This post attempts to tie together 3 consistent themes and to ask the basic question: are pavilions that cost millions a greater priority in Glen Eira that the creation (and preservation) of open space?

This question is the result of MP Miller’s announcement in Hansard (29^th November) that a $500,000 grant has been awarded by the State Government for the development of a ‘brand new pavilion, including changing rooms and clubhouse facilities” at Centenary Park. In 2007, according to the ‘Priority List’ established for pavilions, the estimated cost was ‘more than $2,000,000”. The Duncan McKinnon development at the time was listed as ‘more than $6,000,000’. That means that council will be forking out at least a few million for another pavilion!

Let us state clearly that we are not against the (re)development of existing pavilions. What we question are the priorities of this council when literally millions upon millions are poured into very questionable taj mahals and practically nothing is spent on what residents and some councillors have identified as a major need in Glen Eira – the acquisition of more open space.

Opportunity after opportunity to acquire more land has gone begging. Even when land is available council does nothing about it – ie. the Booran Rd Reservoir will stand untouched for another 4 years. What a disgrace that no funding has been allocated to this important potential source of open space when the issue has dragged on for nearly 10 years. We also remind readers of the recent debacle over the Alma Club when for $3 million council could have acquired property that eventually sold for just under $8 million.

Now there is another opportunity – the sale of 487 Neerim Rd. The real estate advertisement (below) shows that it is right in a reserve. Why can’t this be purchased? Why must new pavilions be built year after year (rather than upgraded) at the expense of what residents have repeatedly highlighted as one of the three major concerns – overdevelopment, consultation and lack of open space. Why must this perfect potential for more passive parkland be ignored so that more units, and cars can clog Neerim Rd which is already a disaster? Why has nothing been done about the Open Space Levy and its ridiculously low cost to developers – especially since this was mooted to be ‘looked at’ nearly 3 years ago and especially since other councils are applying a 5% levy across their entire municipalities? And why, oh why, aren’t the funds collected from this levy used in the manner that the legislation primarily intended – the acquisition of public open space?

Finally, we wish to point out the obvious. The delicate position of MP Miller in Bentleigh leads to all kinds of pork barrelling by the Libs. But $500,000 doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It has to be asked for, and a project nominated. Council obviously asked for the Centenary Park funding. They could just as easily have applied for anything else. The priorities of this administration and some of its councillors needs to be questioned and they need to justify why sporting facilities are continually more important than plain old open space. And open space that is likely to shrink even further once the footprint of these pavilions encroaches on parkland, car parks are extended and concrete, yellow brick roads continue to overtake green parkland.

PS: We’ve done some further homework on this site and there’s a long history associated with 487 Neerim Rd. None of it flatters our administration! Here are the facts:

• In 1985 there was a subdivision for 2 houses to be subdivided
• In 2005 an application went in for 9 double storey dwellings (refused)
• In 2008,3 storey dwelling; 26 dwellings (refused)
• In 2009, the officers recommended a permit for two storeys and 23 dwellings. Councillors refused a permit
• In 2009 VCAT (on amended plans) accepted 3 storeys and 28 dwellings (See:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/2529.html)
• THE AREA IS MINIMAL CHANGE!

So what does all this mean? First off, it tells us that the saga of 487 Neerim Rd. has been on the horizon for nearly 20 years and not once has council apparently thought of purchasing the land even though it has a Special Building Overlay and is prone to flooding. Secondly, if officers recommended 2 storeys eons ago, the likelihood is that this will now occasion at least a 5 storey development. Thirdly, given this history, it is most likely that there is an existing permit on this land – something council clearly would know about. Again, they have been quite content to sit back and allow it to go to developers! So much for the empty refrain of lack of open space, the protected nature of minimal change areas, and the danger of flooding. What should be open space will likely become a living nightmare for residents of Murrumbeena.

PS: By way of contrast we’re adding this titbit of news from the Port Phillip Council Meeting Minutes of 27th November 2012, Page 3. The difference to the way things are done in Glen Eira is, of course, staggering.

“A petition was received from 14 signatories in relation to parking on Bridge Street between Lyons Street to Esplanade East, Port Melbourne.

MOVED BY CRS TOUZEAU/VOSS

That Council:

Receives the petitions and refers it to officers for investigation. A proposal will then be developed for possible new parking restrictions. A subsequent survey/questionnaire will be distributed to properties adjacent to Bridge Street Port Melbourne seeking feedback.The survey will inform any new parking restrictions that may be implemented.

