March 1, 2016
Government, Trustees, and Council should hang their heads in shame for repeatedly turning a blind eye to the continued reprehensible behaviour of the Melbourne Racing Club. We know that the Department, Council, and the Police were inundated with complaints from residents near and far over the recent ‘rave’ concert at the racecourse. And not a word (of course) from Glen Eira City Council nor its trustee representatives.
February 29, 2016
Item 9.8
Delahunty moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Seconded by Magee. The motion was basically to request a public forum with senior police to discuss ‘the policing of events’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she requested this report a while ago in order to discover the ‘best way to engage the community’ and those ‘responsible’ for ‘providing the safety to the community’ at these events. She wanted a public forum so that those responsible ‘could hear community views’ and how some ‘sections of the community feel unsafe’. Thought that council had a ‘leadership role to play’ to ‘put these two groups together’. Said it’s similar to the request for a forum on sky rail. She asked for a request for a report but didn’t want to waste too much of officer’s time in writing it because ‘time is money’ and to ask for a report is ‘to foreshadow a notice of motion’ but there isn’t the ‘ability to actually bring a notice of motion’ so that’s why there was the request for a report. So a forum is so that people can connect with those responsible for security arrangements and for them to ‘hear’ the views that they ‘feel unsafe on the grounds of their religious observations’. Council can’t put this off ‘for another day’. We need ‘to act, we are leaders in the community’. Said this isn’t a re-examination of the ‘issues raised by the public are right or wrong’. It’s simply to say ‘we’ve heard voices in the community’ that they feel unsafe ‘on the grounds of their religious beliefs’ and that is ‘unacceptable’. ‘We are not responsible for their security but we can certainly put them in touch with those who are’.
MAGEE: people want to have ‘confidence’ that their families are safe and that they ‘get home’ safe. In Glen Eira ‘parts of the community’ don’t ‘feel that way all the time’. Delahunty’s motion therefore wants to get that ‘expertise’ so that council can ‘also hear first hand’ what those ‘fears’ are. It’s important to hear ‘all voices from our great city’. Council should be able to ‘allay those fears’ in our parks.
HYAMS: agreed with the ‘sentiments’ that people should feel safe and the ‘general concept’ of a public forum. He opposes the motion because it doesn’t gel with what the original request for a report asked for. The original request was for information about ‘events on council land and facilities’ which is a ‘very broad spectrum’. This report though concentrates ‘very narrowly on one specific issue that arose only through a leak’. Said that ‘basically leaks cannot be trusted, we all know that’. ‘Leakers can say anything’ but ‘those of us who actually do have the respect’ for ‘our councillors and our colleagues’ stick to the Local Government Act. Said that on the weekend they had 8 or 9 thousand people at Princes park in an ‘event of our own’. ‘We had security there’. That doesn’t get into the scope of this report. The ‘proposed forum is very narrowly focused on one newspaper story’ that ‘came up as a result of this leak’ and it ‘should be focused more on more general matters’. Said he voted for the original request for a report but now he doesn’t think that the report ‘represents what I expected when I voted for it’. Anyone who hires a council facility has to ‘make sure’ that ‘they’ve taken security as well’. Repeated council media release where security is ‘provided in co-ordination with police’. This ‘doesn’t accord with what the report says’. Also council is responsible for public safety but it is ‘detrimental to public safety’ if security measures our given out. This is a result of the leak and the ‘only person’ who voted against the October 20th item going into ‘confidential was Cr Delahunty’.
Delahunty queried whether this was ‘relevant’. Pilling asked Hyams to explain.
HYAMS: said he wasn’t ‘insinuating’ that Delahunty was the leak and all he is saying is that voting against the confidentiality of the meeting displays a ‘lack of concern for community safety’. ‘I wasn’t implying even that the leaker is in this room’. Foreshadowed that if the motion is defeated he will move that officers prepare another report that is ‘accord with the scope’ of the original request for a report.
LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Hyams. Also ‘cross’ about the leak and that ‘Delahunty has said what she said’ given that ‘she voted against’ confidentiality. Said that the original request was for ‘a very wide ranging report’ and ‘seeks information about all our facilities and not just one particular matter’. But this is ‘all about one particular item’ and that there is ‘an unhealthy emphasis on that particular one’. If council wants to ‘look at security for the community, not just one community’ then ‘one needs to have a fulsome report’ on security and not simply ‘one that involved’ the ‘jewish community’. ‘That’s the elephant in the room’. Delahunty ‘didn’t say that but that’s obviously what she meant’. ‘This report deals with one particular event for the jewish community’. ‘we’re talking about leaks’, ‘firearms, about hiding concealed weaponry’. ‘That’s not what this report is about’. It should be about ‘what does council do in relation to party in the park’ and carols and ‘not one that just involved the jewish community’.
