GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

May 1, 2013

The Conservatory ‘Debate’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space
[14] Comments 

Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:

  • For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
  • Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
  • If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
  • Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!

LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.

DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.

MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.

LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’.  Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.

SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.

OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey.  Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.

ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.

HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’.  Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’.  ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.

LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.

Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.

 

April 30, 2013

Tonight’s Voting!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[5] Comments 

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Lipshutz moved the motion to accept recommendations. Delahunty seconded. The final vote went 5 to 4 to accept motion.

In favour: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Delahunty, Okotel

Against: Lobo, Pilling, Sounness, Magee

We will report on the ‘debate’ in the days ahead.

Item 9.1 – Railway Cresc. application

Esakoff moved motion that instead of 3 storeys and 10 dwellings this be reduced to 3 storeys and 8 dwellings plus including a visitor car park. Lipshutz seconded. Even though Lobo spoke against the motion, the final vote in favour was unanimous.

 

 

April 26, 2013

Business As Usual!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Some very, very interesting items on the agenda!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

Once again it takes 3 council meetings for the Records of Assembly from early March to be placed in the public domain. A few things to note:

  • On three separate occasions there was the notation that “the CEO left the Room.” Once concerned the CEO KPIs but the other two items stated: “Compliance with the Local Government Act.” What is going on? More lawyers? More expense? More witch hunts? And why is this not recorded as a declared potential ‘conflict of interest’? Surely officers are bound to also declare any potential conflict when certain items come up and that this be accurately reported in the minutes?
  • On the Centre of the Racecourse, we get this:

“Advised that the invitation to the Mayor of Glen Eira to give a speech on the opening day function for the improvements to the centre of the racecourse had been withdrawn.

Advised that Racing Victoria and not the MRC had funded the MRC’s synthetic training track in the centre of the racecourse.

Cr Hyams further advised that he and Council’s other Trustees on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust were updated on Trust matters.”

BENTLEIGH DEVELOPMENT

Another recommendation to allow 3 storey development, even though the original permit was for 5 dwellings (2×2 bedrooms and 3×3 bedrooms), but this has now doubled to 10 as well as ALL being 2 bedroom! So much for ‘encouraging’ diversity! Notification also leaves a lot to desire – 5 properties notified, 8 notices sent and 47 objections!

 

CAULFIELD PARK CAFÉ

Back to the drawing boards on this one – or merely the typical council ploy of delaying expenditure until the place is so run down that the argument invariably becomes – demolish and build a café?

QUARTERLY REPORTING

We remind readers that a public question was asked at the council meeting of February 6th, 2013. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?” (Minutes of Feb 6th 2013)

Council’s response, included in part the following: “The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

It is clear that the gulf between what is stated and what is done are miles apart. The Quarterly Report DOES NOT include ‘information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee’. All it does is present data on those applications which end up at VCAT. Hence, the community still has no idea of how many applications are granted by DPC, their nature, nor the refusal in a format that is clear, accessible, and comprehensive! So much for transparency and accountability.

FINANCIAL REPORT

  • Not a single word this time about ‘liquidated damages’. Compared to the tedious repetition of the past months this might be seen as an ‘improvement’.
  • The delaying of various projects (some until 2014/15 budget) – regrassing of ovals, etc.
 

April 10, 2013

The Show Goes On!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Local Laws Committee

LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel.  On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.

COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?

Sport and Rec Committee

LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.

MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.

COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!

VCAT WATCH

Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.

DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.

COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.

 

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION

 

MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.

SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.

PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.

HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.

MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.

AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.

COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:

1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information

2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?

3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!

Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.

MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

April 9, 2013

Academy Award Night

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[6] Comments 

Several events were unique at tonight’s council meeting.

  • Esakoff did not utter a word
  • Lobo was absent with no mention by Burke of an apology or failure to give an apology as required
  • The minutes of the CEO Contractual committee meeting minutes VOTED UPON we presume, were not included in the agenda items even as a ‘late addition’.
  • The sale of McKittrick St went through without a single reference by anyone that a potential developer was acquiring public land for a piddling $20,000 on land valued at $66,700
  • Souness and Pilling moved an amendment requesting more information on the Centenary Rd car park and loss of open space. This was defeated by all other councillors and the original recommendation accepted unanimously.
  • Racecourse item involved much chest beating. No councillor trustee declared a conflict of interest.
  • Public questions were abysmally answered as per usual.
  • Lipshutz’s inconsistency in argument is definitely worthy of a place in the Guinness Book of World Records

We will provide full commentary on the above in the days ahead.

 

March 19, 2013

A (Very) Brief Report

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s)
1 Comment 

Here’s a very brief rundown on tonight’s council meeting. A full report will be forthcoming – we’re just highlighting the decisions. As predicted, and after much huffing and puffing by certain councillors, it was decided:

  • The Special Racecourse Committee is now defunct – unanimous
  • The council ‘position’ on the racecourse is affirmed – unanimous
  • The planning application went through after the motion to refuse was defeated.
  • Plenty of public questions on Ajax footy club, Gardener’s Rd incursion into public open space. As usual, pathetic non-answers to the vast majority!
  • Hyams declared that he does not have a conflict of interest as a Trustee. Tried his usual little Dorothy Dixer to Newton to score a point against the Labor Party but was called on a point of order by Delahunty.
  • Lipshutz was absent but well ‘deputised’ by Pilling!

All in all a fascinating evening of selective memory, chest beating, and playing to the gallery and posterity.

 

February 26, 2013

Vale Democracy! All Hail Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[16] Comments 

Burke read the petition. Lobo spoke first and said that since Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are ‘mentioned’ in the petition that he ‘believed there is a conflict of interest’ and that these individuals shouldn’t be in the chamber when the petition was being discussed. Hyams responded that since Lobo’s comments ‘didn’t relate to the running of the meeting’ that this wasn’t a point of order. Hyams went on and said that he trusts that ‘the next time you put your hand up for a committee’ or deputy mayor or mayor that he would declare a conflict and leave the meeting.  Delahunty moved to accept the motion and Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: short and sweet and basically moved to accept

MAGEE: said nothing

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

PILLING: said that this is the first time he’s had a petition like this which ‘is really a personal attack’ and ‘defamatory’. Thought that there are time when ‘you should draw a line in the sand’ on ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and that council needs to have ‘some standards’ so in that context he won’t be supporting the motion.

LOBO: fully understood what Hyams had said and that ‘i’m a councillor as well’…’I didn’t feel too happy when you said there are no grounds’. Mentioned ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of choice’ and the importance of saying what one feels and that’s why he’s been put in this council by Tucker Ward residents

ESAKOFF: wasn’t going to speak and doesn’t want to give this ‘any further oxygen’ since it doesn’t ‘deserve any’. The petition is ‘vexatious’, ‘nasty’. ‘Unfortunately it’s been moved and seconded’ whereas she would have preferred for this to ‘lie on the table’

DELAHUNTY: felt obligated to move the petition since it’s ‘come before us in the proper manner’ but ‘accepts’ that those councillors named may find it ‘vexatious’. Lipshutz made a good point about acknowledging the work of Magee in that ‘he certainly brought matters to the fore’ and ‘raised the profile of the MRC’ in the community. She hoped that the new trustees would be able to ‘carry on that momentum’ and that the community ‘would like to see a review of the trust structure’

MOTION PUT. IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING PETITION – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE, LOBO
AGAINST: Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness, Okotel

 

February 10, 2013

Guess Who’s “The Greatest”!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

When will the sheer, unadulterated arrogance of Lipshutz cease? When will the level of argument in this council rise above the facile and puerile? When will logic and fact, replace hyperbole? When will residents finally listen to debates that are worthy of that name? When will the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth actually be stated? These questions arise out of the ‘debate’ on the Significant Tree Register. Please read carefully and make up your own mind whether many of these individuals are worthy of their soon to be voted in pay packets that will cost ratepayers approximately $340,000 per annum!

Pilling moved the motion: “That Council proceed to introduce a classified tree register where there is a Local Law requiring a Permit but only for those high quality trees which Council has included in the register”. Delahunty seconded.

PILLING: Stated that Glen Eira ‘doesn’t have tree protection on private property’. He thought the motion was ‘appropriate’ and that it was a ‘fairly moderate scheme’ and that it would probably effect only 100s of trees rather ‘than thousands’. Said that the other option available was to ‘introduce a local law’ that’s ‘governed by the size’ of the tree which would ‘catch a lot’ of trees. The ‘previous council’ agreed upon ‘a moderate start’ and that the local laws committee had already done some of the work and he would ‘like to see that work continue’ and that council introduce the register to ‘protect significant trees’. ‘It’s a step in the right direction’ and that there are ‘different views around the table’ but that council does ‘regulate’ things on private property such as fences and that he sees ‘significant trees in the same way’. He thought that ‘most people do look after their trees’ but ‘this will stop the unnecessary removal’ of trees and ‘goes some way to achieve that’….it’s a short step, it’s a modest step’

DELAHUNTY: agreed that it’s a ‘moderate’ step and probably ‘a little too moderate for my mind’. Said that regardless of what her values might be ‘it’s in the community plan’ and for the community is ‘clearly important’ and ‘this is what we’ve been elected to do’….’I’ll be gutted if we can’t introduce’ the register and the city will stand in clear contrast ‘to some of our neighbours’ if we can’t ‘protect some of our most beautiful trees’.

OKOTEL: talked about the expense of this and trees on private property that can’t be removed. There will be ‘ongoing costs…..increased red tape’ and ‘continuous discussion’ about what is or is not a significant tree. She thought that residents ‘are more than sensible enough to know’ what’s a good tree and ‘what’s appropriate to maintain’ and ‘to make those decisions for themselves’.

ESAKOFF: didn’t support ‘tree protection’ and that people in general ‘do appreciate the value of trees’ and that people don’t remove trees ‘without good reason’ ( such as property damage, or dangerous). Thought that people ‘should have the right of choice’ over their own property and shouldn’t have to pay to get a permit to prune, or ‘being forced’ to hire an arborist to ‘report on whether they should be allowed to prune’. Accepted that there are a ‘range of views’ and that some people would feel that ‘they are over-governed’ and to introduce a tree register ‘will only cement that view’. Existing mechanisms include town planning, so that if there is a significant tree then town planning conditions are ‘put in place to protect them’. There are also ‘large penalties’ for ‘breach of those conditions’. Other safeguards are landscape plans, 4 metre setbacks and open space requirements which means that more trees can be planted. ‘There are enough hoops to jump through’ without adding to them.

MAGEE: said that a property in Mckinnon was sold but before it sold 2 lovely jacaranda trees went. Developer then had ‘no problems’ in applying for a permit. Believed that he should decide what trees are on ‘my block’. This will ‘only cover 1% trees in Glen Eira’. Trusted council’s arborist to say what’s a ‘significant tree’ or not. Said he’s ‘got a problem’ with cutting down trees ‘in suburban streets’ just for the sake of ‘cutting them down’. ‘We have to start somewhere. This is a moderate approach’. There are beautiful trees in East Bentleigh. One was a redgum in the school and it was removed because it provided ‘too much shade’ and he would ‘hate to think’ that this can happen because someone thought that a tree had ‘too much shade’. Something is needed to ‘protect significant trees like that’. ’We should have some say in what happens to the amenity of our suburbs’.

SOUNNESS: Glen Eira is ‘lush’ and not ‘concrete city’. Should start ‘negotiations’ with private property owners if they have significant trees. It won’t be simply ‘ah this is 2 metres’ it’s got to be significant. Said he wasn’t a ‘tree expert’ but ‘trusts people who are’ and then can be considered if ‘those things’ are worthy of putting onto a tree register. It won’t stop trees being cut down but the ‘start’ of a discussion. So he supports a tree register.

LIPSHUTZ: said this has been up to council a ‘number of times’ and council has changed its mind a few times. Doesn’t support a tree register for the reasons basically outlined by Esakoff. Said that his worry is that ‘I don’t trust the arborist’…’I don’t trust the people who make the heritage decisions’. He sees heritage advisors saying it’s heritage but ‘I see nothing heritage about it’….’it’s in the eyes of the beholder’ since there’s ‘no scientific way of saying this is heritage or this is a significant tree’. Said that laws exist. Reflected on his personal trees but ‘over the last 20 years’ they’ve gone because they were ‘ordinary specimens and they’ve been replaced’, Now he’s got ‘nicer’ and ‘better trees’….It was my choice to do that’. Doesn’t want people telling him ‘this is the way to do it’. Local laws committee has ‘investigated’ this and ‘gone a fair way down the track’. In the end it’s about ‘making a decision on your tree’. Didn’t believe it’s ‘our’ role to ‘implement this law which infringes on our rights’.

HYAMS: no ‘right or wrong’, 2 solid arguments and where to ‘draw the line’. 1st argument is that people should have the right over their own property and ‘if you took that to the absolute limit’ then no one would ever need ‘a planning application’. Second argument is ‘desire to preserve amenity’. Take this to the ‘absolute degree’ and you’d ‘never allow anyone to change anything’. Most people are in the middle. The issue has a ‘long history’ and it’s being considered again because there is a ‘new council’ and they wanted to ‘ascertain’ that there was ‘council support’ ‘before we do any further work on it’. Said that they’d looked ‘at various ways of doing this’ such as planning scheme amendments. That wasn’t feasible because it would mean that putting in a tree ‘would take forever to do it’ and if a tree was ‘dangerous’ it would involve a very ‘cumbersome process’ to get rid of it. Other councils have measures (ie diameter, height) but ‘just because a tree is big doesn’t mean’ it’s good. Claimed they looked at other councils and it just involved a lot more ‘red tape’ to get permission to cut down a tree. Last council decided upon a tree register which provides a ‘degree of flexibility’ because dangerous trees or trees that damaged property could be ‘removed ‘fairly quickly’. Said this was similar to heritage &  planning applications which council opposes because it will have ‘an undue impact’ so this is a ‘small step’ in ‘preserving what is good about our neighbourhoods’. He thought it would ‘be far fewer than 1% of trees’ and that the goal is to protect the ‘absolutely outstanding trees’ that ‘anyone would be devastated to see cut down’. When comparing amenity and people’s rights then ‘the way to go’ is for ‘limited tree protection’

PILLING: Hyams is right because it’s about ‘striking the right balance’ and will ‘make an improvement’ to the city. Mentioned the c87 and minister’s approval and thought ‘that’s a good thing’ and this is ‘a good thing for the community’. It’s the ‘right balance’ between ‘going too far one way’

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – VOTING FOR: Pilling, Hyams, Sounness, Delahunty, Magee, Lobo

VOTING AGAINST: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel

COMMENT: And so ends the saga of ‘significant trees’. At least ten years in the making and probably another two years before the compilation of any miniscule register is completed. We wish to point out:

  • No real mention of ‘moonscaping’ in this discussion – developers suddenly do not exist
  • No statements on who will decide what goes on the register and what the criteria will be. For example: will residents be provided with the opportunity to nominate trees – either their own or others? Will councillors? Or will it all be left in the hands of officers and their paid for ‘consultants’?
  • What of ‘objection rights’ by residents? Or will council ensure that the butchers come in the dead of night and ‘poof’ the tree is gone – aka Packer Park?
  • What’s the policy (versus practice!) on notification?
  • What processes of ‘verification’ will be in place? Will arborist’s reports be made public especially since everything is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ according to Lipshutz
  • Will this be cemented into the Local Law for the next 10 years and not ever reviewed in the meantime?
  • Why can other councils hold forums, public consultations, provide discussion papers on this important issue, and in Glen Eira residents don’t receive any opportunity to comment – apart from the sham call for submissions when the Local Law must be advertised?
  • Why are the stated objectives of the Community Plan nothing more than empty words on paper that amount to nothing?

PS: Following an email from an alert reader we’ve done a little more digging and discovered the following resolution dating from the 27th April, 2011 –

“Crs Pilling/Tang
That Council:
1. Creates a classified tree register based on identification of trees which meet the criteria in attachment 1, and

2. Drafts a Local Law to give effect to management and protection of trees listed on the classified tree register.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED. ‘

Further, the minutes of this meeting include a draft ‘tree selection criteria’  (uploaded here) of which one reads: “outstanding size”. Perhaps Cr. Hyams needs to refresh his memory given his remarks re size?

Hence, we interpret the latest resolution that passed as a complete watering down of the 2011 resolution. We must also question the governance issues that surround this. For example:

  • Should the 2011 resolution have been formally rescinded first – especially since it is not within a bull’s roar of the current resolution? (of course, Glen Eira Meeting Procedures do not have such a clause! – how convenient!)
  • Why wasn’t there any ‘selection criteria’ included in this last meeting?

We will cease and desist for now, since the questions are numerous; answers non-existent, and due process and good governance totally lacking.

 

February 8, 2013

Magee’s Request For A Report & Car Sharing

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Magee’s report asked for whether in the ‘last few years’ demand has been ‘matched’ by supply for sports grounds. He also asked that included in the report be information on whether clubs have ‘exceeded their allocation’ and whether players have been turned away. Also asked for ‘advice’ on recreational ‘uses of the land’ in the ‘centre of the racecourse reserve’ if horse training was gone. He wanted this information in a ‘conceptual format’ rather than a ‘detailed format’ and that it should look at both ‘active and passive recreation’ and ‘not limited to soccer, football, netball’ and cricket. ‘all weather surfaces’ should also be looked at. This report should be ‘attained’ via external, qualified consultants. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said his past experience has shown that they could have had more teams but these couldn’t be ‘accommodated’ because of lack of allocations and grounds so they had to tell kids to ‘go to Murrumbeena’ to ‘make sure they played somewhere’. Claimed that many clubs complain that they’ve applied for so many allocations but only been given a minimum of grounds. ‘how do we turn away these children?’ Said that there are 40 or 50 extra teams that ‘we can’t accommodate’ so its ‘throughout the municipality’ and not just one club. Went on to say that he looks at the racecourse and after ‘going through contract after contract’ (as a trustee of the racecourse) and knowing what the centre ‘was meant to be’ (park, recreation, racing). ‘It has never been used’ as a recreational park. Said that in 2 years time there is the end of one maintenance lease and that the view of the trustees is to get rid of this and ‘incorporate the centre of the racecourse into a 21 year lease’ so that in ‘2 years time we will miss the opportunity’ to do anything. He wants an ‘independent’ assessment and if the report come back saying that the ‘centre of the racecourse is not suitable’ he would accept it but ‘doubts’ that this will be the outcome of the report. He wants to know how many kids have not been part of organised sport because they couldn’t be ‘accommodated’. Not fair on administrators and clubs and having to say to kids ‘you’re a victim of your own success’. this is an opportunity to ‘get all the facts, all the figures’. Could cost $10,000 but thinks that ‘at some point’ this council has to say – “here is our plan for the centre of the racecourse’ and sport in Glen Eira. ‘Where are we in ten years time’ whether council will still be saying ‘bloody racecourse – we should be using that’ space. Said that people ask where ‘training is going to go’ and that he’d pulled out press releases which showed the government pouring ‘heaps of money’ into Packenham and Moe racecourses who are welcoming new trainers. Moving training to these areas shouldn’t ‘upset too many people’ but will ‘make a huge difference to the people of Glen Eira’. Mentioned the agreement which said that the MRC ‘wanted training removed’ because it costs them 1 million per annum but noone is doing anything. Council ‘needs to be proactive’ because nothing ‘has happened’ in the past decade and unless they get active, nothing will happen in the next ten years except that in 2 years time ‘a 21 year lease will be signed’. With state and federal elections looming council should be ‘advocating’ for the proper split of the racecourse (park, recreation, racing). councillors shouldn’t oppose this request for a report because it’s ‘not an action’ and not saying that we’re ‘doing anything’ just calling for information ‘so we can plan’ about the next 5 or ten years.

DELAHUNTY: supports the motion. Need for ‘strategic thinking’ because ‘there’s no bigger issue’ in Glen Eira. Said council has to get it right and decisions have to be ‘underpinned’ on the ‘basis of knowledge’ and ‘independent reporting’. Said that with the MRC current ‘financial status’ she doesn’t see how they can turn away training and its their job as councillors ‘to make our position known’ that ‘they need to seek training elsewhere’ and ‘rearrange their business’. Said that the Caulfield Village will provide them with money so they should be able to move training elsewhere. But the c60 also says ‘how many more people are going to be calling for open space’ and if council does nothing then those people will have a ‘brilliant view of those horses training’ and they won’t have anywhere to do their own jogging. That’s ‘not right’. The report will tell them the potential uses of the land.

Lipshutz asked how much the report would cost. Burke replied that it would be in the ‘vicinity’ of between $8000 – $15000

LIPSHUTZ: ‘commended’ Magee’s ‘passion’ but logic was needed because Council doesn’t ‘own the racecourse’ and even the MRC doesn’t – it’s the trustees. The only way to settle the issue about the centre of the racecourse is to ‘advocate’ that the trustees be abolished and that a committee of ‘community management’ be set up which is ‘independent’. Everyone knows that the ‘majority’ of trustees are ‘in control of the MRC’ so this has to be dealt with first. Said that the agreement was ‘the best we could get’ at the time. He also wants to see ‘training go’. Council could spend the money and get the report ‘based on a theory’ and the future lease ‘will be signed irrespective of what we do’ because the MRC ‘controls the trust’. He supports the first part of Magee’s request for a report but not the. second. You can look now and see what you can put there. You don’t need to ‘plan that’. Recalled the Caulfield Master Plan and said that when they implemented that, council was criticised because they were implementing a plan that ‘was ten years old’. So getting a ‘conceptual plan’ that only tells us what we ‘already know’ isn’t ‘going to achieve a hell of a lot’. Part 2 of Magee’s request is ‘nonsensical’ and a proposal which isn’t ‘appropriate’ and to spend $150000 on a plan that is only going to ‘gather dust’ and a ‘total waste’. ‘Let’s advocate’.

OKOTEL asked whether the open space strategy review will be looking at the ‘actual uses’ of that open space. Burke answered ‘not in relation’ to the racecourse. It also won’t ‘go into detail’ because it’s not land that is ‘directly under council’s control’. Okotel repeated and clarified her original question asking whether the open space strategy would look at the ‘potential uses’ of open space. Burke then said ‘It will’ but not necessarily ‘in relation’ to the MRC site.

LOBO: said that what they’re not realising is that if the report is $15,000, then the value of the land is $2 billion. Said that ‘we need to exercise our authority’ and help all those kids who are missing out.

SOUNNESS: supports the first part of the report ‘wholeheartedly’ but the second part lacks a ‘little clarity’. He understands ‘the principle’ and wants to see how the relationship with the MRC develops.

PILLING: said that the request was unusual because ‘it does involve cost’ and request for reports don’t usually do this. Because elections are coming up he did see ‘some merit’ in having an ‘advocating tool’. Thought that the money was ‘reasonable’ to ‘move things forward’

HYAMS: even though Glen Eira is short of open space, the centre of the racecourse shouldn’t be ‘seen as a panacea’. races will continue on Saturdays so you wouldn’t have sporting games then. You’d also have to build pavilions and other facilities and this would mean that people couldn’t see ‘right across the racecourse’ which is necessary. Supports the request except for the call for an independent consultant becaue he has ‘faith’ in council’s recreation department to do the job ‘more quickly’ because no need for tender and they’d probably get ‘the same result’. Asked Burke if ‘he felt officers would be capable’. Burke said ‘yes’ that they’ve got the sufficient ‘experience’ and skill.

Hyams then wanted to move the amendment that the last sentence be removed. Magee didn’t agree so Hyams moved the formal amendment. Okotel seconded.

Magee spoke against the amendment saying that ‘it was crucial’ that this remain not because he doubted officer’s ability but if they’re going toj present this to outside parties like government it was important that it be seen as entirely objective.

DELAHUNTY: also didn’t see the request for independents as a ‘comment’ on officers. It was a step to ‘ensure’ that it be seen as ‘independent’. It’s not ‘frivolous’ spending of money.

LOBO asked about the indpeendent off leash review how much it cost and was it independent. Hyams said he didn’t know off hand. Burke confirmed that it was done by an independent. Hyams then followed up with saying that on this issue officers didn’t have the necessary ‘expertise’ in the area so that’s why it was independent. Lobo then reaffirmed that it was ‘independent’ and that it would ‘be good’ to also get independent ‘advice’ here.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR THE AMENDMENT – OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, HYAMS.

VOTING AGAINST AMENDMENT – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, PILLNG,SOUNNESS

MAGEE: summed up by answering Lipshutz’s statement that the land was MRC’s land. He said ‘it’s crown land…it belongs to you and me’. Trustees are ruling body and that government has been called upon to review this. Went into the make-up of the trustee and said that ‘it’s in the mind’ of the premier and minister’s that ‘there is an issue here’ , Said that positive ‘comments’ had been coming from local MPs such as Southwick  that ‘he would like to see training gone’. Repeated that ‘this is a call for a report. Nothing more’. The money is ‘well spent’. Council needs to start ‘developing a policy, a framework, a direction’. For ten years nothing’s been done and no council has done anything about ‘opening up the centre of the racecourse’. There’s been a lot of talk but he’s seen ‘very, very little’. Said that there’s now a pathway and toilets but years ago those who parked in the centre of the course complained that they were ‘getting dirty’ getting to the stands because the grounds were muddy and if they ‘had to go back to their car’ there were ‘no toilets’. So the MRC did this and called it a ‘community thing. It’s for racing’. ‘It’s a great community asset if the community can get in there’ when they have to wait for the ‘gate to be opened…if the gate opens’. Said we need report and councillors to support him.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR MOTION – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, PILLING, SOUNNESS, ESAKOFF

VOTING AGAINST – OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ

PS: Here’s the Leader’s story/article on this issue –

Glen Eira Council to spend up to $15,000 investigating the availability of sports grounds.

  • Andrea Kellett
  • February 08, 2013 1:09PM

GLEN Eira Council will spent up to $15,000 investigating if local sports clubs are turning players away because of a lack of sports grounds.

An independent recreation specialist will be paid to advise the council, instead of council officers.

The specialist will also be instructed to look into opportunities for more sport in the city if horse training was relocated away from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

Councillors clashed over the cost of a specialist, but agreed on the need for more open space, the need to look into claims that sports clubs were turning children away and the need to consider opportunities at the racecourse reserve.

Councillor Jim Magee told the meeting there were “40 or 50 extra teams that we can’t accommodate”.

Does your sports club have to turn players away? Tell us below.

“How many children in Glen Eira have missed out on playing sport?” he said.

“It’s crucial to the credibility of this report that it’s independent.”

CAR SHARING

SOUNNESS moved the motion that council ‘monitor’ the car sharing work done by other councils and that a report come back to council ‘in twelve months time’. Delahunty seconded.

SOUNNESS: started by saying that we all ‘drive cars’ and therefore need to park them ‘somewhere’ and that some people even have more than one car. Car sharing is one option but it’s ‘an idea’ and it needs to ‘mature’ which ‘isn’t here at the moment’. ‘Personally’ he thinks it’s a great idea and that it would be a ‘worthwhile community asset’ but only ‘when the time is right’.

DELAHUNTY: supports car sharing ‘very strongly’ and as this ‘moves forward’ in other councils, then Glen Eira should also have it. As a municipality close to the city it makes great sense to have car sharing especially around train stations. When others come from other muniicipalities and park in the car sharing spots then it’ll be good for local traders and environment. ‘we will keep a close eye on this’ and in 12 months she is of ‘no doubt’ that the report back to council will show that a trial ‘especially around Camden ward will be welcomed’.

MOTION PUT. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd: #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Below is our report on the second Glen Huntly Rd application. We suggest that readers pay careful attention to the following:

  • The total inanity of Sounness’ arguments – ie admitting that this is an ‘overdevelopment’ but that’s not ‘compelling’ enough reason to deny a permit! From a planner, this is an astounding statement!
  • Magee’s inconsistency! Vote in favour of no permit first off, and then turn around and vote for 3 storeys. Incomprehensible!
  • Please, please councillors, can we please discover a new vocabulary to justify the unjustifiable – “appropriate’ is becoming incredibly tiresome and meaningless
  • Consistency or lack of, is really baffling. Why not a motion to reject 8 storeys, but one to reject 4? especially when they’re on the same road and the planning scheme indicates this as a major transport/arterial road?

Here’s the discussion. It is not worthy of the label ‘debate’!

Lobo moved to reject on grounds of consistency with ‘urban design’, setbacks, streetscape, car parking, etc. Delahunty seconded.

LOBO: went into the history of the site (ie previous application for lesser no of storeys and dwellings). Said that previously there was ‘already the issue of overlooking’ and with a bigger size development now this will be worse for traffic. Lobo said that Glen Eira is ‘already a busy suburb with trains…..making a nuisance’. Said he was ‘concerned’ and asked himself ‘whom am I working for?’ – residents or developers? Mentioned the interface with minimal change, mass, overshadowing and the health issues associated with this. Will be a problem for residents who ‘pay their rates’ and will soon cop the fire levy.

DELAHUNTY: thought that Lobo summarised the ‘main issues’ such as car parking pretty well and protection of amenity. She therefore supported the motion to refuse.

PILLING: went into the history slightly but said that the developer had ‘redesigned’ the building and that this was a ‘reasonable site’ for this kind of application. Foreshadowed that if the motion failed he was going to move an alternate motion to accept.

ESAKOFF: thought that it was ‘an over-reaction in refusing’ but would wait for the foreshadowed motion.

LIPSHUTZ: supports Pilling ‘in what he said’. Went on to state that they’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion.

MAGEE: said that Glen Huntly Rd had been ‘identified as a major opportunity for developers’ to ‘go for broke’ – ‘go for 8, go for 10, there is no height limits’…’have a crack and see what you can come up with’. Probably their applications would be ‘halved’ but ‘this is a failure of councils over many, many years’ (but not just the recent council or Glen Eira alone). Said that the planning scheme ‘doesn’t protect municipalities’. This is not in the shopping centre and they’re ‘still looking at 4 and 6 storey buildings’. Claimed that what was happening was ‘filling in the gaps’ and the reduction of 2 storeys here and there was pointless when it came to a 10 storey development. The result will be that ‘Glen Huntly Rd is (no longer) Glen Huntly Rd. ‘We need to show some courage here’, and reject the application. People live around here and ‘it’s not fair’. He wouldn’t want to ‘live next to sit’ so he’s not giving his vote for something that he wouldn’t like next door to him.

HYAMS: agreed that 4 storeys was ‘inappropriate’ because there’s nothing similar in the area ‘unlike the previous application’ – so 3 storeys is appropriate. Talked about ‘taking off the top floor’, setbacks, and laneways which meant that the impacts ‘wouldn’t be so severe’. By refusing it’s saying that this is ‘no good’ and it will go to vcat and vcat ‘will be relying on precedent’ and that what a rejection means is that ‘basically wasted council’s time’. Said that the question arose about whether councillors work for developers or residents but that when applications come ‘we’re not working for anyone’ and that what they are doing is function as a ‘judicial body’, ‘we’re applying planning law according to the planning law’. If ‘we were working for the residents’ then they’d be refusing ‘everything’ that there was an objection to. Then the govt would ‘in very short order say this is a complete farce’ and council’s power to decide would be ‘removed’. ‘What we need to do is apply the planning law appropriately’. Referred to Magee’s statement about failure of planning law. Hyams said that this is the result of ‘successive state governments’ so ‘you can’t blame councils’ who have to abide by the parameters. Soon with the reforms there will be hopefully the opportunity to ‘produce better outcomes’ when councils can have a say. Said that they work for residents in trying to produce the best law for Glen Eira and therefore they have to be ‘impartial’.

LOBO: didn’t have any more to say.

MOTION WAS PUT AND LOST. Voting in favour of motion – Lobo, Delahunty, Okotel, Magee.

AGAINST: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling, Sounness

Pilling then moved his foreshadowed motion to accept 3 storeys, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

PILLING: said that the ‘size and scale’ of the building is pretty close to the original application that was approved by VCAT. Thought this was ‘a reasonable outcome’ and that by taking off one storey this ‘satisfies some of the residents’ concerns’ and is a ‘reasonable outcome to the streetscape’ and it’s ‘in line….with council policy’.

LIPSHUTZ: 4 storeys isn’t ‘appropriate’ and that there aren’t any longer ‘issues of overlooking’ or Lobo’s ‘concerns about people’s bathrooms’ and therefore ‘it is appropriate’.

SOUNNESS: just wanted this ‘for the record’ that he recognised tht there’s a permit for 3 storeys and 19 units that he would ‘prefer’ that now there is something ‘close’ to that number again, but council is increasing the number. Would prefer a greater reduction in units but even though ‘it’s an overdevelopment of the site’ that’s not ‘a compelling enough reason to refuse it’.

PUT TO THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. VOTING IN FAVOUR WERE – MAGEE, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING

AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO, DELAHUNTY

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »