September 28, 2020
September 26, 2020
The Save Glen Eira (SGE) community group has published a questionnaire that is/has been distributed to all ward candidates for them to fill out if they so desire. The questions are broad ranging and we believe will assist voters in determining who to vote for. The questions cover everything from:
- planning
- open space
- personal motivation and skills
- local involvement
The full questionnaire may be accessed via this link: https://savegleneira.com.au/questionnaire-to-candidates/
SGE also intends to publish all candidate responses as they come in.
September 25, 2020
Election: Athanasopolous
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2020[5] Comments
Here are the commitments made by Tony Athanasopolous’ for the 2016 elections in his candidate statement:
I believe in a council where your rates are low and you get proper service for your money. Cleaner streets. Well maintained footpaths and trees. And better local roads. I want our council to stand up for you to stop overdevelopment You deserve active representation. Your Councillor should be open and someone who fights for your equal share of our resources. I live in Carnegie and proudly run a family business, Liana James Hair & Beauty on Koornang Road. We have been in business in Glen Eira for 16 years. I am the Chairperson of the Carnegie Traders Association, I’ve worked closely with the Murrumbeena Scope House (disability support) and I’m currently the President of the Chrisalis Foundation helping people living with a disability. I’m passionate about our community and helping others. I will: fight to keep your rates low; stop over development; ensure maintenance of skyrail; provide more local parking; clean up shopping areas and be your strong voice on council. I would be honoured if you voted 1 for me and after that, consider two other outstanding candidates Jane Karslake and David Box.
Residents will need to decide how well these ‘promises’ have been carried out!
In the four years he has been on council, our reckoning is that he has missed at least 11 council meetings – that is almost a year’s worth of formal council meetings. Hence close to a 25% absentee rate. More importantly, he has voted in favour of the officer recommendations for all of the following contentious planning issues – many in the face of a huge community outcry (ie Elsternwick Structure Plan in particular):
Bentleigh structure plan
Carnegie structure plan
Elsternwick structure plan
Quality Design guidelines
Glen Huntly Structure Plan (both versions)
Parking Policy
East Village Structure Plan
Inkerman Road Bike Path
On individual planning applications, he has either moved or seconded the approval for permits on the following: (the dates indicate the respective council meetings)
1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie– Part three and part four storey building comprising of 38 dwellings above two levels of basement car parking (20/12/2016)
153 Poath Road, Murrumbeena – Four storey building comprising a shop and 10 dwellings above basement car parking (20/12/2016)
360 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Four storey building comprising ground floor shop and 16 dwellings (28/2/2017)
1254-1258 Glen Huntly Road, Carnegie – A 6 storey building comprising a shop, cafe and 79 dwellings above a basement car park. Resolution was for 5 storeys. (21/3/2017)
248 Jasper Road, McKinnon – Four storey building comprising a food and drink premise, four (4) dwellings and the waiver of the car parking requirement for the food and drink premise. (12/4/2017)
102 & 102A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North – Three storey building comprising 8 dwellings above basement car parking. (23/5/2017)
532 North Road, Ormond – Five storey building comprising a retail premises and six dwellings. (23/5/2017)
1A Kokaribb Road, Carnegie – Six storey building comprising a shop and 12 dwellings above basement. (23/5/2017)
16-18 Hamilton Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey. 29 dwellings (13/6/2017)
219 Tucker Road, McKinnon – Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of five dwellings, a shop and basement carpark; reduction of visitor and shop car parking requirements. Permit for 3 storeys. 5/9/2017
48 Thomas Street, Brighton East – 2 double storeys. 17/10/2017
27 Draper Street, McKinnon – 3 double storeys 6/2/2018
11 Perth Street, Murrumbeena – Construction of five (5) triple storey dwellings above a basement car park. 27/2/2018
279-281 Jasper Road, McKinnon – child care centre. 20/3/2018
45-47 KANGAROO ROAD & 33 HOWE STREET MURRUMBEENA – Demolition of the existing three dwellings A total of fifteen (15) dwellings proposed including 10x three storey and 5x two storey attached townhouses (22/5/2018)
1207 Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly – Construction of a part three (3), part four (4) storey building comprising a shop, office and dwelling (26/9/2018)
749-753 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield – Demolition of the existing building and construction of a 4 storey building on land within the Heritage Overlay, use of the land for the purpose of dwellings and reduction of the car parking requirement for a shop. (27/11/2018)
846-848 North Road, Bentleigh East – Construction of fourteen (14) townhouses and alteration to a Road in Road Zone Category 1 (30/4/2019)
317 Neerim Road, Carnegie – Construction of a five storey building comprising offices and dwellings and associated car parking. (13/8/2019)
456 Glen Eira road, Caulfield – 5 dwellings in NRZ (16/10/2019)
1 Foster Street, Elsternwick – To consider an application for the demolition of the existing building and construction of six double storey dwellings above basement carparking (12 OBJECTIONS) (9/6/2020)
September 22, 2020
Election: It’s Time For Real Change
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2020[13] Comments
For all of those residents who are seeking change in Glen Eira we are delighted to announce that only 4 incumbents have decided to stand again. They are:
Margaret Esakoff
Tony Athanasopolous
Ann Marie Cade, and
Jim Magee
This means that with the potential for at least 5 new councillors, things can change. Camden ward is now entirely open given the resignation of Delahunty and the fact that Silver and Sztrajt have decided not to run again.
Rosstown is still being fought for with two incumbents standing again, (Athanasopolous & Esakoff) whilst Tucker also has two councillors seeking re-election (Magee & Cade)
Please note the following:
Margaret Esakoff was first elected in 2003. That makes it 17 years straight on council. Residents should ask themselves: ‘what has she achieved’ throughout this mammoth time? If change is what people want, then in our view, 21 years should not be endorsed again.
The same could be said for Magee. First elected in 2008. What has he achieved in 12 years?
Ann Marie Cade is a third time council candidate having exchanged preferences over the past few elections with Hyams. Once more, what can she offer and what has she achieved?
Athansopolous is the most recent addition to council chambers. In his 4 years on council his voting patterns have been clearly aligned with those seeking more and more development and bike paths where they simply cause much angst and division.
Finally, we are truly delighted that Hyams has decided to call it quits. His run stretches over 14 years as a councillor and Mayor. His legacy will forever be the secret introduction of the residential zones, his support for the Caulfield Village, demolition of Frogmore, and in recent times his support for the 9 storey application for 7 Selwyn Street. All of these accomplished in the face of strong community opposition.
Unfortunately, we also find that the current crop of candidates feature more ‘faceless’ stooges standing NOT because they know a damn thing about council, and probably their community, but they are there simply to support one or other of the major political parties, or see being a councillor as the first step to a parliamentary career. We will comment on these individuals in the days to come.
What is absolutely clear however, is that the October elections are the first real opportunity for residents to voice their disapproval of what has been happening in Glen Eira for well over the past decade. So if you care about open space, overdevelopment, real community consultation, and actions that are in accord with the majority of resident wishes, then now is the time to vote out all incumbents and elect councillors who will truly represent us as ratepayers.
Below is the complete list of candidates in their ballot paper positions –
CAMDEN
ZYNGIER, David
GROSSBARD, Alan
GRAEVE, Harry
IAMPOLSKI, Rachel
KARSLAKE, Jane
MILEIKOWSKI, Ethan
ZMOOD, Simone
MANSFIELD, Jesse Dean
STECKOLL, Ricci
TEROLLI, Jon
SIMPKINS, Cameron
KHOROSHINA, Nellie
PARASOL, Sam
ROSSTOWN
OSWALD, Markus
PTOK, Gregor
ATHANASOPOULOS, Tony
HO, Kelvin
DARIOL, Jack
PILLING, Neil
ZOIS, Con
PENNICUIK, Sue
ESAKOFF, Margaret
OZA, Dev
SPAULDING, Robert
BALZER, Simon
VAN NOORDEN, John
TUCKER
BEILBY, Joanne
ZHANG, Li
BREWSTER, Neil
MAGEE, Jim
BACH, Joshua
DZIALOSHINSKY, Jacob
CADE, Anne-Marie
DE’ATH, Philip
MARTIN, Declan
SANTOS, Cristina
September 21, 2020
It’s somewhat of a surprise to read that a former councillor and Mayor, Neil Pilling, is seeking to stand for council again in Rosstown Ward. Residents may remember his far from auspicious departure in 2016 when he failed to gain re-election. Also worth remembering is the fact that when first elected, Pilling stood as a Green candidate. This time around he is standing as an ‘independent’.
Throughout his previous reign as a councillor, Pilling drew plenty of criticism for his stance on development, and repeatedly supporting the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff. In fact, he represented 25% of the four man panel that granted the MRC everything it wanted in regards to the Caulfield Village development. He was also part of the vote that decided to abandon an amendment to place the building at 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie under heritage protection thus ignoring over 1000 signatures that had been signed in a formal petition to council. His was the casting vote in this decision!
Here are some facts on how he voted during his previous time as a councillor. The majority of the following were either moved or seconded by Pilling.
1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD – application was for 12 storeys and 173 dwellings. Esakoff and Pilling moved motion for 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. The motion was carried on the vote of the chairman (Hyams). VCAT then awarded the developer the 12 storeys.
451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH – 5 storeys, 12 units
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 40 dwellings
30-32 Ames Avenue, Carnegie – 13 double storeys
115-125 Poath Road Murrumbeena – 4 storeys, 33 dwellings
67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 5 and 6 storeys, 30 dwellings
401-407 Neerim Road Carnegie – 5 storeys, 57 units
144 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 6 storeys 40 dwellings. Pilling voted against refusing this application.
2-4 Penang Street MCKINNON – 3 storey, 24 units. Pilling voted against refusing this application
15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 52 units.
22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 41 units
29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 42 units
168 Hotham Street ELSTERNWICK – application was for 7 storeys, 104 dwellings. Motion became 5 storeys and 78 dwellings
64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON –3 & 4 storey, 31 dwellings. Pilling voted against refusal of permit
1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE – 6 storeys, 117 dwellings
27 and 29 Jasper Road BENTLEIGH – 3 storeys, 25 units
629-631 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD – 4 storeys, 25 units
337-343 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH- 3 storey 32 units
1 WAHGOO ROAD, CARNEGIE – voted to abandon amendment to go to panel regarding Heritage protection. Pilling used his casting vote here.
5-7 Nepean Hwy ELSTERNWICK – part 4 and 5 storey, 53 units
23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 34 units
670-672 CENTRE ROAD & 51 BROWNS ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – part 3 and 5 storey, 67 dwellings
There are plenty more, but what voters need to ask themselves is pretty clear – is this candidate worthy of your vote?
September 18, 2020
Spin & More Spin Plus Selective Editing!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[6] Comments
It has taken council no less than 4 weeks to fulfill its promise of answering ALL questions posed by residents at the 20th August Zoom meeting on planning.
What is concerning about the responses is:
- The failure to answer some of the questions posed
- The reliance on more and more motherhood statements that are meaningless
- The unwillingness to engage directly (and honestly) with what the questions actually asked.
We’ve uploaded council’s version of the questions and their responses HERE.
Even more significant is the number of questions that remain unanswered. We list them below. We have edited out comments and only included what can be regarded as ‘questions’.
How many homes has the State govt required GE to provide over what period of time and how are we on track for that? At some point can we say ‘that’ it, we’ve built our allocation and we can stop now’?
Can you define housing and how the current repeat building of shoe boxes is meeting the needs of older Australian’s or young families
Ron’s photo with title”the right housing in the right place” is shops and apartments at corner of Glenhuntly Road corner of James St in Glen Huntly. But this development has a step at shop front doors and disabled access is only by pressing buzzer through apartment entry in side street. Does Glen Eira Planning Scheme now require universal access for all new shops and ground floor apartment ? Especially as Ron noted aging population wit likely greater accessibility needs.
How is planning going to fund adequate open space into activity centres, areas of need, increased population to ensure resident recreation, mental health and a decent Urban Forest policy as if 5.7% open space levy has not increased open space, 8.3% may well also be inadequate.
in regards to the Elsternwick Structure Plan, particularly as it relates to the Urban Renewal North Area. In Dec 2018 we were provided with a step-by-step process by the Mayor. Where are we at right now specifically in that process that was presented?
How does bulldozing one heritage home after another present has proctection
In Feb 2018, Council endorsed max. of 5 stories in all Neighbourhood Centres as recommended by the Planning Officers. To have made this recommendation Planning Officers must have undertaken statistical analysis that supported that decision. Please advise when the Amendments supporting a request for interim height controls for 5 stories was submitted to the Minister
You mention diversity but there seems to be little diversity in what’s being built that’s new… lots of tiny apartments. What about townhouses, low cost housing, well equipped house sized apartments for downsizers …??
what is the status of the Caulfield North Activity Centre planning? has it been discussed with the community because the area is a real dogs breakfast at present
how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?
When will ESD LPP be introduced and when will Council include zero net emissions from buildings and transport by 2030 in the Planning Scheme? Is Council considering water sensitive design and biodiversity sensitive design? How will council prioiritise active transport and reduce car-dependence and car-parking provision?
how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?
It sounds like the Planning team is under-resourced, having to put important work on hold while attending to other work – do you need more staff?
Sorry Matt but if the council isn’t listening to the community why spend money on so called “consultation”.
Caulfield South is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which, in the Glen Eira City Plan 2020, height limits of buildings in commercial zones are designated as 5 storeys.
As we meet this evening there are 5 developer proposals heading to VCAT: one of 9 storeys, one of 8 storeys and three buildings of 7 storeys in Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre. Caulfield South is not a Major Activity Centre. Developments of this nature will seriously impact the neighbouring properties and destroy the concept of what is presently a neighbourhood centre.
Residents should not be expected to fight these battles on their own. As there are no structure plans in place for Caulfield South, and there are currently no mandatory height limits for Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre, residents will struggle to win at VCAT.
Will Council commit to defending its City Plan by providing external legal representation to help residents oppose these developments when each of these proposals goes before VCAT?
CONCLUSION(S)
The questions that weren’t answered are important. Some seek information on status of policies and structure planning; others seek specific statistics that council should have at its fingertips. In terms of council’s needs is it really that difficult to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a straight forward question of ‘do you need more planning staff’?
Given the sheer number of questions that didn’t receive an ‘answer’, it is impossible to accept the possibility that missing all of these was nothing more than an ‘oversight’. So why weren’t they answered? And why does council keep promising things that it has no intention of fulfilling?
September 16, 2020
With council elections looming fast, we will be presenting information on all candidates as this becomes available.
First cab off the rank is an interview conducted by Gary Max (“Talking to the Max”) on the local radio station J’Air (J’air.com.au). It features Simone Zmood who is standing as an independent in Camden Ward.
September 8, 2020
Public Question Responses!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
It literally staggers belief how often public questions remain unanswered and unchallenged by our group of councillors. Last week’s council meeting was the perfect example of a council determined to deflect, dissemble, and refuse point blank to respond accurately and transparently to resident concerns. It remains one of the most shameful incidents of recent times.
There were quite a number of questions at this meeting. We will highlight only one of the responses in this post – (they certainly do not merit being called ‘answers’).
QUESTION: Can Council advise what is the number of additional dwellings that are possible under the current Planning Scheme and the total dwelling capacity of Glen Eira?
RESPONSE: There is no prescribed limit to the number of dwellings that can be provided under the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. The Victorian Planning System is performance based, which means that every application requires analysis of its context and the application of policies and established planning principles. The planning system is designed to enable development while protecting amenity.
As such, the total dwelling capacity of the municipality is not fixed.
Council however monitors the number of new dwellings that have been constructed against State Government housing targets identified in Victoria in Future. Council has previously informed you that Glen Eira is on track to meet the State Government housing targets.
COMMENT: The question was very straight forward – ie asking for the number of ‘possible’ additional dwellings given the current Planning Scheme. The response was a deft deflection through the use of the word ‘prescribed’. Yes, nothing much is ‘prescribed’ in the Planning Scheme, and ‘yes’ it is “performance based’ where each application is evaluated individually. Having said all that, what council has refused to acknowledge is that every single version of its structure planning is based on a ‘capacity’ or ‘opportunity’ analysis of the municipality’s housing.
In 2017 we got 2 versions of such documents as the Analysis of housing consumption and opportunities. On top of this we also have: Planning Strategy Impacts on Housing Opportunity. This latter document included the sentence: Council should seek to demonstrate adequate Housing Opportunity to ensure that expected housing targets will be met. Thus available land, population, and residents per dwellings are crunched to envisage some kind of ‘capacity’ under different zonings.
Even in the documentation accompanying the draft C184 Amendment for Bentleigh & Carnegie we also have the 2020 version from SGS entitled: Addendum: Updated Housing Assessment for Bentleigh and Carnegie Activity Centres. In short, every application for interim heights and/or structure plans has included data on the potential number of additional dwellings that can be crammed into the municipality.
Here’s a breakdown of the published data:
In October 2017, we were told that housing ‘opportunity’ was – Using various methodologies outlined previously, this report has identified opportunities within the City of Glen Eira to provide a net gain of 25,970 dwellings. At 2011-2016 rates of development, this represents approximately 36 years of supply. This figure was repeated by the authors in the December 2017 version.
What needs to be remembered is that this data was the ‘backbone’ for the introduction of the interim height amendments C147 and C148 that had discretionary 6 and 7 storeys for Carnegie and 4 mandatory and 5 discretionary for Bentleigh. With Amendment C157 (August 2018) this suddenly became 12 storeys mandatory for Carnegie. And now through proposed Amendment C184, these mandatory heights are to become discretionary, plus the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for properties proposed to be zoned GRZ5. NRZ2 will revert to pre 2004 site coverage of 60%.
What’s important is that the so called experts were telling us that with the first versions of structure planning we would achieve the potential of 25,970 net new dwellings – nearly 8000 more than required by Victoria in Future 2019. Hence, why is council prepared to accept even more and more rezoning and greater heights that destroy our neighbourhoods?
And why can’t council quote these very figures in response to a public question? Is it because they do not want residents to suddenly put one and one together and start questioning the very basis of all planning in Glen Eira? If in 2017 we had capacity for over 25000 net new dwellings, then surely we don’t need structure plans that allow developers to reach for the sky? Or is this simply another example of council’s pro-development agenda?
The refusal to provide a straight forward response to a public question, when all the data has previously been published, is inexcusable.
September 4, 2020
Open Space & More Secrecy!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
Council’s penchant for secrecy and burying important news in its voluminous documentation continues with the release of the July 2020 financial report contained in the agenda for the upcoming Special council meeting (8th September).
We learn that $150,000 has been spent on the purchase of 66 and 66a Mackie Road, Bentleigh East. This is a 937 square metre property, that directly abuts Mackie Reserve. The property was sold on the 20th July 2020 for $1.605M. We can only assume the $150,000 is only the deposit and that settlement had not as yet occurred to warrant entry in the July financial report.
Why is there no open and transparent statement from council as to this purchase? Why is something as important as open space buried deep with two throwaway lines in a financial report that we doubt many people would bother ploughing through? Why the secrecy once the purchase has been made?
There are many queries regarding this purchase:
- Does this constitute a wise decision given its 500 metre proximity to Bailey Reserve and the fact that at the back of this property sits Mackie Reserve? The following map illustrates other open space areas within walking distance.
- Is it ‘beneficial’ to simply increase the size of existing open space when countless other areas are severely open space deficient – ie major activity centres?
- Why was this land purchased when the Open space Refresh only graded its ‘importance’ as ‘medium’. And why was the land bought prior to the recommendations of the OSS, that a master plan be created for this reserve? As far as we know, no ‘consultation’ on Mackie Reserve has been done. Here are the ‘recommendations’ of the Open Space Refresh –
The following image from Google Earth shows why we have major concerns about this purchase and whether it is really ‘value for money’. Nothing however can excuse this council’s refusal to be open and transparent with its ratepayers.
September 2, 2020
Shameful!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[2] Comments
This is a very, very brief report on last night’s council meeting. It represents in our view one of the most shameful performances in living memory. Inconsistencies in argument abounded, as did the continuation of council policy in NEVER, but NEVER answering residents’ questions that are deemed ‘embarrassing’ to council. And God forbid that any councillor actually has the balls to criticise or even question such responses or the substandard officer reports that are continually tabled in chamber.
The true highlight is Athanasopolous’ comment that councillors should not appear to be in the ‘pockets of residents’. Esakoff and her cohort were guilty of this very thing – but only when it suited. On the one hand they supported the 9 storey development in Selwyn Street in the face of massive opposition, and then when it came to the Glen Huntly Structure Plan, the argument suddenly changed to we ‘have to listen to our residents’.
Each and every one of these councillors has failed the community time and time again. It is definitely time for change.
Glen Eira Debates 