The old saying of Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics depicts perfectly the spin department of Glen Eira. Definitions are non-existent and methodologies as to how various figures are derived remains unexplained. The spin doctors simply publish a figure with some neat ambiguous statement and these are purported to represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far from it.
Several recent examples come from a Media Release and a sentence from last week’s Caulfield Leader (and repeated in a story this week)– “the tribunal (ie VCAT) approved 489 dwellings the council initially refused”(Caulfield Leader – page 9). The Media Release stated – “During the 2014-15 financial year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) approved 489 dwellings that Glen Eira City Council had refused” (July 2015). What these quotes and figures don’t reveal is:
- How many of these purported 489 dwellings were the result of council no longer opposing a permit due to the developer submitting an amended application?
- How many of these cases didn’t make it to a full hearing but were ‘mediated’ or were part of a ‘directions hearing’ at which council caved in?
- Thus, is the figure of 489 based simply on ‘initial’ rejection or rejections that stood firm and were taken to VCAT for a full hearing and subsequent decision?
Much more significant, is the question of WHY VCAT granted permits for any of these supposedly refused applications? Over the past few months we have featured several VCAT decisions where the members have highlighted a litany of council stuff-ups and lack of adequate representation at the hearings. Time and again the public record of the decision shows that Council reps show up and are either ill-prepared, often provide spurious arguments, or are basically hamstrung by the Planning Scheme itself. We are in no way suggesting that VCAT is without fault and that the legislation governing this body is adequate. What we are alleging is that Council should start fixing its own house of horrors instead of continually and persistently resorting to the blame game where VCAT is portrayed as the sole villain.
To justify our claims, we’ve taken the time to go through every single published VCAT decision for the past financial year. Council claims 489 dwellings were approved. Our total is 288! (see below). Of these decisions however, we urge residents to carefully consider the comments made by the members and to note:
- Conditions set by council that are contradictory or simply nonsensical
- The lack of protection afforded by the planning scheme itself
- Policies that expired in 2007 and have never been updated
- And far too often, the lack of competence by council itself
All of this however begs the essential question. If council is finding that its claims are repeatedly knocked back by VCAT, then why, oh why, has there not been any attempt to ‘fix up’ the gaping holes in the planning scheme? Why, oh why, will there not be a planning scheme review for 6 or 7 years? And why oh why do our councillors continue to stand idly by and accept this situation?
Here’s the evidence. Hearing dates are provided together with address, proposal, and members’ comments. For ease of reading, we’ve uploaded a pdf version HERE as well as the png images below –
Glen Eira Debates 
October 7, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Interesting that the regular vcat reports keep mum on these monumental balls ups. I’ve even got some sympathy for the developer when they meet all rescode requirements and council refuses the permit forcing them to vcat. Would not surprise me if someone attempted to sue or get costs back as a result. Thanks for a great read.
October 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM
I’ts a great read, but is it a “monumental balls up”? No, essentially the Planning Scheme is designed to achieve the outcome the architects of the Scheme have proposed and the Councillors have happily agreed with and approved it. Why? Because of the belief of those in charge in “individualism, free market, and minimum government intrusion”. The effect of this attitude in this Glen Eira government is that those with money get their way and if you can’t match that, you lose. And there is no such thing as community or group pressure as we are all individuals and there is no need for ‘community consultation’ or participatory democracy. After all we have a ‘representative democracy’ and vote in the ones we want to make decisions on our behalf. And we have been electing the same people with such attitudes for a very long time, so much so that ‘autocratic democracy’ is the norm now i.e. we know best what is good for you.
So, to all those complainants, if you want to change that, it is not sufficient to point out the quite predictable “unintended consequences”, but you need to change in the first instance all Councillors that have the philosophy and attitude that makes a mockery of democracy and ensure that a ‘participatory democracy’ is introduced in this Council.
October 7, 2015 at 4:51 PM
You are probably half right. I accept that the results are what was intended by Newton and Akehurst and accepted unquestionably by councillors. More difficult to accept are the errors the post reveals. How is it possible for professional planners to make so many mistakes. They either don’t know their own planning scheme, and the director who ticked off the council’s version of events and conditions, either did not read the officer’s version, or he himself doesn’t know a thing about his planning scheme. It’s really quite comical when you get a situation where the officer’s report claims one thing and then the hired consultant who shows up at vcat claims something different. That is wasting public money for sure. It also tells me that the right hand hasn’t got a clue as to what the left hand is doing and residents are the ones losing out all the time. All in all planning is disastrous. The scheme and the people enforcing it are both incompetent and useless and that includes councillors.
October 7, 2015 at 8:17 PM
I seem to remember Council spent about a 1 mill in 2011 updating their planning computer system. Should be a piece of cake to find out the facts and undertake any analysis you like on planning permits.
Looks like another mill down the gurgler
October 7, 2015 at 10:56 PM
One of the councillors is a town planner in his day job. You would think he could advise his colleagues of the short comings of the GEPS.
October 8, 2015 at 12:30 PM
What can one do if a person is weak and can be pressured very easily?
October 7, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Guys, instead of philosophising, what holds you back to make the move and form your click of friends to replace all councillors? Then you can achieve your dreams. Do something or keep silent.
October 7, 2015 at 7:22 PM
This sort of comment annoys me. Pointing out errors, neglect, and poor standards of work and planning is not philosophising. It shows what this council thinks of its residents and how badly it is run. That’s not philosophising about ethics or esoteric world views. I am doing something by the way – telling all my friends what a terrible council this is and what terrible councillors we have been duped into electing. I’m very successful because they swear they will not vote for anyone who is standing for reelection.
October 8, 2015 at 9:25 AM
You must be from mars!