Does this signal the departure of the very recently appointed Ms K. Ware?
January 16, 2016
Shuffling The Decks On The Titanic?
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
[13] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- January 16, 2016 at 10:36 PM
- Category :
- GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates
%d bloggers like this:
January 17, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Ware’s the evidence
January 17, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Akehurst
Newton
Waite
Ware?
Reckon this is all great news for residents. May it continue with Burke and the rest
January 17, 2016 at 11:41 AM
Gone to greener pastures with full support from Ratio Consultants
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mpa-update-20-october-2015-fishermans-bend-berwick-peter-seamer
January 17, 2016 at 1:50 PM
http://www.gourmetcinema.com.au .look the community benefit cinema is open and parking in the center of the racecourse!
January 17, 2016 at 8:09 PM
My feeling is this rather silly adventure into outdoor cinema and fine dining will be a flop, as these two experiences are for more enjoyable indoors. I could be wrong, but time will tell.
January 18, 2016 at 3:11 PM
The website confirms yet again that the proposed use of the land is prohibited, being a Cinema Based Entertainment Facility. Council has chosen to pretend otherwise, but consider the facts. “Cinema Based Entertainment Facility” is a defined land-use term in the Planning Scheme: “Land used to provide screen based entertainment or information to the public, in association with the provision of meals or sporting, amusement, entertainment, leisure or retail facilities”. The proposal clearly involves screen based entertainment, and the website clearly shows it is in association with the provision of meals [as if “gourmet cinema” isn’t enough of a clue]. In land zoned PPRZ, Cinema Based Entertainment Facility is a prohibited use. A rocket needs to be sent up the fundaments of DELWP, VCAT and GECC for their collusion. Yet another monumental abject failure on the part of Council in an election year.
January 17, 2016 at 2:28 PM
Really tacky subject and hurtful.
January 20, 2016 at 2:43 AM
As one of the actual opponents at VCAT there seemed to be maby extraordinary occurences firstly there was a letter tabled at the actual hearing from DELWP which completely contradicted the conditions laid out by the same administrator of DELWP in a letter of about a year prior and secondly in her judgement the member Glyn stated falswely that the “MRC is the administrator of the land” and not the CRRT. All just amazing. A recent letter from another bright spark in DELWP (Mr Nick Ryan, Acting Regional Director Port Phillip} state that consideration is being given even to “REVOKING THE CROWN GRANT” Letter 30 Dec.2015.
January 20, 2016 at 12:43 PM
what does that actually mean revoking the crown grant?
January 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM
It’s been 16 months since the VAGO report, and there has been no visible improvement to the governance arrangement. It wasn’t just the Trustees that were criticised— the reponsible department [now called DELWP after the latest deckchair shuffle] was also heavily criticized. Little wonder the status quo has been preserved. No improvement to the governance regime, no public and transparent reporting, land still managed exclusively for the benefit of MRC. If DELWP is claiming consideration is being given to revoking the Crown Grant then they should be prepared to name the person responsible for the decision even to consider it.
VCAT is incompetent. Their decision confirms they didn’t know the land is putatively managed by CRRT, and they couldn’t even get the description of the proposal accurate. Worse still, DELWP did NOT give their consent to an “outdoor cinema” as claimed by Alison Glynn. Their consent was for a “gourmet cinema”, meaning they were well aware of the intention to provide meals in conjunction with screen based entertainment, the exact definition of “Cinema based entertainment facility”. “Cinema based entertainment facility” is a prohibited land use in PPRZ.
January 20, 2016 at 10:40 PM
Alyson Glynn chaired the Independent Planning Panel conducted for the infamous C60.
January 21, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Jane Monk, Ware’s new boss.
January 21, 2016 at 8:58 PM
The C60 Panel report was a pretty sloppy piece of work. The Panel acknowledged it wanted to help MRC maximise the amount of development that could be squeezed in. Its reliance on ResCode, Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, and other policies and standards that VCAT largely ignores, rather than anything prescriptive, was unmerited.
Curiously it did make a definitive statement about the corner to the SW of Bond St that it should be 5 storeys not 6 storeys. “The Panel sees the addition of another storey here without a planning permit too great a change in current character expectations, particularly when this was not exhibited to the community”. Needless to say GECC supported 6 storeys, and 6 storeys are what is in the Development Plan. One could argue that the dopes on the Panel didn’t twig that MRC was understating the number of storeys that could be built within the rubbery envelope, and never checked what the difference was between proposed height and AHD.
The Panel argued that the development should be allowed to stick out over the property boundary, but the Incorporated Plan rejected that for the Mixed and Smith St precincts. No such constraint was placed on the residential precinct—theoretically balconies could have stuck out as far as they liked without triggering the need for a Permit. Such is the work of the alleged planning professionals, aided and abetted by GECC and Matthew Guy.