It is our firm belief that further consultation (on residential zones) could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community. (13th August, 2013)
Thus spoke Council as part of the answer to a public question! The villainy is further compounded by the Minister’s mandatory release of his ‘reasons’ for approving Amendment C110 under Section 20(4) – that is, without public consultation. We’ve uploaded the complete Ministerial statement here and highlighted some choice sections below. What is absolutely clear is:
- Council’s continued responses to public questions were at worst entirely dishonest and, at best, deliberately evasive and disingenuous
- ‘Negotiations’ between the department, minister, and Council had been ongoing well before the announcement of August 5th 2013
- The Minister’s statement reads exactly like something that would have been composed by the public relations arm of Council and he merely signed off on it.
Here are some extracts and residents should question the failure of governance that has spawned this amendment –
The Glen Eira City Council has requested that I prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C110 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, with exemption from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).
The Glen Eira City Council gave effect to its Housing and Residential Development Strategy (Strategy) with the introduction in 2004 of Amendment C25. Work on the Strategy commenced in October 2000, and included a community notification and consultation process. Nine community workshops attended by approximately 50 people also contributed to the development and refinement of the Strategy. The Strategy was adopted by the Council in 2002.
Exemption of the amendment under section 20(4) will enable a prompt decision on the adoption and approval of the amendment and will allow for the orderly application of residential zoning controls for this planning scheme, based on previous strategic work. It will avoid the need for a further notification, exhibition and consultation process, which is considered unnecessary given the strategic basis for applying the new zones can be found within the existing planning scheme.
As the Glen Eira City Council has requested the amendment, the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.
I consider that further notification through the formal statutory process is unnecessary. Consultation has been conducted during the development of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy and in relation to Amendment C25, which introduced the local policies upon which the application of the new residential zones is based.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 4, 2013 at 12:54 PM
the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.
Very interesting indeed considering there was no council resolution to initiate action under this section of the Act. Lobo’s announcement that he didn’t agree means that there would have been plenty of behind the doors discussion. But, and a big but, is that nothing was ever put before council. So there’s the issue of making decisions in assemblies which is illegal and secondly even if it was declared as confidential then this should have gone into the agenda and the minutes. Guy’s explanation, for want of a better word, does smack of collusion. The backroom deals that have clearly gone on are another black mark against very single councillor.
October 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM
I’m not just flabbergasted by Guy’s document, I’m appalled and as angry as hell. How a minister can sign off on this piece of crap undoubtedly written by Newton, Akehurst and Burke, demands a full investigation. It is an outrage that something can become law based on this reasoning – a consultation process that took place over ten years ago and was itself based on data from the nineties. Even if accurate at that time, there was never a proper consultation. Council ended up doing what it always does – totally ignoring everything that residents had to say. The same thing happened win 2009/10.
October 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Lobo wasn’t alone in expressing a point of view on these zones. The blog had a post recently where both Delahunty and Okotel had something to say at a council meeting. Debate went on and in secret. That is now an indisputable fact. Macca’s point is perfectly legitimate – decisions are made at assemblies which is not permitted by the local government act. Each and every one of these councillors and administrators have much explaining to do to both the public and authorities.
October 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM
What a pack of gutless wonders this mob of councillors are
October 4, 2013 at 9:05 PM
This issue has the potential to unseat the current government….all in Southwicks own backyard. Sack the Council and administration and start all over again.
October 4, 2013 at 11:52 PM
The council should be sacked and the book thrown at all of them especially the administration. Under Newton this council has descended into the gutter.
October 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bribes-offered-by-developers-20131005-2v1j6.html
October 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM
The take home message is that council is not to be trusted pure and simple. Every important process from planning through to consultation has been sabotaged and undermined by a set of over paid incompetents who have come to believe that control is everything and that community means nothing. Their success hinges on the support of equally incompetent councillors who have over the years managed to bluff their way through each election with unfounded promises, baby kissing and handshaking. For some unknown reason it is this group of councillors who have repeatedly renewed the ceo’s contract without advertising the position and without providing any valid excuse for this action. I completely endorse the call that this entire cartel of officers and councillors be sacked immediately.
October 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM
I am interested in obtaining the councils submitted request to the minister to amend the Act.
October 5, 2013 at 12:37 PM
In perusing the list of Ministerial interventions into councils’ planning scheme, we find it most intriguing that the following is included in the documents, but TOTALLY ABSENT IN THE GLEN EIRA ONE! For example:
CASEY Amendment C172 – “1. Council in its letter dated 12 April 2103 request that the Minister for Planning prepare, adopt and approve this amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).”
LATROBE Amendment C81 – “1. On 14 June 2013, Latrobe City Council requested the Minister for Planning prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C81 to the Latrobe Planning Scheme, to make corrections to the ordinance and planning scheme maps”
BASS COAST – Amendment C137 – “1. On 2 July 2013, Bass Coast Shire Council wrote to the Minister for Planning requesting an amendment using s20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to apply heritage controls in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme. The amendment implements the Bass Coast Heritage Study as considered via Amendment C64 Part 2
BOROONDARA – Amenment C185 – “1. By letter dated 17 July 2013 Boroondara City Council requested the Minister for Planning prepare, adopt and approve interim heritage controls for 1130-1132 and 1138-1144 Toorak Road, Camberwell.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ONLY TIME A DATE IS MISSING IS WHEN THE ‘REQUESTER’ HAS BEEN A DEVELOPER!! SO IT SEEMS THAT GLEN EIRA IS NOW LUMPED TOGETHER WITH DEVELOPERS. HOW APPROPRIATE AND HONEST WE THINK!
BOROONDARA – Amendment C162 – “Urbis, on behalf of Scotch College, has requested that the Minister for Planning exercise his powers under Section 20(4) of the Act and prepare, adopt and approve amendment C162 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
October 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM
Terrific. Now Guy’s party to the dodgy business.
October 6, 2013 at 12:25 AM
I presume the reason the date is omitted is because the council submission was approved by the minister with changes.
I presume the Minister consulted the Council of the changes. Therefore the council could not provide a date that the Minister finalised the decision to approve the changes.
October 6, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Council is required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to undertake a review of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme every four years.
It is important to note that only part of the Planning Scheme can
be reviewed by Council as three quarters of the Scheme is under the
control of the State Government. Therefore, the review can “only” focus
on local content. – Glen Eira News April 2010
Other sections of Council’s Planning Scheme, such as the State Planning Policy Framework (which includes Melbourne 2030), zones, residential development and subdivision requirements (ResCode) “cannot be altered as part of this review” as they are under the control of the State Government. – Glen Eira News April 2010
Therefore the Ministerial Amendment C110 cannot be considered as part of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme review as the review can “only” focus on local content.
“The Ministerial Amendment C110 also includes some elements which Council did not raise.”
The Minister must have approved the amendment with changes. If the Minister only approved part of the amendment, that part becomes a separate amendment. Planning and Environment Act 1987 – SECT 4C(2)
October 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Keep gettin’ told that no one from council reads the blog. Thanks for the contribution Messrs Burke/Newton/Hyams.
October 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM
So what happened to the residents right to comment on the scheme before it was implemented
October 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM
In Glen Eira Council’s C110 amendment request to the Minister, the Glen Eira Council referred to the C25 amendment community notification and consultation process seeking to exempt the minister from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act)in adopting the C110 amendment.
The C25 amendment and the C110 amendment are separate amendments.
It states on the Department of Planning and Community Website:
An amendment to the scheme involves consultation with all the parties who may have an interest in the amendment, or may be affected by it. Usually, an amendment is placed on public exhibition for at least one month.
The C110 amendment did NOT involve consultations with all parties who may have an interest in the amendment, or may be affected by it.
The C110 amendment was NOT placed on public exhibition for at least one month.
The changes to the Amendment C110 proposed by the Glen Eira Council includes the rezoning of the site of the former Alma Club in Caulfield North to the General Residential Zone and the rezoning of the ABC’s studios in Gordon St, Elsternwick to the Residential Growth Zone.
The decision to adopt the Ministerial Amendment with changes and without a community notification and consultation process is the Glen Eira Council’s decision not the Minister’s.
October 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Looking at the substantial difference in the amendment numbers, I did some checking – C25 was 2002, C110 is 2013 – why did Councillors agree to the request for no consultation.
October 6, 2013 at 10:20 PM
They wanted to be first.
The Glen Eira Council as the Planning Authority failed to comply with section 19(1),19(2),19(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
October 6, 2013 at 10:03 PM
The Minister sought to exempted himself from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The Minister did not seek to exempt the Glen Eira Council. Therefore the Glen Eira Council as the planning authority must give notice of its preparation of an amendment to a planning scheme.
Glen Eira Council as the planning authority must publish a notice of any amendment it prepares in a newspaper generally circulating in the area to which the amendment applies.
Glen Eira Council as the the planning authority must publish a notice of the preparation of the amendment in the Government Gazette.
October 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM
We repeat what others have written and what we believe are the central concerns in this matter:
1. Where is the council resolution authorising the ‘request’ to the Minister?
2. If no council resolution, then who made the decision and when was this decision made?
3. When and by whom was it decided that there be no community consultation? Under what authority was this decision made?
4. When will councillors begin doing their jobs by representing their constituents in the manner that they were elected to do?