This is a long post for which we make no apology. The length is a direct result of the waffle, irrelevancies and Council’s continued refusal to provide direct answers to public questions. When residents take the time and trouble to actually put pen to paper then they have every right to expect that their questions will be answered. This Council repeatedly fails to respond directly to what has been asked, or provides information that can only be called ‘misleading’ if not deliberately evasive. It would also be a first that councillors, when asked for their individual views, have the courage to actually make an individual statement rather than hide behind the Big Brother label of “council”.
Here are the two public questions asked on Tuesday and taken directly from the minutes. Readers should pay careful attention to the nonsense that parades as ‘responses’ – we do not call them ‘answers’! Our emphases in bold. One final point to keep in mind: The council website went ‘live’ in July 2012 – after nearly 2 years of ‘consultation’ and consultants working on it. We note that no professional webmaster should take 4 months to upload a series of documents, as requested by Question 2 and specified in the Community Plan.
Subject: Inappropriate development
“Many successful candidates in the recent Glen Eira elections stated a policy of opposing inappropriate development. What is each councillor’s personal definition of “inappropriate development” and what changes to the Glen Eira Planning
Scheme does each councillor believe need to be made in order to make very clear to councillors, council officers, VCAT, developers and residents what Council actually wishes to achieve and what is inappropriate? To what extent does amenity, jobs, open space, housing diversity, traffic congestion and the myriad other things that appear in State Government planning guides, but are generally ignored by VCAT, matter?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“No Councillor wishes to see inappropriate development in our municipality. When deliberating on Town Planning applications Councillors are required to apply the provisions of the State Government’s Planning Scheme. Indeed, as a Responsible town planning Authority, the elected Council is bound by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”). The Act’s objectives are:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.
The word “inappropriate” carries with it a degree of personal opinion – a little like “beauty” which is said to be in the eye of the beholder. It follows that what constitutes inappropriate development will vary between individuals. In determining whether an application is appropriate, each councillor takes into account factors such as the impact the application would have on neighbourhood amenity, how well it complies with the neighbourhood character, traffic impacts, overlooking, overshadowing, the provision of parking, setbacks, height, site coverage, provision of open space, internal amenity, permeability and more, together with those you have listed.
In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it.
There are limitations on our ability to prescribe exactly what we would like to see deemed inappropriate. Two such limitations are:-
1. Any local policy not considered by the State Government to be consistent with State policy will not find its way into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in the first place. This is because any changes to any planning scheme require the approval of the Minister for Planning.
2. Even when in the planning scheme, VCAT only has to consider local policy not implement it.”
However, the government is about to overhaul the planning law by introducing new planning zones that will be more prescriptive. It will likely be up to each Council to determine where and how to fit the new zones to the municipality, and how the schedules in each zone will define appropriate development within each area, although again this will be subject to government approval. These new zones should allow us to make it clearer what is considered appropriate, and it is likely they will also be more binding on VCAT.”
Subject: Policy
“One of Council’s principal roles in the Council chamber is to resolve policy and strategy for the CEO and his staff to administer. There are I understand over 130 such policies and strategies which Glen Eira Council currently operates under. I am only able to locate 5 Council’s website. One policy which may not even exist is the policy which determines sports grounds and sporting facilities allocations. I have been previously advised that allocations are handled by officers not Councillors to avoid conflicts of interest. I expect Officers to undertake such critical decisions with the authority of Council by virtue of clear policy guidelines. Given the public outcry at the allocation of the GESAC basketball courts to the Warriors and not to a more locally based group McKinnon Basketball Association, is this Council going to resolve a policy for the entire allocation of Glen Eira sports grounds and facilities, which represent the wishes of Council and the Glen Eira Community, or will Council continue to leave such vital matters to the (albeit highly competent) administrators?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Council adopted policies currently appear on Council’s website at various locations. With the introduction of a new website earlier this year Council is now working on consolidating such policies in one area of the website and Council hopes to have this in place in the near future.
In addition, some documents were removed in order to comply with the Caretaker provisions of the Local Government Act. They are in the process of being reinstated.
In relation to the allocation of sport and recreation facilities, you asked a similar Public Question at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2012 and Council stated: ‘Council’s approach has catered for large numbers of teams and widespread improvements to public open space for both passive and active users. There is evidence of widespread support and community satisfaction with the approaches taken to date. This includes statements by sporting associations themselves in consultative forums. Glen Eira’s sports ground agreement documentation and processes have been used as best practice in recreation industry forums. Other Councils
have asked for copies. It is open to Councils to set strategy and policy on Council facilities and services or vary existing strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances. Future development in these areas would need to have regard to
Community needs
Balance between passive and active uses of public open space
Uses of Crown Land (including the racecourse reserve)
Government policy on open space contributions
Sustainability, including the use of water and other natural resources
Access for all abilities
Objective and transparent systems which earn the confidence of the sporting community and encourage responsible self-management by clubs
Findings, observations and recommendations by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and others
Availability of government grants (reflecting government priorities)
and so on.’
Officers rely on practice and precedent in dealing with allocations for clubs with a tenancy in Glen Eira. It is important to note that the model retains the flexibility needed to manage grounds through re-assigning grounds as and when required.
This applies to both planned maintenance and those times when unexpected issues arise.
Council’s process for the allocation of sporting facilities proceeds on the basis that in return for allocations and extensions of allocations of public facilities, clubs conduct themselves as good community citizens:
providing opportunities for participants,
conducting their activities safely, both on and off the playing field,
exhibiting good governance
respecting public facilities
and being a good neighbour to residents and others in the vicinity..
