The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is quite literally a ‘doozy’! What stands out clearly is the ceding of more and more power to unelected bureaucrats and removing the ‘influence’ of councillors even further. This has been done via suggested changes to the Planning Delegations. Councillors have never had (unlike other councils) the option of ‘legalised’ ‘call ins’. That is, if one councillor decides that an application should come before council for decision, that option is open to him/her. This does not exist in Glen Eira. What is now up for decision makes the sidelining of councillors even more ‘efficient’. The proposal is that if no more than 3 objections come into an application, then officers may decide. They may also decide if an objector has received a phone call from a planning officer and thereby had the ‘opportunity’ to voice concerns! Even worse is that the power to grant an amended permit for three storeys is now also in the hands of the unelected if they have previously been involved.
Akehurst provides SOME details of other councils’ delegations and how Glen Eira fares in comparison. For example, he cites that Port Phillip requires 15 objections, Stonnington 6 objections. However, what is conveniently omitted in relation to these other councils is the option for a single councillor to insist that the application come before council – ie. even on parking dispensations the Port Phillip delegation states: Non-compliance with residential parking requirements (except that a minor dispensation can be determined by the Manager City Development or Neighbourhood Coordinators unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.
The best line however comes in the conclusion to his report – Even with the recommended 3 objection limit our delegations would be more conservative than all the above mentioned Councils but our decision making performance would significantly improve. How effective ‘decision making’ is predicated on the number of objections is, of course, unstated and ultimately quite ridiculous.
But there’s even more of totally unsubstantiated and suspect logic. We quote directly from Akehurst’s report –
Attendees at DPC are dropping. Increasingly objectors and even applicants are not attending. This is likely the outcome of town planning rules which are now clearer.
Council also proposes to shorten the ‘lay off period’ over Christmas since this disadvantages the applicant and ‘benefits the objector’. During this time, phone calls may suffice! – On the last dot point, it is proposed that each objector has been spoken to either in person or telephone by a senior planning officer as delegated by the manager (the outcomes of which would be formally recorded on file). The senior officer will repeatedly attempt to contact an objector over a 48 hour period, after which a decision can be made.
This approach would still satisfy a fundamental principle of Glen Eira’s town planning process by allowing objectors an opportunity to elaborate on their objection with the decision maker. This would build on and follow the recent ‘consultation/mediation’ process adopted for applications with 1 objection.
Ironically we also have in this same agenda more evidence of how poorly council informs residents of what is going on in their direct vicinity. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the practise of minimal notification whenever many objections are anticipated, is alive and well. Item 9.1 features an application for 13 double storeys in Carnegie. Only 13 properties were notified, 16 notices sent and 44 objections received.
There is much more more that we will be commenting upon in the days ahead. However of real interest is this in camera item
12.2 which relates to the awarding of the contract for 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – New Building, Civil Works and Landscaping.
Number of tenders received Four
Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against Three
Estimated contract value $8m
Surely residents deserve some public statement on what is happening at Duncan Mackinnon and why a project that originally was costed at 7 million has blown out to nearly ten million and now another 8 million possibly? And why the years and years of delay?
PS – UNRELATED, BUT WE’VE RECEIVED A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY BY A RESIDENT WHICH REVEALS THE CARNAGE ALREADY UNDERWAY FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE. Location is corner of Bond/Station Streets.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 6, 2014 at 1:59 PM
Council is holding up the Duncan Mckinnon works till next year so 4th time mayor Esakoff can open it.
June 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM
If not Esakoff, it will be Hyams.
June 9, 2014 at 2:13 PM
Lipshutz is the Deputy Mayor, hence he is vying for the position of Mayor i assume. He should not b discounted.
June 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM
Absolutely unbelievable a piece of crap on the part of Akehurst but nonetheless these Councillors will once again ensure that the residents lose and the Administration wins.
And while all this streamlining of the Administration goes on, Councillors willingly sign away the role they were elected to undertake, and residents are stiffled before they even know it
No doubt this will all be a boon for the developers – and a boon for Andrew’s empire as more and more staff are employed to handle the deluge of planning applications.
Great job Andrew, Akehurst and Burke – you stripped the residents of their rights yet can still get them to pay for your empire.
June 6, 2014 at 4:43 PM
Unbelievable – Council is a service organisation, it is there to service the residents and ensure that their interests are represented.
Yet here we have a service organisation that when faced with residents not showing up for DPCD hearings decides to make it harder for residents by dispensing with them. So much for finding out why they don’t show up –
. could it times that suit the DPCD rather than residents
. could it be that gullible residents believe them when they say sending in a written objection is enough, you don’t need to have your say
. could it be residents are well aware that decisions are foregone and attending is just an exercise in frustration.
Any one with any exposure to Glen Eira’s planning approval process knows for well the list of “could it be’s” is endless. But this Council, despite it “encouraging community participation in the decision making process” rather than approaching the residents to find out how to make it better decides to cut off the residents even more. Just well they are a closed shop, they’d never survive in a competitive environment.
June 6, 2014 at 4:48 PM
The way the council is divided with a certain faction petending they are not aligned and or bias, it may well be better that the officers make the decisions.
June 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM
Kinda agree with you on getting rid of the current crop of Councillors – all of them have failed in their representational and oversight roles and continually cede the administration more and more power.
The only trouble with getting rid of them and going with the Administration (Newton, Akehurst and Burke) is that they collectively pursue their own goals regardless of the views of residents.
The solution is not just to get rid of the current crop of Councillors but also to change the Administration – CEO and Directors. Only then will change come.
June 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM
spot on.
June 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM
It is lucky for the gang and Newton that Morgan don’t run a gallop poll for Council as they do for the State and Federal Pollies. Then we would truly see how much on the nose they are. The fact that they have been in power for so long is an indictment on democracy.
June 7, 2014 at 2:50 PM
Following on from the Conservatory fiasco, I have heard a whisper that the Bureaucrats at Council are recommending not to repair the cannons in Hopetoun gardens. They have been left in a sad state of neglect and will most likely be melted down.
June 7, 2014 at 5:52 PM
I think they were from the Crimean war, so the metal is made for the Victoria Crosses awarded. Perhaps they will be replaced by a more recent weapon.
June 7, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Oddly enough, Jeff Akehurst’s report doesn’t explain how decision making would be improved if the changes as proposed are adopted. Would the decisions be more likely to be compliant with Council policy and the Planning Scheme? Unlikely, given the sordid history of non-compliant developments getting waived through.
The system needs to be more transparent and accountable when decisions are made under delegated authority. At the moment there is no transparency and accountability. There isn’t even an audit done to check that decisions made under delegation comply with policy and the Scheme.
An obvious sticking point is the use of discretion, in which Council establishes a policy but renders it useless by giving officers the freedom to exercise their discretion to ignore it. The ResCode standards are another area where Council could and should do much better. I would like Council not to delegate power to grant permits for proposals that fail to comply with the residential amenity standards where they apply. Just what does “compliance with planning scheme” really mean? We have alleged Standards, and officers [and Council] waive compliance for certain favoured developers.
An obvious weakness in Akehurst’s proposal is permitting officers to amend a Permit that has previously been decided by DPC or Council. This should be limited to where the amendment doesn’t compromise compliance with amenity standards, and this should also include standards covering pedestrian sightlines and ramp gradients. It is poor form for an officer to compromise the integrity of the Scheme without oversight or transparency.
As we have seen repeatedly, when Council is asked to explain decisions by staff that don’t comply with policy, it gets very defensive and refuses to acknowledge the problem. Remember 175 Balaclava Rd? It tried to blame VCAT for what somebody under delegated authority agreed to let a developer get away with in mediation.
Then there are the past dodgy officer decisions to permit developers to work around the prohibition against dwellings in certain business zones. Just how many “caretakers” did they really believe were needed for a multiunit development?
Clover estate, where council staff and the then-mayor made a secret decision in favour of the developer not to require a permit for a dwelling even though the part of the site it was sitting on was not “immediately adjacent to neighbouring industrially zoned land” [condition in the applicable DDO].
While Council is contemplating just what freedoms council staff should have in planning matters, it should have a look at just how clear the rules really are. They’re not clear at all. Despite Jeff Akehurst’s assertions to the contrary, there are actually few rules. The Decision Guidelines provide very little guidance. The recent appalling decisions by VCAT concerning land on the fringe of commercial zones are a testament to this. Only a “Planner” could think it appropriate to ignore amenity standards provided a building is big enough [5 or more storeys].
I don’t understand how Jeff could think it acceptable to claim that residential areas are 97% of the municipality and have mandatory maximum height limits. This seems to be a continuation of the propaganda in Council’s media releases that is simply wrong.
Mandatory height limits are a crude tool, and should have been subjected to public scrutiny before being introduced. The “translation” from R1Z to the new zones wasn’t neutral, as what was previously a 9m discretionary limit has blown up into something much bigger for many unlucky residents [up to 14.5m]. If mandatory height limits were needed to prevent obvious abuse, then you’d have to think that all the other discretionary standards have been abused and will continue to be abused.
June 7, 2014 at 11:33 PM
As usual Reprobate a par excellent post.
One thing I would like to add is that when officers have the discretion to ignore or breach Glen Eira’s planning policy, Council’s Planning Department has the unfortunate habit of considering it a precedent rather than an anomaly – ergo further ignoring or breaches are justified/sanctioned.
June 7, 2014 at 5:26 PM
I like the note about VCAT decision for a Kambrook Road development for 3 stories. Rejected because it will wreck it for the residents in the area. Considering 3000 people will live across the road think it is a bit funny. It might be considered to help out the MRC development.
I bet if training is removed then all those stables will be turned into another Caulfield Village!