Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.4 – Regent St. Magee/Forge (Motion: refuse amended plans)

Magee never ‘opposes anything to try and be popular’…’we impose guidelines to keep streets such as this intact…I would like to commend the developer and the applicant …but at the end of the day it’s just in the wrong place’. ‘We as a council assess every planning application on its own merits….’.’If I bought a house opposite a school I would expect (traffic)…I do feel for the applicant. I do wish them the best of luck in finding an appropriate site, but unfortunately this is not an appropriate site…It’s up to us at Council to protect our city’.

Forge supported Magee but also mentioned ‘a dangerous situation where we’ve got people coming’ in and out of school. Remarked about a fatal accident of 20 years ago where a child was killed and’we can’t afford these changes’ where one child injured is one too many. To the developer – ‘you have to make your application safe’. Cited one objector’s comments that this is more suitable for aged care facility since it is a large area for development and wouldn’t have the same amount of traffic.

Lobo started off by stating that it’s a year since this application first came before Council and that ‘King Kong is now back on the Empire State Building’. ‘As councillors we need to embrace our residents…we have received …….over 100 objections’. Called the proposal ‘a monstrosity’.

Pilling claimed that the ‘opposition is over the top’ and that ‘there is always two sides to an argument. Opposition is ‘over indulgent’.

Hyams pointed out to gallery that council wasn’t making a decision on the application tonight, but merely on the potential amended plans. If council rejects, then officers will be opposing this at VCAT; if council accepts then officers will be supporting it at VCAT. ‘I would also like to commend the applicant for making this’ more acceptable…..can’t see how this application complies with our policy….Now I prefer not to oppose a development which is primarily community minded…like this one…but given our planning policy….I don’t think we have any choice except to oppose this.’

Penhalluriack began by stating that this ‘is a difficult one’; that he agreed with Hyams that this is not the right location. Penhalluriack then outlined the many discussions he’d had with objectors, cars driving in and out of the carpark, the ‘convoluted appeals to my decency, appeals for sympathy, demands’ for rejection..’the whole gamut’. ‘The most significant concern …is the bulk of the building, the noise and disruption factors. Loss of character of the street…..’The opposition to this proposal is overwhelming..but of course this has to be balanced against common sense and what the law requires…..You can’t speak tonight so I actually wrote down’ what objectors had written in emails’. Penhalluriack then cited from these emails: ‘overdevelopment of the land’, ‘idiotic decision’ ‘directly impacts the amenity of the area’…. One letter cited the ‘incompetence of council staff’. Penhalluriack stated: ‘Now that sort of comment …does not endear me to vote for this motion….’.

Lipshutz started off by repeating Penhalluriack’s comment that councillors ‘have an obligation to listen to their residents’…’We are the representatives of the residents and often …I’ve got to say that I don’t get intimidated….I actually thought it was disgusting hearing ‘No School in Regent St’, it’s intimidatory and I cannot be intimidated…I also received many, many emails…totally abusive, some of them racist…I can be appealed to by cogent and reasoned arguments….and when you speak to me in a proper way I can be moved …to send emails that are threatening, abusive and racist I think is absolutely appalling’. ‘That is not the way to go about it’ and I almost changed my vote! ‘But I won’t because ultimately I have to do what is right’

Esakoff summed up saying that she was proud that Glen Eira supported good education ‘whenever and however it comes’ and that a year ago she rejected the application and still believes that ‘it is not a good fit’. ‘I wasn’t going to say anything but Cr Lipshutz has opened the door and …my disappointment, the absolute disgust at some of the emails and comments that I received …there are some people….who ought to be ashamed …at some of the things that were written’.

Magee is ‘trying to be incredibly fair with the applicant as well as the residents’… ‘Cr. Lobo I think was offensive …has certainly not come to Regent St. like King Kong. I think that is wrong…I certainly don’t appreciate what was said  and I offer my apologies to the applicant…If we don’t listen we can’t learn, and if we can’t learn we can’t improve’. (Carried unanimously)

Item 9.9; DELEGATIONS – Hyams/Pilling (Motion to accept)

Hyams – delegations is ‘just housekeeping’ due to changes in legislation. He was ‘comfortable’ with recommendations.

Penhalluriack then stated: ‘Just a comment …these delegations concern me …they grant a lot of power to the officers’ especially in regards to the DPC (delegated planning committee)…’there seems to be a lot of vagueness about’ this committee…sometimes …’it seems to be quite large decisions’ that this committee makes. Akehurst responded: ‘can’t supply a scientific answer…..delegations have basically been in place since 1995…involves trust between delegates and councillor group….we give to council those matters that we believe council needs to make a decision on…some councils have a more definite view..objections…we don’t do that….our power of delegation is superior …rather than some numerical act…if council wants to see more applications I can give them …1100 applications per year…..ask for more staff’. Penhalluriack responded by saying that his question was not about trusting officers

Lipshutz contended ‘that some councils spend up to 1am in the morning’ looking at planning issues, and ‘we won’t do that, nor should we’!!!!!!!!!!..’these delegations have been in for some years, they work well…overall I think this is appropriate’.

Hyams – ‘there are various acts in parliament which require council to carry out various functions ‘. Hyams then gave the example of even where there are no objections, certain applications such as a water tank on council land still goes to a full council. (unanimous decision).

Public Questions

Mr Varvodic submitted 27 public questions – all of which were taken on notice and not read out. Lipshutz read out a prepared statement regarding his ‘right of reply’ at the December 14^th Council meeting and his statement ‘when did you last beat your wife’. Lipshutz stated in part: ‘I want to clarify the response that I had made to Mr. Varvodic…that was meant to be rhetorical….I unreservedly apologise for any misunderstanding….my comment was strictly rhetorical….”

The community was out in force at tonight’s council meeting. About 60 people stood outside the town hall entrance in Glen Eira Rd. holding placards and chanting ‘No school in Regent St.’ They then continued the chanting up the stairs into the chambers, where the chant continued unabated until all councillors were seated. Plenty of other residents opposing the Murrumbeena Rd and the Malane St. developments were also present. Well over 100 (angry) people crammed into the meeting – including Helen Whiteside who sat in the front row of the gallery.

Item 9.1 – Murrumbeena Rd. Application – Pilling/Lipshutz

Pilling basically went through the officer’s report. Lipshutz stated ‘that there is nothing wrong with developers making profit’…but this development was ‘big and ugly’. Residents should note that this area is ‘ripe for development…and will be developed’ – it’s just that this proposal is ‘too large, too ugly’. Magee supported motion to reject saying that this ‘ambit claim’ is ‘too outrageous’…’how could you possibly live next to it?’. Interestingly Magee kept mentioning that ‘THIS COUNCIL’ didn’t just ‘tinker’ but came ‘out with a direct refusal’. Seems that Magee is confusing Officers’ recommendations with Council’s decision making!!!!! (Carried unanimously)

Item 9.2 – Hill St. – Hyams/Lobo.

Hyams stated that this application ‘is not acceptable in any way really’ Lobo talked about ‘bulk and mass’ and that it was ‘uncharacteristic’ of the street. Lipshutz  – ‘this council is not against development….put your plans in and make them appropriate and they’ll go through’ Magee – ‘it would be absolutely horrible to live anywhere near the thing’. (Unaminous decision)

Item 9.3 – Malane St. – Hyams/Forge – Instead of 8 double storey units, 6 double storey units.

Hyams began that in contrast to the Hill St. Application, this one is ‘generally acceptable’. At this point the gallery called out ‘bullshit’ and ‘that’s corruption’. Hyams responded with ‘I will not put up with allegations of corruption…” Esakoff stated: ‘I won’t put up with those sorts of threats coming from the gallery.One more chance’ or you will be removed from the gallery. Hyams continued with the party line  – ie ‘VCAT will be a lot more lenient’ Councillors were there to ‘apply the planning law, that’s what we’re required to do’ and judge each ‘application on its merits’. He reiterated that ‘our job here is to apply planning law’. Forge spoke about the increase in population in Glen Eira and the impact of developments. She also spoke about traffic conditions, lack of open space and that ‘we have to look to the future’. Conclusion? She agreed with Hyams! Magee spoke against, claiming ‘it isn’t good enough’. Malane St is ‘surrounded by families’ and that these sorts of developments should be kept to Centre Rd, Glenhuntly Rd, ‘major roads’. Magee recounted how at the recent planning scheme review one old gentleman when asked how he envisages Bentleigh in ten years time, answered ‘as Bentleigh’. Pilling supported Hyams stating that ‘we have a reasonable planning scheme in place’ and that there needs to be a ‘good balance’. Lobo against motion stating that Malane St was to have about 50 apartments coming up soon and that it would become ‘Calcutta and Bombay’. With traffic, it was going ‘to be mayhem’. Lipshutz reminisced about his childhood in Balwyn and how that has been developed. He stated: ‘I deplore what’s happening in Bentleigh’, BUT ‘we stand here as a tribunal having to implement planning law’ ‘You can go to VCAT and you’ll get 8 storeys…let’s do the populace thing and everyone will think we’re fantastic councillors and then it goes to VCAT ….I don’t like it, but do I have a choice? The answer is ‘no’. ‘We are all doing our jobs’, ‘we have to do what is right’!!!! There were persistent interjections from the gallery all through Lipshutz’s ‘lecture’. Hyams summed up that their job was to be as a ‘neutral tribunal’ looking at planning law to get the ‘best result’. ‘ I could have made a rousing speech about preserving the neighbourhood’, but I thought it was more important to get the ‘best result’. If we knocked it back the developer would be off to VCAT, and VCAT ‘would have given you 8 units’. ‘Do you want us to do our job which is applying planning law or do you want us to be populace….I want you to think about that’. (Motion carried)

Thus the mantra that VCAT is to blame, continues on and on! Councillors, have you ever considered the possibility of looking in your own back yard and finding loopholes in your own planning law – that is the MSS?

We’ll report on the rest of the meeting in our next post.