Councillor Performance


Not for the first time has Mr De’Ath run into a little controversy regarding his electioneering. Last election it was his failure for proper authorisation and the explanation was that it was the printer’s fault and that he had retrieved all of the ‘incorrect’ flyers as soon as he could! Unfortunately, many thousands had already gone out! No ‘penalty’ from the electoral office of course!

This time around we have a far more serious potential breach. Candidates are not permitted to include their how-to-vote preferences in the election packs that will go out to residents. They are required to provide a 200 word pitch about themselves. Below is De’Ath’s effort. It clearly indicates preferences and whom to vote for. In our opinion this is a breach of the legislation.

tucker

Lobo arrived approximately 15 minutes late and apologised for his lateness. We also assume that he had not been present at the pre-meeting Councillor Assembly since he asked for the relevant papers. Whether this was his choice, or he was told not to attend, we do not know.

The first sign of trouble started with Item 9.16 (Caulfield Racecourse) when this was moved up earlier on the agenda. Following Delahunty, Lipshutz and Hyams speaking on this item, Pilling called on Magee. Lobo claimed that he had put his hand up first. Pilling said he only saw Magee and Lobo said ‘okay’ and that Magee could speak first. Magee expressed his concern about Mike Symons and the Minister’s letter to Trustees, requiring them to resign as well as tenants resigning as well. (The letter will be in the minutes). Lobo acknowledged Penhalluriack’s work on the racecourse and ‘many others’. Said that he knows how ‘frustrated’ councillors were when the councillor trustees ‘were not reporting to us’ what has happening. Said he didn’t know what ‘criteria was used’ for the appointment of trustees. Said ‘I appreciate Cr Magee’s stand’ of setting up his tent and ‘going home to sleep in the night’ because ‘he was scared of foxes’.

MAGEE: rose with a point of order not ‘just on relevance but also fact’. Went on to say that ‘Cr Lobo has told a blatant untruth’.

LOBO: ‘I was there in a parked car at 11 o’clock’ and it was his word against Magee’s.

Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw’ his comment. Lobo insisted that Magee ‘has told a fairytale’. Lobo then responded to Pilling that ‘for your satisfaction I will’ withdraw the comment. Finished up by saying it was ‘disappointing’ that Pilling approves of horseracing.

Next bout of altercation occurred over Item 9.3 – the Claire St potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Magee moved motion and spoke about his ‘liking’ for the Planning Scheme. Said in part that ‘while this is our planning scheme it is incumbent on anyone who sits in this room to accept that this is what our residents want’. Went on to say that ‘it is disappointing that new councillors’ come in and ‘say I want to change it’. ‘I think that’s wrong’ because ‘you have to have consideration for what’s put in front of you’ and ‘what your community has said what they wanted’.  ‘It’s not all about you. It’s not all about what you want’. It’s ‘what our community wants’ and they are ‘very clear’ following the reviews and consultation. In the past the community ‘told us they were happy with this’ but ‘wanted a few extra things’ like mandatory height limits and ‘greater setbacks’ and ‘that’s exactly what we put in’. Said that with the zones ‘we got exactly what our residents were telling us they want’. Said that with the building boom and the fact that VCAT now doesn’t apply council policy like it used to, that is ‘what brought on the’ planning scheme review. (We will report in full on this item in the days ahead).

Hyams, Lipshutz and Sounness then spoke. (again we will report on this later).

LOBO: said that when Akehurst ‘did the drawing’ for the new zones,  and ‘I was told off’ by Lipshutz, that Akehurst is an architect and ‘we have another now’ in Ron Torres. Said that Claire St was ‘designated for development because of the McKinnon zone’ and the railway station. Height was ‘not the point. The sky was the limit’ and he was told this by Magee. Went on to say that in the assemblies they ‘agreed’ that the zones ‘would not change’ and that VCAT ‘will approve’. ‘Now the wheel of fortune seems to be going the other way around’.

LIPSHUTZ: got up with a point of order that Lobo should stick to the ‘facts’ and he claimed that it is ‘not true’ that they were told that ”VCAT would approve’ the new zones’.

PILLING: said that ‘I understand that is the case’ and asked Lobo to withdraw his comment.

LOBO: ‘withdraw because the way you are playing partial’!

HYAMS: Lobo should ‘withdraw that comment because it is defamatory’.

LOBO: ‘shusshh’

PILLING: again asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to ‘comment on the issue at hand’.

LOBO: withdrew his comment and told Pilling to ‘make your decisions properly’. Pilling responded ‘I will’. Went on to say that ‘Claire St was supposed to be the sky’s the limit’

HYAMS: said it was never the ‘sky’s the limit’ and there’s a height limit of 10.5 metres in Claire St. Pilling reiterated the 3 storey height limit.

LOBO: said that to challenge Claire St is a ‘waste of time, money’ as is the money spent on the open space for Nina Court. If Council was ‘really serious’ then they ‘should never’ have bought that ‘Caulfield house’. ‘a waste of money’. Said he wanted to ask the CEO a question – ‘How much does it cost for reports’?

CEO replied that that ‘it would depend’ on the ‘nature of the report’ and how much time had to be spent on it. Lobo then asked if ‘for the next meeting could we have a break down?’

PILLING: ‘as the ceo has said, it is virtually impossible to identify every report’ and that ‘I think the request is not practical’.

HYAMS: on another point of order saying that if Lobo wants officers to do this work then he ‘needs’ to do a Request for a Report and then councillors would decide if they wanted that report. Lobo said he doesn’t want the report because ‘it is costing money’ and in this council ‘going to the toilet’ elicits ‘a report’.

LIPSHUTZ: point of order saying that Lobo’s comment is ‘totally inappropriate’ and that he ‘should be asked to sit down now’ and his reference to toilets is ‘absolutely disgusting’ and ‘outrageous and he should be told to sit down’.

PILLING: cited section 236 from the Local Law saying that when a councillor speaks it should be relevant to the motion and that this is about Claire St. Said ‘I will be giving you one more opportunity to talk to this motion’ or “I will be asking you to sit down’. ‘Last chance’.

LOBO: said he needed to ‘ask a question from Ron Torres’. Said he has forgotten the answer that Torres gave him ‘about 5 months ago’ why when residents object ‘do you send those objections first to the builders?’ ‘Who is paying you money? The residents’.

PILLING: another point of order under Section 236 of the Local Law. Under the section ‘defamatory’. Asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to sit down.

Lobo refused to withdraw his comment. Hyams then made another point of order saying that he ‘hoped’ that Lobo wasn’t saying that Torres ‘was being paid by developers’ and that what he meant was that since residents paid Torres then ‘he should have care for residents’.

PILLING: said it ‘was unclear’ about the ‘accusation’ and asked Lobo to ‘clarify the comment you have made’.

LOBO: repeated that ‘I am sitting down’. So ‘take me to a Code of Conduct and spend another $50,000’

Pilling then asked for other speakers.

All quiet on the Western Front until the next item on the Better Apartments. Lobo put his hand up to speak next and Pilling ‘cautioned’ him saying that he has powers under the Local Law to remove him from the chamber if he ‘disrupts’ the meeting. Pilling wants him to ‘participate’ but to ‘stay relevant’ to the item. Said he is ‘loathe to use it’ (ie removal). Lobo didn’t speak in the end.

 

Again quiet until Item on the Open space implementation. Delahunty moved motion and spoke first and refuted Lobo’s earlier claims that open space is a ‘waste of money’. (full report to come). Lobo then asked Pilling if he could ask a question ‘in defence’? Pilling said he would give him the ‘opportunity’ Hyams spoke next.

LOBO: said that he will ‘respect’ Delahunty ‘not as a member of any party’ but for her intelligence, ‘and passion’. Delahunty walked out at this point. Lobo continued with ‘Just do it’ (quoting Delahunty earlier) and saying that ‘you can’t just do it’ because ‘you will have problems’ later. Esakoff and Sounness then ‘filled in a minute’ until Delahunty returned to ‘sum up’.

Pilling then asked Lobo to leave the chamber under Local Law 244 saying that he will ‘not tolerate any more destructive behaviour’. Lobo responded with ‘You can’t ask me to leave’ and Pilling replied “i am asking you to leave’. Lobo stated ‘I will not go’. Pilling then asked Jones to ‘escort’ Lobo from the chamber. Lobo remained seated in his chair and said ‘You should announce to people what you have done to me’. Pilling then in a much louder voice said that ‘I have made a decision. I have the power and I’m using it’. A shouting match between Pilling and Lobo ensued with such comments as ‘you are not a fair man’; ‘get the police’, ‘this is not your council’. Pilling then said ‘I’m adjourning the meeting until the police come to escort you out’. Lobo kept calling out and Pilling told him to ‘please be quiet’. Lobo said he was speaking for the ‘residents’. Jones approached Lobo and the latter told him not to speak to him. Lobo repeated several times ‘get the police’ and ‘show me democracy’; ‘very mean and cruel’; ‘spoil my family life’ and ‘because of all of you I’m getting a divorce’. To Pilling – ‘you are a puppet’. ‘Bring handcuffs’. Councillors in the meantime had got up and left the chamber. Lobo walked out and the meeting resumed after a few minutes.

PS: IN AN EXTRAORDINARY LAST SECOND MOVE, OKOTEL HAS NOMINATED FOR TUCKER WARD. WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT SHE MAY EXCHANGE PREFERENCES WITH HER BROTHER – JOSHUA BONNEY! ANOTHER LATE ENTRANT INTO THE ARENA AT TUCKER WARD WAS MR KARLIK. AND TALKING OF THE LUCK OF THE IRISH, HYAMS HAS GAINED POLL POSITION ON THE BALLOT PAPER!

Below is the list of nominations for the upcoming council election. Rumours have proved correct and Lipshutz has not nominated.

ROSSTOWN

ESAKOFF, Margaret Margaret Esakoff
Mobile: 0412 957 807
margaretesakoff@gmail.com
DAVEY, Clare Clare Davey
Mobile: 0435 423 701
clare.davey@vic.greens.org.au
HO, Kelvin Kelvin Ho
Mobile: 0499 997 808
GT1688@hotmail.com
ATHANASOPOULOS, Tony Tony Athanasopoulos
Mobile: 0401 058 748
tony@ljhair.com.au
DUNSTAN, Don Don Dunstan
Business Hours: (03) 9578 7134
After Hours: (03) 9578 7134
Mobile: 0499 762 057
dondunstan@westnet.com.au
COOPER, Asher Asher Cooper
ashercooper@gmail.com
ZOIS, Con Con Zois
Business Hours: (03) 9490 1877
After Hours: (03) 9569 0686
Mobile: 0417 315 929
zoisy@iprimus.com.au
KARSLAKE, Jane Jane Karslake
Mobile: 0418 106 739
jkarslake@iinet.net.au
PILLING, Neil Neil Pilling
Mobile: 0418 310 631
neilpilling@hotmail.com
MALICHETTI, Sunny Sunny Malichetti
Mobile: 0466 871 860
sunny_handy@yahoo.com
JAYAWEERA, Shan Shan Jayaweera
Mobile: 0419 767 007
jayaweeras@gmail.com
BOX, David David Box
After Hours: (03) 9569 8425
Mobile: 0435 783 451
thb@optusnet.com.au

 

TUCKER

BREWSTER, Neil William Neil Brewster
Mobile: 0457 568 576
neilbrewster@optusnet.com.au
LOBO, Oscar C. Oscar Lobo
Business Hours: (03) 9563 9910
Mobile: 0404 848 345
oscardegoa@gmail.com
SEARLE, Michael Michael Searle
Mobile: 0407 881 066
michaelsearle@live.com.au
MAGEE, Jim Jim Magee
Business Hours: (03) 9570 6025
After Hours: (03) 9570 6025
Mobile: 0438 706 025
jmagee1@optusnet.com.au
HYAMS, Jamie Jamie Hyams
Business Hours: (03) 9578 9131
After Hours: (03) 9578 9131
Mobile: 0412 915 410
jamiehyams@hotmail.com
ANDONOPOULOS, Rodney Rodney Andonopoulos
Mobile: 0408 345 747
rodney@andonopoulos.org
MACKIE, Jeffrey Thomas Jeff Mackie
Mobile: 0412 997 120
ais.vic@bigpond.net.au
TAYLOR, Nina Nina Taylor
Mobile: 0407 381 931
taylornina24@gmail.com
DE’ATH, Philip Phil De’ Ath
Mobile: 0418 527 365
propavevictoria@bigpond.com.au
BONNEY, Joshua Joshua Bonney
Mobile: 0476 943 756
joshua@joshuabonney.com.au
CADE, Anne Marie Anne Marie Cade
Business Hours: (03) 9571 5157
Mobile: 0401 601 737
info@dllm.com.au
ELLIOTT, Donna Donna Elliott
Mobile: 0432 409 648
donnaegec@gmail.com

 

CAMDEN

FAYMAN, Ian Ian Fayman
Mobile: 0416 012 222
ianfayman@yahoo.com.au
HERMANN, Karen Karen Hermann
Mobile: 0498 313 699
karen@hermannfamily.net
SOUNNESS, Thomas Thomas Sounness
Mobile: 0438 499 680
Thomas.Sounness@vic.greens.org.au
SILVER, Joel Alan Joel Alan Silver
Mobile: 0499 357 262
jsilver@vicbar.com.au
DELAHUNTY, Mary Mary Delahunty
Mobile: 0401 325 324
mdelahunty01@gmail.com
PINSKIER, Rebecca Talia Rebecca Talia Pinskier
Mobile: 0431 415 125
becP4GlenEira@gmail.com
SZTRAJT, Dan Dan Sztrajt
Mobile: 0411 209 194
dan@votedan.com.au

A very brief report on tonight’s marathon council meeting. It will go down in history as the lowest point ever reached by this council. What occurred was embarrassing for all concerned as well as uncalled for in our view. Following numerous cautions from Pilling and points of order from Lipshutz and Hyams concerning comments made by Lobo, Pilling resorted to Section 244 of the Local Law and asked Lobo to remove himself from the chamber. The clause states –

The Chairperson may ask any Authorised Officer or police officer to remove any person from a room in which a meeting of Council or a Special Committee is being held, if the Chairperson determines that the person is behaving in an improper or disorderly manner and so interrupting the orderly and lawful process of the meeting

Lobo refused and insisted that the police be called. The meeting dissolved into a shambles and was adjourned. Whether police were actually called we do not know since after 5 minutes of mayhem, allegations, and general confusion, Lobo left the chamber. The meeting then resumed.

We will report on this in full so that readers can judge for themselves what kind of governance and bullying exists in Glen Eira and how dysfunctional this council really is!

Item 9.12 deals with the proposed closure of Fosbery/St  Aubins Avenue to create open space. What will be fascinating is to see whether resident concerns are acted upon by councillors or ignored entirely.

The report states that for traffic in Kambea and Otira Road – The majority of the feedback was strongly opposed to the proposal based on concerns around traffic volume, congestion and vehicle movement. Responding to this opposition we have –

The analysis of this data indicates that:

Σ There would not be any noticeable change in the daily traffic conditions in Fosbery Avenue (north of St Aubins Avenue) and at Otira Road.

Σ Daily traffic volumes in Fosbery Avenue, south of the proposed open space area would decrease by approximately 70%.

Σ Traffic volumes along St Aubins Avenue are also expected to decrease.

Σ Traffic volumes at Kambea Grove, west of Fosbery Avenue would be expected to increase by approximately 219 vehicle movements per day, and up to 44 vehicle movements in the AM peak hour.

Σ The traffic volumes are considered appropriate noting the acceptable threshold volume for a local street under State Government planning guidelines is variously 2,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.

The most incredible paragraph in response to the potential speed of cars reads –

The location of the proposed open space was not identified in order to address a specific traffic concern, although wider streets like St Aubins Avenue and the southern section of Fosbery Avenue (south of the dogleg) can attract more traffic ‘cutting through’ and travelling at higher speeds, due to ease of access.

Surely when up to half a million dollars of ratepayer funds is about to be spent on a project, all aspects should be considered and fully investigated. We also remind readers that less than 2 years ago a tender was granted for the ‘redevelopment’ of this site for approximately $930,000. We have wondered whether this means that work previously done will now be ripped up to make way for this project?

Some further information on open space

Page 212 of the agenda states – Purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue for a potential new open space opportunity in Caulfield South.

We assume that this relates to some recent in camera items and the resolution to ‘accept’ the officer’s report presumably for purchase. Readers should note:

  • Recent sales in Aileen Avenue are listed as over $2 million
  • Council’s purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue repeats the ongoing trend of concentrating on Camden ward to the exclusion of the far more ‘high priority’ recommendations from the Open Space Strategy for the Carnegie area. Why?
  • And why oh why is council continuing to spend valuable money on new open space that is literally a stone’s throw from existing open space? – ie Fitzgibbon/Eskdale (Caulfield Park); St Aubins/Fosbery (Greenmeadows)? And now Aileen Avenue – Princes Park?

os

 

fairy-tales

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning, 

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for? 

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what. 

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?  

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry. 

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other. 

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

  • Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
  • Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
  • Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
  • Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
  • Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
  • Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

esakoff

Here is part of a screen dump from a company that Magee used to work for. Note the email –

untitled3

Next, please note the IPs and email addresses attached to the following comments –

jmjm2jm3jm4jm5jm6untitled2

There are countless others from this and different emails. Our final selection however says it all!

magee

 

Over the years we, and our commentators, have been accused by various councillors of being ‘cowards’, lacking ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’ and the worst crime of all ‘hiding behind anonymity’. Yet these very same councillors certainly do not practice what they preach or pretend to disavow. The number of anonymous comments that have been posted by these same councillors on our blog is astounding. We have had a great time laughing our heads off at how these councillors spend time attacking each other and lying whilst remaining ‘anonymous’.

Hyams is the perfect case in point. Not only has he lied in the chamber with his denial of calling a resident a ‘whining bitch’ , but he has lied via his innumerable comments on a blog site that he purports to so seldom read! It would seem that the Councillor Code of Conduct demanding honesty, integrity, and treating residents with respect applies to everyone else, but not to him!

Below we feature some screen dumps that prove conclusively what kind of liar and hyprocrite this man really is. Please ask yourself if this is the calibre of a man that you want as a councillor when you go to the polls in a few short weeks.

First off we draw readers’ attention to the ISP (at the time) of the organisation that Hyams works for. Please take note of the underlined numbers.

210-23-136-125_page_1Now compare these numbers with what Hyams has written under his own name and ‘anonymous’ –

jh4

Compounding Hyams’ lies we then have this little doozy –

jh3

All of the ‘positive posts’ about Esakoff are from Hyams!

There are literally countless other screen dumps that we could have uploaded – many coming from council computers, from mobiles, from home computers, and all attacking other councillors.

We present the above because it is election time and because we believe that when we elect individuals they should at the very least be people who will conduct themselves with integrity, honesty and a desire to work for the community. Hyams does not fit this bill!

In January 2013 Amendment C87 was gazetted. This amendment introduced some revised Neighbourhood Character Overlays into the planning scheme with the objective of ‘protecting’ certain streets and areas of the city. Council’s stated objectives in the recently completed planning scheme review is to implement more of these overlays.

But there is a major problem with council’s planning as illustrated in a  recent VCAT decision which calls into question whether council is totally incompetent, or simply so pro-development that nothing they do to foster more development should come as a surprise to residents. This latest VCAT decision involved an application to build a 2 storey building containing 4 townhouses. The site was in Murrumbeena and included in a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NOC6), plus a Design and Development Overlay, plus a Special Building Overlay (ie flooding). Yet, council in its wisdom also ZONED THIS AREA UNDER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1.

This raises a multitude of important issues –

  • Why has council included areas that have NCO’S in the GRZ and RGZ zones?
  • Discussion on the introduction of the new zones was already happening in 2013 and probably well before. Didn’t council planners know what they were potentially undermining? Or didn’t they and councillors care?
  • What happens now to the several hundred properties that find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena application?
  • Why can’t council write amendments that actually mean something, instead of the contradictory and useless waffle that they continually produce? And who ultimately is responsible for vetting their nonsense? Here is an example of two statements that come from this NCO6. We maintain that they contradict each other –.

To ensure that new dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings respect the dominant building height, form, façade articulation, materials and roof forms of the streetscape..

New buildings should interpret the detailed elements of older dwellings that contribute to the neighbourhood character significance of the area in an innovative and contemporary manner that complements, rather than replicates, period dwelling styles.

Thus we have an NCO that is seeking to protect existing neighbourhood characteristics on the one hand (ie ‘respect) and then there is the injunction NOT TO ‘replicate’ but merely ‘complement’ the area. No definition of course exists as to the meaning of these two terms. You could literally drive a truck through any of these statements, decision guidelines and objectives!

The VCAT decision went the developer’s way with the member making this important point –

The construction and application of the zones, overlay controls and policies to this locality creates a tension within the planning scheme with respect to the future built form character of the area. This is a locality identified as a diversity area in which the Council seeks to encourage redevelopment and increased residential densities. It is one of a confined number of diversity areas in this municipality in which redevelopment is directed and specifically encouraged. Simultaneously the Council has applied an NCO to this locality, the purpose of which encourages development to be in accordance with a preferred neighbourhood character that is largely based on the protection of existing neighbourhood character. Notwithstanding this site’s diversity area location the Council opposes the demolition of a modest and relatively non-descript (my description) dwelling because it is a dwelling originating from the interwar period. (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1494.html)

As for the other ‘protections’ afforded this site, they are useless. The Design and Development Overlay only applies to fence heights (like another 2 from council’s ‘generous’ 5 DDOs) and hence was irrelevant. The member also makes the point that council’s opposition to demolition should not be based on a Neighbourhood Character Overlay, but on a Heritage Overlay! Melbourne Water had no objections to the Special Building Overlay requirements following amended plans.

What does all this ultimately mean? We believe that:

  • No property should be zoned GRZ or RGZ if it is also covered by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay. This of course means changing the zoning – a definite ‘no-no’ for this council since they are ‘perfect’ and got everything right the first time around
  • At least another 200 properties now find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena site. What will council do to ensure that they are fully ‘protected’?
  • Until there is a complete and utter re-write of the planning scheme, and eschewing reliance on useless waffle, then no resident anywhere can expect that his neighbourhood or street  is ‘safe’.

In the public interest, we provide some screen dumps of the other areas that are covered by an NCO, but also zoned for increased density. Residents in these areas – BEWARE!nco2

nco1

nco3

 

 

 

« Previous PageNext Page »