Glen Eira Debates

SHARDEY (Hansard, Oct. 6th, 2010)

The problem is that the piece of land being made available to the community in return for the Crown land is judged by Glen Eira City Council as being of little value to the community. The council has said it will not develop this piece of land for community use because it fronts a busy intersection and is not seen to be of sufficient size or value.

The lack of consultation on this land swap has been judged to be appalling and yet another arrogant action of the Brumby government, which cares little for community views. The Minister for Planning should take action to right yet another wrong. We do not want to see another Windsor-style total debacle in relation to a residential area, and we do not want to see a minister who is not accepting his responsibility to listen to local communities.

We received the following comment from someone calling themselves ‘Steven’. We presume it comes from Steven Tang and hence are reproducing it as a full post.

I do not usually worry about the comments of a blogsite, which is prone to making wild accusations, prone to fundamental errors of fact* and prone to putting a negative slant on any Council decision**.

However, I write in response to what I view as character assassination of the worst kind.

Despite having an allegation of conflict of interest fully investigated and determined by the Municipal Inspector some posters to this blogsite have felt that it is ok to make wild accusations against my character.

In response to these spurious allegations:

1. I have a general belief that the parks of Glen Eira are there for people to use and Council should do its best to ensure they are suitable to support a diversity of recreational interests.
2. I have been found by an independent umpire to have no relevant connection to a “frisbee group”.
3. The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.
4. I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status.
5. I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.
6. If I wasn’t the subject of such a vitriolic campaign against my character I would not have to give intimate details of how well I do or do not know individuals in the Glen Eira community. The fact is, however, that I have spoken to a handful of people who have identified themselves on this blogsite more than I have spoken to people who have been said to me to be part of this “frisbee group”.
7. A poster to this blogsite is being less than forthright in his campaign against my character. The poster has previously made complaints to me and to the Council about “Indians” playing cricket, Russians playing soccer and other groups of soccer players. These groups appear to be in the same position as the “frisbee group”, but you do not hear about them because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
8. Whilst I accept that the Caulfield Park Social Soccer group has had issues with the law, I do not believe there is widespread concern that people are using the parks. The permit and allocation system provides the security of exclusive use for any group that has an allocation at that time. I strongly encourage any group that wants to compete in a regular organised game to enter the permit and allocation system. It works for the thousands of residents and ratepayers that play and train for the hundreds of active Glen Eira-based teams each and every week.
9. Again it does not fit the Caulfield Park Social Soccer Club narrative of persecution to acknowledge that the local law has been used to respond to a complaint that one of the above-mentioned groups have been interfering with the allocation of a local junior sporting club.
10. The local law is no different to these comparison clauses,

Stonnington:

Use of Council Reserves
517 A person must not, without a Permit, in or on any Council Reserve:
(a) pitch, erect or occupy any tent, marquee or temporary shelter;
(b) light any Fire or allow any Fire to remain alight unless in a fireplace
provided by Council;
(c) hold any circus, carnival, fair, event, commercial or promotional
activity;
(d) conduct or celebrate any wedding;
(e) erect, fix or place any advertisement;
(f) conduct or attend any rally, procession, demonstration or other
public gathering;
(g) conduct, participate or prepare for any competitive game or sport;

Monash
Activities Prohibited in Reserves
18. In a reserve, a person must not:
18.1 unless that person is a player, official or competitor in or at a sporting
match or gathering, enter upon or remain on an area set aside as a playing
ground during the course of a sporting match or gathering;
18.8 play, engage in or practise any game or sport, whether or not in
accordance with a permit issued under this Local Law, in a manner that is:
18.8.1 dangerous to any other person in the reserve; or
18.8.2 likely to interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the
reserve by any other person; or

5 penalty units

Activities which may be permitted in Reserves
19. In a reserve, a person must not, without a permit,
19.4 play, organise, practise or engage in any organised competitive sport or
game;

3 penalty units

11. There is no exact science in applying these laws, but Council needs to be mindful of the conditions of the ground and the risk that the ground will not be suitable for ongoing use if its surfaces are not protected to some extent.
12. The local law has been particularly useful when AFL football clubs run drills, including the dragging of weights, in Glen Eira parks.
13. The permit and allocation system and the rotation of the use of grounds allowed Council to provide the maximum use of sporting grounds in recent years, whilst other grounds elsewhere had been cited as either closed or not suitable for some sporting associations to allow match play.
14. People have a right to question and debate Council policy, but on this occasion the ongoing character assassination goes beyond the pale. I had thought that the finding of the independent umpire would be enough to put this issue to bed, however, I was mistaken. Some posters to this blogsite will clearly create a narrative to suit their purposes without regard for findings such as these. If you wish mere friendship to be the test of Councillor conflicts, elect Councillors with no connection the Glen Eira community.
15. I err on the side of maximising the use of our parks. This requires a balance between encouraging general use of the sporting grounds and protecting the grounds for those clubs who provide an outlet for so many in the community to engage in competitive sport. My gut feeling is that the current balance is appropriate.

*see for example – Glen Eira and Planning: Always the Odd Man Out – so called development levy compares a Developer Contributions Plan Overlay at Glen Eira with other Councils’ Public Open Space Contribution. NB: Glen Eira’s Public Open Space Contribution Schedule is contained in the same location as the comparison Councils, Schedule to Clause 52.01.

**There has been a highly selective comparison of planning outcomes outside of Glen Eira. There is a suggestion that part of the reason Glen Eira is developing the way it is is due to a lack of fight at VCAT. I do not believe any metropolitan Council is immune to losing arguments at VCAT about appropriate built form. Glen Eira sends representatives it believes can best represent the Council’s position, there are no guaranteed results. Similar scale developments have recently been heard in http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1454.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1526.html.

From today’s Bayside Leader-

PLOT THE PATH AHEAD: Residents asked to have their say in planning Bayside’s next 10 years

Bayside residents have the chance to mould the municipality’s future.

The council is urging people to have their say about how the Bayside community develops over the next 10 years through the Bayside 2020 Community Plan.

A community/council steering committee is overseeing the progress. Ideas can be passed on to the council through surveys, the council website and community forums.

Steering committee members and Sandringham resident Olivia Nakiwain, 27, moved from Uganda to Australia seven years ago to study. She said she joined the Bayside Council steering committee because she had always been interested in making society better. ‘I don’t want to sit back because this is where my children are going to grow up,” she said. ‘ I come from Africa – we are more of a community. I like the feel of being in community and that’s why I want to get my hands dirty here,” she said. The mum of one said by 2020 she wanted Bayside’s roads to be uncongested and low-risk for children.

Business owner, Brighton East resident and steering committee member ron Stark said his interest was small business and he wanted to see more recognition of it. Mr Stark said it was important an expected increase in population didn’t destroy the essence of Bayside as a great place to live.

Mayor Clifford Hayes said he wanted Bayside to be a place where residents could enjoy all stages of their lives.

The next community forum is on October 13. Details: bayside2020.com.au or phone 9599 4636 

++++++++++++++++++

In contrast, Glen Eira:

• does not have a ‘community plan’ – it has a ‘council’ or ‘business plan’
• no steering committee in the development of above, and certainly no community reps
• no online survey, no dedicated website to this (or any) issue

We direct readers’ attention to the latest posts on Elsternwickcommunity regarding council’s recent decision to grant an application for the development of an 8 storey highrise at Ripon Grove.

On July 20^th, 2010 the following ‘Request for a Report” was passed –  

I ask for a report on how many trees were planted last year and how many so far this year. What work is done to ensure that our trees establish themselves well over their first few years and what work is undertaken to ensure the longevity of our mature trees. Finally, have Officers any suggestions or recommendations to improve our tree husbandry. (Penhalluriack/Hyams) 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED. 

The result?

 “To report on Council’s street tree planting and tree maintenance programs”. (Minutes of 21^st September, 2010) 

This is not the first time that officers’ reports have come back and: 

• Altered the frame of reference
• Failed to respond to vital aspects of the request, and
• Proffered recommendations that were not envisaged or intended by the original request 

Yet, not one councillor appears to have noticed! Not one councillor stated that the request for a report was for ALL TREES in all parks, not merely STREET TREES!!  In fact PARK TREES only rated a mention twice, but in weird contexts such as: 

“Park trees (which suffer less environmental damage) usually last longer.” 

“Particularly affected have been park trees which Council is no longer able to irrigate with potable water due to water restrictions.” 

Penhalluriack & Hyams asked the specific question ‘how many trees were planted last year’? The answer given is:  “In 2009/10, Council planted 1,417 street trees (639 replacement and 778 additional). From 1 July to 23 July, Council had planted 800 street trees”. So much for direct, transparent answers! 

Again, by way of contrast we would like to draw readers’ attention to the fact that both Kingston and Port Phillip have an ‘URBAN FOREST’ policy which is defined as: “The Urban Forest is the sum total of all trees and associated vegetation growing within an urban area. It includes trees on private and public managed land. The City of Kingston Tree Management Policy, however, pertains solely to trees located on Council managed land” (Kingston) – that is, both STREET AND PARK TREES!! Kingston also includes this promise to its residents  -“ Council will consult and inform the community about all major projects involving tree removal. Council will provide residents seven days notice regarding proposed street tree removal unless a tree poses an unacceptable risk and requires immediate removal. Appeals relating to tree removal must be provided in writing to the Team Leader of Parks. Residents also have the option to obtain an independent arborists repor t.”  As far as we know, nothing like this exists in Glen Eira, and the recent angst over the removal of major trees in Caulfield Park, clearly show the necessity of such a policy. 

Far too often, councillors’ requests for reports are magically transformed into documents which bear no resemblance to the original question and tend to include recommendations that were not included in the parameters of the original request. Or, as in this case, the request for potential ‘improvements’ is completely ignored.  Our questions are thus directed to councillors – 

• Why are such reports not rejected?
• Why should the community be satisfied with your silence?
• Who runs this council? You, or unelected officers?