Several items on the agenda for Monday night’s council meeting provide further evidence as to why there must be radical change in Glen Eira. We will deal with these chronologically.
‘Retrospective’ Planning Permit
Not for the first time we discover that individuals, or organisations, have gone ahead and erected structures WITHOUT THE REQUISITE PLANNING PERMIT. What does Council do? Nothing! – except grant them what they want after the event! Residents should be asking:
- Why wasn’t the original permit enforced?
- What penalties, if any, did Council attempt to impose?
- Why is unlawful behaviour so often ‘rewarded’ by this Council?
Even more disturbing in regard to this item is the fact that at the Delegated Planning Committee meeting, a somewhat strange event occurred. We quote from an email received from an objector: “The Chair declared a potential conflict of interest in that he had had many dealings in council with one of the proposers present but did not feel that this disqualified him. They knew each other by first names”.
What’s good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander. When councillors have to declare conflicts of interest at the drop of a hat, leave the room and not participate in any debate, it would seem that officers have no such strictures placed on them!
Then there are plenty of questions to ask about how Councillor led Planning Conferences are run and whether Planning Officers and councillors are in fact representing everyone impartially. Numerous reports have surfaced (ie. Mahvo St) about how residents are basically gagged and the stated purpose of ‘mediation’ is nothing more than another public relations exercise. If Council was fair dinkum then they should provide and publish all ‘satisfaction surveys’ that result from each of such meetings. Of course, the actual questions need to be carefully vetted first of all. Such surveys used to appear in the minutes, but we guess it was becoming too ‘transparent’ and possibly too critical of the process so it was ditched.
C93 Amendment
A paltry few officers’ report pagesaccompanies this important policy change. Only ONE SENTENCE FROM THE PANEL REPORT is included. The Panel report itself is not attached, and thus residents who may want to read the objections and the recommendations for themselves have to either physically front up to council offices and MAYBE given access instead of this being placed on the website and in the agenda/minutes. We wonder how on earth councillors can be expected to make important policy decisions when we doubt that many of them would have read the Panel Report either.
Then we have this wonderful paragraph: “The State Government has recently released draft zones: Industrial, Residential, Commercial and Rural. It is recommended that this amendment proceed whether or not the new zones are approved as it removes duplication in the scheme”. Please note that no justification is given for this ‘recommendation’. Why the rush then? Why not wait and see what eventuates?
GESAC: pedestrian safety
A 2 page report only. Again, no facts, no figures, no costings, no nothing. Another report will be forthcoming in the future it seems. As for the current state of affairs, we’re simply told: “The audit provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented. Five recommendations specifically related to disability access.
It follows that the car park complies with relevant traffic safety standards.”
Financial Report: Hansen & Yuncken & Liquidated Damages
Not a shred of new information is forthcoming as to what is going on with this ‘adjudication’ nor why council had to hand back $3 million dollars! Watch this space is the ongoing message!
Tenders
3 seems to be the magical number in Glen Eira when it comes to tenders. We’ve noted before that many other councils publish their tender assessments, and the officers who sit on these panels. Not so in Glen Eira. Other councils also have many, many more criteria by which to evaluate their tenders. Not so in Glen Eira – 3 is the usual number even though the ensuing contracts may be worth millions of dollars! Nor are these criteria ever published. Long live transparency and accountability!
Finally, it is worth pointing out that as per usual every possible obstacle and delaying tactic is placed in the way of residents actually knowing what is going on. We highlight the following examples:
- Even though the upcoming council meeting is scheduled A DAY EARLIER THAN NORMAL, the agenda items didn’t go up until well after 1pm on Friday afternoon on the website. That leaves the weekend and half of Monday for residents to familiarise themselves with the agenda and submit appropriate questions. There is absolutely no logical reason why the agenda could not have been put up on Thursday at the latest.
- No sign of the Panel Reports for Amendments C87 and C93 to accompany the officers’ report and recommendations. Again, residents have to hunt through the Department’s website if they actually want to read what the Panels had to say. Why aren’t these important documents made accessible to residents? Or is this again part of the overall strategy to keep residents in the dark – as well as councillors perhaps? When the nonsense about this being an open and transparent council is continually trotted out, then it is obvious that there is absolutely no intention of ensuring that actions match words.
- Woeful editing of agenda in that it is stated that records of assembly and committee meeting minutes be noted and recommendations accepted. The problem is that THERE ARE NO MINUTES OF ANY MEETINGS INCLUDED!!!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
September 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM
There’s over $6 million dollars going to be decided in camera on Monday night. Three criteria only for each tender. Truly amazing. I can think of at least 8 criteria off the top of my head that I’d want to have covered when I’m deciding on this size of contracts. Any decent business would!
September 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM
The quality of reports varies. When something’s incidental, trivial, insignificant then you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be pages and pages of verbage. When something’s important like planning then you can bet that you either get a few pages that say nothing or a really long one that is full of garbage and waffle with one really important sentence buried deep in the middle somewhere so Newton’s covered his arse by sticking to the law and councillors can cop all the blame for accepting the rubbish recommendations. That’s what’s wrong with this council. No proper governance for centuries.
September 21, 2012 at 8:56 PM
There’s always so much to criticize about the way Council conducts its business, but I’ll try to restrict myself to just two matters here.
Retrospective Permits are an attack on the integrity of our planning system. The pressure is always on the decision-makers to ratify the violation and its rare for them to reject such an application. As a result Council, and more particularly Council officers, have done very little to encourage compliance. In this particular case I probably agree that the decking should remain and get its permit. But…and its a big but…I’m very unhappy that there is no explanation about how this situation occurred. Offenders should at least be required to provide a public explanation. Carelessness? Ignorance? Wilful misbehaviour?
There are much worse examples, such as at 9 Morton Av (Horton if you’re a dyslexic VCAT Member), where the applicant admitted it was to help them make more money. Their “justification” was that everything they did was with the full knowledge of Council officers. That’s right—no need to comply with pesky Acts, and [if the developer can be believed] no Council officer was prepared to tackle such a brazen abuse. Little wonder that my neighbours think Council is hopelessly corrupt.
The officer report calling for the axing of the Commercial Centres Policy uses a rhetorical device that really gets up my nose. It states that the policy “was reviewed and was found to be generally redundant”. It doesn’t state who did the reviewing or the criteria used. This same tricky device is used in most planning applications, hence non-compliant proposals “are considered acceptable”. Its never the officer who has to put up with the loss of amenity that they find acceptable and Councillors, who have thoroughly embraced the principle that others should lose amenity so that theirs can be protected, accept it without question. “Acceptable” loss of amenity would be more believable if the decision-makers could demonstrate that they personally have accepted such a loss, rather than fight say a skateboard park for teenagers.
On so many fronts Council has lost its way, lost moral authority. The idea that things are acceptable because a powerful clique deem it so is, and will always be, offensive.
September 21, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Who has nominated so far?
September 22, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Councils bemoan possible changes to planning zones
Date September 22, 2012 11 reading now
Jason Dowling
A LARGE-SCALE rewrite of Victoria’s planning zones – what you can build and where – has been criticised by the very organisations Planning Minister Matthew Guy said had requested the changes – local councils.
Councils on Melbourne’s fringe, including Casey, Whittlesea, Melton, Mornington Peninsula, Cardinia and Nillumbik, attacked the proposed changes in a submission to the government.
”The minister has indicated that a major aim of the zone reforms is to provide greater certainty – but the majority of changes increase the number of discretionary uses, resulting in less certainty – and potentially more VCAT appeals. In fact, the scope for discretion is so great that the end result may well be ‘planning by appeal’,” the submission said.
They said that while the proposed changes ”arguably represent the most significant changes to planning controls since the introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions in 1997”, ”there has been very limited time for councils to assess and respond to the proposals”.
Advertisement
In residential areas, councils are concerned about the proposed changes leading to ”commercial creep”, with shops and offices permitted without a permit within 100 metres of shopping strips on the same road frontage.
In rural zones, including green-wedge zones, the councils are concerned about the ”homogenisation” of the zones ”which limits the ability to define the particular role of different rural areas”.
”It is proposed to allow consideration of a range of primarily urban uses which are currently prohibited, including: service stations, medical centres, schools, places of assembly (which may technically include amusement parlours, drive-in theatres and nightclubs in the green-wedge zone) and all forms of accommodation, including (in the farming zone) residential villages,” the submission said.
”None of these uses are subject to any requirements in regard to minimum site area or intensity of activity,” it said.
Nillumbik Shire’s submission said the reforms could have ”potentially devastating impacts on the residents, environment and economic vitality of the shire”.
Mr Guy told ABC local radio: ”We are not actually changing anything in relation with sawmills or abattoirs and some of the ridiculous points put forward by people who oppose our changes. All of those industries are actually allowed today in green wedges,” he said.
He said some developments that would not require a planning permit in residential areas under the changes, such as medical centres and churches, may be moved into the category requiring a permit.
An advisory panel hand-picked by the government will review the submissions and report back to the government at the end of November. Some are welcoming the changes. Mary Drost of community group Planning Backlash said providing there were some changes to what was proposed for residential zones, she generally welcomed the new zones.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/councils-bemoan-possible-changes-to-planning-zones-20120921-26cbs.html#ixzz279ByJLUN
September 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM
I am dumbfounded.
1. The retrospective planning permit – anyone who is aware of the planning permit approval process will be aware that the process involves a lengthy period of consultation between the developer and Council Planning Officers to ensure that the proposal complies with Council requirements. By the time it comes to Council everything should be done and dusted. The original permit was for 3 storeys and 15 dwellings – at the 14/8/12 Council Meeting the number of dwellings was reduced to 12. Now we have a retrospective planning approval for 11 dwellings. Why is this necessary? Who has stuffed up? Councillor”s or the Admin? And given that the no. of dwellings has been further reduced, surely the process should be the submission of an amended permit application and not an amendment to the minutes. Council is once again aiding the developer – amending the minutes rather than following the permit approval process saves the developer time.
2. GESAC parking – so Council built a brand spanking new carpark (not even 12 months old) that doesn’t comply with the relevant standards. Not only that but it took an independent assessment (more ratepayers dollars) to identify 15 instances of non-compliance. Just why are we paying through the nose for Obrien traffic and engineering services if this is the quality of their work.