PS OFF TOPIC – BUT, ‘BELIEVE IT OR NOT’! – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/developer-irate-after-glen-eira-phone-survey-goes-horribly-wrong/story-fngnvli9-1227442664907
PPS: Here’s The Age’s version of the latest events – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/developer-faces-public-relations-disaster-after-misleading-telephone-poll-20150715-gid64n.html
The outcry over inappropriate development is gathering voice and momentum. Residents in all suburbs are now experiencing the results of Glen Eira Council’s lack of timely, competent, and justifiable strategic planning.
Two amendments (C11 and C25) are the cause of what is now happening throughout Glen Eira. The former established what is known as the ‘urban villages’ (ie major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie) and the latter set up the inequitable ‘minimal change’ versus ‘housing diversity’ areas incorporating what are known as ‘neighbourhood centres’. Murrumbeena, Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh East for example are all ‘neighbourhood centres’ and not major activity centres.
Each of the above amendments went off to a Planning Panel. The Panel’s recommendations and comments are worth a revisit since they clearly state what Council was required to do in order to fully justify its proposals. Needless to say, after 14 years since the Planning Panel report on C11 was handed down, absolutely NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. The introduction of the new zones merely reinforced all the already existing inequities and shortcomings without undertaking the required strategic work.
Here are some extracts from the two Panel Reports. The bolded sections are our emphases and pinpoint the tasks that were demanded but which Council has not completed.
Amendment C11 – Setting up the Major Activity Centres
Traffic/parking studies and urban design/built form frameworks are to be undertaken/developed to address traffic/parking issues and to ensure that design outcomes are appropriate.
The Panel recommends that, after approval, Council develop building design guidelines for all three centres
Council believe that “Urban Villages” provide many benefits for the immediate and wider community including:
More energy efficient housing, environmentally sensitive development, pedestrian activity and social interaction;
Improved amenity, quality open spaces and more accessible services and facilities;
More vibrant town centres by increasing population in their catchments and by enhancing their attractiveness through improvements in amenity;
The Panel believes that proper “urban village” planning must address the following issues at the very least:
Land use planning
Built form
Urban design
Capital works spending based on the strategic allocation of developer contributions, open space contributions or other public funds.
Car parking
Traffic analysis
Community facilities and services
Public realm and the provision of spaces conducive to the needs of the resident, consumer and visiting population
Public transport improvements and integration
Open space connections
Interfaces and transition with surrounding areas
Promotion of aspects of the valued cultural attributes of the village such as unique ethnic or activity strengths
Amendment C25 – ‘Minimal Change/Housing Diversity’
The most damning comments in this Panel Report relate to the ‘interim’ nature of the Amendment and the amount of work that Council still had to undertake. What was declared as ‘interim’ morphed into ‘permanent’ and was further ‘cemented’ with the new zones. The ‘neighbourhood centres’ in particular received much comment as did their arbitrary lines on a map.
The Panel concludes that boundary issues are something that are best addressed through detailed assessment of each centre, as indicated in the amendment as future strategic work. The boundaries identified in this amendment should only be seen as interim arrangements until structure planning exercises are undertaken.
The boundaries of the neighbourhood centres identified in this amendment are considered by the panel as interim at best. They will require review as part of detailed assessment of each centre.
The Panel does not agree with the concept that all activity centres categorised as neighbourhood centres in C25 are automatically suited for higher density residential development.
The Ormond Neighbourhood Centre is an example of an activity centre that, while obviously having a strong commercial base and a railway station, may not necessarily have the character or form to make it automatically attractive as a focus for intensified residential development. It is located around a wide, heavily trafficked road (North Road), it is not compact, easy to circulate through or have a distinctive urban form. Furthermore, the uses in this centre are dominated by office uses and the type of specialty shops the (sic) serve a regional rather than a local catchment. There are few shops providing the type of goods (especially food) that would service a purely local population
The Panel considers that rear boundaries should be preferred as boundaries rather than street frontages, to overcome problems where one side of a street is treated differently from the other side of the street.
A stated objective of C25 is to assist the vitality and economic basis of Glen Eira’s activity centres. This is an admiral objective but one that the Panel considers will not be addressed simply through residential initiatives. Further, the pursuit of residential initiatives in isolation from other economic, traffic, access and business development initiatives may actually be detrimental to the overall well-being of the centres.
At best C25 provides a holding mechanism until more specific and effective policies are developed for each of the neighbourhood centres individually. This issue is a serious one that must be addressed directly in the development of the Structure Pans for individual centres.
Traffic and parking issues should be addressed in the structure plans Council proposes to develop for its neighbourhood centres. Provided the structure plans take into account, and cater adequately for, increased demand, the impact on local streets need not become a significant issue. The Panel recommends that the structure plans to be prepared by Council for each neighbourhood centre address issues of parking and traffic generated by both residents and shoppers
The other significant issues noted by the Panel are the need for the further work identified by Council to be undertaken as soon as possible. This applies especially to the preparation of a Structure Plan for each neighbourhood centre that reflect both its current and future role as an activity centre and its potential
And then of course there is the Planning Scheme itself – full of broken promises that the following quotes reveal.
Clause 21.04 – Developing local structure plans / urban design frameworks to guide development in the neighbourhood centres
Developing “suburb” plans for each suburb which integrate land use and development planning, with planning for infrastructure, capital works, recreation, parks and gardens, street trees and business development.
Developing local area traffic management plans and parking precinct plans to control the effects of parking and traffic intrusion in residential areas.
Implementing local area traffic management changes in existing areas in consultation with communities to improve safety and amenity and discourage use by inappropriate traffic.
Investigating mechanisms which require developers to undertake street tree planting.
Investigating the development of additional development contribution mechanisms based on accepted principles of need, equity, nexus, accountability and timing.
Investigating urban design improvements to the public domain surrounding major public transport hubs in consultation with public transport service providers
Preparing Parking Precinct Policies for the following neighbourhood centres:
Alma Village, Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, Bentleigh East, Glen Huntly, Ormond.
Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.
Implementing a program of Local Area Traffic Management Plans in order to minimise disruption and increase safety of residential areas.
CONCLUSIONS
- The basis and strategic justification for the introduction of the new residential zones is entirely suspect given that Amendment C25 was clearly seen as an ‘interim’ measure.
- None of the required work has been undertaken by Council
- The new zones fly in the face of many of the recommendations by the Panels
- It is inexcusable that so much of the Planning Scheme is nothing more than words on a page and the promised ‘further strategic work’ is allowed to lie dormant and untouched to the detriment of all residents
- The lack of consultation, review, and action needs to stay firmly in the minds of all residents when they next vote in 2016. Residents have literally been duped, deceived and dudded!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 15, 2015 at 12:35 PM
Councillor Histoiry
Maraget Esakoff (three times mayor) first elected 2003, sacked 2005, re- elected 2005 and ever since.
Jamie Hyams (twice mayor) first elected 2003, sacked 2005, did not stand in 2005 election, re-elected in 2008 and again in 2012. Mayor during the zone implementation.
Michael Lipshutz (never Mayor but on most major subcommittees) first elected 2005 and re-elected ever since.
Niel Pilling (once mayor) first elected 2008 and a re- elected in 2012
Jim Magee (current mayor) first elected 2008 and re-elected 2012.
Oscar Lobo (never mayor) appoint in 2009 and re-elected 2012
Delahunty, Okotel and Sounness – all first elected in 2012 and not a one has shown any nous or a willingness to support residents.
CEO – Andrew Newton – first appointed as an in-house promotion and continually re-appointed ad nauseum ever since.
Every one of the above is responsible for the lack of planning, transparency and duplicity that we know as Glen Eira Council. Residents need to get rid of the lot and start afresh in the 2016 elections and make the non-re-appointment of Newton and election issue.
July 15, 2015 at 12:49 PM
we also wish to point out to readers that only 14 submissions were put in for Amendment C25. Many residents complained that they did not know about the proposed carving up of the municipality into housing diversity and minimal change. It would appear that nothing has changed in the processes that council uses to inform and advise residents – ie the ‘notification’ process for the Virginia Estate amendment was also condemned as inadequate and non-informative. Legal? Yes, but certainly not conducive to full community participation and knowledge.
July 15, 2015 at 1:10 PM
When it comes to community engagement Council’s focus is on compliance with the minimum required to meet legal requirements. Trouble is there’s a huge gulf between satisfying minimum legalities and meeting Council’s self proclaimed encouragement of community participation – that would involve keeping the community informed which is only an implied requirement of open transparent and accountable governance.
July 15, 2015 at 5:55 PM
I would sooner believe in fairy tales than the excuses put up by Gillon and his consultants. If this is a reputable company then they have been given their brief and such “mistakes” should not happen. There is a vast difference between saying we are doing this on behalf of council and we are doing this to gauge public opinion.
