May 17, 2012

Good Or Bad?

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

Announcement from the Local Govt Minister –

Administration to continue at Brimbank City Council

Thursday, 17 May 2012

The Victorian Government will introduce legislation next week to extend the Administration of the Brimbank City Council through until March 2015.

The decision to extend the period of Administration was recommended by two independent reports, has considerable community support and will help to ensure a return to stable, effective representative government at Brimbank City Council.

“The weight of advice provided by independent reports was such that the best course of action was to maintain Administration while work was finalised,” Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell said.

“Both reports identified that the premature return to an elected council carries the very real risk of a return to the discredited and damaging practices of the past and the derailing of numerous important projects commenced under Administration.

“Subject to the passage of the legislation a rotation and refocusing will occur amongst the team of administrators at Brimbank.

“Jo Anderson and Meredith Sussex will step down at the end of October this year, roughly in line with the general Local Council elections.

“Peter Lewinsky will relinquish his role as Chief Administrator but remain a member of the Administration team.

“It is important to put on the record my personal thanks to the current Administrators for the outstanding job they have done at the council and acknowledge the role the former Minister Richard Wynne played in the decision to appoint them.

“The community of Brimbank have been fortunate to have the skills and dedication of Jo and Meredith working for them during this difficult period,” Mrs Powell said.

“The final phase of administration will feature a comprehensive community engagement strategy to prepare for the return of an elected council.

“I have asked the current Chair Peter Lewinsky to stay on as an administrator, thereby giving the team important continuity.

“John Watson, the current Executive Director of Local Government Victoria, will retire in October and will then assume the role of Chief Administrator at Brimbank.

“John Watson is highly respected for his skills and abilities throughout the sector and by both sides of politics.

“Upon learning of his intention to retire from LGV, I asked him to take on the role of Chair of the Brimbank Administrators.

“I can think of no-one better qualified to build on the work of the current Administrators and prepare the council for elections in March 2015,” Mrs Powell said.

The third administrator’s position will go to an individual with strong qualifications in community engagement.

 

 

May 17, 2012

Sound Familiar?

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

Doyle in heated  row with councillor

Miki Perkins
May 17, 2012

Jackie Watts with Robert DoyleJackie Watts with Robert Doyle Photo: Teagan Glenane

ACCUSATIONS of  bullying  have surfaced at Melbourne City Council in a   series of fiery letters between lord mayor Robert Doyle and a  councillor.

Cr Jackie Watts, who joined the council last July, says Cr Doyle may be   engaging in ”harassment and bullying” against her and accuses him of  failing  to understand ”the basic principles of natural justice”

The spat was triggered by a letter from Cr Doyle’s office to Cr Watts  this  month, telling her he had  investigated a complaint about her by  the council’s  chief executive, Kathy Alexander.

In his letter, Cr Doyle  said he had decided not to proceed with a  formal  investigation.   But he noted the concerns were serious enough  that Cr Watts  could  be reported to either the Ombudsman or WorkSafe –  ”possibly citing  harassment or bullying”.

”The principal reason I have decided not to take a formal investigation   path is that the CEO has informed me that since her original complaint  to me,  your behaviour has changed radically and diametrically,” Cr  Doyle wrote.  He  said he was ”loathe” to take the matter to a conduct  panel or  investigation  by the chief municipal officer. ”Such public  processes can do no good to the  reputation of anyone involved,  especially yourself.

”I recognise that given your previous patterns of behaviour, you will  most  likely respond to this (final) email with a further series of  accusations,  interpretations and justifications … I will ignore it,”  the lord mayor  wrote.

Cr Watts responded this week, sending a copy of Cr Doyle’s letter and  her  response to   councillors, saying she was doing so in the interests  of  ”transparency and disclosure” and pointing out the lord mayor and  CEO had  decided not to pursue the matter.

In her response to Cr Doyle, she said his letter and earlier  correspondence  may ”constitute a course of harassment and bullying  conducted by you against  me … Having had the opportunity … to consider  your actions and demeanour  towards me it has become very clear to me  that you have no understanding or  appreciation of even the basic  principles of natural justice,” Cr Watts  wrote.

