December 14, 2012

GESAC: More Car Parking & Costs

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

Not only has council spent an additional and unbudgeted for amount of over $1,000,000 in the creation of more car parking space at GESAC and the ‘relocation’ of the existing playground, but it is clear that another $600,000 dollars is about to be spent on adding a further 60 to 70 car parking spaces in Gardener’s Road. We extend our deepest sympathies to those poor souls who live on Gardener’s Rd and immediate surrounds. Not only will this street descend into bedlam, but after years of ‘consultation’ with these residents it appears that all their concerns have amounted to nothing. Gardener’s Rd will now attract even more traffic PLUS the loss of the vast majority of nature strips.

All of this information is found in the agenda items for next Tuesday night’s council meeting in response to a Request for a Report dating from September. We note this date since the original request stipulated that the report be tabled at “one of the next two Council meetings”. Obviously this was not done!

More importantly, a significant aspect of the request has again been entirely ignored ie That a report be prepared on pedestrian safety at the GESAC and Bailey Reserve car park. In particular the report should investigate the safety of users of the soccer pavilion and the viability and consequences of a permanent drop off area on Gardeners Road”. Please note that the word ‘safety’ and ‘pedestrians’ is not mentioned once in the report! In fact the report has as its purpose : “To provide options for potential additional car parking following two requests by Council”. Neither of the stated ‘related’ requests for reports even mention car parking. But as per usual this administration has decided to ignore councillor resolutions and provide its own warped interpretation of plain old English. Surely it’s about time that officer reports actually stick to the topic and adhere to council resolutions?

Even so, this report again raises fundamental questions:

  • How sound was the original ‘business plan’ when ratepayers are now being forced to cough up an additional $1.6 million dollars on bitumen and asphalt to accommodate cars? What kind of planning went into car parking right from the start?
  • How many more ad hoc decisions will result in the loss of green grass and open space at Bailey Reserve?
  • Why, it would appear, has so little consideration  been given to local residents?
  • If the over-riding mentality of this council is ‘user pays’ then perhaps council should consider installing parking meters at the GESAC site?
  • How does the creation of more and more parking spaces fit in with the Transport policy and the Environmental policy whose main objectives are to lessen the reliance on cars – not as this is doing to provide more and more opportunities (excuses?) for people to use their cars?
  • Will councillors reject these reports since they don’t answer the specific resolutions?

PS: we are in error, but unlike Council we do cough up when mistakes are made! The report on pedestrian safety was tabled at the 24th September meeting.  This does not however detract from our assertions that far too often reports do not answer the requests made and it certainly doesn’t account for the potential expenditure of another $600,000!

 

December 13, 2012

Value For Money?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Over time we have observed countless officer reports on planning applications that simply to not stack up in terms of:

  • Transparency and accountability
  • Providing sound justification for the recommendations
  • General professionalism

Glen Eira is currently advertising two positions for its planning department. One pays over $60,000 – the other over $70,000. With these kinds of salaries paid for by residents, then the least we should expect is the production of officer reports that are fair, unbiased, detailed, and informative. We do not believe that this is what residents are getting.

We’ve gone back over the last council meeting and looked at one major application that was before council. We’ve chosen several paragraphs from this report to highlight our concerns. Comments are interspersed with the quotations.

Gardenvale Rd – Madeleine Snell

Recommendation: “allowing the construction of a four (4) storey building comprising two (2) retail premises and twelve (12) dwellings and a reduction of the standard car parking requirements on land within a Special Building Overlay”

 Here are the officer’s comments:

“On the one hand, Council’s Transport Planning Department has requested the provision of two at-grade visitor car spaces. On the other hand, the applicant’s traffic engineering advice suggests that no visitor car parking is required given the ability to accommodate this parking demand in the surrounding streets.”

COMMENT: Quite extraordinary that council’s own traffic department is over-ruled in favour of the DEVELOPER’S traffic advice! Why bother having a transport/traffic department in this case? Why not simply leave everything to the developer? Secondly how much consideration has council given to the “surrounding streets” in this instance? What surveys, data, analysis has actually been carried out – or has this also been left entirely to the developer? But, how typical of traffic management as a whole in this municipality – just shift the problem to surrounding areas and then worry about it. With no parking precinct plans, and no overall vision, just ad hoc developments again and again, this is the inevitable outcome.

“Parking in this development is provided in stacker arrangement which is unsuitable for visitor/short term users unfamiliar with stacker parking”

COMMENT: Again, the logic is incredible. Don’t worry about visitor parking because the only provisions insisted upon are stackers – as if that is a plausible excuse to ignore the requirement for visitor carparking!

“A loading bay is not considered necessary for the proposed development according to the advice of Council’s Transport Planning Department. There is no loading bay on site for the existing retail uses.”

COMMENT; More pearls of wisdom! Because something isn’t already there, it should never be there, or isn’t deemed as necessary now or years down the track?

No plausible, reasonable, nor justifiable ‘excuse’ has been provided in this officer’s report as to why the laws, regulations, and requirements of the planning scheme have not been enforced. We can only conclude that reports are not written to inform, elucidate, or alert councillors and the public to the reality of the situation. Rather, their purpose is to ensure that whatever the recommendation is (especially if it is pro-development) that this is passed. Compared to the work that goes into other council’s reports, Glen Eira remains at the bottom of the list.

Finally we wish to state that we do feel sorry for council’s planners. They are lumbered with a scheme that is deficient and as employees they are beholden to their managers and to a culture that is clearly on the side of applicants at the expense of residents.

PS: In order to provide clear ‘evidence’ of our claims above, we’ve included some extracts from the Stonnington Officer’s report on one application. In this agenda (December 3rd) there were 3 applications. These reports were: 19 pages, 21 pages and 15 pages respectively. Admittedly length is no guarantee of quality. However, readers should note that each report contains commentary on such aspects as: ‘permeability’; ‘design’; drainage/infrastructure and much more. To the best of our knowledge most of these standards have never rated a mention in any Glen Eira reports! Here are some extracts from the first application. Please note the tone, the detail, and the justification for various recommendations.

“The development proposes 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings, 14 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling.  Therefore the parking requirement for the development is 18 residents’ spaces and 3 visitor spaces.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings

A development must meet all the objectives of this clause and should meet all of the standards of this clause.

The provision of no visitor parking spaces on site cannot be supported. A development of this size should have on-site visitor parking.

Strategic Justification 

State Policy

  • The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher densities and a range of dwelling types where they can take advantage of well established physical and social infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with these policies in that the proposal represents a net increase of 15 dwellings on a site that is located close to local shops and services and takes advantage of public transport links and a number of community services and facilities in close proximity to the subject site.
  • When considered against State housing policy objectives there is policy support for the proposed development and residential intensification of this existing site.
  • Notwithstanding the strategic housing provision objectives outlined in the State Planning Policy Framework, these must also be balanced against other sustainable design based objectives that promote new housing development to respect neighbourhood character, amenity and the efficient use of resources. With specific reference to housing, Clause 16.01-4 seeks to encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which respects the neighbourhood character, improves housing choice makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.
  • Having regard to these objectives the proposal fails to address these matters.  Further discussion of these issues are addressed later in this report.

Local Policy

  • At the local policy level, Clause 21.03 (Housing) of the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages a range of dwelling types to meet the community’s needs, including development in Activity Centre’s, providing for residential ‘infill’ development consistent with maintaining a balance of dwelling types in the area, and development that displays good design which reflects the surrounding scale, height, density, bulk, setbacks, style, form and character of buildings, fences, gardens and the streetscape.
  • It is Council policy, pursuant to Clause 22.02 (Urban Design), that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings, parts of the building over 2-storeys be set back behind the facade to minimise impacts on the streetscape, and that developments be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location and generally respect the one to two-storey built form character of the City’s residential areas.  At 3-storeys high, with extensive site coverage and built form and minimal setbacks, the proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with this policy direction

Permeability

  • Permeability is 7.6% and does not meet the Standard.  The applicant states that the existing site permeable area of the combined sites is 10.7% and also does not meet the standard.  The absence of existing plans prevents this figure from being verified.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal should be seeking to improve existing poor design outcomes not exacerbate them.  Given the combined site area of 806m² it is considered that this is ample opportunity to ensure the development comes close to achieving the 20% permeable area required by Standard B9.  For this reason, the proposal does not meet the objective of Clause 55.03-4
  • The shadow diagrams submitted in support of the application demonstrate that the neighbouring SPOS area at 22 Athol Street will not receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September as required by the standard.  Therefore the proposal does not meet standard B21.
  • Having regard to the decision guidelines and the objective of Clause 55.04-5 the proposal would significantly overshadow the SPOS area of 22 Athol Street and would have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the occupants of this property, contrary to Clause 55.04-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
  • The site is not within easy walking distance of  nearby public open space to justify a variation of the standard.  It is considered that the insufficient SPOS provision is reflective of a development that is attempting to squeeze too much development onto this site.
 

December 12, 2012

Parliament: Notice Of Motion

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[18] Comments 

MR PAKULA — To move —

That this House notes that —

(1)     the claim of the Member for Caulfield, Mr David Southwick, MP, in a media statement released on Friday 16 November 2012 was that he was only informed on that day that he did not complete all the points required for his Post Graduate Diploma in Marketing from Monash University;

(2)     on Mr Southwick’s personal website, http://www.davidsouthwick.org, the entry of 16 October 2010 contains the claim that he graduated from Monash University with a Graduate Diploma in Marketing;

(3)     on 19 October 2010, the same website had been altered, removing the claim to graduation and replacing it with a statement about having studied business and marketing at Monash Caulfield;

(4)     the Member for Caulfield’s embellished claims continued to appear on the Liberal Party website and in the Parliamentary Handbook;

(5)     the alteration to the Member for Caulfield’s personal website between 16 October 2010 and 19 October 2010 suggests that the Member has known for at least 2 years, and not for less than 2 weeks, that his claim to have graduated in marketing from Monash University is false; and calls on the Member for Caulfield to immediately stand down as Chair of the Education and Training Committee of the Parliament.

[Notice given on 27 November 2012 — Listed for 4 days].

487     MR BARBER — To move —

That this House requires the Minister for Planning to table in the Legislative Council by 12 noon on Tuesday, 5 February 2013, a copy of all public submissions received by the Department of Planning and Community Development in relation to the Reformed Zones for Victoria planning zones review.

[Notice given on 27 November 2012 — Listed for 4 days].

 

December 11, 2012

A Tree Conscious Council?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

tree

Tree’s Stay Of Execution Bid

Andrea Kellett

Elsternwick residents have banded together to save an 80-year-old street tree from the axe. Downshire Rd neighbours want Glen Eira Council to delay planned removal works of a massive liquidambar on a nature strip in the suburb.

The tree was to be removed by Christmas due to damage to a private property caused by its roots. But the affected owner has now sold the property.

News of the tree’s impending removal sparked a storm of upset in August, and the matter went to council, where it was found the affected property owner had a legal right to have the tree’s roots removed from their property.

Councillors voted to remove the entire tree and replace it with a young emerald queen, after arborists found cutting the roots at the front boundary would make it unstable.

But Downshire Rd residents Richard Noon has urged the council to give the tree another chance. “We don’t want to see this tree whipped out,” he said. He said a more creative solution needed to be found as the road was in a designated Significant Character Area. “We need a stay until the new owners move in, then they can negotiate an outcome with the council depending on their view of the tree,” he said.

Cr Mary Delahunty has asked officers to re-open the file. “This is one of Elsternwick’s most beautiful streets,” she said. Glen Eira Council did not respond to the Leader’s inquiry by deadline.

COMMENTS

We’ve taken a drive down this street and noted the following:

  • The fence/house in question has huge cypress hedges alongside the cracking fence. Nothing is stated about the cause of the cracking. It is merely assumed that the liquidambar is the culprit. What investigations have been undertaken to ensure that it is not the tree but the owner’s own hedges that are causing the damage?
  • There are many other trees of this ilk in the street – none with 10 foot thick hedges. How many other properties have been affected by their liquidambars?
  • We also note that the arborist’s report (and brief) has not been made public.
  • At least residents should be comforted by the fact that this time it is potentially only one tree to be removed rather than 178 in one fell swoop!
 

December 9, 2012

Promises, Promises, Promises……

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

The Planning Scheme Review of early August 2010 promised much, but thus far has delivered very little –  apart from Amendment after Amendment which rezones land making it available for residential development – without Structure Planning of course! That has clearly been the priority of this council rather than all the other fundamental issues that were earmarked for analysis, improvement and adoption.

Whilst most of the promises were to be developed ‘internally’ according to the Action Plan, it doesn’t look like there has been much progress, if any at all. Many of the suggested ‘reviews’ are now long overdue so that Glen Eira is still dominated by planning that originated over a decade ago and is based on statistics that belong in a museum.

Two and a half years later we are still waiting for the release of the following reviews and policies:

  • Review Housing and Residential Development Strategy
  • Review Housing Diversity area policy to assess need to encourage three bedroom dwellings
  • Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process
  • Investigate need for new local policies (eg advertising signs, car parking)
  • Consider parking precinct plans for Activity Centres
  • complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
  • Pursue approval from State Government to increase the private open space requirement from 60m2 to 80m2 and consider tree protections outlined in the Environmental Sustainability Strategy
  • Include a statement in the Heritage section of the MSS and local heritage policy about the importance of Aboriginal cultural heritage;
  • Create a tourism section in the MSS that discusses the city and statewide importance of Glen Eira’s tourist sites such as the Melbourne Racing Club and Ripon Lea;
  • Alter the ‘Transport’ section of the MSS to indicate the Principle Bicycle Network and bus routes on the transport framework plan
  • Include the Melbourne @ 5 Million ‘employment corridor’ on the Strategic Framework Plan in the MSS.
  • Integrate Environmental Sustainability, Street Tree, Transport, Bicycle, Ageing Strategies into the MSS.
  • Review/Amend: Phoenix Precinct Policy & Heritage Policy

 

 

December 7, 2012

Election 2012: Summary Of Returns

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[19] Comments 

Council has published Candidates’ Summary of Returns’.

The majority entered ‘no gift disclosed’. Those candidates who listed donations are:

Thomas Sounness – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Neil Pilling – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Rose Read – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Brett Hedger – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens

Karina Okotel – $500 – Donald Towns Pty Ltd & $1,000 (Frank Greenstein)

Kelvin Ho – $500 – Yabo Global Pty Ltd

Oscar Lobo – $5000 – CK Foods and $5000 (Dr Suresh Chandra)

John Barry Myers – $1,250 – Henry Buch

ALL OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE DECLARED NO GIFTS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THEIR RETURNS –

Joshua Spiegel

Wilmars Mikelsons

Michael Caspi

Rodney Andonopoulos

 

December 6, 2012

Why We Should Be Concerned!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

This is a long post on the Planning Zone Reforms, but we believe an exceedingly important one. We urge readers to carefully consider the contents and to compare this Stonnington effort (Council meeting 3rd December) to what is occurring in Glen Eira. A few things require highlighting:

  • Glen Eira Council is yet to publish its FINAL submission to Government. All that is available on council’s website is the draft proposal tabled at council and not the final submission. This has never been made public!
  • No update or progress report has emanated from council. There is also no mention of the ‘metropolitan strategy’.
  • Stonnington held community forums and information evenings. No such events occurred in Glen Eira.
  • Council writes of ‘smooth transitions’ to the new zones. Our interpretation of this is simply that Glen Eira will steam roll ahead with what currently exists. Information will be minimal and consultation outcomes eventually ignored as per usual.
  • Please note the tone of the Stonnington report and their concerns. These are sure to be similar in Glen Eira.
  • Bolded sections are our emphases.

‘PLANNING ZONE REFORMS

Manager:  Stephen Lardner

Executive Manager: Karen Watson

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the planning zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning.

Background

The proposed zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning in July 2012 represent a significant change to the Victorian Planning System. The consultation period for the planning zones ran for 2 months from 11 July until 28 September 2012 (this was extended from the 21 September 2012). A discussion paper, fact sheets for each zone and an online form (all available on the DPCD website) were released for the public and Councils to utilise throughout the consultation period.

The Minister has indicated that the objectives of the proposed zone reforms include simplifying requirements and providing greater certainty, to allow a broader range of activities to be considered (in support of improved economic performance) and to improve the range of zones to better manage growth. However no explanatory report to justify or outline how the new zones will achieve these objectives and outcome was made available, nor has one been released since the close of consultation.

The reforms propose three new residential zones, a new commercial zone and a change to the mixed-use zone and an industrial zone relevant to Stonnington. The key features and issues of the proposed zoning reforms that will impact on Stonnington can be found in Attachment 1.

Officers assessed the changes in detail and sought clarification and justification where possible to enable an informed consideration of how the planning zone reforms will impact on the Municipality. In response to requests for further information by community groups and individuals, Council held a community information session on 30 August 2012.  Peter Allen, Executive Director of Statutory Planning Systems Reforms, Department of Planning and Community Development and local Member for Prahran Clem Newton-Brown both presented on the reforms. The event was received well with approximately 60 residents and stakeholders in attendance.

On 10 September 2012, Council adopted the submission in response to the Planning Zone Reforms consultation as outlined in Attachment 2 to this report. Officer’s assessment of the implications of the new zones identified major concerns.  The main issues identified are as follows:

  • A lack of strategic justification, identification and understanding of the economic and social impacts of the reforms.
  • The negative impact of Activity Centres from the proposed expansion and dispersal of commercial uses into adjoining residential areas.
  • Reduced residential amenity from ‘as of right’ commercial uses in residential zones and the intended expansions of Activity Centres into residential zones.
  • The reforms encourage high density housing in all Activity Centres, without context or control.
  • There is no economic study, no housing strategy, no capacity assessment or targets to provide the context which justifies the reforms.
  • A lack of detailed information on key issues including transitioning to the new zones, consultation, resourcing, strategic context, current planning applications and VCAT appeals.

Discussion

It was initially stipulated that after the Government’s consultation period concluded in September 2012, the reformed commercial and industrial zones would be automatically implemented and local planning scheme schedules would be adjusted to align with the changes required. In its submission, Council raised concerns about the timing and resources of converting the zones.

Councils were to be given 12 months from the finalisation of the zones, to consider and apply for a conversion of existing residential zones. There were no criteria available to assist with this conversion process during the consultation stage. It is anticipated that the transitional process for the residential zones will require a major Planning Scheme Amendment process which would take up significant Council resources. Following the State Planning Scheme Amendment process, this would be both costly and time consuming and would well exceed the 12 months allowed.

On 14 September 2012 the Minister for Planning announced an advisory committee with Geoff Underwood as Chair and Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will provide advice about the final form of the proposed zones and how they should be introduced (see Attachment 3 – Terms of Reference). They will recommend a set of criteria to help determine the appropriate application of the reformed residential zones

The Committee has been asked to submit its findings and recommendations in relation to:

  • the reformed residential zones and their criteria in December 2012
  • other zones in February 2013.

Submissions to the reforms will be available to view on the DPCD website in December 2012.

One of the key deficiencies with the reforms is that it has been released and potentially will be implemented before the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy.  The zones are a strategy implementation tool and the strategy does not yet exist. On October 26 2012 the Minister for Planning launched ‘Melbourne, let’s talk about the future’, a discussion paper to inform the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy and to seek further public consultation into the development of the strategy. This is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.

The identification of Council’s new Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas and existing Heritage Overlays will assist in clarifying the most sensitive areas within residential zones in Stonnington and will facilitate the translation of appropriate areas to the new residential zones. The proposed new residential zones also provide an opportunity to transfer general neighbourhood character objectives for the City into the applicable new residential zone.

At this stage, there is no updated advice from DPCD on the transition process and the status of other initiatives such as new policies or the application of other controls.

Policy Implications

Objectives of Stonnington’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) will be challenged by the introduction of high density residential development in all Activity Centres including Neighbourhood Activity Centres. Many policies in the MSS will become redundant without triggers for a permit.

Maintaining the hierarchy of commercial development is a policy objective for the existing Metropolitan Strategy “Melbourne 2030” specifically;

“The viability of many existing activity centres is threatened by retail and commercial developments that are set up some distance from them, particularly stand-alone developments such as corporate offices, strings of super-stores along main roads, or clusters of highway convenience retail outlets. Often these have poor accessibility to public transport and rely on car-based transport.

In aiming to maintain a hierarchy of centres, activity centre policy has given clear direction for a number of larger activity centres but limited direction for mid-sized and neighbourhood centres.”

Financial and Resources Implications

An assessment of the financial implications to Council will be undertaken following the release of the conversion and strategic justification criteria. The process may take several years to implement largely at the cost of the Council and local community.  It will also require a major commitment from community groups and individuals responding to the wide-spread impacts of these changes. 

Legal Advice and Implications

Legal advice may be sought for the next stage of the process.

Conclusion

These proposed reforms change the fundamental principals embedded in the planning scheme, without the necessary detail to understand and assess these changes.

The political purpose of these reforms is to provide developers with greater opportunities for development and stimulate economic activity. The other purpose is to give residents greater certainty and stop redevelopment in select residential areas. In doing so, it potentially fails to address the broader planning, economic and social consequences of only considering these two interest groups.

The combined impact of these changes will have a significant effect on the future character and liveability of Melbourne and its long history of community participation in planning. Further reports will be made to Council as the reforms progress.

Human Rights Consideration

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

There are potential issues within reforms including changes to Third Party Appeal Rights and the established understanding of allowable uses which can occur within Residential Zones which could be considered as impinging on Human Rights.

Recommendation

That Council note the update to the Planning Zone Reforms.

 

 

December 4, 2012

A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Knowledge is power. That’s why we need the Ministry of Truth – (ie Paul Burke and the Gobbledygook Department) to ensure that only the ‘right’ information is disseminated, and only that information which fulfills all legal obligations but does not necessarily inform, educate, or (god forbid) empower residents. After all, a savvy, questioning and demanding community signals disaster to the powers that be. The other advantage of minimal/selective disclosure is that the more information that is let out, the greater the chance to uncover a major stuff up, thereby quashing the illusion of the perfect council. When people don’t know what the rules are, or what to expect, or what is right or wrong, they can be fobbed off much more easily. Information thus provides the tools to question and object and thus forces greater accountability and transparency.

Our last few posts have concentrated on planning and the almighty spin that is associated with every single aspect of this area in Glen Eira. Akehurst’s recent report purports to portray this council as very ‘community minded’. In our view nothing could be further from the truth. Every obstacle is put in the way of residents when it comes to planning applications – from the timing of meetings, to advertising, to ‘advice’, right through to formal decision making by bureaucrats.

Council clings to the letter of the law repeatedly. They fulfill the legal requirements. But, they also have discretionary powers to go well beyond the letter of the law if they so wish. This is perfectly exemplified via the Online Planning Register. Here is a tool that residents can use to look up applications across the municipality. It has the ability to save time and footwork. Information can be retrieved at no cost in a timely and accessible fashion.

Below is an image taken from the Glen Eira Planning Register following a search on numerous street names. Readers should note the claim that ‘privacy’ prevents the listing of applicants’ names. Funny, how other councils do not have this same problem! Further, the amount of information provided is minimal. We do not know how the permit was issued – ie. via council decision, manager, DPC, etc. Nor are we told if the application went to VCAT; nor if there were any objectors. As for the actual plans – well they just aren’t there!

glen eira

 

 

By way of comparison, here’s a screen shot of one application from Bayside’s Planning Register. Please note – names of applicants, dates of all letters/submissions; those responsible for decision making, and the addresses of objectors. All the information is listed in one single, easily accessible place – totally unlike what happens in Glen Eira.

bayside2bayside

 

Then there’s the Stonnington version. Their register is also chock full of information. In addition they also have an entire webpage devoted to all the applications which have started the advertising periods. Users can click on the links and actually get to see the full application – including architect drawings and plans.

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/residents-and-services/planning/planning-news/advertised-applications/

Our conclusion is simple. We live in a technological age. 87% of residents in Glen Eira now have access to computers according to the 2006 census figures. Yet the systems in place in this municipality are archaic, outdated, and definitely not ‘user-friendly’. In our view, this is deliberate since a little information can be a dangerous thing. Residents must be kept ignorant at all costs!

 

December 3, 2012

The Spin Doctors At Work

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

At the last council meeting officers provided a report in response to the motion moved by Okotel and Esakoff.

“In the interest of transparency and demystifying the planning process for residents and ratepayers, I request a report on:

(a) The information provided to applicants and objectors in relation to Council’s procedures in dealing with planning applications; and

(b) If and how applicants and objectors are informed about the points along the process where they can be involved or express their views.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

In accepting this report both councillors praised its ‘fulsome’ and ‘comprehensive nature’ although Okotel did comment on several ‘misprints’ that managed to worm their way into official documents. Sadly she did not elaborate! We beg to differ on these  evaluations of the report.

The entire report, presumably by Jeff Akehurst since his name is provided for ‘enquiries’, is merely a regurgitation of the current provided information, and the usual litany of self-congratulatory statements. For example, one sentence claims that both the DPC and the Planning Conferences are a result of “Council choos(ing) to have these public forums in the interest of broader community involvement in town planning decision making.” “Community involvement’ is a wonderful catchcry. It is however illusory in Glen Eira when the implementation of these committees are examined in detail.

The DPC meetings are far from encouraging ‘broader community involvement’ for the following reasons:

  1. Objectors, if they’re lucky, receive only 5 days notice! Further it is not clear whether this means that letters are posted 5 days earlier, or whether council ensures via earlier posting, that objectors have the full 5 days notice. It is even conceivable that if the letters are posted on a Friday, and the DPC meeting is arranged for a Tuesday or Wednesday, that objectors would only receive the notification on the Monday. Hardly a full 5 days notice. Surely if ‘broader community involvement’ was the real objective, Council would inform objectors far earlier of the set dates.
  2. DPC meetings are scheduled DURING OFFICE HOURS. Hardly an appropriate time for resident objectors to attend such a conference if they work. Once again, this would limit and hinder full participation by all objectors. Since community forums and other countless meetings are held in the evening, and if the desire for ‘broader community involvement’ was genuine, then DPC meetings would also be held in the evenings when a far greater number of residents would be likely to attend.
  3. No councillor is granted decision making authority for these meetings. We even wonder whether councillors know which applications are being considered by the DPC, or more significantly, when they find out. Before the fact, or after the permit has been granted or refused? In this instance, councillors are sidelined as effectively as residents. All committee members are officers and the meetings generally go for about one hour. It is further not compulsory for applicants to attend. No minutes or records of DPC decisions are available for public scrutiny. Hardly a transparent and accountable process!

 

PLANNING CONFERENCES

Whilst a councillor is chair of such meetings, and planning conferences usually go to council for ultimate decision making, the procedures are again non conducive to ‘broader community involvement’. Some of the reasons are the same as those outlined above –

  • The lack of sufficient notice
  • The repeated gagging of objector comments and questions (ie Mahvo St is the perfect example)
  • Applicants often do not attend and hence are not available for questioning and ‘compromise’ with residents

The greatest drawback however is that NO OFFICER recommendations are available until the application appears as a report in council agenda papers. This is made public on Friday – usually late in the afternoon on Council’s website. It should again be pointed out that most people work. Most people would also be respectful of councillors’ weekends. So that means that objectors only have 2 working days in order to analyse the officer’s recommendations, contact their councillors and attempt to achieve some favourable outcomes. Timing is everything. Why aren’t the officers’ recommendations reported back to objectors well before the item surfaces as a council agenda item? The 64 dollar question would be – are developers notified of officer recommendations in the same manner or do they get a look in well before objectors find out the fate of the application?

The entire planning processes in Glen Eira are designed to favour the applicant rather than the resident objector. Okotel and Esakoff may continue singing the praises of officer reports, but in doing so they fail to address the central concerns of how such information is disseminated and what protocols are in existence to ensure a fair hearing for both objectors and applicants.

 

December 2, 2012

Even Greater Nonsense!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

Here’s the unbelievable response to a public question asked at last council meeting. We draw readers’ attention to:

  • The waffle & irrelevance
  • The failure to address the major concern of the question – ie why officer reports do not directly engage (and hence answer) the questions raised via the Request for a Report
  • The unnecessary length

Subject: McKinnon Reserve fence.

The McKinnon Reserve fencing report does not provide Council with an opportunity to decide if gates should be installed at the McKinnon Reserve or if no gates are more appropriate in a fenced reserve. Surely when there are a number of residents requesting gates be returned to the reserve, it is for Council not Officers to decide if the community’s wishes are to be heard? The complete removal, rather than the careful management of the so called ‘dangerous’ Cypress trees along Tucker Road remains a mystery to many residents as the Cypress trees inside the reserve itself remain (although whats done is done). When will this Council provide local residents with an on-going opportunity to have their say in the improvements and changes made in our local reserves?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council dealt with this matter earlier in the meeting at Agenda Item 9.4 and you will be able to find Council’s resolution in the Minutes of the meeting.

Your assertions are not correct. The report at Agenda Item 9.4 presents the Council with the opportunity to make whatever decision it wishes to. Had Councillors chosen to have gates installed, we could have passed a motion to that effect. It is the Council and not as you assert Council Officers that decide resolutions of Council.

It is Council Policy to remove trees in only a limited number of circumstances. Such circumstances include a tree being dead, close to death or structurally unsound.Residents whose properties back on to the Reserve and users of the reserve had expressed ongoing concern about the Cypress trees at the southern end of the reserve. Concerns included the declining appearance of the trees and the increasing number of limb failures.

Council’s records indicate that between January 2008 and April 2009 alone, twelve structural branches fell. The electricity company had also been in contact with Council and required Council to prune the trees to comply with the Victorian Government’s new Electrical Line Clearance Regulations (2010).

In response to the community’s concerns and the electricity companies’ direction, Council commissioned an independent arboricultural report of the trees. Key findings were:

 The trees would no longer be viable if pruned to the extent the new Regulations required

 The trees had reached the end of their safe useful life

 The risk of further limb failure was high

 The trees should be removed

The Cypress trees in the north of the reserve were not identified as a risk at that time. Given the findings of the report, there was no other option but for Council to remove the Cypress trees in the south of the reserve.

To inform the community of this, Council’s Parks Services Department:

 Hand delivered letters to 186-236 Tucker Rd, 197 Tucker Rd, 17-25 St James Ave, 2 and 2A Osborne Ave, and

 Erected nine A3 size signs in the reserve: four along the Tucker Road frontage; two at the front entrance; two at the cricket practice nets; and one at the rear entrance.

The letter to residents was dated 22 August 2011 and read as follows:

“TO THE RESIDENT AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR COUNCIL

Dear Resident

Re. McKinnon Reserve – Tree removal works

Council recently commissioned an arboricultural report on the health and condition of the rows of Cypress trees located in McKinnon Reserve.

The report identified that the Cypress trees along the southern boundary and eastern boundary (Tucker Road frontage) of the reserve are over mature, have poor structure and the likelihood of significant limb failure is high. As a consequence the risk to people, powerlines and property is high. The report recommends the removal of the entire southern and eastern rows of 178 Cypress trees.

Council plans to commence removing the trees on Monday 29th August 2011. The immediate area around the affected trees will be fenced off during works to ensure the safety to park users. Replacement trees will be planted later in 2011.

If you need any further information on this matter please contact Council’s Tree Maintenance Coordinator Mr David Edwards on 9524 3333.

Yours sincerely,

Laurie Unwin

Manager Park Services”

The nine signs that were erected around the Reserve read as follows:

“PUBLIC NOTICE – Tree Removal Works

An independent arborist has identified the need to remove the southern and eastern rows of over mature Cypress trees in McKinnon Reserve (178 trees in total).The trees are in poor condition, have poor structure and many have had branches fail and fall.

To eliminate the risk to people, powerlines and property Council will commence removing the trees on the southern and Tucker Road boundaries on Monday 29th August.

To ensure safety, Council will fence off the effected trees before starting works and request that park users do not enter these areas. Council is planning to plant new trees later in 2011.”

The independent arborist who is professionally qualified in these matters did not regard the trees that required removing as ‘so called dangerous’.

This Council has always provided opportunities for input into the development of our City. Public consultation is a feature that has informed Council’s development of park masterplans and strategies and the elected Councillors will be continuing with this feature. Previous examples include:

 Boyd Park Management Plan

 Caulfield Park Masterplan

 Bentleigh Hodgson Masterplan

 Packer Park Masterplan

 Princes Park Masterplan

 The Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC)

 The Dog off leash review

 Bicycle Strategy

 Packer Park West development

 Duncan Mackinnon Reserve Masterplan

 Murrumbeena Play space redevelopment

 Former Booran Road Reservoir Redevelopment.

A forthcoming example will be the Open Space Strategy review that will commence in the near future. This will involve wide consultation.

Of course, residents can also always contact Council or Councillors about any concerns they have in relation to any park and these will be examined and considered.”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »