The Open Space Contribution Levy has featured prominently at the last two council meetings. At the July 1st meeting the claim was that with objectors going to a Panel this is estimated to add approximately 7 months and that revenue ‘foregone’ during this time could be of the order of $2m. At last night’s council meeting the $2 million suddenly morphed into this (from the officer’s report) – At the 2013-14 rates, that would be a difference of about seven months or around $700k. Lipshutz even made up his own figures and spoke of a million dollars! The best lines however came from Hyams with his assertion that the objectors had a ‘tribal distrust of council’ and this was their ‘motivation’ for lodging objections.
Perhaps a far more reasonable take on council’s approach to collecting money from developers would be to calculate how much money has been LOST over a period of 11 years. Perhaps residents should also be seeking answers as how much land council has sold, as opposed to how much land has been purchased in order to meet the open space demands – first identified in 1987.
Even on the new ‘transparency’ so lauded by Delahunty, the figures provided in the officer’s report are fascinating – and of course entirely begs the question as to why such data is only made available now and not on a regular basis! More telling is the fact that council states that the range of rates currently applied are – 2.25% to 5.0% (maximum). So how come, when the supplied list is analysed NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LIST OF 54 HAS PAID 5%? Further questions should also be asked. For example:
- If this is truly a complete list of all payments received, then given that council admits to roughly 350+ subdivisions (according to the State Planning Activity Permit Reports for last year) and if even half are for 2 lot subdivisions and therefore exempt, what has happened to the other 175 subdivisions? Did council collect a cent? Or were all of these subdivision payments waived?
- If on the other hand this is not a complete listing, then why hasn’t this been stated upfront?
For eleven years now (since 29/5/2003) council has done nothing to up its open space levy – even though it has been fully cognisant of the fact that open space is a premium in Glen Eira. How many millions have been lost during this time? And how much money has been lost by not even applying the full 5% that council could legally apply?
Compared to the 11 years of doing absolutely nothing, a delay of even 7 months, seems very worthwhile in order to ensure that an amendment is passed which will truly benefit the community!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM
I would love to be a developer in Glen Eira. Development contribution levies have gone out the window years ago and open space payments would have cost me bargain basement prices. It would be even better to be an mrc developer. For residential I’m only paying 4% and the mixed use 20+ storeys a meagre 5%. The gang and Newton certainly know how to bargain. It’s all in favour of some people making a lot of money. If I were a developer I would thank them from the bottom of my heart.
July 23, 2014 at 3:36 PM
Maybe even to offer a certain Councillor to hand out their how to vote cards??? And Hyams wonders why the whinging residents bitch!!
July 23, 2014 at 3:48 PM
So just to be clear, you complain that they haven’t done anything for 11 years and now you complain when they try to do something? And further than complain you stand in their way?
It’s very simple. Council wants to levy at 5.7% what do your readers think, is a higher and consistent rate a good idea?
July 23, 2014 at 3:59 PM
I haven’t seen the objections. There could be some very sound reasons why people have objected. Thanks to the objectors council was forced to fix up some basic errors. That’s already a bonus and face saving exercise for the planning department.
With all that’s happening in Glen Eira and another 1700 plus dwellings going in I wouldn’t think that 5.7% is good enough. Stonnington is aiming for 8% and they have the second smallest amount of open space. Glen Eira with the least amount can only bring itself to seek 5.7%.
If a delay is what it costs to get a far more decent levy and to fix whatever else they object to, then I’m in favour of a delay. A few less car parks in open space would save council all the money they are claiming to be losing anyway.
July 24, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Read the submissions. They are public, perhaps GE Debates should publish them? No mention of a higher levy. What levy would need to be struck to make up for the lost money while we all wait for a panel?
July 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM
The higher and consistent rate is a good idea no doubt about it – increases revenue and reduces the costs of administering a complex system (which system varied by suburb and varied within each suburb depending on numerous criteria).
BUT, and while Council will consider this negative, the assessment of the current proposal needs to be balanced against what has been done (since same eggs are still in charge) and what others are doing.
What has been done
. the complex, high administrative cost system which is being replaced was implemented 2002. It resulted in lower open space levy rates than the maximum 5% allowed and lower levy rates in Glen Eira than those charged by Glen Eira’s benchmark Councils. Glen Eira’s revenue derived was spent on pavillions and maintaining existing open space rather than open space acquisitions. Benchmark Councils held the levy revenue in reserve so that they could fund parkland acquisitions as they arose (unlike Glen Eira, other Councils recognise that such opportunities can not be planned for).
. Since 2002, resident’s arguments (which have intensified with each passing year) for increasing open space via purchase have been ignored as have their arguments for adopting a flat maximum 5% across the municipality. As per the report included in the minutes, Council had the data (easy to compare what’s was received with what could have been received) yet all Council did was talk the talk while walking a totally different walk.
What is being done.
With regards the proposed open space levy rates. Council went to considerable efforts (ie. hired a specialized consultant) to determine an appropriate rate to be charged so that it’s proposed increase could be justified to the Government (the need for justification is not specific to Glen Eira, it applies to all Councils). Glen Eira’s proposed across the board average rate 5.7% is still lower than the 6% base rate being introduced by the benchmark Council’s. In addition, following the logic that intensified development in the growth, mixed use and commercial zones will result a higher demand for open space, the benchmark Council’s are justifying and proposing a rate of 8% for those zones. Not so Glen Eira – once again it lags behind the pack.
So 5.7% levy, you’ll get no argument from me on simplifying the system and increasing the rate. However, you will get a strong argument on
. the rate being chosen and it’s application to the various zones, and
. Council’s clear intention of stockpiling the revenue derived from the levy to undertake the Booran/Glen Huntly Reservoir project rather than holding in reserve to acquire additional parkland as and when those opportunities arise.
July 23, 2014 at 10:43 PM
A few posts back everyone was suprised that developers hadn’t objected. I bet that if some builders and developers would have put in their objections they wouldn’t get the flak that these objectors are copping. I don’t even know what tribal is supposed to mean. whatever it means it’s meant as an insult and that’s not on. Hyams should wash his mouth out with soap every single time before he opens it and lets the garbage come out.
July 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Developers were never going to object – 5.7% of the land value at the time of subdivision is tax deductible and essentially chicken feed compared to their profit margin and rates charged by other Councils.
Additionally, Council has yet to answer the question of what rate is payable at the time of subdivision – there’s a gazillion development applications out there that Council has been rubber stamp extending for years and has admitted not having a clue about – if and when they come to fruition will they be charged the rate applicable at the time the application was made or as applicable at the time the development is completed.
July 24, 2014 at 12:14 AM
(MODERATORS: First two sentences deleted)
Also as the council person who should go to the Caulfield Racecourse Trust meetings he usually sits in on decisions regarding the MRC and CRRT but yet in former days some councillors were banned from participating in GEC decisions regarding the C60 and Centre of Racecourse decisions and were obliged to leave the chamber. Consequentlyall the big decisions were made by the minority of councillors (Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling)who formed “The Racecourse Special Committee”. There is really something very strange about the whole affair.
Funny, one of them is now complaining about “tribal distrust” after their actions have actually delivered Glen Eira ratepayers with about one twentieth of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve which is still used by MRC whenever they so wish.
COUNCILLORS WHY NOT START WORKING FOR THE RATEPAYERS AS WELL AS THE FREELOADING MRC AND WE MAY HAVE SOME REASON TO STOP FEELING DISTRUSTFUL?
July 24, 2014 at 2:18 PM
“5.7% Levy” focuses on revenue but ignores what really matters—the provision of open space throughout the municipality and in particular the proximity of it to the areas that will be forced to increase their density by over 10x. Collecting money is pointless unless it is put to good use. Council can’t be trusted as it has failed to deliver what it said it would do under the 1998 Strategy.
Council didn’t improve the distribution of open space; didn’t provide appropriate alternative space for the loss of Jersey Parade park; doesn’t even believe open space is important. Recall any planning decision where the lack of open space in safe convenient walking distance was influential? The new Strategy has some aspirational goals for access (eg distance to municipal open space), but then doesn’t recommend projects to meet the goals.
The calculation of 5.7% itself is dubious as it is based on a series of assumptions applied to a bunch of numbers whose derivation hasn’t been explained. When dealing with gross uncertainty a few scenarios should have been presented based on low-, mid- and high-growth assumptions so the impact on the required levy could be assessed. That didn’t happen.
Submitters aren’t responsible for any delays in the Amendment process. That is up to the layers of bureaucracy that feast off the public teat. It is Council that resolved to ask the Minister to refer submissions to a Panel. If Council is truly concerned about the loss of revenue over the last 15 years because it hasn’t levied enough money or has invested it unwisely, then it can factor that into the open space contribution percentage it seeks. It doesn’t change that council is looking for $79M over 13 years from developers. It could base the rate on raising $77M from contributions over 12.25 years instead.
Whatever the amount of money that is eventually raised, at the end of the 13-year period covered by the Strategy the plan is for Glen Eira to continue to be the most impoverished municipality with respect to open space.
July 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM
Hyams allegedly talks about mistrust. I think he is dead right. There are plenty of reasons why residents should distrust this council and that includes administrators and councillors. Recent history over the C60 and the manner in which the residential zone reforms was done stand out like beacons. On open space there is even more reason for mistrust. I can only remember council buying two blocks of land and that was done only after they first wanted to sell the bowling green for residential development and that caused a huge outcry from residents. Two blocks were bought. No other purchase springs to mind and that’s over a period of twelve or thirteen years.
I don’t believe that leopards change their spots and never when the same people are running the show.
July 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM
Council isn’t that keen on mentioning the 4% open space contribution it sought for the residential precinct of C60. Council had no qualms about asking the Minister to make unilateral changes to our Planning Scheme and the Incorporated Plan for C60. It should be a simple matter to increase the contribution for C60 to 5.7%. The Minister doesn’t even have to require display of such an Amendment—just say that it is in the interests of Victoria or part of Victoria. He did it for C110 at the urging of GECC, without Council resolution, only the secret hearsay evidence of the Mayor and senior officers. Let’s see if Council really believes its hyperbole about what a “fair proportion” is.