Before we report on the farce that occurred at last Tuesday night’s council meeting we wish to make the following comments and ask residents to carefully consider what occurred and the questions raised.

Why is it that in Glen Eira resolutions mean bugger all – that they can be ignored, changed, forgotten about, and reneged upon at will, or presumably at the behest of vested interests? Not for the first time have those same councillors (Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling) totally ignored resident views and aspirations. It is significant that not one single councillor mentioned the fact that a petition of near a thousand signatures was tabled seeking to preserve Frogmore, nor that over 300 submissions came in supporting the amendment for a heritage overlay.

We also find it extraordinary that at the very last moment both Delahunty and Esakoff just happened to discover that they’ve got a conflict of interest. We remind readers that this conflict did not exist when both voted to go to Heritage Victoria and then to draw up the amendment a few short months ago. Surely aged relations couldn’t have aged that rapidly to suddenly find themselves in need of an aged care facility that will take at the very least two years to be operational? We certainly anticipate plenty of objections once the plans are submitted and people trot off to VCAT so it is likely to be even longer than two years.

The result is that 3 councillors – a minority – decided what happens in Glen Eira. That isn’t ‘representative government’ and nor is it listening to the community. Just as with the C60, residents are being duped and dudded and repeatedly ignored.

And as always, the level of argument is abysmal. How on earth Okotel can speak about costs, and then in the very next sentence ask for 3 additional heritage reports, is mind numbing. Or more to the point, how all her arguments suggest opposition to going to the panel and then to vote in favour of going to a panel is equally mind numbing.

For a council that repeats ad nauseum that it is ‘planning law’ and ‘policy’ that determines decisions, ‘planning law’ fails to get a mention in the ‘debate’. Not one word on ‘planning law’ from councillors and not one word from the officer’s report. Instead it’s all smoke and mirrors and pure unadulterated gibberish and misrepresentation of the facts – as so clearly pointed out by the National Trust (see link below). Further, how dare Hyams and Okotel argue that cost should be the determinant of whether or not something goes to a panel, or (worse) what is financially ‘viable’ for the prospective developer. Even here, Hyams’ claims are far from the truth when he asserts that ONLY a 120 bed facility is worthwhile for the developer. In Glen Eira  there are currently plenty of aged care facilities that offer far less than 120 beds and have managed to stay in operation for eons – eg: Estia Health Bentleigh has 45 beds; Claremont Terrace has 94 beds; Lovell House has 40 beds; Victoria by the Park has 70 beds; Hammond Care has 60 beds and Montgomery has 30 beds and there are plenty of others in this category.

We might also quibble with Hyams’ assertion that the Churches of Christ were forced to sell because 60 mere beds is ‘not viable’. In the first place, the current owners are based in Queensland. They only have 3 aged care premises in Melbourne and are currently looking to invest far more heavily in their own home state as their Annual Reports and corporate strategy documents indicate. Perhaps it’s simply the old adage of ‘charity begins at home’ – ie Queensland – and not because a 60 bed home that has been in existence for decades is suddenly going to the wall?

All of this leads us to ask these fair and reasonable questions:

• Is it coincidence that Delahunty and Esakoff suddenly discovered a conflict of interest? Or is their ‘maybe’ conflict nothing more than a political shirking of the necessity for a vote?
• Have some of these councillors learnt their lesson about Planning Panels and Heritage – ie remember the Esakoff Seaview property fiasco where the Panel came down in favour of objectors? Is that why going to another Panel was deemed too great a risk– especially in light of the damning comments of the National Trust and the most recent (and hence valid) heritage assessement? See: http://www.trustadvocate.org.au/frogmore-soon-to-be-no-more/?
• If the prospective buyer was other than Jewish Care would the Frogmore case now be firmly set for a panel hearing rather than demolition?
  

Here’s what happened. Please read carefully.

Delahunty declared a conflict of interest under Section 78(b)(1a) of the Local Government Act in that she’s a ‘manager of a company’ that ‘may have an interest’ in the proposal. Pilling then assumed the chair. Esakoff then declared a conflict under Section 79(b) under ‘conflicting personal interest’ in that she has ‘very close relatives’ who are ‘currently looking for aged care places’ and that she ‘feels’ that this wouldn’t be out of the question for them as a residence. ‘On that basis I request leave’ to declare the interest.

