Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.1 – Centre Road, Bentleigh East. 3 storey, 24 dwellings.

Lobo moved motion with the amendment that some of the windows on upper floors have ‘glazing’ and ‘panels to 1.7 metres’ in height. Seconded by Delahunty.

LOBO: said he was ‘generally against development’ but here ‘a lot has been tried on behalf of residents’ like increased setbacks. But because of ResCode they ‘can’t do much’ other than what the report recommends. So all they ‘could do was this amendment of transparency’. Stated that he ‘understands it is a dilemma for Australians’ with overlooking into backyards which is a ‘way of life for an Aussie’ when they have a ‘barbecue and a beer in their hands’ and for the Greek community who ‘dance Zorba the Greek’.   He had been contacted by ‘half a dozen people’ who ‘didn’t like what they are seeing’ and who feared that the area will be ‘dominated by high rise buildings’. Didn’t want to go over the issue of the zones but said that residents had told him that ‘they have been treated with contempt’. They pay their rates and are facing ‘a ghetto’ and problems like parking, lack of privacy and ‘peeping toms’. Said he ‘reluctantly’ has to vote in favour because ‘I have no other choice’. Changing the application ‘would push this to VCAT’ which would then be a ‘case of David and Goliath’. Said that VCAT’s ‘wings have to be cut’ by the government.

DELAHUNTY: said that they were trying to ‘strike a balance’ as to ‘what is allowable under the zones’ and what is ‘fair’. She chaired the planning conference and thanked residents for their ‘detailed and comprehensive’ submissions. Traffic was the major themes and this has ‘been increasing in recent times’ and is possibly ‘exacerbated by the paid parking’ at the hospital. Said she asked for traffic management to undertake a review of the area. This is ‘ongoing’ and ‘will stretch to some of the other roads’ in the area. Said that ‘we’re not really sure’ whether there is a ‘rat-run’ occuring so they ‘will be looking at that’. On the application said that it ‘unusual’ for council to be ‘endorsing’ something ‘of this size down that end’ because of the lack of public transport there but the conditions imposed ‘go some way to help the amenity’ of residents. Stated that she was ‘disappointed’ at the planning conference when the developer ‘chose to attack the residents for not selling their houses’. Hoped that residents would ‘find that this building sits well’.

PILLING: supports the amendment and thought that ‘this goes some way’ to address residents concerns about overlooking. Thought that ‘generally’ this was a ‘good application’ since it’s on a ‘main road’ and in a General Residential Zone for 3 storeys. It does ‘tick many of the boxes’ even though he takes Delahunty’s point about lack of transport. He ‘took issue’ with Lobo’s comment about council treating residents ‘with contempt’ because they treat developers and residents ‘in a fair way’. They’ve listened here to residents concerns and the changes show that they’ve taken this seriously.

LIPSHUTZ: when he first ‘read this’ he wanted two storeys but then thought ‘what’s going to happen in terms of VCAT’. ‘We can play the populist card’ and ‘knock this down to 2’ as residents want us to do ‘but at the end of the day it goes to VCAT’ and they give the developer what he wants. Thus, ‘the best we can do is tinker and try to find a balance’. ‘Shared’ Pilling’s view about Lobo’s comments on ‘contempt’. Said that ‘we’re all residents’ and ‘each one of us is concerned about planning’ and that they ‘try to do the best we can within the confines of the law’. Despite what they ‘want to do’, ResCode makes them do things ‘we might not want to do’. Said that Lobo’s amendment has ‘tried to alleviate some of the issues’ such as parking and overlooking. Not the ‘best’ that residents wanted but the ‘best balance’ that council could get’.

ESAKOFF: would have liked greater setbacks on ‘rear’ and ‘where it adjoins residential properties’. Said that her ‘understanding’ is that residents were ‘happier’ to ‘leave it like that’ once the conditions of the amendment were put in ‘rather than push the boundaries’ and end up at VCAT. Said that ‘I probably would have pushed those boundaries’ more but she ‘understands’. The saiving grace is that some of the residential properties are north so won’t have overshadowing to a great extent.

