Please read the following extracts from Item 9.9 of the current agenda (open space levies) very, very carefully. We believe that it shows in spades:
- The total incompetence of this council, and
- Why they simply cannot be trusted
Continuation of the policy of 25 June 2013 could potentially undermine Amendment C120 in so far as it directs the expenditure of all funds on the provision and capital works improvements to new open space rather than also improving existing open space which will be used by the future population. Councillors have received an independent briefing in relation to this advice.
And the ‘recommendation’ –
Abandons the policy introduced before the 2014 Open Space Strategy entitled ‘Use of Public Open Spaces Contributions Policy’ dated 25 June 2013.
In case people have forgotten what this council policy promised we reiterate –
Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space.1 (including the former Glen Huntly Reservoir)
Council will not spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to improve land which is already public open space. (25th June, 2013)
With much fanfare, beating of the chest, and promise after promise, March 18th 2014 saw the following resolution (and promise) repeated –
Crs Pilling/Lipshutz
That Council;
- Delete the last sentence in section 8.3B of the Strategy “Funds will also need to held for upgrades to existing open space”.
- Adopt the Glen Eira Open Space Strategy.
- Confirm the existing Policy adopted on 25 June 2013 that “Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space”.
So what does all this mean?
- You create a strategy, an amendment, and a policy and promise the earth only to discover innumerable errors later on! So instead of amending the strategy and policy, the solution is to renege on the promise made to residents!
- That the old system will prevail and that instead of using the accumulated levies exclusviely for the ACQUISITION OF NEW OPEN SPACE, council will redirect this money into more concrete plinths, more pavilion redevelopments and given their past record, a minimum of new open space. Note that only 2 house blocks in Packer Park have been added to open space in the last 14 years – and that occurred because of the huge public outcry. Council’s first option was to sell the bowling green for residential development!
- The total incompetence of those responsible for overseeing the open space strategy and the drafting of the amendment. How many more errors will be picked up after the fact before someone is held to account?
- Council resolutions, policies, strategies are all totally meaningless. Promises are made and then broken willy nilly.
- All credibility and faith in the competence of this council is shot to pieces.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Howard’s core and non-core promises. Difference I think is that for Newton everything is expendable when it comes to covering up error upon error and saving face before “authorities”.
Result is that the latest open space strategy will go the way of the 1998 strategy. Nothing done, nothing achieved and when the 1998 version advocated for a 50% split between buying new space and using the money for “infrastructure” council used it all for bricks and concrete. Whatever is stated is open to change as with the conservatory and can be tossed out the window on a whim without any viable explanation. Naturally, the mock explanation wouldn’t expose the balls ups.
September 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Forgot to say that more land has been sold than bought under this regime. They also removed the public acquisition overlay on a property in Gardenvale. Newton would sell everything he could to balance the books.
September 21, 2014 at 1:50 PM
My friend heard 2 Councillors saying to someone that there are 7 morons on this blog and the same people are writing under the name of ‘Anonymous’
September 21, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Makes ya one of the secret seven then don’t it? Ya wouldn’t be Newton, Burke, or a councillor by any chance wouldya?
September 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Somehow my questioning of the abilities of Councillors means I’m not surprised that the reportedly overheard conversation between 2 Councillors was NOT accompanied by one or more comments along the lines of
“”only 7 people!!!!!. Amazing that its managed to generate such a serious following …. just under 600,000 and it keeps on growing!!!!. With all the flak I’m getting from my residents, I’m beginning to wonder if the info presented by the Admin is as “cracked up” as they claim”
September 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM
Actually, the correct terminology is not 7 people but 7 MORONS.
Like you, I am wondering who exactly the MORONS are.
September 21, 2014 at 8:40 PM
I want to endorse and praise the owners of this site for the work they put in and for their ability to counter the bureau of misinformation that is the public relations department of council. When there is so little honest reporting and transparency that comes out of this council then sites such as this perform an immensely important public service. Even if people don’t always agree with what’s written here at least it’s an opportunity to think about issues, and to write counter views if that is what one wants. This alone is far more than council permits and sanctions.
I’ve followed this site for close on three years now and find that if I want to know what is really happening then my first port of call would be Glen Eira Debates. My last option would be to rely and trust any officer report and certainly not anything that any councillor says – either in public or face to face privately.
This latest backflip on the open space funding is another nail in the coffin of good government and ethical behaviour and I thank the authors for bringing it to light.
September 21, 2014 at 7:19 PM
An outrageous decision. I was lead to believe that finally this council was giving residents what they wanted – more open space. This is a retrograde step that will only mean more and more millions frittered away on needless works like concrete that have the effect of reducing open space. All of these works should not come out of the open space budget but out of capital works. My understanding is that this is how other councils work their budgets and everything is out there and in the open.
If the planners have erred then it isn’t residents who should be paying the cost by getting less open space. It is the planners who should be sacked and any councillor who votes for this.
September 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM
So what’s going to happen to the money they have been holding in reserve since 1 July, 2013. Should be about 2 mill?
September 22, 2014 at 10:13 PM
waste it on cutting down trees in parks
September 22, 2014 at 9:23 AM
Something that won’t be heard at tomorrow’s Council Meeting
Why don’t we change the strategy to match our June 2013 resolution?
We need to have funds held in reserve to take advantage of opportunities as they arise – we have already missed opportunities. Why are we spending the open space contribution revenue on building pavilions and car parks on existing land rather than acquiring additional land.
We already know the Municipality’s current open space demand exceeds its provision and long term forecasts all show that the shortfall will increase exponentially. Park land acquisition by purchase is also an investment in the community’s assets and health and well being and in the current and forecast environments it is a bigger and more urgent investment than continuing to focus on parkland capital works.
Land doesn’t get cheaper and missed opportunities are lost forever.
September 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM
notice Southwick is sponsoring another ‘fun run’ in October on crown land at the racecourse. We can really see who;s side he is on. Wonder if you are breaking the law by running on the illegal artificial track?
September 22, 2014 at 12:56 PM
look just when you though Dudley Street couldn’t get any worse!
http://jadeapartments.com.au/
September 22, 2014 at 4:28 PM
Council and VCAT sold Dudley St down the gurgler several years ago. Google describes it as 10 or 11 minutes walk to the railway station; VCAT says “less than 5 minutes”. Shows just how corrupt planning is. Don’t understand how they could have a Permit for 5 storeys. It is a Minimal Change area, and is zoned NRZ1. The 2008 and 2009 permits surely have expired. It would be derelict of Council to have repeatedly extended the permits, especially since the zoning has changed and construction didn’t commence until this year. Expect more bullshit from Council.
September 22, 2014 at 6:21 PM
Turns out that Council’s online Planning Application Register is close to useless. The last “decision date” listed for GE/PP-21809/2009 is 27 May 2010, but despite that, VCAT later got its grubby fingers on the application: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1299.html
Since VCAT’s 2011 decision was an amendment to an existing Permit it leaves ambiguous what the expiry dates actually are. Unambiguously though, the development didn’t commence within 2 years of this VCAT decision, suggesting its Permit has expired unless extended after being rezoned NRZ1.
Caulfield Residence Pty Ltd had two further cracks at trashing our planning scheme at VCAT: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/512.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1930.html
Member Baird finally pulled the plug on the repeated expansion of the original proposal, and delivered some veiled criticism of her colleagues and Council in doing so.
September 23, 2014 at 9:10 AM
interesting that is over 100 apartments (rooms) and it is only on a 700 meter block of land. It looks a lot bigger in the picture doesnt it. 7 – 13 has application for 70 apartments so add that to the existing one that is about 250 apartments in about 6 house blocks! Probably 25% of the Caulfield East population in one tiny street!
September 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM
GECC has always regarded open space as not being very important. The 1998 Strategy was a failure, as it failed to improve the quantity of open space and absolutely failed to improve the distribution of open space. No councillor has been able to identify a planning decision where lack of accessible open space affected the outcome. After 16 years, there has been negligible progress on what really matters. Little wonder the CEO’s Evolution of Policy list is so underwhelming.
What is clear from the CEO’s report is that he never wanted the policy change and is clutching at every straw to have the policy reverted to the situation that caused the 1998 Strategy to be such an abject failure.
There is no need to change the policy. The policy isn’t illegal. It is within Council’s power to decide how it spends money provided it is for the purposes that relevant legislation proscribe. The current policy meets that test. For 16 years Council has spent money on improving existing open space for [a subset of] existing residents and not on providing open space for new residents, especially those in its Urban Villages.
The bigger problem is that Council and its staff don’t want to spend the money required to provide the open space needed for the ghettos it has established. Land is expensive where developers expect to be able to build 3- to 12-storey, 1- and 2-bedroom apartments.
On a question of governance, it is poor form for councillors to rely on private briefings when making decisions. The same information should be published in the Agenda so we the public can assess Council’s performance.
September 22, 2014 at 6:14 PM
I’ve had another look at the history your refer to Reprobate and what has been omitted in this pot pourri of half truth and half figments of the imagination. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Newton neglected to mention the fact that in the entire listing of funds derived from open space levies for the preceding year, not one of them brought in 5%. Now of course he claims that this was available to council. He also neglects to mention that since 2003 Glen Eira has been overall collecting a pittance whereas other councils have upped and upped their levies. 11 years of minimal income when council could have got a lot more.
I also like the claims about thepurchase of 2 properties in Packer Park. It’s been mentioned before but worth repeating that this is a tiny increase and that council wanted to turn the bowling green into residential development. That bespeaks their true priorities and objectives.
As reprobate says – open space has never been a priority. What is a priority is heaps of grandiose pavilions that don’t bring in a return, that eat up more and more of open space, but look damn good on a cv.
September 22, 2014 at 7:07 PM
The CEO has chosen to “highlight” a survey of users of open space, which is a reminder of just how badly we are governed. The critical issue is what are the reasons the rest of the municipality aren’t using open space. Why is the “new” Strategy silent on this subject? Is it lack of proximity? Poor access eg unsafe for children to walk there unaccompanied? Not meeting recreational needs? Poor distribution of open space was raised in the 1998 Strategy and then ignored. The 2014 Strategy is heading in the same direction.