Glen Eira Debates

Dear Friends of the Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve,

Now we have a new government it is a good time to write to our members and remind them of their pre-election promises to revise projects. The C60 is a proposed large ghetto development which will only add to the chaos which has been experienced with the Caravan and Camping Show. The area around here was absolutely gridlocked and some of the roads closed without notice. The area described as Caulfield East will have over 300% increase in population if the plan proceeds; as well as 23 storey and 15 storey office towers and 15,000 square metres of retail. All with limited parking and no open space! We also need to tell them in no uncertain terms that the racecourse reserve must be opened up and we the citizens of Victoria given a reasonable oportunity to recreate there freely without feeling like a trespasser who is forbidden to play a ball game therein! The area is about 55 hectares.

The members who should be contacted are:- David Southwick Member for Caulfield who ran a campaign against large scale development and whose consistent slogan was ‘working with community’ – 193 Balaclava Road Caulfield North 3161. Louise Asher Member for Brighton  – 228-130 Bay Street Brighton 3186

 Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan 306 Bay Street Port Melbourne 3207

David Davis Member for Southern Metropolitan, 4/975 Riversdale Road Camberwell,3124

Denis Napthine Minister for Racing 94 Liebig Street, Warrnambool, 3280

Sue Penniciuk Southern Metropolitan Member, 206 Bay Street Brighton 3186

Ann Barker Member for Oakleigh, 19 Station Street, Oakleigh 3166 (she represents all who live east of the Racecourse )

 Elizabeth Miller Member for Bentleigh,, 9557 666, 379 Centre Road, Bentleigh, 3204

Martin Pakula Member for Western Metropolitan , apparently he grew up in Ormond, is a member of the MRC and asked a question in house (Hansard) regarding holdup of C60. 3 Ballarat Street, Yarraville, 3013

Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan, 306 Bay Street, Port Melbourne, 9681-9555

Michael O’ Brien Minister for Gaming 1/313 Waverley Road East Malvern 3145

It would seem that now a new party is in power they are becoming a little softer in the development line meetings with Windsor development in the city — so we must keep up the political pressure now! KEEP IN MIND ONCE THE OPEN LAND DISAPPEARS IT WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE AGAIN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO TAKE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR OR TAKE IN VITAMIN D WHICH IS NECESSARY TO HEALTHY LIVING AND REQUIRES 15 MINUTES OF SUNLIGHT PER DAY!! IF WE CANNOT KICK THE FOOTBALL ANY MORE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFLOAD ENERGY IN A WHOLESOME AND HEALTH BOOSTING MANNER. WE MUST PRESERVE OPEN SPACE.

Bye for now,

Mary Healy

Planning Applications

Looks like the ‘inverse ratio’ principle is still alive and well when it comes to planning applications. The more objections, the less notifications as a rule.

Assemblies of Councillors

Councillors’ bladders are still a major cause of concern. The comings and goings from these meetings are incredible. Of particular note is the meeting of 22^nd Feb., which began at 10.10pm and only had Paul Burke present. The subject of discussion was: ‘Public question responses from the February 1 meeting’. This is the meeting where all questions by Mr. Varvodic were taken on notice and follows a previous meeting where Penhalluriack expressed his disenchantment with the tone of responses.

Readers also need to take careful note of Tang’s continual declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ re the Racecourse. We can only conclude that he takes his ‘duty’ to the MRC, more seriously than his obligations to resident ratepayers!

We also direct readers’ attention to the topics listed in the record of assembly for the weekend away. Our bet is that child care fees are going to go through the roof again – without justification!

Advisory Committees

Same old, same old. Lipshutz again on: audit, local laws, pools, racecourse. Pity that Council does not appear to have read the Minister’s latest guidelines which strongly suggest that Audit Committee Members be rotated and changed regularly.  

Elsternwick Childcare

There appears to be some glacial like movement at the station in regard to childcare. A letter from Esakoff to Alfred Health advocating for a “purpose built child care centre on Crown Land in Elsternwick.”. Give us the land (currently Arthritis Vic) and we’ll build a centre. No detail as to when, what, who pays, or what will close if this ever eventuates. But at least ratepayers can be assured that Council continues to ‘advocate’! 

Incamera Items

Golly, gosh! Newton’s contract (or performance review) it seems, is still taking up meeting after meeting! They just can’t get it right. Do any other councils take months and months to perform such a task we ask? 

A recent comment by ‘Ben’ has alerted us to the current advertising by Council of  an Amendment. The objective is to remove Heritage status from properties in Hawthorn Road and Seaview Avenue. We thought this was important enough to go back to the original Officer’s report and to analyse the content and ultimate recommendations.

The report was tabled at Council on 31^st August, 2010. The name of the officer under Enquiries was Jacquie Brasher, Strategic Planner. The motion put by Lipshutz and Pilling to remove Heritage Status  from all of the properties and to seek the Minister’s approval to advertise,  was accepted unanimously by Council with Esakoff declaring 3 ‘conflicts of interest’. We present our analysis below –

The original Heritage status was applied in 2003 under Amendment C19. Only the property in Hawthorn Road was listed in the original amendment although all properties were incorporated into the map overlay, hence there is an ‘anomaly’. Further, the owners of the Seaview properties were not informed at the time that they were now under the Heritage Overlay. Brasher recommends that as a consequence all 3 properties should be included in the Heritage status. 

The arguments are: 

• ‘Consultation’ only involved the 3 owners of the properties. Two ‘submissions’ were received in response. Brasher includes the points raised in these submissions – perhaps more extensively than other planning applications that come to council. Some of the issues raised include: development will be stymied; ‘building is not sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated so will involve ‘substantial costs’ to ‘rectify’; the design does not ‘cater for the needs…of modern day living’; it’s a Housing Diversity area so will ultimately ‘detract, and demean any perceived value’ of the property; heritage listing detracts from housing needs of the area;  
• Brasher then posits the argument that changes may still be made especially to the inside of buildings hence “the application of the Heritage Overlay may restrain but does not completely prohibit changes to the building. The building can be altered to cater for the needs of modern living”. 

The final section of the report includes the current Council Heritage Advisor’s comments, as well as a report from the original advisor (2000) which resulted in the properties’ listing. Some of these comments are: 

“In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over-painted on the front apartment). 

I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted. 

It is considered that this individually significant building at 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Sea View Street should be included in the Heritage Overlay. Therefore an amendment to modify the schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include 2A and 2B Sea View Street at HO114 is warranted and should be commenced as soon as possible to rectify the anomaly.” 

Andrew Ward, 2000 wrote: “They (the properties) are aesthetically significant (Criterion E) as uncommon examples of residential buildings undertaken in a manner directly influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, comparing in Glen Eira only with the house at no.45 Balaclava Road but demonstrating that the influence of his work was still being felt in Melbourne during the late Inter War years”. 

QUESTIONS: 

• What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
• Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
• Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
• Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties? 
• Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors. Not only do residents need clear arguments and logic, but so do those individuals who apply for permits. Consistency, logic, and comprehensiveness in considering all issues is what is needed. We will be following this issue closely.

Baillieu defends meetings with Urbis

Marika Dobbin

March 10, 2011

PREMIER Ted Baillieu has defended his government over its meetings with developers of a 140-metre skyscraper proposed for the parliamentary precinct that would eclipse the adjacent Windsor Hotel redevelopment.

He said it was appropriate for Planning Minister Matthew Guy and his department to have met representatives of the developers from consultancy Urbis recently, ahead of a formal permit application being lodged.

”We have never had a problem with pre-application meetings,” he said. ”I think it’s important in those situations that it is all documented and that will be a distinguishing feature of this government.”

An Ombudsman’s report into the Windsor Hotel fiasco criticised the former government for failing to keep accurate records of meetings. Mr Baillieu said he had not seen the proposal for the Palace Theatre site – but hinted he would be against it.

Questions:

• How many pre-application meetings took place between government, MRC and/or council regarding the C60
• How comprehensive is the record keeping of these meetings?
• How well informed were councillors of the existence of these meetings?
• How well informed were councillors of the progress of these meetings?
• How comprehensive are the records of meetings post application?
• Are councillors privy to these records? Should they be?

We’ve repeatedly highlighted the inadequacy and shortcomings of Council’s ‘consultation’ methodology, methods and feedback loops. This was really apparent in the Planning Scheme Review which we’ve contrasted with the extensive approach(es) taken by Bayside. As further evidence of what can be done where there is a will and genuine attempt to gauge community feeling, we compare and contrast the questions that both Councils put to residents on the Planning Scheme.

All Glen Eira produced in its so called ‘discussion paper’ were vague statements not generally tied to specific issues and/or objectives and that were also dependent on an extensive knowledge of State  and local Planning Policy that was not fully explained. Some examples were:

Does the MSS represent Glen Eira’s general planning policy directions?

Does it reflect sound planning principles?

Are the policies effective in terms of providing housing opportunities on the one hand and a level of protection to valued neighbourhoods on the other? 

Do State Government ideals match local community expectations?

Bayside on the other hand is asking for residents’ feedback by directly linking their questions with the 34 page review (and numerous ‘fact sheets’). Questions are specific, open ended, wide ranging and always tied to the objectives and goals identified in the preliminary review. – ie

“Your thoughts about the Bayside Planning Scheme Review:

Through reviews of the Planning Scheme over the last 10 years a number of key issues/aspirations have been identified (refer to page 8 of the review). 

Q1a. Do you agree with these key issues/aspirations on page 8 and are they still relevant today?  Please list any new issues that you think should be included, in order of priority 

Q2a. Do you think that the Bayside Planning Scheme adequately addresses the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8? If no, what do you think needs to be improved?  

Q3. What additional strategic work should Council be undertaking to address the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8?  

Q4. Do you find the Planning Scheme easy to use when either preparing or responding to a permit application? If no, what would make it easier to use?  

Q5. What issues, if any do you encounter when using the Local Planning Policy Framework? Are they hard to use? Do they cause you problems? What are these problems?  

Q6. Are the Zone and Overlays Schedules difficult to interpret? If so, which zones and overlays? Can you recommend any improvements?  

Q7. Are you aware of any recent VCAT decisions that raise issues that are currently not addressed by the Bayside Planning Scheme?  

Q8. Can you think of a property/area that you believe to be inappropriately zoned or have inappropriate overlay controls? If yes, what is the address and what do you think it should be zoned as (used for) and/or what overlay should it have/not have over it?  

Q9. Do you think that there are any directions contained with the State Planning Policy Framework that the Bayside Planning Scheme does not implement?  

Q10. How prescriptive do you think the Bayside Planning Scheme should be in relation to built form?

□ Prescriptive – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet mandatory height and setback controls.

□ Performance based – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet defined objectives. 

Q11. Please use the space below to provide any other comments on the Preliminary Planning Scheme Review and ways the Bayside Planning Scheme can be improved. You may of course add additional pages if required.

A previous post concentrated on the fact that numerous other Councils appear to have no qualms in making public their Staff Code of Conduct. In Glen Eira everything is under wraps. Why? What is there to be gained by such practices? Perhaps a better question is: What is there to hide? What could be so ‘private’ that ratepayers have no idea as to the protocols, values, and mechanisms that they are paying for. We’ve continually harped on the fact that in terms of transparency and accountability Glen Eira appears to fall well below the mark of its neighbouring and benchmark councils. Is this ‘ethical’; is this the kind of behaviour that residents are willing to put up with?

Here are some examples to illustrate our point. Please note how ETHICS is highlighted in the following councils’ Codes of Conduct.  We’ve linked some of these documents so that residents may read them for themselves.

KINGSTON

“Kingston is a major metropolitan Council for whom ethics and business conduct is a key requirement. We care about obtaining good results for our community and care equally about how those results are achieved. The CEO must also exercise delegated powers in ways consistent with previously established guidance or direction from the Council.  

The Guide recognises Council’s duties, responsibilities and community aims and values. It describes what is needed from us all to keep the good faith and trust of Council and its many stakeholders, and is based on what we value most:

Honesty and Integrity – Doing what we say we will do. 

The spirit and letter of the law and all relevant legislation will be obeyed. 

Unless you are authorised to do so, do not use Council resources or staff services for private purposes. 

BAYSIDE 

“The purpose of this guideline is to assist all Bayside staff in the maintenance of ethical standards of professional integrity and conduct….

Accountability at Bayside means we are mutually accountable and take responsibility for our actions, behaviours and results. It is: meeting promises/commitments; managing expectations; admitting mistakes; providing leadership.” 

Achievement at Bayside means that we are motivated to succeed through service by making a contribution to our community using our unique skills and abilities, and being recognised for what we achieved.” 

The way we work is to: always welcome the opinions of the community. Accept the differences in members of the team and the community and welcome their contributions 

No council materials should be used for non council purposes.”

______________________________________

So we ask – how similar or different is the Glen Eira policy? Does it highlight ethics? Community? Service? Overall values? If the Councillors’ Code of Conduct is freely available, then we maintain that the Staff Code of Conduct should be equally transparent and visible. How else can the community judge officers’ performance if they have no ratified gauge against which to evaluate such performance? 

Passing the buck  

I REFER to your front page article (‘‘Drain blame game’’, Leader, March 2). I live in Grange Rd, Carnegie, and have raised this issue with the council and I got a letter back saying the issue was being investigated. I was not given a timeline as to when I would be given the council’s findings, or what they intended to do about it. It appears to me Glen Eira Council and Melbourne Water will both play the pass the buck on this subject. Grange Rd has no drains on the side I live on. But who is responsible for this – council or Melbourne Water? 

Cramming has to stop  

GLENHUNTLY Rd is already overcrowded with cars (‘‘Still no to Coles plan’’, Leader, March 1). The trams are also overcrowded. We cannot keep on with this endless cramming in of more people. It is wrecking the whole character of the area as well.  

Time to Wake Up 

THIS sort of excessive development should never be allowed (‘‘Still no to Coles plan’’, Leader, March 1). Wake up, council and State Government, we don’t want this!

David a great MP  

DAVID Southwick was out there when flooding hit Caulfield, clearing drains for flooded-out residents and helping locals to get other essential assistance (‘‘Big pride, little policy’’, Leader, February 22). This is typical of David: when someone needs help, he pitches in to make things better. Many throughout the community already know about his generous spirit and ability to cut through the static and get things moving. That is why so many local people backed him so enthusiastically when he first ran for office in 2004, and why they have stuck with him ever since. He will be a great member for Caulfield.

Below are some extracts taken from a presentation by the NSW Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour on 9^th September, 2010

 “….if standards of ethical conduct are so clear and well established – why do we need to continually raise and discuss them? Surely once they are set down that is enough? Well no, it is not enough. If they are not modelled by those in authority, not regularly discussed, if they are not re-enforced, if they are not made part of the day to day operational landscape, they can and will slip from the public sector consciousness.

When we are focussed only on the outcome, there is often less concern about the process. People find short cuts, and the ends are too often considered to justify the means.

This of course is not the only reason for ethical breaches. There are those in public service who, when given the opportunity, will choose to act unethically. Unfortunately, human nature means we will never be completely rid of all unethical conduct.

Firstly, there needs to be genuine and strong leadership. A clear and consistent message from the top. Prime Ministers, Premiers, Ministers, Chief Executive Officers, Directors General and senior managers need to commit to core principles. This involves not only saying the right thing – which is easy to do – but also doing the right thing, and leading by example.

This commitment is key, yet as several of the examples I gave earlier show it is not always present, indeed the initial source of resistance when my office has dealt with agencies has sometimes been at the Chief Executive or senior manager level. Once staff see this response, this example being set, it sets the tone for all our dealings with that organisation.”

We’ve published these selected highlights for several reasons:

• Their relevance to the question of ‘legality’ versus ‘ethics’ at Glen Eira
• The simple fact that Glen Eira has only a ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’ as opposed to a ‘Code of Governance’ as other councils have implemented
• Other Councils have their Officer Code of Conduct, or their Business Code of Conduct freely available. Glen Eira’s requisite document is kept secret and locked away. This only makes us wonder what it contains that it should be regarded as ‘off limits’ to resident ratepayers. It also raises questions as to how different this document might be to the Councillor Code of Conduct?
• After three Municipal Investigations we believe that ‘ethics’ and ethical conduct by councillors and administrators is far more important to ratepayers than mumbo jumbo legalese and whether or not there has been a ‘technical breach’ of the Local Government Act.

PS: As an afterthought, we’ve uploaded the Bayside Staff Conduct Guidelines (here). Please note the consistent use of the following terms in their policy – ‘community’; ‘trust’; ‘admitting mistakes’; ‘values’ and plenty more. Whilst these may also been seen as ‘motherhood statements’, they clearly indicate a philosophy which is geared to service to the community and collaboration with the community. We would be most surprised (but would welcome it) if this kind of emphasis exists in any Glen Eira policy. But of course, since this is not out in the public domain, we can only speculate and guess!!!!!

Thursday, 3rd March –

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Questions resumed.

Planning: Caulfield Village development

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) —

My question is to the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the C60 planning scheme amendment. The Melbourne Racing Club has been attempting to resolve issues related to the Caulfield Village proposal with the Liberal-controlled Glen Eira City Council for some four years. The Caulfield Village represents an up-front investment by the club of some $20 million and a close relationship with Monash University. It is a project that has been endorsed by Planning Panels Victoria. The club has received positive endorsements from council officers who have recommended that the amendment be adopted, yet council will not act on the amendment. I ask: what steps will the minister take to resolve this matter so that this major investment can proceed?  

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I appreciate the question from Mr Pakula. It is very timely. I met with staff from the Glen Eira council this week to seek their views on the proposals that have been put forward for the redevelopment of Caulfield Village. There are issues around car parking which are yet to be resolved. Unlike its predecessor this government will play a key role in trying to facilitate an outcome that suits both the council and the redevelopment of the course to ensure that we achieve for the community the effective use of open space and a great new development for the Caulfield Village. 

Supplementary question

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) — In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised by council and the local community, I am advised that the club has agreed to develop the infield to include barbecues, play areas, toilets and jogging tracks as well as providing the public with permanent access to an area around the lake — —

An honourable member interjected.  

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — No, it was by the club. Despite this, the council has recently advised the club that they will not support parking in the infield of the racecourse for race day purposes — a situation that means racing may become unviable at Caulfield Racecourse. Coupled with the council’s refusal to address the C60 amendment, this in effect leaves the club without recourse and threatens not just the development but the future of racing at Caulfield. My supplementary question is: are there any circumstances in which the minister would step in and bring the matter to a conclusion?  

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — Again I say to Mr Pakula that these are very timely and important questions in relation to the future of that redevelopment opportunity and the issues that council has raised. As Mr Pakula would know, the questions raised by council are not new. They have been around for a long period of time. I have given a commitment to the council that I will allow it to get on with the process of the C60 planning scheme amendment. I have also met with the Melbourne Racing Club a number of times to ensure that we resolve those issues so that ministerial intervention would only be an extreme last resort, although I believe very firmly that this government will work with the council and the MRC quite cooperatively. Without pre-empting anything I am very confident that there will be an outcome which will render that unnecessary.

The following Media Release was issued today. As per usual, it is extremely vague and provides very little information for residents. Instead, there is a bevy of questions that need answering:

• Will the new centre be paid for entirely by Council?
• Will this proposed new centre mean the closing down of others and the ‘amalgamation’ of several?
• If ‘amalgamation’ occurs, will council guarantee that no child will be disadvantaged or unable to find a place?
• Will such an amalgamation mean staff cuts?
• What plans are being pursued if the Alfred Health public land is not made available?
• Is there no other land or building suitable in Glen Eira?
• The continual policy line by council has been that it is unfair to take from one sector of the community in order to support another – ie. that priorities will have to change if childcare and kindergarten facilities are to come out of the budget. Why is it now possible to envision such a change? What current ‘priorities’ will have to go?
• If there is amalgamation and the closure of certain centres, will council guarantee that these properties will not be sold off?

 Thursday 3 March 2011

Child care in Elsternwick

Glen Eira City Council has written to Alfred Health regarding its preferred options for the ongoing provision of child care in the Elsternwick area.

In May last year, Alfred Health informed Council that it would not extend the lease on the Kooyong Road building, which has been home to Elsternwick Children’s Centre for more than 20 years.

Glen Eira Mayor Cr Margaret Esakoff said Council’s preference is for the Centre to remain open under the current lease arrangements.

“This arrangement has been working well for the last 20 years and Council would like to see it continue — as would the families who have and do currently utilise the centre,” Cr Esakoff said.

“However, if Alfred Health is unable to commit to an ongoing lease then Council will seek to build a new childcare centre on available Crown land currently part of the Caulfield Campus of Alfred Health.

“Council believes a new purpose-built centre will not only provide a greater security of tenure, but an improved child care offering for the area.”

Cr Esakoff said Council intends to discuss the availability of Crown land with Local Members of Parliament and Ministers.

“Assuming Crown land is made available, Council also intends to seek a commitment from Alfred Health that the current lease arrangement continues until such time as the new centre is built,” Cr Esakoff said.