At the last council meeting officers provided a report in response to the motion moved by Okotel and Esakoff.
“In the interest of transparency and demystifying the planning process for residents and ratepayers, I request a report on:
(a) The information provided to applicants and objectors in relation to Council’s procedures in dealing with planning applications; and
(b) If and how applicants and objectors are informed about the points along the process where they can be involved or express their views.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”
In accepting this report both councillors praised its ‘fulsome’ and ‘comprehensive nature’ although Okotel did comment on several ‘misprints’ that managed to worm their way into official documents. Sadly she did not elaborate! We beg to differ on these evaluations of the report.
The entire report, presumably by Jeff Akehurst since his name is provided for ‘enquiries’, is merely a regurgitation of the current provided information, and the usual litany of self-congratulatory statements. For example, one sentence claims that both the DPC and the Planning Conferences are a result of “Council choos(ing) to have these public forums in the interest of broader community involvement in town planning decision making.” “Community involvement’ is a wonderful catchcry. It is however illusory in Glen Eira when the implementation of these committees are examined in detail.
The DPC meetings are far from encouraging ‘broader community involvement’ for the following reasons:
- Objectors, if they’re lucky, receive only 5 days notice! Further it is not clear whether this means that letters are posted 5 days earlier, or whether council ensures via earlier posting, that objectors have the full 5 days notice. It is even conceivable that if the letters are posted on a Friday, and the DPC meeting is arranged for a Tuesday or Wednesday, that objectors would only receive the notification on the Monday. Hardly a full 5 days notice. Surely if ‘broader community involvement’ was the real objective, Council would inform objectors far earlier of the set dates.
- DPC meetings are scheduled DURING OFFICE HOURS. Hardly an appropriate time for resident objectors to attend such a conference if they work. Once again, this would limit and hinder full participation by all objectors. Since community forums and other countless meetings are held in the evening, and if the desire for ‘broader community involvement’ was genuine, then DPC meetings would also be held in the evenings when a far greater number of residents would be likely to attend.
- No councillor is granted decision making authority for these meetings. We even wonder whether councillors know which applications are being considered by the DPC, or more significantly, when they find out. Before the fact, or after the permit has been granted or refused? In this instance, councillors are sidelined as effectively as residents. All committee members are officers and the meetings generally go for about one hour. It is further not compulsory for applicants to attend. No minutes or records of DPC decisions are available for public scrutiny. Hardly a transparent and accountable process!
PLANNING CONFERENCES
Whilst a councillor is chair of such meetings, and planning conferences usually go to council for ultimate decision making, the procedures are again non conducive to ‘broader community involvement’. Some of the reasons are the same as those outlined above –
- The lack of sufficient notice
- The repeated gagging of objector comments and questions (ie Mahvo St is the perfect example)
- Applicants often do not attend and hence are not available for questioning and ‘compromise’ with residents
The greatest drawback however is that NO OFFICER recommendations are available until the application appears as a report in council agenda papers. This is made public on Friday – usually late in the afternoon on Council’s website. It should again be pointed out that most people work. Most people would also be respectful of councillors’ weekends. So that means that objectors only have 2 working days in order to analyse the officer’s recommendations, contact their councillors and attempt to achieve some favourable outcomes. Timing is everything. Why aren’t the officers’ recommendations reported back to objectors well before the item surfaces as a council agenda item? The 64 dollar question would be – are developers notified of officer recommendations in the same manner or do they get a look in well before objectors find out the fate of the application?
The entire planning processes in Glen Eira are designed to favour the applicant rather than the resident objector. Okotel and Esakoff may continue singing the praises of officer reports, but in doing so they fail to address the central concerns of how such information is disseminated and what protocols are in existence to ensure a fair hearing for both objectors and applicants.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 3, 2012 at 9:41 PM
It is deceitful to paint a picture that Glen Eira is doing something that no other Councils do. All councils let the objectors have a say. In Bayside when planning matters are heard the whole Council is listening. In Glen Eira this is not the case. You may be lucky to have two councillors. The Cpouncillors rely on the officers write up to make up their mind. I would sooner be pitching my objection to all Councillors rather than one or two.
December 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Deceit is a good word to use about the report. I know people who were never told that a three storey building was going up two houses down from them. They found out by sheer fluke.
December 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Over several years I have attended both DPC hearings (conducted by officers, no Councillors present) and Planning Conferences (conducted by Councillors, officers in advisory roles) and, despite asking questions, have never received clear answers to any of the following questions:
. who determines whether a DPC hearing or a Planning Conference is held?
. what rules/standards/criteria apply to making that determination?
. are the officers at a DPC hearing governed by the same rules of conduct and conflict of interest as Councillors are? If not, why not and what rules apply?
. are Councillors advised of the planning applications handled by the DPC and when are they advised (prior to or after or after)?. Councillor’s should be aware of the location and content of the application, no. of objections, nature of objections of all DPC handled applications. While I don’t expect Councillors to be involved in every planning permit application, there have been many handled by the DPC that I believe should have been handled by Councillors. When I have contacted my ward Councillors on some applications handled by the DPC they have known nothing about them.
. can a Councillor, in responding to residents concerns, request a planning permit be reviewed by Council rather than the DPC? If not, why not?
. in the event that the planning proposal changes between the time the original application is advertised and the DPC hearing or Planning Conference is held, what obligations does Council have to advise objectors of the changes? Recently, I have noticed residents objections have been negated by subsequent changes to plans that residents have not been advised of. This is a total waste of time, effort and $’s for all parties involved and a real cause of frustration.
I consider these questions pretty basic and my inability to obtain answers to them does not inspire confidence in the process. I’d be interested in hearing the moderators and bloggers comments.
December 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Ron, these are first class questions to which I would also be interested in obtaining a clear answer to. The most important question I think in terms of true democratic process and representation by councillors is the one you ask about call in ability by councillors _” can a Councillor, in responding to residents concerns, request a planning permit be reviewed by Council rather than the DPC? If not, why not?”. Others have already stated that they would prefer to present their views to either several or all councillors rather than to 3 anonymous officers. I regard it as essential that this power be taken up by councillors to ensure that residents do actually have a voice when it comes to important planning decisions.
December 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Letter to the Editor from today’s Caulfield Leader –
“CONGESTION A PLANNING FAILURE
The development lies between the two most accident-prone intersections in the minicipality (‘Council downsizes Carnegie proposal”, Leader, November 20).
The traffic analysis states, without substantiation, that Egan St can cope with 61 right-turners at morning peak hour despite the railway boom barriers providing no room to turn. Koornang Rd is already heavily congested, with more to come from unsignalised Morton/Shepparson/Belsize developments whose traffic has not been modelled or considered.
There are reasons why buses can take 23 minutes to travel 3km from Carnegie to the town hall.
The council has failed to plan for the precinct. It’s not good enough to consider on-off applications. It’s supposed to be “long-term and cumulative effects of decisions”.
If it’s an activity centre then let’s see the strategic planning work that state policy requires. If it’s not, then Cr Magee owes residents an apology. And there is no open space in safe convenient walking distance – the applicant expects children to sprint across state arterial roads. Fail.”
December 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM
These meetings are quite a circus with Akehurst the ringmaster.
Admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve been to one. However on the last occasion three council officers were present. The involved planner, another so-called independent officer, and Akehurst as chair.
A few of us were standing around after the event when the independent officer came by. We had a question to ask him, which he did his best to answer, stipulating he had no specific planning knowledge and was just co-opted to make up the numbers. Hmm!
From my observation what Akehurst says goes. He can be a very abrupt character as chairman too.
I’ve also queried why the meetings are held during working hours. The response has been that it is unreasonable to expect Council officers to work after hours as there are so many of these meetings and if objectors are sufficiently concerned they will make the time to attend. The Council is run to suit the officers and councillors, so that’s fair enough isn’t it? 🙄
Just on the question of the likes of Akehurst. He, along with so many other senior executives, has been in his position since Adam was a child. Never being exposed to the recruitment market. Just being re-appointed term after term.