Last week’s council meeting raises countless questions about governance in Glen Eira and the role of councillors and the community. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that it is unelected and unaccountable officers who are running the show, rather than councillors. The data on the Carnegie structure plan decision making is irrefutable evidence of this administration’s continued side-lining of both councillors and the community.
The most striking example of how this is happening is when we compare the resolutions passed for the Carnegie structure plan last week, and the resolution passed for the previous versions of this structure plan.
The minutes of the 18th December 2018, show this ‘recommendation’ which was passed. We highlight the section regarding the seeking of Ministerial approval to advertise –
authorises the Manager City Futures to undertake minor changes to the Amendment, including changes requested by the Minister for Planning or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in order to receive authorisation, where the changes do not affect the purpose or intent of the Amendment;
For last week’s council meeting, this became –
authorises the Manager City Futures to undertake all changes to the amendment documentation in accordance with Council’s resolution (or as required by the Minister for Planning) and to make any administrative changes required where changes do not affect the purpose or intent of the adopted amendment
The omission of ‘minor changes’ in this second recommendation is significant – as is the phrasing of ‘as required by the Minister for Planning’. What this in effect means is that once this has landed on the Minister’s desk, he has been granted council’s sign off to introduce any changes he likes – and without recourse back to councillors and the community apart from the formal submission process.
Questions abound!
Why has the recommendation changed? Why up until now, have all other major amendments seeking ministerial approval to advertise contained the phrasing of ‘minor changes’ and the Carnegie structure plan excludes this important phrase?
Did any councillor ask why this change? Were they alerted to this sleight of hand before the vote?
What discussions have already been held between officers and DWELP? Why aren’t councillors attending such meetings? Have they been provided with all documentation that has passed between the department and officers? If not, why not?
What happens if the Minister decides that 12 storeys is ‘insufficient’ and Carnegie is suddenly advertised as 15 storeys preferred? According to the above resolution, this is a possibility!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 16, 2022 at 2:19 PM
The new phrasing gives carte blanche to the minister. No other way to interpret this. Council can then use her as the continued scape goat and keep pretending that they give a stuff about residential amenity, open space, trees, sustainability blah, blah but none of it is their fault. Bollocks! This admin is devious, uncaring,and willing to do 100% everything that gov tells them to do.
August 16, 2022 at 5:29 PM
I’m aghast at the substituted phrasing of “as required” because it is so open to whatever interpretation your want to apply. “Required” according to what and who decides what is “required”. Council is basically saying to the Minister do whatever you like and we will accept anything.
August 19, 2022 at 2:08 PM
One reason for having councillors is that they’re [mostly] not members of the development industry, unlike Council’s planning officers, Department, and Minister for Planning. That leads to a set of guidelines for assessing their performance. If they meekly accept whatever crap they’re given, or delegate their powers and responsibilities without suitable checks, then they’re not performing. Sadly, the way the game is played is that they’re hit with substantial verbage, or are denied key information. The more astute are aware of the extent to which they’re being manipulated. The onus ends up on the shoulders of the public to be engaged, informed, and to speak up against the more egregious practices. Councillors have not handled the structure planning process well and it shows in both the details of the rubbish they have endorsed and the issues that have been ignored in doing so.
August 29, 2022 at 9:09 PM
McKenzie’s internal update 28/6/19
This week at our regular Tuesday Executive team meeting, we discussed:
* “Potential improvements to our ways of communicating with our Councillors, to ensure they are only receiving information that is relevant and timely. We need to find a balance of ensuring they are fully informed for resident queries and Council decision-making, while not overloading them.”
Gate keeping par excellence! Feed them in dribs and drabs to better deflect resident concerns. This says it all!