Glen Eira Debates

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

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.