GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

June 28, 2011

Council Meeting

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

A brief report on the main items of tonight’s council meeting. Details will be up tomorrow.

Gallery was overflowing with kids and parents (waving placards) from the McKinnon Basketball Association. A guestimate would be well over 150 people crammed into chamber and on stairs. A petition of 713 signatures tabled. This matter was dealt with first and that was the end of the story – to the complete surprise of most newcomers, who obviously expected the issue to be dealt with in greater detail and possibly resolved there and then. Little do they know how this council works!!!
The C84 Amendment was passed without a whimper. Hyams spoke very, very briefly. Lipshutz was silent. Passed unanimously
The ‘Flood Report’ also passed unanimously again without a whimper.
All public questions were taken on notice. This occurred at 9.45 pm with the excuse that there were many items for the in-camera session. Readers should note that incamera sessions have previously gone well past 11pm. Taking questions on notice seems like it’s becoming a trend.
The budget passed of course, together with the Strategic Resource Plan.
No councillor questions
Lipshutz asked for a request for a report on extending car parking at GESAC. In other words, let’s turn valuable open space into another concrete car park! Opposed by Pilling and Tang but was carried.

June 24, 2011

We Were Right!!!!!!!!!

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

Miracles do happen! Agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting are replete with surprises.

First, there is the tacit acknowledgement that WE WERE RIGHT!!! The figures provided in response to a public question on bookings at Allnutt Park, have now been ‘corrected’. The problem according to Newton is that there was a ‘clerical error’. No apology mind you, just the ‘correction’. This would of course have gone undetected and unacknowledged if not for Cr. Forge and her question. As a consequence, one must also wonder how many other ‘clerical errors’ have been made and not fessed up to?
The Drains and Flood report requested by Esakoff in late February has finally been pulled from the hat – it’s only taken 4 months.
For the very first time we learn that the difference between the publicised budget and the amended budget involves over $1 million dollars. So without giving people the opportunity to comment on this ‘new’ budget, this has now come up for adoption by council.
The GESAC allocations to McKinnon Basketball is also under consideration

Once we have had time to carefully analyse the numerous items we will report back in detail.

June 17, 2011

Gesac Allocations

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

The following is in the minutes of the June 6th Council meeting. We note that it has taken nearly two weeks for these minutes to make an appearance! We congratulate councillors on their attempts to get to the bottom of the McKinnon Basketball application for court space and the contract awarding system. May we suggest however, that this is only the first step? It is a great pity that residents appear to get ‘action’ only when there is a major hue and cry and negative publicity. What would be really informative is a total review on ALL expressions of interest; on the full disclosure of criteria, allocations, costs, and contract details. That, we maintain would be open, transparent and responsible government!

Item 10 – URGENT BUSINESS

Crs Magee/Pilling

“That Officers report to Council on the awarding of the use of GESAC basketball courts. This report should include details of requests for Expressions of Interest letters offers and acceptances copies of draft contracts, and responds to the claims contained in the letter by James Cody Treasurer of the McKinnon Basketball Association of the 1st June 2011 and should also cover the capacity of the Oakleigh Warriors to honour their commitment.

2. That the report include by way of separate appendix a copy of the proposed contractual terms to Oakleigh Warriors and Council not submit any written contract to Oakleigh Warriors until Council has considered same.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting, and

4. The report should include the cost of hire of like courts at Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.”

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Tang

In part four delete the word ‘at’ and replace with the word ‘including’.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED on the casting vote of the Chairperson and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

June 8, 2011

Item 9.4 – Heritage Listing

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

Esakoff declared 3 conflicts of interest – as a director of company who owns one of the properties, and as her husband is also a director. Lipshutz Moved motion to accept/Pilling seconded

LIPSHUTZ: Reminded everyone that this had been before council previously as a result of an ‘anomaly’ in the Heritage Overlay in that 466 Hawthorn is the only property listed under the Heritage banner – thus ‘there is a mismatch between the map and the schedule’. The matter has gone to the Department and now there’s this new report where the heritage advisors state that ‘this is a property worth maintaining heritage’ over…..‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’ that heritage should be kept, especially when one of these sites ‘is in a dilapidated condition’ and the owner claims he won’t repair anything. Since there were submissions the proper thing to do is go to a panel.