Gillon knows very well what public opinion already is so I don’t see the benefit of running another “survey” unless it is of some major advantage to the developer. All the Facebook pages have made it abundantly clear as the planning conference itself did on what residents think. Gillon is now in damage control and hoping to pull a few more rabbits out of his hat no doubt.
July 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM
My thanks to those responsible for this post. I’ve learnt a lot about C25 and how poorly researched and implemented it was. Hyams hangs all his arguments on the spurious argument that the zones were a “neutral translation”. They might have been “neutral” to C25 but C25 itself was a botched, half completed job with the majority of residents kept in the dark I suspect. I certainly don’t remember receiving any publicity or information about what was going on at the time. Nobody asked me what I think. If the foundation is rotten then that means that the zones are rotten and can’t be strategically justified. Newton, Akehurst and Hyams in their meetings with Guy have got a lot to answer for and so do all other councillors who voted in this atrocity.
July 15, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Hyams is just covering for his Liberal Party mate Southwick
July 15, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Excellent post and analysis. However, the current situation is that C11, C25 and all other Amendments as well as all other Glen Eira Planning Schemes that have followed them were accepted by State Governments at the time (Labs and Libs). The Administration and Councillors are stuck with the GEPS as is, regardless of who comes onto the Council in 2016. Can it be changed? Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and determination, particularly on the part of Councillors with the co-operation of the State Government to change what’s written in law in this City. The first step is to change the composition of the Council and administration.
In my congratulatory post “accentuate the positives” way is to get the support https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwp-IvX8VM8. The song also mentions “eliminate the negatives” with a strong message to ” don’t mess with the Mr in between”. While the negatives, both policy and representation, are all the time mentioned here, I think a positive policy platform must be formulated and promoted to candidates and their supporters.
I also think that we should weed out from the Council “the Mr(s) in between”. Probably any Councillor could be classified as such for one reason or another. However, I would like to focus on four in particular: Lipshutz (many, many times sits on both sides of the fence), Pilling (promised and had a chance to have the CEO position advertised, but reneged on the promise), Esakoff (changes her mind under pressure), and Okotel (represents more herself than conviction or her ward).
Michael Lipshutz will probably be the most difficult to dislodge, because of his high profile in his Jewish community and behind the scene operation on the Council. It’s interesting that when it came to selection of a candidate for the Caulfield District, the Liberals have chosen a conviction politician David Southwick. I may disagree with some of David’s policies, but I appreciate his community work, easy approach and openness, Michael Lipshutz should be exposed to much greater scrutiny as to the what and the why of his doing and voting. Is he doing good for the residents of Glen Eira or just doing well for himself?
July 15, 2015 at 9:33 PM
I’m all for “positives”. There just ain’t too many when one thinks of Glen Eira Council. Having said that, there are plenty of “positives” out there in the community. Residents are packing council meetings and learning lots about planning. No longer silent and ignorant this will grow. Some very irate people I speak to these days.
5 councillors can change everything. That’s a “positive”. To hell with Lipshutz and his mates. He becomes irrelevant if you’ve got 5 willing to vote en bloc. They could even get rid of Newton with a single vote.
July 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM
I’m reading the quotes in total disbelief that this was all said so many years ago and that not a single one of these recommendations has been carried out. It’s not as if this administration and its councillors aren’t aware of traffic problems. These issues have been deliberately ignored because in my opinion structure planning is not something that Newton has ever wanted. It would limit in so many ways what developers can and cannot do. It would also mean less units, less revenue, and more work. It is far easier to collect the money, receive huge wage increases, and not perform the basics that would maintain residential amenity. Going even further, it means that amendments passed are passed on promises that were never intended to be carried out. That to me equals blatant deception and calls for a full ombudsman’s inquiry into the way this council functions.
July 15, 2015 at 11:03 PM
While I agree with you D.Evans, the ombudsman inquiry will look at the Council procedures and the law. The GE Council is very particular about procedures and legalities. It had several various inquiries and inspectors. They have all gone the administration way and stuff the public, residents and Councillor wishes. The future Council has to do it the right way, the positive way. Otherwise we’ll have another investigation supporting Newton and his team. You do not want that, do you?
July 15, 2015 at 11:40 PM
I certainly do not want another whitewash as has happened in the past. These have all been through the municipal inspectorate and not the ombudsman. A different kettle of fish I believe with fewer ex officers serving. Regardless, not fulfilling planning scheme requirements should be worth a question or two and maybe even seen as a hanging offence?
July 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Activity centres or neighborhood centres. Doesn’t matter what you call them. Sitting in some ivory tower and drawing lines around peoples homes is not planning. The reports should have been listened to. 15 years later countless streets are paved in gold for the greedy when none of this should have happened if council and especially council planners did their work as they were meant to do and which we pay for.
July 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM
The house eating hole in Mt Waverley, Monash, is making Glen Eira look good, is this possible?
July 17, 2015 at 6:30 AM
Saw another house eating hole yesterday – Cnr. Hughesdale and Highbury Roads, Ashburton.
Tis only a matter of time till it happens in Glen Eira – they have already a brick wall collapsing trick
July 17, 2015 at 12:10 AM
D.Evans, the planning scheme requirements are being fulfilled, not according to panel reports, but through Council and State Governments approvals over many years. The deficiencies and inconsistencies have been well articulated by many, but in particular by Reprobate, whose writings are detailed and very well articulated. The problem is that the various possible interpretations of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme are built into its flexibility. That is quite deliberate from the beginning. Developers have the same right to interpret the GEPS as anybody else, residents and/or Council and/or VCAT. VCAT interpretations are primarily bounded by State Government rules, which are by design broader to allow Council Schemes to be adjusted for its own circumstances and rules. And yes Reports to the Council should be listened to as are the wishes of the community. That is not happening and now we are stuck with the current GEPS. To change GEPS would take at least two Council terms and only if the current CEO is changed.
What concerns me is that this Council does not operate in an open and transparent way. Things happen a lot in secret and outside of the Council meeting. The amazing fact is that we have on our Council 3 and sometimes 4 lawyers on the Council, supposedly experts in procedures and administration, and they are happy to do it that way. To make Council procedures open and transparent, like the State Assembly, I would like to see the new 2016 Councillors implement: live recording of Council proceedings using YouTube and made it available online; Council record of meetings available to the public at the same time as to Councillors and a day earlier than at present; introduce a Notice of Motion into Council procedures.
Those changes should be able to be done within one year of the new Council. But unless you will get onto the Council a lawyer that is prepared to fight for such changes and knows how to do it there is probably a ‘buckleys chance’ to get it implemented.
IS THE COMMUNITY WRATH AND SUPPORT FOR CHANGE OF PROCEDURES SUFFICIENT IF SUCH CHANGES ARE IMPEDED ADMINISTRATIVELY???
July 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM
Why is the live recording of council meetings such a difficult problem – most councils do it. With today’s simplified technology why not? The process could start almost immediately if the will is there to do so. Kingston Council does not find it a problem – see the following text taken from their website:
Welcome to Kingston City Council’s Live Streaming of Ordinary Council Meetings Website. Kingston City Council offers on-demand video and audio of Council meetings.
Live streaming allows you to view proceedings via the Internet without the need to attend Council meetings. This gives you greater access to Council decisions and debate and eliminates geographic barriers preventing the public from attending meetings.
From here you will be able to access webcasts of live Council meetings, view archived meetings and follow links to meeting schedules, agendas and minutes.
July 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I see in the Agenda good old Roc has once again missed a major point in his analysis of the Virginia Park Estate Development rezoning. Shame Roc doesn’t mention that the major difference between the commercial zones is that C2Z only allows retail and commercial use, where as C1Z allows retail, commercial and residential usage.
The Roc doesn’t address why the zoning change is required, he just keeps harping on that no development plans have been submitted. Obviously an attempt to discredit the residents objections that what has been outlined by the developer’s support doc is a gross over development of the site. Councillors might believe buy the crap that developer has initiated this amendment (a long and costly process) just ensure consistent permitted uses across the site and does not intend to build residences BUT guess what the resident don’t.
Hey Roc if you had read the developer’s support doc you’d see it clearly states a development potential of 4,200+ even included it in the traffic analysis.
I’m really beginning to wonder about you Roc !!!!!!
July 19, 2015 at 9:19 AM
I recall Magee leaked a letter to Moorabbin/Glen Eira Leadeer that was addressed to Jamie by Elizabeth Miller. Magee spoke about the letter in a Council meeting and I believe Jim was pulled up by Jamie during that time. Proud to expose the liberals. What does his mean? Will he be allowed to vote against the motion or just move out of the Council during decision making. Is it a winky pop.