Consultants are generally hired on the recommendation of administrators. The public never gets to know how much these high priced ‘consultants’ cost and we doubt that councillors even know. We have also long suspected that in Glen Eira such consultancies simply deliver pre-arranged and pre-determined findings or outcomes. In other words, they are nothing but a huge and expensive public relations exercise that gives the pretence of actually listening to the community – but the outcomes are already fixed and set in yellow concrete. It’s the old story of ‘he who pays the piper plays the tune’ and more importantly, he who writes the brief and gives instructions, controls the so called ‘findings’ and outcomes.
Nothing illustrates this more than the processes involved in the current C87 proposed Amendment. Please note the following:
- Both Bayside (in 2008) and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the research on Significant Character Overlays
- Both Bayside and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the review of the original Neighbourhood Character Research
What we present below is a table comparing the comments by PLANISPHERE from the Bayside study (uploaded here) as opposed to the Glen Eira study. The differences in tone, content, methodology, level of community engagement and depth of analysis is mind boggling. As we stated earlier – you get what you pay for and what the carefully scripted brief (plus private conversations?) tell PLANISPHERE to ‘research’. We conclude that the C87 report is nothing more than an administration directed document that totally fails to incorporate community views and values as mandated by the legislation.
|
BAYSIDE PLANISPHERE REPORT |
GLEN EIRA PLANISPHERE REPORT |
| “Since the completion of the Stage 1 Review, other streets were identified for investigation by Council and community groups, and these have been included in the study” (p.4)
“The Study area included areas that were identified in Stage 1 of the Review by Planisphere as well as those additional areas or streets that were subsequently identified by Councillors, planning staff or the community”. (p.6) |
“These were new areas of significant neighbourhood character or extensions to previous areas and were either recommended by Council officersor recognised by the study team…..” (p.23)
COMMENT: Even councillors don’t get a look in in Glen Eira!
|
| “At Council’s request consultation with property owners and residents was conducted as the next stage of the project. This included an information package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open-house’ drop in information sessions.
Over 1,000 submissions were received via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site work and in some instances adjustments to precinct boundaries have been made”. (p. 4)
|
“A preliminary survey and assessment was also undertaken of the 15 SCAs listed in the Minimal Change Area Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Clause 22.08) as well as potential areas of significant neighbourhood character recommended by Council”. (p. 5)
“Community awareness of the importance of
The final report and Design Guidelines will form a large part of this communication. Additional techniques that could be used include:
|
| “Exclude Lawrence Street which has been recommended for Heritage Overlay controls”. (p. 19)“Neighbourhood Character Overlay to apply to the south western side of Loller St, and a Heritage Overlay to apply to Lawrence Street”. (p. 19) | “Whilst this report identifies potential heritage significance it does not go so far as to make recommendations on future Council actions in relation to heritage matters”.(p.13) |
| “Consultation with the community has provided an indication of the types of development pressures taking place in each area, and the community views of this”. (p.30) | “An understanding of the pressure for development in each area has also been gained from discussions with Council’s planning staff”. (p.37) AND“Field trips around Glen Eira’s residential neighbourhoods revealed to the study team a range of scenarios where inappropriate design responses were felt to impact adversely upon neighbourhood character”. (p.27) |
Nothing about the C87 Amendment has been transparent and accountable. It has been designed, and orchestrated ‘internally’. No officer’s report has been tabled at a council meeting recommending sending off to the Minister for permission to exhibit – as is the case with practically all proposed Amendments. Instead, the ‘legal’ excuse undoubtedly used here, harks back to Council’s resolution of 2010 which included as an Addendum to the sham of the Planning Scheme Review, the C87 proposed amendment. But even this resolution contained the words “with the approval of council”! Hence, a vague rider to a resolution taken 18 months ago is now the legal ‘excuse’ for no report, no consultation, and no explanation. Another minor little hiccup in legalities, if not democratic process, is the fact that council announced the exhibition of C87 on January 31st. It was not gazetted until February 2nd! Obviously the legal requirement of one month’s notice to the public occasioned this oversight. We must therefore conclude that there is an almighty rush to push this Amendment through! Why the hurry we ask? After 18 months surely a proper discussion paper, outlining the objectives and the rationale, together with the pitfalls, could have been produced and distributed to all those interested?
The community should be outraged at the money that is spent on such spurious ‘consultations’. Either we employ consultants who are given free reign to explore an issue fully and comprehensively or councillors should put a stop to such flagrant misuse of public funds. It’s definitely time that councillors took control and demanded answers to the following basic questions:
- How much has each external consultancy cost ratepayers?
- What was the precise brief given to each of these consultants? What private conversations ensued? Where are these documented as part of the public record?
- Were draft reports ever ‘ordered’ to be altered? If so, did councillors know of these ‘alterations’?
- Were councillors privy to the briefs? If not, why not?
- How do councillors justify the spending of this money without any genuine involvement from the community?
We will in the weeks ahead, also be commenting on the other current consultant’s report on the Community Plan – which as council freely admits is really the Council Plan! At least this latter nomenclature is spot on!
Glen Eira Debates 
February 5, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Consultants are Newton and Burke’s hired guns. Using consultants looks good and gives them the excuse that the community has been consulted. Remember the Windsor affair.
February 5, 2012 at 8:49 AM
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed here. If there really was a genuine intent to engage and consult with residents instead of merely imposing policy then the selection of the community reps on the recently announced Community Plan Steering Committee would have and should have preceded the OCR consultant’s report. It’s taken well over a year I think for this committee to get up and they materialise only when the OCR consultants report has already been done. In this way the steering committee has had no involvement and no input into the report. They are rendered irrelevant and impotent from the start. I imagine that the upcoming forums will run along the same lines as those held in years past. Another useless exercise where the Steering Committee will have no role.
February 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM
I’ve had another look at the agenda for next week and it’s suddenly struck me how different the “minutes” are from the Community Consultation one and the Environment Committee ones. In the former there is the recorded motion with mover and seconder. With the Environment committee all that’s reported is “Action” by officers. There is no detail about who moved the motion nor who seconded it. Forgetting the inconsistency in these minutes and the whole approach of this council to vetting their minutes for all meetings, the differences in the above have to be due to the fact that community members of this committee have no voting rights. Also, only Tang and Pilling fronted for this meeting. That’s 2 councillors, officers and community representatives who have no say. It would look pretty silly then to report any “vote” that consisted of two councillors. Of course, this raises the question as to why residents don’t get a vote and why there is no consistency in any of the committee reports. Pilling’s sad lament that all committee should have residents on them has repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. He should shout this from the rafters at the next council meeting and move another motion. Let the public know exactly who supports greater democracy in Glen Eira and those who are determined to maintain the culture of secrecy especially now that it’s an election year.
February 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM
This is the way GE operates the top down model, with the majority pack of useless councillors rubber stamping. Make you think that mob that shares the Mayors job between themselves want as little work as possible ………… and the money of course.
February 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Councillors don’t fare much better than the average Joe Blow resident. They’re kept in the dark like mushrooms and their only function is to vote, in order to legalise Newton’s antics. We all know what mushrooms grow best on and in Glen Eira there is plenty of that stuff.
February 5, 2012 at 7:32 PM
While I agree the admin sets the agenda and mostly brings it to fruition you let the councillors off way too easily. Most are compliant because they think they need the admin more than the admin needs them. A unified strong council wouldn’t allow the admin to dictate as they do in Glen Eira.Trouble is, strong wilful councils are few and far between.
February 5, 2012 at 10:35 PM
You don’t need “strong wilful councils”. All you need is 4 plus 1 and Newton is dead and buried.
February 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Um! Think that requires strong wilful councillors. 😉
February 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM
I think what we are talking about here are 3 distinct problems. The first one goes all the way back to the planning scheme review where nothing was explained or justified. Next comes the decision accepting the review and for everything to be done in secret. The final problem is that we now have this supposed independent report foisted on people. Nothing has changed. The general public don’t know anything about what it means because it hasn’t been explained or justified and residents are again having something rammed down their throats which they don’t want whilst Newton and his supporters go through another charade of consultation – but this time they have to because that’s what the law demands that they do.
I’ve had a look at the report and its full of contradictions. On the one hand streets are applauded because they’re “intact” and therefore deserve to be better protected. A paragraph later there’s another statement that says another street is a mixture of modern, Victorian, and Edwardian so that should also be protected. If that’s not contradictory then I don’t know what is. Then you get all this stuff about dangers and it’s like the report is proving what a total balls up the minimal change area has been. If all these streets and neighbourhoods are endangered, then to my mind, it shows that the current planning scheme simply isn’t working. If all you’re going to protect a little more is a 1000 odd homes then we might as well start calling a spade a spade and admit that Newton and his lackeys have failed 100% in preserving the amenities for residents. They’ve only succeeded in lining the pockets of developers.
February 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Newton’s Three D Law
Degrade, Devalue, Destroy
It works everytime