GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd

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

Lipshutz moved motion to permit 6 storeys, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and 45 dwellings. Seconded by Sounness.

LIPSHUTZ: was ‘conscious’ of residents around area and that there were lots of high rise with ‘no infrastructure’ to go with them. Traffic is a problem especially with 6 storey development very close by. There is ‘creeping development’ and therefore he’s seeking to ‘reduce it to 6’ storeys which is ‘more in line’ with what’s already going up.

SOUNNESS: did ‘recognise’ that an urban village has got ‘certain features’ and that if this was close to a train station 8 storeys would be suitable. Since it’s not, then 6 storeys is “appropriate”. ‘Recognised’ that the ‘design of the building is good’. Said he was “a bit uncomfortable with 6′ but ‘can’t see any compelling reasons to refuse’ the application. For him, ‘6 is a compromise’. It’s not ideal but is better than refusal which ‘may not stand up to scrutiny at VCAT’.

DELAHUNTY: favoured a ‘refusal’. Said that there are more and more ‘high quality apartments’ and she does support high density living but ‘not at the expense of infrastructure’. Spoke about real estate agents telling people that Glen Eira is not like Richmond because Glen Eira doesn’t have the same open space problems, traffic problems, etc. But that in time ‘the more we allow’ these sorts of building to go up, then the more ‘we’ve moving towards being like Richmond’ and it’s the residents who have to put up with this. Said that until developers leave the city ‘as they found it’ (ie with open space, ‘and traffic catered for’) she won’t support this application/motion.

LOBO: Said that councillors had promised not to ‘encourage development of such monstrosity’. Said that people want to know the definition of ‘intense development’. Lobo then asked Akehurst to define it. Akehurst said that the terms of ‘low, medium, high’ density aren’t defined in the Planning Scheme. Lobo then quoted from the planning scheme about being as ‘sympathetic as possible to neighbourhood character’ and wanted to know how the state was going to achieve a population of 5 million people. Asked ‘why are we ignoring’ transport’… ‘this is beyond my comprehension’. Said that the policy from 1999 ‘needs a review’ and that Rescode recipe for parking spaces ‘is a joke’ since most dwellings have 2 cars and people don’t always use public tranport. Went on to talk about overshadowing, and overlooking ‘neighbours bathroom’ so people can’t have showers ‘in their birthday suits’ and will possibly end up ‘using pyjamas’ whilst showering. Said that it’s ‘disappointing’ that councillors are now reneging on the election promises.

PILLING: ‘sympathised’ with Lobo and Delahunty but refusing isn’t the answer as it ‘will lead to’ vcat perhaps giving 8 storeys. This solution of 6 storeys is ‘more practical outcome’. Also said that ‘looking at the bigger picture’ there are issues about height and that there’s ‘increasingly’ a diversion of views between councillors and the community about ‘what is a reasonable height’. Said that that’s where the ‘heart of the issue lies’ and that all they’ve been doing is ‘tinkering’ at the edges and that ‘we really need to develop a more solid approach’ so that when developers come to council they fully know ‘what’s expected’. Said that this is worse than the previous 12 storey application in Carnegie because the Carnegie one was at least a ‘commercial’ area but this one is smaller and backs onto 2 storey places. Said that there ‘needs to be more guidance’ about height levels and expectations because ‘at the moment the sky….is the limit’. Said he ‘wasn’t sure’ about the answer, but knew that they ‘had to do something’ because at ‘the moment it’s become increasingly ad hoc’.

HYAMS: asked Lobo whether he said that Lipshutz was ignoring the recommendations of transport planning. Lobo answered that he didn’t say that and Hyams then ‘confirmed’ that Lobo ‘didn’t say that we were ignoring’ transport recommendations. Said that Lobo talked about what councillors said in election campaigns but that he only said that he would ‘be opposing inappropriate development’ and ‘inappropriate’ is all in ‘the eye of the beholder’. It doesn’t mean ‘oppose everything’ and that people have to ‘apply the planning law’ in order to decide whether an application is ‘appropriate or not’. Said this was an urban village and went on to list the cirteria such as size, orientation, etc. He agreed that ‘8 storeys is too high’ but since there was going to be 6 storeys near Coles, that this one was ‘probably appropriate’. Went on to talk about how the impact was taken into consideration by the waste management plan and other imposed conditions. Agreed with Pilling’s concerns about height and said that ‘it is a bit of a dog’s breakfast’. Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. Also council policies ‘aren’t enforceable at VCAT’. Talked about the zoning reforms and that these would be ‘prescriptive’ so the ‘greater certainty’ that they want will ‘come in’ in the next year or so. In this case he thought that Lipshutz’s motion was ‘appropriate’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that both Lobo and Delahunty had identified ‘deficiencies in the planning system’. Said that Melbourne was going to get higher density without sufficient transport, but all this isn’t ‘for us to decide’. Said that things aren’t going to stay the same. Councillors have to make decisions on planning law and they are a ‘quasi tribunal’ and the ‘law is not scientific’ and on what each individual regards ‘as appropriate or inappropriate’. Said he’d like to see no changes along Glen Huntly Rd but ‘that isn’t going to happen’ and that by voting against he’s ‘not doing anyone a service’ because the ‘developer will go to VCAT and get his 8 storeys’. Putting down 6 storeys means that ‘you can go to vcat and argue that cogently’/ It’s ‘nice’ to be populist but that’s not ‘realistic’ and ‘I’d rather be realistic’. 6 storeys ‘is a compromise’ but which ‘vcat more than likely will support’.

MOTION PUT. Lobo asked for a division.

IN FAVOUR – PILLING, ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL

AGAINST – DELAHUNTY, LOBO, MAGEE

February 5, 2013

What A Surprise!

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

A very quick summary of the decisions from tonight’s council meeting. There were no surprises. The same old cliches, contradictions, and lamentable arguments were trotted out on cue. The gang has now definitely recruited another member – Thomas Sounness to join Pilling!

We will provide a full account of the ‘debate’ in the days ahead. Here are the outcomes:

1. 8 storey Glen Huntly Rd – reduced to 6 storeys.

2. 4 storey Glen Huntly Rd – reduced to 3 storeys

3. James St – reduced by one unit

4. Tree Register – passed – but all in the hands of officers and will account for less than 1% of trees

5. Car sharing – another ‘review’ in a year’s time!

6. Public questions – none answered satisfactorily

7. Magee’s Request for a Report – after much argey bargey finally got through plus $15,000 expenditure on ‘external’ report by consultant.

February 1, 2013

More Of The Same – Only 10X Worse!

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

In our opinion, many of the items set down for next Tuesday night’s council meeting are nothing short of disastrous for residents. We apologise for the length of this post, but the issues are extremely important.

Item: 483-493 Glen Huntly Rd

Application is for 8 storeys; 4 shops, 57 dwellings and car parking and loading bay waiver. Ron Torres recommends acceptance of application with some minor conditions thrown in. We do not really have to say anything but let the report itself tell the full story. Here are the relevant extracts:

Taking up opportunities for more intense development in the appropriate locations gives Council greater legitimacy and credibility in limiting development in Minimal Change Areas. In other words, it’s okay to sacrifice 20% of Glen Eira without ever defining what “intense development” really means!

It is considered the building itself is of a high quality architectural design that compliments the rhythm of the narrow Glen Huntly Road shop fronts and will make a positive contribution to the emerging character of the Urban Village. In this context, it is considered the proposed building at a height of 8 sotreys is consistent with the policy expectation for this site. Here is it in black and white! 8 storeys is the benchmark for this council! Beware the Planning Zone Reforms! We could also be quite pedantic and wonder what on earth ‘rhythm’ has got to do with ‘planning law’ as so constantly noted by Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams. How exactly ‘rhythm’ is quantified is of course another question. We suppose it just sounds good and will surely now feature regularly in future officer reports.

