From the minutes of August 9th, 2011
Question 1. – Planning
“Could you please answer the following questions:
1. What is council’s policy and or current practice regarding notification to objectors as to the date of planning conferences?
2. On what criteria does determine the time span between the closing date of objections and the setting of the planning conference
3. Will council make the guidelines available to the community?
4. Why has the 15 August been selected which is only a week after objections close
5. Why is council website so behind – showing May 2011
6. Could council possibly postpone planning conference of 15 August?”
The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“1. The administration of planning conferences policy states that:- “The Planning Office will send invitation letters to all parties five days prior to the scheduled meeting.” In this case the planning conference invitation letters were sent to all parties on 1 August 2011.
2. There are no particular criteria beyond Council’s statutory responsibility to decide town planning applications within 60 statutory days.
3. Yes if requested.
4. Objections do not “close” until the time the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee decides the application.
5. More information is needed to answer this question. Where on the website does it refer to “May 2011”.
6. No reason is seen to delay the planning conference. A planning conference is a non-statutory step Glen Eira City Council chooses to take in the town planning decision making process.”
Question 2 – Planning & Costs
“Would Council please advise the specific terms of reference provided to the DPCD for the Planning Panel Hearing on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C83 (removal of Heritage Overlay HO114 on the properties at 466 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South and 2A and 2B Seaview Street, Caulfield South).”
The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“The role of the Panel is to give submitters an opportunity to be heard by an independent forum in an informal, non-judicial manner. A Panel is not a court of law. Panels also give independent advice to the Planning Authority and the Minister about the
proposed amendment. Council does not provide the Panel with any terms of reference.”
Question 3 – Costs
3. What is the total cost to date for each of the following:
1. Engagement of an independent note taker
2. Engagement of a governance advisor to provide instruction as per the recommendations of the Municipal Inspector?
4. The total legal costs pertaining to the reappointment of the CEO in 2008?
5. The additional advice sought from 4 independent heritage advisors on the 466 Hawthorn Rd property?
6. What is the anticipated or actual cost for the external legal advice involved in the GESAC allocations to either the McKinnon Basketball Association, or the Oakleigh Warriors?
7. Will any of the above items be expected to accrue more costs? If so, which ones, and what is the range of this expectation?”
Part 3 of your question was deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iv) as it refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach the confidentiality provisions of the Local Governmant Act 1989
- $5,148.00 2. $6,532.00 4. $29,502.83 5.$790.00 6. Current cost is $3,825.00
1 and 2 may accrue more costs and 6 will.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Here’s a comment that’s gone up on the BentleighEast Community blog site which we’ve copied since it’s pertinent to all of Glen Eira –
“The residents of Bentleigh East must feel like they are occupying the last outpost for the City of Glen Eira after the state government terminated the City of Moorabbin. Bentleigh East is so far removed from the center of Glen Eira (Caulfield) that the residents are treated as second-rate citizens.
Bentleigh East Shopping Centre has been zoned for medium density housing because it has a major transport service, a bus route. This means that developers can erect multi storey (at least four or more levels) buildings above shops along the entire section of Centre Road Bentleigh East between Tucker and East Boundary roads. Despite the Glen Eira Council believing that this area is ripe for development and an increase in population of residents, it on the other hand does not believe that the existing residents or newcomers are entitled to have the right to the use of toilets.
This inconsistency in decision-making by Glen Eira Council is not new. It was only a few years ago that the council organised a review of the area surrounding the East Bentleigh Shopping Centre and found that due to a lack of public transport, the area had the highest ownership of motor vehicles in the entire Glen Eira Council. So what does the council decide? We will declare that the Bentleigh East Shopping Centre has major transport facilities and we will then re-zone the center as a medium density development area.
If the Glen Eira Council does not accept the findings of it’s own surveys before making decisions, then what hope have the residents in believing any decision made by council.
The local residents in this are have been lobbing Glen Eira Council for a review of traffic and parking management for more than 5 (five) years following the debacle decision made by the same council regarding the “Clover Estate.” Council approved this development more than five years ago, despite concerns with regard to the soil being contaminated. To date, no report clearing the site of any contamination of soil has been sighted or lodged with council, nor has any building started on the site despite the fact that the permit was approved nearly four (4) years ago.
East Bentleigh residents rightly believe that outside developers have more rights, than those locals, who are currently paying council rates.
If you raise an issue or problem with Glen Eira Council the standard answer is, “we just reviewed this issue and nothing can happen for the next five (5) years.”
I’ve got news for the Glen Eira Councilors…. you will not be re-elected in the next 5 (five) years! In fact we might revert back dissolving council and appointing another administrator to run the City of Glen Eira”.
August 13, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Rubbish. The most expensive undertaking within the Municipallity has taken place in East Bentleigh.I speak of the $40+m GESAC and the soon to commence $10+m redevelpment of Duncan MacKinnon which is accross the Road from East Bentleigh.The $10+m Carnegie Library is close to E Bentleigh and I could continue.Perhaps the fools who made the statement about “last outpost” could inform me of similar expenditure in Elsternwick and Gardenvale and note that both suburbs don’t have any ovals or pavillions. As a matter of fact all they have is a run down libraryand a few tiny parks. This E Bentleigh group should tell the truth and not give us b-lls–t.
August 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM
I don’t see any 20 storey buildings going up in East Bentleigh like in Caulfield – let’s face it, Glen Eira council couldn’t give a rats no matter where you are. Newton has run his race and supporters like the gang of four and Noel the Toyman are so far removed from the residents, it isn’t funny. Tik tok only 15 more months to go until we can give them the flick and get some Councillors with a mandate for change, and that should start with the bureaucrats.
August 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Well over 40,000 bucks down the drain and that’s only what we know of. That’s 40,000 bucks to pay for both incompetence and disarray and disharmony. What a pathetic council we’ve got.
August 14, 2011 at 12:14 AM
That’s right the Gardenvale, Elsternwick end of Glen Eira is very short of functional public open space, tiny parks and only few of them. And the raising density of that area is compounding the problems., traffic is increasing to resemble Carlton in 80’s, with little or no traffic management in the pipeline.
Council has really given-up trying to help, it just lets things roll-on, knowing that any report or fresh look at these two areas will identify big problems and big dollars will be needed to redress.
I thinks its fair to say the 5o mil spent on pool in East Bent may well have been more beneficial in land acquisitions and the development of more public open space in these areas. 5o mil wouldn’t be enough, but it would be a good start. Magnolia Street pocket park is a fine example of one buy-back many years ago. However it needs much more than this one off example to redress the shortfall.
And like the new pool in Bentleigh, what benefits Gardenvale and Elsternwick benefits us all.
Advancing our city shouldn’t be some type of competition, all our parks are legacies of past planning by people in most case long dead.
What legacy are we leaving? I would say, one of desperation and greed.
Modern town planners should be concerned with what’s happening to our city scape. I am sure their years of education taught them more that what we experience in Glen Eira. We don’t hear much of their vision of what we should be endeavouring to achieve , it’s all lost under concrete and cars and the dominant economic rational, that increasing looking like the swindle of the century.
August 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM
We have to go back a decade to see the cause of the problems we now face and that was when the 80/20 carve up of Glen Eira was done. Today we’re finally seeing the results of this appalling policy. What’s even worse is that there has not been any significant planning since. Finally people are realising exactly what’s going on – something that wasn’t obvious back in 2002. Housing Diversity is simply a misnomer for extensive full bore development done in a willy nilly fashion.
August 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM
The Acting Mayor’s responses on behalf of Council show the economy of facts that has become the hallmark of the current Regime. “No reason is seen to delay the planning conference” is simply bizarre. The Application for Planning Permit was made last year. In April Cr Lipschutz informed a public meeting that the application had been withdrawn by the MRC. Was that a lie? Or did the MRC simply ask their mates for a favour? There is no provision in PAEA to request an application to be put on hold (the excuse Council later gave us). The 60 statutory days Council has to decide an application have surely well and truly expired, and the MRC can go straight to VCAT. This is assuming a Planning Permit is actually required.
What the public really needs is longer time to digest the Officer’s Recommendation when it is made public only a few days before Council formally announces its decision. Few of us believe the decision is actually made on the night, so we go through the charade of attempting to contact the Councillors considering a matter in a very limited window. Inevitably the Officer’s report fails to discuss matters that Council is obliged to consider. There is no scope for having the required additional information be supplied in time for the formal decision.
I dispute Council’s assertion that a Panel provides “an opportunity to be heard by an independent forum in an informal, non-judicial manner”. Panels consist of people very carefully chosen by the Government of the day to further the interests of the Government. The members are often part-time members of VCAT, who choose to ignore elements of Planning Schemes they don’t like. Council is aware of this, and in desperation wrote to the previous Government, requesting changes to PAEA so that VCAT was obliged to apply Planning Schemes rather than something so vague and wishy-washy as “consider” or “take into account” what Schemes specify. Naturally the request was ignored.
Political decisions are as a result made by unrepresentative, undemocratic, and poorly qualified individuals, against the wishes of the communities who depend on them for protection against the worst excesses of Planning Mania. If there are any further doubts about the role of Panels, look at C60, where Stuart Morris SC berated somebody who didn’t want to sell their property to the MRC *and* had the temerity to expect their amenity to be protected. Nobody from Council or the Government so far has explained why this was acceptable, or what secret information had been supplied to the MRC such that they could claim the Government would force the owner if they continued to refuse to sell.
So now on top of the mess we have around Planning in general, we have a mess concerning heritage values and protection. Heritage listing means nothing, as we’ve seen with the recent decision to order a Permit to be granted for Heritage-listed Elizabeth Towers Hotel to be demolished and be replaced with something more to the liking of VCAT.
Council endorsed the Review of Glen Eira Planning Scheme, which contains the controversial observation that developers are being subsidised by the community. It was a conscious decision to preserve the status quo, which benefits developers. [We can now add the decision to scrap Development Contributions Overlays, which Cr Hyams championed.] LGA does caution Councillors about Conflicts of Interest. I do wonder whether developers in Glen Eira are sufficiently numerous that they constitute a “large class of persons”, thereby protecting councillors who wish to be developers [PAEA 77A(5)(b)].
I was heartened to see in the Council Meeting Minutes for 9 August that Council supported Cr Forge’s attendance at Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management Conference. That professional body has indirectly criticised Glen Eira’s encouragement of cars in Activity Centres and its disregard for pedestrian safety.