Pilling said that ‘I understand that I have to put that to a vote’. Hyams then said that ‘our current practice’ is for those making the request to leave the chamber. Esakoff left the chamber, vote was put and passed unanimously.

Lipshutz then moved to accept the motion (ie abandonment of heritage amendment) ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he had gone down to have a look at the Wahgoo property and it is ‘old’ and just because it is old does not ‘make it heritage’. Said that council had gone ahead with Heritage Victoria and they reported that the building was ‘not significant’ and that ‘in my view council should abandon the proposal’ for a heritage overlay.

HYAMS: called this item a ‘tough one’ since he claimed that ‘I do care’ about history and heritage as a member of the Historical Society. Also said that ‘council’ cares a lot about heritage and ‘that’s why there are 3,893 properties’ in Glen Eira listed under heritage zones and this includes over 100 individual properties. Said that ‘we conducted an exhaustive heritage assessment between 1996 and 2003’ and Wahgoo property was ‘not quite considered worthy’. Reason for this is that ‘it can’t be seen from the street’, and ‘modern additions obscuring it’ and there have been ‘fairly significant changes made’ to the building. Heritage Victoria ‘looked in detail’ and from the 8 criteria ‘determined that 3’ are ‘likely to be satisfied’ but ‘not at the State level’. Said that the 3 criteria relate to ‘historic’ and not ‘aesthetic’ reasons. Read out some of the judgements – ie that Frogmore is ‘one of a vast number’ of this type of buildings throughout Glen Eira. It also doesn’t have ‘novel or outstanding features’. The report ‘certainly doesn’t state’ why it should be heritage protected. If the additions hadn’t been added and if it was visible from the street then he thinks it would be ‘heritage worthy’. Council needs to balance the ‘benefit to the community’ and that would be ‘120 beds’ for aged care. ‘We have to accept’ that aged care places need this number of beds ‘to be viable’. So it’s ‘not a matter of having fewer beds’ and the ‘previous facility’ was ‘shut down because it was not viable’ and it had 60 beds. ‘We also need to respect the integrity of our planning system’ and the ‘would be purchaser’ and the current owners ‘rely on our planning system’ and that ‘we did exhaustively assess the heritage value’ of properties in Glen Eira in 1996 to 2003. Thus it is ‘preferable on the balance’ that the amendment is abandoned and that ‘we allow’ the plan to be submitted. ‘It is a reluctant decision on my part’.

SOUNNESS: said he was against the recommendation and concerned about ‘process’ – that if there is benefit that needs to be ‘documented’ and looked at closely and ‘that is the process that is in place for amendments’. Said that this ‘isn’t due process’ and it should go to those people who have greater ‘understanding’ of heritage. If it goes to a panel they might decide against heritage or they might determine that there is heritage value. What’s going to happen to the site ‘is not finished’ because plans are ‘sitting to one side’ and there are ‘many good sites’ that make an ‘effort to do heritage interpretation’. Acknowledged that when heritage ‘was done’ years ago the ‘problem’ of significant vegetation ‘wasn’t mentioned’. Said he suspects that many residents would believe that council isn’t really protecting minimal change areas and that this ‘is further proof that Glen Eira is not doing things effectively’ and not protecting minimal change areas ‘in the way that residents feel it should be done’. He is voting against because ‘at the very least due process’ means going to a panel. It will ‘delay things – that’s the process’ and that from the purchasers point of view this is being held up. He ‘regrets that’, but ‘we have a process’ and that’s the role of council who has the ‘authority’ and is representing residents. If the motion is defeated, then he is foreshadowing a motion to send to a planning panel.

OKOTEL: said that this isn’t ‘an easy decision’. Said the prospective purchasers acted in ‘good faith’. They did their research, and searches. As councillors they have the ‘initial assessment’ from heritage which said that there was no ‘heritage significance’ and ‘provided a grading of C’. If it had been C+ then ‘it would have been put in the register’. ‘More recently we’ve had the independent assessment’ and that decided there was ‘local significance on 3 grounds’ . Council then went to Heritage Victoria and they decided there ‘wasn’t any state significance’ but ‘acknowledged and agreed with the 3 grounds’ of the independent assessment’ but stopped short of endorsing ‘heritage significance’. (Member from gallery then stated – ‘at the State level). Okotel corrected and said ‘state level’ but it ‘didn’t conclude that there was’ significance at the ‘local level’. (again gallery comment – ‘they didn’t have to’) Okotel – ‘all right’. So the two reports are saying opposite things – early one no heritage value and independent assessment that there is heritage value. Okotel’s ‘difficulty’ is that there isn’t ‘sufficient detail as to whether or not’ to ‘warrant heritage’. Said she asked Heritage Victoria whether there was ‘evidence’ to warrant ‘local signficance’ and they replied that any ‘written’ statements would not ‘be specifying whether or not’ there was local significance’. Didn’t think that there is ‘enough evidence at this time’ for council to make the decision about whether Frogmore is worthy of local heritage protection and to ‘refer this matter to a panel’. Said that if referred to a panel as Sounness wants, then this would ’cause delay’ and would put the parties involved into ‘significant financial expenses’ such as ‘engaging lawyers’ planners and other ‘experts’. It would also ‘cost Council about $10,000’ and would ‘likely cost other parties that amount’. This would result in ‘two non-profit groups’ experiencing ‘significant additional expenses’ and even cost community groups is ‘they were to advocate on this issue as well’. So ‘it would be unfair to progress the matter’ to a panel. She thought it ‘would be more appropriate’ for Council to get ‘more information’ by engaging ‘three additional independent heritage assessors’ so then’council might make a decision, a more informed decision’ about whether to go to a panel.

LOBO: said that Frogmore mightn’t be ‘heritage’ listed but it’s been in ‘existence since 1889-90 so ‘it has been a part of people’s upbringing, culture, education’.   He ‘understands the needs of an ageing populating’ but deciding on the issue ‘without another opinion’ from the panel is also fraught. The site ‘may or may not be an ideal place’ for an aged care facility. In order to vote on this, he said he needs to ‘depend on an independent panel’.

PILLING: thanked residents for their strong campaign and emails, posters, and ‘kudos for raising the issue’. Said he is trying to ‘make a balanced decision’ and looking at the ‘long term best interests of the community’. In 1996 they had a heritage assessment and ‘at the time the property wasn’t protected’ and the most recent assessment did recommend protection. The director of Heritage Victoria found that of the 8 criteria, the building only met 3 of the criteria and ‘last Thursday Heritage Victoria voted’ not to grant state level protection. Said ‘all councillors’ visited Frogmore ‘this morning’ and the pictures that some of the gallery are holding isn’t what the site looks like now. Said it is ‘a compromised site’ and at present is ‘derelict’. The two parties want to settle and Jewish Care wants to put in a 120 bed facility. He ‘feared’ that if this wasn’t ‘settled’ then the site ‘could be rezoned’ for residential and have ‘multi-unit developments on it’. He would ‘much prefer a community asset’. Said that ‘if someone wants to come along with $10 million to develop’ like Ripponlea then great but ‘I don’t think that is going to happen’. As Lipshutz said ‘we live in the real world’. Said he ‘understands’ the issue of ‘losing our older’ buildings such as the Boyd House in Murrumbeena but they are now faced with making a ‘decision on balance’ as to what is best for the community. Going to a panel when state institutions ‘won’t protect it’ and just because a former mayor lived there, and there are other houses where councillors/mayors have lived ‘does that make it heritage?’ This ‘is a compromised site’ and ‘it is not pristine’ and ‘I will be voting in favour of abandoning the amendment’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘perhaps’ they should have ‘preserved heritage’ before. There was a property in Bambra road that was an ‘old mansion’ and was ‘turned into a hospital’ and ‘someone came along’ and put a home there and he thinks ‘it’s great’. ‘this property has been certainly compromised’ and isn’t the ‘pristine property it was when it was built’. Also ‘it doesn’t accord with the requirements of heritage’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED ON CASTING VOTE OF PILLING. VOTING IN FAVOUR OF ABANDONING AMENDMENT – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, PILLING. VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL. PILLING, AS CHAIR, THEN HAD THE DECIDING VOTE.

