Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.3: BOLINDA ST APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept officer recommendation to refuse application and Magee seconded.

PILLING: began by describing location – ie minimal change, alongside park – and then went on to say that it’s been rejected because ‘for the last ten years’ council policy has ‘discouraged’ second store dwellings at the rear of properties. Admitted that on ‘corner block(s)’ they allowed such applications but with ‘appropriate setbacks’ and because this was near parkland it shouldn’t have ‘special dispensation’ from policy. Thought the recommendations were ‘appropriate’ since ‘this is contrary to what we’ve tried to achieve’ and ‘sets a precedent’ about houses alongside parks. Therefore ‘we need to try and apply our policy’.

MAGEE: started by saying that the site would have to be ‘rated amongst the top sites’ in Glen Eira. He didn’t ‘think for a minute’ that ‘local amenity’ wouldk be affected but the recommendations are a ‘sensible outcome’ and the ‘simple fact that we do have a policy’ and then the ‘personal view comes into it or it doesn’t’ and the question of whether ‘this is the right thing to do’. ‘It wouldn’t be allowed in the house next door’ or behind so councillors are ‘conflicted’. Overall ‘it’s not consistent without current policy’ and ‘not fair to residents’.

LOBO: called the site ‘an ideal place’ and promised ‘not to bang the table’. ‘I don’t believe that we have not made an exception’. Stated that this ‘looks at the park’ and that there’s another development that ‘looks at the kittens’ and asked ‘what is good – to look at the kittens or look at the park?’. Said that since no objections and ‘residents are happy with neighbours’ he doesn’t see ‘any problem’. ‘Policies, policies, policies – who made them?’ Asked whether these policies were the ‘ten commandments’? ‘Policies can be bent’ but not the commandments. Thought that the recommendations were ‘cruel’.

ESAKOFF: said this was ‘difficult’ and that it ‘should’ be seen as a corner block  and allowed double storey in rear, but on the other hand ‘I don’t necessarily agree with that practice’. There are always neighbours. Said that what complicates this further is the lack of objections. ‘Suggested that to approve this may cause a precedent at VCAT’ but she wasn’t ‘so sure’ about this since it would be seen as a corner block and ‘that doesn’t create an issue at VCAT’. Admitted that the application ‘complies’ with other standards apart form 1m front setback which she thought ‘is no fatal flaw’. Claimed that she didn’t know ‘how I’m going to vote’ so wanted to listen to the debate and ‘vote accordingly’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’. Went on to say that since there weren’t any objections and that it ‘abuts’ open space he would ‘reject’ the recommendations. Foreshadowed another motion on conditions. Reiterated that ‘we have to look at each case on an individual basis’. Said he was ‘concerned’ that council ‘should be adhering to policy’ and that VCAT wouldn’t be impressed if they didn’t stick to policy – but ‘equally VCAT’s record’ is that they ‘look at things individually’ so since VCAT ‘is so all over the shop’ he thinks that ‘no harm is done’ and that it’s ‘appropriate’ to make an exception on this application.

SOUNNESS: said that ‘this is a park’ and council is the ‘custodian’ of such facilities so council shouldn’t set aside ‘the requirements and policy’. Was worried that in the future all properties abutting parks would suddenly ‘bob up’ with two storeys.So this is an ‘uncomfortable precedent to have’.

OKOTEL: agreed that there is policy and it’s ‘important that we do apply our policy’. Stated that you should look at the reasons why there’s specific policies and in this case it was to prevent ‘overlooking’ and ‘visual bulk’. She felt though that the policy ‘doesn’t consider situtions like this’. Thought setbacks could be better but overall when applying policy councillors ‘need to look at the purpose of those policies’ and ‘what we are intending to protect’ so the ‘recommendations perhaps goes too far’.

HYAMS: this is ‘tough one’. Noted that those in favour of policy here weren’t in favour of policy in the previous item (Morton Ave. Thought that the policy on back yard double storeys was ‘pretty black and white’ and it was ‘to protect neighbourhood amenity’. Even though there are no objections, the policy is put in place not just for the ‘current owners of land’ but also for ‘future owners of land’ and if ‘future owners don’t like it, they don’t need to buy it’ and that would answer that argument. Thought in the end that ‘it is appropriate’ and they can’t complain that VCAT ignores their policies and then they do so themselves. But ‘we do need to look behind those policies’ to see the objectives and if amenity isn’t affected then maybe it’s not so bad. And council does put in side by side 2 storeys all over the place, with setbacks anyway. Said he looked at another motion if this one is lost about increasing upper floor setbacks.So since noone is affected here apart from the developer Hyams set that he is ‘going against gut feeling and policy’ and rejecting the recommendations.

PILLING: objections are ‘only part’ of the process and only ‘one consideration’ and besides ‘residents move on, owners change’. Saw this as ‘contravening’ policy and if the application was successful then he didn’t like the idea that this could be seen as ‘special treatment’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

Lipshutz then moved an alternate motion that LASTED LEAST 10 MINUTES IN READING OUT. During his recitation it was literally musical chairs with councillors getting up and leaving chambers. Seconded by Lobo.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to repeat what he’d previously said but the conditions imposed were ‘appropriate’ and looks at overdevelopment in the future.

LOBO: ‘now we are talking’. Said there were residents who sent in photos of brick walls that planners see as ‘visual bulk’ so there’s a brick wall between Renown and Bolinda St. Said that ‘residents were fooled by the real estate company’ in the first motion. Pilling raised a ‘point of order’ at this point on relevance and Lobo responded that the ‘relevance’ is why ‘they put in this application’. Said that the ‘reason I”m standing here is that the house was about to be collapsed’ and that’s why there’s this application since the house is ready to be bulldozed. That’s why ‘the motion’ is ‘fully justified’.

DELAHUNTY: said she would support the motion because it ‘does represent’ a ‘compromise’ and ‘was a hard decision to make’. They have to decide the application and ‘what is acceptable to the area’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that this is ‘a compromise’ and the reason why an application comes in is irrelevant.

MOTION PUT AND LOBO REQUESTED A DIVISION.

IN FAVOUR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams, Magee, and Okotel

AGAINST: Pilling, Sounness.

COMMENT

Ah, the inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and past comments really come back to bite some of these councillors on their backsides. Here are just a few gems from the past, taken from our reports on previous council meetings and councillors’ utterances.Dates provided relate to the dates of our posts.

ESAKOFF : “an application either meets policy or it doesn’t” (March 24^th, 2013 )

MAGEE: ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’ (March 24^th, 2013)

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme. (March 24th, 2013)

LIPSHUTZ: ..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’…. (June 13^th 2012)

PS: A reader has sent us the following image which clearly illustrates the woeful traffic situation in Morton Avenue. Please keep this in mind as you read the ‘debate’.

Below is our continuation of the Morton Avenue ‘debate’ aka debacle. Just for the record, we have also gone through the minutes of this new council in order to highlight the hypocrisy, lack of consistency, and sheer humbug that represents planning argument by these councillors. On each of the decisions listed car parking requirements were waived – whether this be onsite resident parking, visitor parking or loading bays, or a combination of all.

ESAKOFF: moved motion for 5 storey, 33 dwellings, 1 shop and a visitor car parking to 4 spaces. Seconded by Okotel. Esakoff didn’t say much except that this was ‘more in keeping’ and that since there’s already a permit for 5 storeys then ‘this was more in keeping’ with the area. On car parking Esakoff stated that this was a waiver of 3 and ‘this was fair’. Moreton Avenue is ‘busy’ so ‘it’s important that onsite visitor parking is provided’ and her motion would make it ‘nearly adequate’.

OKOTEL: even though this is ‘overdevelopment’, 5 storeys is ‘more resonable’ than 6 storeys and with the increased parking requirements and the ‘reduction in dwellings’ that residents ‘in that street’ will be better off.

PILLING: claimed it was ‘ironic’ that in providing more car parking spaces it could be seen as inviting ‘more cars to the area’ and ‘that’s the  opposite of what we probably want’. Went on to say that if people are worried about ‘congestion’ then giving more car parking spaces will only ‘bring more cars in’. Spoke about ‘precedents’ and how other councils have given permits for developments near railway stations minus any car parking provisions. Glen Eira needs to be more ‘flexible’ on this because the result will just be ‘bringing more and more cars’ into these areas ‘which doesn’t help anyone’.

MAGEE: ‘everyone knows’ that in Glen Eira there’s an ‘unprecedented need for housing’ and there are plenty of areas where ‘we struggle to build’ places. ‘We have to supply affordable housing in those areas’ that they think are ‘acceptable’. Said that ‘we’re failing with this motion’ by not accepting the ‘opportunity’ that the site presents. Stated that every time in sites like this if they keep taking off a floor then it ‘reduces the opportunity to maximise not just the investment’ but ‘returns to us the community’. Went on to speak about ‘amenity’ and the impact of 4 more ‘units doesn’t stack up’ to the ‘need for community housing’. Thought that ‘we need to be a little bit braver’ and ‘seize the opportunities in front of us’. ‘It doesn’t get any clearer than this’ and council is ‘missing a great opportunity’ here.

SOUNNESS: said that things are a ‘little bit incongruous’ and ‘wished that we as a council group can form a clear picture’ of what’s the future for these areas because ‘we can’t have dense development and car parks’. Said he saw this happening in other areas like Murrumbeena, Elsternwick etc.

DELAHUNTY: didn’t want the discussion on parking and encouraging users onto public transport be ‘laid to rest’ and that there should be a ‘look at impact on future traffic flow’. There was the need to determine ‘what we want’ things to be like and ‘how we can actually make that happen’. Said that she would ‘bring this up at a later date’.

HYAMS: thought that the issue boiled down to whether visitor car parking ‘encouraged people to drive’ or whether ‘they are just going to drive anyway’. He thought that the ‘reality’ is that people will drive regardless. Therefore ‘incumbent on developers’ to provide parking spots. He’s therefore in favour of visitor car parking because not having this won’t stop people from using their cars. So ‘visitor parking is still important’.

ESAKOFF: didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the building ‘one iota’. Problem is parking and ‘it will be a long time’ before behaviour changes so there’s a need for parking. What will hapen is that with no parking then people will park ‘in the nearest possible’ side residential streets and ‘impact’ on these people’s amenity. She’s therefore ‘trying to avoid that impact on the wider community’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST. Hyams admits that now ‘I don’t know what to do’!!!! Chaos now reigns supreme for about 5 minutes whilst everyone runs around trying to figure out what to do and drafting another motion. At one point Pilling wanted to move the original motion again!

Pilling then moved the motion for 4 car spaces and seconded by Lipshutz. Pilling didn’t speak to his motion at this point.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he voted against first motion because his ‘concern’ is parking.

OKOTEL: asked if they made the application include car parking spaces ‘where would they go’ on the plan?

AKEHURST: basically said that this would force down ‘the number of dwellings’

OKOTEL: asked if the top storey was removed whether the developer would have to ‘reduce the amount of greenery’ around the site and the setbacks?

AKEHURST: said he didn’t think this would happen.

OKOTEL: asked if he thought there would be ‘a reduction in open space’

AKEHURST: the decision is being made on ‘the basis of the plans submitted’ and the conditions imposed would be making one change.

PILLING: this was a ‘compromise’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Here are previous decisions, all taken directly from the minutes. Readers should note the previous comments from Lipshutz and Hyams and how they stack up against the comments represented above! 

127-131 Gardenvale Road (November 27^th 2012) – motion carried. At the time this is what Lipshutz said: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’. Hyams in turn stated the following: “‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment 

At least on this occasion, Esakoff and Okotel were consistent on their advocacy for visitor car parking.

483-493 Glen Huntly Road (Feburary 5^th, 2013) – Lipshutz and Sounness moved this motion for reduction of car parking, visitor car parking, loading bay, etc. Motion carried. On this one even Esakoff and Okotel voted to accept. 

687-689 Glen Huntly Rd (February 5^th, 2013) – Lobo and Delahunty moved to reject application. Motion lost and subsequently Pilling and Lipshutz moved to accept. Motion carried. 

645-647 CENTRE ROAD (April 9^th, 2013) – Magee and Delahunty moved to accept. Motion carried. 

451-453 South Rd (2^nd July, 2013) – Pilling and Magee moved to accept. Motion carried unanimously. 

261 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH (August 13^th, August) – delahunty and lipshutz moved to accept. Motion passed unanimously. 

674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST (24^th September 2013) Pilling and Okotel moved to accept. Passed unanimously.

This is the first part of a very long post, which we’ve interspersed with our own commentary on the continual nonsense that issues from the mouths of all our elected representatives. We are admittedly having great difficulty in deciding whether most of these councillors are just plain ignorant and haven’t done the necessary homework or, whether all their utterances are designed to deceive, beguile and play to the audience. Or whether they simply don’t give a damn and are only going through the motions. Whichever, one thing is absolutely clear – they are not up to the job in any shape or form. The following illustrates this completely.

MORTON AVENUE APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept and seconded by Magee

PILLING: stated that this was a ‘key site’ being ‘opposite a railway station’. Supported the officer’s recommendation and said that recently they’d lobbied and been ‘successful in getting new zones’ and this application ‘falls into 3%’ of the municipality and ‘it’s the only zone which hasn’t got height restrictions’. Pilling also said that ‘6 storeys in this location is quite acceptable’. Said that all round there really weren’t any residences – a library, carpark, etc. Claimed that people ‘shouldn’t shy away’ from the fact that the city is protected and that 3% around activity zones is quite acceptable. ‘We should be true to what we’ve been advocating’. Acknowledged that there was some concern about the reduction in visitor car parking but this could be ‘justified’ by the nearby VicTrack  public car park. Went on to say ‘that we are encouraging high development in this area’ so that people will end up using public transport. ‘This is in keeping of where we were aiming for’.

COMMENT: Pilling should definitely check his facts – the Commercial zone is NOT the only zone within Glen Eira that does not have height limits. The Mixed Use Zone (of which there are 23 within Glen Eira) is also without prescriptive height limits.

MAGEE: said that when an application like this comes up then ‘we know’ that parking will be an ‘issue’. Then ‘you go through things that as an individual councillor concern you’. Claimed that this ‘meets every criteria for a six storey building’ and for ‘the right building in the right place’. ‘It’s a very good looking building’ and ‘I think it’s a responsible height‘. Said that there’s an ‘abundance’ of car parking nearby and  ‘visitor parking isn’t such an issue’ because ‘evidence based’ information says that this is after hours. Said he hoped that it ‘does meet the community’s expectations’. ‘I believe that this is the right building at the right place and certainly at the right time’.

COMMENT: A bit rich for Magee to comment on ‘community expectations’ when the community has NEVER been provided with the opportunity to state clearly what its preferred height limit is in any area of the municipality. We would also advise that Magee sits down and carefully reads the government guidelines on higher density development. We certainly doubt that he has! We also love the appeal to ‘evidence based’ data. We interpret this to mean any data that is provided by the developer’s traffic consultant!

OKOTEL: said that this is a ‘gross overdevelopment of this area’ since Morton Avenue is ‘small’ and already has many ‘new developments’. It’s already ‘congested’ and made worse by ‘traffic’ and there’s a ‘lack of amenity’ for those people already living there. ‘It is incumbent on council to consider that’. Reported that in 2003 VCAT approved a 4 storey dwelling in Morton Avenue but ‘at that time Morton Avenue was a very undeveloped area’. Now ‘ten years on’ this is a ‘completely different area’. But since council has since approved a 5 storey development nearby it would therefore ‘be fair’ for this to also be five storeys. Said that infrastructure was ‘lacking’ and that turning into Koornang Rd is ‘a nightmare’. Visitor car parking is also ‘of great concern’ and ‘we do need to look at our policies and what we require’ and that even if one storey is lopped off there would still be ‘inadequate car parking spaces’. Spoke about how residents can be impacted by such developments and the lack of amenity. Said that potentially this means ’80 people’ moving in and finished by saying that ‘this is not an appropriate development’.

COMMENT: ‘need to look at our policies’!!!! Well, all we can say is that this is why you and other councillors are there! When was the last time that the Road Safety Strategy came up for review? When was the last time that Parking Precinct Plans were even thought about? When did council last successfully introduce any parking overlays in its Planning Scheme? What on earth have these councillors been doing – except to mouth the platitudes that certain policies need to be ‘looked at’!!!!!!Actions count and not public grandstanding!

ESAKOFF: agreed with Okotel that 6 storeys, 40 units and waiving car parking is ‘a little too much’ for the ‘busiest corner of Carnegie’. Said that if they start waiving 7 car parking spots then they’re ‘asking for incremental trouble’. She would ‘like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’ but ‘would consider a waiver of perhaps three’. Agreed that if ‘there’s a place, this is the place’ but ‘it is not providing sufficient parking’ and for her this has ‘always been a sticking point’. Foreshadowed a motion for 5 storeys. Went on to say that ‘in an ideal worls’ she’d like to see ‘something happening’ up on roofs as part of open space such as a garden or just ‘a space’.

COMMENT: ‘would like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’. Wow! Perhaps someone should point out to Esakoff that there are standards in the planning scheme that council, including herself, simply like to ignore. Here are just a few of decisions FROM 2013 that have waived car parking, and/or loading/shop front parking bays! And all have been given the stamp of approval by councillors themselves – often in unanimous votes. It’s a bit difficult then to swallow the guff about providing what’s necessary when waiver after waiver is granted, not by VCAT, but by councillors themselves.

645 – 647 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST

198-202 BALACLAVA ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH

483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD ELSTERNWICK

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH

We also have to ask whether a waiver of 3 car parking spots does NOT REPRESENT ‘INCREMENTAL TROUBLE’ OR IS 7 SOMEHOW THE MAGICAL NUMBER?

SOUNNESS: was in support of the recommendations but had some concerns. Thought it was ‘good to have people’ close to transport, and a good facade which this has. Was worried about the lack of 3 bedroom units. Said that there are similar zones in Glen Eira and that greater density will be happening and that council ‘will be facing pressure’ from developers for 6, 7 or even higher buildings. Claimed that there has to be a ‘range’ of dwellings and not just ‘boxes’. He will support the recommendation, but he sees this issue as ‘lacking in Glen Eira’s policy’.

COMMENT: Oh dear – another councillor who does not know his own planning scheme and community plan. The scheme clearly states the need to encourage a ‘diversity’ of dwellings including 3 bedroom units. The fact that council does nothing about this is another matter. Please Sounness, do your homework. It’s a year now since you’ve become a councillor and should at least know the basic but unimplemented vision!

HYAMS: didn’t have ‘a problem with the height’ because it’s the ‘right place’ and ‘next door to a five storey building’. Conceded that there are one storey houses in Sheppason Avenue but ‘they won’t even be able to see’ the building because of setbacks and the 5 storey building. Was worried about parking and that there is ‘policy’ and that the ‘reason why we have policy’ is to make Glen Eira ‘a whole better place to live’ and they adhere to policy when they consider how the ‘amenity’ of other people is affected. Said it was hard to get parking in the area and ‘especially on a Saturday’ so ‘we should continue to do what we can’ to make developments have sufficient car parking. Putting in more stackers won’t solve the problem. All that will help is ‘reducing’ the number of units. Thought that ‘it is important that we try to stick to our policies’. On that ‘basis’ he is against the motion.

COMMENT: good to know that ‘policy is policy’ (but only when it suits) since in the past Hyams has clearly stated that applications should be looked at on a case by case basis! Wonderful rhetoric that leaves room for all kinds of inconsistencies and political manoeuvring!

DELAHUNTY: ‘as a general rule’ she believes in ‘sustainable development’ and that higher density has to go near railway stations, etc. This is good for ‘traders’ and ‘the city’ and that it’s ‘council’s job to make sure that the traffic flows’ and also ‘encourage’ people to use alternative modes of transport. ‘The only thing’ with this application that worries her is the lack of visitor car parking. Said that council’s policy on visitor car parking ‘is not necessarily consistent’ with other councils’ guidelines. She is ‘torn about this’ but will support the recommendation. Admitted that ‘it might set quite a precedent for that area’.

COMMENT: what a pity that Delahunty doesn’t acknowledge that without height limits, without parking overlays, without any attempt to introduce structure plans for activity centres in the past decade, there is no such thing as precedent! Anything goes, and it’s already long gone!

PILLING: ‘this is the right area’ for this development. Thought that there ‘has to be some flexibility around visitor car parking’ and the problem is also level crossings so have to be ‘flexible’ about the car parking and get people to use transport. ‘Balancing’ the ‘pros and cons’ he thought that officers ‘had got it right’ and ‘it’s in line with the zones’ 

MOTION PUT AND LOST 4 TO 5.

VOTING FOR – MAGEE; PILLING, SOUNNESS, DELAHUNTY

VOTING AGAINST: ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ; HYAMS, LOBO

Part 2 will focus on the next motion from Esakoff that also went down in a flaming heap! and nor did it lift the level of debate as readers will see.