Below is a report on the two items concerning developers’ levy and the flood report.
Item 9.7 – C84 amendment – Hyams/Lipshutz
HYAMS: Started by saying that he didn’t think that there was anyone on council who would give up the opportunity to collect money from developers. ‘However…..this particular issue there was no …’cost to do the research and initiate the developments….what it was worth….so basically there was not any point in doing it…..the money we were getting wasn’t going to actually pay for the scheme itself…..as the report says there are other ways of making developers pay more attention to the (effect they have on flooding) by putting this very low levy on them’. …..it was appropriate to fast track and that’s what’s been done here…….
Lipshutz declined to speak. There were no other speakers. Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Duration of debate – approximately 3 minutes!!!!
ITEM 9.13 – Flood Report – Hyams/Lipshutz
HYAMS: ‘An interesting read…..hopeful that we won’t be seeing it (flooding) again….report explains…what council does…to prevent flooding and after flooding….and also what Melbourne Water does….Council …cleans about 6000 drain pits per year ….also cleans 30km of drains each year…..respond to 800 – 1000 requests…..I don’t think any infrastructure system would have dealt (with the floods)….we have to minimise. This sets out the ways this can be done…..consultation between ourselves and Melbourne Water…..Melbourne Water now better understands the problems in this area and hopefully …..we will be able to cope with it (another event) better and so will they.’
LIPSHUTZ: Told residents that ‘they should make sure’ to obtain a drainage plan’ before they buy or move house. ‘Melbourne Water has a plan of areas which are affected and it’s important that people understand when one buys in an area of a flood zone…..
ESKAKOFF: ‘This does respond’ to the original request for a report. ‘It oulines many areas of council’s maintenance, of responses, of Melbourne Water’s drains and council’s drains, …..and the differentiation between those….plans to review the emergency response….there is a map as attachment one …it does show the MAIN areas….where businesses and homes were inundated……it by no means covers all areas of flooding…..these are the main areas and I just wanted to point that out…..
MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY –DURATION OF DEBATE: 4 Minutes
COMMENTS: Two items which will have a major impact on the community, on amenity and livelihoods lasted exactly 7 minutes. This is plainly disgraceful and a complete whitewash of councillors’ responsibility to critically assess and evaluate the advice that is provided to them. All present last night did not undertake this duty. There was no questioning, no demand for statistics, no accountability to ratepayers.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 29, 2011 at 6:06 PM
7 minutes of which 5 look like they were taken up with mere regurgitation of Newton’s spin. What a woeful performance. Isn’t there a brain amongst these people or are they all stooges like the gang of five, or so intimidated that they won’t utter a word. What a pity that Penhalluriack wasn’t there.
June 29, 2011 at 6:52 PM
Maybe they are all stupid, but what I find more reprehensible is that these councillors seem to believe that the community is even more stupid and will accept their incompetence and the utter incompetence of this administration.
June 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM
It’s all very well for Lipshutz to proclaim that people need to check drainage plans prior to buying a property, but this in itself is not a solution to the current inadequate drainage within Glen Eira. Not one word of his little sermon addresses any of the issues, and nor does Hyams little homily. The latter is aking to the ventriloquist’s dummy – repeating the words and script – that are put into his mouth, whilst Lipshutz again deflects blame onto others. Instead of asking why this happened and what did council contribute to the severity, each of these councillors have let the report go through without interrogation. The post is correct – none of them are doing their jobs.
June 29, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Under the current planning regime Council doesn’t have to substantiate anything when it makes a Decision for a planning application. They *might* be obliged to if the matter goes to VCAT, but that’s dependent on whether the parties are aware of Council’s legal obligations and know to ask for them. Council does not voluntarily disclose them when sending out letters advising of the decision.
While it could be argued that Council is morally and ethically obligated by its planning scheme, the Law isn’t concerned with morals or ethics. Cr Lipschutz can be outraged, as he is, about VCAT decisions in his ward, but he’s comfortable with the outrages perpetrated elsewhere. That’s the consequence of deciding that standards should be applied according to the amount of money at stake.
It would be hard to find any matter dealt with more explicitly than Drainage in the Planning Scheme. Council acknowledges its a limitation, especially acknowledges that densely populated areas exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure, but will not constrain development on account of lack of infrastructure.
Sound corporate governance would have decision makers be responsible for the consequences of reckless decisions, in the hope it would encourage them to take more care. So…what advice has Council received each time it has approved a Planning Permit application for site coverage approaching 100%? Did the advice say the drainage system could cope, or did it simply ignore that part of the planning scheme?
Council does have a legal “out” though: it could be argued that it is a net community benefit to pick on a minority of residents so that the rest of us live comfortably–which is as unhealthy a definition of democracy as one could invent.