When residents are screaming that their neighbourhoods are being raped and pillaged by overdevelopment and that the (discriminatory?) 80/20 Minimal Change Area is simply not working, how does Council respond? With more ‘discrimination’ via its spin that the c87 Amendment will solve all these problems. Yes, the proposed Significant Character Overlay (SCO) will be more prescriptive, and yes it will ‘protect’ some aspects of street scape – but it will never solve the problems that the Planning Scheme has created. In fact the suggested amendment will only cover less than 2% of all housing in Glen Eira! So instead of an 80/20 policy we are marching towards a 98/2 policy.

In case there is any doubt about these figures, we’ve done a quick count of the properties earmarked in the documentation. Here’s the table taken directly from the provided documentation (Plenisphere). Please note that the ‘approx’ are the result of possible alleyways which weren’t discernible on the maps – but we’ve included these as part of the property count.

To illustrate the above more graphically, we’ve also uploaded the map which shows exactly how little of the entire municipality is considered to be worthy of greater protection.

Council has put out a Media Release (and a Public Notice in today’s Leader) regarding Amendment C87 which proposes to simply tinker with the current inadequacies of the Planning Scheme rather than addressing the root problems. We will be dissecting this proposed Amendment which we believe is inequitable in that only 17 designated areas within the municipality will receive greater ‘protection’.  Is it a case of ‘to hell with the rest’ and more open slather for developers? Below is the Media Release and the usual spin!

Neighbourhood character amendment on exhibition

The Glen Eira community has until Monday 5 March to provide written feedback on Glen Eira City Council’s proposed amendment to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

Amendment C87 proposes to introduce new planning scheme controls — neighbourhood character overlays and design and development overlays to control dwellings and to help protect 17 residential areas identified as having a high-level of neighbourhood character significance against inappropriate development.

A key focus of the amendment is to provide more detailed information about these distinctive areas through improved character descriptions and a preferred character statement for each.

There will also be a requirement to apply for a planning permit for demolition, alteration and additions to single dwellings, new dwellings and front fencing in these areas.

Council’s Director City Development Jeff Akehurst said these controls are based on a rigorous assessment of neighbourhood character conducted by planning consultants and completed in 2011.

“By proceeding with the amendment, it will give Council greater control over all dwellings, which can often through their siting and design, pose a real threat to neighbourhood character,” Mr Akehurst said.

Further information regarding Amendment C87 is available from Council’s Service Centre Council’s libraries and Council’s website: www.gleneira.vic.gov.au

Council to  reject massive project

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-to-reject-massive-project-20120129-1qo16.html#ixzz1kuQykT7Z

New boundaries are being declared along the Elster Creek Trail – as we suspected! We’ve previously highlighted what this implies regarding Council’s planning department and how poorly they do their requisite homework. For example:

• The claiming of land has been known to council for at least 15 years
• They’ve spent a fortune on a concrete path without first checking to see whether they have constructed this path on, or far too close to private property
• The most interesting query is whether ratepayers will be forking out money to ensure that this and potentially other new fences do not sit on, or right next to the yellow brick road. If money is handed over to landowners, then what’s the cost to residents for something that should never have happened?

We reiterate – we do not have any problem with landowners claiming what is their legal right to land. At anywhere between $1000 and $2000 per square foot this is not a negligible sum that many would be ready to forego. What we do have a major problem with, is the failure of this council to ensure that all necessary planning has been done beforehand. When you create a flood plain (as the raising of this path has done), and when you don’t know where public and private land meet, then we believe there is cause for concern as to the competence of those responsible.

The slideshow reveals the ‘before’ and ‘after’ view and the amount of land that has now been ‘reclaimed’. Please also note that the new fence line is directly over major drainage and a lightpole. Who pays for relocating, removing is another fascinating query. We also wonder whether the landowner fully realises that this particular section of the trail is more often than not under several inches of water thanks to the new yellow brick road!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The silence from both the Warriors and the McKinnon basketball club does not augur well for the ‘compromise’ that got over the line at last council meeting on the casting vote of Mayor Hyams. The deadline for ‘agreement’ was listed as the 16^th January. Now twelve days later there is deathly silence from both groups. Hence we can only surmise that the deal has fallen through – either because ‘suitable’ playing venues for the Warriors on the Saturday weren’t acceptable to them, or to the location owners the McKinnon club offered.

Whichever, it again highlights the total balls up by the administration and councillors. It basically leaves the Warriors with the prospect of filling all the venues, paying out big bucks and praying like hell that they can cover costs or get someone else to cover the costs for them via a ‘takeover’. In the end GESAC may not be the home of either the Warriors or McKinnon.

The Local Government Act stipulates that councils, or CEOs, MAY declare items as confidential and that they be discussed in camera. This is NOT a requirement – merely a safeguard for personal or highly sensitive financial contracts. That seems fair enough, but as we’ve commented almost ad nauseum, Glen Eira appears to take this clause as applying to practically everything! We’ve highlighted the Grill’d affair and also the continual reappointment of the external audit committee members and asked each time – why have these items been declared confidential and why was no announcement made post discussion?

These are not the only items that give cause for concern. We’ve gone through all the 2011 council meeting minutes and listed below items which were declared confidential, discussed in camera and the results of which were not announced in the public minutes. Many of the items appear pretty straight forward. That is contracts. So again we ask: why is it that some contracts are made public and others have ‘top secret’ stamped on them? What is the criteria – especially when we’re looking at such possibly innocuous items as redesigning the Glen Eira News, collection of green waste, etc. Is it simply a great way to cover up ‘expenses’ – especially in relation to GESAC, since it then becomes extremely hard to really know how much this facility is costing?

These contracts undoubtedly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The community has a right to know what is being paid and to whom. Glen Eira Council operates on different principles all together. We believe it is time that explanations were offered for the contradictions inherent in this list and that Newton’s exclusive powers to declare items as ‘confidential’ came under full scrutiny by councillors.

Please note: we have excluded all those items which refer to ‘legal advice’ and those which pertain to ‘personnel’ – apart from the audit committee one. The list reads:

• 12.1 under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates property in Oakleigh Road, Carnegie
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates Council approved contracts
• 12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Audit Committee Membership
• under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to Centre Road, Bentleigh
• under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to possible measures to protect trees
• 12.2 under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to possible interim controls over some areas within Glen Eira
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the Yarra Yarra Golf Club
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the green waste disposal.
• under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a supplier for the leasing of photocopier services to Council and for the provision of ‘pay by copy’ services.
• under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a panel of providers for the provision of IT Products & Services under the categories of IT Hardware, Infrastructure and Services
• under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of a vendor for the provision of Microsoft software products and associated services such as training, documentation and ongoing support.
• under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to land formerly owned by the Melbourne Racing Club becoming Crown Land.
• under s 89(2) (d) “contractual” which relates to the construction of GESAC
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to works by South-East Water.
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to appoint a panel of suppliers for the procurement and disposal of vehicles
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to Council approved contracts
• under s89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to kindergarten facilities
• under s89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to child care
• under s 89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to Bent Street, Bentleigh
• under s 89 (2) (e) “proposed developments” which relates to the Clayton South landfill
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates GESAC electricity supply
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for Tender 2012.023 Design Services for Glen Eira News
• under s89 (2)(d) which relates to the awarding of the GESAC cleaning contract.
• under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie
• under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to works in Allnutt Park, Halley Park and Bentleigh Hodgson Reserve as part of the South East Water Elster Sewer Safe Upgrade Program.

Cr. Lipshutz currently heads or sits on the following important Council committees –

• Chairman of GESAC
• Chairman Caulfield Racecourse Special Committee
• Member, Audit committee
• Member Consultation Committee
• And we mustn’t forget his tireless support of the CEO and officers!

Given these multiple areas of responsibility and the subsequent outcomes, 2011 has really become Lipshutz’s ‘annus horribilus’. We focus on just some of the ‘underachievements’ –

• The Seaview/Hawthorn Rd Heritage fiasco where under Lipshutz’s guidance and his newly acquired heritage expertise, the views of 6 professional heritage advisors were ignored and rejected. Result? Needless costs of lawyers, panels, independent ‘advice’ to council – all for nothing. Next time Lipshutz announces ‘I don’t agree’ then perhaps residents should ask for him to display his credentials in the specific area!
• Chairman of GESAC. Another shambolic performance that has been far from open and beyond reproach. Gesac, arguably the ugliest building to be erected in Glen Eira, has risen, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of the old scout and guide halls in Bailey Reserve. Lipshutz as chairman of the steering committee should answer how on earth it got passed by council given that there is no direct transport and we suspect no viable business plan. As late as September Lipshutz was still insisting that the facility would be open in December. April Fools’ day now appears more likely!

Lipshutz has never denied that GESAC will lose money when it is finally up and running. It will not even contribute to the interest payments, yet he continues to maintain that there is no problem – except for the builder. Council has continued to hire and presumably pay staff to accommodate the many thousands of angry ‘members’ who thought their membership would give them a swim this summer. We’ve probably got fitness advisors, swim instructors, and countless others just sitting around, collecting their wages and doing bugger all. More importantly, whilst the costs continue to escalate the Pools steering committee chairman can only say ‘council has used every means at its disposal to have the builder comply with building time lines” and “council has been levying liquidated damages as a consequence of each milestone missed and they are now approximately $1million”. And we’re expected to believe that a huge company such as Hansen Yuncken will sit idly by and cough up the million without a fight in the courts. Get ready we say for more hefty legal fees. Then there’s the fact that since it is a loss-making project making damages stick will be a problem. But, while bullying is fashionable in Glen Eira in 2011, fiscal responsibility takes the back seat.

The auditor general has classified Glen Eira as ‘high risk’. Council is borrowing $25 to construct GESAC – and who knows if this is enough? We presume that council has taken out a fixed interest loan in an economy where interest rates have dropped by 0.5% and look likely to drop even further this coming year. So much for the essential controls over income and expenditure by council’s well paid officers and the audit committee – also part of Lipshutz’s responsibilities. Poor, poor, long-suffering ratepayers, since it is not only us, but the next generation which will be paying off the loan.

• Racecourse/C60. Lipshutz has been a major player here. In a move that went against his own ‘no surprises’ policy, Lipshutz and Hyams moved a sneaky little amendment that gave the gang and Newton control over ‘negotiations’ with the MRC. This was after their initial attempt to include Newton was defeated. But all’s fair in love and war and politics it seems. You tell others to play by the rules and then break the rules when needed, convenient, or expedient. These ‘negotiations’ have been a dismal failure delivering nothing to the community.
• Audit Committee. Probity and accepted best practice appear to mean nothing here. Lipshutz has been a continual member of the Audit committee and for two years sat concurrently on both the Audit committee and the finance committee – surely a conflict of interest and a definite no-no in all responsible organisations. Given his legal background we should expect that Lipshutz would have known better. But even worse, the reappointments of Gibbs & McLean must break all world records. Further their reappointments have all been deemed ‘confidential’, held in secret with no public announcement. We’re still waiting for the 2011 annual report to make an appearance.
• The final lowlight must be the manoeuvrings to design, implement and delegate the ceo appointment process to the special committee – minus Penhalluriack. Even here we’ve witnessed stuff ups – the creation of the committee only to have its delegatory powers rescinded in the space of 3 weeks and new terms drawn up.  Again, everything’s been behind closed doors, even the final voting – although one doesn’t have to be too smart to figure out that Newton has retained his job thanks to the gang and Lobo.

There’s plenty more of course – in voting for various developments that sacrifice public amenity; in doing Newton’s bidding with the last minute gesac car parking extension; with the failure of the audit committee to act responsibly for months and months on the mulch affair, and now for the utter shambles which constitutes the workings of the Pools Steering Committee. All in all a dismal year of failure for Lipshutz and consequently for the residents of Glen Eira.

The minutes of December 14^th, 2010 record the following comments by Cr Lipshutz in response to a public question–

“The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group. 

All answers to your questions have been dealt with honestly and in a responsive manner. ….Perhaps you could identify which if any Frisbee Group you are referring to and further provide some empirical evidence of any of my sons regularly playing Frisbee in such a group. You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

COMMENT – these statements sound very much like a categorical denial of any official affiliation of Michael Lipshutz’s son (Josh) with any specific Frisbee group. There is the admission that Josh does play Frisbee, but that it is in a purely casual capacity. We beg to differ!

We urge all readers to carefully examine the following cached image of CP Frizza on Fridays. Readers will note that on the left hand side there are two categories – ‘Admins’ AND “Officers’. Each category has a hypertext link in the name of ‘Josh”. Clicking on this reveals that the ‘admin’ person and the ‘officer’ is none other than Josh Lipshutz – Cr. Lipshutz’s son!

Before anyone suggests that this affiliation may have occurred AFTER Cr. Lipshutz made his strident and insulting denial, we have seen cached versions of this and other pages which precede December 14^th. One very early page in particular identifies Josh Lipshutz as a ‘member’ of this specific Frisbee group, despite Cr. Lipshutz’s categorical denials. Further, on the image provided above, one of the statements attributed to Josh Lipshutz clearly suggests his role is far greater than a mere occasional ‘social player’ of this regular Frisbee game.

If we are correct, then the only possible and logical conclusion would be that Lipshutz has mislead Council and has breached both the Local Government Act and the Councillor Code of Conduct.

PS: The current Frisbee page has made several changes – deleting the category of ‘Officers’ – but the link to Josh Lipshutz under ‘Admins’ still remains. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37156836057#!/group.php?gid=37156836057&v=wall

The following post on Council’s secrecy has appeared on Cr. Pilling’s blog  under the heading of “Council meeting items and the issue of confidentiality”.

“The seemingly burgeoning amount of in-camera (confidential) agenda items not only here in Glen Eira but also in other municipalities including the City of Melbourne where a recent meeting had less than twenty mins of public discussion has been highlighted recently. I acknowledge the concerns raised on this issue by the local website Glen Eira debates.

Yesterday I raised the following points with other Crs and the CEO.
-“One of the issues for Glen Eira in 2012 is how to address the seemingly increasing amount of confidential items that are held in the in-camera section of the meeting agenda- increasingly so over the past few years.

Our aim as a Council should be to reduce this to the essential minimum so as to allow for as maximum public discussion as possible on agenda items.

Whilst I acknowledge that there are instances such as business tenders and OH @ S issues that require confidentiality I feel that there needs to be far greater efforts in keeping other items in the public agenda. Other councils such as Port Phillip if necessary spilt the item in two to allow for public discussion.

At each of the pre-meeting assemblies there should be an improved discussion and questioning as to the why and of the need for any proposed confidential agenda item,”

COMMENT: We acknowledge that this is a step forward in meeting community concerns and congratulate Cr. Pilling on his initiative and making his email public. However, we see a real paradox in the suggested ‘solution’.  Discussions will again be held behind closed doors; excuses and (spurious?) explanations as to why something should remain ‘confidential’ will be provided and that will be the end of the story. The solution must be open, frank, and full discussion on this issue in ordinary council meetings. The Grill’d episode is the perfect example of why there needs to be public explanation as to why Newton deemed this item as confidential. Councillors have it in their power to remove ‘confidential’ status via a vote and resolution. Even if this vote is defeated, it will serve the interests of transparency – let the community know how each councillor votes and the reasoning  behind such voting. Secondly, if councillors are really concerned about how this council operates, then they should focus their attention on the Local Law and the meeting procedures. This draconian and anti-democratic document needs to be rescinded and then rewritten. Posturing behind closed doors does not serve the public interest!