”It is evident from the tenor and content of your correspondence that  you  pre-judged the issues, to what purpose I do not know.”

A Carlton resident, Labor Party member and former community activist,  Cr  Watts has been vocal on accountability issues, moving  unsuccessful  motions  about the use of confidential items on the council agenda and overhauling   electoral policies.

Last night Cr Doyle said he believed  the matter  should have been dealt   with through internal council processes. ”It is not my job to be judge  or jury  or arbitrator or mediator … It is my job to try to resolve it  in the first  instance,” Cr Doyle said.

Cr Watts told The Age: ”It’s a sad situation where a  councillor  attempting to conduct inquiries in response to constituent  concerns encounters  such efforts to suppress them.” Ms  Alexander was  not available for  comment.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doyle-in-heated-row-with-councillor-20120516-1yrdz.html#ixzz1v5CDoNEW

 

May 16, 2012

Can We Trust Them?

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

Every year at budget time the spin doctors at Glen Eira trumpet how low their rates are in comparison to benchmark councils. We’re also informed as to how generous Glen Eira is in terms of Pensioner Rebates. Neat little graphs are included in the budget papers that purport to prove these claims. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that these tables do not represent reality. In short, the figures are manipulated, or simply, wrong. Whether this is deliberate, or another ‘clerical error’ we leave to the reader’s judgement.

The table below is an edited version of what appears on page 6 of the current draft budget – “Council Advertised Draft Budget 2001- 2012”. We’ve copied the relevant figures only.

Description

 Glen Eira

Stonnington

Port   Phillip

Bayside

Kingston

Monash

Boroondara

Yarra
Rate Increase 2011/12

6.5%

 5.10% 7.44% 6.4% 6.69% 7.4% 6.00%

4.9%
Council Pensioner Rebate

$270

 $193 $290 $193 $273 $243 $193

$323

 

Our concern is that many of these figures are incorrect AND that when it comes to providing the figures for Glen Eira the TOTAL increase is only calculated on the rate increase and does not include the charges increase. Last year’s total rate increase would have been closer to 7.5% than the 6% ultimately voted on had garbage and other increases been included in the publicised figures. Yet, when presenting data from other councils, this appears to have been added into the total. We are thus comparing apples with oranges – to the advantage of Glen Eira of course!

Hence, we believe that these figures present a totally distorted version of reality. Here is our evidence, cited directly from some of these council’s publications for last year.

  • Stonnington we’re told has a rate increase of 5.10%. Their budget however states: – “In the2011/2012 financial year the increase in general rate is 4.2 percent and garbage charges is 6.0 percent”
  • Port Phillip – The Budget proposes an increase of 7.32% ($6.037 million) in rates revenue for the 2011/2012 year.This increase comprises two components, price (6.50%) which represents the increase in the rate in the dollar and volume (0.94%) which represents new properties or assessments that were created during 2010/2011. This has been partially reduced by the increase of $90K in the pensioner rate rebate of (0.12%)”.
  • Bayside tells us: “The rates and charges increase of 5.9percent for the 2011/12….”
  • Kingston’s media release says – “The Draft Budget proposes a modest 4.95% rate rise which is one of the lowest in Melbourne’s south eastern region. Residents will also be asked to pay a separate additional 1.09% for an increase in rubbish going to landfills and the State Government’s landfill levy. (http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=2894)
  • Monash is more expansive – “To achieve the goals for maintenance and renewal of the City‟s infrastructure, as well as ensure the continued high levels of service delivery and response to external cost pressures, the SRP reflects a rate increase of 6% in 2011/12. In addition it is expected that $800K of supplementary rates from new developments will be collected. As some Statutory Fees set by other tiers of Government have not increased, or have increased by less than 3%, this has required Council to increase some fees and charges by greater than 4% to overcome the shortfall”.
  • Boroondara’s figures are: “The rate rise of 5% is a reduction on last year’s 5.25% and below the average for other Victorian councils “ http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/news/council-adopts-budget-council-

But the story doesn’t end there. When we look at Council Pensioner Rebates, Glen Eira can’t even get these figures right. Here’s Port Phillip’s figures for an example – “Council offers a pensioner rate rebate of $136.00 in addition to the current State Government rebate of $193.40.” That’s $329.40 and not the $290 claimed by Glen Eira.