A vote was taken and the motion was carried”

COMMENTS

We find it most refreshing that councillors actually TELL officers what to do! We also find it most refreshing that decisions are made on the spot, not a year later. We also find it most refreshing that transparency and consultation is an integral part of a response. The take home message for our councillors is that where there’s a will , there’s definitely a way!

++++++++++++++++++++++

The minutes of 7^th February 2012 recorded this petition from residents:

A petition co-signed by 23 signatories was tabled which read as follows:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council our wish that there be trees planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond. Prioritising tree planting on our street will help realise the Glen Eira Community Plan, Street Tree Strategy and Environmental Sustainability Strategy. We believe that this action will significantly improve the psychological, social and environmental quality of our street. We understand that trees would have to be planted on the road and that there will be some associated loss of car parking space. Your petitioners therefore pray that trees are planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond as soon as possible.”

The petition, as per normal was ‘received and noted’ unanimously.

Now, 9 months later at Tuesday night’s council meeting Pilling submitted a request for a report on the planting of street trees in Murray Rd. This was seconded by Esakoff. Pilling said that it’s a narrow street and lacks trees and there was the need to improve the ‘amenity of the street’. Esakoff agreed that ‘the street could certainly do with some greening’. Okotel  was ‘pleased’ because this issue was ‘long overdue’ and that concerns of residents ‘are being heard’ and that the report will be the means to ‘ensure that (the issue) ‘will be addressed without further delay”.

We highlight this Request for a Report because it again illustrates the failure of this council and its councillors to institute processes that respond in a timely fashion to resident concerns. We note the following:

• In other councils petitions are not merely ‘noted’ – they are immediately passed on to the relevant department for action. In Glen Eira petitions generally disappear into the ether and unless residents keep the issue up front, they are invariably ignored and forgotten.
• Now we have the farce of waiting for another officer’s report. With NO NOTICE OF MOTION available to councillors, the community is again in the hands of officers who may take months and months to report back and then possibly another major time lag before anything is actually planted.
• The ‘solution’ is very simple it would seem to us. Councillors must ensure that when petitions are tabled they are acted upon, or responded to immediately. It is literally a joke that it takes 9 months, and another officers’ report in order to get anything done in Glen Eira. Not only is this a slap in the face to residents, but it also means more time and expense wasted on unnecessary paper work by officers.
• Further, if councillors were so concerned about ‘greening’ Murray Rd. did the thought ever occur to them that a simple resolution which stated ’30 street trees to be planted in Murray Rd’ might have sufficed? That is of course, if such a motion passed the ‘no surprises’ component of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law and if it could somehow be squeezed into an agenda set by Newton!

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: council is again ‘progressing well’ and that GESAC is doing a lot better than council ‘anticipated’. They’d originally been looking at a $300,000+ ‘surplus’ but this has now gone out to over a million dollar surplus. Claimed that GESAC is now covering ‘all its borrowing costs’ but not ‘operating costs’. There are over 8,500 members and that he ‘anticipates’ that it will be ‘covering operating costs completely’. Also noted a sentence on page 2 where there ‘was a transfer of $136,000’ from a maternal child & health centre to GESAC for ‘heating and ventilation’. Said that this ‘wasn’t so much a transfer of funds’ out of the health centre but that council were thinking of ‘redeveloping’ the centre staff room. ‘Council decided that when they looked at the plans….it wasn’t worth doing….and as such it didn’t occur’. The money was therefore ‘surplus’ and now used for GESAC. Because GESAC is ‘so heavily used’ and there are lots of people in the centre that ‘we needed to lower the temperature’. ‘We don’t ordinarily remove funds from’ one project to another. Noted that what the Auditor General had said was that unlike other councils, Glen Eira has a ‘business plan before we do anything’ and if ‘it doesn’t stand up, we don’t do it’. So when officers looked at the issue of the staff room it didn’t ‘stack up’…’and as such it didn’t happen’. Went on about ‘operating costs per assessment’ – Glen Eira has one of the lowest & rates and charges are also one of the lowest; ‘fourth highest for pensioner rebates’ and ‘third highest for grants and subsidies’ and 3rd highest in capital works. Said that in some other councils the criticism is that money should be used ‘to pay back debt’. Claimed that was ‘poor’ because it would mean the degradation of facilities and ultimately cost more to replace.Glen Eira has a ‘rolling program’ that means they ‘keep things moving’ ‘so we don’t have to spend money’….’cost saving’. Summed up that it was an ‘excellent report’ which shows that ‘council is on track once again’ and that Glen Eira is a ‘template’ for quality and other councils.