In recent times Council has not removed an allocation from a club.
In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.
Additionally, your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 9.7 in the Agenda Papers for the 13 November 2012 Council Meeting concerning the use of the multi-purpose indoor courts for basketball and a range of other activities and the high levels of community participation in GESAC.”
Glen Eira Debates 
November 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM
My take on the inappropriate development answer is just how quickly all Councillors, particularly the newbies, have acquiesed to the administrations line on development. Not a one of them questioned the planning scheme and all accepted the “VCAT is the issue” furphy. Since they all made “development” a major issue in their election campaigns, the above response (prepared by the administration and by their silence approved by all Councillors) shows that Councillors support the administration rather than the residents.
Sure VCAT makes some erratic decisions, but by and large their decisions are in based on the fact that the development under sonsideration fits in with the planning scheme. In fact in the majority of cases, the officers report (which is the first test of planning scheme compliance) recommends the development. The real culprits are the
. Glen Eira Administration that put together a planning scheme that relies on referenced policies (which because they are references rather than planning scheme clauses) are rightly considered recommendations or guidelines rather than enforceable conditions.
. Councillors who have continually failed to review and question the planning scheme. Councillors just accept the admin view that referenced policies are the way to go because they are easier to change and not one of them has considered that ease of change also means ineffective.
It’s about time Councillors actually represented the residents and analytically reviewed the planning scheme and it’s about time residents did the same to Councillor performance. Although given the recent election results, residents showing some interest in Council activities is unlikely to happen.
November 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Residents don’t need lectures from Burke or Hyams on aspects of planning law that doesn’t answer the question asked. If inappropriate development is like beauty, and therefore open to personal interpretation since it’s all “in the eye of the beholder” then councillors needed to answer this question individually. This wouldn’t have occasioned saying anything against the legislation but it would have shown that election promises are more than empty words and councillors might actually have some ideas on how to provide greater protection to residents. A brief statement that said 12 storeys anywhere is too high; the need for structure plans; all developments to have on site parking could have been a good start. Instead, councillors have allowed Burke to put words into their mouths instead of taking the initiative and reinforcing their election promises.
November 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM
In relation to your comments on basketball at GESAC, Council can inform you that during the previous term of Council Councillors were provided with the two Expressions of Interest (EOI) submissions and no Councillor questioned that the allocation was awarded to the better of the two EOIs.
I want to add some questions to this paragraph of spin.
1. If every councillor thought that the better EOI got the nod, then why was the vote to give this to the Warriors decided on the casting vote of Hyams?
2. Why was the ombudsman involved and as some people have said Magee called up if every councillor thought the original offer to the Warriors was superior?
3. Why did it take months and months and thousands of dollars on legal bills if every councillor agreed with the decision?
We’re not even told in this answer whether a policy exists. For all we know it could be a figment of Burke’s imagination.
November 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Ya don’t publish policies cos that would make you accountable. Horror of horrors, people look up a policy and say to Burke that he hasn’t stuck to it. If it doesn’t exist, he and the other ratbags can do whatever they like whenever they like.
November 16, 2012 at 9:19 PM
Below is part of the Paul Burke letter from May 2011 informing McKinnon Basketball they were unsuccessful in the EOI process.
“This decision has been based on an evaluation process based on three criteria in order of importance and weighting:
1. Community Benefit
2. Price
3. Capacity”
Council does have a policy.
November 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM
Magee is not appropriate to be on the Racetrack trust. He is sometimes inconsistent with his views. This can cause confusion.
November 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Well Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams and Esakoff have failed to have the MRC abide by a contract they signed. I don’t care how many votes they got, they currently have no right to be appointed. The MRC have treated them with contempt and these four have rolled over and accepted it. Maybe we would be better off with no Council appointed Trustees. Thoughts?
November 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Agree that Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling do not deserve to be a Trustee if they cannot even get the MRC to adhere to a contract they signed in the Caulfield Racecourse Agreement. However Magee as a Trustee would be a real asset for the community and Lobo and Delahunty may be also.
November 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM
Whatever we say here does not count as it is up to the State Government to anoint Trustees. Assuming that each ward will be represented, Crs Lipshutz and Esakoff are a shoe in. Lipshutz represents the biggest ethnic community, and Esakoff is the most successful Councillor in Glen Eira (to paraphrase “being a Councillor does not need to be a performance … Ah Esakofff you have done it again”). In Tucker Ward all 3 Counsellors have been put up as possibility. But, a ‘stroke of genius’ would be to appoint Cr Lobo, who represents the fastest growing etnic community in Glen Eira, those coming from the Indian Subcontinent. He defers to Cr Lipshutz and together could make MRC community work stand out. The rest of us do not matter much.
November 19, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Lobo is (MODERATORS: word deleted) but agree that Caulfield racecourse is a Glen Eira not just Camden ward issue. Pity that we have four week Councillors and a shonky State member who has lied about his qualifications who signed off on the Racecourse agreement. The whole thing is really one big political embarrassment.
November 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM
When it comes to inappropriate development, which all Councillors made a feature of in the recent elections, the sentence above “In a nutshell, councillors regard as inappropriate any development that does not comply with the relevant planning law as we assess it” says it all.
Despite campaign promises and years and years of residents complaints (heights, visual bulk, overlooking and overshadowing, traffic and parking) it all comes down to the “we” of Councillors. Not a even a mention of residents views being reflected.
November 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM
That is Representative democracy for you. Councillors represent the Council and not the public or residents. If you want participatory democracy that is quite different. Glen Eira Council does not subscribe to that, because the bureaucracy does not believe in it and there is no majority of Councillors to take it there.