OKOTEL: thought that 3 storeys ‘was appropriate’ since near the hospital and a permit already exists for three storeys ‘to the west’. Appreciated the increased setbacks to the front and the concern about parking and thought it was ‘important that we ensure there is adequate parking’. Said one resident was worried about balconies overlooking her garden and they did ‘explore options’ as to whether ‘balconies could be removed’ but that couldn’t be done because of the need to supply private open space to the building apartments. As to increasing setbacks even more planning officers ‘advised’ that this would mean the ‘deletion’ of more apartments and that this would be ‘overstepping the mark’. Thought that this strikes the ‘appropriate balance’ and hoped that ‘neighbours could be comfortable’ with the result.

HYAMS: visited the area on Saturday and therefore ‘totally understands’ residents’ concerns. ‘we’ve done everything we can under ResCode’ about overlooking. They’ve also done all they can in ‘requiring’ the number of parking spots. Said they are looking into parking but with the no parking permit conditions put on the permit this means that there is ‘restricted parking in the area’ so people who will live in the building will only have ‘cars as they have parking spots’ or they will have to park ‘further away’. Said it ‘probably is the right place’ for this dwelling even though it’s near ‘shops, and bus routes’. In the past he’s spoken about ‘neighbourhood character’ but in this instance neighbourhood character is ‘more varied’ so demanding pitched roofs wouldn’t be a ‘valid objection’. Ultimately this is ‘the right balance’.

LOBO: said that ‘the word contempt has not come out from me’ – it’s what the residents think – and ‘since we represent the residents we have to hear the key words’. Said that like Martin Luther King he ‘had a dream’ about Glen Eira becoming Calcutta. He still thinks ‘this is going to be a Calcutta’. In china there are 64 vacant apartments and he was told that they build them ‘just to give jobs to people’. wondered whether ‘the same thing is happening here’. ‘Appreciates’ that government is trying to ‘accommodate people’ but ‘why don’t they accommodate people in their homes?’ One resident who has lived in the area for 30 years was ‘instrumental’ in raising over $200,000 for the hospital and is ‘now feeling that the job that she has done is just nothing’. ‘we have to put up a fight’ regardless of political parties.

Pilling raised a point of order here about ‘relevance’. Magee said that ‘I understand the relevance’ so ‘I will over-rule your point of order’.

LOBO: ‘we need to have guts as councillors’ or ‘not stand for election next time’ and promise ‘the world’ that they will ‘fight inappropriate development’. He wanted ‘reluctantly’ the item passed.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Item 9.1 of the last council meeting is another example of amendments going horribly wrong for residents and wonderfully well for developers. Here again is the essential background in order for readers to accurately interpret what occurred. We also ask that special attention be paid to the ‘arguments’ of the various councillors.

• As with the Virginia Estate amendment, this Glen Huntly Road land has a long, long history going back a number of years. It was originally zoned ‘industrial’ so an application was made to rezone the land and put an Environmental Overlay on the property. Quite coincidentally we assume, the property next door to this site also submitted an application for a ‘recycling plant’ that dealt with plastics and other toxic materials. What was quite incredible about this is that council for some time actually entertained the idea of having a recycling plant right next to future residential land and surrounded by residential land – in total breach of its planning scheme, state legislation and plain old common sense. As was stated at the time – in Glen Eira’s planning department the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)
• The application for rezoning became known as Amendment C80 and also included a permit application for 5 storeys and 62 dwellings. Readers should note that the current sought after, and accepted, amendment is for 6 storeys and a whopping 117 dwellings. Thank you to the new zones!
• The amendment went to a Planning Panel, but after much messing about, council decided to drop the development application and have the panel only consider the rezoning to Business2 zone. The introduction of the new zones which automatically changed Business zones to Commercial zones were already well known – yet council still persisted in wanting this area zoned Commercial.

