GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

October 12, 2011

Council Meeting: Caulfield Park Conservatory

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[4] Comments 

Pilling moved an alternate motion – (a) council recognises heritage value of the conservatory; (b) expressions of interest not go ahead and (c) council funds restoration in 2012/13 budget. Penhalluriack seconded.

PILLING: Stated that this has been a ‘long saga….(and time that) council acknowledged the heritage…(worried about the precedents that would be set with a commercial enterprise) and ‘commercialisation of public parks’…(wondered about other things that would be needed such as car parking) ‘more concrete, open space taken up’…’sooner we get back to restoring the facility the cheaper it will be’…

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had changed his mind about the motion. At first had supported it and ‘still think it would be a good idea to add more life and activity to the park’…(referred to ex councillors in the gallery (Robilliard) and) ‘they probably remember that this was tried before and nobody stood up'(and showed any interest)…’we’re going to spend $10,000….which we really can’t afford to waste….I would like to see that money spent….on bulding itself (ensuring it’s in good condition)…’it’s a beautiful conservatory…way past it’s prime (inside and out)…’we need to look as a council at our responsibilities …to make sure this building (is retained).

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t think that what Pilling and Penhalluriack said was ‘accurate’….(ie previous EOI process and ‘no-one was interested’) …’My recollection is that the EOI was never done before’….’last occasion there was a …consultation as to whether there was interest in developing….57% of people who responded said they were in favour of it….(Talked about commercialisation and parks elsewhere in the world  and how they have ‘coffee houses’, ‘tea houses’)…(many people go to Caulfield Park but for coffee they have to) ‘go across the road out of the park’…..(issue is) ‘trying to enhance the park’….(EOI will look after Pilling’s concerns about heritage since this is only checking whether)’ anyone will be prepared to come out and develop’ …’and keep the conservatory and maintain the conservatory’…..(There’s an ampitheatre in that section of the park which is) ‘absolutely useless’…’white elephant’…’that whole area can be developed’ (so instead of ) ‘losing public open space probably get more open space by getting rid of the ampitheatre’…(if no EOIs then nothing lost)….(original motion is about) ‘keeping the conservatory….enhancing the park…(cost will be around $300,000 – $400,000 and EOI will only cost $10,000) ….’do the thing for us’ (ie developers)….(so not good economy to spend all that money when someone else can do it)…’that area would be very very much enhanced by having a little tea house there’….’The more cafes you have there the more people come to the area’….’enhances business’….

HYAMS:  Wants to ‘see what the options are really’ ….(talked about when council ‘consulted’ and majority were in favour and those against) ‘weren’t concerned about what was going on in the park’ (they were concerned about the coffee houses in the area) …’might suggest a concerted campaign by some of the (cafes) in the area’ …’concerned about their business’….(report is only to )’examine the possibilities’…(further consultation, minister’s approval before anything happens)…(if there is a cafeteria then it) ‘won’t detract from open public space, it will enhance it’ (because people won’t have to leave the park to get a drink)…’would contribute more to the conservatory than just restoring it’…(nothing much has been happening there anyway)…

TANG; Gave background. Agreed with Lipshutz that there hadn’t been any EOI before and agreed with Pilling and Penhalluriack that ‘this is an issue of twists and turns’….(admitted that in 2006 he supported cafe but now changed his mind after community consultation)…’whilst there was some support’ (it wasn’t overwhelming support)…‘I can’t see demonstrated community support at a level (necessary)….times may have changed (that means another consultation)….(Pilling’s motion is ‘fair’ and that we can look at it in 2012/2013 budget and that the cost of $150,000 – $200,000 has been named as costs for building works)….(wanted to look at other ways) ‘to bring the community back into the conservatory’ (instead of just a cafe).

MAGEE: Spoke about how coffee shops ‘don’t make money’ and how ‘coffee shops go broke’….’change hands yearly’ (and now talking about) ‘putting a coffe shop into one of our parks…inconsistent….(was in favour until issue of coffee shop in East Bentleigh and that it doesn’t succeed). Didn’t want council to be ‘in position where…we have to look for a new tenant for the coffee shop’ (every few months)

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang. didn’t ‘support this when we were dealing with this several years ago’…(not enough) ‘community support for it’…’in percentage terms may have been over that edge’…..

PILLING: ‘we’re coming from a negative aspect’…(we want someone else to pay for all this) ‘we’re not doing it to enhance the park…we’re trying to get someone else to pay for it….that’s not a great way to start….(need to accept that this is like any other facility ie. sport)’ and just get on and fix it’…

7 IN FAVOUR OF PILLING’S MOTION. LIPSHUTZ AND HYAMS VOTED AGAINST.

 

October 11, 2011

Council Meeting: More Secrecy

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

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

  • Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
  • Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
  • Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
  • One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
  • Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
  • Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
  • Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

 

October 7, 2011

Records Of Assembly

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

There are definitely very strange goings on in the Assembly of Councillors. We highlight only a handful:

  1. Meeting of 13th September
  • Tang arrived nearly two hours late
  • Various officers’ reports which haven’t been tabled in council meetings
  • Fiddling with the previous minutes (again) – Hyams’ suggestions mostly. One especially interesting one concerns an ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ (bullying?) where the previous ‘record’ had simply stated that Penhalluriack left the room. Hyams’ wanted this altered to Penhalluriack declaring a conflict of interest and then leaving.
  • 4 of the 6 officers walk out when an OH & S issue is being discussed. Later another one leaves. Bladder problems really strike at this point and the comings and goings are like a revolving door. Interestingly, no-one declared a conflict of interest!

2.      Meeting of 20th September

  • Tang’s there on time!
  • Again, when OH & S is discussed all but one officer leave the room. No declaration of conflict of interest.

3.    Meeting of 27th September

  • GESAC basketball discussions get an ‘update’ from Hyams
  • Forge mentions council ‘representation’ at a Department Planning Review Meeting
  • Again 4 officers walk out (2 remain) when the OH & S issue comes up. No conflict of interest declared.
  • Regulations for Local Government Act discussed. These regulations contain information on registers of interests and council and special committees.
  • There is then discussion on Special Committee and again OH & S

COMMENTS

After nearly 4 months, and a Request for a Report, nothing has yet appeared before council on the GESAC basketball allocations – yet the Warriors website continues to splash the council logo!!!

Council’s submission (reported in the Melbourne Bayside Leader) has yet to make it into the public domain and to be presented at a full council meeting. According to this newspaper it appears as if Esakoff signed off (as she did with the VEAC submission) rather than the CEO.

Obviously the Special Committee was discussed and set up in secret. No minutes as yet, no delegations as yet, and no terms of reference have been made public. Nor any reason provided as to why Penhalluriack is not a member of this committee!

OH & S features regularly. One strange sentence in these documents was the linking of OH& S AND ‘APPRAISAL matters’. Appraisal of what and whom, we ask? And why should these two items be linked?

Our conclusion – what a strange, strange council we have!

 

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only –  please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

 

September 21, 2011

The Chamber of Spin!

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

Item 9.3 – Heritage status

Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.

Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.

PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.

TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’  and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.

LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….

HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…

PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)

Motion – Pilling/Forge

PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’

FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.

PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should  be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).

HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.

TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.

PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.

 

September 20, 2011

Council Meeting: When Minutes Aren’t ‘Minutes’!

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

The following statements were made in relation to the ‘minutes’ of the Pools Committee –

LIPSHUTZ: Pools committee meets on a regular basis…’pool is progressing very well’…one pool has already been tiled and the other one is being tiled….’we are still on track for a December opening’…..’our staff are right on top of the work…..’the builder tried to suggest measures which our staff rejected’….’that indicates the level of concentration and the level of awareness that’ staff have in relation to the pool….

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been attempting to attend (the pools committee meetings but dates aren’t published and minutes aren’t provided)….’I am concerned that there are no records in the minutes of progress ….items 1 to 5 are all subheadings and no information about what’s happened….I am more than happy to accept the fact that we have experts….but I would like to be able to attend these site meetings to see for myself…..and a little more detail than what we have in these minutes…..liquidated damages tells me nothing….these (should be)  meeting minutes and not simply meeting headings… there is no date for the next meeting (Penhalluriack asked Lipshutz when the next meeting is scheduled).

Lipshutz responded that he doesn’t recall but will check.

 

September 16, 2011

Agenda Items: Part 1

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

We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the various Records of Assembly and the range of topics that are discussed behind closed doors, in secret, and which never seem to make it into the council chamber. The Pools Steering Committee Meeting Minutes is of the same ilk. For example: for months and  months now Cr. Lipshutz has been spruiking how wonderfully well GESAC is going –  apart from rain delays it seems. Only at the last council meeting was it  disclosed that tiling was somewhat behind schedule. Now we have mention of ‘liquidated damages’. According to Wikipedia, the definition of this  term is:

“Liquidated damages  (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose  amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured  party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late  performance).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages

Do these damages apply to the tiling or are there other aspects of this extravaganza that are not going all that well? And how much are  the ‘damages’ actually worth? Are we talking a paltry few thousand or do the  figures run into hundreds of thousands – thereby signalling some major hiccup and placing many of Lipshutz’s early claims into the very doubtful basket. Of  course, it would be too much to ask that council is upfront and fully  forthcoming on these issues!

Tang also appears to have great difficulty in showing up to meetings – he missed the August 2nd August, 9th  & the 16th August meetings!

Councillor Assembly for the 9th August includes the  following: “Confidential – ‘contractual’, ‘legal advice’ and ‘may prejudice the  Council or any other person’ which relates to GESAC. Cr Magee – access to two  other legal opinions and his conversation with the Ombudsman. Section 3 of the  Whistleblower Protection Act and S. 76D of the Local Government Act.”

Two things to notice: (1) more money is now being spent on lawyers and the GESAC allocations stuff ups and (2) the whistleblowers act does not enforce the stipulation of ‘confidential information’ whilst the Local Government Act does. So what has all this to do with Magee? Is he being read the riot act by Newton and Burke and accomplices over his support for the McKinnon basketballers? We can only speculate of course, since all of this is carried on behind closed doors. And again, we are expected to believe that NO DECISIONS are being made – only continual straw votes it would appear!

We do however discover that on the 23rd August there WAS a draft submission  to the Ministerial planning Review – it even went to 8 pages. Again we ask: where  is it? Why isn’t this public? Why do such important discussions and decisions which impact on the entire community only occur behind the closed doors of Assembly Meetings? If other councils can publish their submissions and have councillors debate the drafts, then the question must be asked as to why Glen Eira is again the odd man out?

Last but not least there is  again an ‘OH &S’ matter where Penhalluriack leaves the room. We can only  assume that this is again related to Newton’s bullying charges. Oh what  wonderful games are played out in these meetings and how little the public is  informed as to what is really going on and how their monies are being spent.

 

August 30, 2011

Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[14] Comments 

Well, the doors were unlocked tonight! However, strange things always seem to be going on – ie. two page 51 of the hard copy agenda items – and with different in camera items included on each! We’ve also learnt that several public questions that had been (a) hand delivered, and (b) emailed were simply not read out. Another ‘clerical error’ perhaps?

We highlight below the discussion on Item 9.1 – the 5 storey planning application and the resulting lack of consensus, vision, and we suggest, clear planning policy.

Motion: instead of 5 storeys, 4 storeys, 1 shop (with loading bay) and up to 30 dwellings instead of 42  (HYAMS/PILLING)

HYAMS: ‘appropriate site for large development’ because in Urban Village….’question is ‘how large?’….(busy area, single storeys across road)…’it will be the highest building in Carnegie…(supermarket carpark available but not for) ‘developers to take advantage of so I would support reducing that requirement….(shops should have loading bays)…’visually I don’t think it’s such a bad development…(conditions will add trees)…’one per 5 visitor (car parking) spaces’….’taking into account the nature of the site and the nature of the surroundings…appropriate compromise (in what’s been asked) and what residents might prefer….

PILLING: Supports motion…’good size development’…’large site, corner site…addition of loading bay…(no 5 storeys in Carnegie, 4 storeys approved before, so ‘appropriate’ (and this is what the) ’emerging streetscape is’….very busy site, very busy intersection…(the motion goes)’ some way to solving some of the issues raised…

PENHALLURIACK: (against and foreshadowed alternative motion)…Argued for 5 storeys because ‘we do need to provide accommodation’….’this is one of the better sites in this area…good off street parking…..I think this would be a good site for development….

LIPSHUTZ: Supports Penhalluriack since ‘ordinarily …I would not support a 5 storey development in this area….5th storey is recessed back (and looks like 4 storeys from street)….’if anywhere else …I would say ‘no to this’…it’s a unique site, it’s a large site….(carparking) there is a supermarket car parking….(and not every space there is going to be used especially on weekends) ‘reality is there will be some visitors….so for that reason I doubt that is an issue….(supported loading bay area)….(will go to VCAT and developers will get what they want) ‘I would have thought this is a perfect site for 5 storeys…If this doesn’t get up I will support
Penhalluriack’s motion…..

FORGE: supports Penhalluriack’s alternative. Spent time ‘wavering between 4 and 5′ (must look at future and how railway lines develop)….’there will be increased traffic to some point’…(in a couple of years down the track more development sites will be put in)…

LOBO: Supports Hyams’ motion which will help ‘reduce traffic and allow people to park quite easily’. Esakoff asked what he’s supporting – the 4 or 5 storey. LOBO: ‘4 storey’.

MAGEE: ‘2 storeys becomes 3, 3 becomes 4, and 4 becomes 5 and on we go’…(Argued that the city is unique and that its incumbent on councillors to try and maintain this uniqueness. When looking into the future and people ask ‘where will Glen Eira be I’d like it to be much) ‘like it is today’…(Hoped that minimal change areas remain as they are today)…(If someone can build 5 storeys then next person can ask for 6, ‘maybe 7’….’we have to be consistent’…’I’m not particularly happy with 4 (would prefer 3)…

TANG: ‘My position was one in favour of refusal…(but recently seen amendments made to planning and then done away at VCAT) and ‘leads to confusion in minds of councillors….and bad planning decisions….particularly around the elsternwick area where we’ve been looking at 14 storey applications….(with) some councillors supporting 14 storeys, some supporting 10, some supporting 7….what’s scared me is if I knock back the proposal (then there’s Penhalluriack’s 5 storeys) ‘which is even worse’….(outlined history of area and)’whilst there is some policy support for higher density areas…I found overwhelming reason to support a refusal…(urged councillors to knock back this motion and) ‘see if we can put together a motion of refusal’…’no less confusing but it’s the best outcome that I can see’….

ESAKOFF: Supports motion (for 4 storeys)…My preference is not for a 5 storey building…..doesn’t abutt other residences….it doesn’t overshadow other residences…it’s an appropriate site for a building of this size….

HYAMS: Size is ‘two or three blocks’…I wouldn’t be supporting a refusal and if I had to choose between (a refusal) and 5 storeys I’d probably go with 5 storeys….’so councillors might want to take that in mind when they’re considering how they might vote on this motion’….(spoke about full supermarket car parking; if it goes to VCAT and the argument that the loading bay would be lost that council has to) ‘stand by principle’….I don’t think this site is worthy of a refusal….(and if it came to a choice between refusal he would go for original recommendations).

MOTION CARRIED 5 to 4

COMMENTS:

  • 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys, 10 storeys, 14 storeys, ‘compromise’, ‘refusal’ etc. etc. etc. This is not the first time, nor the last, that the arguments will continue on height limits and parking. Once again this ‘debate’ highlights the arbitrariness of decision making in Glen Eira. With no attempt to achieve interim or permanent height controls for certain areas within the municipality, we can only expect more of the same! Piece meal decision making!
 

August 27, 2011

Agenda Item 9.4

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
Comments Off on Agenda Item 9.4 

For years now the question of how to protect residents living in Minimal Change Areas that just happen to be near, or abutting activity or neighbourhood centres has been occupying the minds of many ratepayers – if not all councillors and planners! Listed for decision this coming Tuesday is the latest version of  Council’s vision for ‘transition zones’. We urge all readers interested in how this Council approaches planning to pay particular attention to this Item and to ask themselves whether the proposed ‘prescriptive guidance’ will achieve any positive outcomes for residents living in both Minimal Change Areas and in residential areas within Activity Centres.

We’ve received one email on this matter already and publish an edited version of it below:

“The new guidance applies very narrowly and specifically to properties on the Housing Diversity side of a transition boundary. It doesn’t address all the single-storey dwellings inside Housing Diversity areas who are repeatedly having their amenity trashed. It is (to me) blatantly unfair to expect these people to have their amenity trashed by allowing non-compliant developments next them that Council and VCAT refuse to allow elsewhere. In the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 s8 “Recognition and equality before the law”, protections of amenity should be more equal than that. “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” [Not saying developers are animals mind you…]

Council really should be more explicit in saying what the minimum standards of protection are for *all* dwellings in Housing Diversity areas, and publicly justify why lesser protection is appropriate for people who inconveniently get in the way of developers’ profits. I’d go further and include explicit words in the document to make it clear that there are universal human rights and that Council’s policy is for all people to be treated equally–that relaxation of standards are dependent on a development not being sited next to an existing low-rise dwelling. These dwellings provide sensitive interfaces too.

If I was a Councillor I would be looking for a summary covering each proposed development of what standards are being violated, and an explanation provided of why it is appropriate. Helping a developer make more money isn’t good enough … I’d love to hear Councillors explain why the protection proposed is not appropriate for properties inside but not on the transition boundary.”

 

August 26, 2011

Agenda #1: MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Below are edited lowlights of the Planning Department’s recommendations for the MRC Centre of the Racecourse application.

” The amended application proposes the following changes to the plans:

  • Adding an additional 12 parking spaces including one disabled parking space, taking the total to 35 car parking spaces.
  • Adjusted the layout of running and walking tracks to increase the area inside the inner concrete.
  • Included an informal playing field in the southern area. (Precincts Plan)

The changes to the plans do not require planning permission.

Council’s assessment of the proposal is limited to the appearance, location and scale of the works. It is considered that the proposed works are reasonable, site responsive, and an in an appropriate location central to the Reserve.

Parking will be provided near the new facilities. The provision of on-site car parking is not a relevant consideration, as this is a use component. However Council’s Traffic Engineering Department recommends some conditions to improve the proposed car parking area. These form conditions in the Appendix.

The Crown Grant affecting the land permanently reserves the land for “Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park”. This is a restriction on the use of the land, and does not affect the assessment of the current application for buildings and works since its use will be available to the public for park and recreation purposes.

The objectors’ concerns are summarised as follows:

  • The proposed works do not contribute to the area as they will restrict access to the site due to the new fencing and paved areas;
  • The works contribute to the visual clutter of the land;
  • The proposed carparking area will be for users of other events on the land;
  • The application is not for genuine recreational purposes;
  • There is no need to provide a “fun and fitness” area because it will be seldom used and Caulfield Park already has one;
  • The land is Crown land and is meant to be used also as a public park not just for horse racing.

The Conference, chaired by Cr Hyams, provided a forum where all interested parties could elaborate on their respective views. The objectors mainly emphasised their original reasons for objection. It is considered that the main issues arising from the discussions were:

  • There should have been public consultation
  • That this has been agreed to already
  • Access to the site and not enough detail on the plans about this.
  • Glen Eira has a lack of open space
  • Horse manure will cause health problems
  • All the concrete pathways will be used to park cars;
  • The playground isn’t suitable for children

This Permit will expire if:

* The buildings/works do not start within two (2) years from the date of this Permit; or

* The buildings/works are not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »