Glen Eira Debates

This is a tale of intrigue and secrecy. Secrecy by administrators with the result that not only the public, but councillors themselves are not given information which is vital in order for them to govern in the best interests of the community. 

In February this year, Glen Eira City Council faced 88 charges in the Dandenong Magistrates Court. Council employed an SC, and the potential fines were in the vicinity of $2,000,000. The charges were laid by Vic Roads. Council was found ‘not guilty’ of these charges. This is not the point of our tale however. What we wish to highlight is that individuals whose job it is to protect the community and its assets did NOT KNOW OF THIS PROSECUTION! In other words elected representatives were excluded from an issue which had the potential to impact on all aspects of the municipality and its operations. 

What must also be borne in mind is the following –  taken directly from the Whelan Report (page 32) and citing the purported governance practices by the administration. The heading of this page is:  “CEO/Administration and councillors”  

“A Governance Digest is sent to Councillors by courier each Thursday. It includes a diary of all engagements involving the Mayor / Councillors, any key commitments by senior managers (e.g. conferences) and events which affect the community. It sets out information under five chapters laid down by the CEO:-

o “For Councillors to take action / decision” (e.g. extra information about a matter coming before Council; opportunities to attend development courses);

o “Sensitive issues that Councillors should be aware of”. This is the heart of the Digest. It updates Councillors on constituent concerns, media items, etc.

o “Decisions made by management that Councillors should be aware of” (e.g. decisions by the Delegated Planning Committee);

o “Reports on progress” (e.g. implementation of capital works);

o “General information”. Provision of this information is based on an internal policy which states:- “The golden rule is No Surprises. It is our policy to alert our Councillors beforehand of any issue which could reasonably become the subject of public discussion.” 

Seems like this administration does not practice what it preaches – even after three municipal inspectors’ investigations. This court case speaks volumes about the failure of governance, transparency, and accountability. We ask councillors – who runs this council? You, or the ‘faceless men’? 

You may read the full judgement or the Norton Rose synopsis via these links – 

http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/2010/pub28461.aspx?lang=de-de 

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/2b68e500440ad44eb44ef61b048e52c2/Vicroads+v+City+of+Glen+Eira.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Seems we still have the Revolving Door spectacle of councillors zipping in and out of Assembly meetings according to the Agenda items for the November 3^rd council meeting. And again of note, the practically non-existent declarations of ‘conflict of interest’. Those bladders must sure be getting a working over!!!

Also of note is the fact that the Pools Steering Committee now also comes under the category of ‘Assembly of Councillors’ and according to the Local Government Act, all that has to be recorded is those present, general topics of discussion, and any conflicts of interests. Need we spell it out, that this is of course what is revealed here, rather than the more expansive ‘minutes’ that would let the community know a little more of what was going on!

As to the C60, still to make an appearance! However, Penhalluriack’s recent request for a report regarding meetings between council and the MRC has been tabled. Readers should be filled with absolute confidence when they peruse the following paragraph taken from this ‘report’ – “If Council wants staff of the Planning Office to attempt to identify the dates of meetings, that would involve time which would otherwise be spent addressing planning applications, amendments or appeals and it would be appreciated if Council would specifically direct that activity if it wishes”. Testy, aren’t we? Gosh, recording dates is really a tough ask. As for actual ‘minutes’, oh well ……….

Another feature is a 5 storey application  – again in Elsternwick. Guess we could start thinking about renaming the suburb to reflect the new ambience of high rise?

There’s plenty more which we will report on in due course.

Congratulations to councillors for organising last night’s forum. Approximately 35 to 40 people showed up which represents one of the largest turnouts at this kind of event.

The evening began with Jamie Hyams presenting an overview of Council’s achievements, followed by Jim Magee speaking on GESAC and priorities in capital works. Concluding the presentations, Oscar Lobo spoke about the organisational structure of council and the quality of the Annual Report. We understand that the original intention was that each speaker would proceed with their talks and then only at the end would the floor be thrown open to questions. The evening however did not follow this format. Members of the audience started asking questions and making comments almost from the beginning of Hyam’s presentation. This set the scene for a much freer evening where people felt they had the opportunity to speak their mind.

Some of the issues raised were:

• Lack of structure planning and the need for council to provide an overall vision for shopping centres that includes direct consultation with traders, residents, community groups, etc.
• Poor service delivery
• Inappropriate development and council’s need to protect residents
• Waste of public monies in sub-standard road and unnecessary pavement works
• Priority listings of pavilions and need for revisiting of such priorities
• Job descriptions for mayors
• Inadequate car parking at GESAC

There was generally some expectation that councillors ‘do something’ about the above issues. It will be interesting to see what eventuates from this forum. Will councillors first and foremost report back to residents as to their follow up actions? Will councillors introduce motions and amendments at council meetings that seek answers to some of the above? Will anything change?

It seems that our man capable of making ’hard decisions’, Cr. Lipshutz, has recently made another such ‘hard decision’ in a long career of resignation after resignation. Reading between the lines there are two possible scenarios – either he was pushed, or he spat the dummy a la Whiteside. Either way, it seems that Michael is having trouble holding on to senior executive positions in a number of organisations – oh, and let’s not forget his decision not to stand for pre-selection when beaten by David Southwick!

Why, oh why, we ask ourselves is this poor bloke having such an apparently rotten time these past few years? What is it about these organisations that makes him ‘resign’ – or could the fault possibly lie with our illustrious councillor? We don’t know! We’re only following the dots and a track record that includes:

• Two attempts (one successful) to gag councillors via the addition of a ‘no surprises’ clause to the local law
• Disdain for ‘community activists’ (read here anyone who disagrees with him)
• ‘We know best’ attitude

These traits may be pivotal in Lipshutz’s sudden resignation from the new radio station. Our question however, is how well such traits serve the people of Glen Eira? Maybe it’s time for another resignation Michael?

The article (22^nd October, 2010) from the Jewish News follows. Does anyone find any resemblance to the state of play at Glen Eira Council?

“MELBOURNE’S Jewish radio station has a new leader of the pack. Following the resignation of Michael Lipshutz earlier this month, John Kraus has taken over the role as president of Lion FM.

The Mizrachi member faces the tough task of steering the station back on track after a troubled few weeks.

Lipshutz’s resignation came amid accusations that the board was censoring views that did not reflect board members’ opinions on Israel, and that the volunteers’ agreement that presenters were forced to sign impinged on their right to free speech.

There were also accusations these practices were in breach of the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s community radio standards, which require stations to promote diversity and encourage community participation.

Kraus, who has held a number of communal roles in recent years, including chairman of Leibler Yavneh College and treasurer of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, said he hopes to resolve these issues “quickly and efficiently, so the station can move forward”.

“I will be proposing that Lion FM establish an editorial board and a formal process for resolving disputes via a separate disputes committee. The editorial board and the disputes committee will be independent of the executive and contain representatives from across the community,” Kraus said.

Regarding the controversial volunteers’ agreement, Kraus said it would be reviewed and comments and suggestions from the community would be welcome. He added, “My hope is that Lion FM becomes the unofficial voice of the Melbourne Jewish community – a voice that is as diverse as it is rich and a voice of which we can be  proud.”

Lion FM presenter Bram Presser, who had refused to sign the agreement claiming it “dictates what the content and political bent of our show should be”, told The AJN he was encouraged by Kraus’ appointment. “We had a very productive conversation and I believe John has the station’s best interests at heart,” Presser said”.

Front page, today’s Caulfield Leader

Kids are not all right: Crisis looms for kindergarten places

Jenny Ling

Glen Eira Council is under fire from parents – again – to provide adequate pre-school and childcare places to avert a crisis.

The Carnegie Uniting Church pre-school is to close in 2012 after 80 years following the sale of land at the corner of Neerim and Toolambool Roads.

The Council hoped the kinder could be relocated to Carnegie Primary School but the option has already been ruled out by the school. Principal Linda Jones said it was only ever a temporary solution. ‘Should the enrolment growth exceed the classroom space then long-term options must be sought,” Ms Jones said.

‘I believe it’s a responsibility of the local government.’

The parents’ plight comes after news of the closure of the Elsternwick Childcare Centre next year.

More than a 100 people have signed a petition demanding the council allocate land at Carnegie’s Packer Park for a new kinder and the State Government to provide its infrastructure. Save Carnegie Kindergarten spokeswoman Susan Harper said letting it close was ‘unacceptable’.

‘The State Government is actively working towards helping provide solutions but the only long-term solution is for the local council to contribute as well’, Ms Harper said.

The public though have told the council though they want Packer Park to be an open space.

The Council’s own Universal Kindergarten Access in Glen Eira report found seven kinders were needed to meet future demand.

Council spokesman Paul Burke said kindergartens were a State Government responsibility.

Our previous two posts have focused on planning and highlighted the difference between Bayside’s and Glen Eira’s approach to planning in general, and structure planning specifically. Through its structure planning Bayside has been successful in gaining Ministerial approval for mandatory controls in its numerous activity centres. Glen Eira has steadfastly refused to implement any structure planning. Why? What is the ‘real’ reason behind this reluctance to plan for our future?

The recent Planning Scheme Review was nothing short of farcical. The published ‘Discussion Paper’ distinguished itself by its deliberate refusal to realistically address the concerns of the community; to provide real information; and the general side stepping of issues such as transport, parking, environmentally sensitive design, open space, and many other factors that the community has continually emphasised. This claim is abundantly clear when we look at the sections on ‘Structure Planning’. The document read:

“Structure Plans paint a picture in some detail of how development should look down the track. Individual planning decisions made in accordance with a Structure Plan ultimately deliver the desired Structure Plan future. Structure Plans provide a desired vision and add certainty. On the other hand, critics of Structure Plans argue that they:

• are too expensive and difficult to include in the Planning Scheme, with arguments arising about theoretical development; • stifle innovative development; and • can be changed too readily when a “real” development proposal is being evaluated”.  http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Planning_Scheme_Review.pdf)

Readers should note the short shrift given to the ‘advantages’ of structure planning, and the somewhat nebulous arguments decrying their benefits. Could someone please explain what is meant by the three bullet points above? Or is this just typical council mumbo-jumbo designed to confuse, distort, and ultimately misinform?

According to the Department of Planning and Community Development, the benefit of structure planning is to enable “the community and other stakeholders to actively participate in consideration of the future form and function of centres, ultimately helping to secure their confidence in the centre’s development”. (http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansandpolicies/activity-centres/activity-centres-faqs#5)

But the real sting in the tail comes from this objective: 

“Community engagement is essential for the structure plan and involves the wider community and may include targeted consultation. Community engagement is appropriate during key stages of the development and implementation of the structure plan. This will include developing a vision for the centre, scoping community and stakeholder issues, developing the plan, seeking feedback on the draft plan, and outlining how the community and stakeholders can continue to be engaged during the implementation phase. Broader community involvement at these key stages can be supplemented by ongoing involvement of key stakeholder representatives, for example through a reference group or steering committee. Community engagement can be undertaken through various methods, and it is important to ensure that the project team has the appropriate skills to plan for and undertake effective community engagement. The plan should aim to ensure that a representative community is engaged. This can be achieved by engaging the community about matters that are of interest to them, for example safety, housing choice, shopping, car parking, open space, bicycle paths rather than focus purely on the structure plan document”. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/41672/PN58_Activity_Centres___Structure_planning_for_Activity_Centres_Web_version.pdf

 ‘Real community consultation’ is not the Glen Eira Way, nor has it been for the past decade. We suggest that the failure to conceive, and implement structure plans by this council has as much to do with disenfranchising the community as it has to do with pro-development and the corporate ‘business plan’. The reverse is ostensibly true of Bayside and the ethos which appears to inform all their policy directions. For example, when developing one of their structure plans, the process involved:

“At Council’s request consultation with property owners and residents in all areas, of both high and moderate significance, was conducted as the next stage in the project. This included an information package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open house’ drop-in information sessions. Over 1,000 submissions were received, via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site survey work and in some instances adjustments to precinct boundaries or descriptions have been made.” (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/11_July_08_Final_Report.pdf) 

In the past two years Bayside has WITHDRAWN its original draft open space strategy when public response was largely negative. It has gone back, and instituted an entirely new consultation process that involves committees, dedicated websites, online surveys, email newsletters and public meetings. (http://au.cpg-global.com/projects/BaysideOSS/Index.html. Then there is also the ‘community engagement framework’ which sets out clear steps and commitments. (see: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/community_engagement_framework.pdf).

Nothing like this exists in Glen Eira. Despite the repeated jargon of ‘extensive consultation’ that is sprinkled throughout annual reports and other documentation, meaningful interaction with the community is non existent. To introduce structure planning that has any merit would mean turning the non-engagement principle on its head  – something this autocratic council sees as anathema.

This arrived today via email –

Yours faithfully

Mary 0428 128 594

Below is an agenda item from Bayside’s upcoming council meeting regarding Bayside’s success in gaining Ministerial permission for permanent height controls and setbacks in major activity centres. What is produced below is only ONE of the reports on several amendments pertaining to their activity centres. We post this as a contrast to the persistent argument that emanates from the Glen Eira Council – ie. no need for structure plans, no need for height controls in activity centres,  etc. etc. etc.

Major Activity Centre Controls – Sandringham C100 and Interim Controls for the
Major Activity Centres C91
City Strategy – Urban Strategy
File No: COR/6309/5790
1. Purpose of the Report
To consider the redrafted proposed amendments to introduce permanent and interim controls for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre (C100 & C91) in the context of the outcome of a meeting with the Minister for Planning on 14 October 2010.
2. Background
Council received a report on 28 September 2010 to consider correspondence received from the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) in relation to Council’s request for authorisation to prepare a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent and interim controls for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre. The response was received by Council, however, a decision on redrafting the amendments to make mandatory residential heights discretionary and removing upper level setbacks, as requested by DPCD, was deferred for one meeting cycle to allow a meeting with the Minister for Planning to occur.
On 14 October 2010, the Mayor, CEO and Director City Strategy met with the Minister for Planning to raise concerns relating to the Major Activity Centre amendments, particularly in relation to DPCD’s insistence on discretionary height controls in the residential areas of the Major Activity Centres and the deletion of upper storey rear setback provisions on commercial land.
In response to the specific concerns raised, the Minister advised that he will approve mandatory 3 storey height controls for the residential areas within the major activity centres and also council’s proposed upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
The Minister advised that he would confirm his undertakings in a letter which would be received prior to the Council meeting on 26 October 2010.
3. Discussion
Following the meeting with the Minister for Planning on the 14 October 2010, and Council’s resolution at its Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2010 to redraft the amendment (C100) into a revised Local Planning Policy Framework and Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay based on current zonings, the amendments have been redrafted and are attached for consideration.
As agreed with the Minister for Planning, they include mandatory 3 storey height limits for the residential areas within the Sandringham Major Activity Centre and upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
4. Implications
4.1. Policy
The 2009-2013 Council Plan, Commitment 3: Managing our built environment is the relevant Council Policy reference for this matter. Amendment C100 will provide additional policy support to enable Council to manage Bayside’s built environment.
In addition, the proposed amendments C91 and C100 are consistent with the Sandringham Village Structure Plan previously adopted by Council.
4.2. Legal/Statutory requirements
Any planning scheme amendment must be undertaken in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
4.3. Financial and resource implications
Funds are available in the 2010/11 Budget to progress the amendment requests.
4.4. Environmental impacts
The amendments will introduce controls to guide the preferred form of development within Bayside’s Major Activity Centres.
4.5. Social impacts
Not applicable to this report.
5. Consultation and engagement
Consultation took place during the Structure Plan Process. Additional consultation will take place as part of the formal exhibition period for amendment C100.
6. Summary
Following a meeting with the Minister for Planning on the 14 October 2010, the Sandringham Major Activity Centre Amendment has been drafted to include mandatory 3 storey height limits for the residential areas within the Centres and upper level setback requirements from rear boundaries of commercial developments abutting residential land.
Recommendation
That Council:
1. seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning under Section 8A (3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to prepare amendment C100 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, in the form of attachment 1 to this report;
2. requests the Minister for Planning under Section 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to introduce interim controls (C91) through a schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) for the Sandringham Major Activity Centre mirroring the controls contained within the DDO provided in attachment 1; and 3. authorises the Director City Strategy to make any minor editorial changes to the amendments.

Presented below are a sequence of events relating to the sale of land at Nina and Niki Crts., Bentleigh. Once again this episode would appear to raise serious questions as to the governance practices of this council and the role of both administrators and councillors. As always, we invite councillors to present their point of view if they believe that our facts are inaccurate.

In chronological order, this is what transpired:

• Council minutes of 24^th February, 2009 record a request for a report moved by Magee and  seconded by Staikos –

That a report be prepared on the former drainage site between Nina Court and South Road in Bentleigh East. In particular the report should concentrate on the possibilities of this drainage site becoming a pocket park.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

• On June 9^th, 2009 council officers tabled a report with the stated purpose of ““The removal of ‘drainage reserve status’ of the land in preparation for the sale”. The report notes that attempts to sell the land had been ongoing since 2005 and that since “the proposal is facilitating the disposal of land not required by Council, the planning scheme requires a condition to be included on the permit that states that the additional lots must be consolidated with abutting land within 2 years of the date of issue of this permit.”  
• On June 30^th, 2009 officers again tabled a report, ostensibly responding to the Magee/Staikos request for a report. It’s purpose however was titled: “To review whether to proceed with the sale of a former reserve adjacent to Nina Court, Bentleigh East “. For the most part, the report outlines past history, the fact that there is ‘unsociable behaviour’ on this strip of land; that  it is not under ‘good visual surveillance’, etc. etc. but the crunch paragraph is – “In 2005 Council resolved not to proceed with the sale as the offers received were well below market value and did not accord with Council Policy. Council’s resolution also called for officers to pursue further negotiations.” Further justification is given with – “The subject land is smaller than many pocket parks. It is also narrow and poorly located. Accordingly it has very restricted recreational potential resulting in limited benefits for the community that larger parks provide. Due to the site’s size there is little opportunity to provide valuable informal recreation opportunities such as play spaces, areas to play informal ball games, or fly a kite.” The final clincher is ‘There is little merit in establishing this former reserve as a pocket park so close to other parks” AND “The land will be able to be put to better use by adjoining property owners” and council pocketing more dollars! Conclusion? “In officers’ opinion, the land is not suitable for public open space on grounds of safety and the best solution would be for it to be incorporated into surrounding properties with the proceeds used for higher priority open space projects.” 

Magee and Staikos (to their credit) then moved the following motion which was passed unanimously. 

That Council:(i) Not proceed with the sale of the former reserve between Nina Court and South Road, Bentleigh East, (ii) Retain the land for use as open space, and (iii) Notify affected owners and occupiers of Council’s decision. 

• On February 17^th, 2010 the Leader carried council’s advertisements announcing the sale of the land to two residents for the price of $21,500 and 31,500 – a grand total of $54,000 (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
• On October 12^th, 2010 (item 9.9) was presented. The recommendation was: “To seek Council’s consent for the sale of a former drainage reserve abutting 13 Nina Court and 16 Niki Court Bentleigh East.” This was accepted unanimously after being moved by Hyams and Pilling. 

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? 

1. Council’s resolution of 30^th June, 2009 not to proceed with the sale HAS NOT BEEN RESCINDED.
2. What happened between June 30^th and February 17^th when the advertisement went into the Leader. Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is nothing presented in council chambers as to the deliberations and rationale for this decision? Or is this simply another example of decision making behind closed doors?
3. Why in the October 12^th report is the price mentioned only $45,000, when in the advertisement we have the grand total of $54,000 (see:http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Notice_of_intention_to_sell_land.pdf)
4. How can councillors unaminously vote for sale when in June 2009 they voted against sale – unanimously? A case of amnesia – especially by Magee? Not one word was spoken – not a whimper from anyone. So, we ask, do councillors actually bother to read what is in front of them? Does anyone think that this backflip should not be explained – especially when we are continually assailed with the message that open space in Glen Eira is miniscule?
5. And why, when one looks at these documents, do the names keep changing all the time? We have Nina Crt, Niki Crt., Nepean Highway, all tossed about. Is this just camouflage?
6. And finally, as authors of such reports, what role has the administration played in all this? What obfuscation has there been? From our standpoint it seems that the intention to sell the land is longstanding, so regardless of what councillors want, we’ll steam roll through our own agenda.
7. As per usual, we maintain that governance – in terms of transparency and accountability – are once again the victims in this highly questionable sequence of events. 

As Pauline Hansen used to say – ‘Puhleeese EXPLAIN’!!!!!!! At the very least residents deserve to know how in the space of 7 months a unanimous decision NOT to sell land is mysteriously overturned without explanation, without clear transparency in open council and nobody says boo!! Simply not good enough!

We received an email from one of our readers requesting that its contents be put up as a post –

A recent post (below) outlined councils intention to raise rents by a considerable and unjustifiable amount.  News to hand indicates that rents have not risen as proposed but have increased a small amount only.  Word has it that many people in the community were rightly disgusted with council’s proposal and community action has resulted in a change of heart.

My questions are:

• Why was this appalling decision to increase rents by such a large percentage undertaken in the first place?
• Why is there only a response from council when the community takes action?
• Why can’t we have council policies in place that respect the financial circumstances of those renting their homes from council?
• Why does a such a lack of trust in council actions result in the community having to scrutinise every decision?

The only good outcome is the decision now to increase rents by a small amount – what would have happened if the community had not got behind this issue?

Our Caring Council – Huge Rent Increases for Council’s Social Housing Residents (an earlier comment in ‘Resident’s Corner’)

Councils lack of support for its residents who are most vulnerable is evidenced in recent notification to its social housing tenants of a rent increase from $270 per fortnight to $390 per fortnight – a huge $60 per week increase in rent. This is fact!

This increase is being charged to those who can least afford it. The tenants of these independent living units have no assets and live on full aged pensions or disability pensions. Where will they find another $60 per week from to pay this? Residents are not happy and complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

Why would Glen Eira council make this decision? What is the benefit?

The decision flies in the face of supporting older people as they age. It flies in the face of State government policy in the just released Ageing in Victoria Plan which acknowledges the huge issue of housing for older people stating “Accessible and affordable housing will be critical as our population ages….. an adequate supply of suitable housing allowing older people to live comfortably and safely within their communities will become more important as Victoria’s population ages.”

What does our council do? It makes housing less affordable and places vulnerable older people and people with disabilities in a more tenuous and stressful position!

This issue cannot be left for the tenants to fight on their own! Council talks about advocacy and support for older residents in its Draft Ageing Strategy and increasing rents by such a huge amount shows that the words in the strategy are meaningless like so many other strategic documents produced by this council.