Here are the most important facts:

• The site IS NOT in council’s view a Major Activity Centre. It is on the extremity of the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre and surrounded by people’s homes to a large degree – hence development should never be at this scale.
• Rezoning to commercial, means that all control that council might have had for any developments on the site has largely been lost since Commercial zoning has practically no restrictions.
• Council, if it had wanted to really protect its residents, should have opted for rezoning to either a Mixed Use Zone or a Residential Growth Zone – both of which, via the schedules, would have given Council and residents a far better outcome than what has now happened – ie the approval of a 6 storey development with 117 units!

Please consider what each councillor has said in what follows. It largely provides a synopsis we believe of every single thing that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira. – IE – not one single word on internal amenity; not one single statistic on traffic/parking; not one single response as to why the planning scheme itself is ignored by the recommendation and the vote!

Delahunty moved motion to accept with changes to required setbacks and increase in visitor parking. Seconded by Pilling.

DELAHUNTY: thanked residents for their ‘help in determining best use’ of the site and they provided ‘very well thought out’ arguments and reasons as to why the original application wasn’t the ‘best use of commercial space’ and not the ‘fairest use of the land’ for neighbours ‘at the back’. The final changes ‘make quite a difference’ to the development so that the ‘mix’ of commercial to residential is ‘more appropriate’. Said that the street will have ‘more intense development’ with more ‘vacant’ land close by. Thought that ‘given the zoning’ council had limited the ‘amenity impacts’ for residents and is ‘fair’. ‘Hoped that the applicant and the residents can accept that’. Said that the overshadowing argument put up by neighbours was reasonable since ‘it’s not fair’ that in certain hours their ‘backyards and frontyards are in shadow’. ‘Commended’ the motion and thought that this is where ‘sensible development needs to go’.

PILLING: ‘endorsed’ Delahunty and said that there’s a tramline, close to station, and in a Commercial zone and this is ‘where we want development to go’. Delahunty’s changes ‘do go a fair way to addressing residents’ concerns’. The setbacks are in a ‘wedding cake tier’ so would help in reducing visual impact. ‘In an ideal world’ they would prefer less height but ‘we can’t predict when things will be developed’ and they have to ‘look at each application as they come in’. Said that ‘in the future’ there would be ‘increased development’ between Grange Road and the railway line. Thought that ‘this development is in keeping with what we are expecting there’. Changes do address concerns of residents ‘but maybe not all concerns’ and overall thought that ‘it is a fair compromise in this situation’.

ESAKOFF: said she didn’t ‘like this application at all’ and ‘regardless of zoning’ the site is a neighbourhood centre, and ‘not even in the centre’ of this centre. Thought that ‘something of the size and scale of this is not appropriate’. There are only a ‘handful of properties’ in the area that ‘have an industrial or commercial type use’ and ‘outside of those properties it is residential’. Didn’t think that the conditions improve amenity for one surrounding property but ‘certainly not enough’. Although on a tramline, council isn’t ‘seeing six storeys’ along tramlines but ‘seeing it at 3’. Said that 3 ‘and even at four would be a more appropriate outcome’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff and thought that the conditions imposed ‘goes someway’ to ameliorating the concerns. But for this site ‘this is an overdevelopment’. To both the North and South it is a General Residential Zone so ‘we should be seeing a transition’ and the proposed 6 storeys ‘doesn’t’ support this transition. Thought that with just one building between commercial and general residential zone isn’t enough to provide the necessary transition. In terms of visual bulk, Okotel said that even the officer’s report admitted that with the setbacks, the 4th, 5th, and 6th storeys the building would still loom large. So properties from the front of Glen Huntly Road would ‘be faced with an enormous building’. Stated that a reduction in floors ‘would be appropriate so we would have that transition’.

LOBO: Called the development ‘a monstrosity’. Said that people know his views on the new zones so ‘I won’t be a broken record’. Said that Carnegie is ‘going, going, gone’. The suburb has been ‘ripped’ apart in terms of privacy, ‘devaluation of their homes’, but not a government concern even though ‘people have spent their life savings’ on their homes.

SOUNNESS: in his view the ‘reasons to refuse’ are whether it is ‘excessive in the area’, whether there is ‘sufficient transition’ to the residential areas, if it’s a ‘good use of the land’ and ‘whether it fits in with strategic objectives’.   Said he would ‘find it offensive’ it there was major overshadowing, and if the design lacked ‘character’. He would also ‘find it offensive’ if the developer hadn’t provided enough space for landscaping but he has so ‘it’s another tick’. Even though 6 storeys is ‘a large substantial building’ but with the setbacks ‘you won’t see’ it as this height. The impact for residents ‘will be much reduced’.

HYAMS: started by saying that this site is for development because it is on a ‘fairly large block’ and in a Commercial zone on ‘a tramline’. But ‘the question’ is about intensity of development. If there is a commercial zone then the greatest intensity ‘belongs in the middle of the commercial zone’ and further out it should be less. Here, it’s only commercial ‘on one side of the road’ and is opposite single storey homes, so 6 storeys and even 5 storeys ‘is too much’. He would ‘accept four storeys but nothing more’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘concurred’ with Sounness. Said he ‘went down and had a look at the site’ and when first seeing the plans thought that 6 storeys was not on. But now with the steepled design it will ‘look like a three storey building’. Parking is ‘always’ one of his concerns and Delahunty’s conditions ‘are appropriate’. Setbacks also make it not ‘as bulky nor intrusive’. Another concern he had was overshadowing but ‘that’s been dealt with also’.

DELAHUNTY: said she ‘understood’ why other councillors might not support the application and conditions imposed. Reiterated that the overshadowing concerns that neighbours brought up at the planning conference have now been ‘dealt with’ by the conditions. With the Special Building Overlay on the property the application had to be changed and this has also been done satisfactorily. Said that she wanted to ‘touch’ on the financial statistics about homes in Carnegie. ‘Everyone wants to live in Carnegie’ and this ‘gives that dream (ie owning their own home) to more people’. Some live in ‘beautiful, beautiful suburbs’ and ‘it’s right that we share this with others’. ‘this will allow other people to live in and around Carnegie’. Said that there also hadn’t been ‘any devaluation of homes up to this point’ and wouldn’t be ‘post this point’.

MOTION PUT. OKOTEL CALLED FOR A DIVISION. VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, PILLING, LIPSHUTZ, SOUNNESS, MAGEE. VOTING AGAINST – ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LOBO, OKOTEL. MOTION CARRIED 5 TO 4.

Here’s a brief rundown of council decisions this evening:

• Tree Register ‘abandoned’ – moved Lipshutz. Final vote in favour of ‘abandonment’ was – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Lobo, Magee, Okotel. Voting against – Delahunty, Pilling, Sounness, Hyams
• Virginia Estate Amendment – voted in unanimously with much grandstanding by Magee and others.
• Glen Huntly Road – 6 storey, 117 units – permit. Voting for Delahunty, Sounness, Okotel, Magee, Pilling, Lipshutz. Voting against – Lobo, Esakoff, Hyams
• Amendment to ‘legalise’ office use at 305 Kooyong Road. Motion put by Sounness and Lipshutz. Motion lost and new motion to abandon amendment put up by Hyams won out.

We will report on each of the above in full in the next few days.

Crs Lobo/Delahunty

That a report be prepared outlining the number of new dwellings approved in the General Residential Zones and Residential Growth Zones. This report also to include the number of dwellings pending approval since they were created by the previous government. That the report show this information broken down by location. That the report also show a comparison to a previous relevant period.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

LOBO: said that the report is ‘self explanatory’ and he is ‘looking forward to the report’.

DELAHUNTY: said council could ‘make more use of the data’ and see the ‘comparative period’.

HYAMS: cautioned against ‘misinterpreting the information’ because if there is ‘a large number of dwellings being approved in certain areas’ then this isn’t ‘the result of any one factor’. Also ‘more buildings are being approved all over Melbourne’.

Another very, very long post. Sorry! However, we believe it is essential for readers to appreciate some of what is going on within this council. In our view there are several possible interpretations:

• Councillors are starting to feel the pressure from residents regarding development, and deciding to play the ‘populist game’. Surely it is not mere coincidence that the number of objections appears to be directly correlated with the final decision? That in itself, should be a clear message to residents.
• The destruction of street after street is now apparent to all and sundry. Plus, with elections not too far away this only adds pressure to be at least ‘seen’ to be doing something.
• Is the ‘doing’ however, consistent, well thought out, and will it result in anything ‘positive’ for residents? These are the central questions!

The following report on the Bent Street application is indeed a clue to answering all of the above. Please note that:

• The existence of flat roofs had no impact whatsoever in October and December 2014, when councillors voted unanimously to allow one major development in Bent Street of 36 dwellings and another one of 55 dwellings where Lobo was the only councillor to vote against this application.Yet this current Bent Street attempt basically foundered on the fact that a ‘flat roof’ is not in keeping with ‘neighbourhood character’.
• In the October decision not one councillor spoke of ‘neighbourhood character’. In fact, Delahunty even claimed that this building would ‘fit in nicely’ with the surrounds. Only Okotel and Delahunty spoke on the item that lasted about 5 minutes!
• What is even more strange is that not one councillor mentioned these earlier decisions and the impact that they will have on ‘neighbourhood character’. Yet the current application is full of hand wringing about ‘neighbourhood character’ that has already been destroyed by these previous decisions!
• Just so that readers know what we are referring to, here are the flat roof plans for both the previous Bent Street decisions.

So, is anything changing for the betterment of residents and their amenity? All of these applications will end up at VCAT we predict and unless the planning scheme is reviewed, modified, and greater protection provided via the schedules, and a ‘preferred character statement’ for housing diversity that is made explicit, then we won’t be holding our breath. It is far too easy to blame state governments. Residents should be asking these councillors exactly what they have done in the past 6 months at least, to ‘reform’ the planning scheme. That is their duty, their obligation, and definitely within their powers. Thus far, they have done bugger all except talk of the need to do something! The time for positive action and not mere words is fast running out!

 +++++++++

Sounness moved to accept with some changes – setback for south rear side and site coverage to meet ResCode standards. Seconded by Pilling.

SOUNESS: started off by saying that development in Bent St has been ‘subject to a lot of discussion’. ‘Representations’ had been made to councillors about other developments in the street. Sounness did ‘recognise that this is quite a substantial building’ and that 31 dwellings do represent a ‘significant increase into the streetscape’. Said that the housing diversity policy does ‘speak about’ density and this is one of those sites. Went on to say that given the planning scheme and the ‘regulations’ council doesn’t have the ‘ability’ to say that this application should be ‘reshaped’. He thought that this was a ‘fairly acceptable application’ and the conditions are ‘quite reasonable’. Even though he is ‘uncomfortable’ to ‘go down the path of refusal’ wouldn’t ‘be appropriate’ mainly because of the ‘defense point of view at VCAT’. Claimed that there was some ‘difficulty’ with the way that the planning scheme ‘manifests expectations’ and what ‘neighbourhood character should be’. Wanted ‘further discussion’ with officers and councillors about how to address this. Stated that ‘evolving neighbourhood character’ is different to ‘existing neighbourhood character’ and that should be discussed.

PILLING: thought it fulfilled all the ‘boxes’ since it was one step back from McKinnon Road and close to the station. Also meets the 10.5 metre height limit. Said that it is slightly unusual ‘because of the slope’ so it will be part 3 and part 4 storey. ‘It does fit within our guidelines’ and the zone. It mightn’t be ‘perfect’ but ‘in this area’ which is close to transport and shopping ‘this is where we want development to go’. Thought that refusing the application is ‘going too far. It doesn’t warrant refusal’ since it ‘ticks all the boxes’. This is the ’emerging nature of this area’.

OKOTEL: said that her primary objection was that it ‘isn’t in keeping with neighborhood character’ and would like to see applications that ‘fit in more appropriately’ with the area. Referred to 2 previous VCAT decisions and said that neighbourhood character is also something that VCAT ‘considers to be important’ (one in Prince Edward Avenue and in Carnegie). So if VCAT considers something important then ‘so too should our council’. Policies should be ‘applied strictly’. Ended by saying that considering the ‘neighbourhood character in that street’ council should refuse the application.

ESAKOFF: this is ‘further away’ from the Bentleigh activity centre and it’s in the McKinnon Neighbourhood Centre where there should be ‘slightly lesser density’ than at the ‘other end of Bent St’. Supported the proposed conditions to ‘make right the site coverage’ and the ‘northern light’ but it doesn’t address neighborhood character and ‘we’re looking at a flat roof’ where pitched roofs dominate. ‘There are too many things against this’ to give a permit.

HYAMS: said that ‘our job’ isn’t to agree with everything that objectors bring up but to ‘listen to objectors’ and ‘weigh up for ourselves’. Said he understands about the sloping land and that therefore it isn’t really four storeys and ‘under normal conditions that wouldn’t be considered’. He is concerned about the ‘bulk’ and ‘neighbourhood character’. The 10.5 metre height limit was put in because they anticipated that this would give ‘scope for pitched’ roofs and flat roofs that go the whole length does ‘have an impact on neighbourhood character’. ‘There’s no other building in the area that has a flat roof except in the commercial area’ in McKinnon Road. So it’s completely ‘out of character’. Said that since there is this flat roof council can either ‘accept’ or refuse the application as the ‘only alternative’. Said that there were other problems such as site coverage, overshadowing, and setbacks but these have ‘been dealt with by conditions’ so aren’t ‘fatal’ to the application because conditions have seen to them. But ‘bulk and character are fundamental’ and ‘can’t be dealt with by conditions’. At the planning conference people were talking about the impact of the new zones but this has not got anything to do with the zones and Hyams gave the example of Lee St/Nicholson Streets which was ‘built before the zones’ came in. ‘The new zones have nothing to do with this’ and ‘it could have been built under the old zones’.

LIPSHUTZ: was in favour of the application. Thought that the ‘problems’ had been dealt with ‘by conditions’ and that the ‘only issue’ is about the roof. He ‘doesn’t see that as fatal’. He would be more concerned about setbacks and overshadowing. If one house is flat roofed then he doesn’t ‘see’ this as a problem. Said that the application ‘looks like a very reasonable design’ and not too bulky.

LOBO: said that Bent Street ‘all began’ when a real estate company ‘invited an overseas developer’ to invest and ‘big money’ paid for some houses. Plenty of other offers came in and other builders arrived like ‘ants’ after the sugar. They offered to buy mostly from people ready to go to ‘nursing homes’ and ‘necessity is the mother of virtue’.   Said that ‘greed’ is destructive and ‘destroys everything’. The application is another example of ‘being ripped open by developers’. Said that Tommy Bent is probably rolling ‘in his grave’ seeing all this destruction. Said that ‘no consideration’ is given to residents about parking, ‘loss of neighbourhood character’ and infrastructure ‘strain’ and schools. The street is ‘reaching a saturation point’ and he ‘hoped’ that the zones ‘would be looked at’ to care for the community. Labor has promised to review and he hoped that ‘they keep up to their promise’. Said he received an email late the previous night about developers trying to sell two bedroom apartments and thought that as a councillor ‘our loyalty should be to residents’ and if he stands for relection in 2016 he couldn’t do this with a ‘clear conscience’ if he isn’t loyal to residents. He stood for election on the promise to oppose overdevelopment so won’t break his pledge.