CONCLUSION

Council is obviously free to manipulate figures any way it likes. However, it is surely incumbent upon them to ensure that comparisons are made on a ‘level playing field’ so that residents receive an accurate picture of the state of affairs. Whether these examples indicate a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, or reveal again simple incompetence, is for readers to judge.

 

May 16, 2012

Appeal Rights – Going, Going,….Gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[2] Comments 

State moves to  reduce building appeal rights

Jason Dowling
May 16, 2012

AN OVERHAUL of Victoria’s planning laws will begin next week when Planning  Minister Matthew Guy introduces legislation that could mean up to 11,000  building permits being assessed annually without the current notification to  neighbours or appeal rights. The government said the changes would apply to  ”small-scale, low-impact applications such as home extensions and small works  such as fences”.

But a detailed ministerial advisory report released last Friday indicates the  new system would also be used for new buildings and subdivisions.

Council and community groups say the public is being kept in the dark on the  extent of the planning changes, known as ”code assess”, including what rights  of appeal will remain and if residents will be notified if next door decides to  add a second storey.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the changes were code for  ”unchecked development in our suburbs”. ”It will strip away a person’s fundamental right to say no to inappropriate  development,” he warned.

Mr Guy told a parliamentary committee yesterday the planning changes would be  for ”small” building applications.

”Where we have those small-scale low-impact applications, that’s where I see  in residential areas a code assessment model brought forward and that may be for  a pergola [or] home extension,” he said. ”Home extensions constitute around 20  per cent of the 55,000 permits that go through the planning system every year,”  he said.

Mr Guy said most people did not care if they had no say over their neighbour  renovating.

”The vast majority of Victorians want to have a say on planning, not around  someone’s pergola or home extension. It is whether an eight-storey building can  be built next to them, for instance,” he said.

The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said  the planning changes should include the fast-tracking of multi-unit  developments. ”We would ask that the whole system looks at multiple storeys,”  she said. ”If we are just going to play around at the sides then we are not  going to improve the system.”

But Ian Wood from Save Our Suburbs said there had not been enough community  consultation about the planning changes. He said giving the community  notification and appeal rights on planning ”leads to better planning outcomes  and more accountability”.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said the government  should make clear the planning changes before they were introduced to  Parliament.

RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton said the government’s planning review was  a missed opportunity.

”For example, one way to reduce work loads [of councils] is to introduce  mandatory height controls in various areas so developers know that here we can  build a 30-storey tower, there we can build a seven and there it is only two,  and that would reduce the workload for councils overnight, that kind of  certainty,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said while  councils  welcomed planning changes to reduce red tape, they would not support  the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-moves-to-reduce-building-appeal-rights-20120515-1yp4b.html#ixzz1uzIEltCt

 

May 15, 2012

More Smoke & Mirrors: Booran Rd Reservoir

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

The so called ‘consultation’ announcement went up on council’s website today together with the usual indecipherable ‘design’. What’s remarkable about this announcement is:

  • The 2012/13 budget does not assign any funding to this project until years down the track – ie “$4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019”.
  • Why then is public consultation being held now – 5 years at least before anything will be done?

Here is our interpretation of these events. You have a mock consultation and get council to ratify one particular (predetermined?) plan. It is then set in concrete regardless of the fact that a new council will be coming in next year which may have a different vision. The argument of course will be –“oh we’ve already got a master plan and spent so much money on this that we can’t really change things now”. This is typical administration tactics that we observe time and time again. The identical thing happened with the Caulfield Park Pavilion and Princes Park. Master plans sit there for at least a decade before anything happens.

