December 22, 2016

People Power!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

PS: Some developer Xmas presents –

23 Koornang Road CARNEGIE – Construction of a fifteen (15) storey building comprising ground floor retail and eighty-six (86) dwellings above basement car parking, reduction in car parking and bicycle requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements

277-279 Centre Road BENTLEIGH -Construction of a nine (9) storey building comprising ground floor retail and seventy-two (72) dwellings above basement car parking on land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1, Use of the land for accomodation (dwellings) and reduction of statutory car parking requirements

348-352 Centre Road BENTLEIGH -Construction of an eight storey building comprising ground floor retail and thirty (30) dwellings above basement car parking on land adjacent to a road zone category 1 and affected by the special building overlay, use of the land for accomodation (dwellings), reduction of statutory car parking requirements and waiver of loading bay requirements

+++++++++++

The following resolutions come from Yarra City Council’s meeting minutes of November, 2016. They illustrate perfectly what people power can achieve together with a newly elected crop of councillors who are committed to listening and acting on residents’ behalf. Whilst the proposed amendments are only the start and still have to be rubber stamped by the Minister, they are light years ahead of what Glen Eira is doing. For example: would Glen Eira even dream of organising a meeting between residents and the Minister? Would Glen Eira ever demand 3 storey maximum heights in its neighbourhood centres?

pages-from-revised-public-minutes-22-november-2016_page_1pages-from-revised-public-minutes-22-november-2016_page_2pages-from-revised-public-minutes-22-november-2016_page_3

 

December 21, 2016

Too Little, Too Late: Caulfield Village

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

Delahunty moved a motion for a Request for a Report on the Caulfield Village. Her request was that the report include ‘planning options’ available to council on the social housing issue for the Village. Taylor seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that the VCAT decision on Precinct 2 was that council was ‘unsuccessful’ in the attempt to ‘require’ the developer to include social housing. Called this a ‘surprising judgement’ and wondered whether the member had ‘actually seen or heard of’ social housing. Said the judgement was ‘so far removed from the way social housing operates’. Claimed that for the member to state that the ‘requirement to provide social housing’ is ‘financially prohibitive is rather surprising’. Said that ‘of course’ there’s a financial ‘imposte’ but ‘that’s what it is’. Called it an ‘incredibly disappointing result’ and when you have such a massive development almost like a ‘new suburb’ that there should be ‘some proper social housing provider attached to it’. Acknowledged that the developer ‘came up with their own scheme’ but this ‘doesn’t meet anyone’s definition of social housing’ and this looks like a pay later ‘lending scheme’. ‘It was an attempt to circumvent this requirement’ and all it would do would be to ‘help people access deposits’ or ‘get their hands on the deposit faster’.  Claimed that this doesn’t ‘address disability at all’ but helps the developer ‘sell their properties faster’. Said she ‘doesn’t understand at all’ how the judgement ‘was made’ and ‘won’t let this rest’. The report is asking for help to ‘understand what levers, what tools’ can be used. Said ‘noise’ is ‘available, appealing to the hearts of the developer is available’ but there ‘must be some planning levers that we can still pull’. ‘It’s unconscionable to let this go’.

TAYLOR: thought about the cost and ‘access to public land’ and ‘it’s not all about take, take, take’. The developer ‘can’t have it all one way’. On accessing a ‘social housing organisation’, ‘how difficult is this?’ Said there are ‘at least 39 social housing providers’ and it’s a ‘matter of liaising with them’. It’s ‘not onerous’ and a few meetings or emails can set this up. This ‘didn’t sit well with me’ so she ‘highly commends this report’.

ATHANASOPOULOS: started by saying that ‘we live in a society that is very inclusive’. Said he had visited a family member in London who lived in a property bought from the government and it was ‘very nice’ in an allotment of ‘maybe another 30’ units in a village that ‘probably had another 100’ units. Said it was ‘great’ that this ’90 year old lady’ could walk everywhere and there was a ‘sense of community’. If it can happen in a ‘massive city like London’ then ‘why can’t we create’ something similar here? They need more ‘than vcat on our side’ but also ‘local members’ and ‘ministers’ in order to ‘get something better than this’ because ‘people deserve it’.

SILVER: asked that the motion also include ‘examples’ of social housing from other municipalities and their major developments. Went on to say that the judgement was from a ‘legal member’ and ‘whether something is regarded as reasonable is a matter of policy’ ‘rather than planning scheme’ so it’s not necessarily ‘fair to the tribunal to say’ that it’s a bad decision because they have to ‘implement the law’ even though council mightn’t like the decision.

Delahunty then asked Torres whether this amendment would ‘slow down our efforts’ on advocacy? Torres said ‘no’ in that there ‘are other examples in other councils’. Delahunty accepted the amendment.

HYAMS: said ‘there is also a matter of principle here’ because VCAT was supposed to ‘apply the objectives’ of the Incorporated Plan and the ‘objective is social housing’. ‘They are now saying they are not going to have social housing’ and he ‘can’t see’ how this is in keeping with the plan. Claimed that another objective was ‘that there be no loss of on street parking’ and the VCAT decision means that they are losing car spaces to the ‘net loss of 45’. These are mostly metered parking spots, so ‘it will be a cost to the community’. Hoped that they would ‘also be looking’ to see ‘how we can reverse that’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS

 

The history of Caulfield Village is literally the history of utter failure by Council to do its job of land management competently, transparently, and for the benefit of residents. Over the years, every single aspect of this project has been mired in controversy, lies, and repeated cave-ins. The machinations go back right to the beginning with the establishment of a Special Committee to decide on the C60 and which consisted of Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling. These 4, together with Newton and this administration did everything in their power to accede to every MRC demand.

Not surprising that the developer keeps winning when the Incorporated Plan is literally such a joke and should never have been accepted by the 4 councillors involved. The municipality is now paying the price for this collusion and incompetence.

Admittedly, Delahunty was not part of these earlier decisions and to her credit she, Magee and Lobo have been consistent on their demands for social housing. The same cannot be said for Hyams and Esakoff. Here is what the former said when the first amended Development Plan for Precinct 1 came in – ie more dwellings and reduction in 3 bedroom apartments leading to more single bedroom apartments.(taken from our post of May 3rd, 2015)

HYAMS: said there will be more apartments, thus more people, but the ‘building still stays’ within the parameters of the incorporated plan. Said that objectors raised the issue of ‘lack of diversity’ but ‘I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity. As for social housing ‘that is a requirement’ for the end of the development but ‘I don’t think there was a requirement’ for social housing in ‘every single part’ of the development. Didn’t think that it was ‘appropriate’ for council to ‘move the goal posts’ now in regard to social housing. He was ‘sure this would be enforced in due course’.

As for the role of the administration and its planning department, the following quote from the Camera report on the first Development Plan should be enough to convince readers of either how incompetent they are, or how committed they are to basically duping residents.

This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village

Finally, a word of warning to residents on the Virginia Estate proposals. Their draft ‘management plan’ is basically a duplicate of the MRC plan for social housing. They have undoubtedly witnessed the successes of the MRC and are employing identical tactics. We can only hope that with this new council, they will have learnt the lessons of the past when it comes to deciding on the Virginia Estate development – which we believe will dwarf what is occurring in the Caulfield Village.

Readers might also like to revisit one of our earlier posts – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/are-we-about-to-be-screwed-again/

 

December 18, 2016

Selling Your Soul For $350,000?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments 

According to Item 9.11 of the current agenda, Council has been offered $350,000 and $25,000 per annum in order to become the Committee of Management for the land at the top of Glen Eira/Booran Roads.  This land featured in the notorious ‘land swap’ between the Government and the Melbourne Racing Club and was to be established as a ‘public park’. Council’s position has been that it will not accept the land because of its poor access, size, lack of adequate ‘surveillance’, etc. The land was returned to the government once council refused.

