August 20, 2011
Just a reminder that the Planning Conference for the MRC centre of the racecourse application is due to take place –
WHEN: MONDAY, 22nd AUGUST @ 6.30
WHERE: Town Hall – Main Entrance.
We would hope that signage is not a problem this time and that doors are not locked!
August 18, 2011
This is what happened at the Panel Hearing yesterday.
August 18, 2011
August 18, 2011
Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street Caulfield South. Photo: Gary Medlicott
A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s south-east is pushing to reject heritage protection for three homes – one owned by the mayor – despite four independent heritage experts and the council’s own heritage adviser recommending the houses be protected.
A planning mistake recently identified by Glen Eira City Council showed that while all three maisonette dwellings in the one building on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street, South Caulfield, were included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one home was recorded for heritage protection.
When the heritage anomaly was discovered, council staff last year recommended extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors rejected the advice and voted to begin a process to remove existing heritage protection from the entire site.
One heritage expert consulted by the council, John Briggs, said he would be amazed if the panel did not recommend heritage protection for the three dwellings.
One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband, Jack.
Cr Esakoff, who did not return calls yesterday, has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.
Jack Esakoff told The Age they bought the home before the council identified it for heritage protection. Protecting it retrospectively would penalise them, he said.
Mr Esakoff said he had lobbied Glen Eira councillors on the issue and taken them to inspect the building.
But he said he had not discussed the matter with his wife.
”It is something that we haven’t even discussed at home,” he said.
Deputy mayor Jamie Hyams said the councillors also had not discussed the issue with Cr Esakoff.
”She [the mayor] has also made the point of not talking to any of us about it,” he said.
He said the fact that one dwelling was owned by the mayor had not influenced councillors and it was not unusual for councillors to reject recommendations from council officers.
The Bracks government sacked Glen Eira Council, including Cr Esakoff, in 2005 after a report found the council was ”very badly governed”.
August 17, 2011
Let’s talk standards and how these are mangled one by one if circumstances so dictate! Today there was the Panel hearing for the c83 amendment. To refresh readers minds it involved the 466 Hawthorn Rd property – the one where councillors voted against 6 Heritage Advisors recommendations to retain heritage listing on the 3 unit, Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property. The arguments put up were: heritage listing ‘restricts’ development; it’s a Housing Diversity Area near public transport; the property is not maintained, etc. etc.
What is remarkable about this case (apart from the fact that the Esakoffs are involved) is that Heritage listing was applied in 2003. Yet the proposals for Housing Diversity Areas were cooked up years previously and based on a report dating back to 1999. Thus, in 2003 numerous properties were designated as ‘heritage listed’ and worthy of protection, regardless of their location. We now have the absurd arguments that because a Heritage Listed property is in a Housing Diversity Area it no longer deserves protection and will ‘restrict’ medium to high density development. Council cannot have it both ways! Either properties are worthy of protection wherever they are, or there is no property that should have protection if they are in an area designated as Housing Diversity.
To top it off, we’ve learnt that council’s Heritage Advisor refused to be a witness at today’s Panel Hearing – declaring a potential conflict of interest. It seems that the Chair of the Panel was none too pleased at this point since attendance was mandatory!
And we mustn’t forget the most cogent fact that it is ratepayers who will be bearing the costs for this Panel hearing. It is ratepayers who forked out for an extra 4 Heritage advisors recommendations – whose ‘reports’ by the way were NOT INCLUDED in the documentation presented to council and which councillors never clapped eyes on! Perhaps if they had, then the above expenses might never have occurred? So, whose fault is all this? Councillors who don’t demand full information in order to make informed decisions? Or an administration that drip feeds councillors only the information it wants them to have? And the most important question: how can councillors vote to go to a Panel in the face of 6 recommendations and the Department’s reluctance to endorse the amendment straight off? And are ratepayers really expected to believe that any ordinary citizen would be accorded the same
treatment and course of action that has been bestowed on 466 Hawthorn Rd?
August 15, 2011
Squeeze planned on car parking spaces
FINDING a parking place could get much worse under State Government plans to slash the number of car spaces required for new apartment blocks, shopping centres and offices.
The legal number of spaces per dwelling could be cut from two to zero in dozens of activity zones to accommodate Melbourne’s booming population.
And the carpark requirement is set to be halved in many residential, entertainment and business centres outside those zones.
The proposals are part of a Planning Department review that aims to reduce reliance on cars and encourage other ways of getting around, such as public transport and bicycles.
Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said if implemented, the changes would lead to parking chaos. “Local residents will be hemmed in in their own streets, which will overflow with cars from high-rise apartments and shops built with few if any parking spots,” he said.
Protector of Public Lands Victoria secretary Julianne Bell said fewer parking spaces would not necessarily encourage public transport use.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the review was finalised by the previous Labor government. “It beggars belief Labor would now seek to blame their own handiwork on the current Government,” he said.
August 12, 2011
We’ve just learnt that the scheduled Planning Conference for next Monday evening HAS BEEN CANCELLED!
This is an extraordinary turn of events for several reasons:
Surely residents have every right to ask what is going on and who is responsible for all of the above?
August 12, 2011
A reminder that next Monday (15th August) the Planning Conference for the Centre of the Racecourse application is scheduled. Details are:
Time: 6.30pm
Location: Town Hall, Auditorium
August 11, 2011
For a vision of what’s potentially around the corner, residents might be interested in the following report:
Caulfield South Housing Diversity 1-1
August 8, 2011
The VEAC report was released today. We have not had time for a thorough read, however the following paragraphs are pertinent to this council and its performance. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC152-MMI-Final-Report-FINAL-low-res.pdf
Recently released Australia Bureau of Statistics’ population estimates for metropolitan Melbourne indicate that the current population in some municipalities (Bayside, Brimbank, Glen Eira and Moonee Valley) has already exceeded the projections for 2016 (that is, population growth has been more rapid than anticipated).
Development of facilities on public open space in Caulfield Park
Caulfield Park is in the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of North Caulfield. The Park is about 25 hectares in area and is on Crown land. It was permanently reserved for public park, gardens and public recreation in 1866. It is managed by Glen Eira City Council as a committee of management. Much of the park contains sportsgrounds and hard courts, while the western end contains a parkland area. The park also contains a playground and conservatory.
The construction of a new Caulfield Park Pavilion in the central part of the park was completed in 2009. The 0.4 hectare pavilion and car park replaced a small sports building and storage shed (0.04 hectares in size). The footprint of the new pavilion is significantly larger than that of the old building and shed, and involved the construction of an additional access road in the park. The expansion of the pavilion transformed freely accessible public open space into an enclosed area where access generally requires membership of a particular sports club or payment of hire fees.
Sporting groups using the park generally favoured the construction of the new building as it enhanced their sporting activities. There was, however, opposition to the redevelopment from other users who were concerned about the loss of amenity and reduced area available for non-organised recreation and informal activities at the park.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R6 Prior to considering proposals that would result in the reduction of open space, government and local councils undertake a public process to assist them to determine the costs and benefits to the community of proposed reductions in public open space on public land and land owned by local councils.
R7 The principle of no net loss of area be applied when public open space on public land and land owned by local councils is used to deliver non-park related services and facilities.
R8 Public open space on public land and land owned by local councils be managed to maximise public access and to provide the widest range of user opportunities.
R9 Government review the open space contribution policy and provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions and Subdivision Act 1988 with the aim of assisting metropolitan local councils meet the challenges of population increase by maximising the contribution of open space through subdivision of land. This would include:
(a) reviewing the contribution level in the Subdivision Act to determine whether the minimum contribution should be set at five per cent
(b) streamlining the process for creating a contribution schedule to clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions
(c) removing the uncertainties in the interpretation and use of the SubdivisionAct and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions
(d) reviewing the provisions in the Subdivision Act and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions that exempt some subdivisions from the requirement to make an open space contribution
(e) considering whether the open space objectives in clause 56.05-2 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, which detail standards for neighbourhood open space, can be made to operate with the provisions in clause 52.01, which require people proposing to subdivide to make specified contributions to the local council.
August 6, 2011
VCAT often designates some decisions as ‘Red Dot’ – that is, ‘cases of interest’ and which then form part of its ‘practice notes’. Glen Eira is the latest ‘Red Dot’ case. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1422.html)
The reason why this case is highlighted is simply that Council FAILED TO INFORM ALL OBJECTORS of an amendment. This isn’t the first time that residents have complained that they did not receive any notification of either applications, or appeals by developers, or later, amended plans submitted by applicants. One has to wonder at the efficiency of this planning department – how good is its record keeping? How up to date are its records? Or is the failure to notify and inform possibly more than a ‘clerical error’. It would appear that ‘clerical errors’ are suddenly coming thick and fast!
Below are some highlights of the member’s judgement:
“At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.
This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.
As it transpired, it appears that there were three objectors to permit application GE/PP-21828/2009, namely:
Only one of these objectors (Vic Track) was given notice.
…it is unclear whether the list of persons previously notified is based on up-to-date records held by the Council to reflect current ownership and occupancy details.
The adjournment of hearings involving s.87A applications as a result of incomplete notice being given has arisen on a number of occasions in recent times. It would appear that the obligations of Responsible Authorities in proceedings of
this kind, is not well understood.
Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.
