Only 2% of planning applications come to the full council for decision. Hence, 98% of all decisions are made by officers either through the Delegated Planning Committee or under ‘managers’. These committees are held during work hours, and officers have already made recommendations as to accepting or rejecting the proposal. Objectors are given the opportunity to attend, but we suggest that their chances of altering the recommendations at this late stage are basically buckleys and none!
The INDIVIDUAL decisions of the DPC are NOT MADE PUBLIC, except for those which result in an appeal to VCAT and are therefore listed in the regular VCAT Watch as an item on every Council Meeting Agenda. Official figures state that the number of VCAT appeals each year totals approximately 160 – that means that THE DETAILS of about 1000 decisions made by the DPC or ‘managers’ are not made public. Residents therefore have absolutely no idea why these 1000 applications were accepted, or rejected. No minutes are made public (or maybe even kept) and the criteria, decision making processes used to assess each application is also top secret. There is no tabulated, clear or regular reporting on any of these decisions. Other councils report fully every month so that residents know exactly what decisions have been made under the planning delegations. Below is just one example from Kingston which goes on for pages and pages. In Glen Eira this doesn’t happen. The ‘secret society’ of officers keeps everyone, and we believe even councillors, in the dark! If councillors do not even know what applications have come in, nor when DPC meetings will be held, nor are they invited to attend, then all pretense of these councillors actually representing their constituents is a myth!
At last week’s council meeting a public question on this exact issue was asked. It read:
“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?”
Here is the council response to the question –
“Your statement is not correct.
Council’s Planning Application Register is publicly available on Council’s website. This Register contains details of all Glen Eira planning applications lodged and the decisions made. This is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker.
The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”
COMMENTS:
- The statement IS CORRECT! Council’s Online Planning Register DOES NOT tell us whether decisions were made by the DPC, COUNCIL, or a ‘manager’. It also does not ‘tabulate’ any results as noted in the Kingston and other councils’ versions. A user must first enter a street name, or suburb, and then hunt through all the resulting ‘hits’. Unless someone is willing to spend hours on scouring every single entry in the database they will not know which properties are, or were up for consideration and they certainly won’t know who made the final decision to accept or reject. The question asked for links between individual planning application decisions with those responsible for making the decision. To therefore say ‘there is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker’ is not answering the question but just affirming the current inadequacies of the situation.
- Again, the Services Report is a useless document that is almost indecipherable and reveals nothing in terms of what the question is asking. We challenge any reader to make sense of the following which is taken directly from the last Services Report. Not only are they illegible, but neither link individual applications to decision makers.
- A ‘new’ version will apparently materialise in March. We do not hold out much hope that this will be any more informative, nor decipherable. Will this link property address and decision makers? Will any information of value actually be forthcoming – or will it be another exercise in sham information provision?
- Finally, the comment needs to be made that this is the direct result of councillors signing away their oversight roles via the delegations to officers. We reiterate – there is no councillor call in; there is no clear criteria as to when applications will go to full council; no councillor attends DPC meetings; councillors we expect don’t even get a full report on upcoming applications and most importantly THERE IS A TOTAL FAILURE FOR COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. This isn’t surprising. When councillors can’t even open their mouths and insist that public questions are answered appropriately then there is no reason why the ‘bullshit’ of reporting on planning applications should be any different!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Actually, Council’s VCAT Watch listing presented to Councillors at open meetings is not a complete list of all VCAT appeals.
It is an incomplete listing in that some make the list and some don’t (don’t know what the selection criteria is) and because those cases that are pending are listed once and then dropped off until the decision is published – a complete list of all pending cases is never presented.
As for the reporting of decisions – not all decisions are presented, and even if presented, the complete decision is never given, instead what’s reported is a summary of the decision prepared by the planning department (and is therefore subject to the planning officers interpretation).
March 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM
No surprises here for anyone watching the Council over few years. As for Councillors, there are a few that treat this as a career and they know what to do (and NOT to) to sustain them into the future. The only time they need to pull their finger out is election time. The rest of us, the residents are treated like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.
March 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM
My reading of the question is that it asked for a “councillor” response whether or not they would “ensure” greater transparency. Silence on this so presumably nothing will be done to change the reporting formats.
On issue after issue councillors have laid down and permitted this administration to run the show. The last post was on gesac basketball allocations. Now this. Both are important to residents and both have seen councillors drop the ball on these issues. I don’t see why we should be paying a cent for councillors who are not doing their legally assigned jobs.
March 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Thanks for putting up the services report. I’ve never bothered to look at this before and it sure is an eye opener. They don’t want people to know anything. If they were fair dinkum then this kind of information would be presented in a really clear and obvious way. It 2013 for god’s sake and technology can do anything. Council spends a fortune on computers and if this is all that they are capable of producing then they should be sacked. My feeling though as I said before – it’s deliberate and no doubt about it.
March 4, 2013 at 4:15 PM
We’re copying a comment that went up on Whelan, Walsh, Wolf & Whiteside and repeating it here because of its relevance to the post.
“The bullshit will never stop as long as planning and design matters are left up to the voices of ignorance, ( the councillors). Privatise planning in the same way that building has been privatised, get rid of the politics and lies and create a workable planning environment.”
March 4, 2013 at 7:43 PM
If u have all the wisdom gleneira why didn’t u stand for election in Oct ? and give residents the choice that u are advocating for – it is always far easier to critisize from the sidelines and continually b negative without ever having any responsibility-
March 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Neil, your term as Councillor has been most disappointing. You promise a lot but have delivered little. In fact I believe you have made no impact as Councillor at all and now you are leading young Thomas on the same “do nothing” path. How about standing aside if you couldn’t be bothered and let some real representatives in. Oh and take your mates Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff with you!
March 4, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Neil,
You stand each time with all the resources of the Greens behind you. When you go solo using solely your resources get back to us.
March 4, 2013 at 9:33 PM
A tad rich for a councillor that just got in by the skin of his teeth and with the full blown support of the greens. Its also a tad rich to be continually crying “negative” without ever addressing the criticisms. How about thinking what these criticisms mean and how to improve the governance in this council. All you seem capable of doing is ignoring the issues and shooting the messenger. If you only acted on a fraction of the suggestions made in this blog we’d have a far superior council. But you’ve fallen into the usual clap trap of united front and residents aren’t worth listening to. You are a major major disappointment not because you haven’t achieved anything but because your integrity is under serious question in the eyes of many. Tell us Neil, what was the payoff for joining the gang and has it really been worth it? The pathetic tree register for example or the promise of a carbon neutral council in the year 2100?
Quite honestly, I think you’re way out of your league and should give serious consideration to resignation.
March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Well said, Councillor. You are doing a good job. Don’t be put off by the few critics.
March 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Tell me Neil why is anyone presenting a different view from that of Council labelled as negative, vexacious or spiteful?
Don’t talk to about taking responsibility when your own words on your own blog site (which has be remarkably silent of late) are never born out when you get to vote at Council – a need to advertise the CEO position and change they way GESAC allocations are made are two outstanding examples that instantly spring to mind.
March 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM
I’m not convinced comment 6 comes from Neil Pilling, as it reads more like a troll. The online register that Council refers to is pretty broken, especially the search engine function. Nor is it complete—requests to amend planning permits for example are often missing. It is a hole in PAEA that the planning register doesn’t show the decision-maker for each application, and its also a major flaw that Council (or its delegate 98% of the time) only has to account for its decisions if a review is requested at VCAT. Officer reports presented at DPC are not published, and DPC doesn’t have to provide reasons to anybody other than the applicant (and only if they request them). While there’s a lot more broken about the system, these are some things that Council could improve if it had the will.
March 5, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Councillor Pilling has posted similar comments before. I’ve responded before by asking why he doesn’t have a go without the Greens branding and all the resources they offer when he spouts this stuff. Never get a response. Just as we never get a response when we ask why his pre-election pledge of openness. transparency and accountability have never been kept. He is part of one of the most secretive and inwardly looking councils we’ve had the misfortune to have.
March 5, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Cr. Pilling can be twisted and turned by the gang of four. Pilling cannot see that he has been used in the last term. As for Cr. Souness, he has no idea of the past history and what is happening below his nose. He is no young man but seem to be naive in judging for himself and nil in reading personalities. He cannot see that the gang is controlling the Council. Appears he will learn the hard way at the cost of others including the residents.He has to observe and use the deduction logic why the gang talks to him. The sooner he realises the better for residents.
Cr. Pilling and Cr. Souness appear to be soft targets and are coming on the way of doing the right thing. Please, Please, Please Cr. Pilling and Cr. Souness RESIGN as you have no mind of your own and can be manipulated by Esakoff, Lipshutz and Hyms. It is Lobo’s fault for giving Hyms a second opportity to be a Mayor. Wait and see how Hyms pays Lobo back. If Hyms has a decent bone in him all are waiting to see his real intentions soon. He has already shut Lobo that three of them had no conflict of interest when accepting the petition. Glen eira quoted the local law which spells out the item of conflict of interest.
March 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM
I think Cr Pilling has a point about critics of Council to ‘stand up and be counted’ at the election time. That however, does not excuse any of the Councillors to ignore residents constant complaints about inadequacies of governance and lack of openness, transparency and accountability, a job that is clearly for the Councillors to do. It only takes 5 Councillors together to ensure some progress in that matter. Cr Pilling can you make it happen!
To illustrate my point – the Leader has announced its best Councils in Oakleigh/Monash Leader this week “MONASH Council’s performance has been given the ultimate tick of approval from ratepayers, who have rated them the best performing council in Melbourne.
The Leader compiled community satisfaction surveys from 2012 for councils across Melbourne which revealed Monash was the only council with an approval rating higher than 70. The council received a rating of 71, trumping councils including Banyule, Booroondara, Stonnington and Yarra for top spot.
Monash Ratepayers president Des Olin said there were still areas the council needed to improve on. But he acknowledged Monash was one of the more stable councils in Melbourne.
‘‘There’s a lot of people in this community that will work to make the community better and council is prepared to support them,’’ Mr Olin said.
Where is Glen Eira Council in that list? The list of services to improve as shown on Glen Eira website is:
– Planning & building permits: performance 53, importance 73 = -20 net differential
– Planning for population growth in the area: performance 53, importance 72 = -19 net differential
– Traffic management: performance 55, importance 72 = -17 net differential
– Community consultation and engagement: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential
– Council’s general town planning policy: performance 56, importance 70 = -14 net differential
– Parking facilities: performance 56, importance 69 = -13 net differential
– Elderly support services: performance 67, importance 79 = -12 net differential
– Informing the community: performance 61, importance 73 = -12 net differential
– Lobbying on behalf of the community: performance 54, importance 64 = -10 net differential
– Disadvantaged support services: performance 64 , importance 73 = -9 net differential
– Environmental sustainability: performance 63, importance 72 = -9 net differential
– Condition of local streets and footpaths: performance 68, importance 75 = -7 net differential
– Family support services: performance 66, importance 71 = -5 net differential
– Enforcement of local laws: performance 65, importance 68 = -3 net differential
– Waste management: performance 79, importance 81 = -2 net differential
It’s a long list, which coincides with many critical comments made on this blog. In fact 9 out of 15 relate to governance and communication issues.
Cr Pilling it is good that you read this blog, but the bottom line is – can you and your fellow Councillors are able to improve on the shortcomings that seem to be repeating themselves year after year and term after term.
I hope you can and can get to be a Mayor with the help of others. Good luck.