The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:
- Several contentious planning applications
- Several amendments
- Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
- A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
- An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!
We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.
Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!
The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:
- Several contentious planning applications
- Several amendments
- Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
- A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
- An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!
We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.
Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!
PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining sites in Minimal Change Areas”. Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement. However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.
Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM
At the meeting will there be fista cuffs with Frank and Hyams?
June 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM
One of the submissions is from a community representative on the steering committee I think. If this is right, then there’s much that can be deduced from the fact that someone who was supposed to be working closely on the development of the plan finds it necessary to put in a submission. This tells me two things – 1. that community reps aren’t enamoured with what has come out – in their name as well, and 2. the process has been far from successful. My inevitable conclusion is that the steering committee has been “steered” not by the results of the forums, nor by the voices of the community representatves, but by the officers who imposed their vision and their agendas. Like so much that has gone on before residents have been short changed.
It’s no wonder that people are loathe to offer their time to participate in committees or forums when they know that the outcomes will not be a true representation of what occurred, or that they won’t even be listened to. Officers have been doing things their way for far too long now. It’s councillors though who are to blame in my opinion. They allow the charades of consultation to go on and on and then pretend that they’ve really consulted and listened. The hypocrisy, ignorance and incompetence is unconscionable.
June 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM
No fista cuffs because (MODERATORS: name deleted) won’t be there.
June 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM
At the community consultation meetinginOrmond the chief executive officer was seen leaning asgasinst a wall talking to a blond when residents were stating that flood waters had flowed through their houses through front and back door. Was there any pity or idea of consultation form that man who syas he cares about the residents of Glen Eira. Pray tell what is the good of consultation in this municipsality anyway?