Item 9.5 of the latest agenda features a four page officer report on what is purportedly on parking facilities and conditions in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). The recommendations are farcical –

That Council:

1. notes this report
2. continues to review parking in Glen Eira’s Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones in conjunction with the actions associated with the Transport Strategy.

What makes these recommendations so unacceptable is:

• We know of no report in the past ten years which has investigated parking (as opposed to traffic management) in these growth areas
• Residents have bemoaned the lack of parking year after year and basically nothing has been done
• We doubt that council even knows how many parking spots are currently available for shoppers, businesses and residents in the housing diversity areas
• We also wonder how many parking spots have been ceded to developers because of crossovers and the waiving of onsite car parking spots. One resident several years ago, calculated that just in East Bentleigh over 300 places had been waived.

And all of this has been happening despite the promises made over ten years ago and included in the planning scheme. For example:

Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Parking precinct plans

The City of Glen Eira recognises the special and often conflicting parking needs of its numerous commercial centres. Further strategic work is necessary to develop Parking Precinct Plans

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.

In Glen Eira, despite these promises there is:

• No cash in lieu. Residents should note that Banyule Council has just had an amendment gazetted which imposes a $17,500 levy on each car parking waiver for its commercial sites.
• No parking precinct plans for any activity centre or neighbourhood centre as promised
• No Local Area Traffic Management Plans exist

So exactly what has this council been doing for the past ten or so years? Apart from outsourcing its Traffic Management Department at great expense, it would appear to have done bugger all!

The current 4 page ‘report’ continues this trend of ‘let’s do nothing but wait’. Basically, the report is nothing more than a rose-coloured summary of the situation. Facts and statistics are non-existent. Instead we get such comments –

Council’s Statutory Planning unit has found that applicants generally provide adequate parking for the dwellings themselves. However, it is common for applicants to request a reduction in the visitor car parking guideline

Similarly, when planning decisions are challenged at VCAT, it is usual for VCAT to uphold the dwelling parking provision, and common for VCAT to reduce the requirement for visitor car parking.

Conveniently missing from the above paragraphs is the additional fact that council’s planning department itself often waives visitor car parking and loading bay requirements – as it has done in the very first application set down for this same council meeting (Item 9.1 – Neerim Road/Elliott Avenue). Even when VCAT is involved, decision after decision shows how little council’s transport department has done to counter the claim of the developer in regard to parking facilities. Here’s just one example –

Council put to me that they accept that the provision of 12 spaces is adequate for the site….The development generates a requirement for 13.2 car spaces in total…..First Angle v  Glen Eira  CC [2016] VCAT 1124 (6 July 2016)

In the end we’re left with nothing more than further promises of action. Not action NOW, but in 18+ months time as evidenced in this paragraph from the report –

Transport Strategy

The recently adopted Transport Strategy Action Plan calls for car parking surveys to be undertaken in the Urban Villages (Activity Centres) and key Neighbourhood Centres in the next eighteen months. These car parking studies will provide Council with more information to enable the impacts of car parking in the RGZ and GRZ1 to be assessed in more detail. Furthermore, the Strategy calls for a review of the feasibility of Car Share arrangements and the development of a Car Share Policy. The scope of the policy could cover both car share for public car spaces, and for private car spaces in a development.

With modern technology nothing should take 18 months for ‘detail’ to be forthcoming. If other councils can get off their backsides with amendments that exact an appropriate cost to developers and implement local traffic management plans, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to undertake the necessary work now is simply another indication of either sheer incompetence or the pro-development ethos that has given us the zones and all its ills!

If these residents are correct and this proposal is all about traffic management, then it is a pretty expensive way to resolve the issue. Of course, no one knows exactly how much this ‘park’ will cost! Nor are we privy to its size or how much of this area will be covered by concrete. No traffic analysis is provided (and we doubt it’s even been done!) in order to gauge the potential impact of closing off streets.

Other issues also need to be considered –

Pocket parks are, according to the research literature designed to alleviate the lack of open space in a HIGH DENSITY area. This proposal is smack in the middle of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone – ie LOW DENSITY. When other areas such as Carnegie are literally crying out for more and more open space and have less than North Caulfield, why doesn’t this area get priority?

According to the Open Space Strategy (OSS), Carnegie has 21.07 hectares of public open space. Of the ‘recommendations’ contained in the OSS for ‘additional open space’ all of the 5 recommendations carry the priority rating of ‘Very High’. In contrast, Caulfield North has 26.28 hectares of public open space; of the 6 recommendations made for ‘additional open space’ only one carries the ‘very high’ classification and this is for ‘gap area C1’. The proposal for Fosbery/St Aubins is not C1! Another 4 recommendations are rated as ‘high’ priority and one other as ‘medium’.

Thus, on every single criterion, Council’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations of its own OSS, plus residents are being asked to comment without being provided with the necessary full information. Residents in Carnegie have every right to ask if they are viewed as second class citizens when it comes to open space and the necessary funding.

The most significant aspect of this survey which the Leader article does not focus on, is the discrepancy between resident evaluation of the importance of a service and the perceived ‘results’. Differentials of well over 20 signal a new low point in Glen Eira. For example: residents believe that ‘consultation’ is vital, giving it a ‘rating’ of 75 for ‘importance’. Their judgement on performance is 51! What should also be highlighted is that the differential between importance and performance has been growing steadily over the past few years – yet council has failed to address this decline. No amount of spin can disguise this fact!

Here is one page from the survey –

PS – BY WAY OF COMPARISON, HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM THE 2014 SURVEY. PLEASE NOTE THE INCREASE IN THE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE

PPS – Not all councils have thus far published the results of their surveys. However, we’ve taken the opportunity to highlight some of these results as a further comparison with Glen Eira. For starters, Stonnington and Greater Dandenong DID NOT HAVE ANY SERVICES WITH A GREATER DIFFERENTIAL OF 10 POINTS.  The screen dumps (below) from Whitehorse and Boroondara reveal that their residents’ angst is nowhere near those from Glen Eira’s population and the number of services with a discrepancy of 10 or more points is also well below the number to be found in Glen Eira.

No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s  ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.

Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:

• The impact on traffic
• The size of this new ‘park’
• The cost of creating this ‘park’
• The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?

Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park.  Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?

Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –

That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted

This clearly leads to a series of important questions:

• Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
• If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?

Conclusions?  If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.

Presented below is a list of SOME of the new applications that have been submitted in the past 6 weeks. We have ignored many of the ‘smaller’ applications such as 2 double storeys, or 3 dwellings on one site. Council decisions are still to be made and many have as yet still to be advertised.

8 Egan Street, CARNEGIE – 16 storey mixed use (original application was for 155 dwellings – now 135)

60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 8 storey, accommodation 49 rooms

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storey, 59 dwellings

322-326 Neerim Road & 17 Elliot Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 38 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 34 dwellings

90-94 Mimosa Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 49 dwellings

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 5 new dwellings

3 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 7 new dwellings

26 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 10 dwellings

1 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 5 three storeys

23 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 5 dwellings

25-27 Horne Street ELSTERNWICK VIC – 7 storeys, 25 dwellings

411-415 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – 8 storey mixed use (no. of units not stated)

71 Patterson Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 5 dwellings

37 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, (no. of units not stated)

45 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – 6 dwellings

• South Avenue BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

9 St Georges Avenue BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – 15 double storeys

3 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings

92 Kooyong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 storey, 23 dwellings

1-9 Claire Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 44 dwellings

• 9 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 34 dwellings

2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 –  4 double storeys

12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 double storeys

9 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

229 McKinnon Road, MCKINNON – 8 three storeys

2 Adelaide Street, MCKINNON – 4 double storeys

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 23 dwellings

31 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY – 5 double storeys

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

43 Balaclava Road ST KILDA EAST VIC – 3 storey, 18 dwellings

3 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

56 Hobart Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 new dwellings

126-128 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 32 dwellings

Flat 1-28 235 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161 – 26 dwellings

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183 – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

460-464 Glen Eira Road CAULFIELD – 6 dwellings (4 double storey, 2 single storey)

TOTAL 774 PLUS UNKNOWNS in the six weeks!

The Planning Scheme cites an average of 500-600 dwellings PER YEAR!

The facts:

• Glen Eira has quadrupled its average new dwellings per year
• How many of these new dwellings are single bedroom is undisclosed
• How many of these new dwellings stand empty is anyone’s guess
• How many ‘standards’ council overlooks in granting these permits is undisclosed
• Why Council fails repeatedly at VCAT remains unreported (but we know why according to VCAT judgements – the fault lies almost exclusively with the current planning scheme)
• Have any of these 2000+ new dwellings been granted an exemption in paying their open space levy and, for those that have paid, is the levy at the maximum of 5.7% in each and every case?

Item 9.8 – Neighbourhood Character Provisions

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That Council notes this report and considers implementation of Neighbourhood Character Provisions as well as Design and Development Overlays to support existing and expected future residential character, assome of the preferred planning scheme tools to implement the findings of the City of Glen Eira Planning Scheme Review Process.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

SOUNNESS: said he had talked with planners and that ‘it is good to have a review and see how other councils are doing things’. The current process of ‘consulting with the community’ has resulted in a lot of issues being put forward. Council has to decide ‘what weight’ to give to these suggestions. The current officer’s report however will be useful to ‘resource us’ for what will be a useful ‘outcome’.  Said the report shows that ‘different tools achieve different outcomes’ but in ‘different ways’. Council needs to try and be in a ‘defendable position’ on policies. He supports the officer’s recommendations but would like these things as part of the consideration of the planning scheme review.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had had an ‘off the cuff discussion’ on Neighbourhood Character Overlays.  Said that in ‘applying’ these Neighbourhood Character Overlays there are objectors so it is ‘perhaps a little more of a vexed issue’. Said that she thinks more and more people are becoming in favour of them and sees this as ‘our obligation’ to ‘extend’ these through ‘housing areas’ that are ‘post war stock in Glen Eira’ and not just Victorian places. So ‘we are discussing Neighbourhood Character Overlays in the context of our planning scheme review’ but she thinks that we ‘ought to have more conversations about character overlays’ and ‘how to extend them’. Torres ‘tells us’ that these things do ‘carry some genuine weight’. This is ‘what people are asking for’ and will protect the ‘old parts of Glen Eira’.

Sounness declined the opportunity to sum up.

COMMENT

The officer’s report highlights the work done by neighbouring councils. Significantly, the officer report does not include a Glen Eira summary alongside so that a real comparison may be made. Nor does it spell out the various heights and other conditions these councils have implemented through their schedules to the zones – all of which stand in stark contrast to the Glen Eira (lazy) approach of ‘one size fits all’. In fact, no mention of the zones occurs at all in the councillor ‘discussion’.

More concerning is that ‘neighbourhood character’ appears to have morphed into Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) only judging by the comments of these two councillors. Hardly satisfactory – especially since NCOs are tools designed for use in specific areas – generally a street or two – and certainly won’t cover large swathes of Glen Eira. What does cover large swathes of Glen Eira are the abysmal zones – which do not rate a mention from either Sounness or Delahunty and certainly did not feature in the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper nor did it receive the attention it required in the ‘feedback forum’ presenting the draft ‘workplan’.

Even the State Government’s Practice Note highlights the additional tools that councils may use, but which this motion appears to ignore – Different areas do have different characteristics and expectations and the VPP allows councils to set different residential development standards through either the schedule to the residential zones or the application of the NCO to achieve local neighbourhood character objectives. These can influence the nature and extent of development that can occur in order to achieve a desired neighbourhood character outcome for an area.

A further cause for concern is the stated intention of council to wait until release of the data from the August Census before anything in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is truly amended and/or updated. Again, this does not adhere to the published Practice Notes – The objectives for neighbourhood character and the strategies and implementation measures for achieving the neighbourhood character objectives should also be included in the MSS.

We can therefore only conclude that the intent of Council is to do precisely what they have been ordered to do by the Minister and nothing more! The zones remain sacrosanct – despite the outcry, petitions and media coverage from residents dismayed at what is happening to their streets. And, the longer these zones remain untouched our fear is that it will be too late to do anything to halt the destruction. Perhaps this is what it’s all about?

We urge all readers to consider the following:

• Burke’s parting shot at Lipshutz & Hyams?
• The animosity between councillors?
• How our money is spent and the rationale for any cogent decision making?
• The overall governance within Glen Eira

+++++++++

Item 9.16 – The Budget

Pilling moved to accept as printed. Lipshutz seconded.

PILLING: claimed that council had ‘taken note’ of the submissions to the budget. Summarised some of the other ‘capital works expenditure’. Said the budget was ‘challenging’ given ratecapping and for council to ‘continue our environmental initiatives’ and other projects. Thought that the budget was ‘steady as usual’ in this ‘environment’ but council would ‘continue to build our community facilities’. Stated that some changes had been made as a result of submissions.

LIPSHUTZ: said that many residents might think that all council does is about roads, rates and rubbish.  Went on to outline the things that ‘I have noted’ like day care. The Federal government cut funding and council is now ‘making up that shortfall’.  Council’s parks and gardens are rated highest and that’s because ‘we spend money on that’. Since 2005 environmental issues have improved even thought ‘some of us have been dragged kicking and screaming’ to this position.  Said it was a great ‘credit to this administration that we have such great parks and gardens’. Unlike other councils they don’t spend money on ‘weird and wonderful things’. Glen Eira doesn’t do this and the Auditor General tells them that the Chief Financial Officer is ‘one of the best’ in local government. Council got submissions and they could have ignored these but they didn’t like the dancing group who only wanted air conditioning. So ‘we listened to them and we thought it was appropriate’.

MAGEE: budget time is difficult because they have expenses and x amount of funds. Said that there are ‘smaller things in the budget’ that make the difference – like run ups for a cricket club so kids won’t fall over when they run up to bowl. For him the most pleasing was about the skatepark which will replace a ‘dilapidated’ facility and ‘how many of our youth’ use this. Council is now ‘putting in $550,000 for a new facility’. This will ‘transform’ the park, ‘as GESAC has done’ into a ‘large activity centre’. Stated that the perception of these kids is that they are ‘second class society’ but that’s not true. These kids are ‘very polite’ and ‘take care of other kids’. This has been ‘something that has been very, very dear to me for many years’ so he is very pleased with the budget allocation. Admitted that ‘at one stage we were looking at moving it’ but with the $550,000 the skateboarders will be delighted.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s a lot to like’ but a ‘couple of things’ she’s not too ‘pleased about’.  Thought that ‘some projects’ need ‘clarification on’ like the Booran Reserve costs. Asked Swabey to ‘address’ the total costs and how they are ‘going to spend the money’.

SWABEY: said that the reservoir is $600,000 over budget and that the ‘timing between 2015/16 and 2016/17 has changed’. They ‘anticipated spending a lot more money in 2015/16’ but this ‘didn’t eventuate’ so the budget of May 2015/16 was readjusted to become ‘$4m in 2016/17 rather than $930’.

DELAHUNTY:  said that she thought the over budget was ‘marginal’ and that in ‘5 years time’ we ‘won’t remember the hurt on our hip-pocket’ and it will be a ‘boost’ to open space. Strongly endorsed this aspect and ‘sustainability’ of the budget. Not happy though with increasing child care fees and shouldn’t ‘be looked at from the premise of how much do we want to subsidise’. Thought that the role of local government is to provide the best staff and facilities and should be ‘affordable’ to people.  They don’t ‘hear about subsidisation in libraries’ or roads, so it shouldn’t apply here.  Thought the increase was based on an incorrect ‘premise’.  Went on to say that what really ‘sticks under my fingernails, excuse the pun’ is the funding for the Wellness Centre at GESAC. This was ‘part of the original concept’ and was ‘to provide nail services’ and seen as ‘ancillary services’. Nothing ‘wrong with that as a concept’ but the budget proposes to spend ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to ‘finish off a Wellness Centre’ that ‘basically operates as a commercial entity’ and with ‘no social benefit’. ‘I’m quite angry about it’. ‘It’s so far beyond what we should be doing here’. Said it would be more acceptable if it ‘had some sort of social purpose to it’  like ‘apprenticeships’ or ‘giving out low rent schemes to people’.  Said that ‘what we are doing is setting up competition to traders’ in the area and ‘using ratepayers’ money’.

Delahunty then proposed the following amendment  – that the funding for the Wellness Centre be removed. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said she ‘understands that it was part of the original concept’  but it’s not fair on local traders and doesn’t think that this is ‘in any way necessary’. There’s no ‘community space’, ‘social’ benefit and ‘is completely at odds with our role’ as a local government. ‘At the very least’ if this goes ahead then it ‘should have a social purpose’. Claimed that the money ‘could be better spent’ such as on the ‘pensioner rebate’ plus a ‘myriad of things we could do’ with the money.

SOUNNESS: asked Swabey if this is voted in whether the budget has to be changed?

SWABEY: the budget has to go to the Minister by 30^th June and they would have to ‘reconfigure the whole budget’.

SOUNNESS: ‘assumed’ that this wouldn’t have a ‘major impact’ on the budget in that it was a ‘minor item’.

SWABEY: ‘$250,000’ is a ‘relatively small amount’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether ‘this would have any impact on the operation of GESAC?’

BURKE: stated that it would ‘make it more economically sound’.

LIPSHUTZ: as chairman of the Pools Committee they ‘looked’ at a ‘whole host of things’ like having a gym. There are other gyms in the area but they thought that ‘having a gym would make it viable’. ‘It was not simply the swimming pool’. People ‘need to change’. The Wellness Centre will provide ‘pampering’ like ‘massages’ and ‘those things are important’.  They were told that putting in a gym will mean that ‘they will grow’ and ‘people’s thinking has changed’ and they want other things too like the Wellness Centre. ‘We want’ GESAC to be ‘a movable thing’, ‘we want it to be dynamic’.  Shouldn’t think that officers and councillors said ‘hey bingo. Let’s have a Wellness Centre’ – ‘we had meetings on that’. Down the track ‘we will change again’. Said it’s ‘a bit late to come along now and say let’s change it’ after the ‘whole budget has been discussed for many months’.

DELAHUNTY – interrupted with her objection to Pilling that Lipshutz is ‘misrepresenting’ her in that ‘I’ve kept this consistent line of argument the entire time’.

PILLING: ‘I think there’s reason to slightly correct that’.

LIPSHUTZ: Delahunty has been consistent but at this ‘late hour’ when ‘we’ve gone uphill and downdale’ it is ‘important that GESAC is successful’.

HYAMS: said that one of Delahunty’s points was that the money from removing this from the budget could be spent on other things but ‘the point of this, is to ultimately make money’. So they should be ‘talking about the money we will be getting in years to come’. So the ‘financial argument’ is in ‘favour of doing this’. Said that in providing this facility they are providing ‘what the users of GESAC want us to provide there’ and it ‘adds to the whole GESAC experience’.  Said that he would be ‘disappointed’ after ‘having this as a plan for so long’ it was rejected.

MAGEE: has ‘sympathy and support’ for Delahunty but ‘she lost me’ when she spoke about ‘having to be consistent’. At the time of planning GESAC there was ‘a company called AquaSwim’ and council put ‘in a pool which directly affected’ this company. The gym that went into GESAC was also ‘directly opposite the biggest gymnasium in East Bentleigh’. They did this because they were putting together a plan that ‘would not be draining money from council’ with the old pools. They had the philosophy of ‘what do we do to make it profitable?’ They’ve also got a café there which is in competition with other cafes. ‘For GESAC to continue to be the success it is, it is well worth’ this project because if ‘that’s what the GESAC community want and we need to fund that’ and ‘it’s not costing the ratepayers any money’ since ‘GESAC is paying its own way’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted clarification on Magee’s point that ‘GESAC is paying its own way’ and it’s ‘got a project cost of $450,000’ and for the next budget an ‘estimated income of $155,000’ so ‘in your opinion (to Burke) is this paying its own way?’

BURKE: replied that the figures show a ‘payback’.

DELAHUNTY: Lipshutz is saying that ‘this is a long conceived’ program under ‘the advice of the officers’ and wanted to know whether ‘that advice has changed’.

BURKE: admitted that council is under ‘financial pressure’ and ‘as officers’ they looked at the budget and ‘the pressures we were facing’ and officers were of the mind to ‘defer expenditure’ and ‘the councillor group took a different view – they asked us to actually proceed’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to make the point and that ‘Lipshutz understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contrary to the advice of officers and not in concert with that’.

PILLING – asked who the question was directed at and Delahunty said Lipshutz.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘Council officers don’t make decisions. Councillors make decisons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order as to whether Lipshutz ‘understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contradiction..

PILLING: started saying that ‘to be fair’.  Delahunty responded that she wanted Lipshutz ‘to be relevant to the question’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘councillors seek advice but ultimately decision making is ours’.  So even though officers have ‘given advice’ it is ‘we who make the decision’. ‘Sometimes we even make decisions that are opposed to officer’ advice. ‘That is appropriate’. Said that ‘our role is to make decisions and to seek advice and to determine whether that advice is appropriate’.

AMENDMENT PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR OF AMENDMENT –DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS, MAGEE, HO

AMENDMENT LOST

Hyams moved motion to accept ‘as printed’ – (ie not to do anything for a year or two!) Delahunty seconded.

HYAMS: said his request for a report was the result of ratecapping coming in and therefore reducing the amount of money ‘we would require’ to fulfil the Open Space Strategy recommendations. Said that it ‘was always intended’ that rates would ‘fund more than half’ of what was required.  Population however has increased, ‘especially in McKinnon’ where the strategy stated there would be a decline. Thus ‘once the census figures are in which will be later this year’ they could ‘recalculate based on those’ new figures.  Also said that ‘no other council’ has the high uniform rate that Glen Eira has.

DELAHUNTY:  said that the ‘premise’ that council used to argue for 5.7% ‘has changed’ because of population growth and ‘our ability to resource what we actually wanted to do’.  Therefore she thinks that it is council’s ‘obligation’ to review the levy. They need the census data to ‘add weight to what I already think is a pretty watertight argument’.

PILLING: agreed that ‘times have changed’ and limited their ability to raise funds because of rate capping. Said that raising the levy is ‘worth looking at but we need to do it properly’.  Stated that the data should ‘take 6 months to come out’ so that would be ‘early 2017’.

HYAMS: said they went through an ‘exhaustive process’ in justifying the levy. Also said that ‘we would have received’ another million dollars ‘had the planning scheme not been held up by what ultimately turned out to be pointless objections’ which ‘delayed’ things by 9 months.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

• How many millions is council foregoing by deciding to wait instead of instigating the process for a higher levy now?
• How many more times will Hyams be allowed to get away with misrepresenting the facts – ie. the Census website clearly states that data will be released ‘from mid 2017’ and certainly NOT ‘later this year’ as he claims.
• How ironic that every single point made by the objectors to a levy of only 5.7% is now vindicated?
• Parts of St. Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Street are now in council’s sights to close off the street and construct some ‘open space’. What analysis has been undertaken to ensure that council is getting ‘value for money’ from its previous street closures – ie Eskdale Road ( a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park) and another in Elsternwick? How much have these conversions cost? What is the total size? How much of these ‘open spaces’ are covered in concrete? The crucial question of course is – would residents be better served by the purchase of bona fide areas of new open space that do provide the space required for multi-purpose use?

As an illustration of council’s sheer profligacy, and unbelievable decision making, we feature these photographs taken in the last week. Readers will note that a bench, on a relatively small concrete base already exists. So council has now come along and doubled the size of the concrete – presumably to move the existing seat two metres to the left! How much did this new endeavour cost for a council screaming blue murder over ratecapping and the need for frugality? Who made such a decision? How on earth can it ever be justified?