And for the last few bits of info, see The Age article at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/residents-fail-in-attempt-to-preserve-historic-frogmore-house-from-demolition-20150610-ghkyz7.html

Also an audio interview with resident Jan Armstrong – http://www.magic1278.com.au/news/historic-home-to-face-the-wrecking-ball-20150611-ghlcfs.html

Plus a posting from Glen Eira Residents’ Association – http://geresidents.wordpress.com

and last but not least, the Leader’s contribution –

Magee was an apology. Delahunty took the chair.

Hyams moved motion to refuse application on the grounds that it is an ‘overdevelopment’ and doesn’t ‘respect’ the ‘existing character’ – latter repeated countless times. Seconded by Lobo.

HYAMS: called the officer recommendation ‘reasonable’ and that they’ve ‘done a professional job of it’. He just happens to ‘disagree’ with them. Said that the officers believe that since this property abuts a commercial zone that they don’t have to ‘adhere’ to ResCode quite so strictly. He believes that it is ‘still a residential zone and should be treated as such’. Also, this is a single block and you ‘wouldn’t have four storeys’ on a single block ‘unless it was pretty large’. Thought that the recommended conditions (ie car parking, setbacks) ‘are good’ but not enough. Street and side setbacks, ‘don’t comply with ResCode’ and neither does permeability and site coverage. So this ‘convinces’ him that ‘the only reasonable thing to do is refuse it’. The application fails to ‘tick the box’ and ‘too many things about this that don’t comply’. Said that parking issues were mentioned at the planning conference because ‘the street is getting very busy’ and that ‘builders in the area’ are not ‘complying’ with the law. So ‘in the next few weeks’ there will be ‘investigating’ and ‘we are cracking down’ on enforcement especially about parking. He will ‘pass on’ the results when they come back.

LOBO: said he has consistently opposed developments because they have ‘domino effects on the people’. Mavho is an ‘avocado street’ – ie ‘the builder now has butter, jam, and avocado on his toast’. The street ‘is gone’ and has experienced ‘tears and sleepless nights’ by residents. Itemised all the developments in Mavho in the recent past and that another two properties have now been sold together. Said that ‘oversupply’ was a concern and that ‘many dwellings will be occupied by pigeons’ and other birds. Said that to ‘put dwellings’ in Mavho which is a ‘lovely street’ and which backs Loranne is ‘catastrophic’. In about 100 metres of street there are now ‘almost 130’ new dwellings which ‘in any language’ would suggest that ‘this is not a place to live’. There was an application for a massage parlour with the first application and now with all these new apartments ‘there will be the need for 2 or 3 massage parlours’.

LIPSHUTZ: Lobo mentioned 2 ‘things that resonate with me’ – agreed that the street ‘has gone’. Other point was about more developments in the street. Claimed it was ‘unfortunate’ because when the first application came in ‘I voted against it’ but it lost and went to VCAT and VCAT gave the developer what he wanted. Said he could ‘stand here and be popular’ and say all the things that people ‘want to hear’ but this wouldn’t be ‘doing anybody any favours’. He has for 6 years been talking about VCAT Watch and again VCAT in today’s agenda ‘overturned council’s decision’. SAid that ‘none of us’ want this kind of development ‘in our streets’ and that council ‘has been advocating very strongly against’ such developments. Reality is that ‘the government wants these types of developments’ and VCAT ‘is approving them’. Said if the application is refused it ‘will go to VCAT’ and he ‘guarantees’ that VCAT ‘will approve’ and therefore ‘some of the things that council has put in’ will be gone. That’s what happened with one of the applications in VCAT Watch. Council tried to make ‘things better for residents’ and VCAT ‘said ‘no’ we can’t allow that to happen’. Said he ‘would rather have something there than nothing’. This wouldn’t be very ‘popular’ with people because they want rejection of application but he has to do this ‘properly and unemotionally’ and therefore he has to ‘support the’ recommendations. Claimed that officers have tried to make a ‘bad situation’ better. Wouldn’t like this development in his street but ‘because’ the ‘street is gone’ ‘VCAT is going to allow it’.

ESAKOFF: this application ‘is so far removed from what is a normal requirement’ that she can’t support it. ‘On principle’ she can’t support the recommendation just because it abuts commercial zones. Said that 78% site coverage ‘when it ought to be 60 is too far over’. Can be ‘lenient’ but this is too much. It’s also ‘not meeting’ permeability and setbacks. Thought that council needs ‘to maintain the limits we have on things’ like permeability and site coverage. Also wouldn’t ‘support reduced parking’.

PILLING: admitted that when there are ‘two zones there is always a tension’. The planning department ‘has done the best to alleviate’ this tension. Listening to the arguments that the application is ‘too far over’ the limits so they’ve got nothing to lost, he will ‘probably’ vote to refuse.

SOUNNESS: said he is ‘conflicted’ since he knows that council tried to improve its planning by ‘taking what was offered’ by the minister via the new zones. Said this was a bit like Ford – you can have any colour but all that’s available is black. Said that in ‘negotiations’ about the zones ‘we were given a limited range of tools’. Since this abuts a commercial zone ‘quite large buildings can go there’ and this mightn’t be ‘comfortable’ for everyone. The recommendations ‘propose’ what ‘may happen in the commercial zones’. Said that in 15 years time people won’t be saying that ‘this is grossly’ out of place. His ‘concern’ was that in ’20 to 25 years time’ there won’t be ‘any street trees’. Said he wants a ‘condition’ about appropriate landscaping area. in 20 years time ‘we will have a different streetscape’ but still needs trees. Recognises that this is a ‘development’ area and he is ‘uncomfortable’ now but in ’20 years time I do not think I will be uncomfortable’. Said he is against refusal and if the motion doesn’t get up he will introduce a new motion to increase front setbacks to enhance landscaping.

OKOTEL: supported refusal and disagreed with Lipshutz on VCAT’s record. Whilst it’s likely to end up at VCAT it isn’t ‘an inevitability that it will’. Hoped that the ‘applicant would put in more appropriate plans’. Even if it goes to VCAT she doesn’t think it’s a ‘certainty’ that he will get what he wants. Said there could be amended plans, negotiations, and then mediated agreement. Said that council has to apply ‘policy and planning law’ and therefore agreed with Lipshutz that because ‘we sit as a quasi tribunal’ emotion can’t be part of decision making. Hyam’s motion is ‘based on policy and law’ and the refusal isn’t ‘based on flimsy reasons, not emotional reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: thought all arguments were well put and that there is a ‘reasonableness to refusal’ because it’s an ‘unusual application’. With permeability and landscaping ‘issues’ she would lean towards refusal. Said that she is concerned about arguments that say that ‘bringing apartments into a street means that the neighbourhood is gone’. Said that people want to live where ‘some of us live’ and ‘we know how gorgeous’ these places are. It doesn’t detract from ‘how beautiful it is’ by ‘having more people there’. Talking about the ‘neighbourhood going is emotive’ and ‘potentially unfair to people moving in’. Supports the idea that ‘there should be more development there’ even though the application might ‘lack’ some important things. Whatever ‘ends up there’ will be ‘good’ for the area and for the people coming in.

HYAMS: didn’t think that ‘the street is gone’ – ‘people still live there’. ‘we should live and die by ResCode in our policies and not by populism’ and ‘not by what we think VCAT may or may not do’. Gave example of VCAT refusing Ames Avenue when council approved it which was a ‘surprise’. Thought that VCAT would ‘impose further conditions’ on ‘ones we refuse’ rather than on ‘ones we approve’. Regardless of what VCAT might do, councillors have to do ‘what we think is right’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. VOTING AGAINST REFUSAL – LIPSHUTZ AND SOUNNESS

COMMENT

• Lipshutz has no problem in presenting half truths when it suits his nonsense arguments. For example: the first application (March 2012) for a major development in Mavho Street was refused unanimously by all councillors. It was not a case of Lipshutz voting against and other councillors voting for the development – as could be interpreted from his comments. Secondly, the development was for 3 storeys and ten units only – a far cry from the 4 storey largesse that council has now granted to large slabs of Mavho Street – thanks to its zones. PS; also worth pointing out that for this first application only 10 properties were notified and there were 47 objections!
• The old bogey of VCAT is trotted out again and again – opposed to that nasty old concept of ‘populism’. Well, the facts of the matter are incontrovertible – councillors (apart from the Caulfield Village) vote with one eye on their re-election chances. Refusals by councillors are either recommended by officers, or when the number of objections become too large to be ignored. Countless phone calls and emails from residents also exert the necessary pressure. The message to all residents is clear – object, object and keep objecting.
• We also find it quite laughable that Hyams’ grounds for refusal focus on ‘existing character’. The ‘existing character’ of Mavho Street is now 3 and 4 storey developments – thanks again to council’s new zones. With no preferred character statement for housing diversity developers have been handed a carte blanche to do what they like with council’s blessings.
• Hyams’ claim that you ‘wouldn’t have’ four storeys on a single block is also quite laughable. Here are two examples of single blocks that have received permits from council (one admittedly for 3 storeys, but that is big enough in itself). The examples – 1100 Dandenong Road (4 storeys and 22 dwellings. The land is roughly 570 square metres); 1170 Dandenong Road (3 storeys and 23 dwellings)
• Delahunty’s and Sounness’ arguments deserve close attention by residents. We invite comments as you see fit.
• Not one councillor had the courage to state the obvious – a pathetic and sub-standard officer’s report that is anything but ‘professional’ and ‘reasonable’. And of course, not one councillor had the courage to question the efficacy and wisdom of the new zones.
• Please note that nearly every single ‘local centre’ in Glen Eira is now zoned commercial and directly abuts residential zones – and quite often Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Another instance of shocking planning by Glen Eira. Will we therefore see a repeat performance of this circus every single time an application comes in from these areas?

Item 9.3 – Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 4 storey, 22 dwellings

Esakoff moved to accept with the addition that balconies be moved so that there is no overshadowing. Okotel seconded.

ESAKOFF: said she chaired planning conference and that objectors complained about the car parking entrance as being ‘too close’ to the service road along Dandenong Road. So conditions ‘have been put in place to widen’ the exit. Residents also concerned about balconies overlooking into their private space but since not within 9 metres ‘planning controls don’t apply’. Site coverage is 87% and therefore brings up ‘permeability concerns – the height on the otherhand’ is within the zone limits. There are commercial sites abutting and this is ‘quite acceptable on Dandenong Road’ but amenity ‘impact’ on residential homes ‘is quite another matter’ so there are conditions for this and there is ‘already overshadowing’ due to an ‘overhang’ from the balcony above but ‘at least this particular condition won’t make that any worse’. Said that she would prefer a refusal because of ‘the site coverage’ which ‘is excessive’ but ‘there wasn’t support to refuse it’. However she hoped that the imposed conditions would ‘alleviate concerns’ that anyone living to the south would have.

OKOTEL: thought that the application was ‘appropriate in the context’ in that it ‘abuts commercial zones’. Also it ‘does meet largely the requirements’ for the ‘character of that area’. Thought that the amended motion was good because it means that residential properties to the East won’t be impacted so much. The application is ‘sensitive to this being a very busy area’ so ‘parking meets ResCode requirements’. Even though there is 87% site coverage there is ‘sufficient private open space in terms of balconies’.

LIPSHUTZ: supported the ‘motion reluctantly’. Has an ‘issue’ with site coverage which he thought was ‘inappropriate’ even though it ‘ticked all the boxes’ in regard to locality. There are also a ‘whole lot of other reasons why you couldn’t refuse it’ and Esakoff’s motion ‘goes a fair way’ to improving things but his ‘preference would be to refuse’.

HYAMS: ‘understood’ Lipshutz’s worries but this was an ‘unusual site wedged between shopping centre’ and residential zones. With Esakoff’s motion being ‘appropriate’ he supports it.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (APPROXIMATELY 7 MINUTES)

COMMENT:

• The site is roughly 1500 square metres. Allowing 7% more site coverage (ie it is 87% and should be 80%) is roughly the equivalent to another 2 units that council has turned a blind eye to.
• We recommend that councillors refrain from citing ResCode as ‘prescriptive’ and how they can do nothing but adhere to these ‘standards’. There is plenty of evidence that when it suits, ResCode goes out the window in their decision making!
• How two councillors can state that they favour ‘refusal’ and then vote in favour is beyond comprehension.
• Okotel needs to re-read the planning scheme since there is no ‘character’ statement for housing diversity in Glen Eira.
• Does this mean, according to Hyams that because the site is located next to commercial zones, that these future residents should not even be granted the most minimal amenity standards in terms of site coverage, permeability, open space, etc?