The report however gets even better! –It is proposed to provide 66 on site car spaces within 3 levels of basement car parking. The planning scheme requires 82 car parking spaces. Torres goes on with this feeble rationalisation – In this case, a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement is justified. If sustainable transport modes are to be promoted, then a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement should be encouraged. It is considered appropriate to provide a modest level of visitor parking. However providing additional on-site parking for visitors will only encourage more vehicle traffic to an area which anecdotally has issues with traffic. It is also noted that a visitor parking rate of 1 space per 10 dwelling (as proposed in this case) has been supported previously in activity centre locations. The logic is incredible here. Visitor parking will encourage more cars – but allowing 8 storeys and countless dwellings presumably won’t – or at least this isn’t mentioned. Readers should also note the reference to ‘anecdotal’. Pity that there is not one scrap of data in any part of this report to substantiate any of the claims made!

But the best is yet to come! The Transport Department had this to say – Providing less than half the required number of residential visitor spaces on the site is not appropriate. A minimum of 9 on-site visitor car spaces is recommended.

Urban Design then has this to say: There are several trees on the property to the north which have the potential to be impacted upon by the proposed development. The size and extent of basement will mean there are no realistic opportunities for tree planting and the concept landscape plan is not supported. So, here we have traffic and urban design saying ‘nay’ – yet the proposal gets through. Residents should be asking exactly how many ticks in the boxes does it take before a proposal is rejected? What is the priority listing for all these boxes? For example: is parking given greater weighting than landscaping or natural light?

Then there’s this further icing on the cake: The existing street tree can be removed at the permit holder’s expense. So much for a ‘green, gregarious garden city’!!!!

Item 687-689 Glen Huntly Rd.

The application was for a 4 storey, 29 dwellings, 2 offices, and a reduction in visitor car parking. Recommendation was to accept, but with 28 dwellings! There’s also an interface with Minimal Change Area. The report notes that the property has a permit for 3 storeys and 19 dwellings + 2 offices. This application is to increase dwellings and height. The ‘reason’ not to grant the full 29 dwellings but rather 28 is: ….it is recommended that Units 401 and 402 on the third floor be consolidated to form one 3 bedroom dwelling, thereby contributing to housing diversity and reducing bulk/mass impacts. Wow! Does this mean that out of 29/28 units ONLY ONE will be a 3 bedroom outfit? That is really encouraging ‘housing diversity’ to cater for families, etc.!

On car parking we have this gem: It is proposed to provide 33 car spaces in the basement. This satisfies the planning scheme for the dwellings and offices but not for visitor parking. Only one visitor space is proposed whilst the planning scheme asks for five. Council’s Transport Planning Department has suggested that at least 3 on-site car spaces should be provided for visitors.

Item 6 James Street, Caulfield South.

The application is for 3 storeys and 10 dwellings. Interestingly, the site is labelled as South Caulfield. It is Glen Huntly! Officer’s recommendation is for 9 units. A notation states: In 2011, an application was refused which proposed a two storey building with seven dwellings. It was found to be an overdevelopment of the site…..The current proposal is for ten dwellings. It is however, not an overdevelopment like the previous proposal. Reasons given are that car parking is now ‘adequate’ and site coverage has ‘fallen from 59% to 46%.’

What’s particularly galling is the argument that is then trotted out: …the proposal is more akin to the characteristics of the emerging character of the area. Recently approved, at the direction of VCAT, is a 27 dwelling, four storey development at 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly, located two properties east from the subject site. Once again, the folly of lack of height limits is exposed. Now the argument becomes because the precedent is already there so further development is okay.

One other very important aspect of this application concerns the destruction of a liquidamber. We highlight this aspect given the spin that is the item on Significant Tree Register also in the agenda. The comment reads: There is a tree located at the rear of the site (Liquidambar) that is proposed to be removed. Its removal is considered acceptable given the site’s location in a Housing Diversity area where this type of development is envisaged and where replacement trees can provide for more appropriate landscaping. Housing Diversity Areas are again sacrificed. They do not need trees, open space, or normal amenities. Exactly what “appropriate landscaping’ means is again not explained.