ESAKOFF: agreed with Hyams & Lipshutz and that ‘this report is too narrow’ compared with the ‘description for a request for a report’. She voted for the original request ‘on the basis that it was a broad’ look at all events and ‘this report does not address’ the many events.
OKOTEL: agreed with Hyams and this ‘unfortunately’ arose because of ‘public discussions about what had been confidential’. Said that ‘it is disappointing that the report presented to us does single out one community’. She thought that the ‘intention’ of the report was to have a ‘full’ look at all events and their security arrangements and that isn’t ‘what this report’ does.
SOUNNESS: thought that it’s important to understand the concerns and what ‘security arrangements apply’ to ‘sectors’ of the community and ‘not just the jewish community’. Thought that it could still go to a public forum and ‘have a broader conversation’. ‘There’s a lot of other things that can be mentioned’ like what is happening in the city and that ‘some places may be becoming unsafe’. ‘Having a conversation’ with the police on these things will be ‘very much worthwhile’.
PILLING: agreed that ‘the report is fairly narrow’.
DELAHUNTY: found it ‘bizarre’ on comments that her voting against going to in camera be associated ‘with this’. Said that ‘those two decisions are completely consistent’. ‘I believe in public discussion that is transparent and open’ and ‘if you don’t feel safe that’s not fair and we shouldn’t be putting up with that’. Repeated that this is ‘consistent’ and she’s ‘confused’ as to how they’ve been ‘cobbled together’. Also strange that someone agrees with the ‘sentiments’ and ‘general concepts’ of a motion and then would vote against it on the basis that ‘the words used to get there are a little too narrow’. So if people agree with the concept and the ‘need to get there’ then ‘why do you care about the colour of the car you are going in?’ It doesn’t matter which religion. If people are feeling unsafe ‘it is relevant that they do’. When people are saying they don’t feel safe because of their religion ‘then you’ve got an obligation to act’. It could be Christian, jewish, Buddhist. It ‘doesn’t matter’ whoever it is because ‘council has a role to play and we need to do it quickly’. ‘Putting it off’ because the ‘way’ of getting there ‘is a little too narrow is absolutely just nonsense’. Thought that there’s more going on here and that it’s that ‘people don’t want other issues brought back to the floor’. ‘We are not re-prosecuting those issues. Let’s move forward’. Moving something forward is what they did when they voted for the level crossing forum and it’s what they are going ‘against now’. ‘Talk about inconsistent views. There are some inconsistent views right there’.
MOTION PUT and MOTION LOST. VOTING IN FAVOUR – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE AND SOUNNESS. AGAINST – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL
February 26, 2016
VCAT WATCH
There was only one decision in this item – 21-25 Nicholson St., Bentleigh. Council refused a permit and VCAT granted the permit. Here’s what our luminaries had to say on this –
LIPSHUTZ: ‘true to form VCAT knocked it back’. Called this ‘infrastructure stupid’ because both the government and VCAT are ‘allowing infrastructure to grow when there is no infrastructure’. It’s okay that ‘Bentleigh Station is there’ and there is a car park, but when people visit there is ‘insufficient car parking’ and even on a Sunday along Glen Eira road there are ‘traffic jams’ and the government and VCAT ‘allows for high rise development’. Here there is one high rise but ‘what happens’ is that ‘the next one comes along’ and ‘VCAT says because you’ve got one’ the rest are okay and ‘suddenly the whole character of the street changes’. Said that Bent Street is the perfect example of this and ‘this is happening in this street as well’. So there are large developments without infrastructure and ‘not complying with our own policies’. Asks why bother having policy when ‘VCAT simply over-rules us’? Councillors are at ‘the coal face’ and ‘we are the ones who know what is going on’ and VCAT doesn’t.
MAGEE: said this was ‘an important decision by VCAT’. Permit was refused by Manager meaning that it didn’t get to first base of a Delegated Planning Committee or even a Planning Conference but was knocked out straight away. ‘It failed the very first time’ it was looked at. ‘It was fundamentally flawed’ and did not meet planning scheme requirements. ‘Our planning scheme is your planning scheme’ and the ‘Minister actually approved it’ but ‘when it goes to VCAT, VCAT ignore it’. When manager’s refuse it, it is ‘so flawed there is not point’ in going on to a council meeting. So VCAT ‘can come in over the top of 144,000 residents’ and ‘that’s a bloody disgrace’.
COMMENT
Once again the Lipshutz and Magee comments should be revealed for what they are – playing the blame game and utter, unadorned bullshit! Add this to council incompetence, the zoning and the lack of any decent and clear preferred character statements in the planning scheme and it’s no wonder that VCAT overturns so many Council refusals.
For starters, one of councils grounds for refusal was that this site is in the General Residential Zone and therefore doesn’t respect the ‘neighbourhood character’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is NOT in the General Residential Zone as the refusal stated, but in the RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE. Obviously council planners don’t even know their own planning scheme! Here is what the member said on this monumental blooper –
Mr O’Leary advised as a preliminary matter that Council would not pursue its first ground of refusal as clause 32.08 refers to the General Residential Zone that is not applicable and the purposes of the Residential Growth Zone do not refer to existing neighbourhood character.
Then there’s this statement which becomes even more significant when the planning scheme has no preferred character statements for housing diversity, except to say that there will be change expected. Whooppeeee!
The site and adjoining and nearby land are included in the Residential Growth Zone. The purposes of the zone and planning policy encourage the area to be redeveloped more intensively than the prevailing built form, hence the prevailing character of the area is not a constraint.
AND AGAIN –
Neither the purposes of the RGZ or clause 22.05 refer to the character of the neighbourhood as a benchmark for the way a development might fit into the area. The Tribunal has consistently found that land within the Urban Villages is encouraged to be developed more intensively than the prevailing housing that is in garden settings. New development is to be measured by reference to a preferred or emerging character rather than the existing neighbourhood character. The extent of change between the existing and the new built form can be substantial rather than a gently nuanced transition.
Turning to the development before me, the responsible authority accepts the site is unconstrained, is an opportunity site and is close to the core of the urban village. It accepts it is suitable for higher density housing and it has no criticism of the height of the building.
As for arguing for greater setbacks the member simply has to state – No guidance is provided in the schedule to the zone or local policy to support greater setbacks.
Further, since this is such a tree loving council and they want the street tree retained, then why oh why does their Landscape ‘expert’ differ in his opinion – An existing mature street tree has to be removed for the access to the basement. Council opposes its removal. I am not persuaded by Council’s view because its own Park Services department commented that the tree is inconsistent with Council’s street tree strategy and says it is recommended for removal and replacement…..Furthermore, retaining the tree would require the basement, the access ramp and the ground floor to be redesigned, with uncertain results in terms of dwelling yield, appearance and internal amenity. Requiring this to be done to retain a tree of no particular value, in an area and streetscape where substantial change is encouraged by policy, would be an example of the landscape tail wagging the policy dog. I consider retaining the tree to be an unnecessary constraint on a development that implements many planning objectives.
Maybe if council had some tree protection ‘policy’ in its planning scheme this poor old tree might have survived. But of course, Lipshutz has argued against every move to protect trees in Glen Eira, hasn’t he?
There’s even more on landscaping, that makes one wonder exactly how much preparation and the collection of ‘evidence’ this council is prepared to undertake to have any chance of getting their refusal accepted. Again the member points out –
The basement would be set back 2 metres on the south boundary and 2.55 metres from the other boundaries. The responsible authority thought these setbacks would not be satisfactory because the inground areas could not support taller trees. The landscape officer prefers a 3 metre setback, but his referral advice does not specify the basis for a larger setback.The landscape plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd proposes Ornamental Pears, Chinese Elms and Crepe Myrtles, all to heights of 5 metres and that more be planted in these setback areas. No evidence was introduced by any party regarding the likelihood that such plantings could not be successful in the setbacks provided……In the absence of any specific directions such as an urban design framework or the like, I consider it is reasonable to accept that buildings in an Urban Village are likely to have less landscaping around building compared to buildings in areas of less intensive development.
On traffic – Clause 22.05 says that development is to take account of established traffic characteristics and not add to identified traffic conflicts. No parties had concerns with traffic generation or congestion and I concur with their views.
On ResCode overshadowing – The responsible authority says the development complies with the standards in clause 55 regarding amenity impacts on neighbours. No walls are proposed on boundaries. It meets the standards regarding daylight to existing windows and solar access for north facing windows. Overshadowing complies with Standard B21 and overlooking of ground level habitable rooms and secluded open space comply with Standard B22. The responsible authority advises the proposed development has a high level of compliance with Standard B17.
On internal amenity – The responsible authority and the Applicant agree the development would provide acceptable amenity for its residents, except for some matters of design detail. All habitable rooms would have access to natural light. All dwellings would be provided with acceptable areas of secluded open space located adjacent to living rooms. Only a small number of dwellings would be located on the south side of the building and so have less solar access than other dwellings. This is acceptable in a larger development.
COMMENT
Lipshutz and Magee really need to find another scapegoat. They also need to ensure that the planning department does not continue to stuff up and should read its own planning scheme before it writes up its grounds for refusal. It should also consider carefully WHY something that meets almost every single ResCode ‘standard’ gets a refusal. Isn’t this simply a waste of ratepayers’ money in order to create the illusion that all council’s problems can be laid at the feet of VCAT?
Most importantly, Lipshutz and Magee need to explain to residents why Glen Eira does not have:
That is the issue and NOT VCAT – especially in this judgement.
February 25, 2016
The prize for the greatest garbage to come out of any councillor’s mouth is a dead tie between Hyams and Lipshutz. In fact, the statements we are reproducing below are not only a damning indictment of these two individuals who will say anything to further their cause, protect their arses, or those of their mates, or simply designed to make some political capital and cement their power base. Logic, consistency, ethics, and concern for residents do not matter one iota in our view.
Prior to the secret and devious introduction of the new zones, which is repeatedly heralded as Glen Eira’s crowning achievement strictly because of its height limits, Hyams proclaimed the following (dates are from our postings)
HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.)
Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement –
Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)
Then there’s Lipshutz! On Tuesday night there was a ‘passionate’ defence of ‘consultation’ and how vital it is that people get a say. Yet here is what this same advocate on ‘consultation’ had to say not that long ago –
LIPSHUTZ – ….asking the community but that’s a ‘very cute argument because we all know that when you’ consult with people that ‘the vast majority’ ‘don’t give their view’ and it’s only those people ‘who have a strong view about the issue’. Those who give their view are the voters and it’s those people who ‘will in fact say yes or no’. Going to community consultation means that ‘you will get’ the views of ‘activists and who have strong views’ and the ‘vast silent majority don’t care’. And ‘they don’t care’ because they are ‘satisfied’ about the ‘way council operates’. (on tree register – 24/3/2015)
The hypocrisy, is simply mind boggling. Remember this when you next vote!
February 24, 2016
PS: We’ve put up a comment, but on reflection believe that it should be more prominent and accessible to readers. Here is what we wrote:
The extent to which this entire issue has become a political football where the Liberals bash Labor and Labor bashes the Liberals and the Greens are content to sit back and see the fur fly is reprehensible all round. We have gone back over the Records of Assembly and what is literally quite staggering is that the LXRA October presentation that Delahunty refers to included two prominent ‘apologies’ (ie neither of these councillors attended). They were DELAHUNTY AND OKOTEL.
Admittedly there were subsequent meetings and another ‘presentation’ but the impression (deliberately?) created from both Okotel’s and Delahunty’s comments at council meeting was that both were in attendance. Perhaps quite fitting that it should be one from each side of politics that with their sins of omission and spin seek to further obfuscate and turn this into a political football. As we have repeatedly stated – SHAME UPON THEM ALL
This is a very, very long post – but an important one. We ask all readers to carefully consider the diverse and contradictory statements made here and the underlying politics that colours everything!
The Skyrail petition included: no options provided to residents and ‘sky rail was never presented’ for consultation. Petition asked that consultation be undertaken to ‘determine whether this is the community’s preferred option’ plus including studies on noise and other environmental impacts.
Esakoff moved that the petition be noted and that council supports level crossing removal. Council writes to all MPs and newspapers advocating for no ‘elevated skyrail through our city’ until after there has been ‘full’ consultation and that LXRA reps plus government holds a ‘public forum’ on the issue. Pilling seconded.
ESAKOFF: (reading from a prepared ‘speech’). Said that she would ‘advocate strongly’ for residents about ‘their concern’ for skyrail being ‘the preferred option’ when they ‘and indeed councillors were not aware’ of the option. The concerns were ‘lack of consultation, visual amenity’ and ‘in some cases year round overshadowing’. Said that everyone wanted separation and that council ‘had advocated for a decade or more’ for separation. Stated that skyrail may be cheaper but ‘cheaper is rarely better’. Residents ‘want to be consulted in a meaningful way’ and decisions to come after consultation and not by ‘one on ones’. This is a ‘disaster that has befallen them’. Said she ‘doubts’ the usefulness of the 11 MCGs of open space and ‘linear parks’ which will be ‘narrow strips’ and only suitable for a bike track. Council ‘could’ buy land to ‘incorporate into this’ area but with ratecapping that becomes impossible. There’s also the question of maintenance and what they don’t know is the ‘financial implications’ of this. So if no benefit is provided to residents then the money of ratepayers is ‘better spent’ on ‘meaningful open space’. (applause)
PILLING: said he lives in Murrumbeena and is ‘quite close’ to the proposed skyrail and is ‘well aware of the issue’. He has received over 100 emails from residents and will advocate strongly for residents. ‘We are certainly concerned about the lack of consultation’. Agrees that no decision be made until after consultation and that there has been ‘misinformation’ put out because of the lack of information from the government. People need to be ‘better informed’.
LIPSHUTZ: skyrail could be the best thing ‘since sliced bread’ but he doesn’t know because he hasn’t been given the ‘opportunity’ to find out ‘what the alternatives are’. On the East-West link the government consulted with the community ‘but now they’ve ignored that’. Sky rail ‘might be wonderful but how about telling the community why it’s wonderful?’ and let people tell ‘the government what they actually want’. What we now have is a ‘monstrosity’ where there will be ‘graffiti’, ‘crime’ and 11 MCGs that are ‘useless’ and ‘we’re told as a council’ that it’s ‘wonderful’. Said he read one newspaper article where Andrews didn’t take this to cabinet and decided ‘himself’. Claimed that if he was ‘cynical’ he would wonder why skyrail isn’t in the marginal seats of Bentleigh and instead going into a ‘safe Labor seat’. Consultation ‘is very important’ and that when dealing with big issues like this and ‘people’s lives, people’s property, people’s values’ then ‘it is so important to consult the community’. Said that when council did GESAC they consulted extensively via forums and ‘hearing what the community had to say’. Booran reservoir is the same where ‘we went to the community’ and asked ‘what do you want’. The government didn’t do this and ‘they didn’t even look at any other alternative’. (applause)
MAGEE: the government ‘will decide’ whether to ‘go ahead’ with skyrail. Said there is currently a ‘four week consultation period’ and they will ‘get to see what the results’ from this are. He is ‘more interested in the process’ and whether this is ‘appropriate’ and ‘just’. Council would be in a ‘much stronger position’ if they had plans about what is happening in the ‘corridor’ proposed. Said that Guy wrote to all councils and took away their powers over the land in the corridor so that ‘no control’ over parking. If this hadn’t happened then council and the planning scheme still had these powers then council would have ‘grounds to argue’ and to ‘refuse’ but ‘unfortunately’ all that council can now do is ‘listen to the community and speak on their behalf’. Unfortunately Guy and David Davis who are the ‘champions of this railroad, this skyrail’ are the ones who ‘set it up’. (applause)
OKOTEL: said that previously when there was consultation about grade separation ‘consultation was narrow’ and ‘wasn’t genuine’ and that council were told they could have ‘input’ into what ‘would occur around development’ around the area. Said that was her ‘understanding that we would have the ability’ to have a say. And ‘my understanding this year is that this is no longer the case’. Now they’ve told council that there would be skyrail and that the land would be controlled by the government and that they ‘would hand over maintenance to council’. Given ratecapping it ‘will be more and more difficult’ to maintain these areas. Said that in her time on council has ‘never seen the community so outraged’ about an issue. Thanked residents for their ‘passionate advocacy’ and that without their ‘passionate advocacy we would not be in the position we are to take a strong stance’ to government. Council is ‘your voice’ and they will advocate that ‘things don’t happen without your input’. Said that council put to the rail authority that the ‘rail should go underground’.
DELAHUNTY: ‘point of order’ on accuracy.
PILLING: told Okotel that he didn’t think ‘that was correct’.
DELAHUNTY: said her point of order was about the ‘truthfulness’ of Okotel’s statement in suggesting ‘that council had a position that rail should go under road’. Said that council ‘never had a position’.
OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding’ was that the majority of councillors thought it should go underground. Went on and asked residents to ‘put your trust in your council that we will do the right thing by you’. (applause)
PILLING: said he was ‘very conscious that what we say to our community is correct’.
