We’ve recently featured a post on the removal of public seating in Carnegie which was then replaced with private seating for Grill’d – part of a chain of hamburger joints. We’ve also wondered whether this was a deliberate and calculated move by Council.
Interestingly enough, there is an item in the in camera section of the December 13th Council minutes which reads: “12.6 under Section 89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a licence agreement for land at Jersey Parade, Carnegie” . This sounds pretty innocuous, until we discover that Jersey Parade is actually directly opposite Koornang Rd and the Grill’d franchise.
Jersey Parade itself is entirely residential, so we have to wonder what kind of ruse is going on here and what kind of ‘licences’ are being handed out for ‘land’ in a residential area? Or, could it conceivably be, that this in camera item is actually all about giving Grill’d the permit to establish their private seating at the expense of public seating? If so, then further questions need answering:
- Why was this item in camera? Why weren’t the results announced?
- We don’t recall any other ‘licence’ agreements for ‘land’ taking place behind closed doors. Even the C60 and other leases have all been included in agenda items for open Council meetings. So, what’s so special about this particular item?
- If the item is indeed about Grill’d then why isn’t the address Koornang Rd provided, since this is their listing in the phone book? Is this a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth?
- Finally – how much did it cost ratepayers to have the public seating removed and how much is Council getting back in revenue from the paltry number of plastic tables and chairs? From the photographs there are only 3 or 4 tables. Council’s rates for Koornang Rd are approx. $33 per square metre. There are additional charges for awnings, signs, etc all requiring a permit. Even if the area covers 20 square metres, which we very much doubt, the return to council is probably a pittance. So, if this item is about Grill’d and the monetary value is miniscule, then what’s the real reason for keeping it top secret and what’s the real reason for removing perfectly good seats in the first place?
- Obviously a decision was made somewhere along the line to grant a permit for Grill’d. If this Agenda Item is indeed about Grill’d and was held in camera, wouldn’t it be nice to know whether or not councillors were previously informed that public seating had been removed in order to clear the way for this little deal?
Glen Eira Debates 
January 11, 2012 at 9:43 PM
What a surprise. A little behind the scenes manoevring all under the veil of secrecy. When you’ve built a culture of secrecy then this is the sort of stuff that goes through to the keeper really easily. Newton’s the bloke that needs to answer a heap of questions since he’s the one who decides whats secret and what isn’t. Reckon there’s heaps more to this than we think.
January 11, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Whose got mates in council?
January 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Pretty amazing stuff. Jersey Parade (who would have thought it – not even validated according to the map) instead of the telephone book, mailing or website address. And what rationale was used to make this an “in camera item”.
Why all the subterfuge? What exactly went on behind closed doors?
‘fess up Council – we can take it if there are legitmate, or well argued reasons, what we can’t take and refuse to take anymore, is this continued cr*p.
January 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM
This really does smell very bad indeed! Lies breed lies! Secrecy breeds even more secrecy! Open honest and accountable government is what I want and I sure am not getting it from this council. Why is there just so much subterfuge on every issue this council deals with? If the chair and table issue in Carnegie was just straight forward then subterfuge would not be necessary. Common councilors let us know what is really going on here, you can’t stay silent any longer, we know you read this blog!
January 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM
We’ve received the following email from an observant resident – “I don’t know if you have sen the Grill’d’s outdoor seating but is goes all the way along the building (the Jersey Pde edge) as well as koornang Road. The seating impinges quite a lot into the public space”.
Is this therefore a further attempt to “legitimise” the Jersey Parade address in the agenda/minutes instead of the actual address of the registered business as 86 Koornang Rd? What a lot of questions there are to answer by councillors and Messrs Newton, Burke and Akehurst!
January 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM
A slight correction: Jersey Parade is not “entirely residential.” The section in question is the now the mall that runs between Koornang Road and the library and is not residential at all. What is entirely residential is that part of Jersey Parade that runs east from the other side of council.
By the way, this is not the first time that street furniture has been removed in Koornang Road to enable a trader to put out table and chairs. A few years ago it happened when the bagel shop opened up. A bench seat was removed to enable them to use their entire street frontage for outdoor seating.
January 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM
In that case we should be even more concerned as the public domain is transferred to private occupation. Residents and visitors to the shops do need to use seats that are ‘free’. The seats and tables removed from outside Grill’d were used regularly by local older Greek men for a long sit and a chat over the table. I wonder where they go now?? This is the problem. Will council keep removing public furniture outside any shop that requests it. Do we have a structure plan for e that gives some policy guidance to this.? The answer is no!
January 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Well said Anonymous. You can be assured that no such thing as a policy that states if we can make a free buck and it involves removing public facilities then go for it is ever put down in writing. It’s exactly the same as “reasonable laws, reasonably enforced”. Meaningless mumbo jumbo that translates into carte blanch for the administration to do whatever they like whenever they like with no need for accountability or informing councillors of what’s going on. In Glen Eira the tail is very much in control of the dog and it stinks to high heaven.
January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM
The ceding of metres to private industry is one facet of this. The other is the secrecy that envelops it. This latter aspect is what I object to the most. Far too much that occurs in council is repeatedly carried out in secret without the required public disclosure. If there is something untoward in this arrangement then that would explain the secrecy. If everything is above board then why withhold the information and the debate from the public. The outcome is suspicion and distrust and the enforcement of the view that nothing that this council says, prints, disseminates, is worth believing, nor should it be trusted. Trust comes from straight talking and openness. Glen Eira is the antithesis of all this.
January 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM
This makes a mockery of the Code of Conduct signed by all the councillors.
Under “Transparency” is says:
“Councillors have a duty to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions, giving reasons for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.”
Perhaps councillors should revisit the C of C to remind themselves of their signed obligation.