DELAHUNTY: disagreed with Lipshutz on Auditor General’s report. Said that council had been asked to maintain a liquidity ratio somewhere ‘greater than 1.5’ and the report clearly says that over the next few years it will remain ‘around 1’ so there is a need for ‘caution’ with cash flows, ‘so there is a need for concern’. Said that congratulations are due to GESAC but it’s not yet ‘paying for itself’ since it costs council $1 per visit. Agreed with some of the things Lipshutz said but the liquidity ratio needed some caution.

HYAMS: said that Lipshutz is ‘adamant’ that all surplus should be ‘spent on capital works’. Spoke about the $7 million dollar debt for the Benefits scheme which council was ‘going to be charged 7.5% interest on’ that there are ‘grounds to consider’ whether some of the debt should be paid off sooner. ‘That’s a discussion we will all have no doubt’. Referring to Delahunty’s comments on the liquidity ratio agreed that ‘yes it is something we will need to keep our eye on’ but he ‘wouldn’t say it is cause for concern’ but a ’cause for caution’. It’s only ‘one indicator taken in isolation’ and overall ‘we are in a very sound financial position’ and that the report ‘reflects that’. Said that council is generally conservative in its forecasts so that the projected liquidity ratio is of this ilk and will stay ‘well above’ the 1 figure.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Delahunty ‘didn’t have the benefit’ of being present at the Audit committee when the Auditor General came out. The AG was ‘very satisfied’ with the ways things were being handled, congratulated them in fact and that ‘council was handling (things) very, very well’. ‘There was nothing of concern at all’….’we have to be cautious, we have to watch our ratio’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS:

We freely admit that we are not accountants. Yet, some of the revelations ensuing from this item we find to be extraordinary. For the first time we learn that the Employee Retirement Fund cost of over $7 million is to incur a loan of 7.5% interest. Council has repeatedly claimed that the first $3 million plus, that is due to be paid by June 2013 has already been budgeted for. Does this therefore mean that council over the next 15 years can’t find a meagre $4 million dollars to pay off this debt? More significantly why are they locked into an interest rate of 7.5%? This is surely astronomical given today’s falling interest rates. Is this a sign that Glen Eira Council is in fact viewed by lenders as ‘high risk’ and hence the high interest rate? Why must there be any borrowing at all for a measly 4 or 7 million unless the cash flow is indeed on very parlous grounds?

So, for all the talk of being ‘on track’ and how wonderful this council’s finances are, there are countless questions that need answering and figures that reveal the absolute truth. Here are some further questions to ponder:

• If Glen Eira is so wonderful with its ‘business plans’ then how can a budget be approved, funded, and then suddenly money is withheld from a child care centre and transferred to GESAC?  The actual sentence referred to by Lipshutz reads: “Transfer funds of $136K from Caulfield MCHC to GESAC HVAC works to cover the expenses on the additional HVAC plant”. Since these acronyms would mean nothing to 99% of residents, surely it is time that an important document such as this was made intelligible to people? More importantly, what does this again indicate about the overall planning and astuteness of the entire GESAC project? How often has this council ripped money out of one agreed to project to cover the costs of another?
• Why has so little money been spent on other projects? Are they being delayed because there simply isn’t the money to go ahead with them? Lipshutz argues that ‘surplus’ is spent on capital works, yet over $10 million dollars is carried through from LAST YEAR’S budget! If that’s not delaying projects to an inordinate amount, then we don’t know what is!
• The public deserves a fully itemised ledger on exactly what GESAC is costing. Figures cited in these reports need to be fully DEFINED. For example: do the ‘expenses’ listed for GESAC include interest repayments, staff costs, or are they simply everyday costs, such as heating, maintenance, etc? Without clear definitions the public is lost. Of course, this may all be deliberate!!!!!! It is definitely time for less spin and more upfront and detailed accounting!

The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.

GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT

Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.

DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how  a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.

LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.

ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.

AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.

Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)

We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.

Here we go again. Another ‘report’ into an issue that reared its ugly head years ago and is still to be resolved – the toy library.

Magee and Pilling moved on November 13^th that a report be prepared:” “on the Carnegie Toy Library currently located within the Carnegie Pool facility. Concerns have regularly been raised with Councillors about the inadequateness of this arrangement. This report should detail all options for improving the present service including:

‐ expanding the present facility

‐ identifying alternative suitable sites to relocate the service

‐ any grants or funding opportunities available.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

History tells us that two and a half years ago this problem was known. In fact the library raised their concerns about a Health and Safety issue in June 2010 and made a submission to the budget at that time. Since the spin is continually about how this council is so concerned about its health and safety record we are amazed that for nearly 3 years nothing has been done to eliminate all potential risks. Below we feature the reports from the time in chronological order.

Full toy story for Caulfield’s library of fun

7 Jul 10 @ 10:20am by Jenny Ling

Toy library president Kym Arthur, with Liam and Zoe, says the library is running out of space.

A CRAMMED collection of toys at a Carnegie toy library has become a safety hazard for parents, staff and children, a report has found.

With membership numbers nearly tripling in 10 years, the Caulfield Community Toy Library is appealing to Glen Eira Council for funding so it can expand.

Library president Kym Arthur said up to 300 Glen Eira families now used the borrowing facility, up from 100 families when it opened at the Carnegie Swim Centre in 2000.

The number of toys has increased to 2500 to match demand.

A report, by design consultant Space Matters, said the small area had created a “serious occupational health and safety risk” and was “impacting the functionality, quality and range of services, as well as the safety of members and visitors”.

“We have just run out of space,” Mrs Arthur said. “We’re literally packed to the rafters. It’s very dangerous.”

The report, submitted to the council, proposes $7500 funding for extra storage space or $180,000 to construct a demountable building on the site.

The construction of the $41 million Bentleigh East aquatic centre had also put pressure on the library because equipment was being stored at Carnegie during the work, she said.

Glen Eira Mayor Steven Tang said the council would “look at the future of the library as part of any decision about the future of the Carnegie site after GESAC is opened”.

“If they have identified an occupational health and safety issue they would need to resolve it,” Cr Tang said. “One way of doing that would be to reduce the amount of stock at that premises.”

Now, two and a half years later, the Leader has run this story –

Cramped Carnegie toy library needs space

7 Nov 12 @ 05:00am by Andrea Kellett

GLEN Eira families have new hope that a solution can be found to their toy library’s space problems.

Caulfield Community Toy Library members are delighted Glen Eira councillors have called for a report into expanding their “cramped” service.

Council officers have been asked to consider options including expanding the existing space at the Carnegie Swim Centre, or relocating it. Parents have for years begged the council to help them find more room. They have nowhere to hold meetings, nowhere for children to play, little room to move, no heating, no dedicated space for toy repairs and not enough display room.

President Jo Prendergast said meetings were held at a local pub and half of the children’s costumes could not be displayed. “There are so many good toys here and you can’t see them or get to them,” Ms Prendergast said.

She has grand visions for the toy library to become a “community space”. “This could be more than just a toy library.” But for now, she and vice-president Corinne Goudge are pleased the library’s needs are “on the council’s radar”.

Cr Neil Pilling asked for the report, saying volunteers were “drowning in toys”. Mayor Jamie Hyams said the problem had dragged on for years.

The Caulfield Community Toy Library is at the corner of Moira Ave and Lyons St, Carnegie.

COMMENTS:

• GESAC has been operating for 6 months now, but clearly nothing has been done to solve the issue
• Why has it taken nearly three years for any action to eventuate – especially if there is a health and safety risk?
• 6 of the current 9 councillors were in office at the time this was first brought up. What have they done to resolve the issue in the meantime, especially after the toy library’s comprehensive budget submission of 2010 (uploaded here)
• How long will it take for the officer’s report to appear? Will it actually provide funding, sensible recommendations, or will the status quo continue?

Backroom wheeling and dealing, plus the continued inability to present honest and forthright officers’ reports continues with the appointment of councillors to the various committees. There is much in this report that requires commenting upon. We will go through this sequentially

1. Again no author noted. It’s rule by nobody in Glen Eira.
2. Spurious claims as to the rationale behind the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee. For example, we’re told that the committee “was established because there was a risk that a Council Meeting dealing with an item concerning the Racecourse might fail for lack of a quorum”. In order for this possibility to eventuate a series of truly extraordinary events have to take place: all trustees must declare a conflict of interest; a councillor must decide to Winky Pop him/herself and someone must be absent. Even if someone is ill, there is no plausible reason as to why any meeting could not be deferred for a week, or possibly even 2! When the MRC is quite capable of delaying ‘developments’ at the racecourse we see no reason why council cannot defer a meeting for a few days until a councillor is able to attend and ensure a quorum. The C60 decision was in fact delayed for several months following the recognition that the farce of ‘consultation’ had to be endured as a good public relations exercise.

Even then, Lobo did not declare a  conflict of interest, he was not a trustee, and his presence would have ensured a quorum. The real reason for the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee is clear to everyone – insurance that the C60 and the ‘agreement’ with the MRC was passed.

The real sting in the tail however, comes with this incredible paragraph: “That Council now has a different composition and it may be possible to abolish this Special committee and deal with Racecourse matters in Ordinary Council Meetings. That will be determined after Trustees have been appointed”. Why the existence or otherwise of this Committee should be ‘determined after Trustees have been appointed” is the real question. It couldn’t possibly be that if Newton doesn’t get his little select band chosen as trustees, then he’s better off going to a full council meeting where their votes will count? If, on the other hand, the gang are selected as trustees, then residents can bet their houses that the Committee will continue! It will be business as usual if this scenario eventuates.

3.  Next we have the Roads Special Committee. Suddenly this becomes ‘unwieldy’ if dealt in an ordinary council meeting! Strange that the same argument is not used for the Racecourse Special Committee. We also need to highlight that as a Special Committee, created under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, such committees are obliged to present both agendas and minutes of its meetings. To the best of our knowledge, no agenda or minutes have been presented from this committee for at least 3 years! So much for proper governance and adhering to the Local Government Act! Even better is that the CEO appointments Special Committee is yet to publish its minutes also dating back several months!

We further draw readers’ attention to the fact that in the Annual Report the Delegated Planning Committee is referred to as a ‘Special Committee’ (Page 81). It is NOT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE established under the Act. It is the creation of delegatory authority with no published agendas, minutes, or obligatory schedules. To term it a ‘Special Committee’ is deliberately misleading and mischievous. 

4. This sentence on advisory committees is also worthy of comment – “It is important, however, to ensure that decisions and priorities are set by those who have been elected ie Councillors.” What a nice way of saying that residents will not get a look in!

5.     There’s also the blanket statement that the CEO Contractual Arrangement Special Committee, the Animal Management advisory committee and the Racecourse advisory committee will all be abolished and that these functions will be ‘handled by Council’. Of course, since Penhalluriack is no longer there, the Contractual Committee doesn’t have to exclude anyone (at this point in time) and the Racecourse advisory committee which also included Penhalluriack can also disappear. Animal management of course hasn’t had a meeting for over a year and since it takes its order from the Rec department, it is also superfluous. Interestingly, the argument used for the Roads Committee (ie that matters are too ‘wieldy’ for ordinary council meetings) doesn’t appear to hold much water in these instances. The inconsistencies and spin are quite unbelievable.

Finally, we wish to point out a couple of other salient facts.

• With the abolition of all these advisory committees, this council has the least number of advisory committees of any neighbouring council as far as we can tell.
• Glen Eira has the least number of committees that include community reps in the metropolitan area
• And what of the Pools Steering Committee? Not a word! Since GESAC is doing so brilliantly, it no longer needs ‘supervision’ we assume, even though it is costing ratepayers a fortune. All can now be left in the capable hands of the Audit Committee and administrators!

Council resolutions and policy in Glen Eira are very flexible instruments depending on the individual issues they cover, and the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of these issues. Planning undoubtedly comes under the umbrella of ‘sensitive’. Hence, formal council resolutions, such as items from the Community/Council plan are repeatedly ignored, forgotten and distorted. The Community plan, repeated in the 2011/12 Annual Report under Strategic Planning, stated:

“Strategy: Ensure town planning controls and policies are as clear, concise, relevant and helpful as possible in deciding planning applications in a logical, repeatable and transparent manner.

Action: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas.

Measure: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly.”

Unless we are entirely deficient in our English Language Skills, ‘numbers’ does not mean PERCENTAGES, and ‘quarterly’ refers to the 4 times a year SERVICES REPORT. The last council meeting had the Services report (ending September 2012) as one of the items. Included in this report was the following:

“84% of dwellings approved for first quarter are in Housing Diversity Areas.”

That’s it! No numbers, no mention of Minimal Change statistics, and no real overview of what is happening in the municipality in terms of the success of failure of the 80/20 policy. We have to go to the Annual Report to glean some information on this vital question.

The Annual Report includes in very small font this statement for dwelling approvals– “Total for 2011–12 minimal change 345, housing diversity 830”. This means that the so called 80/20 division of Glen Eira is rapidly falling to bits since we do not believe that the majority of approvals in these areas would be the simple replacement of one dwelling for another single dwelling. Further, 345 approvals makes the ‘division’ of Glen Eira more like 60/40 instead of the touted 80/20. Amendment C25 claimed to “re-direct multi-unit housing into appropriate locations” and “within the minimal change areas, existing low intensity, low-rise character will be protected and enhanced.” It goes on to claim “For the majority of the City, single houses, extensions to existing houses and two dwelling developments are envisaged as the predominant types of dwellings. By limiting development to this level, existing neighbourhood character can be protected, while still promoting a range of housing through the City.” Is this really happening? How many developments in Minimal Change Areas are more than 2 units per block? How many protect ‘neighbourhood character’ given that there is no real mandatory Urban Design Framework in Glen Eira?

Again, we have to go back to the crucial questions of:

• Where is the information that will reveal the true ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these objectives?
• What’s the point of having Council Resolutions when these aren’t adhered to?
• Why aren’t councillors insisting that their Resolutions are carried out to the letter?
• Why are such vital statistics allowed to be buried, instead of highlighted?
• How much longer will ‘transparency’ be merely a word, rather than the fundamental tenet underpinning all operations in Glen Eira?

We’ve featured the Minister for Planning’s response(s) on the question he was asked in parliament last week concerning the publication of submissions on the Zoning Reforms. His answer was that it is all in the hands of the Advisory Committee who must first perform a ‘peer review’ of the submissions. As the opposition member pointed out, the real reason is probably that the vast majority of the submissions were totally negative!

Just to clarify the issue further we quote from the Minister’s terms of reference for this Advisory Committee –  “Any documents provided to the Committee must be available for public inspection until submission of its report, unless the Committee specifically directs that the material is to remain confidential”. More buck passing it appears, since the Minister in his response does not seem to understand the terms that he or his department set down. He stated: “It would not be appropriate that they would be peer reviewing a public document, because obviously there would be influence on them to do that. The documents will be made public when the process is concluded. That is the appropriate way to do business, and that is how it will be done.”

We got pretty tired of waiting, so doing a simple Google search, revealed the following submissions. No real surprises in that the Building and Planning industries are all gung-ho about the proposed changes. Readers may access the documents simply by clicking on the desired ones.

Master Builders Association

Housing Industry Association

Victorian Farmers’ Federation

Planning Institute of Australia, Victorian Division

Port Phillip

Greater Geelong

Boroondara

Maribyrnong

Brimbank

Casey

Manningham

Frankston

Melton

Cardinia

Bayside

Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA)

This comment has come in which we repeat as a post in the public interest.

Delegation to the Minister:
On November 14 a delegation meet with the Minister for Local Government (your member Jeanette Powell) to discuss the plight of the ratepayers relative to inputs to local government.

The thrust of the discussion was to be about how ratepayers are disadvantaged when compared with Municipal Association of Victoria and Victorian Local Government Association and other high profile peak bodies.

Our intent was to solicit her help in how to get more ratepayer input into key documents like The local Government Act, and to stress the point that we are all volunteers competing against high profile organizations that have lots of $$$ from councils while we are significantly disadvantaged and without any professional staff and our voice is marginalized as a result.

After meeting with the minister, I felt like I had been blasted with the Ghostbuster Proton Pack and needed a shower.

Had I not taken my dog tranquilizers prior to the meeting I would have left Parliament house and laid on a tram track waiting for a tram to end my misery.

It was a humbling experience to visit with a minister who has no empathy at all for the plight of the ratepayer and was too busy spinning how great she was doing to actually listen.

However a snitch at Parliament House told us that the government fears inputs from an organized group who represents ratepayers as the changes to LGA1989 would have to be monumental.

So the State government, like our local government, marginalizes ratepayers and community groups.

Every time we tried to make a point she would say that our recourse was at the ballot box to vote in who we wanted and get rid of those not doing our bidding in local government.

It is obvious that she has little grasp of the real world in this instance and with this in mind it is more important than ever to address this issue.

So I am soliciting your support to use our power at the voting box and to make sure she is “unelected”.

Would appreciate any links to other ratepayer organizations I could contact.s.

If you would like a copy of the slide presentation that we wanted to make (sidelined, of course) I can provide it to you.

Cheers, Joe Lenzo; OAA, OADH, OASP:
Mornpenshire.elected2012
“demanding, nurturing, and realizing
transparency, accountability and democracy”
Mornpenshire.elected2012@gmail.com 0430.450.657

http://mornpenshireelected2012.net/