Local Laws Committee
LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel. On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.
COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?
Sport and Rec Committee
LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.
MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.
COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!
VCAT WATCH
Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.
DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.
COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.
CENTENARY PARK PAVILION
MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.
LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.
SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.
PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.
LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.
HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.
MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.
AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.
COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:
1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information
2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?
3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!
Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.
MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.
MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
April 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM
There are three different versions of reality according to the post. One is Magee’s claim; 2 is Pilling’s claim, and 3 is Delahunty’s non commitment about loss of open space. I’m inclined to believe Pilling. He did ask for this information but it’s never been provided. That I find both negligent and unprofessional by officers. We’re then back in the land of Nod where councillors make decisions about things they’ve got no knowledge of and officers get their way every single time with the support of the gang and those gung-ho sporting types like Magee. I remember Magee claiming that for the Gardener’s road disaster that all that was happening would be the loss of nature strip. So much for his understanding or the bullshit that he produces when it suits him. Here’s another example.
April 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Gardener’s road looks great. I now don’t have to go in to GESAC to drop my son off to play soccer. I say well done to Glen Eira council for putting in this parking.
April 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM
“Gardeners Road looks great” Golly gosh – how shallow can a person be
April 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Off Topic – but important!
State Government draws a line in the sand over local council’s quest to boost rates
Michelle Ainsworth and Julia Irwin
From: News Limited
April 09, 2013 6:33PM
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share
COUNCILS have had more than $1.5million cut from their budgets after the State Government abolished additional rates on gaming venues, licensed premises and fast food stores.
Access all Areas. $1 for the first 28 days. Only $2.95 a week thereafter. Learn more.
Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell announced new rates guidelines for Victoria’s 79 councils late this afternoon.
“The new guidelines make it clear that the use of differential rates by council to pursue controversial social policy agendas is not appropriate,” Ms Powell said.
“We are drawing a line in the sand about what is and is not appropriate so we do not see differential rates radically extended to include fast food premises, tattoo parlours and bingo halls or whatever the next soft target business might be.”
The rates, additional to land rates, are no longer allowed to be levied on electronic gaming machine venues or casinos, licensed liquor venues or outlets, fast food franchises or on those living on land within the Urban Growth Zone.
Differential rates on gaming venues had brought in $1.3million for nine councils including Darebin, Frankston, Brimbank, Cardinia and Ballarat in the last financial year.
Darebin Mayor Tim Laurence said the government’s decision to stop council’s levying a differential rate on gambling venues was a blow to the community.He said approximately $200,000 was raised in Darebin from the differential rate which was used to fund problem gambling programs.
Cr Laurence said the rates had already been earmarked in the 2013/2014 budget.
“This was not threatening the gambling industry but was giving a very small return to a community forking out $90 million per year on gaming,’’ Cr Laurence said.
Although Darebin had contemplated introducing a “fat tax’’ differential rate on fast food venues Cr Laurence said no report had come back from officers about this and it was unlikely to go ahead.
He said the council was also considering plans to introduce a differential rate on commercial property owners who fail to keep their properties free of rubbish and graffiti.
Municipal Association of Victoria President Bill McArthur said the MAV had sought legal advice about whether the Minister had the power to make such rules.
“This is an assault on the autonomy of councils to make decisions about equitable rates for their communities,” Cr McArthur said.
“We think this is a disturbing attempt to appease vocal interest groups, it’s not a rational decision about fairness and equity.
“We will be seeking further urgent advice on whether the guidelines are even legal.”
Anti-gambling campaigner Paul Bendat said the move was positive as only one council had used the additional money to fund anti-gambling education programs.
“Councils levying rates on poker machine venues just creates a new group of addicts to poker machine revenue and to the losses from problem gamblers and there has been less than totally effective use of those funds once raised,” Mr Bendat said.
“It would have been far better for the councils to engage with the local venues and try to raise the standard of responsibility, just levying a rate on it doesn’t reduce the harm of poker machines.”
April 10, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Here’s the follow up Media Release –
Greater consistency with new rates guidelines
Tuesday, 09 April 2013
From the Minister for Local Government
Victorian councils will now be required to apply a simpler, more consistent and transparent rates system following the release of new Ministerial guidelines on the use of differential rates, Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell announced today.
“Councils are now required to follow a more rigorous method of applying differential rates that will assist in delivering greater equity in the imposition of rates and charges by Victoria’s 79 councils,” Mrs Powell said.
“After extensive community consultation, the Victorian Coalition Government has delivered on its promise to restore simplicity, consistency and transparency to local government rates by introducing the differential rates guidelines.
“The new guidelines make it clear that the use of differential rates by councils to pursue controversial social policy agendas is not appropriate.
“The Coalition Government is acting to prevent councils from creatively extending their taxation powers.
“We are drawing a line in the sand about what is and is not appropriate so we do not see differential rates radically extended to include fast food premises, tattoo parlours and bingo halls or whatever the next soft target business might be,” Mrs Powell said.
The Ministerial Guidelines for Differential Rating establishes three categories of differential rates – those that are appropriate, those that are inappropriate and those that must be carefully considered before being applied.
Types and classes of land categories and their combination that are considered appropriate for differential rates include the following:
general land;
residential land;
farm land;
commercial land;
industrial land;
retirement village land;
vacant land;
derelict; and
cultural and recreational.
It would not be appropriate to declare a differential rate that is defined narrowly and applied specifically or exclusively to the following types and classes of land:
electronic gaming machine venues or casinos;
liquor licensed venues or liquor outlet premises;
business premises defined whole or in part by hours of trade;
fast food franchises or premises;
tree plantations in the farming and rural activity zones; and
land within the Urban Growth Zone without an approved Precinct Structure Plan in place
The guidelines require that when a council proposes to apply a differential rate to very few properties, for example extractive industries, automobile manufacture land or petroleum production land, it must be carefully considered as to whether such a rate is an appropriate use of differential rating powers. The use of differential rates applicable to very few properties should be considered with caution.
“The guidelines also require that councils must give consideration to applying a reduced differential rate to both farm land and retirement village land. Both these types of land users tend to receive a lower rate of services from councils and that must be actively considered when setting the rate for them,” Mrs Powell said.
“Councils across Victoria will benefit from the guidelines which will help them set rates based on the classification of a property rather than a specific type of business conducted on the land.”
The Coalition Government amended the Local Government Act 1989 last year to enable the Minister to issue differential rating guidelines. Councils must have regard to the guidelines before declaring a differential rate.
The Minister can prohibit differential rates that are inconsistent with the guidelines.
“I’d like to thank David Morris Committee Chairman and Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government and Member for Mornington, as well as David O’Brien Member for Western Victoria for their dedicated work during the extensive public consultation process,” Mrs Powell said.
The Committee’s 10 public hearings across Victoria were attended by more than 400 people and it received 140 written submissions. A total of 63 Victorian councils participated directly in the consultation process as did the sector’s peak bodies.
Both Labor and the Greens were invited to be members of the committee which they declined.
The Differential Rates Guidelines will come into effect when they are published in the Victorian Government Gazette and will apply to 2013/14 year council budgets.
The Minister has also committed to working with the Municipal Association of Victoria to develop a ‘Best Practice Rating Strategy’ to assist councils to improve their use of all rates.
April 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM
All Councils are a servant of the State Governments. The MAV are wasting their money.
April 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Most of the arguments put up be these councillors have so many holes in them that a truck could be driven right through. I’ll tackle Magee’s summation to start with.
Regardless of whether a stretch of open space has or has not been fully utilised by residents is totally beside the point. This should not preclude council’s commitment to improve the area by making it totally useful and pleasant as an open space precinct. To argue that because it may not be used it can then be turned into a bitumen car park is ridiculous. Council should answer why it has done absolutely nothing to this area since amalgamation.
Lipshutz has one catchcry, namely that council is a victim of its own success. Once more this is quite laughable. For a project of this size any proper planning should have included plan A, plan B and then plan C if required. Ad hoc, piecemeal decision making on car park extensions is not best practice and not cost effective. I also see that there is another full page colour ad in today’s Moorabbin Leader for the new studio at Gesac. More outfitting costs, more advertising costs, and more “success” beyond their wildest dreams leading to another car park extension no doubt.
I also agree with the authors that once a resolution is passed the likelihood of this being altered in any shape or form is minimal. The car park at centenary will happen. The disappointing aspect is that the general community have had no say in any of this and those residents living directly opposite would not even know about any of the plans if past form is any guide.