We’ve commented previously on council’s so called ‘Action Plan’ and the simple fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the objectives, actions, and ‘measures’. This follows on after repeated reports by the Auditor General and the reporting standards of councils – how there is a reliance on OUTPUTS rather than OUTCOMES and how so very little of budgets contain well worded rationales and data to substantiate the various claims.
In this post we will focus on the Town Planning & Development set of objectives since this has been repeatedly highlighted as a major concern by residents.
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City. | Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals | Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity |
COMMENTS
If council was fair dinkum then the measure would state something along the lines of ‘report statistics on the number of 1, 2 and 3+ bedroom dwellings and their location within both the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas’. Further, it is a bit hard to ‘plan for a ‘mixture of housing’ or enforcing a policy that ‘encourages’ 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings when there is no Urban Design Framework and no such prescriptive clauses within the Planning Scheme. Needless to say there is no information provided on how these objectives and the associated policies are to be evaluated! Revealing that 65% of new dwellings go into Housing Diversity says nothing about the number of bedrooms in each dwelling!
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process. | Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes. | Report to Council, year on year, the percentage of applications using fast track process. |
COMMENT
Strange how ‘encouraging’ ‘community involvement’ is limited to only one aspect of the planning process – fast tracking of the application, which of course is designed to assist developers and applicants rather than the broader community. We also have to scratch our heads and wonder how on earth the ‘reporting’ of PERCENTAGES can in any shape or form be interpreted as a policy designed to ‘encourage’ involvement! Both the actions and the measures we maintain are totally unrelated to the objective!
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process | Improve the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) efficiency by reducing the number of planning application needing to be referred for a decision by undertaking mediation | Undertake ten (10) mediation meetings |
COMMENT
Suddenly ‘fair transparent and inclusive’ is reduced to mere ‘efficiency’. If the underlying philosophy of pro-development remains the same then ‘efficiency’ is no indication of ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’. Further, 10 mediation meetings provides no measurable outcome nor even a sizeable proportion of applications. And what if all of these ‘mediation’ meetings are failures –will the public be informed as to the outcomes of such meetings? In our view, ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’ must involve the promise that:
- All objectors will be informed of amended plans and council’s position within the legal timeframe. This has not occurred on numerous occasions
- That objectors learn of officer’s determination not on the Friday before a council meeting where the decision will be made, but at least a week ahead so that they have the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the logic of the officer’s report and to contact their councillor representatives
- That objectors are fully informed of their rights and the processes involved and that councillors do not attempt to abort discussions and questions as has again been the case on various occasions at Planning Conferences.
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers. | Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process to ascertain satisfaction rates | 80% satisfaction rating of participants in the DPC process |
COMMENT
This has to be our favourite from the list because of its total nonsense. If the objective is to ‘undertake community consultation’ to ensure that the Planning Scheme and its associated processes are in line with ‘needs’ and expectations of residents, then limiting ‘consultation’ to mere SURVEYS of only ONE ASPECT of the planning process is entirely ludicrous. Consultation involves more than a ‘survey’ – especially when the questions asked remain top secret and are never published! One might then well ask why only 80% and who are the most ‘satisfied’ in this sham ‘consultation’ – the applicant or the objector?
The planning scheme was last reviewed in 2010. Three years later we are still awaiting half of the promised actions to materialise. To the best of our knowledge no ‘community consultation’ has occurred since then although the oft cited community satisfaction survey reveals year after year major DISSATISFACTION with planning in Glen Eira.
The take home message from this community plan is that there is no intention of changing anything. It is full steam ahead to what we believe is the detriment of the community. The least that ratepayers should expect is that when a community plan is funded and devised that the measures, actions and objectives are worth the paper they are written on.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Most of the language used in community plans leaves a lot to be desired. Glen Eira spin doctors have raised this skill to an entirely new level. I’d like to know what “actively plan” means. How is this going to be done, by whom and with what input from ratepayers, and how will it be evaluated? These are the sorts of questions that this whole document ignores.
“Advocate” is another of these meaningless words. The community plan is full of advocating, but we’re never told how successful this council is in its advocating, nor how they do their advocating and to whom. I also notice that there’s the claim that this council receives fewer grants than others. What then comes to mind is why and whether they are applying for everything and how good their applications really are.
What’s the most frustrating thing is the use of that motherhood phrase “community consultation” or “community involvement” when it has been clear for centuries that council’s interpretation of “consultation” is “tell us your views and then we will continue to ignore them.” No wonder the consultation committee didn’t get a guernsey this time around – the powers that be probably didn’t take to the ideas of the 3 community representatives.
May 8, 2013 at 5:52 PM
I’d like to be as sure of winning tatts that the number of objectors who show up to DPC meetings are a fraction of those who objected to the application. These meetings are held in the day and when people work it is very hard to take a day off. 80% satisfaction ratings then means nothing if not all the objectors have had a chance to have their say. A much fairer way of doing things is to provide results for both sides of the argument and not lump them all together and to break this down with results according to the decisions of the DPC. If the developer gets what he wants then he is not likely to criticise the meeting and if objectors don’t get what they want then the chance is that they will. Unless we know the makeup and the questions asked then this is useless stuff.
May 8, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Community consultation for the last 10 years has been zilch.
Is the gang in the community consultation group this year? If so we have a disaster once again.The gang famous for hidden agenda, manipulations and self centeredness in every breath they take.
Delahunty we have put you in the council to keep the B’s honest. Wake up your other colleagues and particularly the two newly ones who unfortunately are unable to figure out for themselves.
May 9, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Glen Eira’s standard approach to community consultation is that the Administration makes a decision then commissions either an external consultant or a Council Officer (both at rate payers expense, the internal report being the cheaper option) to write a report supporting that decision and that decision only. Any one with any managerial expertise knows the general rule of thumb in reviewing possible options – any review yields up at least 4 options, 2 of which prove to questionable after minimal review, however, the remaining to require more detailed analysis.
Yet Glen Eira’s approach is to present the “one option only” report, usually comprising blanket statements and devoid of any itemized costing information (if it has been costed and itemized cost estimates should be available), to the community (be it directly to the community or indirectly via Council) for discussion. Any idea put forward by the community that does not fit the predetermined decision can then be discounted because of the expert’s report and/or the community’s lack of detailed knowledge.
If this Council was as serious as it claims to be about community consultation it would seek community input prior to pre-determining the outcome
May 9, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Point taken Bill. The Caulfield Conservatory is the most recent example. Only the cafe option presented, commissioning of a report on the cafe option, costs presented ($105K) without any detail – why not?
The only thing you didn’t mention is that even if all Council’s efforts, in pushing the community to accept what the unelected and un-Councillor questioned Administration wants, fail then the nothing is done for X amount of time (i.e. until the community forgets) then the whole process is started again. The Booran/Glenhuntly Reservoir (first community consultation 2008) and the Caulfield Conservatory (first community consultation 2006) reinforce your arguments.
May 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM
The only reason that any Government body “consults” is just in case one of the punters thinks of something they didn’t. It is called covering ones arse. Why pay people lots of money then ask the few people that are not representing anyone except themselves, what to do. We elect councillors to represent us……. over to them. Having attended consultations with council in the past it consists of a small group of people that think they have all the answers. Good luck Bill of Bentleigh. The council is not serious about consultation but imagine if they came out and said it.
May 10, 2013 at 7:21 AM
What a depressing comment .. disparaging comments all around and then the idea that once elected the elected have carte blanche and should not be questioned by the electors.
May 14, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Yes absolutely disgusting comment. Are you a councillor by any chance?
hang your head in shame for making such a naive comment.
May 9, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Other times plans are published (as in the case of racecourse) and then changed completely ut yes we have always been told. Or another method on this topic was to make out the plan was sealed and delivered and a picture of 55 hectares so small it was impossible to read the map or the explanatory key of intentions and now look what we have been given in the pip of the racecourse. Just another dud!!!!!!!!!!!.
May 9, 2013 at 9:44 PM
I participated in the last review of the Planning Scheme as did many others, and the final product didn’t reflect what I heard at the meeting I attended. I didn’t hear a single person advocate for special and discriminatory rules for properties in “Significant Character Areas” and I didn’t hear any arguments in support of failing to plan areas of higher density. Yet that is what the Administration presented to Council for their ratification. Council duly attached their rubber stamp, although there was a messy split of motions because of Margaret’s conflict of interest.
The objectives, powers, duties, functions of Council are all listed in PAEA, even if councillors and council staff have rarely if ever read them, and the Action Plan is just one more example of the huge gap between the theory and practice of local governance. The Objectives largely don’t align with policy, the Actions don’t support the Objectives, and the Measures don’t measure the extent to which the Objectives have been met. Its time we had a more youthful or more imaginative CEO, somebody who can bring GECC into the 21st century.