Several agenda items set down for next Tuesday deserve comment. We will dissect the secret Amendment C110 once it is made public and the schedules are released. It’s worth repeating that this entire episode was devised and implemented without any community input and without any notification whatsoever. So much for claims of transparency and accountability from all concerned.
Records of Assembly
- Two council meetings on we have yet to see the response to Delahunty’s request for a report on Notice of Motion. However, there is one mention of ‘meeting procedures’ in the records of assembly so we can only wonder whether this is another instance of requests for reports NOT being tabled in an ordinary council meeting and instead going behind closed doors. An old Newtonian trick!
- Councillors code of conduct – what further draconian measures will be attempted or will there be some positive changes?
- Cr Delahunty – a response she has received from the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) in relation to matters raised concerning the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. May also need to consider referring the matters to the Ombudsman Victoria.
- Cr Hyams – advised councillors in general terms about the deliberations of the Caulfield Racecourse Rserve Trust including on(sic) the progress of the leases.
- Cr Sounness – Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust – lack of accessibility to the minutes of the Trust.
Comment: what a ludicrous situation! 3 councillor trustees who owe their first allegiance we’ve been told to the Racecourse group, yet sitting, listening and undoubtedly discussing how the Trust is a secret organisation not acting in accordance with governance guidelines. This is definitely Monty Python territory!
PUBLISHING OF SUBMISSIONS
We note again the lack of consistency by this council in making available public submissions that do not come under Section 223 of the Local Government Act (ie submissions on budget, council plan, local law, etc). The most important public responses are NOT MADE PUBLIC and incorporated into council minutes. Residents did not see the full submissions to the Planning Scheme Review of 2010 – although this is now the basis for the argument that there was extensive consultation and council is following the community viewpoint. What is made public are responses to issues that are far less controversial such as Toilet Strategy and now the Environmental Sustainability Strategy.
The extent of consultation is another inconsistency and a means of limiting public involvement – as well as achieving the desired and preset outcomes. The controversial Caulfield Park conservatory matter (which thus far has cost over $17,000) only managed to achieve the doctored ‘survey’ in both hard copy and on the Bang The Table online version. Others (less controversial and likely to draw only a minority of comments) have included a methodology that is far more expansive.
QUARTERLY REPORTING
- No mention of C110
- Statistics on DPC versus Council Resolution on planning applications are meaningless since the chart only reports on VCAT appeals. Further, there is no information provided on the decisions and the nature of the application, nor its location. Nor are residents any wiser as to why 37 were decided by the DPC and only 1 went to full council. The criteria, as always, is nebulous, vague, and lacks transparency and accountability.
- Action plan related to the Council Plan continually fails to respond to the original measures indicated in the Community/Council Plan. For example: the original resolution stated that council was to provide numbers for dwellings in Housing Diversity/Minimal Change. This now becomes a meaningless percentage. Of greater import is the following:
Objective: Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.
Measure: Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.
Progress June 2013: DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 14 successful mediation meetings held and THUS NOT NEEDING A DPC OR COUNCIL DECISION BY RESOLUTION
Comment: How a video can achieve ‘transparency’ in all of town planning when it focuses on ‘mediation’ is mind boggling. The statistical validity of 14 ‘mediations’ also leaves us scratching our heads. Note – we’re not told how many were ‘unsuccessfully mediated’!
Our favourite mangling is:
Objective: Investigate ways of making proceedings for Council meetings easier to follow including the use of audio-visual technology.
Measure: Investigation completed
Progress: – Completed
Will this ‘investigation’ ever see the light of public scrutiny? We seriously doubt it!
ACTION PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
We highlight some of the officers’ responses to resident submissions:
Instead of introducing Environmental Sustainability policies into its planning scheme, council’s response was to produce a glossy booklet. When asked how effective such a booklet has been, this is the response: Council reviews publications on a regular basis. There are no plans to monitor whether recommendations are taken up because of the resource intensive nature of this.
In other words, let’s waste money producing something and then not worry about whether that money has been well spent since we don’t have the foggiest as to whether it’s serving its purpose!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Gotta hand it to Newton – he has everyone bluffed (MODERATORS: part of sentence deleted) all Councillor into submission and they in turn have again failed the residents.
There is so much that is either wrong in, or missing from, the agenda items (yes, rather relying on this blog, I have read the agenda items) that it should send shudders through all residents and have them seriously engaging their Councillor’s in “what the f*ck are you doing” discussions
August 12, 2013 at 10:57 AM
It’s only councillors that must “consider issues consistently, promptly and fairly”. As far as the public can tell there is no similar requirement for council staff acting with delegated authority. The Councillor Code of Conduct borders on being unenforceable and is probably best read as an aspirational goal even though LGA considers breach of the Code to be misconduct. The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve governance arrangment stinks and it’s not helped when our councillor representatives fail to keep the community informed through our Council. Quarterly reporting—and reporting in general—suffers from a lack of focus on the key strategic objectives of Council.
Transparency in “town planning” can be improved by Council publishing the officer reports and rationale for each decision made under delegated authority, whether DPC or staff or contractor. A change in culture is required so that a query about why a particular decision was made in the face of apparent policy violations is seen as an opportunity to improve transparency and process, rather than a witchhunt to be suppressed ruthlessly. 175 Balaclava Rd is an example of how badly our Council can perform with respect to transparency and accountability.
The electronic planning register desperately needs to be overhauled to bring it into compliance with Regulations. Environmentally Sustainable Design [ESD] hasn’t been embraced by council staff in Glen Eira, putting us at odds with our neighbours. Council’s energy has been limited to specifying permeable soil and site coverage for the (shrinking) “minimal change” areas, without consideration of the capacity of the drainage subsystem anywhere. There’s much that needs to be done to lift governance in Glen Eira to minimum acceptable standards, but not much political will to do so.
August 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous 1 – As a grown up, why don’t you go through the Agenda and read for yourself. It is easy to rely on someone else (blog in this instance). It is observed that 99.9% people on this forum do not have the time to take interest and instant base their inputs on the summary given on this blog. If we a genuine, we should help the blog owner who many a times is burning the midnight oil just to give us on the plate. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we are not helping the person.The usual BS continues. It is easy to comment when someone else has done the job of dissecting. If you and others are keen to see a change then why don’t you initiate a movement that can ensure the council does what the residents want. There is no smoke without fire. Get off your but and do something. There are many who will join you. Call for a community meeting and see the results or else put up or shut up.
August 12, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Not sure where your comments are coming from since the Anonymous 1 post clearly states that they read the agenda items.
August 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Incredulity and scorn must be the only possible response to a line like “resource intensive” as an answer for the refusal to monitor the outcomes of ratepayer funding. On every single issue that would involve a change in procedure the council line is the same – too resource intensive. I do not buy this excuse when all it would take would be a few additional lines created on a development application form that would need to be filled out. Computers can do the checking and counting. Of course with this council the demand for accountability goes against the grain. The more information that is not tallied the better. That hides incompetencies, and all accountability and protects officers from sub standard performances. It has the added advantage of avoiding public outcry and the continued extravagances of this council that ultimately lack substance, justification, and value for money.
It’s been said countless times but worth repeating. I am continually amazed that whilst staff numbers go on increasing and increasing the level of performance and professionalism keeps going down and down. That to me is the biggest issue that needs to be dealt with.
August 12, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Nothing that involves the mrc is out in the open here. How bloody stupid of these councillors. They just can’t get it through their thick numbskull heads that working with residents could achieve heaps more as Moonee Valley has done. But they don’t have Newton and the gang working against residents from the inside I figure.
August 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM
We’ve neglected to mention that set down for resolution Tuesday night is council’s ‘Walking Strategy’. Whilst full of the usual motherhood statements, crash statistics, and the now hum-drum argument about ‘priorities’ it is worth keeping in mind that the Road Safety policy dates back to 2008 and has not been reviewed or updated despite the commitment from 2010. In fact the policy ‘expired’ in 2012! As a “living document” this has been moribund for years and is now well and truly deceased! Given the fact that much of this Walking Strategy relies on data about public safety and crashes, one would have hoped that the policies are aligned. Alas they are not.
Readers should also pay particular attention to the Action Plan and then compare it to the Action Plans as nominated by Moreland and Maribyrong councils. Both suggest changes to Planning Schemes re footpath widths, to increase public lighting, etc. No such practical steps are included in the Glen Eira version of its policy. Instead, there is the same old – pages and pages of waffle and very little on ‘action’.
See as examples:
Click to access Draft_Maribyrnong_Walking_Strategy_July_2010.pdf
Click to access moreland%20pedestrian%20strategy%202010-19.pdf
August 12, 2013 at 6:30 PM
The ‘Walking Strategy’ information in the agenda shows pics and talks about ‘Pedestrian islands’, painted areas in the middle of fast moving roads giving people refuge in the middle as they cross. Note with scepticism that with the ‘bicycle lanes’ being put onto these same fast moving roads most of the painted islands have disappeared due to space requirements. Tucker and Patterson Road speedway being a prime example.
Does the Left hand know what the slight of Right is doing?
August 12, 2013 at 9:40 PM
What I like best is putting bicycle lanes where there isn’t any room for them because of parked cars. On Mckinnon road the cars overhang the lines so there’s no point in having a bicycle lane at all since bikes have to go into the middle of the road to get by. It takes a real genuis to think this is a good and safe solution for cyclists. Council is fantastic at putting lines on the ground and forcing pedestrians and cyclists into danger like at Queen’s avenue. They don’t give a stuff about how much this costs because they’re not paying for it.
August 12, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Council’s Road Safety Strategy quotes All Casualty Accidents statistics from the years 2000 to 2005 (p25), so its “only” 8 to 13 years stale. Its ranking of intersections by casualty accidents places Grange Rd/Princes Hwy at the top with 23, but that is erroneous. Bad as it is, it’s exceeded by Koornang Rd/Princes Hwy/Darling Rd with 24, only the table splits the accidents into separate entries for Koornang Rd (12), and Darling Rd (12). Its the same intersection though, now with even poorer traffic management, confusing signage, and severe congestion from the Spotlight centre that VCAT imposed on us. The lack of integrity in planning for an increase in population density is a concern, especially Council’s refusal to abide by its own Planning Scheme concerning traffic in Urban Villages.
As for the Walking Strategy, it’s nominally just to get Council approval to consult the community. Since the Draft Strategy has already been written, its unlikely to change much regardless of feedback. Good to know Council is aware that 10kmh is about 2.78 metres/second and a brisk walker covers around 1.5 metres/second.
August 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM
The Council has repeated their call for 4 community consultation representatives. Could all those famous people on this forum who have different opinions or ideas/suggertions apply for one of the positions? Smart Alec, D. Evans and others who critise can now make your grievances known. Put your money where your mouth. I am sure you would not like to be called faceless people, do you?
August 13, 2013 at 6:01 PM
How about taking your own advice and applying yourself. A word of warnring first.If you are fool enough to think that the consultation committee will change anything then you’ve got rocks in your head.
August 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Some read what the likes of Smart Alec, D.Evans and even Reprobate contribute and admire their contribution. This forum wouldn’t exist if these types didn’t think there was a need. Glen Eira Councillors need to take some control of the decision making process, not be afraid of speaking out and do what they were elected to do, represent the ratepayer!
It is hard not to believe that Councillors don’t read what is posted, hopefully they can take solace in the belief that all is not right ….but it can only get better.
A good start would be to approach this blog and have a representative delegation sit down with the elected and paid staff of Glen Eira and discuss the important issues.
In answer to Anon 9. These people probably have nominated as Community consultation Representatives.
August 13, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Like alll decisions this council makes they are only suited to a narrow choice area… the Mayor even commentated that some or all last year’s community reps,. were women as though women should not be on committee. My guess is that council didn’t find the offerings suited to its narrow criteria. Very similart to the Conservatory survey of a few years…wrong answer… brief highly paid “professional” to compose a questionare which almost decides those 2uestioned by giving an option like a “donkey vote” so as to come about the council’s very own desired answer so as we lose more park trees and grassland for yet more ugly buildings, bitumen, papers and tables and chairs in our special park in\stead of the peaceful conservatory.
August 14, 2013 at 5:04 PM
9 b – Do not be a person in a fools paradise. I most certainly applied in the first round (possible not met to the standards of Hyams) and awaiting the decision once all applications are received. Now what about you guys – just talk big BS! Do not be coward, go and take the Councillors to task instead of blowing your own trumpets. Perhaps you should be in gas ballon business.
No: 10 – I know a few people on this forum who have not applied and therefore a challenge is called upon them.
August 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM
I was one of the few residents to devote time to submitting my thoughts on the Action Plan, and did find the feedback on that troubling – and not only for the fact that I was the one that suggested to track it!
While I disagree with some of the decisions made, I really want to continue to work with council in the best interests of our good city. Bye for now.