Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.1 – Glenhuntly Rd/Beavis St, Elsternwick – Motion to oppose amended plans – Carried – Hyams, Pilling and Tang voted for accepting amended plans.

Esakoff and Penhalluriack both declared a conflict of interest. Hyams took the chair. Lipshutz explained that the original application had been rejected by council and that this is for amended plans. ‘at first blush’ the plans look all right since they represent a ‘down grading’ but when looked at closely this represents ‘a small street that is being choked by traffic’….there’s traffic all day long and there’s a school there…..(and will be) chaotic to the residents’ but not just the residents since this will flow all the way back into Glen Huntly Rd. He went on to say that ‘whilst the character of Elsternwick is changing and is certainly ripe for development’ this plan isn’t ‘appropriate’…one also has to look at carparking……if one looks at the modern trend of cars, that is use of cars one expects this development to be of a high quality….what you see is with high quality housing people have two cars and with two cars ….you’re going to get all that traffic coming out of Beavis St……argument is that people ….will use trams..(but trams are woefully inadequate)…until government takes real notice of insfrastructure planning ….I oppose it.

[One might very well ask: what happened to the argument that people won’t need that many cars living alongside a transport corridor? What evidence is there that ‘high quality’ dwellings will attract people with more cars? Please note: Report states that 22% of the 99 proposed dwelling will be ‘studio apartments’ and only 4 will be 2 bedroom apartments! What should also be remembered is that in the past Lipshutz has stated living close to transport will alleviate the reliance on cars – here we appear to have the opposite argument since the building will be of ‘high quality’!!!!]

Forge – ‘in the wrong place and will cause chaos’

Pilling: (against the motion) – ‘support this….(since) a vast improvement’ on previous application….I think this is appropriate for this site…..public transport, a huge shopping centre…..

Tang: at planning conference there was support for developing the site but ‘no one enjoys’ the experience of shopping there and the car park situation. ‘we saying this site would be good for urban renewal’….one of the strengths (this proposal has is that it does propose) more car parking…..from of development will be approved eventually when they get it right…..it’s also a good spot for housing because we want to see housing utilised in that particular spot…..but not at the level that this is proposing…..it doesn’t fit in….four storeys is what I would be expecting at this site’.

Hyams: ‘regardless of what we do it will be VCAT that is making the decision…..significantly different to what we rejected originally’. Hyams then stated that one reason which influences his decision is that the 10 storey application in Elsternwick was upheld by VCAT…’disappointing but that’s the way VCAT appears to be interpreting our Urban Villages policy….if we oppose it I fear it will go over our heads’ so better to accept with conditions.

Item 9.7: Flooding – Melbourne Water Overlay (Passed unanimously)

Esakoff moved alternate motion (seconded by Pilling). It consisted of asking for further representations to Melbourne Water and Government about improving drains and preventing flooding; and to prepare a report on the damage to Glen Eira from last Friday’s flooding; how the emergency response from council was during and after the flood; look at Melbourne Water and Council’s maintenance to ensure that drains are free of blockages; for council to review and ‘if necessary’ improve response; options to reduce the risk of flooding.

Esakoff went on to read a prepared statement which said that as a result of the flooding ‘some residents believed that council had been slow in response’….Since her statement in the press there was ‘information received which showed this was not the case’. A report from Human Services showed that council was not slow and relied on data received from the SES and other services. 152 properties were listed as flooded. On the following two days council officers ‘visited all of these properties’…’including the residents reported in the Leader saying that no-one from council’ had visited them until Thursday. The website contained information; and at the customer service centre.

Following meetings 621 information packs were sent out to residents that included letters inviting residents to contact council ‘to arrange a visit by an environmental health officer’. Esakoff then went on to outline all the support that was given, including 11 requests for emergency accommodation. Also, all concerns raised by residents at a community meeting ‘have been resolved’. Officers were diligent providing information about financial assistance, clean up advice and personal support. Unfortunately ‘in events like this, there is always a great deal of emotion and we all understand this’, ….’it’s easy to pass the blame but in this case…Council has responded appropriately’. The report is to make sure that ‘no stone is left unturned’

There are several important planning applications up for decision next Tuesday night. The Officers’ recommendations are as follows:

• 441-461 Glen Huntly Rd. – This involves 3 buildings; 7 storeys, and 137 units. Approve amended application
• 141-141A Kooyong Rd. – Residential Aged Care – 115 beds. Approve application
• 12 Larman St. – 3 double storey dwellings – Approve application
• 11 Rosanna St. – increase of time for lighting of tennis courts; increase of licensed area. Approve application

Readers should once again note that NOTIFICATIONS follow the usual pattern – ie. the greater the likely objection, the less notification is posted out to neighbours and surrounds. For example:

OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE:

• Mr. Varvodic continues to be a topic of conversation in assembly of councillor records
• The Pools Steering Committee minutes are as taciturn as ever. 10 words are all that’s there!
• The Assembly of councillors continue to discuss the Elsternwick Childcare Centre
• The recent flooding has prompted some action it seems – ie plea to Melbourne Water. Needless to say, no report on how many of the affected properties come under the maintenance of council, rather than Melbourne Water! And to top off the agenda, there is a ‘review’ of the Emergency Plan.
• In camera items continue again on ‘personnel’ and contracts – CEO we wonder?
• ‘reimbursement of legal fees’ – again and again!

Summing up it looks like all steam ahead for rampant development, inverse ratios for notifications, and continuing sagas with Frisbee groups, councillor expenses, and CEO contracts.

Today’s Moorabbin Leader features an article by Jenny Ling on the Regent St. development and the ‘demonstration’ that occurred in Council chambers at last Tuesday night’s meeting. No mention in the Caulfield Leader!

Big cheer as council says no to school

But accusations fly at heated protest 

VOCAL protesters were jubilant after Glen Eira councillors rejected ‘‘ludicrous’’ plans for a boys’ school in Elsternwick. Up to 100 residents marched into the council chambers last Tuesday holding placards and chanting in opposition to revised plans for a two-storey Jewish school for 275 students at 46 Regent St.

But some comments prompted threats of eviction from the public gallery, including one protester who accused Cr Jamie Hyams of ‘‘corruption’’ then added: ‘‘I know where you live’’. Councillors were also unimpressed with emails from some objectors, including one to Frank Penhalluriak saying: ‘‘I recall your idiotic decision 12 months ago . . . let’s hope this time you get off your self-righteous stance and vote for common sense.’’ 

All councillors voted against the plans, which drew 88 objections because of traffic, parking, noise, security and vandalism concerns. VCAT will have the final say at a March 21 hearing. 

Applicant Network Planning Consultants, working on behalf of Yesodei Hatorah College which wants to move from the Elwood Shul Talmud Torah synagogue in Dickens St, originally submitted plans for a three-storey building for 325 students. It was rejected in February. Save Regent St Action Group spokesman Michael Leone said 100 residents of Regent, Sandham, Sinclair and Elizabeth streets and St Georges and Glen Eira roads had raised more than $50,000 to fight the development. 

Yesodei Hatorah College did not respond to the Leader before deadline.

Tuesday night’s agenda contains several interesting items. We have reports from the Pools Steering Committee and the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee. In typical Glen Eira fashion both of these so called ‘minutes’ have assumed the mantle of ‘Records of Assembly’ – meaning that one line sentences are legally the official ‘minutes’ of these meetings. For example, all we get from the Pool Steering Committee is:

“Matters considered 

(i) Previous Minutes

Security over Shutdown Period 

(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”

 The recreation committee is a little more forthcoming with information but it still remains on the very, very scant side – ie.

“Public Questions – ground allocations

Discussion regarding public questions in relation to ground allocations and authorised and unauthorised usage. Discussions covered;

• enforcement of the Local Law,

• fencing/taping off the ovals to keep unauthorised groups off and protect the grounds,

• perceptions of conflict of interest,

• usefulness of the Local Law,

• Local Laws in other municipalities,

• distribution of the Frisbee Report,

• guidance provided to Officers in relation to the Frisbee report,

• outcomes of the Municipal Investigation in relation to matters concerning the Frisbee group, and

• whether the Local Laws needed to be changed.

Action: Officers continue to monitor the situation and the matter be considered at a future date”.

 Then of course, there are the planning applications. As per usual, those which are likely to be the most contentious have the least number of notifications, yet the highest number of objections. Council obviously works on the principle of inverse relationships! Here is a table which we’ve drawn up from the various items to illustrate our point.

 There’s also a VCAT appeal where officers recommend acceptance of amended plans. The number of notifications is not listed, but there are 88 objections.

Finally a couple of interesting items from the in camera section – (1) again legal advice pertaining to the payment of ‘legal fees’, we presume, for councillors fronting the municipal inspector with their lawyers, and (2) under ‘personnel’ an item about contracts. Given that the only contract that council has control over is the CEO’s, then speculation should be rife about what’s going on here!

•  Minutes of last meeting were accepted unanimously. Readers should recall that Penhalluriack had indicated his dissent from Esakoff’s ruling and requested that this be included in the minutes. The subsequent minutes failed to record any of this. Last night’s meeting in effect wiped history – without a murmur from anyone! There is now no official record of what actually happened. Any future investigation (since we presume audio tapes will be wiped as soon as possible) will only have these so called ‘official’ minutes to go on. So, what happened behind those closed doors? What pseudo-legal argument(s) did Newton, Burke and co. propose to stifle discussion and debate on this most important point? Why did Penhalluriack not mutter a word? What about Lobo? Magee? Pilling? Why this continual complicity of silence? At the very least, the community deserves some explanation as to why a councillor’s request has been ignored. 
• Lobo commented that Co-ordinator of Godfrey house has resigned and that they’re ‘in trouble’; ‘council may need to look at this vertically’!???? 
• Assembly of Councillors reports: Esakoff/Pilling to accept – not a word said by anyone. These ‘records’ were not included in the online version of the agenda! Error? Deliberate? Competence?

1. Item 9.1 Station St. Development: (Hyams/Penhalluriack) –  resolution passed unanimously  – ‘up to 48 dwellings’. Hyams praised the application as an ‘interesting development’ and for being ‘innovative’ as well as ‘fitting in with planning guidelines’. The fact that it’s a 5 storey building ‘may be a bit high’(!) but because it’s part of Phoenix Precinct and c60 it fits in. 
2. Item 9.3 Morgan St application: (Pilling/Esakoff) – Pilling had ‘some concerns’ conceding that ‘it is true that there are no side by side in the street’ but that there were other applications in waiting for this! Ultimately ‘it’s a reasonable application and I support it’. Esakoff also conceded that ‘side by side’ is ‘not popular in glen Eira’ but the alternative of one behind the other ‘causes the same angst’. Further with all the conditions imposed that this will ‘ameliorate the angst of the neighbours’. Penhalluriack stated he was in two minds over this since it does represent ‘huge bulk for the street’ and is ‘out of character’. Tang endorsed Pilling and stated that since there were already two storey developments in the street it would be hard to oppose this application. Vote – 8 to 1 Penhalluriack voted against motion. 
3. Item 9.9 Packer Park (Esakoff/Forge): petanque gone; lemon trees gone; reorientate bowls area to a north/south aspect; ‘as a matter of urgency pursue’ links between state and federal government arrangements for kinda (ie -no kindas), and developments to be implemented (barbecues) when funding is available. Esakoff went into the 20 months history of this site; consultation ‘methodology’ was also elaborated upon; ‘from all of these methods 78 comments were received’ with (of course) the vast majority supporting the concept plan. “it should be noted that….80% were in support…20% suggested changes’. The gallery were then treated to an expose of the limited amount of open space available and the prediction by the VEAC paper that as density increases open space will decrease. Admitted that kindergartens were suggested but ‘considered unfeasible for a number of reasons, including town planning restraints’, ‘high cost of development’, and ‘compatability with adjoining areas’. Reported that council carried out a ‘quite extensive’ investigation in response to government Universal Access Policy (which as far as we know has never been made public!) and which looked for suitable kindergarten locations in Glen Eira. The report apparently proposed 7 appropriate locations and Packer Park was not one of them. Esakoff then went on to state that Packer park is actually in the McKinnon zone for kindergartens and that there is greater need in Murrumbeena. Carnegie is the ‘ideal site’! Esakoff did however note that if the kindergarten HAD BEEN AN OPTION THEN THE RESPONSES WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DIFFERENT!  ‘Kindergartens are important, they are emotive and they require long term solutions. But, it must be the right solutions and…not anything will do’. ‘at the end of the day …will be a valuable addition to Packer Park, for all residents, young and old… and should provide many, many hours of enjoyment..’

Forge: ‘I am happy to support everything that she (Esakoff) has put forward’

Magee: ‘$370,000 is a lot of money….at last count I think we still had 60 odd children’ for next year that didn’t have a place…$370,000 of ratepayers money to pull out a bowling green to put in a bowling green’. Magee basically stated that he would not be happy to do this until Glen Eira reached a situation where it had fixed up all its other needs. Carried 8 to 1 Magee voted against. 

• Item 9.10 Booran reservoir (Penhalluriack/Forge)

Penhalluriack: ‘officers can go further….it’s very important that we analyse in more detail the cost…’. Penhalluriack basically argued for more research to be done before a decision could be made. Forge also stated that ‘we need to get to the nitty gritty’ before deciding. Lipshutz claimed that Penhalluraick’s motion was ‘non-specific’ and that it should contain more detail. Penhalluriack went on to state – ‘the officers had a motion to work to…(their report) I believe is rather superficial . Penhalluriack wanted to know – strength of walls; whether surface is clay, what weight can they hold? ‘I want to know…whether we can reclaim this reservoir tomorrow….’

Pilling was ‘happy with the report’ and asked ‘why take a step backwards’? In summing up Penahlluriack said ‘we need to know. There’s nothing worse than flying blind. We need to know..we need to know all the facts before we start…..’Penhalluriack’s motion was lost. FOR – Magee, Forge, Penhalluriack 

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed.

MOTION WAS CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION 

This post is now long enough. We’ll conclude the report on public questions, delegations, etc. in the next few days.