There’s much in the current agenda that deserves comment. The most significant is that the MRC or their developers have lodged an objection to the miniscule conditions imposed by council on the Caulfield Village development. What a surprise! The VCAT hearing is set down for September.
It is also important to note that the public relations arm (via Newton) is out in full force with reports designed to both gild the lily, and to obfuscate the real issues on Amendment C120 (open space levies) and housing approval statistics. We will report in detail on both these matters in the days ahead.
Staying true to form, there is another report on what council could do regarding apartment sizes. Again, no surprises from this ‘do nothing council’. The recommendation is that regulating size is a state issue and all council should do is ‘advocate’ via the Municipal Association and have ResCode updated.
Readers also need to have a close look at the Advisory Environment Committee’s set of minutes. The trend to ensure that as little as possible is made public continues. Advisory committees should never be the place for important policy discussions, especially where officer reports remain secret, and the public is barred from attendance. This transgresses all notions of transparency and good governance, especially when many committee recommendations are then simply accepted by council without any open debate, or very often without the accompanying data to justify those recommendations. Here are some items from these minutes that readers might like to ponder:
That the Chair of the Environment Advisory Committee write to Vision Super to ask for information on their Ethical Procurement Policy and practice.
3.5.3. A letter was sent on 15 April 2014.
3.5.4. ACTION: Officers will seek an update on whether there has been a response to the letter and follow up if necessary
5.1. Car sharing
5.1.1. Traffic Department have advised that there is a trial underway (MS).
5.1.2. ACTION: Officers will provide further update on the current trial at next meeting.
5.2. Glen Huntly Reservoir Proposed Park
5.2.1. JD raised the question of whether a community garden should be trialled at the new park.
5.2.2. Discussion included that the proposed park is currently out for community consultation which has been informed by several consultations to-date.
5.2.3. JD plans to put in his own submission to the Booran Road Consultation process.
5.2.4. ACTION: Officers will seek clarification about the timing of Open Space Strategy action to investigate potential locations for community gardens in Glen Eira.
Last, but not least, there’s this from the in camera items – Under Section 89(2)(f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to ‘Code of Conduct – Possible Additions’. Residents should expect more ‘tightening’ (ie nooses) placed around the necks of councillors we predict, with this one!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Sure to be nothing more than a little glitch for the developers. They will line up their senior counsels, planners, architects and all council will trot out are a poor old planner or hired planner who won’t try too hard in any event. The issues will have been worked out between them even before they set foot in at vcat. Thereby all the huff and puff from Lipshutz and those who voted in these useless conditions was nothing but window dressing. The game was over long ago when Newton set up the special committee making sure that the mrc got everything and more that they ever wanted. Congratulations on a job well done to Newton and the gang.
July 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM
I am convinced that this council is the most conservative and reactive in existence. Not on one thing that I can remember has this administration taken the initiative – unless it maintains the status quo, or hands greater benefits to developers. Everything boils down to “leave it up to the state government”. That’s a handy excuse that won’t wash any more. Reading some of the agenda items, it’s in full force on dwelling sizes and street lighting.
Councillors should be hung and quartered for allowing this kind of reporting to keep appearing and not once demanding facts and figures to back up anything that is said. This report is so incompetent and so biased that the only term that can be applied is – “crap” and more “crap”.
July 18, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Your use of “most conservative and reactive” brings to mind the term “luddite”. As per standard dictionary definitions “luddite” is an 1800’s English term that applies to a group that believes things were “just fine” back in the day, and refuses to replace/update failing equipment/software/computers despite significant economic, technological or social changes
If you add urban/town planning (and all its inter connected complexities) to the list of failed ideas and the failure to update accordingly, then you have Glen Eira Council (Administration and Councillors) in a nutshell.
July 20, 2014 at 5:57 PM
It will be good to have C120 examined in detail by a Panel, assuming they’re competent. There’s a lack of detail in the strategic justification, although that didn’t stop our CEO describing it as “scientific”. Remember that Council isn’t obliged to spend any money providing open space near the developments that are leading to population increases and who are making open space contributions. What is clear from an analysis of the 15 years covered by the previous strategic plan is that all money can be redirected for political purposes.
Even the very basis of open space contributions is divorced from population increase. It is based on unimproved site value, which doesn’t have a linear relationship with how many dwellings and/or people will live there. Carnegie Urban Village developments are expected to provide $17M over 13 years and all they get in return is a half-hearted promise to provide a small local area, perhaps only 300sqm. Little wonder Council doesn’t want this scrutinized.
July 20, 2014 at 6:27 PM
Interesting how the Item on Housing Approvals 2013-2014 confirms the changes to the new residential zones weren’t neutral. Reviews went down, and since the majority of reviews are from developers bitching about conditions on permits, it means the new zones are allowing them to get away with more than they could previously. That’s the advantage of increasing height limits and removing all need to consider other amenity standards.
The Council and VCAT view is that nobody is entitled to any protection of amenity in the new RGZ and GRZ and CZ1 zones. There isn’t much the public can do about this since we get to vote so rarely [and have absolutely no say about unelected, unrepresentative VCAT members]. Andrew Newton’s report doesn’t disclose the exorbitant fee hikes for VCAT either. Pricing people out of the “justice” system isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the efficacy of zone changes. Forcing people to sell because of the loss of amenity from poor development is a policy failure, not a policy success…unless the intention all along was to force people to sell.