For all those residents who want a clear understanding of how the Glen Eira bureaucracy works to obfuscate issues, hide the truth, contain (deliberate?) inaccuracies, and befuddle councillors with nonsense, then the agenda items for the upcoming council meeting are the perfect example. We’ll go through these one by one.
FLOODS, DRAINS AND ‘IMPERVIOUS SURFACES’
The Environmental Advisory Committee has been contemplating the need to do something about the amount of ‘impervious surfaces’ allowed on new developments. Four months later, there is finally a ‘report’ written by Jeff Akehurst. True to form (ie. ESD design) the general gist of the argument goes– ‘let’s advocate to state government because we really don’t want each municipality to have its own set of rules and regulations, and of course Glen Eira Council has already got in place its own ‘existing tools’ to deal with this problem.” The only concession is that the Council will ‘advocate’ to government to allow them to reduce the current 80% limit – but only in MINIMAL CHANGE AREAS!! Tough luck if you happen to live in the majority of HOUSING DIVERSITY! Here are some wonderful quotes from this “report”.
“It is acknowledged that impervious surfaces and water run-off are important issues but it is considered preferable that they are managed in a more broad and uniform way rather than differently by each municipality. It follows that State initiated controls are favoured.”
“…as an interim measure only, an “Impervious Surface and Storm Water Practice Note” could be developed.”
“If policy is regarded as too onerous by the development industry, it will be challenged and most likely successfully challenged through the VCAT process.”
“A further policy limitation is the time it takes to amend the planning scheme to incorporate new policy. It could take years and ultimately there is a risk it may never be approved by the Minister.”
“Any policy, procedure or practice note to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces or retain water on site is not a long term substitute to upgrading the drainage system.”
Overall solutions recommended – an ‘information kit’; advocate for only Minimal Change Areas.
GESAC: POOLS STEERING COMMITTEE (9th February)
Most of this contains the Lipshutz ‘statement’ that’s on the GESAC webpage. However, under the heading of ‘cash flow’ we find: “The actual forecast reflects that the project is behind schedule and that council has levied significant Liquidated Damages due to delays”. Yet, we are still told that the project is ‘under budget’! Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess considering that expenses keep rolling in and that income is non-existent! Surely the more honest approach would not be to claim that the implied entire project is under budget, but just that the building contract may be – that’s if Hansen and Yuncken decide not to challenge the Liquidated Damages! Finally, there is a little note stating that Liipshutz actually ‘requests’ that councillors be briefed ‘at the next opportunity’!!!!
RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY (6th and 13th December – so much for January and half of Feb!)
These ‘records’ are nothing short of astounding. First off, we make the observation that there is incredible inconsistency in the declarations of conflict of interest by various individuals. Repeatedly councillors and administrators leave the room for a minute or two with no clear indication as to whether there has been a conflict of interest declared or whether this is simply another case of weak bladders!
One such instance is that Andrew Newton has left the room when the Grill’d item is discussed. We wonder: did he declare a conflict of interest? Is that why he has left the room? Is that why this item was deemed ‘confidential” when every other lease agreement is reported openly? If this was a declaration of conflict of interest, then why isn’t it recorded as such in the records of assembly?
Another important item reads: “Cr Penhalluriack – said that a Councillor Conduct Panel hearing was being held at the Town Hall tomorrow. He advised that his solicitor has written a letter”. This is an extraordinary inclusion since the decision to send Penhalluriack to a Panel was obviously taken ‘in camera’. Previously we’ve had numerous excuses as to why in camera items cannot be disclosed. Yet, here we have a seeming lapse in ‘confidentiality’ from those responsible in the creation of the document. Again, we have to ponder the consistency, rationale, and agenda of all such publications.
Also worthy of note is the number of ‘amendments’ to these records suggested by Hyams.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS REPORT
‘Clerical errors’ are becoming a way of life with this council. This is now the second time that there is an inaccuracy in reporting on public questions. We are told that 19 questions were asked from October to December and that only 1 was declared inadmissible. Again, totally wrong. Our records show that at least two public questions were declared inadmissible during this period due to ‘harassment’. Further, two questions were taken on notice at the December 13th council meeting, but only one has been recorded in the February minutes. Again, the other clerical error contained in this ‘response’ is that the questioners’ NAME AND ADDRESS are included in these public minutes. This breaches the Information Privacy Act!