Please note: we do not object to master plans per se. But when funding is not available for another 5 years at least, and this council is facing a major cash crisis, why has at least $60,000 (according to last year’s budget) been spent on a design that simply might be ‘old hat’ in 5 years time? What, after all, is the rush for a decision now when the money is simply not available? Why can’t the new council make such an important decision? Or is this just another means of hog-tying any recalcitrant new councillor?

 

May 15, 2012

Allegation #4

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

ALLEGATION  4

That Councillor Penhalluriack victimised the CEO for making a complaint against him. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO and his staff in their employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

30 Nov   2010 At an  audio taped Council Meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack criticised the CEO for not accepting mediation. This was in respect of informal complaints made by the CEO to the then Mayor. The CEO referred to the obligations of his employer and that if he wanted to raise the issue he would do so with his employer, the Council.
2 April   2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises the CEO, Peter Jones, the MRC and the CRRT. With respect to the allegations of inappropriate conduct made against him by the CEO, he refers to the allegations as “something manufactured by the CEO” and “we need to take his concerns seriously, but this is the third time he has cried wolf, and I’m pleased we decided to leave him alone in the forest”.
 

May 12, 2012

Newton & O’Neill

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

Our previous post concerned the Racecourse and Council. It is therefore opportune to publish the following allegation made by Newton against Penhalluriack. We remind readers that:

  • Newton never put these allegations in writing
  • They were compiled/constructed by O’Neill based on the ‘discussions’ and documents provided to her by Newton
  • The following is a verbatim copy of the O’Neill compiled ‘evidence’ pertaining to Allegation 2 and presumably what Penhalluriack was expected to respond to.

ALLEGATION 2

That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings and to the CEO directly and to other Councillors in correspondence concerning the CEO’s dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club (“MRC”), the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees (“CRRT”) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (“DSE”) and Minister’s Office. These statements have been made without supporting evidence or other factual basis for making the statements.  These statements have damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermine the CEO in his employment and have caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

Early Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack distributes letter (later dated 12 October 2009) to Councillors and lobbies for support   against the CEO with respect to meetings held with MRC and the CRRT
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack attends the CEO’s office to hand him the letter referred to below. The letter does not   disclose that copies were provided to a number of recipients and not just the CEO.  The CEO reads the letter from Councillor Penhalluriack and tells him that the letter is inaccurate and he will respond in writing. The CEO declines to discuss the matter until after he has responded in writing.
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack (as Chairman of the Racecourse Committee) writes a letter to the CEO. The letter   suggests that the CEO has acted inappropriately with respect to the MRC and CRRT and makes the following allegations:

  • that the CEO met with the CRRT without telling Council first and that the CEO should have sought specific direction from his Council since “obviously more was to be discussed than a simple report on Council’s current racecourse policy”;
  • that he and other Councillors do not know why he was invited or what happened at the meeting and a full and frank report of the meeting and any other meetings with the CRRT, MPs or members of the MRC should be provided to Council.
12 Oct 2009 The CEO responds by email to Councillor Penhalluriack explaining that there was nothing inappropriate.  The letter refers to the invitation and provides a copy, the invitation request that the CEO attend the meeting to “explain your deliberations regarding the amendment to the Joint Communiqué’ and “A report on the amended plans for the Centre of the course would also be appreciated”.   The CEO confirms that he informed the Mayor and the two councillors who were also Trustees (Councillor Whiteside, and Councillor Tang) and that these   Councillors were present during the time that the CEO spoke and for the remainder of the meeting.  The CEO   explains that the Communiqué had been the subject of Council resolutions on 1 July 2008 and 21 July 2009 and was a formal decision of Council, which under section 94A of the Local Government Act 1989 he was required to implement without delay. The CEO confirms that he has only attended meetings with MPs in support of the Mayor and/or Councillors.  The only discussions with the MRC have been to get the Council approved   Communiqué implemented.
12 Oct 2009 Email exchange between Councillor Penhalluriack and the CEO alleging that the CEO had acted in a   threatening manner and lost his temper in their meeting on 12 October 2010.  Councillor Penhalluriack accuses the CEO of being over sensitive to matters that only require a “civil and respectful response. Good and   regular communication keeps working relationships much more pleasant.”   The CEO denies the allegation in his email. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the CEO is not comfortable with his election.  The CEO states that he has no difficulty with Councillor Penhalluriack’s election, but that Councillor Penhalluriack should not commit himself to “written accusations before finding out the facts.”
12 Oct 2010 Councillor Penhalluriack moved a motion (that was passed) that the CEO report on each meeting between   Council Officers and the MRC in the preceding 12 months. This was done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC.
3 Nov 2010 The CEO provides the report required by the motion proposed by Councillor Penhalluriack on 12 October   2010.  The report sets out each meeting and its content.  The report shows that the CEO met with the MRC on three matters (the upgrade of the centre, C60 and ANZAC Day) and that the CEO has declined all offers of hospitality.  The report was unanimously approved.  Councillor Penhalluriack was at the meeting.
23 Feb 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack sends an email to Councillor Magee, Councillor Pilling, Councillor Lobo and Councillor Forge. In that email he makes the following statements:

  • “…after years of mumbling and bumbling we now have Council’s policy unanimously formalized”
  • “What a fight in the pre-meeting though, as predicted. It was a bitter pill for Andrew to swallow.”
  • “Now we have to ask Andrew to give us a detailed report on all meeting which he has concerning the Caulfield   Racecourse Reserve…but they must be reported.”

At the pre-meeting, Councillors strongly disagreed between themselves, but the CEO did not speak.  Council had previously persuaded the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Land Development to tackle the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land – this was based on submissions drafted by the CEO.
28 March 2011 Email from Kerry Henningsen of DSE to the CEO requesting that Council provide a list of nominations rather   than one nomination so that the Minister can select the person to replace Helen Whiteside.  This was the first   contact that the CEO had with the Minister’s Office and he had no contact with Mr Thomas or with the Minister for Crown Lands concerning this or other matters. The CEO was also unaware that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack were meeting with Mr Thomas.
28 Mar 2011 CEO tries to call Councillor  Forge on her mobile to inform her of the email referred to above.  He leaves a message for her to call him.  Councillor Forge does not return the call. When he cannot speak to her he sends an email detailing the request made by DSE.
2 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises, the CEO, Peter Jones, DSE, MRC and the CRRT.  With respect to the CEO and his interactions with the MRC, CRRT and the DSE. He   states:

  • “The grossest example of behind our backs wheeling and dealing are the so called negotiations with the MRC.  The CEO has admitted many regular meetings between Council and the MRC, but we never receive details of what was discussed. When I asked for details I was given superficial gobbledegook” (our emphases)
  • He alleges that the CRRT is sexist “females are acceptable as typist-secretaries …”notwithstanding the fact that Councillor Forge would be replacing Councillor Helen Whiteside and there  are/have been other females on the CCRT from time to time;
  • He alleges that the CEO interfered with Councillor Forge’s appointment as a Trustee of the CRRT “… Openness and transparency is urged upon us, but as soon as Cheryl informs Council of our meeting with Hugh Thomas, senior advisor to Minister Ryan Smith, Andrew phones to interfere. Likely Hugh phoned Andrew before the meeting.”
7 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes to the CEO to raise the following matters. The letter alleges unnecessary haste in bringing forward meeting concerning Caulfield Racecourse and alleges that this is poor governance as this was done “without any discussion with Councillors”. (our emphases) He further alleges that “your Communiqué failed” as the Council had been lead to believe that training would be gone in the medium term and MRC are saying 10 years. He states that “we had better accept that we are dealing with devious fibbers”. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the public consultation is incomplete and written submissions are required with one-on one dialogue with those who actively support or reject the proposal. (our emphases)
8 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack raises two matters with the CEO in a memo received on 8 April 2011.  In this memo, Councillor Penhalluriack queries why the documents were marked confidential.  He also requests a copy of all associated documents between the CRRT and/or the MRC and or other parties. He asserts that the previous requests had been “denied  on the grounds that in your opinion they were not relevant to my role as a Councillor” he goes on to assert that this is incorrect.
8 April 2011 The CEO responds to the email  received from Councillor Penhalluriack on 8 April 2011. The CEO first explains the terminology used, the reasons for it and the need for Confidentiality.  The CEO informs Councillor Penhalluriack that the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack’s email will be responded to separately.
11 April 2011 Donna Graham, Legal Counsel, replies to the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham’s refers to the fact that she has previously provided this advice to Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham also advises that in her legal opinion the documents are not subject to any councillor entitlement to inspect and for the same reason would not be subject to a Freedom of Information application. Ms Graham also states that as Councillor Penhalluriack cannot participate in any debate on these matters on the basis of the Winky Popdecision, Officers cannot accede to his request.If Council disagrees it could seek an independent legal advice on the issue, Councillor Penhalluriack does not seek this resolution from Council. (our emphases)
11 April 2011 The CEO responds to the letter sent by Councillor Penhalluriack on 7 April 2011. The CEO refers to the   meeting on the 13 December 2010 of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee where it resolved that public consultation (or oral submissions) would take place on a date to be fixed.  The date was fixed and it was carried out on 4 April 2011.  The CEO reminds Councillor Penhalluriack that the Communiqué was authorised by Council Resolution on 21 July 2009 not by the CEO. Finally, the CEO states that the Amendment C60 is before the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee not any Officers, it originated in 2007, was exhibited in 2009 and was the subject of an independent panel in 2010 with 6 days of hearing and a 147 page report.  That Committee will decide whether to adopt  the recommendations, modify them, abandon it or take some other action.
27 April 2011 Council Meeting –Councillor Penhalluriack moved for a report on each meeting that Andrew Newton had with   the MRC or CRRT.  He referred publicly to the CEO acting inappropriately.  He states:

  • that the CEO has said that he has reported to Council on all meetings that he has had with the MRC and that he does not believe that this is the case;
  • that in the last report they got dates only;
  • that he wants the report so that “we also know what discussions and negotiations have actually been held behind Councillors backs”;
  • Councillor Hyams makes a point of order that this allegation should only be made if Councillor Penhalluriack has proof.  This point of order was not ruled on by the Mayor, instead she asked   Councillor Penhalluriack to withdraw part of the statement to the extent that “negotiations” was replaced with “meetings” and “behind our backs” was replaced with “without our knowledge”
  • Councillor Forge states that she can bear witness to the fact that the President of the MRC told her that he had met with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO and Council did not know about it. (our emphases)
28 April 2011 Local blog reports on the  request (inaccurately) with respect to the Councillor Penhalluriack’s allegation that the CEO was meeting with the MRC behind the Council’s backs. The CEO is referred to in an unflattering manner by the Blog

 

 

May 11, 2012

The Leader, Council & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[15] Comments 

About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:

  • The resident was phoned up by The Leader.  An ‘interview’ time was arranged
  • The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
  • Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
  • During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
  • Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
  • The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference

So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?

What also needs to be noted is:

The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?

Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council.  We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.

To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?

After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

May 11, 2012

News Flash: Planning Review Reports

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

The Minister for Planning has finally released the Committee’s report on the State Planning Review as well as the government’s response. The panel’s report is a hefty document and on a very cursory scan, together with the Minister’s response, we do not believe this augurs well for community involvement in planning issues.

From the DPCD website –

The Victorian planning system affects the everyday life of all Victorians.  It regulates or relates to buildings and homes, the location of shopping centres and community facilities, as well as the location of transport infrastructure and recreation space.

Advisory Committee initial report

The Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy released the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee report and the Government’s initial response on 11 May 2012.

Some of the key recommendations that have already been actioned include:

  • continuing to develop a new metropolitan planning strategy and regional growth plans
  • taking action to reduce the backlog of cases and waiting time at VCAT
  • reviewing the adequacy of the current schedule of application fees
  • developing a new code assessment process for straight forward, low impact permit applications.

Recommendations that need further work to progress include:

  • reviewing the permit and amendment processes to make them more efficient
  • reviewing the operation of aspects of planning schemes, such as how local policy and planning overlays work
  • improving how the development contribution system works.
 

May 10, 2012

We’re Not Even At First Base!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Ivanhoe locals  fear checks on high-rises will be too late

Carolyn Webb

May 10, 2012

Concerned Ivanhoe residents at the site of an advertised "Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity".Concerned Ivanhoe residents at the site of an advertised “Exceptional  Apartment Development Opportunity”. Photo: Wayne Taylor

IVANHOE residents fear developers could begin  high-rise projects before the  City of Banyule gives approval to its revised higher-density guidelines for the  upmarket suburb – and the council agrees.

The draft Ivanhoe structure plan drew 800 objections when it was released    last July. It recommended high-density buildings up to eight storeys in business  hubs on Heidelberg, Upper Heidelberg and Lower Heidelberg roads that are  mostly  single  or double storey at present.

After   consultation, the revised structure plan, due out for review in July,  is expected to lower the recommended building heights, and scrap five and  six-storey developments at Ivanhoe and Darebin stations.
Architect Rob McGauran, who is advising the council, says buildings of up to  four storeys are slated for the one kilometre of shops along the main Ivanhoe  shopping strip on Upper Heidelberg Road, with the two upper storeys set back  from the street.

A similar four-storey model is planned for the rundown Darebin shops along  Heidelberg Road.

But locals are apprehensive about a recent flurry of  real estate activity in  Darebin, with agents already marketing single-storey houses and businesses as  prime sites for multi-storey apartments and offices.

Helen Carr, co-convener of residents’ group Save Ivanhoe, would agree to  a  four-storey height limit in Darebin but pointed out that  after its release, the  structure plan could take years to be approved –  a time frame Banyule City  Council confirmed with The Age.

Ms Carr says there is  a risk that developments approved in the interim  ”could set a precedent for higher, large buildings”.

Banyule director of city development Scott Walker agreed, saying that:  ”While there is no formal structure plan within the [Banyule] planning scheme,  there is a risk of developments being approved by VCAT (Victorian Civil and  Administrative Tribunal), because the structure plan provides less weight and  guidance with VCAT until it’s formally in the Banyule planning scheme.

”Council has sympathy with residents’ concern about not having a structure  plan.”

Ms Carr says the interest in property in normally sleepy Darebin in recent  months is ”unprecedented”. On March 24, a VicRoads-owned car yard at 1065  Heidelberg Road sold for $1.89 million – $600,000 over the reserve price. On the  same day, an art deco house at 1023 Heidelberg Road netted VicRoads a further  $1.2 million, $400,000 over the reserve.

The purchaser of the latter was Ivanhoe Panel Works, whose owner, Angela  Sahyoune, says she is meeting developers this week  to discuss possible  development of 1023.

A third VicRoads property – Stokers Coffee Lounge and car park – is expected  to sell for more than $1.3 million at auction on May 26, according to Aaron  Silluzio, of estate agents Barry Plant. The sale board markets it as an  ”Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity”.

Elsewhere are developments rejected by the council that are subjects of   appeal to VCAT.

Katrina Watson, who lives in Heidelberg Road, Darebin,  called for a council  moratorium on planning applications until the structure plan was approved.

Dr Watson moved to her present address because it had ”such a nice village  atmosphere, trees, and  lovely views over the hills because there’s no  high-rise”.

”What’s allowed to be built there should be done according to community and  council wishes with the protection of town planning opinion.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ivanhoe-locals-fear-checks-on-highrises-will-be-too-late-20120509-1yd35.html#ixzz1uRoYWpMb

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »