The lack of open space in Glen Eira is continually bemoaned by residents, councillors, and when it suits, public servants. Yet, despite opportunities to purchase new land, whether this be to create new parks, or to extend existing parkland, the vast majority of monies collected via the open space levies have been used for ‘maintenance’ and ‘infrastructure’. How this money is spent, or what it is spent on, and whether this truly represents ‘value for money’ remains shrouded in mystery.
In 2009 the Auditor General (http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/091209_Development_Contributions_full_report.pdf) in his report on how councils spent development contributions (now gone from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme) and the Open Space levies, concluded:
“There is little assurance that the development contributions system is operating as intended across local government. A lack of effective oversight and transparent reporting remain, despite similar issues being identified in 2005. Greater accountability for what has been delivered is needed, as is a better understanding of the future obligations that arise from the contributions received.
Weaknesses in the controls and associated management practices of selected councils indicate there is insufficient assurance they have collected all contributions owed, that they have been used effectively, and that councils have met all their statutory obligations.
Each council had appropriately used development contributions to deliver infrastructure they had committed to. None, however, had a complete record that accurately linked all development contributions collected with those expended, and the associated infrastructure delivered against that planned. This meant that they were unable to demonstrate that all the funds contributed by developers had been used effectively, or that all in-kind works provided met requisite standards.
Oversight of development contributions in councils was limited. Reports to senior management and councillors focused mainly on the status of fund balances, and lacked sufficient detail to provide assurance that contributions were being effectively managed.
Similarly, public reporting by councils was insufficient to demonstrate to the community that contributions were being spent for the purposes intended, and that the associated infrastructure was being delivered as planned. While all councils identified aggregate development contributions revenue in their annual reports, it was not always possible to clearly distinguish this from gifted assets and, therefore, accurately compare councils”.
The crucial wording in the above is ‘used effectively’, ‘transparent reporting’ and ‘greater accountability’. As the Auditor General concludes, all that councillors and residents get to see is ‘fund balances’ in Annual Reports. Hardly a satisfactory explanation, nor justification for the paltry expenditure of just under $2 million in the last decade on the acquisition of open space, yet over $12 million on ‘infrastructure’ as revealed in the response to a public question at last council meeting.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM
Council has spent far more on improvements to land for public recreation than
received from the levy including, but not limited to, numerous new playgrounds, public toilets that comply with Police CPTED principles, enclosed golf practice cages, warm season grasses, master-planned improvements at Princes Park, Joyce Park, Allnutt Park , Packer Park bowls greens, the Aviary Garden and extra trees and many, many others.
Pretty good spin in this answer to the public question. Most of the items listed should never come out of the open space levy. They belong to the capital works budget. The master plans go back centuries too for most of the parks and toilets aren’t all in parks. What’s more, there’s nothing here about value for money. How about asking residents if they think that spending a million or so on concrete plinthing is worth it instead of acquiring new open space?
January 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Off topic, but important for residents. From today’s Age –
VCAT fees set to rise
Date
January 8, 2013 – 11:54AM
Deborah Gough
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions
Pursuing justice in the so called “people’s court” will cost more from March and would skyrocket in two years’ time under planned fee rises at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
VCAT will attempt to recover 45 per cent of the cost of administering the courts under its proposed fee hikes, with the most common fee rising from $322 to $502 by 2015.
The tribunal was set up as a low-cost court which would be financially accessible. It hears disputes about planning and appeals against government and some professional board decisions. It also hears small consumer claims, tenancy, guardianship, discrimination and freedom of information and transport insurance disputes.
The biggest fee hikes would be for owners corporation disputes, which would rise by up to 91 per cent. Fees for the commonly used civil claims and land valuation decisions would jump by 65 per cent under proposed changes by 2015.
Advertisement
Some fee-free services, like mediation, would rise to $300 a day.
The tribunal expects to garner an extra $22 million over three years under the proposed fee structure.
In a report looking at the regulatory impact of the fees, VCAT says it is the state government’s view that the tribunal should recoup a greater proportion of its costs.
“The overall level of cost recovery is unduly low,” the report states.
It goes on to compare VCAT to the Magistrates Court, which it describes as the most comparable jurisdiction, which has opted to recover 50 per cent of its costs through fee rises. The report laments that VCAT only recovers 14 per cent of its costs under its 2012 fee structure.
The report flags more fee rises, possibly even before 2015, saying VCAT would conduct a detailed analysis on the costs of each of its tribunals and services.
The report admits increasing costs will limit the ability of some to access the tribunal system.
It also proposes a new “complex cases” hearing fee which could be based on the cost per day of the hearing.
The regulatory impact statement on the effect of the fee hikes has been placed on VCAT’s website and is open for public comment until February 15.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vcat-fees-set-to-rise-20130108-2cdtr.html#ixzz2HMEaT0T3
January 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM
One trouble we have in Glen Eira is all the “under-the-table” policies that are actually used to make decisions vs the explicit policies contained in GEPS and other documents. The above-the-table documents talk about Glen Eira’s garden character, the importance of open space, the need to protect amenity. None of that matters under PAEA, as VCAT and Council can do what they want regardless and despite the applicable policies. While Standards and Policies can be ignored, theoretically the Objectives of Planning cannot. Yet they are.
Council’s spending of Open Space contributions is appalling. Let’s hear a councillor defend their decisions if they wish, but I stand by my assessment, based on the relevant policies and schedules contained in GEPS. It is unforgiveable if the majority of monies raised have been spent nowhere near where the new residents live, the ones who have been told they’re not entitled to any protection of amenity, or to gardens, or trees, or grass, or recreation, or wildlife. GEPS mentions failure to live within 300m of a listed park as a trigger for increased Open Space contributions. Most bizarre is that Glen Huntly and East Caulfield have to contribute more, despite the Booran Rd reservoir and Glen Huntly Park and Caulfield Racecourse precinct, than Carnegie Urban Village whose only open space has been wiped from the face of the earth. So much for logic.
The VCAT fee changes stink, yet no amount of lobbying is likely to change the outcome…that’s admitted in the published documents. Clearly VCAT has been criticised by the State Government for their inability to articulate a rational basis for the fees they charge, but a further 3 years [minimum] is to elapse before they need do anything about it. In the meantime, we the public are expected to pay for their incompetence. In a sense I agree but only at a community level: if the public tolerates or encourages incompetence then yes, it should pay. The burden however is most unevenly distributed.
January 8, 2013 at 8:26 PM
In response to Reprobate’s comments and as further information, there’s a very comprehensive report from Bayside which explains exactly the legal, financial options available to councils in the various development and open space levies. We’ve extracted a few of the paragraphs related to open space, but the full June2012 report may be accessed at http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Develop_Contri_PlanFinal_Report_June_2012.pdf
Needless to say, Glen Eira has not made anything public – even though the Planning Scheme review of nearly 3 years ago was meant to provide an update to the open space levy. Patience is definitely a needed virtue in Glen Eira!
Here’s the Bayside approach –
The decision to apply the contribution requirement will be based on as assessment of need for open space. It is generally accepted that more intense development will generate additional demand for open space, and thus be liable for open space contributions. On this basis, the open space contribution provisions require a form of nexus between subdivision and open space need to be established to justify application of the contribution requirement.
Various standards and guidelines have been developed to link open space provision – number and type of open space assets – to various population thresholds. Whilst the standards vary the underlying principle does not: communities need open space for a variety of purposes.
The Contribution Amount
Where a need for more or improved open space is established, the next decision is to determine a percent rate of contribution to be sought. Little guidance is provided on this issue in the Subdivision Act, other than the amount must not exceed 5%.
In principle, the contribution amount should have a relationship with the need for open space. In other words, a particular subdivision should contribute an amount to achieve an open space outcome as defined by formal policy.
Each case is usually judged on its merits having regard to:
• Likely demand for open space, having regard to the nature and intensity of use and development;
• Supply of open space on the development site and in the surrounding area; and
• Council’s policy and strategy base.
Cash in lieu of land provision can be useful where the council seeks to pool contributions to provide a consolidated open space network – or improve an existing network – as opposed to obtaining a disjointed series of pocket parks. This is particularly important in established and densifying areas where strategic investments are required as opposed to sporadic land contributions.
Calculation of Open Space Levies
When a cash payment is made under the levy, it is done so on the basis of a percentage of site value. Site value is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act.
Under this tool, a given percentage rate in a high value area will deliver a higher income stream than the same percentage rate in a lower value area. For example:
• 1,500 sqm site in Area A = $2,000,000 site value x 5% = $100,000 contribution
• 1,500 sqm site in Area B = $800,000 site value x 5% = $40,000 contribution
Site value reflects demand in the area and the capacity to use and develop the land. As such, land with greater development capacity within a given area will have a higher value (all other things being equal) and generate a higher dollar contribution compared to land with lower development potential, for example, as provided by planning approvals. For example:
• 1,500 sqm site in Area A with high density planning permission = $3,000,000 site value x 5% = $150,000 contribution
• 1,500 sqm site in Area A with low density planning permission = $1,000,000 site value x 5% = $50,000 contribution
January 8, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Very interesting! If I’m interpreting this correctly, then those places which see major developments such as Housing Diversity Areas, should have a higher contribution rate. That idea doesn’t apply in Glen Eira when the schedule for East Bentleigh, Carnegie and Murumbeena, according to the planning scheme only demands 0.25% of site value. Reprobate has put it in a nutshell. It’s inequitable and all the fancy words and vision statements mean absolutely nothing when you start looking at the fine print.
January 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Community Toy Library issue mentioned in this week Leader provides another example of how Glen Eira Council deals with community issues. The Toy Library people wanted 3 things: increase storage, become part of the community space, and increase their volunteer membership. their solution was to go to another place than Carnegie Swim Centre, since this is only open 5 months in a year and support is declining because of GESAC.
What actually happened after their request? Cr Pilling asked for a Report, which recommends to increase their space only. No discussion and justification. Cr Pilling is disappointed and Mayor Hyams just agreed that a problem existed for years!
Where is the debate and really why Glen Eira Council is dismissing its growing youngsters needs? Anyone care to comment?
January 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Yes it seems like a great idea to put aq facility foryoung childrenright at a swimming pool. WhenIwascaring for my fourchildrenIactually avoided pools as a place where ther was a chance they may fall in.. so in thjis instance i could not possibly go to the toy libratry. Would council ne3e3d to erect a pool fence there just in case?
January 9, 2013 at 2:27 PM
Also when one hops around the parks there are so many new pieces pof concrete, bitumen called paths and running tracksandjust souch plinthing of hard materials , the grasshoppers legsare becoming very sore!
It would semm that the “Concrete Plinthing” has already versed the open soace” to love.