PILLING: Stated that he had chaired the planning conference and with the advisor’s reports, council should adopt the ‘cautious course’ and go to a panel.

TANG: ‘Imagine being a property owner’, buying the property and then years later discovering that it’s encumbered by a heritage listing and you can’t do what you envisaged that you wanted to do. ‘Put that against all the advice we’re getting’ from the heritage advisors…’it’s a difficult issue’….’there’s also a councillor involved’….’doesn’t mean that we treat them any worse than any other resident’….’I feel comfortable seeing this going to an independent panel’….’I note the heritage advice and would be prepared to see the heritage overlay clarified’ on all properties if that’s what the panel wants, but ‘in fairness to those who bought the property’ …’I think we should let this go to an independent panel’.

HYAMS: ‘This is a bit of a mess…..I don’t think we should be looking to apportion blame here…that one building would have addresses on two streets’….’owner of 2B didn’t know and ‘planning department only found out when there was an application for property next door’…’took all of our planning department by surprise’…..’several aspects that may have made it heritage worthy in the past….gone or been degraded….(gates, bricks painted)….’only two objectors neither of whom came to the planning comference’
..’and this despite the blog that likes to consider itself as influential….readers of that blog…usually the greatest sin a councillor can commit is apparently is to heed officers’ advice, especially unquestioningly….the blog is professing outrage….(that the heritage advisor’s recommendations are being ignored) …simply because a councillor has an interest ….with such breathtaking hypocrisy it’s no wonder that the people on this blog prefer to stay anonymous’. Councillors will ‘do what we always do’, look at advice …..’and make best decision’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We assume that Hyams’ little fit of pique against the ‘blog’ to be a reference to Glen Eira Debates. That’s the second time in two council meetings that the ‘real’ Cr. Hyams has maybe stood up? We accept this as a sincere compliment, since it indicates that we are definitely ruffling a few feathers and rattling a few cages. However, we need to correct some assertions made by Hyams. We are accused of ‘hypocrisy’ in that we have berated councillors for accepting ‘unquestioningly’ officers’ reports. If Cr Hyams would bother to look back at our post on this issue he would find the following as part of our commentary –

QUESTIONS:

What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties?
Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors…….”. We continued that what we recommend is surety for all concerned. There’s also a post that we put up but did not author – it comes from a resident expressing their personal opinion.

Finally, in relation to this current item, perhaps Cr. Hyams has not read the rehashed officers’ report as closely as he should have. The report notes: “Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants (David Bick, John Briggs, Roger Beeston and Dale Kelly). All concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection”.

So that makes it 6 Heritage Advisors in total. How much did this recourse to ‘external’ advisors cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? How much will referral to a Panel cost ratepayers Cr. Hyams? Why in the interests of transparency did you not once refer to this additional ‘evidence’ from ‘independent’ experts? And since it was at your urging that the current Councillor Code of Conduct contains the injunction that councillors read all material placed before them, we ask you -“Did you really read the new report?”. Or is the failure to mention these additional 4 expert opinions merely an example of ‘hypocrisy’? We welcome your response Cr. Hyams!

June 7, 2011

Notice of Motion

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

Pilling moved the amendment to Item 9.11 – to introduce a Notice of Motion to the Local Law. Seconded by Magee

PILLING: Stated that he had emailed all councillors regarding his intention to move the amendment. Said that most councils already have Notice of Motion in fact 76 out of the current 79. ‘The premise (of Newton’s report) is that we councillors aren’t capable of sensibly utilising this option’….’it’s a negative type of argument’…… Pilling stated that he felt that Glen Eira councillors should have the same options as the vast majority of councillors in other municipalities. A notice of motion would also give councillors the opportunity to raise issues that ‘aren’t a majority view’….’in my mind this is a healthy feature of local government’….. ‘and goes some way to alleviate majority blocks’. Gives non majority councillors a voice and that ‘is to be encouraged’.

The report talked about ‘technical hurdles’ but countered this by saying that neighbouring councils such as Bayside and Kingston have ‘clear guidelines’ ….’Urgent business has to be deemed just that’ ….’let’s codify this….set guidelines’….’As community elected representatives I feel we are resposible enough to raise any issues that are constructive and timely’. A Notice of Motion would encourage this. ‘It’s 10 years since we’ve had a Notice of Motion in glen eira. It’s now time to reintroduce it’.