SOUNNESS: said the planning conference was ‘heated’ and that there needs to be a ‘conversation’ with community about the zones ‘we have at the moment’. In his view if there is going to be density then ‘you put it near a train station’. Said that the Mckinnon station is on a ‘fairly significant line’ even though if people are heading into the city at peak hour they ‘will be standing’ because of the crush. Said that council’s ‘capacity’ to refuse ‘is limited’ because ‘our zones don’t clearly say this is wrong’ and what they do say is ‘that this is the type of thing we want to have’. Said it’s up to councillors to ‘say what we want’. In this case the application is ‘good enough’ so he will support it. He had listened to objectors but thought that there wasn’t the capacity to refuse especially if it went to VCAT.

MOTION PUT AND LOST: voting against – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Lobo, Delahunty. VOTING FOR: Sounness, Lipshutz, Pilling, Magee

Hyams moved motion to refuse permit on grounds of inconsistency with planning scheme; ‘excessive bulk’, neighbourhood character, setbacks, etc. Esakoff seconded.

HYAMS: said there are ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ elements with town planning. With the objective elements then the application with the conditions meets height limits, parking requirements but ‘where it falls down to me’ is on the subjective parts. Councillors have to look at the ‘subjective elements as well’ to do their ‘role’. Not a question of ‘right decision or wrong decision’ but for him ‘this does not meet neighbourhood character’ for the area. Referred to Bent as being the main property developer of his time.

ESAKOFF: said that she had already stated her objections to the application.

PILLING: ‘acknowledged’ Hyams’ points but that to refuse the application because of the roof was ‘going too far’. Claimed that there were ‘a lot of merits’ with this development . Referred to Lobo’s statements and that councillors ‘are here’ to ‘make sound planning decisions’ and whilst they ‘acknowledge’ residents’ concerns they also have to look at the ‘processes’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she hadn’t spoken previously because she was ‘undecided’ on how to vote and wanted to hear what others had to say first. Even though she often agrees with Sounness this time was prepared to err on the side of caution about neighbourhood character. This is ‘one of those areas where you wish for a different tool’ but the roof doesn’t fit into neighbourhood character. Said that it’s a ‘weird balance’ between ’emerging neighbourhood character and existing neighbourhood character’ and councillors need to ‘understand what our role is’ on this. Said the application shouldn’t ‘mirror’ the shops on McKinnon Road, but the houses in Bent Street. Said that it would be ‘fantastic’ to see applications coming in that are ‘sympathetic to neighbourhood character’. This is right for people to live and is ‘close to a train station’ but you ‘can’t have it all your own way’ and it needs to be ‘sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character’. So because of the ‘contemporary architectural style’ she will ‘err on the side’ of caution.

SOUNNESS: said that the motions grounds of refusal have about three clauses that speak ‘to the debate’ on neighbourhood character and didn’t think that these are ‘well worded’ . Said that it’s like the councillors saying ‘we don’t like’ what has been put up. It is then ‘a mediation story’. If the motion is successful he hoped that the developer would ‘substantially redesign’ the building. Hoped for a ‘successful outcome with the minimum of risk’.

LOBO: said that ‘it is nice to see the softening of the heart’ and hoped that this could be ‘helped further by the present government’. Answering Pilling Lobo said that ‘we’re not planners but representatives of the residents’ and even if officers ‘recommend something’ that doesn’t ‘mean we have to agree’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division.

Voting for the motion to refuse – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Delahunty, Lobo

Voting against the motion – Pilling, Sounness, Magee, Lipshutz