Now we find:

  • That clearly some secret deal has been made between the Department, the MRC, and council – to the exclusion of the public
  • Council is willing to renege on its previous position for the meagre sum of $350,000 – (far from the true value of the land)

The officer’s report contains these recommendations. That council –

authorises officers to meet with DELWP to negotiate favourable conditions for Council’s use of the land, including clarity on the type of recreation facilities that could be incorporated onto the site

Potential for the site to be rezoned in future for other uses, without a nett reduction in open space across the municipality;

Plus these paragraphs:

This reserve has previously been offered to, and refused by Council, with Council’s previous position on the land swap arrangement being that any land should be of equivalent value and made available for public use. In the original offer to Council, the (then) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) had stipulated that the land had to be utilised as public open space.

The new offer from DELWP still states the condition that the reserve is to be used for public recreation purposes. However, officers understand that the current offer is potentially open for discussion on the restrictions, which enables other options for discussion on use of the land

Even more disconcerting is this paragraph –

A current offer has been made of the land of $350,000 to develop it and approximately $25,000 per annum to use to maintain it. This will be inadequate to deliver a quality open space. However, it will be enough to ensure that Council is notdisadvantaged by taking on the reserve in the short term, and will enable Council to implement some potential low cost temporary uses for the space.

Thus, we have the situation where ‘short term’ expediency trumps long term planning and the carrot of $350,000 is sufficient for council to sell its soul! Plus, we certainly do know that once council implements something, then it is almost impossible to change!

It is obvious that discussions have already occurred and will continue. This does not provide justification for a report that is so vague and so uninformative on an issue which has featured prominently for years and years.

 

December 16, 2016

Beware The Fine Print!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

There is much in the current agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting that residents need to be aware of and to actively lobby the new council on. Whilst there are clearly some major improvements in terms of community consultation, and a more ‘up front’ approach to letting residents know what is on the drawing board, vigilance by residents is still required. Plus of course the demand that council is explicit and precise in all its communications with residents.

This last point is crucial, especially as it applies to Item 9.7 of the agenda – ie ‘city strategy’ and the work council is proposing to undertake in the next 18 months on planning. The item basically promises 3 things:

  • To update the 2005 Activity Centres Strategy
  • To complete structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick, and
  • To continue and expand the ‘engagement’ practices currently initiated for the shopping strips

Whilst this all sounds wonderful, there are some real concerns as exemplified by this sentence – The revised Activity Centre Strategy will inform Building and Development (or Urban Design) Guidelines which will guide the design of future developments within all commercial areas.

And

Community feedback will be sought on built form controls across all commercial areas with a more detailed focus on Urban Villages.

We remind readers that an ‘activity centre’ is much, much more than the ‘commercial’ areas. It also incorporates the surrounding residential areas that are currently zoned either Residential Growth Zone, and/or General Residential Zone (ie 4 and 3 storeys respectively).

Then there is also this nebulous sentence  – This work will manage development in key sensitive areas whilst also aiming to strategically unlock some key sites close to train stations for redevelopment. Exactly what does this mean? Which sites are in the firing line?

Until council is prepared to commit to a full and comprehensive review of its residential zones, then no amount of structure planning, or urban design frameworks alone will ameliorate the damage that is currently continuing to occur in our local residential streets. The real questions that residents should be demanding answers to are:

  • If the major shopping strips can provide enough housing to cater for the population growth, then does Glen Eira really need 40+% of Ormond, for example, zoned as General Residential Zone?
  • Why do so many streets have 3 distinct zonings when the recommendations from the Minister’s Standing Committee on the new zones recommended against this practice?
  • Why have so many heritage areas been included as part of growth zones and others haven’t? What is the logic and the consistency behind the new zones and does this stand up to scrutiny?

The following screen dump from the current planning scheme will show why we are concerned about the potential direction of planning in Glen Eira if the intention is to only concentrate on the commercial areas and totally ignore the surrounding residential streets that are part of all activity centres. The shaded areas largely represent the commercial and mixed use zonings in Bentleigh. The darker single lines represent the ‘circumferance’ of the Bentleigh activity centre. Most of the activity centre is comprised of nearby streets and therefore housing.  To ignore these countless streets which are zoned GRZ and RGZ and to only concentrate on the commercial zoning as the draft Amendments C147/8 do is to wash one’s hands of protecting neighbourhoods and undertaking planning of the highest order. In the meantime of course, officer recommendations are to grant permits for another 61 units over 3 locations of 3 and 4 storey heights!

untitled

 

December 15, 2016

Would Glen Eira Do This?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

City of Boroondara demolishes Kew townhouses after ‘gross’ permit breach

Dec 15, 2016 Denham Sadler

Two brand new townhouses in Kew have been demolished by the local council after the developer “grossly” exceeded the planning permit. The new development on Normanby Road was ruled to have breached the Boroondara Council’s planning permit by VCAT including by height and its boundaries and was demolished this month. The two townhouses were constructed at 11.5 metres and 12.15 metres high, well above the council’s nine metre height restriction, Boroondara Mayor Phillip Healey says.

“They weren’t missing by millimetres or centimetres, they were missing by a lot,” Cr Healey said. “This wasn’t marginal, this was grossly over where it should be.”

The original building permit to construct the two townhouses was obtained by Nicholas Pantas in September 2012. After a planning officer visited the construction site, an investigation found that Mr Pantas had made “numerous unauthorised changes” to the development.

This decision was then appealed at Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in August 2015, where the developer was given until February this year to amend the developments or have them demolished. The City of Boroondara also took action against Mr Pantas in the Magistrates Court in December last year; he was fined $8000 in penalties and costs.

The National Australia Bank then took possession of the property but were unable to meet the permit and the townhouses were subsequently demolished this month.

“The builder’s action was downright illegal,” Cr Healey said. “This is a costly reminder that planning permits and approved plans must be complied with.”

Kosa Architects helped the developer to obtain the permits and designed the building, but principal Stephen Kosa says the drawings weren’t followed. “The builder didn’t follow the town planning permits or building planning permits,” Mr Kosa said. “Unfortunately the builder decided to try to maximise what he thought to be the end outcome and didn’t follow the approved drawings. We end no involvement in the end construction.”

Despite attempts, Mr Kosa said it was impossible to alter the buildings so they would meet the permits. “The buildings were virtually irretrievable and to bring them back into compliance would virtually be a demolition,” he said.

Cr Healey said the move had enjoyed strong support from the local community. “It’s very pleasing to get supported because we are given the task of managing this and enforcing it, but we don’t always get this level of support,” he said. “We have a responsibility.”

With the two townhouses now completely gone, a new permit will be submitted for the Kew property, and Cr Healey urged the developer to work with the council, not against it. “Work with us – don’t come to us after you’ve done it,” he says. “Work with the process and then these sort of things don’t happen.”

The City of Boroondara has had several recent wins against developers and landowners in court, with a Kew landowner fined $13,500 in May for attempting to remove native trees without a permit, and a builder in Balwyn North fined $6500 for failing to protect two trees during construction.

Source: http://www.domain.com.au/news/city-of-boroondara-demolishes-kew-townhouses-after-gross-permit-breach-20161214-gtas2a/

 

December 12, 2016

‘Minimal Change’ & VCAT

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Over the past year the number of applications for 2 double storeys that have ended up at VCAT is remarkable. We would even go so far as suggest that objections in Neighbourhood Residential Zones are now outpacing  objections for the so-called ‘growth zones’. Most are not due to resident objectors, but to the developer either contesting council’s refusal, or contesting the myriad of imposed conditions.

The mantra of council has always been that the NRZ is ‘protected’ and that the zones bring ‘certainty’ to both developers and residents. The exact opposite appears to be happening. More to the point, every single appearance at VCAT is costing ratepayers money. We remind readers that the so-called ‘protection’ in the Neighbourhood Residential zones date from 2004. Nothing much changed with the new zones of 2013, except for mandatory height and mandatory 2 dwellings – only on ‘average’ sized blocks that is! The Planning Scheme thus basically remained unchanged over this period and onwards to now. Setbacks, permeability, site coverage, etc. all date from 2004!

Thus, if the planning scheme has remained the same for 12 years in relation to Minimal Change areas, then why oh why do we have instances after instances where council fronts up to VCAT with a series of conditions that do not have a hope in hell of getting passed by VCAT given what the planning scheme says? The latest example involves an application in Cushing Avenue Bentleigh. Council sought to impose 6 conditions initially – all of which were either ‘deleted’ or rejected by the Member. And we can’t blame him given the reasons provided below. When ‘standards’ are met, then the developer is home and hosed. What is the point of arguing for conditions that are not supported by the very planning scheme that is the basis for decision making? And what is the point of continuing to ignore the problems with minimal change and expecting to front up at VCAT and win? There is nothing from council to indicate that improvements to the Minimal Change zoning are even on the horizon according to the planning scheme review. Unless this area is addressed, we should expect more of what is shown below.

This condition sought a setback of 3.75 metres from the southern boundary for the length of the elevation, pursuant to standard B10 (Energy Efficiency Objective). The Council officer report indicated that this setback is required to ensure the efficiency of the solar panels located on the adjoining dwelling at 18 Cushing Avenue.

  • At the hearing, the Council confirmed that it no longer wishes to pursue this condition, as standard B20 (Energy Efficiency Objective) is the relevant standard in that instance and that this has been met by the proposed design.
  • While we understand the concerns of the owners of 18 Cushing Avenue with respect to the impacts on their solar panels, I accept the Council’s position that the relevant standard has been met and overshadowing will not unreasonably impact upon their efficiency.

From the submissions presented, the increased upper level rear setback required by the condition is not based on any standard or specific policy requirement. Nor is the increased setback required to achieve the improvement of amenity of neighbouring properties with respect to matters such as daylight or overshadowing

  • I find that the condition is unwarranted for the following reasons:
  • The upper level rear setback, at 5.6 metres, exceeds that required under standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks Objective) as modified in the Schedule to the zone (4 metres).
  • The setback proposed allows ample opportunity for the planting of canopy trees which is an outcome desired by policy. The proposed upper level will not impede the canopy of such trees.
  • The upper levels are well setback from the side boundaries. They are stepped in from the ground level footprint, with the setback exceeding the requirements of standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks Objective).
  • The upper levels as proposed results in compliance with the requirements of clause 55 with respect to daylight, daylight to northern windows and overshadowing of neighbours.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/2047.html

 

December 10, 2016

19 Storey Application

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

We’ve been sent the following announcement. The email to contact the group is – bhcagroup@gmail.com

invitation-2

 

December 8, 2016

Nero Is Still Fiddling, Whilst…………

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

The best illustration of how woeful council’s planning scheme is, together with its recently completed ‘work plan’, comes from the following screen dumps of developments in East Bentleigh. These are significant since:

  • East Bentleigh, plus another 9 suburbs, are classified as ‘neighbourhood centres’ and therefore lower down in the ‘hierarchy’ for development that council stipulates in its planning scheme.
  • Yet, council saw fit to impose a 5 storey preferred height limit for Bentleigh (an ‘urban village’) when East Bentleigh is already undergoing major 6 storey developments.
  • Since the introduction of the zones, developers have had a field day. Amended applications keep coming in to increase either heights or the number of apartments. The latest is for the Browns Road/Centre Road site where the developer wants a 5 storey permit changed to allow 6 storeys. Given the countless loopholes in the planning scheme, and other 6 storey buildings in the area, he will no doubt be successful.
  • East Bentleigh is already seeing countless 5 storey permits being granted, as are other neighbourhood centres. Caulfield North already has a 6 storey permit and there is an application in for 8 storeys! If the workplan stays as it is, then residents in these areas can expect to wait at least another decade before council gets around to addressing the development pressures in its neighbourhood centres. Not good enough!
  • Residents may wish to consider the possibility that this inaction is perhaps deliberate? Or is it due to a lack of money or expertise to do the necessary work? Why when other councils can produce amendments that cover all their shopping centres (ie Bayside, Boroondara) has Glen Eira decided to concentrate on only Bentleigh and Carnegie and in a stated time frame of 4 years?
  • Neighbourhood centres cannot afford the luxury of being left behind

bebe1be2

 

December 6, 2016

Virginia Estate: Community Forum

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Tonight’s forum was unfortunately very poorly attended by residents. Nor did the developer reps fill us with confidence that the upcoming amendment will resolve all of the community’s concerns.

The major points to come out of tonight were:

  • The Education Department is ‘investigating’ the need for additional educational facilities in the area. No ‘answer’ as yet. The developers would be prepared to sell the land to the department/government. This could be in the vicinity of 1 hectare. If not a school, then possibly a ‘community centre’. We assume that this would involve council perhaps purchasing the land.
  • The possibility of a commercial car parking venture on site
  • The area currently zoned Commercial 1 would remain. The rest of the site rezoned to Mixed Use
  • The project life is up to 15 years
  • No solution to traffic, apart from advocating for car-share, more traffic lights and buses to run through the site
  • The developers have been in constant contact with council’s various departments
  • One mention of 5000 new residents. How many apartments does this mean?

All in all it is practically impossible to comment on what will eventuate given the lack of detail on just about everything. We simply urge residents to be wary of any amendment and Schedules that are not spelt out to the nth degree.

 

 

December 5, 2016

Ormond Tower & Politics Galore!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

A long post, but an extremely important one.  We urge readers to note:

  • The new (ill applied) language of ‘evidence based’.
  • The political grandstanding
  • The possible influence that Wynne’s ‘rejection’ of amendments C147/8 has had where no strategic justification was submitted!
  • The implicit admission that council’s planning for the past decade is abysmal and actually non-existent
  • And much, much more!

Item 9.3 – Council submission on Ormond Tower proposal

Motion to accept submission moved by Athanasopoulos  and seconded by Davey.

ATHANASOPOULOS: said that council needs to ‘hold’ a ‘very strong position’ and the submission does that.

DAVEY: thanks officers for their submission on something as ‘vast’ as the proposal. Said this was an opportunity for council to represent what ‘the community wants’ on this site. Officers had ‘raised’ what they saw as issues – ie ‘height and scale’ and 13 storeys is ‘huge’ and ‘we need to consider something smaller’. The suggestion of a supermarket is ‘also quite significant for that area’ because of its impact on the shopping centre and also ‘traffic’. Impact on Katandra which is used by commuters and school is also significant. Said she was pleased that the officers recommended that the State Government also consider some form of ‘social housing’.

ESAKOFF: moved an amendment that a five storey mandatory height limit be proposed and then scaling back to no more than 2-3 storeys at the back. Said that council would provide justification for this when they appear at the hearings of the advisory committee in February. Seconded by Hyams. Said that there was much ‘concern’ in Ormond and surrounding areas about ‘this proposal’. She was asking for councillors’ support and said ‘I am taking a firm stand on what is appropriate in Ormond’ and she didn’t want to be ‘wishy-washy in our response’. Said the proposal was ‘completely out of sync’ with the planning scheme and ‘community expectations’. Quoted from the actual submission on height and ‘scale’ that is ‘beyond that of urban villages’. This is not in accord with council’s housing diversity policy that designates neighbourhood centres to be of less density than the urban villages. Since Ormond is a neighbourhood centre, she couldn’t see how council can accept anything above 5 storeys.

HYAMS: explained to the gallery the formalities of motions and amendments. Supported Esakoff’s amendment because council has to give the community some idea of where they stand and the submission is ‘very good’. His opinion is ‘that we need to be consistent across Glen Eira’ and council has asked for interim height restrictions and in Bentleigh which is an urban village they’ve asked for 5 storeys. Thought that if council is to be taken ‘seriously’ then 5 storeys ‘also applies to Ormond’. Stated that people might be asking why 5 storeys in Bentleigh and then being ‘less’ concerned when ‘it comes to Ormond’.

MAGEE: said that there already are 5 storeys in the area and that ‘one could argue’ that ‘this is the appropriate height’ but that means that the developer is saying 13 storeys and council is saying 5 storeys. The result would be that council would ‘lose a lot of credibility’. Council would be better of by saying ‘let’s look at parking, let’s look at traffic’ and ‘amenity’. ‘How many floors are going to be parking’ and how many accommodation and ‘start building the profile of how that affects’ the area. If council simply says 5 storeys then this makes it ‘hard for officers’ when they ‘go and do their presentation’. Once they’ve done the traffic and parking it immediately starts ‘putting the negative tone’ and through consensus ‘you reach a common ground’. This ‘could be 5 storeys’ and ‘it might even be 6’. To now say ‘we don’t want anything’ but 5, is a ‘very negative path’ and is ‘very hard to argue that ongoing’. Said this was only the ‘beginning’ of the process and they’ve got the opportunity to ‘sit down and present our submission’ and ‘we have to back that up with figures’. It’s very ‘hard’ to simply ‘go in’ with 5 storeys. It ‘has to be backed up’ with data. Didn’t want ‘them on the back foot’ and ‘saying they just want 5’ and there’s ‘no justification for it’. Magee would prefer that ‘they listen’. Said that council isn’t accepting 13 storeys. Council is merely saying here’s what ‘we think’ and this is based on ‘very sound logic’ and ‘every department’ involved with planning at council ‘will have input into this submission’. ‘It is dangerous to simply say 5 storeys maximum’. He can’t ‘support the motion’ because ‘it doesn’t give us the strongest argument’.

DELAHUNTY: said she thought that council had a better chance of a good outcome if ‘we used an evidence based’ approach. Said councillors know the area and ‘we kind of know what would be appropriate there’ but that ‘we would make a better argument when we do the strategic work’. Therefore ‘I would like not to have a height named in the submission’ because ‘it doesn’t use an evidence based method’. The proposed submission makes a ‘good argument about the height and the scale’ and its ‘relationship to what is currently in Ormond’. Said that council has made some suggestions for planning in Glen Eira over the past 6 months and this ‘suggests that we need time and space’ to do ‘strategic evidence based work’ to justify their recommendations so ‘I am worried about the inconsistency of now putting a height on it and what political mileage’ could be ‘gained out of that’. When they go to the panel in February, ‘we will have some evidence collected by then’ which they can present to the panel about ‘what our preferred height will be’. Said that it’s now council’s preferred height but ‘your preferred height because it is evidence based’. Thought that the ‘stronger position’ as a council is to ‘do the work first’. The community asked for feedback so if council is a ‘strong’ community voice they have to do better than propose something that is ‘not evidence based’. Thought they will get to a ‘height argument’ but only after they’ve done the ‘strategic work’. That will be done by February and because of that she thought ‘it will be stronger’.

TAYLOR: said that ‘we all want to take a position of strong advocacy’ and agreed with Esakoff that none of them ‘want to be equivocal’ and that through their campaigning they are aware of residents’ concerns about height. Agreed with those opposing the amendment that if they could ‘pack’ more ‘evidence’ behind their position they would be better off.

SILVER: thought that listening to the community and then ‘going bang’ in February is ‘the strongest way possible’ of achieving something.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – Hyams and Esakoff.

Voting against – Magee, Taylor, Delahunty, Davey, Athanasopoulos

ABSTAINED – Silver

ESAKOFF: said she was ‘disappointed’ about the amendment being lost and that she was a ‘little confused about the arguments’ and that the ‘authority’ will decide ‘regardless of our submission’. Thought that on ‘behalf of the community’ that ‘we’ve made a stand’. As for ‘evidence’, she thought that council’s ‘heirarchy’ of urban villages and neighbourhood centres is ‘evidence’. Summed up by going through submission again – ie traffic, impact on local schools, shopping centre, etc. Wanted a more ‘transparent process’ that allowed for meaningful ‘community input’. Said she would ‘get over’ losing out on the amendment but ‘the community mighn’t’. If council suggested 5 or 6 storeys then ‘we wouldn’t have the multiple levels of car parking’ since ‘it would reduce the need for it’ so Magee’s earlier arguments would now be ‘all irrelevant’. ‘This is our submission. This is our chance’. Even though they will have a hearing ‘this is our submission’ in what ‘our community is going to see us standing up for them’.

SILVER: thought this was an ‘unfortunate situation’ in that before the level crossing works they had land ‘subject’ to the same conditions as elsewhere but the Minister changed the legislation and the government is now using this ‘opportunity’ to ‘make a bit more dough’. The ministerial amendment ‘wiped the slate, carte blanche and the government could do whatever it wants’. Ideally council should be the decision maker, but that’s not happening since all they are doing now is telling the government what they think ‘should be the standards’. Didn’t know ‘whether this is a genuine form of consultation’ but seemed like ‘just another way for the government to make more money’.  Council ‘has a standard’ and it’s up to the government to adhere to this standard ‘or ignore it’. That’s why he didn’t support the amendment because he is ‘uncomfortable with the entire sky tower’.

MAGEE: even though he agrees with ‘everything’ Esakoff said thought that they are ‘trying to get to the same position in a different way’. They don’t want 13 storeys but ‘there isn’t even an opportunity for an appeal to VCAT’. The Minister ‘will decide’ on the basis of the reports submitted to him. Council’s just is to put ‘forward a submission based on evidence’. ‘It can’t be an emotional response’. Said that local MPs are ‘on our side’ and they are saying ‘give us the tools, give us the reasoning’ so it’s not 13 storeys. So even though the ‘community may be disappointed that we didn’t put in a blanket 5 storey maximum’ the important ‘part’ is ‘where this will end up’. Didn’t want the ‘negative feel right from the start’. Thought that it had to be ‘evidence based’ and not emotion based.

HYAMS: even though he would have preferred the amendment to be passed, this is still a ‘very good submission’. Thought that it was ‘fair enough that the government does go for some value capture, but it has to be reasonable’. This will be a ‘stand alone building’ and so won’t ‘integrate with the shopping centre’.

DELAHUNTY: thought that what is likely to be ignored is ‘our role’. Planning isn’t simply about height or overshadowing, it is ‘more nuanced’ and how a ‘building might add to a place’ and council is ‘best placed to make those decisions’. Was ‘disappointed’ that council wasn’t the ‘decision maker’. Didn’t ‘want to see lazy planning from the state government’. Council needs to ‘keep up our efforts’  in terms of ‘more than just heights and more than just shadows’ and ‘talk more about Ormond’ and the people and ‘the way the village and the people interact’. Supported the ‘strong submission’ and didn’t think ‘it’s our only chance’ because they will ‘front up again’ in February.

ATHANOSOPOULOS: thought the submission was ‘very strong’ and important to have such debates. Thought that a comment from the gallery earlier about going to VCAT and ‘not having the right evidence’ was important. So this is setting the ‘bar’ and saying ‘we are no longer unprepared’.

ORIGINAL MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »