Another mammoth agenda of 721 pages. We comment on some of the major items in this post.

LOCAL LAW SUBMISSIONS

Council’s agenda for Tuesday night features the submissions forwarded in response to council’s proposed Local Laws. We are mightily impressed with the effort that has gone into these 28 submissions (a record for Glen Eira we believe). Most submissions are far from complimentary to what council proposes. Submitters have provided lengthy and often extremely well researched and documented examples of how much Glen Eira is out of kilter with other councils.  What is stated time and time again is:

  • Poorly worded clauses
  • An overreaching of intended laws that either cannot be enforced or are covered by existing laws and organisations
  • Laws which potentially endanger human health (ie permitting of burning on private property).

What irks us more is the way in which these submissions have been summarised in the officer’s report. We quote:

The highest number of submissions received by Council, in relation to the proposed Community Local Law, concerned clauses 38 (Lighting Fires) and 23 (Model Aeroplanes in Public Reserves). Other issues raised include the keeping and feeding of pigeons, animal litter, derelict vehicle on a trailer, organised social and sporting activities and parking. There were also submissions concerning the proposed Council Meeting Procedure Local Law.

Either council officers are unable to count accurately, or their reporting is deliberately screwed! The above paragraph makes it sound as if council’s Meeting Procedures were in a minority. In fact, they weren’t. Of the 28 published submissions, eight made direct reference to either publishing of the agenda earlier; all public questions requiring entry into the minutes and the lack of a notice of motion. Meeting procedures were the most commented upon and not as implied above. 

We urge all residents to carefully read these submissions. To facilitate this, we’ve uploaded them HERE

WASTE 

Another agenda item features the proposal to implement a rubbish collection trial in the McKinnon Ormond area. This would involve changing current collection rates to the following: (1) weekly collection of green bins and (2) fortnightly collection of red bins.

We certainly support the reduction of refuse going to land fill. Our queries relate to some of the assertions and assumptions made in the officer’s report. For example:

  • We are told that the McKinnon Ormond area is the most ‘supportive’ of the change. Yet, when one considers the number of actual responses claimed for this area, then the percentages are far from conclusive. The graph reveals less than 50 residents supporting the trial in Ormond and even fewer in McKinnon. If we are working on support for the proposal then areas such as Carnegie would be streaks ahead. We’ve provided a screen dump of the responses below.

  • Councils ‘solutions’ to the various problems identified by residents also boggles the mind. For those households which use nappies, council suggests The option of discounted 240 litre bins will be extended to households with children/babies in nappies. Council is also prepared to trial this: Discount on a weekly washing service for cloth nappies. A preferred supplier will be selected following a competitive selection process. Does this mean that residents will subsidise the selected service and at what cost? Further, has council done any research to discover how many households actually still use cloth nappies or how many would be willing to change as a result of this discount offer? Or is it all pie in the sky stuff?
  • More importantly, council’s solution to the multitude of apartments that have private collection services is literally laughable , ie. Provide discount on worm farms for apartments that do not use green bins. A preferred supplier will be selected following a competitive selection process. Yes, we can really see this as a ‘goer’ for apartment blocks that have no open space, or garden and consist of BnB apartment dwellers, renters, etc. Worm farms will work a treat no doubt!

For whatever reason, council is determined to trial this option in McKinnon Ormond. We are not against a trial but simply wish that for once council provided the evidence that would support their recommendations!

HERITAGE

Council has clearly been rocked by both the media and residents’ reactions to the demolition of 2 dwellings in Seymour Road that arguably deserved heritage protection but didn’t have any! Thus we find in the current agenda masses upon masses of information relating to Heritage Reviews and their proposed timelines. Thus far we have draft amendments for Bentleigh and Carnegie only. Other areas are still to be completed.

A few things to note:

In an admission of past folly, we now find this incredible paragraph regarding 80 Mitchell Street, Bentleigh. In response to submissions received following the pre-amendment consultation, it is  recommended that 80 Mitchell Street, Bentleigh not be included as part of the expanded HO69. The reason for this is that this property sits of the very edge of this large heritage precinct and it is the only new property within this expanded precinct that is located in the General Residential Zone which allows medium density development. Given the extent of redevelopment that has occurred around this site and trying to resolve the issue of having a property located with a zone that allows development and an overlay that restricts development, it is considered appropriate in this instance to not include this site in the proposed revised HO69. Logic in reverse here we suggest! If a property is worth protecting then removing it just compounds the incredible errors made in 2013 when the GRZ zoning was introduced. And god forbid that council should put any impediment in the way of a potential developer!

Another item on the agenda seeks to remedy council’s inaction by granting power to officers to seek interim heritage protection on sites that may be potentially demolished and would be worthy of protection. Whilst acting when the horse has bolted, residents need to be aware that granting this power means that there will be no consultation, no third party objection rights, and probably no notification that this is happening. In short, more power to our unelected officials. We would argue that the more appropriate methodology would be to accelerate immediately all necessary heritage work!