We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Statement from Mayor Cr Anne-Marie Cade on the passing of Cr David Zyngier
It is with deep sorrow and a heavy heart that we share the news of the passing of Camden Ward Councillor Dr David Zyngier.
Cr Zyngier’s passing is an immeasurable loss for Council. We extend our deepest condolences to Cr Zyngier’s family, friends, and all who had the privilege of knowing and working alongside him. Cr Zyngier is survived by his loving wife, Suzanne, children and grandchildren.
Cr Zyngier was the son of Holocaust survivors from Poland and was the first in his family to complete high school and attend university. He was a student at Melbourne Boys High School and then went on to study history and politics at Monash University. He later returned to Monash where he studied to become a humanities teacher.
Cr Zyngier was as well-known member of Glen Eira’s Jewish community. He worked in education for more than 35 years and was principal of a local Jewish school. He was an active member of his synagogue, Kehilat Nitzan, an advocate of Jewish LGBTIQA+ rights, and a member of the Jewish Climate Network. As a volunteer with the Ardoch Foundation, Courage to Care, and Father Bob Foundation, Cr Zyngier’s passion for giving a voice to the vulnerable permeated all that he did.
As a representative of his community, Cr Zyngier was a passionate advocate for climate action. Cr Zyngier co-founded the Glen Eira Emergency Climate Action Network, participated in the development of the Glen Eira 2040 Community Vision, and helped guide the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust Land Management Plan. He helped develop Council’s target of achieving net zero Council emissions by 2025 and net zero community emissions by 2030. Cr Zyngier worked closely with young people across Glen Eira to give them a voice.
As a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum, Cr Zyngier advocated for integrated transport and improving connectivity in the local community. On the Local Government Working Group on Gambling, Cr Zyngier called for the reform of Victoria’s gambling laws in the lead up to significant reform to minimise harm from gaming machines. As a member of Council’s Community Engagement, Sustainability and Multicultural Advisory Committees, Cr Zyngier helped Council better engage with our community, respond to the climate emergency, and hear from people from all backgrounds.
Cr Zyngier never shied away from asking the big questions and challenging all of us to aim higher. The Chamber was richer for his contribution. During this difficult time, we come together with our community to support one another and honour the memory of Cr Zyngier. We owe a great debt to Cr Zyngier for the indelible mark he left on our organisation and community, and the positive influence he had on each of us personally and professionally.
Flags at Glen Eira Town Hall have been lowered to half-mast in a sign of respect. Details of any memorial services and arrangements will be shared as soon as they become available. May Cr Zyngier’s legacy continue to inspire us and strive to make a positive difference, just as he did.
When the smiling heads of every property industry lobby in Victoria lined up on Wednesday with a packet of Sharpie permanent markers to sign what Premier Daniel Andrews dubbed his “Affordability Partnership”, the image said much about the winners and losers from Labor’s much-awaited housing statement.
Repeatedly on the day and since, Andrews lauded his government’s “grand bargain with our property industry friends”.
A bargain indeed. Andrews’ answer to the worst housing crisis in decades is a package of reforms aimed at speeding up and facilitating residential development, reforms that will deliver billions of dollars to developers and builders, but which will cost them little beyond a vague commitment to include more “affordable housing”.
Wind the clock to February 23, 2022, and it was a very different story. After years of policy work, the government had offered the property industry a very similar package of reforms. But it had demanded a quid pro quo – a special new levy expected to generate about $800 million a year for social housing.
As The Age reveals today, the levy was part of a bold plan to boost social housing spending and reverse the long decline in social housing as a proportion of overall housing. It was, in effect, a version of what is known as mandatory inclusionary zoning, whereby landowners and developers benefiting from development approvals are required to tip in a little for the wider social good.
At the time the government thought it had a deal whereby the influential Property Council would publicly support the levy. But at the eleventh hour there was disagreement, not about the fact of the levy, but about the amount. Where the government had proposed a levy of 1.75 per cent of the expected value of all newly built developments with three or more dwellings, the Property Council said it would only cop 1.5 per cent.
Andrews then withdrew the offer, accusing the industry of reneging on a deal. “I am not in the business of creating super profits for developers if they are unwilling to support sharing those profits,” railed the premier.
Nineteen months later that is exactly what Andrews has done.
This week’s housing statement includes the same carrots offered to the property industry last year, including legislation of reforms proposed by Victoria’s Red Tape Commissioner, a reduced role for councils in planning decisions, and more.
Under Andrews “grand bargain”, developers will be able to seek to have projects approved especially quickly if they voluntarily offer to include a proportion of so-called “affordable” housing in their private projects.
In reality there is precious little in this overly-hyped housing statement that does much at all to improve affordability in any meaningful way. The government says the key is boosting supply, promising 80,000 homes a year for the next decade. Yet it has been vague on the details. What, for example, will be the mix between public housing and other forms of housing? When the government talks about “affordable housing”, what exactly does it mean? Affordable for whom?
As The Agereported this month, the government’s official parameters for “affordable” private rental actually leave many workers, such as cleaners and baristas, childcare and aged care staff, priced out of Melbourne’s inner-and middle-suburb rental market.
Noticeably absent from the conga-line of property-industry signatories to Andrews’ “affordability partnership” were any representatives from the community housing sector.
As Andrews himself suggested in February last year, a partnership involves give and take from both parties.
Wednesday’s housing package was more pandering than partnership.
In August last year Cade voted against the Carnegie structure plan. She has also voted against the housing strategy but was absent for the determinative vote. On East Village she voted in favour of mandatory heights. So what has now changed? Why are we suddenly seeing a trend in Cade’s voting that largely supports the admin’s and planning department’s agenda of high rise and more and more development in our activity centres?
Cade’s voting patterns since being elected deputy mayor are very interesting. Together with Athanasopolous and Magee she voted AGAINST the refusal of a permit for an application in Grafton Street Elsternwick. Other interesting voting patterns include:
Cade moved the motion for the Bentleigh Structure Plan
She voted against reducing the height of one section in the Caulfield South Activity Centre
Admittedly she has voted against various permit applications (ie Bentleigh RSL in Huntley Road) but on all the recent major strategic planning strategies, she has been an ardent supporter – which contrasts strongly with her previous position(s) on these matters. So we have to ask: Could this possibly have anything to do with her election as deputy mayor and earning the princely sum of $59,659 PLUS 9.5% p.a for a grand total of just under $66,000? Or has she undergone some religious ‘conversion’? If so, then she needs to explain this.
Cade’s motion of support for the draft on Tuesday night, was staggering in its deception, the obvious pre-arranged Dorothy Dix questioning of Torres, and failure to disclose the full picture in so many instances – ie the sins of omission! Nor can it be seen as a genuine councillor contribution to the debate when much of Cade’s version of events mirrored precisely what appeared in the July edition of the Glen Eira News – basically, ‘don’t blame us, it’s all the government’s fault’! This has now become council’s escape clause for their repeated failures and refusal to (1) listen to the community and (2) adhere to sound strategic planning principles that actually enhance and preserve what residents see as vital aspects of residential amenity.
Here is what Cade stated. Please listen carefully.
“The Victorian government sets the agenda………”. True, but there is still plenty of scope within planning scheme for councils to create their own strategies. Approximately 25% of all planning schemes allow councils scope to introduce what they see as necessary for their communities. That’s why heaps of other councils have had structure plans for at least the past 15 years. That’s why other councils have implemented both ESD and WSUD (environment & water) in their planning schemes. Here in Glen Eira we are still waiting for a community infrastructure levy on developers, a car parking levy, or a WSUD policy – despite all being promised in 2016. In short, there is plenty that councils can do if they have the will. Whether or not a council’s proposed strategies will be approved by the Minister down the line is irrelevant at this early stage of structure planning. The focus should be on implementing sound strategic planning in line with community aspirations and which provides overall ‘community benefit’. There is no ‘community benefit’ in having potentially ten storey buildings overlooking single storey homes in a heritage overlay. Nor is there community benefit in flogging off council owned land for potential ‘mixed use’ development or for social housing. If council was really serious about social housing then it would not have endorsed a policy which seeks a meagre 5% of dwellings as social housing. It would have included a percentage of at least 10=20%! All of the above has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and everything to do with this administration and its lackey, pro-development councillors!
Cade’s question to Torres repeats past practice on the Carnegie/Bentleigh structure plans of several years ago. What happens if the draft isn’t passed Cade asks? Torres’ response once again resorts to straight out fear-mongering when he says: ‘If tonight’s recommendation did not get supported, our structure planning process for Bentleigh would not proceed’!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Why can’t improvements be made, or does council believe everything it sets out is perfect? There is nothing that stops a council from revisiting its drafts (as has happened previously) and ensuring that it is as sound and strategically justified as possible. Furthermore, the issue is not about abandoning the draft. Those councillors who voted against it simply wanted improvement and implied that this was not up to scratch. Given that council still has 18 months to get it right, the suggestion that everything will lapse or be abandoned is outrageous. Nor is it a valid argument to say that the community wants structure plans for ‘better controls’ and so council is providing structure plans. This of course ignores the central question as to whether the final plans do in fact offer ‘better controls’.
Torres then goes even further with the statement that if the motion fails, then the Minister could ‘quite possibly remove those (interim) controls’ from Bentleigh. Fear mongering at its best!!!!! And without a shred to evidence to support this claim. We know of no other instance in planning history where a minister has removed existing interim DDO’s in their entirety prior to the date nominated.
Cade then goes on to a supposed explanation as to why the draft hasn’t included the recommendations of the government’s Urban Design Guidelines. She says that the guidelines are a ‘background document’ and therefore aren’t in the planning scheme – so presumably council can ignore them is the implication. What is not stated is that STRUCTURE PLANS are also considered as background documents and are NOT IN PLANNING SCHEMES either!!!!!!! What does get into planning schemes are the amendments which introduce the Design & Development Overlays. In Glen Eira all of the most important strategic plans are ‘background documents’ –ie East Village structure plan; City PLan, Activity Centre plans; Urban Design Guidelines, etc.
Finally, Cade states that ‘I am not going to talk about building heights and setbacks’ or ‘parking’ because ‘I am sure my fellow councillors will address’ these issues. Really? How on earth can you move a motion to support a structure plan without even mentioning the most important aspects of it, and the most contentious? If you support something, then the onus should be on providing evidence as to why potentially 10 storey developments are appropriate, or why a 5 metre setback (discretionary) is okay when other councils have managed 6 metre setbacks in their major activity centres? But we guess it is easy to ignore the contentious issues and to simple promulgate more propaganda about everything being in the state’s control!
Cade’s conclusion is equally bizarre when she claims to want to hear from other councillors not only on what they like or dislike about the plan, but what they would ‘propose’ as an ‘alternative’. This is completely out of order since the possibility of an ‘alternative’ motion has already been rejected by Magee. Councillors are debating the motion as it stands and NOT what might be a feasible ‘alternative’.
Cade’s sudden ‘conversion’ is a concern. She is also doing the community a major disservice by simply regurgitating officer reports and presumably being complicit in staged Dorothy Dix questioning of officers only to provide them with the opportunity to further the set agenda. We remind her and our readers that stage managed debates are the antithesis of ‘robust’ discussion and serving the community with original thinking!
Council’s 2021/22 Annual Report claims to have held 27 community consultations. Of these only ONE in 2021 and ONE in 2022 published IN FULL all of the community feedback. Budget and financial plans are excluded from this calculation since they are required by law to be available.
What is clear is that over the past few years, on all the important issues such as structure planning, urban design frameworks, quality design guidelines, etc. this council has deliberately with-held the complete feedback that residents submitted. Instead the community has been provided with ‘summaries’ that we allege are far from representative of what residents stated. If it were otherwise, then why is access to these submissions denied?
We have had a litany of excuses – that the issue is ‘operational’ and therefore beyond councillors’ domain; that privacy and confidentiality are important; that the Engagement Strategy mandates that privacy be protected, etc. All of these are spurious and last ditch attempts to hide the truth. Even more galling is the fact that planning issues that will establish what happens in Glen Eira for the next 20 years are seen as needing only the ‘consult’ level of participation rather than ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ which other councils have implemented.
The past two years have seen some incredibly important decisions being made and residents being denied the full results of the accompanying consultations. We have mickey-mouse reporting instead. All of the following decision included mere ‘summaries’:
Glen Huntly Structure Plan
Carnegie Structure Plan
Housing Strategy (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Consultation)
Caulfield Station Structure Plan
Amendment C184 for Bentleigh and Carnegie structure plans
When 110 people show up in the middle of winter and in the midst of covid, and voice their views as they did at the Town Hall Forum, and this doesn’t even warrant a single word of feedback in the consultation summary, then we are in deep trouble. Readers might be interested to know that our recording of this evening has been downloaded 1,596 times already. Other recordings of important planning issues have also been downloaded hundreds and hundreds of times. Planning is definitely on people’s minds and there are certainly more than 150 people (according to Magee) who have concerns with what is happening. Check out these figures –
Finally, it beggars belief, as to why feedback on less important issues have in the past been published but not on the above list of issues. We maintain that this administration is determined to bulldoze through its plans regardless of what residents say they want. If it were otherwise, and consultation was indeed a genuine attempt to gather feedback and where possible act on this feedback then all results would be published. Instead we have an administration determined to censor contrary views, and determined to limit the role of residents and councillors. That is unconscionable.
By way of comparison, we gone through all the agendas from 2016-22 (the start of the McKenzie reign) and listed all those consultation feedbacks which were published in full. We’ve omitted budget, local law, etc reports. Please compare the importance of the following to the significance of these later planning issues.
One caveat to the above. When council first began their work on the various structure plans in 2017, and held their misleading online surveys such as ‘what do you like about your shopping strip’, the full results were published – including facebook comments. But this was well before residents were made aware of the repercussions of these ‘consultations’ and what it would mean for the final draft structure plans. Interestingly, privacy, confidentiality was not an issue back then and neither was this regarded as strictly ‘operational’. You can access these reports via this link –
PROPOSED NEW PARK, FOSBERY AVENUE AND ST AUBINS AVENUE, CAULFIELD
NORTH – 19th September 2016. Feedback – Emails, Phone and Letters; 2 Have Your Say – Forum Comments;3 Traffic Volume Analysis
JOYCE PARK – OPEN SPACE CONVERSION – 13th June 2017 – Attachment 3: Feedback Received – Email Attachment 4: Feedback Received – Have Your Say Forum
ACTIVITY CENTRE, HOUSING AND LOCAL ECONOMY STRATEGY 25th July 2017 – all online survey responses and formal submissions
HARLESTON PARK OPEN SPACE AND PLAY SPACE UPGRADE CONSULTATION – 5th September 2017 – 2. Feedback – Email, mail and phone
3. Feedback – ‘Have Your Say’ Forum comments
EE GUNN RESERVE LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN –5th September 2017 – . Feedback – Email and Phone; 3. Feedback – ‘Have Your Say’ Online Comments
TRANSFORMING MURRUMBEENA CONSULTATION REPORT – 17th October 2017 – Comments in full from “Have your say” discussion board
3 – Feedback received by email, phone and other channels
4 – Summary written feedback from information session
5 – Local Area Traffic Management Plan
HARLESTON PARK SMALL BASKETBALL COURT– 28th November 2017 – 2. Feedback – Email comments; 3. Feedback – ‘Have Your Say’ Forum comments;4. Feedback – Letter received with signatures
CAULFIELD WEDGE DOG PARK– 6th February 2018 – 3. Feedback – Email and phone comments;4. Feedback – ‘Have Your Say’ forum comments
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLASSIFIED TREE REGISTER – 26th September 2018 – survey responses & submissions
PROPOSED NEW PARK – AILEEN AVENUE, CAULFIELD SOUTH – 5th February 2019 – 2. Have Your Say Feedback; Email Feedback; Phone Call Feedback ⇩
CAULFIELD PARK MASTERPLAN – 5th February 2019 –Have Your Say Forum Discussion Email Feedback; 4. Community Meeting Feedback
GLEN EIRA ROOMING HOUSE STRATEGY – 21st May 2019 – 2019 – Consultation feedback
ROSANNA STREET RESERVE UPGRADE – STAGE TWO – 2nd July 2019 – Have Your Say Feedback ; Email Feedback;Phone Calls Feedback
DRAFT MURRUMBEENA PARK MASTERPLAN REFRESH – 3rd September 2019 – Survey feedback;5. Email feedback
BENTLEIGH EAT STREET – PROPOSED ONE-WAY TRAFFIC CHANGES
(NORTHBOUND) TO VICKERY STREET – 24th September 2019 – email, survey responses
HOPETOUN GARDENS LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN – 16th October 2019 – Have Your Say feedback;Email feedback;Phone call feedback
FUTURE OF SPORT AND ACTIVE RECREATION – CONSULTATION OUTCOMES – 16th October, 2019 – Have your say comments
WALKING AND ACCESSIBILITY ACTION PLAN, CYCLING ACTION PLAN AND
PUBLIC TRANSPORT ADVOCACY PLAN – 17th December 2019 – emails, comments (but not on previous item for Inkerman Road cycle path)
CARNEGIE SWIM CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS – COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION OUTCOMES – Community Consultation responses’Community Voice’ survey results
OPEN SPACE STRATEGY REFRESH – 9th June 2020 – Feedback – Email and Letter; Have Your Say Forum
MULTIDECK CARPARKS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION – 14th December 2021 – HYS Individual Comments; CV Individual Comments; WSP Report – Online Community Workshop; Chat – Online Community Workshop;;Social Media; Written Correspondence
MULTIDECK COMMUTER CARPARKS PROJECT – OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION – 30th August 2022 – MDCP – Social Media Feedback;. MDCP – Written Correspondence Feedback;MDCP – HYS Survey Responses
Why does Glen Eira’s webcast of its council meetings repeatedly run into major technological problems? And not for the first time the audio was impossible to follow. Once again the meeting had to be halted so that the problem could be fixed Here’s a short example of what went on at the start:
When compared to the clarity of both sound and vision that other councils have, why are we so sub-standard? Is it simply you get what you paid for? Yet even this does not excuse council’s incompetence. Why isn’t the sound tested BEFORE each meeting goes live? Why isn’t vision tested prior to going live? Surely when this council spends literally millions on technology each year, they could secure a system that is far more reliable and user-friendly.
Here are some screen dumps from other councils. In all cases both vision and sound are crystal clear.
MORELAND
KINGSTON
STONNINGTON
Finally, these two screen dumps from Boroondara where viewers can actually see WHAT is being discussed as well as the individual speaking-
At this morning’s recount for the vacant councillor position, Sue Pennicuik was elected to replace Pilling. This will mean that council now has 2 Greens (Zyngier & Pennicuik).
If anyone had any doubts about council’s internal political divide, the election of mayor and deputy mayor fully illustrates how the Labor versus Lib chasm is well and truly operational in Glen Eira.
Magee has been elected by a vote of 5 to 4 as Mayor. Labor together with the support of the Greens voted for Magee, whilst the Libs with the support of the nominal ‘independents’ voted for Cade. The votes in favour of Magee were: Magee, Athanasopolous, Zhang, Zyngier and Pilling. The four voting for Cade were: Parasol, Szmood, Esakoff, Cade.
Sadly, what this means is that we have a Labor Mayor and Deputy Mayor in charge for the next year. Whether or not this means that Glen Eira will continue to back to the hilt the incumbent Labor State government remains to be seen. Sadly, taking state politics out of local government seems a forlorn hope. As we’ve stated numerous times before, local government and its councillors, owes it top priority to its residents and not to some political agenda dictated by political parties.
How ratepayers vote in the next few weeks will, we believe, largely be dependent on how ratepayers respond to the following question:
How well has this current council and councillors handled:
Planning?
Traffic?
Open space?
Consultation?
Tree retention?
Rates?
Advocating for the community?
If there is the view that the above long standing issues have not been improved, and have even become worse, then logically what is required is a total clean out of the standing incumbents and the election of councillors who will dedicate themselves totally to changing the current strategies, policies, and processes of this council.
As we’ve previously stated, half of these incumbents have been there for eons.
Esakoff – since 2003 continuously (apart from being sacked for a few months in 2005)
Magee – since 2008 continuously
Athanasopolous – since 2016
Ann-Marie Cade – since 2018 on a count back win of a few hundred votes
Please remember this:
All voted for structure plans that included 12 storey height limits
All voted for the Integrated Transport Policy which suggests reducing parking requirements in activity centres
All voted for rate increase(s) – the longest serving councillors for up to 6.5% per annum
All voted for meeting procedures that limit public questions
All voted for 3000 apartments in East Village
All accept at various times without question, substandard officer reports
All voted to become more and more in debt and borrowing $60M plus
These are just some of the major decisions which have had, and will continue to have, a detrimental effect on many, many people in this community. Can we afford another 4 years of more of the same?
After at least 150 years of the racing industry’s supremacy over the community, nothing much appears to have changed with the newly announced lease signing and the appointment of the new trustees.
Much is still unclear, but the following questions need answering:
Will the community be privy to the fine print of the lease agreement? Is the removal of training binding in this agreement?
Will the trustees publish a map that clearly outlines the land under the lease and which is freehold land?
How was the figure of $300,000+ per annum arrived at when previous evaluations were in the million dollar range? Why is the MRC, with its vast resources, being given literally a peppercorn rental and will this rental apply only until the removal of training or for the duration of the 65 year lease?
Will the introduction of night racing mean more racing events? How will these events impact on the local community?
Can residents expect residential development on the freehold land?
Will light towers now predominate across vast areas of crown land?
Will a new track mean further encroachment onto public open space and the further proliferation of lego land – ie white fences?
Despite the work of the various spin doctors we do not see this as anything else apart from another victory for the Melbourne Racing Club! A couple of soccer pitches do not warrant this buckling at the knees!
Glen Eira Debates 