Glen Eira Debates

We urge readers to carefully consider the quality of the arguments presented by each councillor in the following report. It concerns the 5 storey application for 18 units in Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North. We have previously commented on this in relation to an earlier application across the road and which was rejected outright. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/wheres-the-consistency/.

Worthy of note:

• Hyams’ selective presentation of the ‘facts’ – only to be shown up by Okotel and Esakoff
• Lipshutz’s continued contrariness – supports, then rejects. Perhaps Lipshutz should have a read of Moreland’s current submitted amendment where they are seeking a building design/environmental sustainability amendment and are not waiting for any ‘building code’.
• Delahunty’s wild claims of ‘affordability’ and anecdotal/personal evidence as the rationale for car park waivers. Where is the quantified council traffic assessment?
• Sounness’ implication that living near an already overcrowded park and along a tramline is justification for allowing what Lipshutz called ‘dog boxes’
• There’s also the question of why the house shown below has been zoned Commercial 1 to begin with? No one of course queried any of this!

Hyams moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Sounness seconded.

HYAMS: said that the question was whether this was the ‘right place for a five storey building’. Went on to explain that this is a commercial zone, and backs onto a house also in the commercial zone. There’s a tramline and unlike Centre Road this is ‘far more commercial in nature’ than Centre Road. Went on to say that in terms of precedents, that VCAT had already given a permit ‘further down Hawthorn Road’ for a five storey building ‘near Princes Park’ so if a 5 storey can go ‘down there’ it can go here. Setbacks mean that it will be a three storey fronting Hawthorn Road. All parking under ResCode is provided on site and only shop parking is less but since there are less shops proposed the situation for parking will mean that ‘it is an improvement on current situation’. Will be a construction management plan, waste disposal plan, etc. Balconies will also be screened to avoid overlooking. This is ‘quite a reasonable application in this area’.

SOUNNESS: conditions considered overshadowing and other issues. Applicant has ‘made a very good effort’. Sounness does recognise that ‘five storeys is quite a substantial size’ but that part of the city can handle more density because of the ‘proximity of the park’ and the tram routes. Said that the ‘turntable for cars’ is something he hasn’t seen for a long time so that’s a new feature.

ESAKOFF: said that she would have liked to see ‘the deletion’ of one floor. That would be a better ‘outcome’ even though the property next to it is also zoned commercial even though ‘it is a residential property and is lived in as a home’. So the ‘impact on them’ for 5 storeys ‘is not a good one’. Car parking would also ‘be better with one less floor’. Said that parking at Balaclava Junction is ‘damn near impossible’. Said she wouldn’t be supporting a 5 storey building. Added that the 5 storey further down Hawthorn Road ‘got up’ because of VCAT and that there weren’t any ‘residential interfaces’ since this site is next to Maple Street Rec Centre and other shops alongside.

LIPSHUTZ: supports this because it is ‘well designed’. It is ‘set back’, and ‘ticks all the boxes’. But he was also ‘concerned’ about the impact on the house and parking. Said that when he first ‘came on council’, three storeys were ‘being knocked back’ and now there is five, six and seven storeys. Said he doesn’t want to see ‘huge developments’ which end up with ‘borrowed light’ but that this is a State problem and council can’t ‘deal with it’ because there aren’t any ‘building laws which say you can’t build dog boxes’. ‘That’s what you’ve got here’ and there will be ‘more and more’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff’s comment about lack of car parking, especially for the retail since the 3 offices are being replaced and the development is providing 1 car space instead of 4 required for the retail and she thought it was ‘important’ that car spaces be provided for ‘those who are working in retail’. ‘One car space is not enough’ and especially since policy dictates that there be more.

DELAHUNTY: supports the motion and said that ‘I don’t love it’ but that she ‘doesn’t hate it enough’. Said it’s only 18 so height of building ‘doesn’t mean a whole lot’ in terms of ‘intensity’. Claimed that she ‘doesn’t have any trouble parking there’ but does have trouble ‘sometimes’ with her bike because of the mass of people ‘in and out’. Said she didn’t see any problem with lack of retail parking spaces and that when such spaces are underground they aren’t even used. Borrowed light isn’t an issue with the conditions put on such as being able to open the ‘opaque window’ so that ventilation and light can come through. Thought that it’s important to ‘realise’ that ‘we’re not being asked to live in the building’ and ‘not being asked to buy the property’ but this ‘keeps property prices down’ so people can afford to live there. It’s important to ‘encourage’ people ‘into the area who have all sorts of different socio-economic backgrounds’. Thought officers had made this ‘reasonable’ and that it is ‘environmentally friendly to have shop-top dwelling’ near transport.

MOTION PUT: VOTING FOR – Sounness, Delahunty, Pilling, Magee, Hyams,. VOTING AGAINST – Lobo, Esakoff, Okotel Lipshutz. Motion carried.

Pilling moved motion to accept Option B (ie no Heritage Overlay sought by Council). Lipshutz seconded.

PILLING: thanked residents for petitions, emails on issue. Said that he’d been living in the area for 20 years and didn’t know ‘the existence of this property’. Council has had ‘a position’ on the property since 1996 and it wasn’t protected. Tonight council has to ‘balance the needs’ of the purchaser who ‘acted in good faith’ with the planning scheme and the need to ‘address some community concerns’. Thought that Option B met these two needs because they are sending this to an ‘independent’ umpire. Said that Option A was ‘too late’ since after ’20 years’ not to ‘have a position’ and that Option B was a ‘reasonable take’ in trying to balance all the positions.

LIPSHUTZ: began by ‘quoting’ Aristotle in saying that ‘old does not make heritage’. Said that there had been ‘numerous reports’ on the building and ‘every study’ had decided not to put heritage listing on the site. He agrees and the situation ‘now is unfair’ to the seller and the purchaser. Opting for Option A is to ‘involve yourself in a commercial decision’ and ‘frustrating a reasonable buyer’. going to Heritage Victoria is the appropriate course of action. They will decide and he ‘doesn’t see that council should be involved in that’. Even if Heritage Victoria doesn’t see it as fit for heritage listing then ‘we can come back’ and act. Permits are required so council could decide not to grant a permit for demolition or to review the issue. Option B provides ‘protection to all parties’ and if the Heritage Report doesn’t see the property as fit for protection then ‘council still has an option’.

SOUNNESS: said there was a municipality wide review of heritage but that ‘things happen’ and things get ‘altered’ and ‘overtime there is a reassessment’. The current situation is that council has ‘commissioned’ independent consultant and they have come back recommending Heritage protection because it is associated with history and place. Said that this means that ‘heritage values need to be respected’. Said that ‘conversations’ are taking place at both state and council level on this and the community has spoken via over 900 signatures on a petition. Said he would like to think that council can ‘recognise community concern’ and also the history concerns. Didn’t want to say anything about the purchase being ‘at risk’ because ‘that’s not for me to do so’. Hoped that ‘demolition can be avoided’. Said that if Heritage Victoria didn’t think it has state significance then the property ‘loses its protection’ of the interim order. So where does this leave council? Thought that the history does have value.

OKOTEL: began by saying it has been a ‘difficult issue’. Went through the consultant’s report saying that it identified ‘historical significance’ and even the Glen Eira historical society and the National Trust also see signficance. On the ‘flip side’ the vendor and purchaser are not for profit organisations and have both gone to some expense ‘in this process’ and that a new aged care facility is ‘something’ that is needed. The property settlement is conditional on ‘permit approval’ and it would therefore be ‘too late to apply a heritage overlay’ but since settlement hasn’t yet happened council could look ‘to apply heritage overlay at this point’. Thought that council needs to provide ‘certainty’ to community and ‘those involved’ even if it takes 18 months and that council should start the process ‘immediately’. By going to Heritage Victoria this could just ‘delay the process further’ especially if they decided that heritage doesn’t apply. Said that she wouldk be basing any decision on the current consultant’s report, on the Historical Society’s views and the National Trust views, so there is ‘sufficient evidence’ to support the need for a heritage overlay.

ESAKOFF: her ‘preferred option’ was to ‘wait until we’ve received the report from the State Government’ but she wasn’t sure if others supported this option. She would like to ‘proceed’ in this way because ‘it would give us one more report, one more opinion’. Said that assessments can be different whereas the first report didn’t recommend heritage and this one does, ‘clearly there are different views’. She would like another report and ‘see what that report says’ but since that isn’t the case ‘I have not made up my mind’ and she will be listening to what others say. Said the issue was complex and that the place had only closed recently but ‘by the state of the place’ she thought it ‘must have been longer’ and that ‘I’ve heard it isn’t in a great state’. Council has got Option A and Option B and there are ‘positives and negatives’ on both sides. Wondered whether the fact that once upon a time a former councillor resided there is enough to make it ‘worthy’ of protection. ‘That may be’ and there is a ‘connection’ but whether it’s a ‘strong connection is debatable’. Worried about the ‘loss of aged care’ and it would be ‘a terrible crime to lose that’ option. Council worked on heritage from 1996 to 2003 and they used the C+ criteria for designating places as heritage worthy. Claimed that this meant of ‘local significance plus worthy of retention’ whereas c was local significance but not worthy’. No objections ‘back then’ and from what councillors of the time told her it was an ‘horrific time’ and ‘polarising issue’. ‘It wasn’t a good time’. Therefore to ‘reopen that’ she didn’t know if that is ‘good or bad’. Said the changes to the building are a ‘factor’ and so if the fact that most heritage properties are ‘on a main road’ and ‘not hidden away and certainly visible’ from streets.

LOBO: ‘what’s wrong with Glen Eira trying to knock off iconic buildings?’ First there was the conservatory and ‘now we are going for Frogmore’. He has had phone calls from 11 people on the matter and didn’t think that ‘we should pre-empt what the State Government is going to say’. Thought that ‘people’s sentiments’ have to be taken into ‘account’. ‘we must give a chance for people’s feelings’ and for them to see that ‘we’ve done all we could as councillors’.

HYAMS: said this ‘was a tough one’. Said he had read the report and the 1996 view was that it wasn’t in a ‘heritage area’ and couldn’t see ‘how this is all that relevant’ and possibly makes it ‘more valuable’ because it’s a ‘rare’ example then. ‘On the other hand’ the fact that there are ‘late additions’ and the building is hard to see make it ‘a bit less valuable’. With the current assessment he’s ‘not convinced that it’s history’ unlike Whitlam’s house because he was an important person. More because it’s architecture is important. If it hadn’t been purchased he would be leaning towards applying heritage but ‘in this case’ there are competing values – protecting heritage values but also making sure that people ‘can rely on our planning scheme’. Plus the need for more aged care.

Heritage can be ’emotive’ but this is an ‘imposition on the affected people’ and both are ‘charitable organistions’ and both provide aged care who ‘won’t be able to do what they intended to do if we heritage list’ the property. Plus ‘they’ve gone to the huge expense of putting the money down’ and this was all ‘done in good faith’. Council made an assessment and ‘they thought this was an assessment they could rely on’. But he does care about heritage and was president of the Glen Eira Historical Society so ‘it’s really a matter of weighing up competing interests’. Thought it was important that ‘stakeholders’ can ‘rely on our planning scheme’ and waiting for the government’s decision is ‘going to help in this case’ because they tend to look at State significance and council has to look at local significance. So ‘reluctantly’ he thinks he is going to ‘vote for the motion’.

DELAHUNTY: hadn’t made up her mind and was listening to others and found it hard to ‘weigh up competing values’ but in the end has to ‘look at what’s in front of us’. Has to ‘ignore’ the old assessment because it’s got criteria that ‘I wouldn’t necessarily agree with’ and wouldn’t agree with some criteria in the new assessment such as a local councillor having lived there. You also ‘have to strip away’ the issue of current and future owners. Thought that it was ‘unfortunate timing for all parties involved’ but council has to make a decision. In the end there’s an old assessment that ‘says by the narrowest of margins that this shouldn’t be included’ in heritage and a new assessment that says it should. So she will ‘go’ with the new assessment.

MAGEE: thought the matter was ‘simple’ either you ‘want to save it or you don’t’. Said you can ‘feel the history just standing next to it’. Councillors have different views and values and here councillors have the opportunity to let a building ‘survive’ and even if Heritage Victoria knocks it back then he still wants it known that Council wants to ‘save it’ via an amendment’. The community ‘certainly wants to save it’. So ‘it’s incumbent on us to give it every opportunity’ so it can be saved.

PILLING: said he knows all councillors are concerned about the property but also concerned about ‘two organisations’ providing aged care that is ‘sorely needed’. Thought that Option A ‘really penalises those two non-profit’ groups. They acted in ‘good faith’ and he supports Option B because it ‘does give due credit to them’ whilst ‘acknowledging there could be heritage value’ on the property. ‘To go down the Option A is just a mixup’ and raises uncertainty with the planning scheme overall. When people apply under the planning scheme they ‘know what the rules are’ and ‘we stick to those rules’. This provides ‘surety to a whole range of residents’. Option B gives credit to these organisations and still offers the opportunity for heritage.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: VOTING FOR OPTION B – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS. VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY,OKOTEL,SOUNNESS,ESAKOFF. MOTION LOST.

Souness then moved motion to accept Option A (ie apply Heritage overlay via amendment). Seconded by Okotel.

SOUNNESS: Said that he’s not looking at aged care or anything about the sale but purely the question of whether the building is worthy of heritage protection. Said he’sk got sympathy for those affected and that aged care is important but that’s not what he has to decide here. Said that they’ve argued the principles ‘back and forth’ and initiating an amendment is the way of ‘testing’ these heritage principles. Asking for an amendment is to start the process for this testing.

OKOTEL: the latest report should carry the same weight as the 1996 report but it does ‘highlight issues that the earlier report omitted’ and that it is ‘important’ that council ‘now turns its mind to those issues’. It mightn’t be state significance but is of ‘local significance’. Council should also consider the historical society’s views and the National Trust.

PILLING: said this could signal the ‘death’ of the project and he ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if both the vendor and the purchaser ‘just walk away’. Aged care is needed in the municipality. The motion is the ‘death knell’ for that.

DELAHUNTY: hoped that the ‘purchase goes through’ and that it remains an aged care facility and that the historical significance of the site is maintained.

SOUNNESS: said that if the sale falls through then ‘that’s not what I’m here for’ but also ‘that’s what I’m here for’. Sees the need for aged care but also sees the need to care for the ‘aged buildings’ of the municipality as well as its people. Conlcluded by saying that without an appreciation of history of a place they lose the history and mistakes are repeated.

MOTION PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR – SOUNNESS, LOBO, DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL. VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS

Item 9.3 – Neerim/Belsize Ave, Carnegie – 4 storey 35 dwellings

Hyams moved motion for 4 storey building and 30 dwellings plus increase in visitor car parking and retention of 3 trees. Delahunty seconded.

COMMENT: It took Hyams approximately 7 minutes to read out the motion. With a packed gallery, and usually only about 10 sets of agenda items available, it is impossible for people to fully follow what is going on. We see no reason why council cannot provide hard copy of motions that are so lengthy or, even better, provide an overhead so that residents can follow.

HYAMS: started by saying this is a Residential Growth Zone and on Neerim Road, so ‘four storeys is appropriate’. The proposed height is less than the allowed 13.5 metres but he ‘accepts’ the objectors’ views that ‘it should at least comply with ResCode’. Also ‘front’ is Belsize and not Neerim Road leading to the increases in setbacks along Belsize. Said that with the increased setbacks it ‘is likely’ that there will be even less than 30 dwellings. Went through all the setback requirements, landscaping requirements, screening, etc. On parking, council is asking for visitor car parking that ‘meets ResCode’ since ‘that’s all council can ask’ for. Accepted that this won’t make ‘objectors happy’ but saw it as a ‘reasonable compromise’. They could refuse, it will then go to VCAT, and council hasn’t ‘put conditions down’ and VCAT will give developer ‘what they want’. People ‘might clap in chamber’ but could be ‘worse off’. He’s ‘about achieving the best possible outcome rather than being popular’. Said he has asked officers to look at a ‘residential parking scheme’ and the possibility of moving ‘no parking signs’.

COMMENT: Once again there is fudging of the facts! If council rejects an application and VCAT becomes involved, then council must submit its version of what is ‘acceptable’. This submission in effect does put ‘conditions down’ as Hyams would well know.

DELAHUNTY: thanked residents for letting her into their houses since there were quite a number of ‘sensitive properties’ near the site. Thought it was ‘important that we respond to that’ and the motion ‘finds what is allowable’ and ‘what makes sense’ and that the ‘modifications have done this’. One tree protection condition isn’t relevant anymore since the developer and occupant of the house have come to their own agreement. Said that the motion for this ‘really big block’ sets out what is ‘fair’ for people living in the street. Her sister is trying to buy a house so Delahunty has been to many auctions and it ‘galls’ her that real estate agents ‘aren’t forthcoming’ about the zones before and after. As a financial advisor she can’t talk about certain things but real estate agents can say that it’s a residential zone and therefore ‘the highest form of ownership’ and ‘not telling the full truth about what can happen in these zones’. Said that all governments ‘encourage infill developement’ in areas like Carnegie because it is ‘environmentally responsible to do so’. Hoped that both developer and residents can ‘live with this’ because it’s the ‘right response’.

COMMENT: ‘environmentally responsible to do so’?!!!!!!! No need to say more on this little gem.

ESAKOFF: said that there had been a lot of ‘fiddling around’ on this application and that she had ‘tried very hard to lessen the impact’ especially to 23 Belsize Avenue. Said there was a ‘substantial increase’ in setbacks for the ‘upper level’. Hoped that both applicant and residents would accept the conditions. Didn’t want this to go to VCAT because ‘we’ve seen some really awful results’ whilst ‘also some good ones’. Went through some of the other conditions – ie site coverage, acoustic fences, visitor parking. Said that objectors had been comparing this to a decision in Mavho Street, Bentleigh and that they are similar – ie residential growth zones and ‘having the same issues’. So ‘it’s not a cut and paste’ but looking at the context.

LIPSHUTZ: said it would be easy for councillors to either approve or reject applications. But here a lot of thought has gone into ‘how best to alleviate’ the situation. He ‘wouldn’t like to see this in my street’ but ‘given it’s going to happen we have to try and find a middle way’. Thought the conditions were ‘the right way to go’. Said that anyone listening should realise that they’ve ‘very carefully’ looked at the application and looked at setbacks, etc. and that they haven’t just ‘rubber stamped it and said ‘yes’.

OKOTEL: said that is it ‘essential’ that councillors ‘look at what is appropriate’ and the motion ‘does do that’. Said that by increasing upper setbacks it ‘significantly reduces footprint of this building’ and does ‘achieve a balance’ with neighbours. Went through conditions again like car parking and acoustic measures.

LOBO: said again that the ‘zones are cutting to the bones’ and that Belsize is a ‘beautiful street’. He ‘was called by the residents’ and there was also a reporter there. Said that ‘people were anxious’ and that ‘they have spent their life savings’ on their properties. ‘It may not be our fault’ but it’s the government that ‘wants to get as many people as possible’ into these areas. Said large part of Australia ‘is empty’ but if they keep ‘building, building building’ then on infrastructure ‘you and me will have to bear the cost in rates’.

SOUNNESS: wasn’t entirely ‘happy’ with the application but had to look at ‘how we can apply densification’ of the area and thought that the motion would be a ‘defendable position’. Thought that this would go to VCAT and that the ‘arguments can be pretty challenging’ but thought that council’s position could be ‘defended adequately’.

HYAMS: thanked Esakoff for her work on this. Objectors had asked that main driveway be on Neerim Road. Hyams said this would cause a major redesign of the application so couldn’t do that and Vic Roads prefers driveways not to be on main roads like Neerim. Said that emails talked about the new zones and that the ‘only difference’ with the new zones was height limits and it’s the ‘people of Carnegie’ who should know best that the new zones aren’t responsible because there was a lot of development there before. So ‘it’s not the new zones’ and that there’s going to be a population of 7 million and ‘we need to cater for that’. Glen Eira is ‘stuck with its share of infill’ even though some people ‘mightn’t like it’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division and was the only councillor to vote against.

Council minutes of 31^st August 2010 record the following sentence in response to a public question – Under no circumstances are variations to standards allowed if they compromise safety. Given this unequivocal response, it would be fascinating to know exactly how many dispensations Council has granted to developers, or failed to enforce the standards, on developments for underground car parking – in particular ensuring the adequacy of sightlines for exiting cars. How many of these subterranean canyons have been allowed to exist that potentially endanger pedestrian safety? How many near misses have you experienced from cars exiting their steep driveways and you simply couldn’t see them until the last second?

Here are some examples from a range of material we’ve been sent by residents.

We urge all readers to carefully consider this post. In our view it encapsulates all that is awry in Glen Eira concerning planning, namely:

• The utter lack of consistency from application to application
• The failure to adhere to council’s own planning scheme and zoning
• The unbelievable lack of logic
• The reliance on pseudo and irrelevant argument (ie VCAT, open space, etc)

Item 9.2 – 7 storey application for Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick

Delahunty moved to accept as printed. Seconded Sounness.

DELAHUNTY: began by saying that the motion was for a ‘shorter building’ and some ‘rearranging’ (ie 5 storeys instead of 7). Felt that this addressed most, ‘but not all’ of the objectors’ claims such as zones and area. She felt that officers had done as much as is ‘possible’ considering that this is a main road with good transport options. There’s a 7 storey building not yet started nearby and Delahunty said she was ‘very uncomfortable’ with that at the time. Said that when this came up there was ‘shocking open space’ and with all the new people coming into the area she was concerned about how council would ‘address’ the issue of lack of public open space. But now, ‘I feel much more comfortable’ since council has got a ‘strategic plan’ and ‘soon a very robust funding source’ so she now feels more ‘comfortable’ that this will be ‘a building that can be absorbed into the streetscape’. This application has got different zoning to the 7 storey building (ie Mixed Use) and this application for 7 storeys in terms of ‘scale’ is ‘inappropriate’. Now that officers have reduced the height to 5 storeys this ‘allays many of the privacy’ concerns of objectors. What is still ‘missing’ as pointed out by objectors is the ‘traffic’ impacts and that’s something that council needs to ‘take on board’ in future. Since it is on a main busy road that traffic is something that ‘we will have to deal with as separate from this application’.

SOUNNESS: said that people had contacted him and were pleased with the fact that this was now reduced to 5 storeys and he supported ‘their position’ since a 5 storey is ‘much better’ than a 7 storey building. He still felt ‘uncomfortable’ though about the ‘intensity of the building’ but that’s what the ‘planning zones speak about’ so he can’t see any good grounds to reject or amend since it is likely to be approved if it ‘goes to VCAT’. As for the ‘architectural’ features this is really all ‘in the eye of the beholder’. He recommends the proposal.

ESAKOFF: said she hadn’t made up her mind as yet and whatever she decides it will be with a ‘heavy heart’. Was worried about the ‘amenity impact on neighbouring properties’ especially the proposed ‘balconies to the east’ where they had received photos from residents. Even though they will receive sunlight it will ‘still be a major amenity impact’. There is a NRZ of 8 metres to the north so even a 5 storey building ‘will be a disappointment to say the least’. The site is ‘at the fringe of the activity centre of Elsternwick’ and ‘outside the boundaries of the urban village’. Therefore she felt it needed ‘more transition to what is essentially a tram route’. VCAT ‘allowed’ the 7 storey building opposite and that one ‘abuts a GRZ and not RGZ’. She thought that this application needed to be of ‘less intensity’ and that a ‘four storey building would have been more appropriate here’. With tramlines they allow 4 storeys but ‘there may be the odd 4’. Also concerned about the ‘border to border building’. Said that in the past she had tried to get the ‘old fashiioned’ conditions that would allow a ‘backyard with a clothes line’ or roof top gardens but this ‘seems to go nowhere’. When people said they are ‘happy’ with 5 storeys, she thought it was more a case of ‘damn relief that it’s not going to be 7’.

HYAMS: this was a ‘difficult one’ because it backs onto NRZ and is ‘outside the urban village’ and there’s a 7 storey going up nearby. Council has ensured sufficient visitor parking to ‘meet policy’ and it presents ‘as a three storey podium’ plus a Construction Management Plan. Since the other 7 storey building hasn’t started as yet there’s the possibility that both developments will go on at the same time and cause disruption but he didn’t think there was anything council could do about that. Asked Akehurst and the response was that at ‘critical times’ council could ensure that Yorston Street wasn’t blocked off. Hyams then said that the Waste Management Plan would ‘stop 60 or 70 bins being out on the road’. Even though he’s got some ‘sympathy’ for Esakoff’s views, because of the site of this application, he will support the motion.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was causing ‘concern’ because since they don’t have in their planning scheme anything about size of apartments or ‘how big a back yard is’ and that’s his ‘concerns about general development’. So they can’t look at this and everywhere ‘there’s an issue of traffic’. However, ‘if I was to listen to that and take that as my primary issue’ then he would have to reject every application since there isn’t enough infrastructure in Victoria – ‘trains and trams don’t cope sufficiently’. On this application he asks himself ‘where else’ could something like this go except on a ‘main road’. He wouldn’t accept 7 storeys but 5 storeys ‘is appropriate’ and there is a ‘trend’ on Glen Huntly road for ‘larger style buildings’. He also needs to be ‘practical’ in that he could ‘easily reject’ this but it will go to VCAT and they will say that ‘I haven’t turned my mind to it properly’ since he has to sit here in a ‘quasi judicial’ position and ‘working on planning laws’. These laws ‘allow this building to happen’. So the officers have ‘mitigated’ some of the ‘major problems’. At ‘the end of the day it’s a general compromise’ and it will be ‘appropriate’.

LOBO: thought that ‘Mixed Use Zone should have a stop somewhere’. Said that ‘we cannot afford to have schools, massage parlours’ in streets. Schools should be in ‘places where there is more open space’. Before with a smaller population it was okay to have Mixed Use.

MAGEE: asked Lobo to ‘come back’ to the item.

LOBO: ‘yeah, yeah’. Said he ‘wasn’t going to philosophise on the residential codes’ but he ‘definitely’ wasn’t in ‘favour of 7 storeys’ since this is a ‘monstrosity’ and will lead to other 7 storeys. This will ‘completely spoil the present beauty of Glen Eira’. Wasn’t saying that councillors ‘have destroyed the beauty’ but that they are ‘guided by the Minister’. Whoever is the Minister next week should ‘be told that he needs to revise the planning scheme’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Eskoff is right in that councillors weren’t ‘completely comfortable with what is going on’ but they are ‘all aware of our obligation to provide housing’ and her view is that this ‘doesn’t have to include a garden’ since her kids won’t be able to afford a garden. So they will have to provide ‘high density living where high density is appropriate’ such as ‘tramlines, close proximity to trains’ and the right sort of ‘infrastructure’ and in ‘this case public open space’. This site ‘is very close to public gardens’ . Went on to say that on the issue of sunlight, this provides sunlight when people aren’t home so there are ‘anomalies’ in the notion of ‘adequate sunlight’ that ‘needs addressing at a level’ higher up than council. Said that parking is now ‘more appropriate’ with 2 less storeys. Hoped that there comes a point when they can ‘influence behavioural change’ and that people don’t use cars and that ‘the more’  car sharing and other options are looked at then it will be more likely to ‘become a reality’. Ultimately even though ‘we’re not comfortable’ with the application she thought it was an ‘appropriate response to that site’ and that ‘traffic is something we have to look at as a council’ down the track.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo called for a division. Those voting in favour: LIPSHUTZ, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS, OKOTEL, PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE. Voting against – ESKAOFF AND LOBO.

There are ostensibly some very strange goings on in the Glen Eira Planning Department. Up for decision on Tuesday night is an application for 7 storeys and 44 dwellings along Glen Huntly Road. 34 objections came in. The Torres report recommends 5 storeys and 33 dwellings, plus waiving of car parking for shop and loading bay.

We remind readers of a previous decision on a 6 storey Hawthorn Road application that was rejected outright. The argument there was that this height would be far too much for the neighbouring General Residential Zoning (ie 3 storeys) that abutted the site. The Glen Huntly Road application abuts NRZ properties (ie 2 storey) plus GRZ areas. It therefore seems that a three storey difference between the abutting zones is acceptable for Glen Huntly Road but not acceptable for Hawthorn Road as revealed by these contrasting comments from both reports –

Glen Huntly Road – Limiting the height of the building to 5 storeys will ensure there is a more appropriate transition in building heights between the subject site and neighbouring properties located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Hawthorn road – The General Residential Zoned land to the west has a known future height limit of 10.5m or 3 storeys. The transition of the 6 level proposal to the existing residential land to the west is considered to be too abrupt to the substantially single storey dwellings. This holds even if the land to the west is ultimately developed in accordance with the GRZ provisions.

But there’s more! On internal amenity (and please note that BALCONIES are equated with ‘internal’ amenity) we get the following –

Glen Huntly Road – The internal layout results in some balconies being perpendicular to the boundaries. This appears to be an architectural response to ensure uniformity with window locations and other elements within each elevation. In order to improve penetration of natural light and ventilation to each balcony, it is considered that a minimum width of 2.0m with area of 8m² should be achieved. This will provide a reasonable level of internal amenity for this commercial setting without detracting from the architectural integrity of the building.

Hawthorn Road – Each apartment is designed to maximise natural light to habitable areas in response to the east-west orientation of the site. The layout and design of the development will generally result in functional, well-proportioned dwellings with good access to daylight, direct sunlight and adequately proportioned balconies. The number of apartments with south facing balconies has been minimized and is considered acceptable for this commercial setting and the constraints of the east and west orientation of the site.

In the end we have to wonder why there should be such inconsistencies. Also worth mentioning is that the Hawthorn Road application had 15 objections and was rejected. The Glen Huntly proposal drew 34 objections and has had two storeys lopped off plus conditions imposed. We can only speculate as to the reasons behind these recommendations and wonder who perhaps knows who and whether or not North Caulfield (apart from the C60) is deemed as generally worthier of ‘protection’ than other suburbs?