SOUNNESS: went through his background on planning and being on the Transport committee rep with other councils and so is very interested in the issue. Concerned that in ’40 to 60 years time’ Melbourne will be double in population but without the necessary infrastructure. Need to ensure that more people ‘move about more efficiently with less impact’. ‘Grade separation’ can make the system ‘more efficient’ but there will be ‘trade offs’. Knows that designers are ‘doing their best’ and so do ‘technicians’ who are ‘passionate about urban design’. Said he did see proposals for ‘rail above’ and other options but ‘why this is the best option, I’m not too sure’. Wants to know why it’s the best option so ‘I can explain to you’. Stated that he ‘appreciates’ the petition and wants to see ‘consultation’ go further but as a council it is not their domain but a ‘state infrastructure matter’. Hoped that information would come out so people would understand why we’re ‘going this way’ so council can ‘adjust’. (applause)
HYAMS: claimed there was ‘no reason’ for council not to accept the motion. Said it was important that ‘we are united’ as a council behind the ‘principles of decent community consultation’. Went on to say that there’s ‘nothing in the motion’ that is not in line with council’s ‘position’. The flood of emails and questions is ‘proof of how poor this consultation process has been’. Stated it should ‘have been done’ like the Liberals did with Ormond where they presented 4 options and then ‘chose the one the people were behind’. On Magee’s earlier point about Guy removing council power ‘that happens with all major’ projects and governments. Here a decision was made ‘and then consulting on it’. On claims that ‘this is a party political campaign’ admitted that ‘the opposition has got behind this’ but that ‘doesn’t mean that the opposition is running the campaign’. Quoted from some recent articles in The Age – Farah Tomazzin, Clay Lucas, and others. Went on to say that as a result of some of the emails he had received he learnt about impacts that he hadn’t thought of before such as the skyrail ‘going through Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ and ‘neighbourhood residential zones’. Asked then that if the project goes through ‘will we be able’ to continue to keep ‘those protections’ on the neighbourhoods since the government is ‘seeking’ to change Plan Melbourne so that there is ‘more development in existing suburbs’. Other impacts are overshadowing and since the tracks will be narrow whether these would comply with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. Thought that residents ‘have a right’ to the forum and that ‘all questions are answered in public’. When something that is ‘so unexpected and so life changing’ is put before people ‘they have the right to a proper consultation’. (applause)
DELAHUNTY: supported the motion and thanked Esakoff and residents and thought it was right that ‘there be a public forum’. ‘Concerned’ that the ‘one on one sessions’ aren’t ‘doing what it is that you want them to do’. Right that the petition be accepted, but her ‘concern’ is that it is ‘constituted on an incorrect premise’ but ‘that we are responsible for that incorrect premise’ – ‘that we didn’t know’. ‘We did know’. Said that council had participated with ‘1500 others’ on ‘what this separation project might look like’ and that was ‘some time last year’. Said that council asked for ‘open space, bike tracks’ like others and in ‘early October’ claimed that council were ‘presented’ with ‘some options and one of those was elevated rail’. ‘I am genuinely sorry for the misinformation that comes out of this council’. Said this wasn’t a ‘surprise’ to her because it was ‘pictured’ quite clearly
OKOTEL: point of order on ‘incorrect information’ in that the ‘option of elevated rail was never presented’.
COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – IE ‘WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH?’
PILLING: ‘there was a range of options’
DELAHUNTY: said that this presentation was in ‘early October’ and ‘it didn’t quite lay out what we’ve now seen’. Agreed that the process was inadequate and ‘not taken to residents’. Said that ‘they haven’t done a great job at consultation and they need to do better’. Didn’t think that ‘one on one’ was good enough and she supports ‘you being able to turn up here tonight and ask public questions’. But ‘unfortunately most of my councillor colleagues don’t support that’.
HYAMS : point of order and ‘that is false and defamatory’ and asked that Delahunty withdraw.
DELAHUNTY: said that she had in the past moved a motion asking that meeting procedures be changed so that ‘members of the public’ could ‘speak and that was voted down by a majority’ of councillors. ‘So I stand by’ the comment.
Multiple calls for point of order
PILLING: said that this was ‘out of context’
DELAHUNTY: back to LXRA and repeated that she didn’t think ‘their consultation’ processes have been adequate. Also ‘wanted to give an apology for some of the misinformation that has come from council that hasn’t helped your genuine concerns’. ‘Some of that is that we did not know’. Said that in the agenda papers there is a letter from the Minister ‘which again reiterates elevated rail proposals’. ‘Council did not tell you properly, we did not take you with us’ and LXRA ‘didn’t take you with us’. ‘It wasn’t done properly so I support the motion’.
OKOTEL: question to Delahunty. Said she didn’t know about the proposal for skyrail and is ‘surprised that you state you knew’. Question was ‘if you knew why didn’t you say anything earlier?’
DELAHUNTY: ‘We all knew. There was an authority presentation to council’. Said she’s got the ‘presentation package’ and ‘there are pictures of elevated rail’ including ‘some of the ones that are being used now’. Agreed that it ‘might be for a lack of understanding’ why this ‘wasn’t given to the community’.
UPROAR FROM GALLERY
PILLING: admitted that the presentation referred to by Delahunty ‘certainly had pictures and some concepts’ but that they were in the ‘similar position then of not knowing’ what would come out of this. ‘Council genuinely did not know’ of the skyrail option would be the option. ‘We found out on February 7th the same day as you’. Said that in the presentation there were ‘a lot of things floated’.
DELAHUNTY: ‘we didn’t know it was the final option’ but they knew ‘it was on the table’. Thus the ‘premise of the petition’ is that ‘we were not aware’, ‘we didn’t know that it was an option’. Thought that it was ‘important’ that people realise that ‘we did know that it was an option’. (uproar from gallery)
PILLING: repeated that council knew but ‘did not know that it was going to be the preferred option’.
COMMENT FROM GALLERY – ‘WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU KNEW. WE DIDN’T KNOW’ AND OTHER COMMENTS LIKE ‘WHAT ABOUT INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY’. ‘YOU’RE TERRIBLE ALL OF YOU’.
PILLING: was ‘sure’ that ‘everyone wanted to get to the vote’ on this.
OKOTEL: another question to chair. Referred to the presentation and Pilling’s understanding that council were given 4 options and that ‘you were referring to small pictures’
PILLING: said that ‘the bottom line’ was that like residents ‘council did not know that the skyrail would be the preferred option’.
OKOTEL: asked about the ‘pictures from around the globe’ and whether this was ‘being consulted on rather than the 4 options presented?’
PILLING; ‘as I recall’ they got the same information as the ‘general public’ . ‘We didn’t have any more knowledge’.
SOUNNESS: wanted to answer Okotel. Said that at the presentation the reps were speaking mainly about ‘rail under but they did not rule out rail over’. ‘they showed pictures indicating the potential’ of this. They said ‘it was in the mix’. So from ‘my point of view, we knew’ but most of the attention was on rail under. ‘From my point of view it was an option’.
COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – WHY HAVEN’T YOU ‘SHARED WITH US’? ‘YOU HAVE BEEN DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY’
OKOTEL: another question. About the presentation whether the presentation was showing the ‘elevation of the’ entire train line? (applause)
SOUNNESS: said ‘they didn’t say much about it’ because they were still getting information. ‘My impression’ was that it could have been under, over.
PILLING: they could ‘argue’ about ‘detail and who recollects what’ but the important thing is the petition and councillor support for residents.
ESAKOFF: ‘from my perspective we did not know about skyrail’. They ‘saw a picture of skyrail’ from maybe America, and this ‘was amongst a lot of other pictures’ of grade separation in other places. Skyrail ‘was not put down as an option here’. ‘My recollection is the same as Cr Okotel’s’ and their picture was ‘a bridge and not a 6km skyrail’. (applause) Also if other councillors knew ‘because they had close connections then it should have been more forthcoming’ so they could ‘inform the rest of us’.
DELAHUNTY: asked for withdrawel of comment
ESAKOFF: if it was ‘offensive I’m very happy to withdraw it’. Went on to quote the Government Architect statement of recent times and ‘pre-election policies’. (applause). Said she went to the meetings of LXRA and that it was too small and ‘very little information provided’ just ‘pretty pictures’. Also went to the ‘rally on the weekend’ where ‘residents told their stories’. These residents felt ‘that an actual disaster’ had happened ‘in our community’ ‘similar to’ and earthquake and’ this is how these people are feeling’. At these meetings people weren’t allowed to ‘take photographs’, ‘have representation’. ‘they sit there absolutely stunned’. They feel they have nowhere to go but to put their houses on the market. ‘It is a concern’ for families who have ‘built up a nest egg’ in their homes ‘to have this taken from beneath them’. ‘To hear stories on the weekend – it brought tears to anyone’s eyes’. (applause) So if there is a forum ‘they would have to be moved by these stories’. Said they ‘expected the same process’ as for North Road and McKinnon Road ‘where the community was listened to’. Hoped that the motion would ‘provide the avenue for a real consultation’. Thought that there was ‘still’ some room ‘for movement’ and didn’t think ‘this was signed off as yet’. (applause)
MOTION PUT: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE)
February 23, 2016
Tonight’s council meeting was packed to the rafters with residents – most were concerned with Skyrail. A petition was submitted and this engendered an hour’s discussion where councillors voted unanimously to accept the petition, and seek a public forum. Full details will follow tomorrow. However, the following need highlighting:
February 23, 2016
Whilst Glen Eira is content to spend thousands on its notorious ’11 cent flyer’ of misinformation and outright deceit, thankfully other councils are not cut from the same cloth. Below is the latest Boroondara effort – a letter sent to all residents regarding planning and asking for initial feedback.
February 22, 2016
February 22, 2016 9:00am
STATE Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has urged the State Government to work with him to “save Melbourne’s Riviera” from sky trains.
With decisions on the southern part of the Frankston rail corridor yet to be made, Mr Guy said he was “prepared to work with the government” to raise enough money via new Port of Melbourne legislation to run trains underground.
Mr Guy said talk of underground tunnelling difficulties caused by a high water table in the beachside areas was “not an excuse at all.”
“If you can put a man on the moon, you can dip a level crossing on the Frankston line,” he said.
“When they were building the CityLink tunnels, that was in one of the most geologically unsound areas in Melbourne — and yet we have two enormous tunnels which operate just fine and have for the last 15 years.
“There are absolutely no engineering studies that say it is utterly infeasible to do that.”
There are eight level crossings between Cheltenham and Frankston listed for removal, with work due to get underway in 2018.
Shadow Planning Minister David Davis joined Mr Guy at Edithvale Station last week, along with South Eastern Metropolitan Region MP Inga Peulich, Kingston Central Ward councillor Geoff Gledhill and concerned community members, to discuss the crossing removals.
Mr Guy said the opposition’s offer to work with the State Government was the “first time you’ve seen an opposition do this for decades in Victoria”.
He said if the State Government could “present a sensible piece of legislation” on the Port lease, he would “be happy to tie that sale to putting level crossings underground”.
State Treasurer Tim Pallas told Leader that Mr Guy’s comments were being made from “a position of ignorance”, and the State Government has always been honest about there being no “magical one-size-fits-all solution” to the issue.
“Every crossing removal is different,” Mr Pallas said.
“We’re not coming to a solution with a predetermined position, people can’t rewrite history on this.”
Mr Pallas said the local consultation process will begin this week, with a removal method to be decided by mid-2016 and a “design solution” determined by 2018.
“There’s going to be at least two years of extensive consultation before that construction gets underway,” he said.
When asked the price difference between above and below-ground rail options on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, the treasurer said “it’s not about cost”.
“I don’t believe there’s a great deal in the cost difference between these arrangements,” Mr Pallas said.
He said it’s more important that the project to be guided by “science and imaginative engineering solutions”.
Edithvale local Elsie Bradshaw, who has lived in the area for more than 45 years, said she was worried after seeing other “failed” examples of above-ground rail lines overseas.
“We definitely do not want this to happen,” Ms Bradshaw said.
“We know there’s going to be noise and a lot of disruption — we’re prepared to put up with that, that’s fine — but not with the rails going up nine or more storeys.”
Community advocate Dorothy Booth, who is also the chairwoman of the Friends of Mentone Station and Gardens, said she was concerned there wouldn’t be enough true consultation on the issue.
“One government organisation talking to another government organisation is not consultation — that’s not going to come up with the best outcome for the community,” Ms Booth said.
“If they persist with this here, they won’t be in government to complete it, because the community won’t stand for it.”
There are now several local petitions against the skyrails gaining support, including one from the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum and another from the office of Inga Peulich.
February 20, 2016
QUESTIONS
PS: Off topic – Caulfield Racecourse. See Sunday Age – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-public-space-that-people-didnt-know-existed-20160220-gmz66o.html
February 19, 2016
There are two extraordinary items in the agenda papers for Tuesday night. One concerns the ‘guns in the parks’ episode and the other the anti-semitism claims against Lobo. That both of these issues should occupy so much of council time, and expense, is in our view, a clear indication of how dysfunctional and politically driven Glen Eira Council is.
Both of these items feature some ‘unusual’ new tactics:
THE LOBO AFFAIR
Several things stand out immediately in this item:
What remains to be seen is whether these 8 paragons of virtue will take this matter further and whether ratepayers can expect to fork out thousands more to satisfy what we believe to be the political machinations of several councillors.
GUNS IN PARKS
We have uploaded both items HERE
PS: Today’s Age
Glen Eira Debates 