MAGEE: Spoke about how there ‘is an opportunity there to misuse it (ie Notice of Motion) ‘but I believe the overwhelming majority within this chamber certainly wouldn’t do that….talking with groups, talking with individuals, there is times when business becomes a bit more than urgent…..I don’t think there’s a great opportunity for someone to come in and just blatantly raise issues to the detriment of the council…..(notice of motion) is …..an opportunity for us all to maybe move things along a little bit quicker…..it certainly doesn’t stop us from asking for information….or clarification in the days leading up to a council meeting…..it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to wait weeks and weeks…..sometimes months…..I feel that I would benefit from the Notice of Motion…..

TANG: Said he had spoken a few times with Pilling about this and the points he made were about the information that councillors received before making decisions. Went on to discuss the current agenda item stating ‘it wasn’t struck from thin air…..it came about (as a result of the last council meeting and Penhalluriack’s request for a report) …’and now we’ve got a report and councillors will take different positions…..it’s completely fair that councillors go against the advice from time to time….I don’t think (Pilling’s motion) is going to take council forward and only has the potential to take council back….(if a councillor wants a motion raised) I don’t see how a Notice of Motion will take them any further than a Request for a Report because if they don’t have the support of the majority of councillors…..if you can’t get a request for a report up you’re not going to be able to get a Notice of Motion up’. Tang then argued that if a motion was really urgent then it would fall into that category. ‘There is the potential that council could have a really persuasive argument which could be completely founded in falsities…..and that could sway council to make a decision without any contrasting or corresponding information to support that position……that’s the risk I see with council making decisions on the run. ……I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang. ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’. Stated that ‘in reality’ councillors have 3 ways of raising matters – request for a report; urgent business and ‘we can simply ask the CEO to put something on the agenda’. ‘Generally what happens is that at our briefing meeting…..we can mull over decisions…..if a majority of people want something put on the agenda it happens that way’. ‘Every Tuesday we meet and we discuss a whole variety of things…..(councillors come up with) hairbrained ideas…..we can discuss this. We discuss it openly….and we have a very robust exchange of views….the majority comes to a decision one way or the other…..and that’s how I think it should be because (council has to decide)…I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.

FORGE: Stated that initially she was supportuive of Cr. Magee (?) but having ‘listened to various comments ….I’m going to abstain from this because I feel that I need to know more’. Asked if she needs to go to the Local Law advisory committee …”to receive that information’. Esakoff then interrupted and told Forge that she is unable to abstain and that she would have to vote or perhaps ‘go off to the bathroom or something’ (laughter) . Forge left chambers.

HYAMS:’ I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions….if a councillor makes a request for a report…I’ll know what they’re trying to get at….the advantage of doing it that way is that it comes back to us with a pack of information….can ignore (the information or back it)….someone said it may take ages (to get back a report) because officers need that long to make up the information …..so (if a matter is that complicated) that it’s going to take officers 8 weeks ….that we as a council should vote on it without that information at all…..surely that’s not responsible. Hyams then gave the example of Marrickville council deciding to boycott Israeli products only to discover that this would have cost them millions given that they would have to change their entire computer systems). …..if they would have made a request for a report first…and they wouldn’t have done it, but because (they voted) without background information’ they got themselves into this mess. …I don’t think anyone in this council would abuse this….but myself and the mayer have served on this council where people would have done this without hesitation….as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything….

TANG: raised the issue of Forge’s ‘desire to abstain from the vote’ and walk out …..I don’t think you can abstain and then walk out…(not a personal attack on Forge but conerned with) the advice that a councillor who is out of the room doesn’t have to vote….

ESAKOFF: thanks Tang and then spoke to the motion. Doesn’t support the motion for many of ‘the reasons that have already been outlined….I don’t believe that this council would misuse….but I would not like it to be brought back in to our local law for the reasons that Hyams raised…..you don’t know what, who will be in the future….I would not like to leave it at risk that way….I don’t believe that decision making should be made without proper information….never fun to do it on the run (decision making). Reiterated that there is request for reports, urgent business and in assemblies “we’re able to raise something in our general business’ ….if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….

PILLING: ‘I think the whole language is overstated….(all over the country 100s of) notices of motions are put up….it’s normal business for most councils to have notice of motion….(about making decisions on the run) ‘set guidelines’ ….I think the public likes to see us debate issues….there’s a lot of reasons why I think we should have a notice of motion….I don’t think it’s the real dilemma that’s been painted….it’s just another way of raising issues as other councils do. The world hasn’t fallen in in Stonnington….I think it’s healthy to have debate….I hope we aren’t so cautious and we’re bold and go forward….

MOTION LOST

Hyams then moved that the motion as printed be put. Lipshutz seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: responded to Pilling’s comments with ‘we do have debate’.

TANG: thought that Pilling ‘tackled the points that had been raised well’. Commented that if councillors look at other reports and the ways other councils do things, then he would welcome then bringing this information to council and ‘we’d have a look at it’ Examples he gave were: public toilets in restaurants, ‘pavilions that other councils build on’ ‘no smoking in public playgrounds…there’s all sorts of decisions that I’ve seen other councils make…and all the ones I’ve been interested in are all the ones where there have been reports’. couldn’t think of any one that had come from a Notice of Motion.

MOTION CARRIED ON ESAKOFF’S CASTING VOTE.

June 6, 2011

Council Meeting: Notice of Motion

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

A brief report (with further details tomorrow) on tonight’s motion by Neil Pilling to introduce a Notice of Motion into the Local Law. It was defeated. The votes were as follows –

Magee, Penhalluriack and Pilling in support of motion. Forge abstained and Lobo was still on leave. Vote against motion – Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff.

Arguments by ‘the gang’ were astounding – ie. introducing a Notice of Motion was ‘dangerous’; Lipshutz was concerned about the future and safeguarding future councillors and council. There was also ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ line. Councillors need advice and information otherwise a real threat to responsible decision making, and so on.

Some other ‘highlights’ –

the Duncan McKinnon redevelopment will go ahead. Cost is now 8.8 million!
‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ is no longer a policy, but termed a ‘mantra’!
Lipshutz now urges resident objectors to ‘have a go’ at VCAT – obviously forgetting his previous dictum that ‘we know best’ and that residents will come out worse if they object! The VCAT overturning of a council decision obviously meant that his long standing arguments also had to be ‘overturned’.
McKinnon development – not seven double storeys, but 6.
Public question on the accuracy of council responses remains unanswered.
Importantly, Newton’s spiel on Notice of Motion and the normal process of ‘noting’ the report did not gain an unanimous vote – it was merely ‘carried’. A first in Glen Eira!
Decision on Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed buildings now to go to a Panel.

June 3, 2011

Agenda Items: Heritage, Community Plan & That ‘Inverse Correlation’

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

The number of notifications versus the number of objections maintains the current trend of fewer notifications garnering the greatest number of objections!

Location	Notifications	Objections	Recommendation
Station Ave., McKinnon (7 double storeys)	8 properties 20 notices	10 objections	Permit
Kooyong Rd., Elsternwick (Medical centre)	10 properties 36 notices	67 objections 1 support letter	Permit
Duncan McKinnon Reserve (pavilion/grandstand construction)	104 properties 186 notices	2 objections	Permit

Item 9.4 Heritage Overlay (Hawthorn Rd.)

Officers’ recommendation was to “abandon(s) Amendment C83 (which seeks to remove the heritage overlay)”, reason being – “The lack of technical heritage justification to proceed with the amendment.”

Readers will remember that this is the Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property and that Jack Esakoff is owner of one of the properties in the proposal. It will be incredibly interesting to note how Lipshutz, Tang, Hyams and Pilling vote on this one, given their previous support of removing all 3 properties from Heritage listings. Of course the real stumbling block in this case is the Department’s findings –

“The authorisation to prepare the amendment is not an indication of whether or not the amendment will ultimately be supported.

The Department is concerned with the lack of strategic justification provided in support of the amendment. I encourage Council to provide further justification to support the amendment”.

QUESTION: What does this say about the original recommendation?

Item 9.6 – Strategic Plan (alias Community Plan)

This item calls for council to hear submissions. We wish to point out the following anomaly:

Any alteration to a budget such as happened at the recent Special Council Meeting with the carried Amendment, must logically impact on the Strategic Resource Plan. Adjustments must be made to both the budget and the plan to account for the drop in rates and the halving of proposed regrassing of ovals. Yet, Council is now accepting submissions on something that no longer exists!! This is a total farce. The new version of the Plan and budget have not been made public – yet councillors will decide on a new version without public comment and without ratepayers even sighting this new version!! Is this what is called ‘good governance’?

Here’s one paragraph from the single submission in regards to open space: The councils draft Community Plan seems to be all about providing infrastructure development for the future. More people, more building, roads, concrete paths and artificial sports grounds. As the demographics show Glen Eira population is rising and will continue to rise, and so willthe needs of these residents to enjoy our parks and gardens.

Other items of interest, in particular Newton’s response to Penhalluriack on the issue of ‘Notice of Motion’ will be addressed in the next post.

May 20, 2011

More Weasel Words?

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

The following comments are taken directly from the minutes of the last council meeting and refer to Magee’s statement (cited in an earlier post) about the farce that occurred when Penhalluriack attempted to request a report. Both Tang and Hyams responded to Magee’s comments.

11.2 Right of reply

Cr Tang: “I’d like to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by Cr Magee at this meeting at Item 11.1 Requests for Reports. Cr Magee has suggested that once Cr Penhalluriack opens his mouth he is expected to go through a rigmarole. I believe by direct implication the rigmarole he was referring to was the application of the Local Laws. I believe the direct implication is that other Councillors are not subject to the same application of the Local Laws. I distinctly recall being put through the same rigmarole last week when I tried to move an amendment to the budget as advertised. And at other times when we have tried to settle a motion where not all Councillors were in the same position of agreement nor was it clear that there was a majority of Councillors in agreement that would support any particular motion and in doing that it’s a bit messy but Councillors have to be able to move amendments because they should be able to amend something that is on the floor. Otherwise motions will come that no majority of Councillors are in support of. Motions will come where there are two Councillors on one side two Councillors on another side two Councillors in the middle and two Councillor who don’t know what is going on and one Councillor who is not there. Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency. You’ll have the Chair dictating which motion they’ll accept and you’ll have no objective assessment as to whether the Chair was being fair in that application. So I think the implication that Cr Magee clearly made was against each and every one of us Councillors in trying to apply the Local Law to Cr Penhalluriack but not applying it to any other Councillor.”

Cr Hyams: “I would also like to exercise a right of reply if I may. To the same comments that were made by Cr Magee. I agree with Cr Tang that the import of Cr Magee’s comments were that somehow the Local Law is being applied unfairly to some Councillors whereas not others whereas I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t. And I think that if Councillors look back on the way things have worked around here, each Councillor has at times been pulled up for going outside the Local Law. And I also think that when Councillors are finding their ways frustrated other Councillors who have actually tried to assist those Councillors in finding a way to do what they want to within the Local Law.”

May 19, 2011

From 14 to 7: What’s the Real Stor(e)y?

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

Tuesday night’s council meeting resolved that the application for the 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd. be reduced from 14 storeys and over 100 units to 7 storeys and 69 units. The resolution also included a rider that no residential car parking permits be on offer. The vote was passed on the casting vote of Esakoff.

Two conflicts of interest by Newton (lives close by) and by Magee (put in an offer on a property in the vicinity). Here’s what happened.

Motion moved by Hyams/Tang

ITEM 9.1 – GLEN HUNTLY RD.

HYAMS: started off by saying that there would definitely be development on this site but the question for council was to decide what kind of development -‘how big’….’we make this decision in the shadow of’ the 10 storey development close by. ‘There is a difference between that one and this one’….’this recommendation deals with some of the concerns raised by the objectors’. In terms of car parking ‘no resident will get a permit’ ….’also concern about cars driving in and out ……one of the conditions is that the laneway will be doubled’ (in width)…’ further increased setback on McCrombie Rd’. The difference between this one and the earlier 10 storey application is ‘it didn’t back straight onto houses….it backed onto the church….this application goes straight onto the neighbours….and I think it’s probably a bit too much to ask those neighbours …..to expect to put up with a ten storey building right on their doorstep….obviously we do have to allow a development here…..for those reasons hope we allow a smaller development ‘.

TANG: said that he ‘needed to declare at the outset that I am grudgingly supporting a 7 storey development’ since ‘there is no grounds for refusal’ on this application….’I don’t support the application for 14 storeys’, nor the officers’ recommendations for 10 storeys and he foreshadowed that ‘if two more councillors indicate support for refusal’ he would move that motion. Tang then declared that ‘it is actually too small a proposal and what some councillors would like to see is a large 10 storey building’ or even 14 storey’. ‘In this instance there is no buffer to the residential area and thus I can’t see a 14 storey proposal or even a 10 storey proposal….fitting in to this urban context’. …’emerging character was going to be of a high density but was never going to be…. 10 or 14 storeys….that’s the way I read the Elsternwick Urban Village….so on those grounds I will grudgingly support the 7 storey proposal at this stage, but if two councillors’ indicate their opposition then he’ll move the motion to refuse.

PILLING: ‘I am supporting the motion as printed……I think this is a sensible, reasonable option…(there’s been a decrease in dwellings)…’it is close to public transport; it ticks all the boxes in that regard’. The VCAT decision is ‘the reality of what we’re dealing with’ and officers have ‘balanced’ all the concerns. He stated he’d vote against this alternative recommendation and praised the officers because ‘they’ve got it right’.

FORGE: ‘This area is ripe for development; it’s the gateway to Glen Eira…this is a special area which can take large development….amply serviced by public transport…..good traffic flow (stated she was ‘down there’ and there were 3 or 4 cars in side streets. Also stated that taking 4 storeys off the middle part is less effective than taking four storeys off the top and ‘I support a ten storey building’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I agree this is the gateway to Elsternwick….a happy mix of some beautiful old Victorian houses, narrow streets’, schools, and this area is zoned Business 1. ‘The developer has made adequate provision for car parking…I would support the original application for 14 storeys’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY: ‘Would you like to live next to it?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I will reluctantly support 10 storeys’ but agreeing with Forge ‘not if it’s going to be a huge reduction in the number of residents’…..’this is a Business 1 Zone….and unfortunately if you happen to live close …..you have to accept that this is a Business 1 zone….it would be nice if there was a transition introduced in our Planning Scheme. There is not. You go straight …..the narrow line goes from big to little ….I have been speaking for a long time about transition zones because I believe that is essential’. He would vote against the motion.

ESAKOFF: Stated she was concerned about the ‘impact’ on McCrombie St. Referred to the near by development where ‘council supported 8 storeys which went onto VCAT which supported 10’….’that development didn’t have the same interface as this one….the ten storey (of earlier proposal) didn’t immediately abut McCrombie St…..I believe there needs to be some discretion while remembering that Elsternwick is an Urban Village ….where higher density is and will occur…..while Council continues to have input, we can and will (ensure) that impact is kept to a minimum….even though they sit in (urban village or housing diversity area)’. ‘The very usual difficult balancing act that we are dealt’. Doesn’t support 10 stoerys and believes that a more appropriate solution is 7 storeys.

HYAMS: ‘I saw some disbelief on the faces of the gallery when they were told that McCombie st is a quiet street….the street itself is fairly quiet’ but trying to turn into GlenHuntly Rd. Hayms stated it took him ‘a number of minutes’ ….’I can imagine in peak hour’ what it’s like…..(the 10 storey) ‘was a far larger block’…’our urban villages policy divides the Elsternwick area into precincts…..(this is precinct 2)….’one of the conditions …..(and it’s old and superceded and discretionary), ‘but one of …..development to the west of the railway line should be no higher than the terrace properties on the South side of Glen Huntly Rd’. That’s one of our policies…..’When you add them all together they don’t (sometimes) complement each other…so it’s a matter of adding them up’. ‘Bearing in mind that that’s part of our policy having a 14 storey building …..is too much of a stretch (but 7 storeys is okay).

VOTE WAS DRAWN – ESAKOFF USED HER CASTING VOTE TO PASS THE MOTION

May 18, 2011

Welcome To The Circus!

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

Please forgive this very long report on tonight’s council meeting. We’ve only covered a few of the agenda items, but will report on the rest in the next few days.

ITEM 9.8 – Newton’s ‘Report’

Hyams/Pilling moved motion to note report.

HYAMS: ‘I don’t have much to say on this. The CEO was asked to give a rport on his meetings with the MRC and he has done so’.

PILLING: did not say anything.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m disappointed in this report’….(Penhalluriack then read out the paragraph about the meetings with MPs and ‘others’)….asked whether Newton had actually attended those meetings. Newton replied ‘Madam Mayor, I didn’t’. Penhalluriack then said that since he’s written the paragraph, ‘then presumably somebody did otherwise you wouldn’t have it in the report’….

Paul Burke then intervened with “I may be able to assist your Worship. I understand that you attended those meetings Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack asked that Burke claify this which Burke claimed he couldn’t. Penhalluriack then went on to say that he did attend a meeting and Cr. Forge provided the minutes of that meeting back to council. He went on to say that ‘there is an olligation on council to keep detailed records under the Public Records Act’. Quoted Section 13 of the Act….’and I am frankly disappointed that we get in this report a lot of things that we didn’t ask for…..we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made’….’I’m not happy with this report’.

FORGE: ‘Yes, I have concerns too about the matter of detail and I support Cr. Penhalluriack’s observatiions’.

HYAMS: ‘I didn’t find the paragraph that Cr. Penhalluriack referred to (unclear)…because it said quite clearly that no officer attended (so it could only be councillors)…and I certainly didn’t attend any of these meetings…Cr. Penhalluriack is right that we have to keep detiled records but it doesn’t necessarily mean….detailed records in the agenda….I wouldn’t like to carry them, but some bodies might like to…There was also the comment that there was no record of (meetings attended, but there is) chronological order in paragraph 5….so I’m happy with this report.

MOTION CARRIED: Against Penhalluriack and Forge. For the motion – Hyams, Pilling, Tang, Magee, Esakoff.

REQUEST FOR REPORTS

TANG: ‘council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the mulch facility …..at another site in GlenEeira. The report should consider the recommendations of the Health assessment’ team. Claimed he was only ‘testing the water’ since he understands that councillors made a decision to remove the facility but now there’s been ‘public discord’ emails, phone calls and newspapers. He is ‘interested to see whether all options are exhausted before close the door’. He understands that some councillors have got strong views about all this such as where the facility was placed and whether it could be operated from a different location. ‘testing the water to see if councillors will open their minds to other options…..(and if this motion is defeated then it’s clear that council won’t be providing this facility from anywhere in Glen Eira).

HYAMS: ‘My concern….wasn’t the site but the dangers of handling it….so I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it at any other site but (since there are a couple of councillors absent) ‘it’s been a bone of contention so I’m happy to (support the request for a report) and see what comes back’ …’but I don’t think I’ll change my mind’.

PILLING: Stated that he did ask if there was anywhere else for the facility to go

FORGE: reminded councillors that she and Magee raised a number of issues apart from legionnaires and the dangers that the facility contained.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that people are obviously concerned when they go to the mulch facility but the signs indicate that ‘they’ve been denied a free service’. Said he could understand people’s concern, but he is also concerned that ‘the Leader is running a campaign’ because the mulch bin is still sitting there. ‘The wording of the motion which was passed is very straight forward. Officers are under obligation to listen to (councillors decisions) resolutions and do it expeditiously. The wording says that council removes the facility….AND it no longer provides this free service…..I’m reasonably competent in English …..the building is a prefabricated building ….and they could be stored almost anywhere….It’s simple English….This bin itself was badly designed right from the start…..it’s designed to allow the mulch to be pushed in….a bottle neck at the far end…..(explained how it could be better designed. ‘Standards Association says the mulch should be pasteurised….it is not pasteurised…..(then unless it is pasteurised) you cannot put this facility anywhere in Glen Eira. Spoke about insurance companies and whether they know about the dealing with a dangerous product and the same with Glen Eira college. Job is to protect the community. ‘I’m not prepared to do it’ – ie. take the risk.

TANG: ‘would be shocked’ if they didn’t know about the risk. Council had spoken with principal of college. Insurance would have an appraisal, so they also know. ‘I encouraged Penhalluriack to bring the issue forward….would be good to implement every one of those recommendations…..some councillors as concerned about the mulch service as concerned about where it is located…there is very strong feeling….our duty to investigate whether there are optiions…..If there aren’t I will let the issue lie….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Penahalluriack: FOR: Esakoff, Tang, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Forge

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

PENHALLURIACK: ‘i’ve given notice of a motion concerning a footpath down the western side of Queen’s Avenue. The matter is not urgent (but he was told the criteria for an ‘urgent’ motion was that it had to have happened after the agenda was published)…’It seems in Glen Eira that whatever does or does not go in the agenda is the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer….There is no other way for me to get discussion on my motion….my question is Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a provision for councillors’ motions on notice, so if a seconder can be found…(important issues can be discussed)?

ESAKOFF: ‘Who are you directing the question to?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘To you madam Mayor’

Esakoff started to reply when Hyams interjected with a point of procedure. That questions to councillors had to be given to that councillor prior to the meeting, and that in the current situation he ‘didn’t want to set a preceent’. Burke then said that ‘the matter was considered in the Local Law Process ….and Council took a view that it was satisfied with the process as (it stood).

PENHALLURIACK: ‘how can I get this matter debated’ if I can’t move a motion of notice?

BURKE: ‘you have 8 other colleagues…seek their support. The Local Law will allow you to do so….

TANG: ‘I’ll take lilberty and put a question to Mr. Burke (trying to help Penhalluriack)….would Cr. Penhalluriack be able to have this discussed if he were to move a request for a report….?

BURKE: ‘Yes’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I take umbrage at that response. he suggests I get all 9 councillors together (even when 9 councillors are together) ‘I can’t get a motion because our CEO controls the agenda ….I can ask for a report and a report will come back to us ….(but how do I get the Local Law changed)

BURKE: Requests for reports are a ‘catalyst’ for all sorts of’ things, including what you’re seeking.

PENAHLLURIACK: Tried to ask for a report on the agenda item

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s too late’

HYAMS: Moved a procedural motion that would allow Penhalluriack to request a report. Pilling seconded.

TANG:’ There’s no such thing as a procedural motion….I’ll just move that ‘council reopen discussion of 11.2’

ESAKOFF: 11.1. Hyams accepted the amendment

Vote on amendment – carried unanimously

ESAKOFF: ‘We’re back to 11.1. Cr Penhalluriack’

PENAHALLURIACK: ‘How circumlocutous can we possible get! …..Can councillors please provide a report to councillors on why Glen Eira doesn’t have a provision for councillors to have a motion on notice….. Tang seconded.

TANG: ‘just hope that Cr. Penhalluriack remembers that we helped him out on getting these things…’

PILLING asked for a repeat of the request for a report.
Penhalluriack re-read the motion – why glen Eira doesn’t have a provision ….so that a seconder can be found and that matters of importance can be debated.’ Pilling then suggested changes to the request for a report, referring to the Local Law and the necessity to change that. Penahlluriack didn’t want the word ‘suggestion’ in Pilling’s rephrasing. He wanted to change the word ‘suggestions’ to ‘draft’. Burke then again said: ‘that may give officers a deal of angst’ since you’re asking for a report that means that your wording will change , so ‘officers are actually drafting what you want’. Penhalluriack then seconded Tang’s motion! Tang then tried to clarify.’ Cr Penahlluriack has moved a motion, I seconded that motion and Cr. Pilling has moved an amendment. Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested that he is prepared to’ accept the amendment , so he’s withdrawing his motion and moving the motion ‘as read by Pilling’.

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack and Tang whether they supported the amended motion. Both agreed.

MAGEE; ‘I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my life …every time Cr. Penhalluriack tries to do something….road blocking. The last 5 minuytes have been an absolute disgrace. (gallery clapped) …looking after 100 million dollar business should be informed and I think…..should be sacked’.

HYAMS: ‘at lot more of us would be sacked if we tried to ignore our local law rather than stick with it ….(interjection from the gallery about ‘ordinary business’) ‘I understand Mr. dunstan that you were a very ordinary councillor so I understand why you’d want ordinary business’

TANG: a question to Magee. ‘if we didn’t apply the local laws consistently the alternative would be to leave all the power in the hands of the chair and allow the chair to act at their discretion…accept or reject motions…..

MAGEE: ‘we’re all very aware from the first word of Cr. Penhalluriack (what he wanted) ‘and all we did was play tennis with it’

TANG; ‘I don’t think Cr. Magee has answered my question’.

MAGEE: ‘I think we all knew where Cr. Penhalluriack was going ….and all we did was play around with it. …we should have gone straight to the point…..

PILLING: ‘it was confusing….I was trying to get what Cr. Penhalluriack wanted

PENHALLURIACK: I get pissed off as well…..I’m happy for the motion as it stands …”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates