ‘Position’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

MAGEE moved a long motion which basically reiterated what had previously been stated – ie not enough sporting grounds and that it should be for racing, recreation and sport. Also mentioned recent history such as the Select Committee Report and their recommendations. Last part of motion was to write to all MPs, Ministers, Auditor General, etc.

MAGEE: spoke about population and lack of sporting grounds so that clubs have to play outside of Glen Eira. Claimed that 35 to 40 teams ‘would love to play in Glen Eira’ but presently can’t because lack of grounds. Said the plan could be ‘reconfigured’ to suit everyone and it’s really about the trustees and MRC who regard the land as theirs and that racing is more important than anything else. Said the MRC owns land all around the racecourse for their stables that they rent out so that gives trainers the right to train horses on the reserve. Then read out a long list about ‘prescribed uses’ such as weddings, exhibitions, exams etc. and noted that training is not listed once in this long list ‘according to the DSE’. Many things such as access, lighting ‘needs to be better’ and that the land should be given back to the community ‘who actually own it’. Saw this as ‘an opportunity to almost solve’ all the problems they’re having with sport. This isn’t happening and even though a barbecue area and running track will soon be opened it’s one that ‘just happens to run past the car park’ so that racegoers ‘don’t get dirty walking to the pavilion’. The toilet also suits the boot area. Therefore instead of this being a ‘great community park’ it’s ‘actually going to be used for racing’ ….’it will be used by you and me’ but you have to go through the tunnel ‘without suffocatig and getting mud’ and horse poo all over you. We’ve got a 2 billion dollar asset ‘sitting on’ the doorstep and yet Glen Eira can’t provide for its kids on sport.

OKOTEL: supported motion and ‘unfortunate’ that some people ‘misunderstood’ the position paper from the last council meeting. Said that this motion ‘seeks to clarify council’s position’ and to make this known to ‘all of the relevant stakeholders’. Went on to say that council ‘will honour’ its existing agreements and the intentions of council in ‘how to deal with this land in the future’. Hoped that this would prevent any ‘further misunderstanding’.

PILLING: endorsed the motion and said that it’s good that this would be sent to politicians because that’s really where the issue lies ie ‘with successive state governments’. ‘Training in the long term does have to go’ if council is to get what it wants. Said that this ‘position’ isn’t really that much different from its ‘previous positions’ just ‘articulates it better’. Said that the plan basically showed the ‘potential’ of the site and how it could be utilised for both active and passive recreation.

DELAHUNTY: also endorsed the motion. The report helped people understand just how much land is available and it’s just a concept and ‘may not be how it ends up’. Reiterated that ‘passive recreation’ is important. Spoke about jogging around the area and walking the dog years ago and would would ‘like to see some of that balance restored’. Saw that sport is about 2 issues – allocation and ‘supply’. Asked the community to support council’s position, ‘to get behind’ this move. Thanked officers for the report.

HYAMS: said that the focus of racing is a result of the ‘failings of previous trustees and government’. Criticism of the previous ‘issues paper’ was ‘unwarranted’ and the MRC’s media responses as well as Pakula’s ‘unfortunate speech’ in Parliament was ‘misleading’ so this ‘sets out the full context’. Mentioned the MRC spending $3 m on the synthetic track. Acknowledged that they’ve carved off Glen Huntly park but that there would now also be ‘1500 dwellings’ as part of the C60. Hoped that this was the ‘start for far more progress’ being achieved for the park.

MAGEE: 2 years ago Forge and he met Southwick who said this was ‘important’ but that in this time all he’s done in 2 years is ‘organise a fun run’ and that’s ‘insulting to everyone who actually voted for David Southwick’. He should apologise. Continued that ‘this is far too important’ to be ‘political’. ‘This is not going away’ and the MRC and Trustees should know that ‘council is just starting’ and will go on right to the 2014 election. If Southwick want relection then he ‘needs the people of Caulfield right behind him’. The whole issue is ‘about greed. Nothing more’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

PS: THE FULL MAGEE MOTION AS PER THE MINUTES –

Crs Magee/Okotel
1. That Council note:
(a) That there are more people wanting to play community sport in Glen Eira than there are grounds for;
(b) That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown land is reserved for “A racecourse public recreation ground and public park”;
(c) That, as shown by the report provided by independent consultant Simon Leisure, in addition to horse racing, the Crown land could potentially accommodate additional grounds for soccer, AFL, netball, baseball, rugby and cycling, as well as a range of passive recreation opportunities;
(d) That the Glen Huntly Reserve was originally part of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(e) That the Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development in its final report in September 2008 found that, “The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve profits to the Melbourne Racing Club have been disproportionately directed to racing users, with inadequate provision for use of public park and recreation users as required by the original Grant,” and recommended, “That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees direct a substantial amount from the profits made by the Melbourne Racing Club over many decades to the provision of public park and recreational facilities, including promotion of the public use of these facilities as recompense to the community.”;
(f) That, pursuant to an agreement with Council of April 2011, the Melbourne Racing Club has spent approximately $2 million on
providing public park and recreation facilities in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(g) That, in relation to training, that agreement provided, “One of the current uses of the Racecourse Reserve is for the training of more than 500 horses.
For training to be relocated from Caulfield, there needs to be
· an alternative site
· construction of new facilities
· and transfer of the training activities.
This will not be achieved in the short term.
It is not within the sole control of the MRC.
Agreed Priority in this transition would be
1. removal of training from Crown Land before freehold land
2. top priority is the south-east corner of the Reserve which would become available for use as public open space consistent with the already established joint communique in conjunction with Glen Huntly Park, at the expense of the body controlling the land.
3. within the Racecourse Reserve, the only tracks required would be for the conduct of races and all other tracks would be re-incorporated into enlarged precincts mentioned above.
4. Council and the MRC would enter into further discussions about further improved facilities and uses of the Centre for the benefit of racegoers and the community.”
(h) That training infrastructure constructed in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve since this agreement includes a
synthetic training track worth approximately $3 million;
(i) That the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to
include 1500 dwellings; and
(j) That, in accordance with the April 2011 agreement, Council’s position paper on the Crown Land at the Caulfield Racecourse
Reserve, adopted at its March 19 meeting, stated “Training of horses on a commercial basis is not one of the purposes for which the Crown Land is reserved. Providing a “public recreation ground and public park” takes precedence over the training of horses. To the extent that training prejudices the provision of public ground and public park, training should be phased out.”

2. That this report and motion be sent to:
 the Minister responsible for Crown Lands
 the Auditor General for Victoria
 the Victorian Government Solicitor
 the Department of Sustainability and Environment
 each member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust
 the Secretary of the Trust
 the Minister for Sport and Recreation
 the Minister for Racing and
 all State and Federal Members of Parliament representing Glen Eira.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

April 10, 2013

The Show Goes On!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

Local Laws Committee

LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel. On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.

COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?

Sport and Rec Committee

LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.

MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.

COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!

VCAT WATCH

Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.

DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.

COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION

MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.

SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.

PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.

HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.

MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.

AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.

COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:

1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information

2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?

3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!

Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.

MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

April 9, 2013

Academy Award Night

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

Several events were unique at tonight’s council meeting.

Esakoff did not utter a word
Lobo was absent with no mention by Burke of an apology or failure to give an apology as required
The minutes of the CEO Contractual committee meeting minutes VOTED UPON we presume, were not included in the agenda items even as a ‘late addition’.
The sale of McKittrick St went through without a single reference by anyone that a potential developer was acquiring public land for a piddling $20,000 on land valued at $66,700
Souness and Pilling moved an amendment requesting more information on the Centenary Rd car park and loss of open space. This was defeated by all other councillors and the original recommendation accepted unanimously.
Racecourse item involved much chest beating. No councillor trustee declared a conflict of interest.
Public questions were abysmally answered as per usual.
Lipshutz’s inconsistency in argument is definitely worthy of a place in the Guinness Book of World Records

We will provide full commentary on the above in the days ahead.

April 3, 2013

Just Like In Glen Eira, Eh?

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

PS: We think readers will find the following Kingston Council Notice of Motion of great interest given what happens far too often in Glen Eira. The following is from the minutes of 25th March, 2013.

Notices of Motion

Notice of Motion – Cr West
Moved: Cr West Seconded: Cr Ronke
That Council adopt a position for mediation of a development
application only with the support of either:
1. all three ward Councillors, or
2. a majority of all Councillors.

CARRIED

April 2, 2013

The Leader & Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

March 29, 2013

‘Rare Lapses’ Are Becoming Endemic!

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

There have been 2 recent VCAT decisions that we wish to highlight. In BOTH cases council’s planning department failed in its legal obligations – namely to alert resident objectors as to the council’s position on amended plans within the required 7 day period of notice. What this means is that objectors show up to the hearing with practically no time to adjust their claims or to prepare sufficiently for what could be a completely different set of circumstances. They are left out in the cold and perhaps totally unaware of the secret deals that have been made between council and developer. Certainly without sufficient time to prepare an adequate defence or to even contact council planners.

We’ve previously featured Hyams’ pathetic response to one such objector – the officer was on holidays. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/does-council-support-residents-or-developers/) Not good enough! How many such ‘rare lapses’ have taken place and what steps have been implemented to ensure they don’t happen again? How often will the same pathetic excuse be used to explain sheer incompetence or indifference to residents? How much longer will councillors allow the inefficiencies and lack of accountability to continue?

What is even worse is that the VCAT Watch reports reveal nothing of these incidents. It is spin all the way. Except, that if one bothers to go to the actual judgement the Glen Eira Version of History is revealed for what it is – a total sham!

Here’s what council’s version of events regarding the 14-16 Maroona Rd hearing stated (from the minutes of 5^th Feb) –

Prior to the hearing, the applicant approached Council seeking support for amended plans which satisfied a number of Council’s conditions, whilst the plans also provided for a revised design incorporating twenty six (26) dwellings. The amended plans were considered to be satisfactory and, in principle, Council supported the amended plans.

What really happened though is revealed by the member –

Prior to the hearing the Permit Applicant circulated amended plans which were intended to be a response to, though not fully comply with, many of the Condition 1 requirements for amended plans sought to be imposed by Council. Prior to the hearing, further discussions were held between the Council and the Applicant, such that an agreed position between these two parties was presented to the Tribunal as to a modified form of Condition 1 that should be applied as a result of the proceeding under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act.

Ms Coram and the other residents had not been part of these discussions and at the start of the hearing declined an opportunity requested by the Permit Applicant to attempt to mediate the matter.

Further, the original application was for 27 units. The original DPC decision cut this back to 24 and then lo and behold we’re back up to 26 units and a reduction in car parking. So we now have 26 two bedroom units when one of the major planks of the Planning Scheme is to ensure that there is ‘diversity’ of dwellings! We insist that no bigger hoax has been perpetrated on residents that this bit of fluff and bubble.

There are some other comments that clearly show how little effort is put in by this council to ensure the bona fides of applications. None of this of course is evident in the officers’ report. We’ll simply extract those passages.

During the course of the hearing it occurred to me (ie member) that the shadow diagrams for 9.00am had not been drawn correctly. As a result at the conclusion of the hearing I gave oral orders for an amended shadow diagram to be circulated to all parties within seven days of the date of the hearing, and for the other parties to have an additional seven days to make further submissions, if desired. At the hearing all parties agreed that these timelines were sufficient.

During the course of the hearing Ms Bowden (for developer) submitted that due to the removal of the two existing crossovers to the review site, that one additional on street visitor space is to be created. On this basis, and considering Council’s support for the proposal following the review by their traffic engineers, I cannot see any reason why I should not approve the reduction of the standard visitor car parking requirement by one space.

Ms Silveira (objector), in her concerns regarding the intensity of the development, referred to the risk caused by the increased traffic levels to be experienced in Maroona Road. At no stage during the hearing was I addressed specifically in relation to the existing or anticipated traffic levels, or any difficulties experienced by residents in exiting the street to either Neerim Road or Glen Huntly Road. Given the absence of any such detailed submission, I must give weight to the assessment of the application by Council’s traffic engineers and the support for the development as expressed by Council. I therefore cannot find any reason to refuse to grant a permit based on traffic grounds.

The questions that follow have to be addressed by councillors:

Why are resident objectors not always informed of amended plans nor council’s agreement to these new plans AND if they are informed why is there not sufficient notice given as required by law?
Why does this council so often merely accept the developer’s assessment of various elements such as overshadowing, traffic, parking, without checking the veracity of these claims?
Why did council not check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams?
Why has traffic engineering not insisted upon the car parking standards?
How much longer will councillors allow residents in Housing Diversity to be the sacrificial lamb to a flawed vision that desperately needs to be jettisoned?
How much longer will councillors sit in silence and permit shoddy reports to pass without comment, without serious questioning, and without proper analysis?
Are we right in assuming that this council has no respect for residents and ostensibly no respect for the legal requirements? If they did, then such incidents would not happen or would certainly not be allowed to continue!

If you know of any other incidents along similar lines then please contact us!

March 29, 2013

GESAC Car Park

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

A reminder!

No councillor uttered the word ‘tree’, ‘open space’ when the decision was made
No mention by councillors or officers of the further loss of public open space
No consultation with residents
No mention of the destruction of huge gums
No mention that recently planted trees and shrubs would be ripped out
No preliminary traffic report or investigation
No clear and decipherable architect’s drawings revealing the extent of incursion into public open space
No upfront honesty from anyone!

We’ve visited the site again in recent days and found:

One huge gum is now dying because its roots have been torn to shreds. Certainly not a surprise when trenches are dug to at least 30 cm around it. That leaves the question as to whether or not a fully qualified arborist was called in to ensure that the excavations would not damage the few remaining trees left along Gardener’s Rd.
No change to the bus route to East Boundary Road. So much for years of ‘advocating’!
No costing on what the destruction of newly planted trees and shrubs will be and what it will cost to replace them

March 27, 2013

The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’ Carries On!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[26] Comments

We’ve received numerous comments and emails from residents as to the failure of both Council, the MRC and/or Trustees to ensure that the terms of the ‘agreement’ are adhered to – especially in terms of ACCESS to the Racecourse. Time after time gates, which are supposed to be open from 9.30 to sunset are locked. Not good enough! What has council been doing to ensure that access is available? Why is this situation being allowed to drag on for years and years? Why has there been no public comment from this council demanding that all terms of the agreement are met – especially the removal of fences and access.

We’ve revisited the January 2011 VCAT decision on the 7 lot subdivision and note that the member made explicit comments as to the Section 173 ‘agreement’ regarding access. It is now 14 months later and residents still cannot enter the racecourse as determined. Why has council allowed such a situation to continue? Here are some extracts from the decision –

“Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of Lot 5 must enter into a section 173 agreement which provides that public access across Lot 5 to the entrance to the tunnel to the centre of the racecourse must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Tribunal understands that it is the Trustees of the Crown Land that set conditions relating to public access to the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and whilst the MRC has control over its own land that abuts the racecourse, as well as occupying the Centre of the Racecourse, it does not control or set in place the conditions for public access to the Crown Land. MRC can therefore only control access over its land from Glen Eira Road to the entrance to the Tunnel.

The Club will reconfigure all horse movement to enable the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to be open 9.30am to sunset.

Public access to the Centre will be provided as follows.

On all days excluding scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the Tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting

c. by the pedestrian tunnel from the Guineas car park

d. by new surface pedestrian access from Glen Huntly Park across the race tracks into precinct 4 by providing gates or gaps in all the rails. The Club reserves the right to modify, suspend or change access after consultation with the Council in the event of damage to the racing surface

e. by foot via the existing gate from Queen’s Avenue

On all days excluding 3 scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting.

All the above applies up to 352 days per year as above, 9.30am – sunset, as set pout in section 2.1.

The improvements in a – e above will be established by the MRC within 3 months of this agreement being executed subject to formal planning approval, the Trustees approval and Public Land Manager consent.

The Responsible Authority agreed that MRC’s recommendation of the entering into of a section 173 agreement between MRC, as owner of lot 5 and the Responsible Authority would allow for an assurance that public access would continue to be available over this portion of land.

In particular the entering into of a section 173 agreement that is required to be placed on the title to lot 5 will ensure that public access can be continued in this location.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/104.html

March 24, 2013

80/20 And The 20 Don’t Count!

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

This is an exceedingly long post but one which is arguably the most important we have ever put up. It features the events surrounding the planning application for an Ormond 3 storey, 11 dwelling development at the last council meeting. The officer’s recommendation was to grant a NOD for 10 dwellings.

We believe the ‘debate’ that occurred on this application epitomises all that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira. It reveals the usual bogus and contradictory claims made by all and sundry, as well as the full inadequacies of the current planning scheme and its total disregard for residents in Housing Diversity Areas. We also wonder if Pilling and Sounness in particular, have the foggiest idea about planning or they are just there to support whatever is dished up to them. We can only shake our heads at the naivety, if not straight out stupidity of various councillors.

This will become obvious upon reading. We remind residents that the Emmy Monash development mentioned throughout, involved the granting of a permit for a 4 storey development on Hawthorn Rd. Lipshutz moved the motion about removing setbacks and this was supported by the majority. It also came to light that the developer just happened to be the same individual who was handing out How To Vote cards for the gang! (No conflict of interest was declared!).

We urge all residents concerned about the future of their neighbourhoods to pay careful attention to what transpired last Tuesday night. Our ‘commentary’ on this fiasco will feature in a future post – this is just a blow by blow description of our councillors ‘at work’!

Esakoff moved to reject the application. Seconded by Okotel.

ESAKOFF: refusal based on on ‘visual bulk’, ‘excessive height’, doesn’t meet ResCode standards of the planning scheme and doesn’t respect ‘neighbourhood character’ and Housing Diversity policy. Said that there are ‘several factors’ that fail to meet requirements here and that couldn’t be addressed by merely adding conditions. Spoke about ‘amenity impact on neighbours’ and ‘intensity of development’ as well as ‘set backs’ – especially building right on a laneway where bedrooms would be overlooking the laneway. It’s an ‘overdevelopment’ and therefore not ‘appropriate’ or ‘fits into’ this position in Ormond.

OKOTEL: started by saying that everyone thinks that ‘appropriate development’ should happen in Glen Eira but that the ‘key word is appropriate’. The planning scheme she claimed ‘sets out for everyone’…..‘what is considered appropriate’ and that this application ‘doesn’t meet those standards’. It ‘falls outside the upper limits’ of height, site coverage, and neighbourhood character.

PILLING: whilst he ‘appreciated’ the arguments put up so far, he was supporting the recommendation. The property is in a neighbourhood centre and a retail centre, and ‘within a very short distance’ there’s the railway station. Policy is to ‘encourage development in these areas’ and therefore ‘not in minimal change areas’. Thought that council therefore ‘had to be consistent’ since they were ‘trying to get appropriate increased development in these areas’. The application shouldn’t be refused even though it is slightly over specifications and there are ‘some detrimental aspects’ but this still shouldn’t ‘sink’ an application ‘like this’. If the motion to refuse failed then he would be moving a motion to accept the recommendations.

DELAHUNTY: said she didn’t ‘like’ the setbacks of the proposal and ‘I’m confused by my fellow councillors’ by applying the criteria of setbacks to ‘knock back applications on the one hand’ and then ‘not in another’. Referred back to the Emmy Monash 4 storey application on Hawthorn Rd that was passed and ‘some councillors’ argued then that setbacks didn’t matter. Now they’re arguing that it does matter. Said she was ‘confused’ about the setbacks and the ‘different directions this is taking’.

MAGEE: admitted that he had ‘no idea which way I was going to vote tonight’ and was hoping ‘to get persuaded by some really good arguments’ but that ‘so far all speakers have failed to engage me’. The laneway ‘probably saves it’ and then it starts to ‘encroach’ into residential. Asked then ‘where to draw the line’? ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’. Was hoping that someone could convince him but he told councillors that they’d just have to wait to ‘see which way my hand goes up’.

SOUNNESS: said he’d try to be ‘inspirational’ but that Magee ‘was a hard act to follow’. From a single house ‘we’re going to stick 11 dwelling on there’..’that’s a lot’…’a big up’ in density. But he’d ‘rather have a bunch of people’ that are close to transport and shops than put ‘in the middle of minimal change areas’. Asked where all the ‘extra people’ can go and what can be protected. Here, ‘they’re next to shops, they’re next to public transport’. Further, ‘it’s not a beautiful place to live’ and he wouldn’t like to live there, but ‘it’s not meant to be a luxurious’ garden area. ‘This is a place for dense living’ and you put this where ‘services and facilities are’. This application ‘might have issues with design’ but that’s the job of council’s urban designer and there are conditions that will deal with trees and access. Said that the ‘issue’ that the application ‘fails on is height’ but the rise of the land makes this about landscaping. He supports the recommendation.

HYAMS: agreed with Sounness and Pilling that ‘this is the right place for increased development’. Overall he wouldn’t ‘have a problem’ but he doesn’t ‘particularly like’ this proposal. Said there’s a difference between saying that we can have increased development and that ‘this is the building that should go there’. Thought that ‘too many issues’ on this application ‘required rectification’. Mentioned site coverage and ‘up the road from a flood zone’. Said that ‘we have rules’ and these ‘rules say 60% site coverage’ so this should be ‘60% site coverage’. It’s also 9.6 metres high and should only be ‘9 metres maximum’. Also that it’s right on the laneway also ‘concerns’ him. Trucks use the laneway and he wouldn’t like to have trucks going ‘thundering’ down outside his bedroom window so that ‘also concerns me’. ‘Generally’ he doesn’t mind tinkering with application because individually all these things wouldn’t necessary occasion a refusal, but taken together ‘there are too many of these things’.

Said that Delahunty’s view of lack of consistency over the Emmy Monash decision but that the setbacks there were ‘the front setbacks’ and ‘still quite a few metres off Hawthorn Rd’ unlike this one which would be right ‘up against the laneway. Said that Pilling and Sounness’s foreshadowed motion doesn’t deal with the issues he’s outlined and ‘doesn’t make those adjustments’ so if councillors want ‘adjustments’ they should vote for the motion to refuse.

ESAKOFF: ‘an application either meets policy or it doesn’t. This clearly doesn’t’. Reiterated the argument about ‘too much’ site coverage and height and said that ‘if there was a way to address this via conditions that would have been done’ but here it would require a ‘total redesign’. No application like this would come in for a minimal change area. ‘It is in the right spot, housing diversity’ but ‘it has to meet policy’. ‘Increased development is right for this street’ but ‘it has to fit’. Urged councillors ‘not to look at the address’ but as an ‘application for anywhere in Glen Eira and vote with your conscience’.

HYAMS put the motion. Voting in favour of refusal were – HYAMS, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL. Voting against – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, PILLING, SOUNNESS, LOBO. Motion lost.

Pilling then moved the motion to accept ‘as printed’ and Sounness seconded. Neither Pilling nor Sounness spoke to the motion.

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme.

DELAHUNTY: asked Akehurst a question. Since both Okotel and Esakoff had said that the application doesn’t meet ‘planning policy’ she wanted to know whether ‘this application meets planning policy or does not meet planning policy’?

AKEHURST: said he was caught in ‘crossfire’ here and that the application ‘demonstrated’ the problems with people not understanding town planning. Stated that there’s the government code called ResCode which is how the government thinks ‘Victorians should live’ and that has ‘prescriptive standards’ and in this application some have been met which Okotel and Esakoff pointed out and some haven’t such as the 9.6 height which should be 9 metres. ‘There have been other standards which have been breached in this application’ – ie site coverage. ‘But this is where it gets difficult’ since Rescode is ‘interpreted as a guide’ and councils are being asked to ‘have overall’ views on the ‘objectives’ of each of these standards. So, ‘it is possible to say that objectives of certain measures of ResCode have been met’…’even though the prescription has been clearly breached’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she is again ‘expressing my confusion’. Quoted Okotel in saying that it would be a sad day when council doesn’t apply its policy. ‘I stood here and I argued as hard as I could about the setbacks on Hawthorn Road’. Disagreed that ‘it doesn’t affect people’s amenity’ and that people complained ‘directly to the applicant’ and to council about the setbacks ‘and we didn’t enforce’ it. ‘That was a sorry day!’ ‘This is in line with policy’.

ESAKOFF: agreed that it is a ‘sorry day when we can’t uphold our policy’ and when they do what vcat is criticised for doing.‘ Our policy is supposed to be superior to all other municipalities’ and that ‘we protect our residents more than all other municipalities’. Said there’s policy and that ‘we need to be upholding those’.

MAGEE: said that policies ‘are not laws, policies are guidelines’ and it’s up to councillors to accept, reject or modify the proposal and that ‘we’ve had several weeks to do that’. If it’s all about just policy ‘then we might as well not be here’ since they’re superfluous. Asked why councillors who ‘do not have a 4 year degree in town planning’ are necessary if the policy should dictate everything. Said councillors are just ‘mums and dads’ who ‘live next door to developments’ and the decisions are based on asking oneself whether they’d like to live next door to something like this. ‘We will always interpret a guideline the way we need to interpret a guidelines’. Rescode and the planning scheme has to be looked at by officers and then councillors. Said that councillors have to make the decision based on what they think after digesting all the information and not just according to the guildelines or policy because there’s no need for councillors if that’s all they had to do.

HYAMS: said that in planning some things are ‘objective’ and some things ‘subjective’. Some things are ‘measures’ like site coverage and ‘easy to apply’ but other things like neighborhood character and front setbacks ‘are a bit harder to apply’. Setbacks are ‘measured by the average of other houses in the street’. Emmy Monash has got one nearby property right on the street and another one across the road, ‘right back’ ‘so there’s room for interpretation’. This is also true for neighbourhood character. What councillors should be doing is that ‘where it’s prescriptive you apply it’ and ‘where there’s room for interpretation you interpret it’. Referred back to last council meeting and the sign that was applied for the Kittens car wash. Here ‘policy was very clear’ in that there was ‘nothing in planning policy that said you couldn’t have that sign’ but some councillors were worried about the content of the sign and its influence on gender issues. These arguments he claimed ‘weren’t relevant’ but that some councillors ‘used their subjectivity on that’. And ‘a couple of those same councillors are saying that we should let this’ application go through. Mentioned another decision about alcohol for lawn bowls club and some councillors again voting against this but are ‘somehow managing to vote’ in favour of the application ‘tonight’. So he doesn’t want to hear ‘lectures on consistency’ from those councillors.

MAGEE then asked ‘which ones’?

DELAHUNTY: then said ‘I think Okotel because she also voted against the sign. Is that right?’

HYAMS: said that since Okotel is opposing the motion she’s being ‘consistent’

OKOTEL: asked Delahunty to withdraw her remarks.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s comment ‘was out of order’ since she ‘didn’t have the floor’ but didn’t say ‘anything that goes against the Local Law’. Went on to say that there are subjective elements and that ‘it’s up to each councillor to apply them as they see fit’. This application has some breaches which ‘are a lot less’ capable of involving ‘subjectivity’ and because ‘this breaches so many prescriptive measures we should refuse it’.

PILLING: thought that everyone’s got the ‘best intentions’ and that’s why these sorts of applications come to council since there are always ‘two sides’ to the issue. ‘On balance’ he’s recommending accepting the recommendation.

MOTION PUT: Esakoff called for a division. In favour: Delahunty, Sounness, Pilling, Magee, Lobo. Against: Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams. Motion carried.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates