Glen Eira Debates

The month of March has seen Glen Eira Debates break all records. We’ve had our highest monthly total of hits (12,018 as at 10pm) as well as our highest weekly total – 3,395.

Please continue spreading the word. Glen Eira Debates is the community forum where we can express views, debate issues and share information. Let us know what you think and any suggestions are always welcome. Our target now is to double our hits by the end of the year and really give the council website a run for its money!

VCAT has allowed a 6 storey development at the Coles supermarket site in Elsternwick. The decision allows for: 99 dwellings; basement carparking; 500 square metres of retail in a Residential zone 1 area, and a waiver of car parking requirements. Councillors rejected the application  – Officers recommended adoption.

The member states: “It is our conclusion that there is strong policy support for this development and council’s position that we do not need to push the boundaries for residential development when other issues are coming into play are not supported. We consider developing this site to its full potential will relieve development pressure in other parts of the city that are purely residential in nature and often covered by heritage controls.”

Policy, policy, policy. Again we ask: Are Glen Eira’s planning policies tight enough? What can and should be done? Why hasn’t it been done?

There is also one incredibly interesting sentence in the judgement – “Council raised an issue indicating that with regard to its required provision of additional housing that the rate that they are currently achieving housing growth is sufficient and that this site would put the level above what is required.”

In document after document from Council, residents are presented with the argument that thousands and thousands of new residents need to be provided for; that hundreds and hundreds of new dwellings are required. What’s happened to this argument? How can Council now claim after all the preceding propaganda that the rate is ‘sufficient’? Have we been sold a furphy all along?

Finally, there is the question of resident support from council. The previous Ripon Grove/Glen Huntly Road developers had Chris Canavan QC, Barnaby Chessell, barrister representing them. They also called ‘expert witnesses’ in Vaughn Connor (town planner of Contour); Mark Shepherd (Urban designer of David Loch) and Stuart McGurn (town planner of ERM). Council had Ian Pridgeon, solicitor of Russell Kennedy. In this latest supermarket decision, developers were represented by J. Gobbo QC; B. Chessell (solicitor). Experts were A. Biacsi (town planning); M. Sheppard (Urban design) and J. Walsh – Traffic. Council had C. Bowdern (town planner). Memories from the panel hearing for the C60?

In many major decisions, residents have every right to feel that Council does not represent their interests adequately enough and that the support they receive is negligible. Perhaps it is time that the playing field is levelled out and that Council ensures its resources are marshalled to properly defend cases and the community? If we can spend millions and millions on sporting venues, then surely a proper and sustained legal defence in major cases is also warranted?

PS: On the 24th November 2004 the following public question was asked by Robilliard – that is, prior to her becoming a councillor. As far as we know, no response was given, no action taken, and the current situation still persists.

“The Minister for Planning announced that Councils may apply for a number of interim height controls to provide for greater certainty for residents & developers. Will Council take up on this initiative?”

It looks like all chickens have finally come home to roost with VCAT’s decision to allow the Elsternwick 10 storey development to go ahead. Readers will remember that:

• Lipshutz’s argument was that if council doesn’t approve 8 storeys instead of ten, that the developers will go to VCAT AND GET WHAT THEY WANT
• Tang equivocated by arguing that 7 storeys is better than 8
• Magee said that he wouldn’t like to live anywhere near the development but still voted for it
• Lobo called it a ‘monstrosity’.

The sheer stupidity (and we use this word advisedly) of such arguments has finally been shown up for what they are – vapid, empty rhetoric with no foundation in law, fact, or good planning policy. Councillors should be ashamed of their efforts on this one and the ramifications of such decision making. Will they now, on the 14 storey application, vote in favour of 12 storeys and use the argument that since VCAT has approved the Ripon Grove development we can’t do anything?

The VCAT member made the point clearly and logically when he stated:

“Council recognised the importance of this key site in granting a conditional permit, however restricted the height of the building to eight storeys rather than the ten storeys applied for. One need to ask what difference either eight or ten storeys would make to the locality or the broader context of the major activity centre of Elsternwick”.

What this decision demonstrates is not the arbitrary nature of VCAT, but the failure of council planning policies (NO HEIGHT LIMITS, NO PRECINCT PARKING PLANS, NO STRUCTURE PLANS). Councillors have now successfully opened the flood gates in Elsternwick and they will bear the brunt of resident disaffection.

We highlight one recent VCAT judgement   where the application for a three storey extension to a shop and the waiving of car parking was accepted by the member. Council’s position was that the fronting car park should not be utilised as car parking for the development, and that there be onsite parking. 

This sounds reasonable – on the surface! Closer examination reveals the flaws in current planning policy and the agendas which guide such policy. In the end it’s all about leaving as many options open as possible for future development. Structure plans, height limits, and precinct car parking policies would in effect limit such development. The members judgement below makes this absolutely clear – 

“The Council’s opposition to the proposed rear shopfront also appears to be partly based on a potential future scenario where the car park may be redeveloped in an intensive manner. The concern is that any such redevelopment may be constrained by the fact that the shop has its only access and outlook to this area, and/or that any such future development will detrimentally affect the visibility and viability of the shop by effectively concealing it from view. While I can understand Council’s concerns, it is highly relevant that there are currently no plans to redevelop the car park.

There is no Structure Plan for the activity centre, no planning policy in the Planning Scheme which identifies this as a potential outcome, nor any Council-adopted strategy or other policy which nominates the public car park as a redevelopment site within the centre. It appears to me to be a case of the Council, somewhat understandably, wishing to ‘keep its options open’ but there is no evidence that this potential outcome will, in fact, materialise. The necessary strategic work has not been undertaken, and to constrain the redevelopment of neighbouring sites on the basis of something that ‘may’ happen some time in the future (in the absence of any policy or strategy) does not seem to me to be reasonable.” 

The following section also raises questions as to how well council prepares in its VCAT defence. The lack of logic, shown up by the member, speaks for itself –

“I was advised that the Council’s Building and Properties Department does not recognise any carriageway rights the review site may have over the laneway. It is noteworthy that the Certificate of Title identifies the laneway as a ‘Road’. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the review site does not have a legal right of carriageway over this road. Nonetheless, I perceive an inherent contradiction in the Council’s position on this issue. It is willing to support the proposal subject to the provision of four car spaces on the land (as I will detail in the following section of these reasons) and therefore acknowledges rights of carriageway over the laneway for the purposes of accessing these desired car spaces, but it is not willing to acknowledge these carriageway rights for pedestrians accessing the proposed shop. As I see it, the review site either enjoys carriageway rights over the laneway, or it does not. I was not referred to any document which states that the review site can rely on the abutting road (laneway) for vehicular access, but it cannot do so for pedestrian access”.

Conclusion? We merely repeat the member’s comments – ie. ‘necessary strategic work has not been undertaken’; ‘no evidence; ‘contradictory’ and so on……..

How good is Glen Eira at running commercial enterprises? How good are their business plans? How good is their homework? How comprehensive is their analyses of current commercial climates and how good are they in estimating where a dollar could be made? Looking at history, we have to conclude that their track record on commercial endeavours is exceedingly poor. GESAC is starting to sound like it might be the latest white elephant.

Most landlords (and that’s what council is when we consider GESAC) will have ironclad contracts in place. They simply hire out space and it is up to the tenant to outfit the place, provide staff, and do whatever is necessary to make a buck. The owner is simply there to ensure that everything is safe and above board.

GESAC has been calling for ‘expressions of interest’ for potential tenants for several months. The propaganda machine has been in full swing. We’re told that everything is on budget, that 5 zillion tons of concrete have been laid, etc.etc. What we haven’t been told is how many commercial operators have actually shown any interest whatsoever? And of those that might have applied, how many have been deemed as ‘suitable’? This Saturday’s Age Tender advertisement has given us further cause to doubt the business acumen of Glen Eira. Here’s the ad –

“Reference No.: 2011.034
Provision of Gymnasium Equipment to Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre

Requirement: Provision of a suite of gymnasium fitness equipment including installation, ongoing maintenance and centre staff training.”

One very feasible conclusion that could be drawn from this ad, is –

• There has not been any expressions of interest (or at least not considered viable)
• If, as a last resort, council is contemplating ‘managing’ this itself, then what’s the cost?
• Does this mean that instead of rent coming in, council will be forking out to guarantee that all premises are occupied?
• Where will this added ‘cost’ be itemised in budget figures, and will the final figures really reveal the truth? Will we still be told that the ‘cost’ is $41.2 million?
• How well did the ‘business plan’ foresee the possibility of commercial disinterest?
• How many actual ‘expessions of interest’ have there been overall? Are we dealing with something that will end up costing the community millions and millions simply because planning, strategising, and other considerations are proving to be inaccurate? Who should take the blame for this?

The bottom line is clear. Organisations only go to tender, and pay for services themselves, when they have to – that is, when no-one is interested! Of course we could be wrong in all of the above, as so many Anonymous responses tell us. So, what’s everyone elses take on that tender advertisement?

Our rumour was correct. An application is in for a fourteen (14) storey development almost next door to the 10 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick.

To view the full details of the plan, see: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1759&h=0

Lowlights include:

• Waiver of carparking and loading
• 109 residential apartments
• Developer’s traffic engineer states: “there were at least 162 vacant spaces within the survey area from 7pm onwards”. Other conclusions of note in regards to parking are:

Secrecy is of course appropriate in some cases. But not when it denies residents access to vital policy documents, strategies and plans. Glen Eira is unique in its commitment to provide as little information as possible to its residents and if it is provided, to hide it away so that access and easy retrieval requires the skill of a Sherlock Holmes, together with the nose of a trusty bloodhound! Why?

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

The availability, or lack thereof, of major policy documents is a case in point. In contrast to neighbouring councils, Glen Eira’s website is deplorable in its content and design. No direct links on the home page to ‘policies’, ‘strategies’ or ‘plans’; searches under ‘policies’ lead to planning documents that are archaic, dating back as far as 1999 and so on…..

This we suggest, is more than poor web design but intended to make things as difficult as possible for residents AND to possibly cover up the fact that in contrast to other councils, Glen Eira is really bereft of up-to-date policy development that matters. For example: there is no sustainable design strategy; there is no transport strategy; there is no gambling strategy that we could find and it goes on and on. Our point is simple: all policies, all strategies should be out in the open and easily accessible.

Below are the policies/strategies from other councils, all accessible via direct links from the home page. Those with an asterisk indicate the areas that we believe Glen Eira does not have any official policy. Council plans, budgets, codes of conduct, etc. have been omitted from the list.

BAYSIDE:

Cultural collection and management policy

Cultural collection policy*

Economic development strategy*

Electronic gaming policy*

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – Municipal Arrangements

Municipal Emergency Recovery Plan – operational Arrangements

Register of significant trees policy*

Sports facility policy*

Tourism strategic action plan*

Whistleblowers/Improper conduct

Youth policy

PORT PHILLIP:

Heritage recognition program policy and strategy

Sustainable design policy*

Waste wise strategy

Youth framework

Playground strategy

Memorials and monuments*

Port Phillip Collection Management Policy

Festivals Framework*

Urban History consultative committee*

Inner Melbourne Action Plan*

Climate Change Commitment*

Active and Creative City Framework*

St. Kilda Botanical Gardens Future Directions Plan

Fisherman’s Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy

Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach 2011*

Industry and Business Strategy*

Housing Strategy 2007

Beacon Cove Planning

Activity Centres Strategy

Ormond Road Urban Design guidelines

Governance Statement*

Good Governance guide

KINGSTON:

Alcohol and Other Drugs Action Plan*

Fire Prevention Plan

Gambling (Poker Machines) Strategy*

Graffitti management Plan

Guide to Business Conduct*

Open Space Strategy

Public health Plan

Whistleblowers Act

Kingston Biodiversity Strategy*

Kingston Industrial Strategy*

Investment Policy*

Pandemic Influenza Plan*

(http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.asp?Page_Id=2394&h=-1 – Policy Manual)*

STONNINGTON: 

Art Acquisition Policy*

Caretaker Policy

Cultural Diversity Policy*

Disaster Relief donations Policy*

Key to the City and Freedom of Entry Policy*

Responsible Gambling Policy*

Road Safety Policy*

Sustainable Transport Policy*

Stormwater Environmental Management Plan*

Today’s Caulfield Leader Advertisement (tiny) on Page 12 –

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE PRECINCT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING

4 April 2011

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on:

• Monday 4 April 2011 in the Caulfield Pavilion, Caulfield Park, Balaclave road, Caulfield commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be:

• Melbourne Racing club (MRC) Planning Scheme amendment C60 and a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve – to hear oral submissions from interested parties (a maximum of three minutes per submission)