ITEM TREE PROTECTION

We remind readers that the issue of a Significant Tree Register has been rearing its ugly head since at least 2003. That’s ten years of doing absolutely nothing. The unnamed officer’s report on this issue is another piece of spin, dissembling, and the failure to adequately inform. Given the comments from the James St. application the irony of the comments found in this report should be obvious to all readers. We quote:

The normal processing of town planning applications provides on going protection of over 200 valued existing trees and the planning of over 1,000 future canopy trees each year.

Where values trees are identified, the town planning assessment will regularly incorporate permit conditions which require protection during construction and a tree management condition to ensure the ongoing retention of the tree/s. Where a tree to be retained is near a proposed building, further conditions are applied for special foundations which do not disturb or damage the root system. Similarly, the proposed building is protected from future damage from the tree roots. Such foundations often add thousands of dollars to construction costs. Wonderful isn’t it? Who identifies ‘valuable trees’? Certainly not residents or councillors! How many trees have been allowed to be cut down (as with James St) in order to squeeze more units onto a block? How well ‘safeguarded’ are such trees by the planning processes?

We’re then told that there are penalties for removal of trees without a permit. We wonder how many prosecutions this council has carried out in the past decade?

After a page and a half of self praise, the report finally gets to the nitty gritty, with:

Approaches to supplement existing levels of tree protection include the following.

 Introduce a Local Law to require a permit to remove any tree of more than a specified size, usually measured by circumference of the trunk. This involves property owners applying for a permit, paying a fee, possibly requiring a report by an arborist, with the Council determining whether to grant the permit or not. Many Councils have this approach.

 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.

That’s it as far as details go. Nothing about resident rights to object to street tree removal; nothing about private versus public property; nothing about giving residents the opportunity to have input into ‘valued’ trees; nothing to restrain this council from chopping down tree after tree without producing a qualified arborist’s report.

There are many other items in this agenda which deserve to be severely criticised. We will do this in the days ahead.

PS: Just for the heck of it, here’s the 6 James St. proposed development PLUS THE ‘INSIGNIFICANT TREE’ that’s about to get the chop!

January 17, 2013

The People’s Democratic Republic Of Glen Eira!

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

How committed local government is to democracy, transparency and full accountability is most easily measured via its Local Law Meeting Procedures. Forget all the spin, all the tens of thousands of dollars spent on fancy words, posters, logos, mottos, and plain old bulldust. How council meetings are run, what is allowed and disallowed provides the real picture of how open, honest and community minded a council is.

The chart provided above reveals the full story of the abuses currently perpetrated by this administration and its select band of self interested councillors. We have gone to great lengths to verify our data. EVERY SINGLE Local Law from EVERY SINGLE council in the State has been analysed. Of the 79 councils in Victoria GLEN EIRA IS THE ONLY COUNCIL THAT DOES NOT HAVE A NOTICE OF MOTION in its meeting procedures. Unbelievable, and unforgiveable!

Year after year the same old drivel is trotted out by Lipshutz and his masters – ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Well, we believe there is plenty that is ‘broke’ in Glen Eira and it all stems from the Local Law and associated policies. Here are some facts:

In Glen Eira, Newton has total control of the agenda. Again, no other council in the state has had the gall to include what is in our Local Law – “Other than for special meetings of Council called under section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, the notice papers and agenda for all meetings of the Council shall be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or his/her delegate”. That means that officially no councillor can get anything onto the agenda without Newton’s consent. A Notice of motion would allow issues to be put on the table and discussed/debated in an open council meeting. All that is required is a mover and a seconder. The motion may not result in the resolution being carried, but that’s democracy at work! The furphy that mechanisms currently exist via ‘urgent business’ provisions are sheer nonsense. For something to ‘qualify’ as ‘urgent business’ it has to occur after the publication of the agenda and before the subsequent council meeting – ie a few days! Then there’s also the pathetic option of a request for a report. Again, this may take months to surface and all it does is provide officers with the time and opportunity to skew the information in whatever way they wish. History shows that such reports are simply ‘noted’ on most occasions and/or recommendations fully accepted. Without a Notice of Motion councillors, in trying to represent their constituents are hamstrung, silenced, and basically knobbled.

When every other council in the state sees fit to include a Notice of Motion in its meeting procedures, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to afford its residents and councillors this fundamental right needs to be carefully examined. Who stands to lose out if a Notice of Motion is codified? Why doesn’t Glen Eira embrace this democratic principle? Who are the culprits that oppose such rights and why? It’s worth noting that when this issue came up in June 2011 the councillors who then voted against having a notice of motion were Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff. Forge had removed herself from chamber and Lobo was absent. The general gist of the arguments was that a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’ (Lipshutz), ‘irresponsible’ (Hyams), and that voting against it was ‘protecting future councils’ (Esakoff).

More on the travesties that currently exist in the Local Law in following posts!

December 18, 2012

Conflict Of Interest?

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

It’s clear that when it comes to Cr Lipshutz there is no such thing as ‘conflict of interest’. From the ‘debate’ that occurred regarding the Emmy Monash 4 storey aged care application in Hawthorn Rd comments were made that the applicant just happened to be handing out ‘How to Vote Cards’ for certain councillor/s. We assume that the councillor in question was Lipshutz, especially since prior to the meeting there was a very, very warm handshake between these individuals and both were on a first name basis.

On GESAC and extended car parking on Gardener’s Rd – it, of course, got the go ahead with the prospect of further car parking ‘arrangements’ to be undertaken since, as Lipshutz stated, council was the ‘victim of its (GESAC’s) success’! Again potential questions of conflict of interest were ignored with Hyams moving an amendment that sporting clubs and their officials should have extended parking rights (defeated). Magee agreed with Hyams. Given that both belong to such sporting clubs, one could ask whether this might constitute another conflict of interest?

We will report in detail on these and other decisions in the coming days.

December 16, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is a beauty. Here are our comments on those items we’ve not yet covered.

LOCAL LAW ADVISORY COMMITTEE

After years and years and years of pussy footing around the issue of ‘organised sporting groups’ (ie permits, Frisbees, Schleppers, kids in the park, conflict of interest, and heaps of negative publicity) the issue has reared its ugly head again. Two options were presented – one which we advocated months ago – ie give priority to those groups with allocations and allow everyone else to use ovals when vacant. The committee also ‘investigated’ the inclusion of ‘guidelines’ into the Local Law and decided that this was the best option. However, the ‘action’ resulting from this reads: “The Committee agreed legal advice should be obtained on incorporation of the guidelines into the local law.” Unbelievable! Here we go again with more money being spent on ‘legal advice’ when 2 lawyers plus corporate counsel are present on this committee and the ‘solution’ would appear to be dead simple!

AMENDMENTS

3 Amendments and referrals to Planning Panels are up for decision. We note that had any of these amendments been ‘reasonable’, then there would probably not have been any submission objections and the resulting costs of thousands of dollars for 3 panel hearings and lawyers galore! The proposed amendments are:

Rezoning of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS application for 5 storey & 62 dwellings, offices & carpark. 10 submissions were received and the objections related to: overdevelopment; car parking, this is a flood prone area and plans have no flood mitigation proposals. Melbourne Water opposes the development. Also included in the officer’s report is this paragraph:

“It is considered that the proposed amendment should still be supported in anticipation of the draft commercial zones being introduced. Department of Planning and Community Development advice is that any rezoning requests ‘in the pipeline” should not be delayed due to the proposed new zones process”. It’s a great pity that this same argument isn’t used when it comes to height limits. On this issue the pathetic council response is ‘we’ll wait for the planning zone reforms to be in place’. Consistency, transparency, and credibility are not this council’s strong points!

Amendment C95 – more rezoning on Hawthorn Rd. The real purpose of this Amendment is revealed in this sentence: “enable residential development opportunities in accordance with Councils Housing Diversity Area Policy….”. Once again it’s full bore ahead with no need to wait for the zoning reforms: “The purpose of the new Commercial 1 Zone is to provide for economic growth and land use flexibility within activity centres. Advice from the Department of Planning and Community Development is to precede (sic) with amendments, such as this, not-withstanding possible new commercial zones in the near future”.

Amendment C98 – Tovan Akas Ave, Bentleigh. This constitutes the most objectionable of all the proposed amendments. Apart from setting the scene for more residential development this Amendment also proposes to “(Amend) the planning scheme such that selected Rescode provisions do not apply”. We find this totally unacceptable especially when it has often been argued how wonderful this council is in that their conditions EXCEED the ResCode requirements (ie private open space). It would appear that all is expendable when more and more dwellings can be crammed into various sites. In this instance building heights and front setbacks will be the casualties.

The site we’re told is just on 5,500 square metres and “is surrounded by residential land uses immediately north-east, east and south, a car sales businesses fronting Nepean Highway to the west, and an industrial site used as a training facility to the north-west.” Yet this council argues that it is appropriate to reduce the ResCode requirements because “The reduced setback is considered reasonable in this instance, as the site abuts a car sales business to the west (rather than a dwelling) and a unit development to the east with a front setback of 6m.” If nothing else, this statement alone is clear evidence of how short sighted planning policy is in Glen Eira. There is no consideration of what could happen several years down the track – ie what if the car yard goes out of business and decides to sell? Would council then go through another amendment to undo what it has put in place now? All council can say is: “Facilitating the land to be converted from industrial to residential in this location is generally considered to be a positive outcome and the departures from ResCode are considered to be responsive to the context of the site and its neighbours.” What about 2 years, 3 years, down the track? And why should any of the minimalist ResCode regulations be dwindled down any further?

It also needs to be noted that this is a MINIMAL CHANGE AREA and that submissions noted that the street is predominantly single storey. The amendment allows 4 storeys in a MINIMAL CHANGE AREA!

Once again we have the nonsense argument supporting the full steam ahead approach –

“There is no impediment to considering and supporting this amendment despite the soon to be released zones. The inclusion of a detailed building envelope control (Design and Development Overlay) will provide even greater control than any replacement residential zone. In this respect the proposed Design and Development Overlay represents a safety net to ensure compatible and appropriate future development.”

Given the pre-election mantras from most councillors about opposing inappropriate development it will be interesting to hear the logic that supports (or opposes) these amendments and the huge costs of 3 Panel hearings. We remind readers that the Hawthorn Rd heritage debacle cost $9000 for one lawyer for half a day PLUS paying the panel members. Multiply that by 3 and we’re really talking big bikkies!

CAR SHARE

What a surprise! The recommendation on this issue by Akehurst reads: “Notes that car share systems could be used within new developments in the future.” Given the glacial pace at which this council moves, we envisage that this issue will crop up at least another 3 times in the next decade; it will have report after report tabled, but the outcome will still remain the same – ie NO ACTION!

It’s also worth pointing out that the only other council mentioned is Melbourne City. A quick Google search has revealed that numerous other councils have already introduced this scheme into their municipalities and that others such as Bayside have earmarked this for introduction in the next year to two. The links below will explain how other councils see their role in reducing the numbers of cars on our roads –

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/car_share.htm

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Parking-roads-and-transport/Sustainable-transport/Carsharing/

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/car-share-discount

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/residents-and-services/parking-and-transport/car-share-program/

http://moreland.vic.gov.au/about-council/news-media/media-releases/2012-media-releases/media-release-Car-share-in-moreland.html

« Previous Page — Next Page »