July 2, 2012

More On The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[4] Comments

Admittedly old news, but we’re repeating this given the additional comments by Robertson.

Caulfield high-rise a ‘crass monstrosity’ and ‘future slum’, Danby warns

BY JAN FISHER

02 Jul, 2012 04:00 AM

CAULFIELD racecourse’s controversial high-rise development has been described in Federal Parliament as a ‘‘crass monstrosity’’ and ‘‘a future desolate slum’’.Melbourne Ports MHR Michael Danby said the development, which will include up to 1200 dwellings, would impinge on the nature and identity of Caulfield’s quiet residential streets.

“Frankly this $1 billion so-called Caulfield Village is over the top, does not have enough open space and will eventually turn the area into a desolate slum like the overdeveloped parts of the Gold Coast,” he said.

“As the state member for Albert Park, Martin Foley, has stated, the Victorian Liberal government is seeking to turn parts of our electorate into their version of the tawdry Surfers Paradise.”

The development, on the present car park site, will move a step closer by the end of July when the project builder is chosen.

Three developers have been shortlisted for the project — Lend Lease, Mirvac and joint venturers Beck Property Group and Probuild.

Melbourne Racing Club chief executive Alasdair Robertson did not wish to respond to Mr Danby’s comments but previously said he was pleased with the project’s progress.

“All the proposals are totally consistent with the planning requirements and, most importantly, are taking into account integrating the community, the racecourse, the train station and Monash University,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s a pretty exciting vision.”

The development proposal approved by Planning Minister Matthew Guy included a mix of townhouses and apartments up to 20 storeys, office space, a retail centre including a supermarket and 2000 car spaces.

Mr Robertson did not expect building to begin within the next 12 months. “There are a number of planning processes to complete once we have the final proposal,” he said.

With construction expected to take 10 years, Mr Robertson said resident amenity would be taken into account once the winning bid was announced.

Meanwhile, the development of the racecourse’s infield continues. The works include a water feature, boardwalks, parking, barbecue facilities, exercise equipment and children’s play area and are expected to cost $1.8 million.

When finished the infield would be available to the public from 9.30am to sunset every day except for a handful of race days. The work is expected to be finished in time for the Spring Carnival.

June 30, 2012

Snails Move Faster!

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

In August 2010, we had the mock Planning Scheme Review – allegedly based on “extensive consultation” . Funny how resident views via submissions were not published, but such views barely made it into the final “Action Plan”. We thought it would be interesting to go back and review the review. Specifically, we were looking at:

What was promised but has not been done in two years time – ie many of the following indicated a completion date of 2010/11. We are now just on two years down the track and there’s no movement at the station. What has been “completed” of course, are all those amendments which would allow more and more residential development!
The other completed amendments involve REMOVAL of such important sections as the Development Contributions Levy, Commercial Centres Policy, and this coming week the revamping of the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
We simply have to ask: are these really the most urgent, the most important components of the Planning Scheme? Or are they merely those components which will allow more and more open slather for developers and that’s why they receive priority treatment?

Below we list all the so called Action Items which are still to get a look in. They make for some impressive reading we think!

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
Do not implement structure plans. Instead, complete an Activity Centres Review to update existing policy frameworks to provide greater direction within Activity Centres (short of Structure Plan detail).
Review the Housing Diversity Area policy to provide prescriptive guidance.
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
Prepare a Heritage Strategy for Glen Eira in line with Heritage Victoria requirements

June 29, 2012

Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[8] Comments

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY

PROPOSED CHANGES

To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side. Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

The proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

he standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car parking and public transport.

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

Where car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

To encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Encourage the location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably compromised.

DISAPPEARED and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas (as defined in Clause 22.08)

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

Retain any high priority significant trees or landscape features within the design where possible.

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

DISAPPEARED

June 28, 2012

Hyams: The Curse Of ‘Uniformity’

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

Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.

Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.

The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison. More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!

Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.

June 27, 2012

Another Birthday!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[11] Comments

Time sure flies! Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of our first post. From those early days we’ve gone from strength to strength – our hits, our average number of comments, our subscribers, and the personal emails we’re receiving are on a continuing steep rise.

Our objectives haven’t changed. We want to “keep the bastards honest” and accountable. We want to counter the perennial spin with facts, and we want to ensure that residents have a place where they can voice their views with the knowledge that those views won’t be ignored or arbitrarily censored. That’s not to say that we expect everyone to agree with us, or each other. But, unlike the mandarins and the all too precious souls that sit on council, we welcome “robust debate”.

In reflecting over the past two years certain things, sadly, stand out like beacons –

Transparency & accountability have NOT improved. If anything they have gotten worse. More and more items are decided in secret and there is less and less vital information being disseminated to residents – ie. GESAC and all its problems
Poor governance and repeated abuses of meeting procedures continue. It is outrageous that the ‘gang’ can vote in a local law that effectively gags councillors and denies them the opportunity to fully represent their constituents
There are still no structure plans, no height limits, no parking precinct plans in Glen Eira and worse – not even the honest attempt to explain to residents why this council is so out of step with the vast majority of other municipalities!
C60 stands as the hallmark of councillor/administration failure to adequately protect residents
Scandal after scandal continues to plague this council. Resignations, municipal inspections, ombudsman investigations and reports, CEO reappointment cloak and dagger, heritage fiascos and on and on.

We are however very optimistic. In four months time there will be an election. Residents will have the opportunity to ensure that the above failings are rectified with the ousting of the vast majority of incumbents. They have had just on 4 years to ensure progress on all of the above. That they have failed dismally is unquestionable. Residents deserve much better. October is the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and install candidates who will do more than pay hollow lip service to notions of consultation, transparency and accountability.

June 26, 2012

Hyams & Mayoral Decorum?

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

Jamie (Two-up) Hyams has once again given residents a glimpse into his inner character. In a performance that was totally unnecessary and totally unbecoming to the position he holds as Mayor, Hyams succeeded in revealing to the small gallery his pettiness and vindictiveness as well as the total abuse of his position as Mayor.

First the formalities:

Lipshutz and Forge were absent
The rate increase of 6.5% was voted in 6 to 1 with Penhalluriack voting against
Magee stated his intention to run for re-election
Lobo did not utter a word
Pilling fell into line nicely with Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Magee
Newton actually spoke in the attempt to counter some of Penhalluriack’s points on the budget

In this post we will concentrate on the actual budget item. Hyams moved largely as printed with some minor semantics that tied the budget in with the community plan. Seconded by Pilling.

HYAMS: started off by explaining that the budget is there to ensure that ‘necessary services’ are ongoing ‘while keeping rates as low as we can’….’a balancing act’. Then went on to repeat the now familiar spiel of one of the lowest rate assessment costs in Melbourne but did admit that other councils may use ‘different measures’ to ascertain this, ‘but I believe that rates per assessment are the most accurate’. Talked about lack of parking fee revenue in contrast to other councils, but that Glen Eira’s ‘efficiency’ means that there are ‘high standards of service’. Tried to explain why rate rises are more than CPI and the argument was that basically all those forces which impact on councils are themselves more than CPI – ie “wages, construction costs’. MAV has worked out that such costs amount to ‘around 4% per year’. Went on to ‘cost shifting’ and other ‘charges’ from government like land fill levies and to meet the ‘infrastructure gap’. Said that council does ‘benefit from generous grants’ and that this is a ‘reflection of their confidence in our ability to carry out projects’. Regurgitated the figures on new capital expenditure, drains, roads, pavilions, etc. etc. Noted that there is still ‘one of the higher pensioner rebates in the State’. Ended up talking about surplus and GESAC $397,000 surplus but noted that there would be over $1 million less in grants but that is only an ‘accounting measure’ and not something that is ‘going to affect our …position….(because the grants were brought forward). The budget is ‘responsible, well considered, it keeps our rates low and performance high’.

PILLING: ‘it’s a fair balanced budget’. Talked about the new technology for libraries which is a ‘great innovation’. Election cost also considered but that’s once in 4 years and a ‘set cost’. Accepted that there’s a ‘cost’ for the carbon tax and then went on to the land fill levy. Mentioned childcare and not trying to ‘overburden’ families. Reminded council that they cut childcare fees by $10 per day for over 3 year olds and this budget was increasing fees for under 3 years olds so that council ‘was trying to spread the load across….as widely as possible’.

PENHALLURIACK: started off by saying that everyone’s going through ‘difficult times’ in trying to make ‘ends meet’. Asked whether council can be ‘so callous as to continually increase our rates’ despite the state of the economy. Inflation is only 3% so should be able to do something about ‘projected rate rise’ of 6.5%. ‘Year after year our grab for money far exceeds the CPI’ and not much thought given to cutting costs. Believed that the budget can be done ‘without a rate increase’. Of the ‘turnover of $126 million’ half comes from rates. The ‘major recurring expense is’ salaries. There are over 700 EFT staff and which has ‘risen’ dramatically over ‘the recent past’ and ‘now constitutes some 45% of total expenditure’. The ‘trend in industry and government’ is the reverse’. Said that staff are hardworking and loyal and that he’s not advocating the massive staff reductions like government or industry. Council should ‘budget for an industry standard of 3% rise’ which would be a saving of ‘$4.4 million in this budget’. ‘We neither want nor need more staff’. There’s now a new senior lawyer to ‘join our existing 3 staff lawyers. Why?’. Then stated that he needn’t go into the tens of thousands of dollars that ‘this council has splurged on attacking me’. Said that rate increase brings in over 3 million but the saving in employing no new staff saves over 4 million. ‘This saving alone would result in a nil increase in the rate’. Went on to question whether other projects couldn’t be delayed and thus ‘many more millions’ could be saved. Gave examples of Duncan McKinnon pavilion; Boyd Park underwater storage which had already been delayed. ‘There are many other expenditure items which can be delayed’. Examples given were: ‘warm season grasses’ which were important during the drought but there’s now no drought so ‘no need to spend that money…$620,000…..why?’. Argued that ‘further savings are available by not upgrading the Princes Park car park’ ($540,000) Keeping ‘timber barriers’ rather than ‘concrete plinths in Caulfield Park'( $540,000)… ‘This is just the tip of the iceberg’. Concluded by saying that household budgets ‘are stretched’ and that in his overview he’s demonstrated how over $6 million could be saved ‘which could comfortably achieve a nil rate increase’ and a budget surplus from 3 million to over 5 million. ‘Yes we can do it and yes, we must do it’.

Newton responded by saying that the staff increases are ‘almost all to do with gesac’ and that the salaries aren’t covered by rates. The hiring of life-guards are a ‘legal requirement’ and that there is ‘no choice’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that whether Penhalluriack is right or wrong, ‘he’s a much smarter man than me’ but that Magee’s opinion ‘is different’. Went on to say that the 30 million that council is going to spend on infrastructure is because councils ‘in the past have failed’ in upkeeping them. Admitted that no-one thinks this is the ‘perfect budget’…’we all missed out on projects we wanted to fund….this is basically what is acceptable to us all’. Talked about the ‘worthwhile’ things the budget has got like the upgrade to Centenary Park and Victory Park. ‘We still have to live in the city of Glen Eira….this is something that our community has identified’. Duncan McKinnon has thousands there on weekends ‘and they’re screaming out for this’…it’s unfortunate the cost of it…it’s a necessity….like GESAC’. Admitted he doesn’t like getting his rate bills but that ‘now that I’m in council I can see where that money goes….$15 bucks a week to live here. What a bargain!’ Said he’d ‘love to see the public toilet up in East Bentleigh’ but that will come in the future when the toilet strategy is looked at. This and kindergarten is a commitment he will make if ‘returned to council which I hope I am’. The budget is ‘responsible governing’…’we’re not here to be popular, we’re here to be responsible’.

TANG: Agreed with the things that Pilling ‘picked out of the budget’ and agreed with Magee that a lot of the projects are ‘driven by the community’. Brought up Packer park where ‘council decided that the community was right’ in not selling council land, ‘so things the community wants us to do costs money’. The rate increases ‘leads me onto Cr Penhalluriack’. Talked about benchmarking and that since Glen Eira is $212 below average ‘we try and operate on a lean as budget as possible’. Compared to other councils it ‘could be a lot worse’. Said that each councillor comes to the budget ‘negotiations’ with projects in mind that have come from the community ‘we have to then work out what we can fit into the budget’. Said that he’s ‘disapointed’ in Penhalluriacks’s comments that ‘we haven’t had negotiations on the same page’. Said that no-one had made suggestions for cutting staff’ no-one’s identified a service that council can stop providing’. Said that wage increases are under an Enterprise Agreement and that Penhalluriack is talking about ‘breaching that enterprise agreement’

PENHALLURIACK then raised a point of order saying ‘that is not what I said Mr Chairman’

TANG: said that the enterprise bargaining agreement isn’t 3% and that it’s 3.8%. ‘we’re not on the same page’. Stated that the Princes park carpark wasn’t prioritised in the budget and that if councillors wanted to put it back on they could do so with their vote. Said that they should always be looking for savings and that’s why last year’s budget cut rates and ‘took out 2 warm season grasses’. This year this should go ahead because even though it’s not a drought there are other benefits. Concluded that it’s ‘a responsible and prudent budget given all the pressures’

ESAKOFF: concurred with Tang on Penhalluriack and that Glen Eira’s rates are ‘still at the lower end of the scale’. If she lived in Boroondara then we’d be ‘paying the higher end of the scale’. Said that thousands are enjoying gesac and they can ‘see first hand where their ratepayers dollars are going’ and not one of them would ‘say that’s a bad way to spend our money’.

HYAMS: said he would concentrate on Penhalluriack since in speaking to the motion he’d already covered what he wanted to say. Didn’t agree that it was ‘callous’ to increase rates and that it would be ‘callous not to increase rates’ because that would mean services had to be cut. Cutting capital works would save money only ‘in the short term’ and in the long term ‘probably increase money’. Gave analogy of leaving a road for a long time so it ‘degrades’ and you have to spend a lot more money to repair it. Went on again about rates per assessment as 14% lower than neighbouring councils…‘we don’t waste money we actually preserve money, save money’.

Penhalluriack said that there are ‘yet reasons to be explained why we are acting against him….the ombudsman recommended some of those charges’. Talked about the proposal by the government to ‘change the law’ about Councillor Conduct Panels where councils wouldn’t have to pay the bills if the councillor chooses to go to VCAT’ ‘the assumption will no longer be that council pays those charges…the government has realised (that those councillors who opt for this may be) ‘discouraging councils from following through…by making it all too expensive’ according to the Minister.

PENHALLURIACK: raised a point of order where he said that ‘my legal costs are not being paid by council. Council’s legal costs are being paid by council’. Said that as the defendant his bills are being paid by the insurance company and ‘as a result we’ve received notice’….

HYAMS at this point interrupted Penhalluriack saying that what he was about to talk about was on ‘yellow paper’ …’so you’ve just breached the Local Government Act again. So well done! Which doesn’t concern you obviously!”

COMMENT FROM GALLERY to Hyams: ‘You’ve been breaching the Local Government Act for the last 10 years’

HYAMS: went on to say that the Minister in the press release pointed out that the Councillor Conduct Panel is the ‘best place’. Said that the budget has been discussed since February and now Penhalluriack comes out with ‘specific’ percentages and though he’s mentioned ‘before that we should be cutting staff’ this is the ‘first time we’ve had those very specific figures to consider’

PENHALLURIACK: restated that he ‘did not say that we should be cutting staff’.

TANG: interjected with a point of order. Said that this wasn’t the appropriate place for a right of reply.

PENHALLURIACK: objected to Hyams ‘putting words into my mouth’

HYAMS: (quite flustered) went back to Princes park carpark and that they’re not upgrading it. Fees coming from gesac ‘are covering those costs’ of extra staff. Quickly then put the motion and Penhalluriack called for a division. All voted in favour. Penhalluriack against.

June 26, 2012

Here We Go Again!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments

The fun and games are back on with this typically buried announcement on Council’s website. It reads under the heading of Special Committee Meetings:

“Notice is given of two meetings of the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee to be held at 7pm on 10 July 2012 and 7pm on 31 July 2012 in the Council Chamber Glen Eira Town Hall. The meetings are expected to be closed to the public.”

Questions that immediately spring to mind are:

Will Penhalluriack still be excluded from this ‘committee’? If so, then what is the justification for this discrimination since the contract negotiations are now past with Newton’s re-appointment?
What are these meetings about, and why the need for two of them? If it’s about the contract then that needs to be made clear. If it’s about performance appraisal then this is indeed strange since Newton’s term only began in April 2012 and basically only one performance appraisal per year is recommended by the government.
Secrecy remains in the way this council operates and in its total failure to be upfront about anything it does. If it wasn’t this advertisement would be in plain view on the home page for all to see. We at least congratulate council on its consistency!

June 25, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Traffic

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[20] Comments

We’ve repeatedly stated that where there’s a will, there’s a way. This is abundantly clear when it comes to traffic management, road safety, and parking innovation. Glen Eira’s approach has been, and remains, ad hoc and ineffective. We present below how other councils approach these issues and how they actually PLAN, fund, and develop strategies to deal with 21st century dilemmas. We ask readers to compare this approach to what our administrators and councillors come up with.

Such comparisons are even more important given that today’s Melbourne Bayside Weekly features a news clip stating that Council is ‘advocating’ to the State Government for action on Carnegie Station since “long delays and associated traffic congestion may hamper a retail development being built north of the line.”!!!! Good to see that Council has its priorities right! More to the point, this identical “advocacy” features on Council’s homepage which hasn’t been updated since October 2008!

In stark contrast we present two documents: a Media Release and a Municipal Parking Strategy (uploaded here) from Moonee Valley Council.

Media Release

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Plan in place to review traffic and parking around the city

Last night, Moonee Valley Councillors adopted a long term plan to review and improve parking across the municipality.

The plan involves dividing the municipality up into 22 Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) precincts and rolling out a timeline of scheduled reviews for each one.

Moonee Valley Mayor Cr Jim Cusack said the LATM precincts were identified a few years ago.“Last year we incorporated them into our new Municipal Parking Strategy,” Cr Cusack said. “The Municipal Parking Strategy (MPS) adopted late last year provides a set of tools to effectively manage traffic and parking around the city now and in the future.

“The inclusion of the LATM precincts in the MPS will allow Council to develop a more strategic and proactive approach to managing traffic and parking in Moonee Valley.“Council is taking a local area approach when it comes to traffic and parking in order to help coordinate and integrate parking initiatives around the city.

“The use of LATM precincts allows Council to address specific neighbourhood needs, whilst keeping an eye on the wider parking and traffic trends and issues across the municipality such as through traffic. It also enables Council to have a systematic approach to particular traffic and parking challenges such as school zones, encourage parking demand to be spread throughout an area and plan for capital works associated with traffic and parking improvements more strategically.”

“Moonee Valley is a city in transition. As Melbourne grows, our population continues to increase and the level of usage of our road network changes. We want to meet local needs and also take into consideration the wider community and help our residents, workers and visitors move towards more sustainable travel practices.”

Portfolio holder for Traffic and Transportation Planning Cr Narelle Sharpe said Council decided to review two LATM precincts per financial year.“The review of each LATM precinct is a lengthy process as it entails traffic and parking analysis as well as consultation with the local community,” said Cr Sharpe. “With 22 LATM precincts, we needed a set of criteria to help us prioritise the review and implementation program of each area.

“The ranking system we adopted reflects our focus on safety. It is based on numerous criteria ranging from resident and community concerns, traffic volumes, traffic speed and accidents, to more proactive criteria such as the number of activity centres and number of facilities that generate a lot of pedestrian and car traffic like railway stations, schools and community centres.

“To ensure the ranking is fair, we adopted a weighting system so that LATM precincts with a larger number of streets are not artificially advantaged.

“The Fletcher and Newmarket LATM precincts were identified as the highest priority precincts and therefore will be the ones Council will review first.

“Traffic management projects have already been developed for the 2012/13 financial year and we will work towards completing these as soon as the budget is finalised and approved.”

A map of the LATM precincts as well as details of the criteria used, the weighting system and scores of each Precinct are available on request.”

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.

O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.

So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.

This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.

So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.

History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.

When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

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

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’ “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah! Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors. All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

Glen Eira Debates