We’ve received some emails from a reader in relation to the recent Planning Audit Report for 2010/11 published by the Department and which we highlighted several posts ago. The emails reveal that all the figures and graphs have been compiled on the basis of the data submitted to the Department – ie Councils have provided the stats. We are left to ponder once again whether the Glen Eira figures represent another ‘clerical error’?!! Our focus is the stated increase in the car parking waivers. The bar graph shows that for this category in 2009/10 Glen Eira had 8 applications and in 2010/11 the claim is that they had 25 applications.
We cannot agree with these figures. The Department’s definition of this category is: “An application which requires consent for a waiver or reduction in car parking requirements” (page 201 from the full report). They have also written:
Put simply, any application for a planning permit received by Council (be it for a new permit, or an amendment to an existing permit) that includes a waiver/reduction of car parking should be marked as such. Be aware that whether the permit is issued/refused or winds up at VCAT should have no bearing on this number, as it is when the application is first received at Council that we count it.
Glen Eira claims that they have received approximately 1200 applications. Of these, only 25 included the request for a reduction/waiver in car parking schedules for the financial year of 2010/11.
We’ve therefore gone to the trouble of double checking all the VCAT reports contained in council minutes for the period under consideration. We’ve looked at all the scheduled hearings and their descriptions of the actual applications. Readers should note that the VCAT appeals represent applications that have already been decided – not simply applications that have been ‘received’. Even on these reduced figures we find that nothing tallies. VCAT appeals that contain car parking waivers tally over 30 and not the 25 that presumably council provided to the department. We emphasise that we have no way of knowing how many other applications that did not go to appeal and were simply decided via delegation also included the request for car parking waivers. It could tally hundreds and not merely 25 as claimed.
Listed below are the addresses that we’ve found of the VCAT appeals for 2010/11 that contain such waiver components. Even if not all of these were decided in the 2010/11 period, it would still not cover the countless decisions made under delegation, or by the full Council.
- 1032 Dandenong Road, Carnegie
- 439 and Lot S4 441-495 Inkerman Road St Kilda East
- 82 Hotham Street, St Kilda East
- 326-328 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield
- 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North
- 619 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield
- 9 Morton Ave, Carnegie
- 763 Centre Road, Bentleigh East
- 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
- 356-364 Orrong Road Caulfield North
- SUITE 1-2G, 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
- 1 & 1A Albany Court, Caulfield North
- 142 McKinnon Road, McKinnon
- 285-305 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
- 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 12-14 Ripon Grove, Elsternwick.
- 15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East
- 111-113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena.
- 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.
- 107-109 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
- 888-890 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South
- 389-395 Neerim Road & 10 Emily Street, Carnegie.
- 2-4 Station Street, Caulfield North.
- 47 Kooyong Road, Caulfield.
- 5 Dudley St & 1 Gibson St, Carnegie.
- 183-189 Booran Road, Caulfield South (waiver of loading bay)
- 715-727 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East
- 31-32 Leamington Street, Caulfield East.
- 354 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick
- 443-457 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield East.
- 251 Koornang Road, Carnegie
- 633 Centre Road, Bentleigh
- 4 Maple Street Caulfield
GRAND TOTAL – 32
This of course leaves open to question how many other ‘clerical errors’ might be contained in the data that council sent off to the Department?
Glen Eira Debates 
March 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Golly gosh – what a surprise! Our faith in council figures is quashed! This paragon of superb record keeping, and brilliant statistical reporting, has feet of clay. Can’t believe it! And I thought that Newton and Akehurst were gods! Oh what a cruel blow this is!
More to the point, what is the DPCD going to do about this fudging of figures? They publish stuff relying on council and it’s all bullshit.
March 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM
I reckon that close to 1 in every 3 applications that come up have reduced car parking requests in them. 25 for a whole year is a joke. The people who published this report should have looked more closely at all figures. Their reputations are on the line. It’s political though and serves the purposes of Matthew Guy to emphasise the money involved in more developments, the jobs that are created and play down the negatives such as more street parking and traffic problems. Whether or not they are in cahoots with councils on this is what should be looked at.
March 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM
To misquote Oscar Wilde – one clerical error is unfortunate, but two or more clerical errors are plainly unforgiveable. Whether this is the result of carelessness, or part of an orchestrated plan to hoodwink residents into believing that most developments include on-site parking, is still to be discovered. If the public cannot have full confidence in the statistics that are produced by government agencies then we are in deep, deep trouble. Both Glen Eira, the DPCD, and possibly other councils need to come clean on this situation and reveal exactly how the figures were collated, recorded, and analysed.
March 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM
The town hall boffins have not factored in people that will go to all the trouble you have. Congratulations. I would refer your work to the ombudsman or maybe write to the chairman of the audit committee asking and ask him to call the staff to account for their work. Well done, Glen Eira.
I suspect that their figures have always been rubbery. No wonder they keep appointing the same cronies on the audit committee. Nudge nudge, wink, wink.
March 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Well said but this doesn’t go far enough. All residents need to be alert to the garbage that we’re being fed continually by the public relations department of Glen Eira Council. It shouldn’t just be up to a handful of determined residents or the moderators of this blog. Every time they release shonky data and every time people aren’t satisfied with the answers they get (or don’t get) there should be a huge outcry. The more this incompetence is brought into the open the sooner those responsible will be forced out. We’ve already had more than 12 years of the same incompetents in charge and that’s 12 years too long.
March 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Your right …… but you don’t need all these facts and figures to know that the managemment at Glen Eira is “kangaroo edward’ or more commonly know as roo-ted
Just look at the antics of the top management, so how can you expect anything else from the rest of the shop
March 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Equally concerning is that DPCD doesn’t see it as their role to provide any quality assurance about the statistics they collate. No publishing of guidelines to Councils to assist them in being consistent when answering questions, and no audit to establish the degree to which Councils comply with those guidelines. Instead, we get Section 6 Limitations, about Councils making a “best effort” (again, without evidence to support such an assertion), and a reminder that the statistics can’t be relied upon because Councils are inconsistent. DPCD does have a political master responsible for this, but they can’t be held accountable. Its a very familiar story.