There is plenty more in this agenda that we will report on in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM
The floods of February last year and the damage they’ve wreaked haven’t been forgotten by the people who attended at least one of the forums. I also remember several comments here by Reprobate who had much to say that was good common sense on the issue of impervious surfaces. You can drive around many of our streets, especially in Carnegie and Bentleigh and all you will see is concrete instead of gardens and earth that would absorb water.
We’re now a year on from the floods and the whole issue of how best to protect neighbourhoods. The answer doesn’t lie in what Akehurst suggests but in ensuring that properties are not allowed to be designed and built in the way they are now. I agree that the State Government has some responsibility here. But I also believe that this council has for far too long been satisfied to pass the buck onto Melbourne Water and to sit back and do nothing. I also suspect that the real reasons for such inaction is that any proposed amendments that would ensure properties are ‘greener’ would not go down too well with developers.
I could also ask that if all policy is non-binding, then what’s the point of spending money on a mere Practice Note? Being cynical, it at least provides the most naive councillors and residents with the appearance of making some progress. Ask for a mile and council gives you an inch spread over years and years of denial.
February 24, 2012 at 5:57 PM
The problem goes deeper, many in new developments that leave the percentage of permeable areas required, ie. back gardens or narrow strips along side-ways or front gardens, are paved-over fairly soon after the unit or home has been sold.
Most of these areas are not sustainable as open space either being to narrow, with little sun light. Much of the landscaping is done with off the self plants, unsuitable for the areas, and the grass will not grow in the un sunned areas. So the new owners just pave the lot and scatter a few pots around the place and call it home.
Others I have noticed just roof-over there small dysfunctional main open space area with laserlight sheeting, buy a BBQ and some wooden table and chairs and make a nice outdoor entertainment area, with low maintenance, and why not, the link to flooding is far removed from the mind and the source, and there is absolutely nothing stopping this type of thinking or action
So many development in the short to medium term end up with almost no previous areas.
Glen Eira has taken the head in the sand attitude to the down stream consequences of development, it is a historic stance going back to the beginning and nothing has changed, except the whole sustainability question is beginning to raise its ugly head.
Akehurst is a dinosaur, most likely a advocate for the never ending growth model, the winner loser model of life according to Jeff.
I notice there is a flood forum in Elwood soon, and all these flood run-off problems in Glen Eira will be on the agenda
Details are on Cr Pilling blog site http://crpilling.blogspot.com.au/
Elwood Floods Forum – Monday March 26th
Speakers are:
Felicity Browning and Meni Christofakis – Elwood residents flooded in 2010 will speak of their experience. Audience members who were flooded will be invited to tell of their experiences.
Then the following speakers will have 5 minutes each to respond:
■Rachel Powning, Mayor of the City of Port Phillip
■Martin Foley MP, State Labor Member for Albert Park
■We hope that the State Government Minister Water, Peter Walsh, will speak.
■Adam Bandt MP, Federal Greens Member for Melbourne
■Rufus Coffield-Feith, Elwood Resident and Australian Youth Climate Coalition co-president
■David Spratt, Climate Change Expert, co-Author of Climate Code Red
Questions and debate: The audience will be invited to ask questions.
Also present will be experts on Flood Insurance, Real Estate, Flood Prevention, Emergency Services, Melbourne Water, Local Councils and State Government representatives. These people will be introduced at the commencement of the forum and will be asked to respond to questions appropriate to their roles
Get along and learn, there are things the Glen Eira bureaucrats should be doing, that could make a difference downstream, but they choose not to, because it challenges there conventional short term thinking, and who and what they think they are
February 24, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Not a single figure in the Lipshutz managed committee. Great way to keep the public up to date with what is becoming a joke with each passing day. Watch it folks – we’ll be paying for this incompetence years and years down the track starting with rate increases of I reckon about 3%. Look out for anywhere around 8 to 10% rate increase and if these don’t go up, then watch out for charges and other costs. It’ll soon be 5 hundred bucks to get your rubbish taken away! But will Newton’s, and Burke’s salary decrease is the big big question.
February 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM
No it won’t, as it’s all on track beautifully, the plan is to rate the older residents out of there homes so the developers can snap-up the land and redevelop it. This trick is as old as the hills. bureaucrats working hand in hand with developers and investors. Residents are the enemy in these bureaucratic games. The longer they are in their position the more fragrant the (MODERATORS: rest of sentence and one new sentence deleted).
February 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Some of you may be wondering what the hell is going on, particularly if you read Jeff Akehurst’s report on Treatment Of Impervious Surfaces. For some reason the report fails to mention the underlying reasons for its request.
The Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee [14 Sep 2011, published in Council Minutes 11 Oct 2011] reveals that other Councils have incorporated or are attempting to incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles into their local policies. WSUD principles cover topics such as reducing stormwater runoff, improving quality of water flowing into the bay, reducing the capital and maintenance cost of drainage infrastructure, and the role of permeability. In support, there is a set of best-practice principles from CSIRO.
Jeff disingenuously refers to “existing tools” but does not list what they are. There aren’t many: Councils can’t specify permeability requirements in Schedules to Zones for example. Overlays aren’t a great fit either. It boils down to Standards A6 and B9, which only apply to a subset of properties, the more generic decision guidelines about considering drainage capacity, and of course the general power of Councils to consider any other matter that they consider relevant. Clearly some Councils thought the situation sufficiently bad they have gone to considerable trouble to establish WSUD principles in local policy. [Interestingly, it took 4 years for the Minister to approve Bayside’s amendment, and he’s still sitting on Port Phillip’s.]
Permeability is a hot topic because developers are being encouraged to pave over permeable land in every municipality, regardless of the ability of the local stormwater drainage systems to cope. Councils could just up the rates, and improve the capacity (provided what they connect to can also cope). Glen Eira Council instead resolved to remove Development Contributions Plan Overlays (DCPO), which was one means of funding improvements. They have been encouraged by State Government, whose objective “To ensure development does not unreasonably overload the capacity of utility services and infrastructure” is practically worthless. When is it reasonable to overload capacity? What contribution should a developer pay when they increase the load beyond what the infrastructure was designed to support? Just how big a subsidy should residents be providing to developers?
Not that permeability is the only thing that matters, as Bayside points out in their publication Water Sensitive Urban Design [http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/wsud_guidelines(1).pdf]. They have taken a much broader view than Jeff, and the example design elements in my opinion make for a much more pleasant environment than what developers are currently prepared to do in Glen Eira.
Frankly, I think Jeff’s recommendations are poorly justified, and that Glen Eira can and should do better. It shouldn’t have to take rezoning all land to RZ1 or limiting all development to 3 storeys to do it.
February 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Every effort to move Glen Eira into the 21st century is stymied by the administration with their non arguments about how long something would take to get up or that its not our job but the governments. These arguments have to be chucked out. Even if it takes 4 years to get something through it shouldn’t mean that you don’t try. We’ve seen what can happen if you sit on your backside and do nothing except pass the buck. When you’ve got a council that produces a sustainable environment policy and they don’t even know what the meaning of the word is until someone has to point it out to them, or biodiversity, then we’re really up the shit creek without a paddle. Warm fluffy gooey language is no substitute for doing and attempting stuff. This council’s answer to impervious surfaces is to put heaps more concrete into all parks and reserves. Instead of the green Glen Eira we should be called the yellow or gray Glen Eira.
February 24, 2012 at 11:08 PM
What’s also worth mentioning is that as far back as 2003 (that’s nearly a decade ago) Manningham brought out a document entitled “On-site Storm Water Detention Guide” which included things such as Water Sensitive Urban Design. The purpose was to ‘mitigate some of the effects of higher density development”. Also included was the following paragraph: “Construction of developments on sites in Manningham that result in increased impervious surfaces generally are required to construct an OSD system to control run off from the site. Council generally require any site to be developed to have an OSD system if the proposed impervious percentage is greater than 35%. Alternatively, if the pre-existing impervious area is greater than 35% then an OSD system would be required for any proposed impervious percentage greater than the pre-existing hard surface area. Under these conditions an OSD system should be expected as a condition on a planning permit.” (page 2).
Now we’re not environmentalists, but what’s certainly impressive is that this dates back to July 2003. What was Glen Eira doing in 2003? What are they doing today?