Glen Eira Debates

Several posts back we reported on the ‘debate’ in chamber regarding the mooted Open Space Strategy. From comments made by several councillors it was obvious that in Glen Eira the ACQUISITION of open space is a forlorn hope and that the emphases has been, and will continue to be, how best to utilise the existing land stocks. We also remind readers that in Glen Eira the revenue accrued from the Open Space levy falls well below the 5% currently permitted and that most of this revenue is used for ‘maintenance’ rather than the purchase of additional open space. For a municipality continually crying about its status as having the lowest amount of public open space in the state, such policy directions arguably fall well short of what is required.

By way of contrast we highlight extracts from the November 19^th 2012 agenda items from Stonnington. Please note that Stonnington has the SECOND least amount of public open space behind Glen Eira. Their officers’ report on their upcoming Open Space review stands in stark opposition to the mentality that is evident in Glen Eira. Here are some interesting quotes –

“The purpose of this report is to consider adoption of a long term strategy that identifies and funds land that can be progressively acquired to increase open space and associated strategic links, and address some areas of critical flooding risk.  This initial report is for Councillor Briefing only.”

Stonnington cannot catch up to the levels of open space, recreation facilities and landscaping provided in other municipalities. It does however need to actively pursue additional open space as opportunities arise.  There is a need to look for non traditional opportunities such as improving the public realm through local streetscaping, undergrounding parking to create open space on top, and encourage green walls/ rooves, and require setbacks and landscaping in new developments to maintain and foster a City which is as green as possible. It also needs to more proactively pursue new open space opportunities, associated and new linkages to improve access to open space and in general. 

The strategy involves the comprehensive assessment and identification of open space, access and some drainage needs and opportunities on a suburb by suburb basis to be outlined in detail in subsequent reports to Council.

Council has an open space reserve fund of $23m for the purchase of open space. While this is a very significant amount of money given a normal small land purchase is in the order of $2m the current fund could represent say 10 properties or 8000m2. This fund accumulates from resort and recreation payments required by the current Subdivision Act. The Act requires up to 5% of the land value is paid to Council when a new unit development is subdivided. This money is held in reserve and is required to be spent in the suburb it was collected in. The money can be used to upgrade existing open space, and / or acquire new open space.

In reviewing opportunities for additional open space, problem drainage and overland flood areas were also reviewed. These areas can provide useful areas of open space and address drainage concerns at the same time.

It is proposed that Council considers a detailed review for each suburb on potential opportunities and costs for land acquisition for open space, strategic links and drainage improvement, and adopts an approach for funding this acquisition.

It is estimated assuming similar ongoing levels of redevelopment that the reserve funds from developer contributions will accumulate and support strategic property purchases over the next 15 years. It may be possible to increase the base of this fund. A report has been commissioned into how these developer contributions can be widened to other uses and the percentage contributions increased…”.

That’s Stonnington! We remind readers that in Glen Eira the Open Space Levies are miniscule and that there was no definite indication in the Planning Scheme review  of 2010 that things would really change. Two and a half years on, this council is silent on the issue.

Poor governance has been the perennial issue at Glen Eira. It continues unabated. We’ve taken the time to compare the Community Plan as accepted by formal Council Resolution on June 26^th   and what now appears as part of the formal Community Plan in the Quarterly Report (13^th Nov minutes). The changes are alarming. Further, they have NOT BEEN SANCTIONED BY FORMAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION and nor has there been any public statement, officers’ report, or open discussion about these alterations. We allege that these changes represent another failure of transparent and open government in Glen Eira. We are especially concerned about:

• Changes in wording from the accepted Community Plan to what is now paraded in the current Community Plan
• The removal of certain actions from the original plan
• Resolutions relating to Amendments withdrawn without another full council resolution
• Measures that are meaningless and do not address either the objectives or the stated measures

There are only two conclusions possible – either unelected bureaucrats made these decisions or, if councillors did have a say then they were made behind closed doors in secret. We find it appalling that unless the public are willing to analyse and compare documents word for word, then such changes remain unknown, hidden, and the public is continually being duped and kept ignorant. The only conclusion possible is that this tactic is deliberate. Important policy decisions are continually buried in the volumes of waffle rather than highlighted and commented upon. The result is the failure of good governance and open, transparent government.

In the June version of the accepted Community Plan there was this ‘action’ item: “investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan”. The ‘measure’ was stated to be – “Report provided to council”. This has now completely disappeared from the September version. We ask: who made this decision? When was it made? Where is the ‘report’ to council?

Next there is the subtle change in language. Another of the ‘action’ items from the June version states “Introduce a Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”. The measure is: “Local Law considered by council” The September version has altered this to read: ‘Local Law adopted by council”. Whilst not earth shattering in itself, the very fact that  terms can be changed without formal resolution is a concern. Again, who decided and when was the decision reached? Doesn’t this in fact pre-empt the entire process of community consultation on the Local Law?

We also need to highlight just one of the ludicrous ‘progress reports’ on vital aspects of planning which totally ignore both ‘actions’ and ‘measures’. Here is an example:

Measure – “Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.” The progress reports says: “DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 4 mediation meetings held to date”. We note that:

• No report has gone to a formal council meeting
• No logical connection between the ‘success’ of a video and ‘mediation’
• No  statistics that reveal the success or failure of mediation, video, or anything

Also buried in the documentation is the withdrawal of Amendment C90 – ie the ‘Transition Zones Policy”. This came before council on the 30^th August 2011. The resolution to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit the amendment was passed unanimously. Now over a year later we find out that “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”. Once more the question becomes: who decided upon this? When was it decided and why, oh why, did this not go to a formal Council Meeting? Even the language associated with this decision is conflicting and unclear. The Quarterly Report stated the the Amendment will be ‘withdrawn’. The Community Plan Report simply states this is ‘on hold’. Whichever is closer to the truth the fact remains that none of this has ever been highlighted, explained, or discussed in an open forum.

Since a year has now practically passed since the original council resolution we cannot believe that the matter wasn’t referred to the Minister for permission to exhibit. The Amendment has not been advertised as far as we know, nor has it been gazetted as granting permission. Thus we suspect that someone must have contacted the Minister and said ‘hold on’ – again without any formal announcement to the public, nor any formal council resolution.

It would appear that it’s business as usual with this Council – a clear case of the tail continuing to wag the dog! Residents would be well advised to ask their supposed representatives the following questions –

• How well do councillors actually read officers’ reports?
• Do any of them question the data/information that is provided?
• If the above questions are to be answered in the affirmative, then why was nothing said about any of the points we have raised in this post?
• Why do these councillors continue to allow what appears to be unelected officials to make crucial decisions on issues that dramatically impact on residents?

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.”

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz

PILLING: strategy for new policy  is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’

MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.

PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS,  LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.

MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.

SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.

MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.

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

GESAC COURT USAGE

PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.

LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.

DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.

HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.

PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

This post features a report on the 12 storey application on Dandenong Road. We ask readers to carefully assess the arguments presented by each councillor since we feel they are extraordinary and in fact, represent an admission of total failure to plan and protect residential amenity.

Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Magee have now been on council for a period ranging from 9 to 4 years. Not once throughout this time have any of them been willing to address the issue of height limits in Glen Eira. Not once have any of them insisted (in public) that Glen Eira Council applies for interim or permanent height controls. Now we have the nonsense argument that since there is no policy we can’t knock back entirely such applications. But, with the planning zone reforms they will finally look at height controls. It’s anyone’s guess if these height controls will be anything less than 8 storeys for activity zones.

Here’s the ‘debate’. Lobo was on ‘leave of absence’ until December.

Esakoff moved an alternate motion. Instead of 12 storeys the application be reduced to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings and that only 20% of dwellings be reliant on artificial light and car parking be 1 car space for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and not less than 48 retail car parking spaces. Seconded by Pilling.

ESAKOFF: said that her motion basically ‘halves’ the number of levels and reduced the number of units from 173 to 97. Her motion also ‘brings back the scale of the building where it will fit more comfortably into the surrounds’ but will still allow this development where it is “most appropriate along Dandenong Road”. Stated that she was concerned that there would be more traffic congestion along Koornangk Road therefore “the reduction in the number of dwellings is appropriate”….’although clearly there will still be an increase in car movements’. Concerned about the borrowed light and ‘my preference would be that all apartments’ have natural light but that this isn’t unusual these days when people go to VCAT. Even though council’s traffic department said that 35 car parks were sufficient for the retail section she felt that 48 should be available in ‘accordance with the requirements’. A sign would also have to be placed to let people know that no residential parking permits will be given out for this development so that people who are thinking of buying or renting will know the situation.

PILLING: supported Esakoff because it was ‘more modest’ even though the site is ‘right for development’ and is in a “fairly unique part of Carnegie’ but he does ‘have problems with the 12 storeys’. Went on to explain that in Carnegie currently most buildings are four stories even though VCAT did allow a couple of 5 storeys recently, so to go ‘from 5 to 12 is…too much for this area’. Said that “it was never envisaged that Carnegie would have 12 storey towers’ but that the alternative of 8 storeys “is appropriate”. Said that council needed to look at heights in some areas to give “better surety” to people.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he always wanted to be consistent in that ‘development should be reasonable’ but in this case he supports the officer’s recommendation for 12 storeys. Argued that he would agree with Pilling if this was in a ‘quiet residential street’ but this is on Dandenong Road with a railway line and ‘doesn’t impact on any housing’ or overshadowing. ‘Where else are we going to have high density housing?”. Said that the government supports high density housing but that he doesn’t want that in ‘our quiet residential streets’ or some of the main streets in Glen Eira, but Dandenong Road is okay. Went on to ask ‘why is 12 storeys wrong’? Agreed that there would be an impact on traffic though but that would happen regardless of whether it was 8 storeys or 12 storeys. Further, this is a ‘high quality building’ and not cheap and nasty. The area is mainly commercial/industrial and there’s nothing really nice about it and this would ‘improve the area’. If the application was for anywhere else he would support the alternate motion but not this time. “I see nothing wrong with this building in this particular site”.

MAGEE: said that he’s got his own little ‘checklist’ and that before he makes a decision he asks whether the application is in a Major Activity Centre, and this is. It also ‘meets the State Planning Policy Framework’. Asked ‘where are the reasons to object to this?’ It meets state planning policy, is in a Housing Diversity Area and that earlier in the year council voted to turn this ‘into a business 2 zone’, so ‘intense development is encouraged in that area’. Also part of the urban village policy ‘which encourages high residential density’ in these areas. Further no problems with director of public transport nor vic roads and parks, waste management and no-one thought there was an issue or problem. What the problem is, is that ‘the framework is not there….because we have set no height limits. There is no height limits set by us in the past’ but there is an ‘opportunity’ with the Minister’s planned new zones ‘we may be able to put some restrictions in ourselves’ then. Said that council can’t tell a developer to apply for a permit and then say we’re ‘not going to give it to you’ when council has put in these conditions and allowed things to happen. Said that vcat would approve it anyway because they’ll look at the fact that it’s in a Major Activity Centre and ‘tick, tick, tick tick’. Vcat won’t reduce it by 4 floors. Instead of reducing it ‘you’ve got to say’ reject it entirely. “we as a council have put this policy in place….the framework is not consistent with reducing it by 4 floors’…‘we’ve got to make sure in future that we do set height limits’ and this application shows ‘the failings’ of council in that they haven’t looked at height limits closely enough.

SOUNNESS: supported the officers recommendations for 12 storeys. “I feel that if the development is not there, then where?’ He didn’t find the grounds ‘sufficiently compelling’ to support the alternate motion.

DELAHUNTY: started off by saying that many ‘of us campaigned on the grounds of opposing inappropriate development’ . Said that Lipshutz had made her case for her in that Lipshutz admitted there were traffic problems, borrowed light. Felt that this development ‘was overly intense and that’s enough for me’

OKOTEL: Said that no policy has been developed on how tall buildings should be and felt that this decision would set a precedent for development in the area. Said that other buildings on opposite side of Dandenong Road are 3 storeys and apartments of ‘no more than 2 storeys’ so this would be ‘far, far greater’ than what’s there presently. This would also cause ‘pressure on existing amenities’ and ‘create further congestion’. Said that residents already have severe problems with Koornang Rd, and trains make this even worse. Stated that ‘in the absence of policy’ as to height limits then council must also consider what the community benefit will be so given congestion and the likelihood of many families with kids living in the area, she thinks there wouldn’t be overall community benefit.

HYAMS: ‘this is a really tough one’…’it certainly is the right place for more intense development’. It ‘might set a precedent’ but since it’s the only such block in the area then maybe it won’t set a precedent. No overlooking or overshadowing, near shops and trains, ‘so the ideal place for intense development’. Said that Esakoff’s proposal would equate to ‘intense development’  but ‘it fits this site’. ‘In the absence of height limits it’s up to us….to work out what we think the height should be’. Admitted that there is ‘chaos on Koornang Road’. Said that he didn’t think it ‘was ever put to Vic Roads that there should be ingress from Dandenong Road’ and if there ‘had been my decision might have been a bit different’. Said that he did like the changes to parking, private waste collection and no parking permits. He supported the motion for 8 storeys.

ESAKOFF: said that this was ‘an intense development even at the reduced level’. Height limits ‘can be put when we deal with the residential zones at the appropriate time…..but this is what we have on the table now’.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. VOTE WAS TIED 4 ALL. HYAMS USED HIS CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION.

IN FAVOUR OF ESAKOFF’S MOTION WERE – ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS

AGAINST – PILLING, SOUNNESS, MAGEE, LIPSHUTZ

Item 9.7 of the current agenda features a four page report on the GESAC basketball allocations. Two things need to be highlighted:

• The 90 hour court allocation agreement given to the Warriors has NOT BEEN FULFILLED despite what Burke would like us to believe
• We have serious doubts as to whether the courts (and GESAC) are really paying for themselves

First, a little history to place things in context. The Warriors were finally awarded the EOI after much dilly-dallying in December 2011 and on Burke’s decision. GESAC did not open until May 2012. That gave the Warriors at least 5 months to get their act into full operation via a concerted recruitment drive – which they did according to their website and Facebook pages of this period. But, even as early as June 2011 the Warriors were trumpeting their success in gaining GESAC and their website featured the call for recruits even back then. That is over a year ago! Recruitment is still ongoing.

There are many statements within the Burke report that we take issue with. We will go through these sequentially.

1. We’re supposed to believe this statement: “GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.” GESAC did not open at short notice. The progress was continually monitored according to media releases and Pool Steering Committee reports. More importantly, the courts themselves were part of  a separate contract, contingent on additional government funding. Furthermore, the courts were completed by December 2011, yet allowed to stand idle for 5 months waiting for the entire complex to open. No satisfactory reason has been provided as to why the courts were not opened earlier since they boast entirely separate access and their own facilities. The basketball season also started in December, so it would have made perfectly good sense to open the facility at this time. We suspect that the reason this did not happen was simply because the Oakleigh Warriors did not at that time have sufficient teams even though they had been recruiting for over half a year as we’ve stated above.
2. Burke also asserts: “GESAC opened mid-season.” – ie in May. Hardly MID SEASON! The basketball winter season was 4 weeks old. Most Associations and the poor old Warriors were unable to get their full competition off and running EVEN though one of the stated reasons they won the EOI was because of their superior marketing of the game! In fact, in the months leading up to the opening they were marketing a competition that would be held in other stadiums until GESAC was completed….that competition never happened!
3. Another statement – “The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened”.  Well, we are now in November and GESAC has been open for 6 months YET THE WARRIORS HAVE STILL NOT FULFILLED THEIR HOURLY ALLOCATION! Burke tries desperately to befuddle the picture with his irrelevant and bogus figures. We remind readers that the Warriors hired 90 hours of court time in the Friday to Sunday timeslot. They were awarded the EOI on the promise of paying over $4,000+ per week for these 90 hours. Now we’re told that the court time utilised by the Warriors in this timeslot only tallies 79 hours. That’s 11 hours less than the contract stipulated and just under $500 per week that GESAC and ratepayers are possibly losing out on. Please note that these figures are also the latest figures. What was going on in June, July, and August for example? How many court hours were standing idle during this time and how much revenue was lost? In fact, the question needs to be asked – Have the Warriors handed over, for the duration of these 6 months, $4,050 each week? This would now total close to $100,000. Has council received this payment from the Warriors or have they been given special dispensation with ratepayers subsidising their court time? That is the crucial question!
4. Nothing in Burke’s report allays our fears in regard to the above. Citing casual bookings is irrelevant. The McKinnon Basketball Association lost out on the contract allegedly because they couldn’t match the promised payment of the Warriors. Now we find that the Warriors are not fulfilling the terms that were promised. We have to again ask: how well did Burke do his homework? What analysis, if any, was made of the Warriors’ capacity to pay the agreed to price, when recruiting had, and still is, ongoing?
5. We have to also question whether GESAC will ever be used for Women’s BigV competitions since GESAC lacks separate change rooms and a function area for after match. So much for proper holistic planning!
   

There are countless questions that have never been answered by this council in relation to the finances, the staffing, and the additional costs accrued in delivering GESAC. Residents have been like mushrooms – kept in the dark. Perhaps at the very least we can get a little more honesty simply by refraining from calling this a $41.2 million dollar project and instead admitting that with interest payments, staffing, legal bills, outfittings, costs of traffic lights and extra parking, etc. etc. the project will come in at close to $60+ million – if not even more. Enough spin we say. How about full disclosure on all expenses (itemised) and actual income. It is high time that facts replaced spin and residents knew exactly how their money was being used.

The fiasco and discontent that the basketball allocations have caused is unforgiveable. As we see it, the root cause goes back once again to the abdication of councillor responsibility and leaving everything in the hands of officers. Our previous comments need to be repeated:

• Councillors must ensure that they have a leading role in sporting allocations. This is achieved by careful analysis of the relevant delegations to officers.
• Sporting allocation policy (if one in fact exists) must be made public as must the criteria for decisions. The community plan states that council policies will be available on the website. They aren’t! Transparency is the victim once more.
• If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then why, oh why, has council been so reticent to provide the full information that we have referred to above?
  

We must congratulate council for finally placing a document in the public domain which clearly reveals the shortcomings of its processes and performance on community consultation, plus highlighting the entire mess that is Advisory Committees. The ‘evidence’ we are referring to comes in the form of the Community Consultation Advisory Committee Meeting ‘minutes’ from the current agenda items.

The opening paragraph reads: “The Committee noted the final printed version of the Glen Eira Community Plan. Committee members agreed that the final printed version was a high quality document and that its layout and design appropriately highlighted Council services and community needs”.

COMMENT: We find it strange that the phrase “final printed version” is repeated twice and that “high quality” would seem to largely pertain to “layout and design”. This sounds very much like the “awards” that council wins for its Annual Report. That is, nothing about CONTENT, but all about the bells and whistles of presentation. The Community Plan itself is therefore not endorsed as ‘high quality’ – merely its format, and overall look. Not exactly providing us with the full ring of confidence! We also remind readers that one of the community reps on this very committee felt compelled to put in her own submission on the community plan. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of “high quality” if a committee member comes up with ‘recommendations’ for improvement!

Then comes the real nitty gritty – the admission that not everything is perfect. Note this sentence – “The Committee suggested that the following improvements could be incorporated into future Council community planning processes”. The suggested ‘improvements’ are:

• “Council to adopt a longer community planning process to provide more time for the development of the community plan”. Does this mean that the plan was rushed? That time given to integrate community feedback was insufficient and deficient?
• “Ensure future plans articulate links between consultation outcomes and actions contained within plans”. Implied criticism perhaps that what residents had to say was basically ignored? That the action plan had no logical connection with community aspirations – that it was set in concrete from the beginning?
• “Improve induction processes for community representatives joining Council Committees, specifically, indicating that decisions are made by consensus in the Committee and that the Committee is advisory only to Council.” A really fascinating sentence in that we have to ask: does this apply only to the Consultation Committee or all Advisory Committees? If, on the one hand it applies to all committees, then we are in the territory of hypocrisy, lack of due process, inconsistency, and plain old humbug. What does consensus mean? And why is this possibly only applied to the consultation committee? In the same agenda there are the minutes for the Arts & Culture Advisory Committee. Motions, including names of movers and seconders, plus whether the motion is carried is included for this committee as well as the Community Grants Committee. The Environment Committee, which also happens to have community reps DOES NOT include formal motions but ‘Recommendations”. The names of mover and seconder are provided (and they are invariably councillors), but no outcome as to voting is recorded. Instead, we have an item curiously labelled ‘action’. Our conclusion can only be that where committees have community representatives on them there is NO FORMAL MOTION AND VOTE RECORDED. Only those committees which consist exclusively of councillors and officers are afforded this right. Of course such committees are a closed shop so the formalities of a motion and vote are permitted What this highlights for us is the failure of this council and its councillors to ensure two basic democratic rights – community reps on all committees and more importantly, that community reps have full voting rights. It also makes a sham of the minutes themselves when we see no consistency between the reporting formats for each committee. The minutes can and have been doctored at will. There is absolutely no logical and valid reason why formal votes should be taken at some committees and not at others. Furthermore, it is incumbent that specific terms of reference are set for each committee (we have been unable to find such terms for the consultation committee) and that definitive processes are set down for the tabling of minutes. These are all matters that must be included in the Local Law meeting procedures.
• We must concede that our favourite recommendation for improvement is: “Committee minutes to be distributed to all members of the Committee prior to adoption by Council.” In other words, it is pretty obvious that committee members did not get to see (and therefore) comment on the minutes before they appeared in council agendas! Officers were the arbiters of what appeared in these minutes not, we presume councillors, and most certainly not, community reps!

It now remains for things to be set right via the total amendment of the Local Law.

We repeat what we have previously stated. If these councillors are really interested in transparency and accountability and proper community consultation, then the following must happen:

• All advisory committees to come under the umbrella of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law
• All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit Committee) include community reps
• All advisory committee minutes be consistent in reporting, format, and voting procedures
• Community reps have voting rights on such committees

Without such changes community consultation will remain the sham it currently is and which has finally been conceded by these minutes. Over to you councillors!

Tuesday night’s council meeting will feature the planning application for a 12 storey building at 1056-60 Dandenong Rd. The report by Ron Torres recommends acceptance of this application for 173 dwellings and commercial space, PLUS a reduction in car parking requirements. The proposed layout includes: 50 one bedroom apartments and the rest 2 bedroom, plus 264 car spaces. Apart from a bit of tinkering here and there, the developer’s application has largely been accepted intact.

In this post we will simply highlight and comment on various extracts from the officer’s report.

• The usual blurb about projected population increases feature prominently in the opening – ie.”Glen Eira, amongst other municipalities, is identified by the State Government to have opportunities for increased dwelling numbers. We of course note the irony that in numerous VCAT hearings council has repeatedly argued that Glen Eira has already exceeded its projected increase!  How council can therefore use one argument that its population trends have been met and then turn around and argue that there is still a need for ‘increased dwelling numbers’ is simply unbelievable, hypocritical and totally expedient. Consistency, logic, and a real concern for residents is nowhere to be found.
• Whilst new to this precinct the residential land use is consistent with what planning policy is seeking to achieve. There we have it! This council sees nothing wrong with 12 storeys!
• The land is located within a State Government designated Major Activity Centre with access to services, public transport, existing infrastructure and road networks that can accommodate this level of development.  Interesting that there is not one scrap of ‘evidence’ provided in this report to support this claim. But it gets even worse when we find this paragraph – In addition, the intensity and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with the vision for the Carnegie Urban Village. Please note that the Minister’s Planning Zone Reform leaves height limits largely up to council. Is this what residents can expect from Glen Eira Council – the acceptance of at least 12 storeys in all its Activity Centres?
• A total of 50 out of the 173 dwellings are one bedroom dwellings (29% of the total). These one bedroom dwellings are located on the east side of the building and their single bedrooms rely on borrowed light (ie The rooms do not have a normal window)…..It is recommended that a maximum of 35 dwellings (20%)_ should rely on borrowed light. No comment is necessary here – it speaks for itself!
• It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. But that’s okay it seems! Again, no facts, figures, analysis. We point out that the plan is to have left hand turn into Dandenong Road and right and left hand turns into Egan St. This wonderful sentence says it all – An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road  is considered to be significant advantage for this development site.

PS: Another item features the revamped minutes of the Local Law Committee. Tree registers dominate the minutes which state:

 “Classified Tree Register

The draft Local Law, selection criteria for classification and appeal provisions were discussed in detail. It was agreed to proceed with the process for finalising a proposed Local Law for community consultation in accordance with the Statutory requirements.”

We highlight this as another example of inaction by this council and its councillors. It should not take ten years for a council to fulfill a resolution. It should not take two years to “consult” with other councils as per other, committee meeting minutes. The public should not have to endure years of spin for no result. We draw readers’ attention to the following:

Minutes of 26^th May 2003

 Crs Hyams/Grossbard

That Council send a letter to the Minister asking the Minister to protect the Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 66A Balaclava Road, Caulfield North and that Council Officers examine ways to protect this and other significant trees in the City.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

In these same minutes there was this public question which was taken on notice for a response –““Does Council have a significant tree register? If not then will this be undertaken by the soon to be appointed arborist?”

Yes, things certainly move at a glacial pace in Glen Eira – even when the mover of the 2003 motion has now been on council for eons and the chair of the Local Laws Committee likewise!

Join the local democracy

I knocked, I walked, I ran, I drove and 1203 citizens voted for Newton Gatoff. While not enough to get me elected to Glen Eira Council, I have found a wonderful community spirit alive and kicking across our city – with one big problem.

There were at least 13 per cent who spoiled their votes in Tucker Ward, who clearly didn’t want this election. Tucker’s voters returned the three incumbent councillors.

The new arrivals in Camden and Rosstown ward exude a palpable freshness. I cannot accept these elections should be compulsory.

Ban the mandatory vote (at least for local government elections), but let’s have a referendum on that.

And either get an electronic voting system or make it postal votes only in all local government areas. The election is ultimately more engaging if only tnose who want to, take part in it. We may be surprised how much more we can achieve from a positive democracy.

Newton Gatoff

An election thank-you

On Saturday October 27 I was humbled to be re-elected as a Glen Eira councillor for a second term.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who voted for me. For those who did not vote for me, I will continue to serve you as your friend on council

Thank you for placing your trust in me.

Oscar Lobo

This comment has been sent in by Oscar Lobo –

“Ola Pend…”

GLEN EIRA DEBATES/COMMENTS.

Please do not delete this replay (be fair) as I have disclosed my name and I am not writing under an anonymous burqa.

I have read with interest the various DEROGATORY 82 comments made by people who look down upon others.  The gas tank is released before they go home.

This is attributed to lack of education in a proper private schools and top notch universities. I believe a well educated person who has travelled the world will not succumb to such comments and particularly a father or a mother who have dearth of time will not write the pooh material.

I thought the mission statement of the blog was “We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira…. This blog is not a debate but comments as can be shown that 86 comments have been received under the title of “NOT QUIET “TWO UP”! – with 86 comments instead of Debates.

PRIDE AND ENVY CAN CAUSE THE BEST OF MEN TO SUCCUMB TO THEIR INFLUENCE……..

I will respond in seriatim some of the interesting comments (debates?!) that have been posted in the topic under reference.

1. Comment on the blog: Hyams and Lobo! Glen Eira has reached a new low. Good reason to abolish local government.

Ans: Are you a “loco” in spanish? – You would like to abolish local government just because you dislike two people on the council?  This shows that you do not put your cranium in gear before putting your fingers on keyboard in motion. You are indeed a Richard Cranium these two words I picked up from the blog.  Very  educational stuff on this blog!!!!

2. Comment on the blog: Newton is undoubtedly in 7th heaven and Lobo, that good Christian, appears to have once again sold his soul – but for so little!

Ans. In your denomination of religion, how many souls does your teaching say? Your statement “..that good Christian, appears to have once again sold his soul – but for so little.  weak in religion.

3. Comment on the blog: Lobo would be a disaster as Mayor.  My tip is he’ll make a hash of the Deputy’s role the gang won’t want to know him (By a famous autonomy)

Ans: What do you mean a disaster – is it the same as a disaster when you get divorced by your wife or partner? Are you comparing me with ex Mayor Helen Whiteside and her description that appeared in the Age some 10 days ago. Ms. Whiteside bit the hand that fed  her?  I do not think I will follow her footsteps if and when my turn comes.

4  Comment on the blog: Lobo you have disappointed so many voters by going with the gang. You could have changed it all with your casting  vote.

Ans: Are you one of the voters that is disappointed?  Please let me  know. I am happy to talk to you and others. You know how to   reach me on mobile and e-mail.

5. Comment on the blog:  If Lobo is so hard-working why did he miss so many council meetings in 2011/12, including those where the Mayor was elected?

Ans: Did you ask me that question before?  I would have told you the real reason; I showed explained my circumstances and showed my  sick leave certificate. Did you expect a copy of the certificate to be sent for this blog.  If so, let us know.

6. Comment on the blog: Tell that to Cr Lobo who was very disparaging of this forum in his impromptu speech at the swearing in of the new Council

Ans. Read 1 Corinthians 16:11-21 (The Message)

You guys just do not have a clue about Jamie Hyams. Terming him as NAZI is just below the belt.  One is sick to stoop so low. Have you met Jamie Hyams before, if not you need to meet him and then comment and hear/see for yourself how decent he is with lots of patients.He uses rationale where required, smart and intelligent,affable, extremely good memory,making things happen rather than waiting for things to happen (principles of late Stephen Covey).  Very co-operative, ready to assist residents of Glen Eira not only Tucker ward. I do not have to justify to you why I have proposed him as a Mayor but I will let you in.  There are multifarious reasons: He has the required knowledge, he writes well, portrays good true and proper image. Does not assume things like most of you guys. I could go on and on about him and my other colleagues.  Just because Jamie belongs to Liberal party, it does not mean that we should hate one another. I work on the methodoligy of observing, investigating, verifying, reporting and then decision making.When a decision is made, it is made on the basis of what is beneficial to the residents who have put us in a trustworthy position.  If residents were unhappy, this would reflect in the latest reports on the declarations of the number of votes we all received.

Smart Aleck, D. Evans. Elsternwick need a good holiday!!!!!!

I believe we have many unusually stupid people in this universe.  They need to grow up and not succumb to knee jerk re-action. I seize this opportunity to thank other positive anonymous people who wrote in defence of me and I thank them warmly.

A. Comments on November 2, 2012 at 9:27  by an Anonymous.

B. Comment on November 2, 2012 at 10.34  am – Henry Richards.  He may have been served by me or been told of my attention to every problem my residents have.

C. Comment on November 2, 2012 at 10.10 and 10.34 am – Thank you.

Hope you enjoyed the foregoing as I thought I would respond with my name.  Beware the fury of a patient man.”