This is a lengthy post for which we beg your indulgence. It is also the most important post we have put up, since it reveals the total lack of vision of this council as exemplified in its MSS, and the abject failure to address problems which have plagued the municipality for eons. These problems are not being addressed, remediated, nor presented in an honest and informative manner.
The fact that items 9.7 (removal of infrastructure levy) and 9.13 (flood report) both appear on the same agenda is more than simply ironic. It highlights the hidden agendas and failure to act in the best interests of the community. By removing the Infrastructure Levy which is meant to pay for drainage on new developments, council is proclaiming open slather for developers and basically ignoring the environmental impacts on drains, streets, and residents. To further compound the problem we have the 9.13 report on the February 4th floods which ultimately says nothing, proposes nothing new, and basically maintains the current status quo. Council cannot have it both ways – if flooding and inadequate drainage are real risks, then removing a vital source of income to ameliorate this risk is nothing short of madness.
Here are some of the most unbelievable statements from these two reports:
Item 9.13 – Flood report
Council’s drains run into Melbourne Water. It follows that the effectiveness of a drainage system as a whole is the effectiveness of the local drain (Council) and the main drain (Melbourne Water).
COMMENT: Not one single word in this ‘report’ analyses the ‘effectiveness’ of council’s drains, nor provides information as to how many of its drains were involved in the February 4th flooding; when they were all last cleaned; what their condition was, etc.
“The overland flow washed soil, sand, silt and debris along its path depositing much of this material in low points. In some low points debris restricted or blocked pits and pipes so water could not drain away once the main storm surge had passed.”
COMMENT: How much of this ‘debris’ is a direct result of council’s insistence on piling mulch upon mulch in our parks and on our street trees? When were these specific pits last checked or cleaned?
“..many Council drains are laid almost flat due to the flat terrain in many parts of Glen Eira. As a consequence, leaves, soil and other debris that enter the drains tend to settle and build up in the pipes overtime. Council faces an ongoing challenge of builders washing silt and debris into Council drains. Property owners also build structures and plant trees over easement drains preventing access for maintenance and causing damage to the drains.”
COMMENT: Per usual, blame everyone else! The fact that planning law restricts building over easements is not acknowledged. Nor are any statistics provided to substantiate such claims.
“On average, Council proactively cleans about 30km of drains and 6,000 pits per annum and attends to 800 to 1,000 drainage service requests from the community. The cost of this service is about $700,000 per annum.
COMMENTS: Annual reports have shown a steady decline in ‘cleaning’ of drains.
“Council proactively attends to ‘hotspots’ and reactively to others. Hotspots are locations where flooding regularly occurs causing nuisance or damage to property. No one can guarantee that underground drains are always free of blockages. Council’s approach ensures that critical drains are generally clear of blockage prior to heavy rainfall. Council only allows for minimal maintenance of non-critical drains. A recent survey of a small proportion of the Council’s drainage network suggests that most non-critical drains are not functioning at full capacity. Council officers are currently investigating increasing Council’s drainage maintenance resources and will report on this in due course.
COMMENT: If ‘not functioning at full capacity’ then what has been done? – especially considering the Auditor General’s report of 2005 (which we’ve previously highlighted) and which placed Glen Eira near the bottom of nearly all its benchmarking performance criteria. So this is not a revelation – it has been known for years and years. Yet, nothing appears to have changed. Why? This also begs the question of how ‘non-critical drains’ are identified. Given the disasters of February 4th, how many ‘non-critical’ drains should now be included in the ‘hot-spot’ classification?
“Council contractors sweep the kerb and channel in the streets daily in shopping centres and monthly in residential streets. The primary purpose of the sweeping is to keep the streets clean but it also helps keep storm water flowing along the street and debris out of the underground drains. Council spends about $1.3 million each year sweeping its streets.”
COMMENTS: Is ‘monthly’ sufficient, especially in Autumn and Winter when deciduous trees lose their foliage en masse. How many residents can even claim that their streets have been cleaned monthly?
“Continuing its $3 million rolling program to renew and upgrade its drains on a priority basis. Review its proactive and reactive drainage maintenance program (discussed above) to ensure that it continues to provide best value to the community.”
COMMENT: So after all this, we’re still left with the same approaches, expenditure, and vision. Nothing has changed and the potential for disaster remains ever present.
Item 9.7 Amendment C84
“It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”
COMMENT: One would have thought that any money collected is better than nothing! This also ignores the vital question of how well and often this levy is being collected; is the rate high enough; why can other councils maintain this levy and Glen Eira finds it of little ‘benefit’? Does this tell us more about the pro-development stance of council, or its administrative (in)efficiency, as opposed to ensuring that the community’s interests are the first priority?
“The DCPO has been proven to be an ineffective town planning tool if one of its aims was to moderate medium density dwellings. A far more moderating influence has been (only) Glen Eira’s increased standards applying to medium density dwellings in terms of reduced site coverage, increased rear setbacks, increased private open space and discouraging double storey development at the rear of sites. Furthermore, if Council were to replace the DCPO in the future, it is unlikely that the Minister for Planning would approve fees that are significantly higher than the original fees which could meaningfully contribute to drainage infrastructure. A continuing dampening influence on any ultimate fees is Glen Eira’s reduced site coverage of 50% in Minimal Change Areas (compared to 60% under standard ResCode provisions). The starting point would need to be a revised strategic assessment which is estimated to cost upwards of $100,000, with no certainty of approval.”
COMMENT: The primary objective of a development levy is NOT TO ‘MODERATE MEDIUM DENSITY DWELLING” – it is there to ensure that the developer pays his dues to the community via support for drainage infrastructure or money that is directed to ‘community’ infrastructure – ie kindergartens. Further, given the fortune that this council spends on concreting open space and other extravagances, then the expenditure of $100,000 is merely a drop in the ocean and far more essential than concrete plinthing in our parks and gardens.
CONCLUSION
If both of these reports are accepted by councillors then they are not only fools, but incapable of providing the vision and fiduciary oversight that they are charged with. What will they say when the next flood happens? How will they face the residents whose lives have been disrupted and their homes destroyed? When will they actually have the courage to look at the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and MSS and start to institute real reform that protects the environmental, social, and economic future of this municipality?
*************
As an afterthought, we’ve added these passages from the 2005 Auditor General’s report on Flood Risk Mitigation and ask – what has changed in the past 6 years? How many of these points and recommendations have been implemented by this council?
“Melbourne Water and Stonnington were rated as “excellent”. Both agencies clearly defined the goals of flood risk management and linked these with other planning and budgetary documents. They had a comprehensive knowledge of the flooding risks in their areas of operation and had consulted stakeholders about the implications”.
“The 4 “developing” councils (Bayside, Boroondara, Darebin, Glen Eira) had not created a focus on flood risk management with clearly communicated goals and objectives. They need to improve their performance. All councils were developing processes for this purpose, but to do so effectively they will need to set specific flood risk management objectives, gain stakeholder support for them and ensure that the objectives link to their strategy, planning and budgetary processes”.
“Bayside and Glen Eira were rated as “developing”. Both had started a program of catchment analysis studies to enable them to better understand the local flooding risks. However, neither had yet developed their detailed knowledge of drainage problems to a point where a risk assessment approach could be applied across the whole council area”.
“As most councils have not completed detailed mapping work for their own catchments, they are relying on Melbourne Water’s information about flood-prone areas. However, as Stonnington and Casey have done their own mapping, their overlays will be more comprehensive than those of the other councils we examined.”
“Agencies need to educate stakeholders about the nature and extent of flooding risks, and their plans for, and performance in, addressing those risks. Only then will residents understand how they might be affected and how their actions could increase the risk. Education in this area should be targeted at those most at risk of flooding and those behaviours most likely to increase flooding risks”.
“At Stonnington the mapping of local flood overlays, while expensive, has been critical in raising the council’s understanding of flooding risks and performance in this area. The overlays provided a consistent and high quality information base that significantly enhanced Stonnington’s ability to prioritise and plan for these risks. Importantly, they allowed the council to introduce uniform planning system controls across the whole municipality and not just in Melbourne Water’s area of responsibility”.
“Councils did not have effective strategies to address the existing flooding risks. The number of properties subject to flooding is unknown and needs to be established. Unless councils improve their practices, most will not be able to effectively prioritise and treat existing flooding risks. Councils also need to be more proactive in verifying the effectiveness of flooding treatments”.
“That councils develop flood risk management practices consistent with best practice risk management, and that these incorporate:
specific flood risk management goals and objectives, which are supported by stakeholders and clearly linked to the councils’ wider strategies, plans and budgets
a risk assessment and prioritisation process based on a sound knowledge of flood exposure
an option assessment process with clear criteria that would include costs of treatment options, effectiveness (in mitigating flooding risks), and impacts on the conservation and environmental goals of stormwater
management
a long-term flood risk management plan to achieve the objectives of these practices
an ongoing targeted community education program to raise awareness of flooding issues, ascertain community expectations and encourage behaviour that will limit flooding risks
performance indicators that measure the effectiveness of flood risk management treatments in lowering flooding exposure, the results of which should be regularly reported to the community.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM
We’ve received this email comment from Reprobate –
Next Tuesday’s Council Meeting contains an innocent-sounding item called Amendment C84. As is typical with our duplicitous Council, the information in the Agenda is designed to elicit a particular response from Councillors, without actually solving the many underlying problems.
Glen Eira has aging and crumbling infrastructure. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme explicitly identifies the drainage system as a problem and constraint on development (S21.02-2–part of the so-called Municipal Strategic Statement or MSS). Little wonder then that it calls for further strategic work: “For housing diversity areas, in conjunction with Melbourne Water, further investigating the capacity of drainage infrastructure to accomodate multi-unit development”.
So concerned was Council that it included the following under S21.11 Infrastructure “New development is to be required to contribute an equitable development levy, to be charged as a contribution to provision of infrastructure”. Its worth reading the section in full to remind ourselves that Council is fully aware that the drainage system it is responsible for is inadequate and not designed to support the scale of development it is encouraging in its so-called Housing Diversity Areas.
Its hardly radical to expect developers to pay some contribution towards the infrastructure they require to support their profit-making activities. Our previous State Government made a half-hearted attempt through its noxious Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The flaw there was that they tried to separate who paid from who reaped the economic benefit of development. The then Opposition initially opposed the Amendment before, like what good prostitutes do, rolling over. So the principle is there even if it lacks ethics.
Somewhere around 2000 Council paid for a report that provided the strategic justification for a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) that would require some developers to contribute to improving drainage to support their developments. Our benevolent Government naturally restricts how much can be collected, so the actual amount that has been paid is, by Council’s own figures, a pittance.
The Administration of our Council has estimated that their costs of administering drainage improvements make the collection of monies from developers uneconomic. The Council agenda doesn’t disclose those costs, as we are expected to accept that statement without challenge. It attempts to use the cost of the initial report as part of the argument that developers should be subsidized.
At this point the Agenda item resorts to using some standard rhetorical devices.
“It is considered” (by an unaffected faceless person) that the benefit of the DCPO is small. A particularly galling comment is “the DCPO has been proven to be an ineffective town planning tool if one of its aims was to moderate medium density dwellings”. It would be more accurate to say that Council doesn’t apply its own planning scheme whenever it affects the profits of developers.
The author of the agenda item, Jacqui Brasher, and lacking conviction in her arguments so far, tells us that the Minister for Planning is unlikely to approve higher fees. It does make you wonder what secret information Jacqui has received that she could know Mathew Guy doesn’t believe in sustainable development. She could be right though, as successive State Governments have refused to invest in supporting higher density development in Glen Eira.
In order to silence people who think the current situation is a bit of a mess, she has indicated it would cost upwards of $100000 for a revised strategic assessment. That is of course a small fraction of the money Council expects to collect via rates from the multi-unit developments they are encouraging.
For some extraordinary reason, Jacqui thinks that “a far more moderating influence has been (only) Glen Eira’s increased standards applying to medium density dwellings in terms of reduced site coverage, increased rear setbacks, increased private open space”. This is so wrong its hard to know where to start. Council supports 100% site coverage, 0% permeable area and less than ResCode standards for setbacks in many areas in the municipality, even when next to single-storey dwellings. There is no moderation. Its quite prepared to use M2030 as its justification, or VCAT, or “similar developments in the area”, or “prevailing standards” or “emerging character” or…the list goes on.
As part of Item 9.7 Jacqui references Council’s request 4 months ago for a report on improving drainage in Glen Eira. The report has finally been produced, but appears as Item 9.13. Item 9.13 argues that Council shouldn’t do anything different than it is currently doing. This is, in Jacqui’s opinion, a more effective strategy. Item 9.13 includes Attachment 1 which fails to mention any of the properties flooded in Carnegie in and around its “Urban Village” area. Its hard to disguise two fire engines pumping water out of a flooded basement carpark, and harder still to argue that having your car float is not a loss of amenity. Clearly if Item 9.7 relies Item 9.13, then Item 9.13 should be dealt with first.
The nub of Item 9.7 is for Council to request approval from the Minister for Planning (Matthew Guy this week) to grant exemption from the normal processes for managing changes to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. It is considered to be of a “minor administrative nature” and reasonable to apply S20(4) of PAEA 1987.
Wrong!! Council has a moral, possibly even legal, obligation to fix the problems it has responsibility for creating by failing to apply the very explicit requirements contained in its Planning Scheme. If it doesn’t have the money, then it should stop approving Planning applications that seek more than 60% site coverage and/or less than 20% permeable area. It knows why and the Planning Scheme explicitly states why. A detailed discussion of the needs of the municipality, its funding, and timelines, are needed, and that’s what Council should be arguing for, not a hasty removal of obligations from developers without scrutiny.
The Planning Scheme Review revealed that ratepayers are subsidizing developers, which can’t be much comfort to those poor homeowners having to live with being flooded from poorly maintained drains. If the DCPO is inadequate to pay for the consequences of development, then Council should be lobbying hard to increase the amount contributed. If a realistic increase in funding isn’t forthcoming, then its time for a moratorium on multi-unit development of 3 or more storeys.
The provision of infrastructure is a highly political problem. Council’s view is that Glen Eira doesn’t need investment to support an increase in density. Grateful, the State Government has directed investment elsewhere. Last year a Department of Transport spokesperson reminded Councillors at a ward meeting that there was no money and no substantive plan to eliminate the grade crossings that plague Carnegie, Glenhuntly and Murrumbeena. Council’s Traffic Department still believes that road capacity is a function of the road width rather than the obstacles that lie along it.
Far from being sustainable, Council’s current policies are a recipe for the kind of disaster that struck in February. The Drainage Report wasn’t worth the 4-month wait, and deciding that drainage problems can be resolved by waiving compliance with standards is ludicrous. If Council doesn’t reject Item 9.7 (and the decision will almost certainly have already been made behind closed doors) or find alternative funding sources then it is an admission they no longer represent us.
June 25, 2011 at 5:46 PM
I must admit that I’ve only had the time for a very cursory look at all the agenda items, so I’m grateful for the post and the comment by Reprobate which is already up.
I’d like to mention a trend that I think is deliberate and manipulative. This is not the first time that really important policy decisions have all been lumped together into the one council meeting. This time there is the budget, the amendments, the transport policy, plus a heap of applications that are always considered first. No time is therefore given for any true debate, much less consideration of important policy documents that will establish this council’s direction for years to come. Even if a council meeting goes for 3 hours that leaves about 15 minutes for proper discussion on each item. Nothing can be truly debated in 15 minutes. This ploy of hijacking the agenda must be stopped. Councillors have had their chance to do this when they considered the local law and handed control to Newton. This is the reward they get – the piling on of incredibly important issues so that there really is no time for reflection, investigation, analyses much less debate.
I also concur wholeheartedly with the views expressed so far. If the flood report and the amendment are passed then councillors should resign immediately.
June 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM
A tip for those unaware of Machavielli and his schemes – always read the Glen Eira Council agenda backwards. The most contentious issues are at the end of the meeting when it is late and Councillors just want to go home. The initial items on the agenda are fluff on which it is hoped by Newton and Burke that large pockets of time are devoted to…
June 25, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Reading this makes me think about the C60 and wonder what storm water provisions have been considered, much less included, in the planning for 4000 plus people to descend on this area. Then there’s the couple of thousand of Monash students on the other side of the rail way. The bridge leading to Sir John Monash drive is flooded nearly every single time it rains already.
There is no proper planning in this council. They have neglected everything except the surface and superficial. It’s all glitz and spin designed to give the appearance of successful maintenance and planning. Nothing could be further from the truth.
June 26, 2011 at 12:52 AM
The Auditor General’s recommendations tell me one thing – that planning and risk mitigation depends on community support and involvement. This is not how this council works. The infamous Planning Scheme Review left everything to officers and the community has been excluded. The same thing is happening with drains and the attempted removal of the overlay levy. Glen Eira’s plans and policies are never inclusive of resident views. We are the last to know and the last to be considered. Our task is to simply pay for everything but without the right of having a say and influencing decisions. If councillors can’t see this and the growing resentment then they are indeed fools and sycophants.
June 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM
More service reductions without adequate explanation. Please note the gobbledygook.
In addition to the changes in the SRP two changes have been made to the one year
action plan.
• The proposed action under theme 6 “Maintain the number of live planning
applications at a level which enables timely decision making.” has been deleted.
This action is beyond the control of Council Officers and is a measure of demand
rather than performance.
• The proposed measure and action under theme 7 concerning inspection of food premises has been replaced. Previously “Inspect all registered food businesses at least once each year to assess compliance with National Food Safety Standards” has been replaced by “Inspect registered food businesses to assess compliance with National Food Safety Standards”. The previous measure “All registered food businesses inspected annually” has been replaced by “Conduct 800 food safety assessments of registered food businesses”. While Council inspects all food businesses annually, it is by calendar year which aligns with legislative requirements.
The proposed action is equivalent to inspecting each food business once per year and the measure has been used in previous action plans.
June 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Brasher is a quick learner by the looks of things. She’s picked up all of Newton’s and Burke’s tricks. Love the statement that 15 million has been spent on drainage. Correct perhaps, but only technically cos what we’re not told is how much of this 15m comes from grants from the government.
June 26, 2011 at 3:00 PM
The storm-water drainage issue is common every time it rains. The side street next to the Booran Rd reserve floods because the drain inlets and pipes have not been properly installed to ensure there is proper drainage. This is clearly Glen Eira Council responsibility, but they are blaming it on Melbourne Water. Drainage is a network, hence enlarging the big pipes may not solve any local problems. Question is how many such local road drains are affected by rain every time it rains?
‘Council maintains more more than 470 kilometres of road, equivalent to the distance between Glen Eira and Wagga Wagga.’ says the Council blurb. The road curb and drain inlet blockages have great impact on the flood levels. Is Glen Eira engineering up to it? Are the Councillors able to assess the information presented to them? Can they verify the informationj using other sources for example residents feedback?
All Councils were created from the original Roads Boards. You would expect therefore that a Roads Committee of sorts would be active in Glen Eira. The 2011 Committee appointments does not mention this. Neither does the 2010 Committee appointments. You need to go to February 24 of 2009 to see a Roads Special Committee comprising Crs Esakoff, Lipshutz, Penhalliurack, Staikos, and Whiteside. The last two have disappeared. So what is happening with this Committee? Who is chairing it? Any Reports from this Committe? I would have thought that Roads Special Committee would have recommended the changes proposed in the Agenda through appropriate professional research, not just Officers looking at dollars.
June 26, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Hudson St Caulfield North has had its drainage and road pavement ‘improved’ along its whole length. The problem is that the method and implementation made the drainage worse than before, particularly from house gutters and down-pipes. A complaint was made but no reply or response to that complaint received.
Studies suggests that proper maintenance of drainage saves $2 for every spend $1, if it is done properly! If it is not done properly, every spend $1 results in a $1 wasted.
Do we have the staff to make a proper assessment of waste or otherwise of maintenance activities?
June 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM
My friend in Glen Eira had a new development happen on the neighbouring property. It was 3 x 2 story town house type development with a long driveway running the length of the property.
The new driveway had a stormwater pipe running up the middle of the drive [underground] to the street. The drain had a negative fall that effectively diverted the stormwater from the street down the driveway drain and out of a grate and into his garage that shared the boundary.
Up untill then his garage had been as dry as a bone. The council basically said it wasn’t there concern. Basically they didn’t give give a dam. The neighbours with their nice new town houses turned there back on the problem because the problem was going to cost a bomb to fix.
I expect this maybe a common problem were street levels are higher than the back of some blocks. Which isn’t a problem until you build at the rear of the block. Without using a pump and a pit you cannot get the water uphill.