Glen Eira Debates

Here is how Pilling summed up:

PILLING: thanked residents for the ‘most successful consultation’ in Glen Eira and that the review ‘largely reflects’ what the community wanted. Said that the issues are more than structure planning but include infrastructure, parking, etc. ‘It’s a wide range of issues’ but ‘the only practical way’ since it is an ‘ambitious’ document is to ‘allow time to get it right’. Endorsed Lipshutz’s comments regarding the Lobo comments and stated that the latter’s comments were ‘totally inaccurate’ and that he wants to remind Lobo that ‘he did vote to bring the new zones in as well as every other councillor who was here at the time’.

Thought that the action plan was ‘practical’ given the ‘biggest population growth in melbourne’s history’ and ‘we are trying to manage that’. ‘Looking back’ they may have done something ‘different in the past’ but ‘certainly times have changed’ and ‘we are responding to that’. ‘We are trying to address the concerns of the community’. So they are taking on board community concerns and talking with the planning department as to ‘what is achievable’. Repeated that the document is ‘ambitious’ but after ‘tonight will leave us in a better position to plan for our future growth’. Thought the ‘zones have been a very positive step’, Neighbourhood character is also ‘very important’. Council has ‘2 storey 8 metres over 78%’ of the municipality and this has ‘certainly helped’ to preserve neighbourhood character. ‘But can we do more? Yes’ by ‘identifying areas we can improve on’. ‘So it is a continual update’ and he regards it as ‘one of the most important documents’ since he’s ‘been on council’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. MAGEE VOTED AGAINST. ALL OTHERS VOTED FOR.

COMMENT

• Once again we have confirmation of the illegal processes this council undertakes. No formal resolution was ever tabled or voted on by councillors to introduce, or to even send off a ‘request’ to the Minister on the zones. Thus any ‘vote’ taken was taken in assemblies – a definite ‘no-no’ according to the Local Government Act.
• On another governance issue – Pilling moved the motion on the interim heights. Since he is ‘chairperson’ of the meeting, he should have stepped down and the deputy mayor taken his place. Plenty of other councils stipulate this in their Local Law meeting procedures. The fact that Glen Eira doesn’t is another example of shonky process and poor governance. Since it is the chair who determines points of order, eligibility of questions, etc., it is inappropriate for that same individual to be moving any motion. But that’s Glen Eira – anything that favours the ruling clique goes!
• Sounds as if the flavour of the month is the word ‘ambitious’. Perhaps Pilling could inform residents how ‘ambitious’ it is to set a time frame of up to 20 years to implement structure plans for all activity centres and 3 to 4 years for parking precinct plans that have been on the books for the past 10 years?

CONCLUSION

Pilling’s record as a councillor is frankly appalling. Elected on Green credentials he very quickly disowned that party and to all intents and purposes became a Liberal. Nothing wrong with changing allegiances, but not when people voted for him believing he is a Green. Since the party also funded his campaign has that money been returned? We also have it on good authority that some Pilling reps came cap in hand to the Greens seeking Pilling’s re-entry to the Greens and begging for another round of campaign funding! Given his 2 time mayoralty, we would have thought that $190,000+ should buy plenty of election posters and pamphlets! We can only hope that the Greens have learnt their lesson and formally excommunicated their Quisling.

Residents should also remember Pilling’s role in the most contentious issues of recent times and how his vote helped scuttle community aspirations. We refer to:

• Caulfield Village C60 & Development plans
• Caulfield Village Cinema
• Frogmore heritage status
• Turning more and more of Bailey Reserve into a car park
• In 2011 Pilling was in favour of a Notice of Motion. In 2016 he voted for public question restrictions that limited transparency and community participation.
• Casting vote in line with Lipshutz, Hyams, etc. on numerous developments
• Gagging councillors repeatedly

Here is part of Pilling’s record in voting for permits, many of which he moved or seconded –

1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD, 8 storeys, 97 units

127-131 Gardenvale Road – 12 units

483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, ELSTERNWICK – 8 storey, 57 units

687-689 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CAULFIELD – 28 units

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH – 5 storey, 12 units

149-153 NEERIM ROAD & 4 HINTON ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY – 17 double storeys

2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 40 units

15-19 Gordon Street ELSTERNWICK – 8 storeys, 55 units

730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storeys, 29 units

33-35 Jersey Parade, Carnegie – 4 storey, 28 units

115-125 Poath Road Murrumbeena – 4 storey, 33 units

67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 and 7 storey, 39 units

144 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 6 storeys, 40 dwellings

2-4 Penang Street MCKINNON – 3 storey, 23 units (permit was refused by councillors, but Pilling & Sounness voted against refusal)

15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 52 units

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 41 units

29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 42 units

168 Hotham Street ELSTERNWICK – Lipshutz & Pilling wanted 5 storeys and 78 dwellings

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 35 units

64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON – 3 and 4 storey, 31 units (again Pilling & Sounness moved to accept)

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 117 units (Pilling/Delahunty motion)

DELAHUNTY: stated that Magee has got a ‘special place in my heart’ because ‘in one sentence’ you can find yourself disagreeing with him and then when he gets to the end you go ‘yeah’. Didn’t know whether she could ‘endorse’ all of Magee’s comments especially on structure planning and ‘proper strategic conversations’.  Said that the review is an important strategic document that should help residents ‘shape’ the community. Said that some councillors think that ‘we should be doing what other councils are doing’ like ‘going down the path of structure planning’. So ‘perhaps if these had been done some time ago’ then ‘we would have had the discussion about’ the strategic vision and maybe the same issues with VCAT but ‘with more influence and the greater ability to more strategically manage the outcomes’.  This is ‘what structure planning does’ even though it might ‘still have ambiguities in it when it comes to appeal rights’ that ‘sort of conversation with the public is very important to have’.  

Gave an example of a planning application for East St. Kilda where it is a very ‘small block’ surrounded by 5 and 6 storey buildings ‘all around it’. But at the ‘other end of the municipality’ the same planning rules exist – such as in Bentleigh and when an application comes in ‘you are standing in a quarter acre vegie patch’. ‘It just feels like such a different part of the world’. So in order to ‘properly’ define these neighbourhoods and ‘how they should grow’ and ‘how we manage the rate of change is an incredibly important piece of work’ and ‘it should have been done by council a long time ago’.  Said that she isn’t ‘having a go’ at others but that ‘we thought we had the right policies in place’ but ‘you always need to check whether you’re doing things in the best manner’. Thought that ‘we were a little left behind’ in this. Said that the Minister ‘is right to point out that we have some inconsistencies’ compared to other councils and that ‘it is right for us to come up with this work plan’. Thought it was proper to set aside ‘time’ and money in order ‘to have this conversation with residents to develop structure plans’

COMMENT

Some slack can admittedly be granted to Delahunty given that she has inherited the decisions of previous councils and was elected in 2012. However, her above comments also deserve some major criticism.

• Is Delahunty hedging her bets? – ie on the one hand admitting council’s slackness in not achieving anything for years and years, but then on the other hand, excusing this inaction by claiming they thought they had got the policies ‘right’. All one needs to consider is the constant complaints about VCAT and it is obvious that the so called policies were not ‘right’.
• Delahunty has publicly stated that she ‘lost the argument’ on community consultation on the new zones and that she is glad she lost the argument! In other words, this is condoning the decision to exclude the public. Now we get the motherhood statements of how important it is to have community consultation. Sounds a little like Magee we suggest – inconsistent and opportunistic.
• Delahunty voted for this draft review, yet there is barely a word about the time lag of the work plan, nor any of the other recommendations. As for ‘setting aside money’ that won’t be until the next budget so more delay. Surely if someone votes for something the least that residents should expect is an insight into the rationale of why, or why not, the recommendations are acceptable?
• Delahunty has also not been averse to voting for plenty of developments. Here is a list of her voting patterns. Many of these motions to grant permits were moved or seconded by Delahunty –

15-19 VICKERY STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 47 units

670-672 CENTRE ROAD & 51 BROWNS ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 67 units

10 & 12 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 35 units

9 & 9A Truganini Road, Carnegie – 20 units

23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 34 units

30-32 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 12 double storeys

1100 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE – 22 units

337-343 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 33 units

247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 48 units

143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY – 32 units

817-819 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 26 units

629-631 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – 15 units

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 117 units

14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 55 units

339-341 Neerim Road & 19-21 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE – 35 units

14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE – 21 units

495-501 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK – 7 storeys, 32 units

670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storeys, 50 units

168 Hotham Street ELSTERNWICK – 4 storeys, 67 units

29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 42 units

22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 41 units

15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 52 units

150 Tucker Road BENTLEIGH – increase of dwellings form 13 to 20

401-407 Neerim Road Carnegie – 5 storey, 57 units

67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 storeys, 30 units

ESAKOFF: stated that others had already brought up what she had wanted to address. Said that structure planning was the ‘first one’ she wanted to talk about. Said that she didn’t ‘know whether they are a good thing or they’re not’. Went on to say that ‘we’ve been advised in the past that unless you go for more they’re not likely to be approved’ and ‘time will tell whether this is in fact the truth or not’. Said she’s ‘been thinking back 13, 14 years before our zones were in place’ and ‘attending meetings that were held to do with the zones’ and in the discussions ‘people were shock, horror’ about 3 storeys ‘in an activity centre’. This ‘had not been seen before’.  15 years down the track and ‘we would probably be very glad that they had a minimum of 5’. ‘Perhaps if we had gone for structure plans that long ago we might have got 5’. ‘We might have been shocked at the thought that it’s five’ but ‘today it’s looking pretty good’. Said that ‘no one can see ahead’ and wished that ‘sometimes we could’. ‘We don’t know what’s around the corner in the years to come and what we will consider acceptable or not’.

Stated that the ‘topics of conversation’ at the forums ‘were pretty consistent’ and people noted structure plans, transition zones. Acknowledged that ‘transition has been an issue since I’ve been on council’ and that she’s ‘always wanted transition to be wider than one block’ and ‘that’s what people want too’. Hoped this could be achieved so it’s a ‘slower transition from one block to another’.

She hoped that ‘we can address’ neighbourhood character since ‘there’s a fair bit of damage done’ so difficult to ‘say in some areas what neighbourhood character is any more’. Hoped that with Neighbourhood Character Overlays this could ‘cover those areas still intact’.

On traffic and parking she thought this could ‘extend further’ than just the borders of the activity centres into residential areas where people are saying they can’t park in their streets anymore. Growing population will impact on this but council ‘has done a lot by way of parking around activity centres’ via refusing parking permits for new developments.

Heritage ‘can do with a review’. ‘No doubt, it’s been a while’. ‘Loss of trees on development sites was also an issue. ‘We have put in place some sorts of barriers to stop moonscaping’ but ‘that doesn’t always work – it doesn’t deter developers overly’.  So ‘whatever’ council decided to do ‘it has to be something that is passed’. ‘If it’s something that is going to stop development altogether it will be stopped in its tracks’ because the State Government ‘is for development’.

Went on about infrastructure and ‘improvements’ and thought this was ‘fair enough and we will see what we can do there’. Open space is also an issue and ‘that’s why we are trying to secure open space in and around activity centres’. However ratecapping ‘has put a little bit of a dampener on that’.

ESD is another issue that ‘we have addressed somewhat and will address further’. Underground parking is another issue and she ‘guesses’ this is about canopy tree coverage on development sites. But ‘underground parking allows for lower heights I believe’ since trying to ‘park at grade you are increasing your height because’ it’s got ‘nothing to do with the reduction of the number of dwellings’.

COMMENT

• God help us!!!!!! Here is a 13 year serving councillor admitting she hasn’t got the foggiest about structure planning! Has she ever asked? What has she been told? Has she ever bothered to read other council’s planning schemes and their numerous structure plans? And what does this say about the ‘advice’ that councillors have been fed from the likes of Newton and Akehurst over the past 13 years? And more importantly, what does it say about the will of councillors and to what extent they have been complicit in a planning agenda that has finally been called out by the Minister as being totally out of kilter with best practice?
• ‘No one can see ahead’. Surely that is the objective of a good planning scheme – to prepare a vision for a municipality that can stand the test of time. Exactly what is the overall ‘strategic vision’ of Glen Eira, except to create countless opportunities for developers to ruin suburb after suburb?
• At least Esakoff acknowledges that ‘neighbourhood character’ is now hard to define in many areas. Perhaps if council had preferred character statements years ago, instead of waffly useless phrases like ‘emerging character’ in its planning scheme, many areas would still be ‘intact’? More importantly, is this an admission that all council is intending to do is include a few more streets under Neighbourhood Character Overlays? What is most disappointing about Esakoff’s statements is that residents are provided with literally no idea as to what anything means, nor what council plans to do. Detail is non-existent!
• Esakoff’s and the other councillors short-sightedness is evidenced by her statements on underground car parking. The issue is far more important than whether or not a few canopy trees can be planted. The issue of underground parking could be calamitous in terms of its impact on the water table and the cumulative impact on constant digging. London research has shown that the more basement car parking allowed in one area, the greater the risk of sink holes – aka Monash last year!
• Epiphanies keep coming for councillors when less than a year ago, Esakoff was quite happy with the provisions to stop moonscaping and no necessity for a tree register –  ‘the owner of that property should have every right to do what they like’. She has always ‘been on the side of personal rights’ and she doesn’t want people to be told ‘what they can and can’t have’ in terms of trees in their gardens. That’s their ‘domain’ and it’s ‘called private open space – private’. ‘To be personal and to accuse people of inconsistency I think is a disgrace’. Said that people can argue for protecting street trees and planting more trees, but on people’s own property they should decide. Went on to ‘red tape and the costs’ is ‘another layer that the community is over’. Said that the ‘community’ doesn’t ‘want any more red tape’ or costs in choosing ‘what to do with their own private space’. (24/3/2015)
• and there are good protections currently existing via what council already has to deal with Mentioned ResCode and how this ‘removes the advantage that developers gain’. Permits also come with conditions that trees can’t be removed but this also has a ‘down side’ because years later there’s the request for a change in condition so these trees which are now ‘causing damage’ can be removed. There have to be avenues of appeal with the tree register because that would make it ‘fair’ and to remove ‘those rights of appeal would not be a fair process’. Said that ‘my position remains unchanged’ and that she is against ‘tree control in Glen Eira’. (16/10/2013)
• Existing mechanisms include town planning, so that if there is a significant tree then town planning conditions are ‘put in place to protect them’. There are also ‘large penalties’ for ‘breach of those conditions’. Other safeguards are landscape plans, 4 metre setbacks and open space requirements which means that more trees can be planted. ‘There are enough hoops to jump through’ without adding to them. (14/10/2013)