Item 9.2 – Balaclava road, Caulfield North – 3 storey, 32 dwellings

Hyams moved to accept with addition of the requirement that the body corporate (when established) be responsible for maintenance of car stacker and that a car parking management plan be produced. Seconded Pilling.

HYAMS: chaired conference. Main issue the laneway entrance and contamination of land. Admitted that the report ‘doesn’t refer in great detail to the laneway’ but there are conditions imposed to ‘ensure’ that car parking complies with the planning scheme. Said he spoke with Torres who ‘assured’ him that council’s engineers ‘are happy’ that the laneway access to the car park ‘is appropriate’. Said that ‘it is one of the widest laneways I’ve seen’. On contamination there will be an environmental audit to ‘certify that the land is appropriate for use’ as residential. Currently the site is vacant and ‘looks very ugly’. It’s in the General Residential Zone, so 10.5 metres ‘is appropriate’. There will be a ‘lift overrun’ but ‘that’s allowed’. A previous permit allows for 18 dwellings and a cafe so ‘it’s not a great change from what’s there now’. Parking meets Rescode, but ‘we all know’ that some residents have more than one car but the application meets ResCode so ‘that’s what we’re stuck with’. There will be ‘increased setbacks’ to allow more landscaping. Went on to regurgitate some of the other imposed conditions – ie overshadowing, Waste Management Construction Plan, etc. Thought that ‘this is an appropriate recommendation’ overall.

PILLING: had ‘nothing further’ to add.

LIPSHUTZ: supported the application and thought that ‘the architect should be congratulated’ because there is a ‘central courtyard’ and that’s not ‘something that you see’ in such dwellings. Thought that some of the setbacks for Balaclava and Kambrook Roads were unnecessary since there was ‘no overshadowing’ and the only benefit would be to ‘reduce the impact’ of the building on the ‘streetscape’. Overall ‘it’s a very good design’ and this ‘area has been an eyesore for many, many years’. ‘A well designed building and will add very favourably to the streetscape’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (APPROXIMATELY 6 MINUTES)

COMMENT

• Staggering that Hyams does not think that a near doubling of the number of units permitted represents ‘not a great change’.
• Does the new architectural guru (Lipshutz) now see setbacks as only required in case there might be overshadowing on adjacent properties?
• How many more errors will go unnoticed in officer reports? For example: the site is GRZ2 and hence has a height limit of 10.5 plus lift over-run maximum of 1.5 metres. Yet, Point H of the ‘notes’ states – Written confirmation by a Licensed Land Surveyor must be provided to the Responsible Authority verifying that the development does not exceed 13.5 metres height above natural ground This must be provided at frame stage inspection and at final inspection. Surely with so many ‘professionals’ being paid, it is not asking too much that proper proof reading be done and the tendency for sloppy ‘cute and paste’ work be deemed unacceptable?
• Council does not appear to have learnt its lesson for here we go again – the demand that the developer puts up notices about buyers not being granted parking permits is again part of the conditions. As far as we know, VCAT has laughed this condition out at least twice. But here it is again! Slow learners at council!
• Residents need to take careful note of the following ‘new interpretation’ of the zones – The site has two frontages and two side boundaries. The requirements of Schedule 2 of the General Residential Zone, which seeks increased rear setbacks, is more appropriate on non-corner properties.
• On aother important issue, we have uploaded Council’s ‘right of way policy’. We believe it is still current. Throughout the report the term  ‘laneway’ is used – yet does not appear on the register. Thus, if it’s a right of way, then the policy applies and it states categorically that upkeep, maintenance, etc. is the responsibility of the developer. Nothing of this appears in the officer’s report, nor does any councillor mention it. Another significant amenity issue that has been allowed to go through to the keeper!

Finally, on another issue entirely, we wish to alert residents that council has now gone into the business of selling ‘air space’ – Item 9.18!!!!!!