May 10, 2012

Service Levels

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Are ratepayers really getting ‘value for money’ – especially when rates have more than doubled in the past 8 years? Is resource spending ‘maintaining’ current service levels as spruiked by the Strategic Resource Plan and accompanying Budget?

When residents have been screaming about the continued flooding in Glen Eira; the traffic congestion and need for calming treatments on local roads (ie LATM – Local Area Traffic Management) it is worthwhile reflecting on what has been happening for the past half dozen years. We feature a table taken directly from the respective budgets that outline the forecast spending on road reconstruction, footpaths, drains, and residential traffic management. We believe that this table reveals a sad story of FALLING service levels – especially with drains and the continued and regular incidents of flooding. The figures (apart from Traffic) are all in millions.

YEAR

ROADS

FOOTPATHS

DRAINS

TRAFFIC (LATM)
2007

4.0

2.13

3.3

 $100,000
2008

4.0

2.0

3.3

 $50,000
2009

4.0

2.0

3.5

 $100,000
2010

3.7

2.53

3.0

 $100,000
2011

3.8

1.73

3.29

 $360,000
2012

3.8

1.72

3.9*

 $200,000

*“included in the Drainage Improvement Program is an allocation of $968,000 for the Flood Mitigation Program (Storm Water Harvesting – Boyd Park Murrumbeena). This project includes funding of $484k.”

 

May 9, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More ‘Cover-Ups’?

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

GESAC has finally opened and the basketball courts are now in use. What still needs to be determined is:

  • Are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors for any courts that they are unable to fill?
  • Are courts standing empty and therefore representing a revenue loss to Council?
  • The Warriors’ EOI presumably ‘won’ because they ‘guaranteed’ a higher revenue base than the McKinnon Basketball Association – in fact, “$95,000 per annum more”. (See minutes of 13th December, 2011). If this amount is now NOT forthcoming, what does this say about the entire EOI/Tender process and the ultimate decision of certain councillors to allocate the courts to the Warriors? Was the decision merely ‘pie in the sky’, based on a wish and a prayer? How well was the EOI investigated and corroborated?
  • Are residents now literally paying the price for poor decision making? 

The last two Council Meetings have featured public questions on this issue. With typical Council evasiveness, no adequate response has been provided, except for the carefully phrased ‘answer’ below:

The question asked in part –

1. Will any courts stand empty when Gesac opens?

2. If so, how many and for how long and what is the estimated loss of revenue to council?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “I refer you to the response provided to you at the 20 March 2012 Council Meeting. Whilst the proposed court costs and hours were disclosed in the 13 December Council Minutes, other aspects of the EOI remain Confidential. I can however add that revenue will be at the normal rate for Council courts as opposed to the alternative EOI at 30 percent lower and will amount to $95,000 per annum more.”  

All very nice and good, except that the question isn’t answered. It is clear that the Warriors do not have enough teams to cover all the Friday to Sunday time slots they’ve been allotted. If they did then there would be no need for this paragraph taken from their Facebook page –

“It is expected that all Warriors members both Rep and domestic will participate in domestic competitions at GESAC from this Winter season onwards. This can be as a member of a Warriors domestic team or in a team they organize themselves.”

The scene gets even murkier now. If there is ‘sub-letting’ then who is responsible for this sub-letting? Is it the Warriors or Council? And the $64 dollar question remains. Are all the courts being used? If they are not, then are the Warriors paying for these courts or are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors and in the meantime allowing the continued loss of revenue?

Are we looking at another ‘cover-up’? Why can’t this Council provide straight-forward answers to public questions that impact on ratepayer funds, council competence and ultimately, transparent and accountable governance?

 

May 8, 2012

Less Spin & More Truth Please

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

Spin is out in full force with the advertised Budget and Council Plan. For the past ten years residents have been continually fed the line that Glen Eira imposes one of the lowest rate hikes in the state on its community. The facts reveal a different story. Our recent post highlighted how rates in the past 8-9 years have more than doubled in this municipality. We do not believe that any of the other councils listed below fall into this category. Glen Eira is really out on its own when it comes to slugging residents.

These are the rate increases as published in draft budgets from neighbouring councils. Both Bayside and Kingston figures are still to be released.

Stonnington – 4.5% increase

Port Phillip – 5.9%

Monash – 6%

Yarra city – 5.9%

Boroondara – 5%

Manningham – 6%

PS: The main entrance under the clock tower was AGAIN LOCKED for tonight’s Special Council Meeting!!!!! This makes it at least 4 times that the door has been locked. Once is unfortunate; twice is regrettable; three times is unforgivable and four times is plain old incompetence – or, a total disregard for the community.

 

 

May 8, 2012

VCAT: Telling It Like It Is

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[7] Comments 

With practically every VCAT decision it is becoming clearer and clearer that this Council’s Planning Scheme is woefully inadequate in protecting residents from overdevelopment. The latest example features the decision on Etna St., Glen Huntly. Council approved this application for a four storey development (27 units) in November, 2011. Residents objected. The telling points of the VCAT member’s decision relates to the failure of Council to:

  • Delineate exactly where Housing Diversity begins and ends
  • The myth of ‘neighbourhood character’ being a ‘protection’ in Housing Diversity

We cite the relevant paragraphs below and also alert readers to the fact that not one word of the proposed Council Plan addresses any of these shortcomings. The full VCAT decision is found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/420.html

“In the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), Glenhuntly is designated a Major Activity Centre. The strategies for Principal and Major Activity Centres include

Have the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses

There is no requirement here that the development of Major Activity Centres should have any regard to issues of neighbourhood character. This is in contrast to the SPPF’s strategies for Neighbourhood Activity Centres, which do include (my emphasis):

Encourage higher density housing in and around Neighbourhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhances the character of the area while …

The site also meets the SPPF’s definition of a Strategic Redevelopment Site, being a site suitable for “for large residential development”.

The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not define the extent of the Glenhuntly activity centre as such. However, it does designate Glenhuntly as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, being third in the activity centre hierarchy below urban villages and the Phoenix Centre. The site is also situated in a Housing Diversity Area[, being an area which, amongst other objectives, is to promote increased housing diversity in terms of housing types, layouts and sizes whilst

Ensuring that density, mass and scale of residential development is appropriate to the location, role and neighbourhood character of the specific housing diversity area.

It is clear that Housing Diversity Areas are intended to accommodate increased housing densities, with the appropriate density around any centre being dependent on contextual factors. Contextual factors should properly include the status of each centre.

With respect to any conflict between the SPPF and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), s.7(4)(b) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 states

(4) If there appears to be an inconsistency between different provisions of a planning scheme—

(a) the scheme must, so far as practicable, be read so as to resolve the inconsistency; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a)

(i) the State standard provisions prevail over the local provisions; and …

Because of this, the centre must be treated as a Major Activity Centre wherein “intensive housing developments” should be encouraged. The only conflict that is to be avoided is that relating to “surrounding land-uses” (i.e. not neighbourhood character).

In order to read Council’s policies relating to neighbourhood character in a way that is consistent with s.7(4)(b) of the Act, much greater weight must be placed on increasing housing diversity and density around Glenhuntly Activity Centre than on maintaining the existing neighbourhood character. That is, any interpretation of the term “respectful of neighbourhood character” in relation to a Major Activity Centre, being a policy introduced in the LPPF and not overtly supported (though not excluded) by the SPPF, must be read down from the way it should be applied in a Neighbourhood Activity Centre as designated consistently with the SPPF.

I find that the SPPF should be read as supporting a substantial increase in housing densities, including increased building height, on a site such as this that is within or adjoining a Major Activity Centre (and although not a requirement, this finding is in my opinion consistent with Clause 22.07)”.

 

May 6, 2012

Council Plan: Planning & Development

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

Below is the section on Planning & Development from the Council Action Plan for 2012/3. We’ve numbered each ‘activity’ for ease of following.

Strategic Activity

Action

Measure
  1. Plan for a   mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in   different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
 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. Report the   number of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity  areas quarterly
   2.  Enforce the   provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and building control requirements   across the City as well as compliance with any planning permits. Conduct proactive site inspections for compliance with planning permit   conditions and Local Law requirements, and investigate building enforcement matters.

 

Enforce building control requirements.

 300   proactive site inspections completed

 

 

 

200   building enforcement matters investigated
3.   Ensure new   multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing   neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas. Make decisions in accordance with Council’s Minimal Change area policy   with an emphasis on Neighbourhood Character. Report the   number of neighbourhood character assessments carried out on residential   developments within Minimal Change areas quarterly.
4.   Strengthen town   planning protection of residential areas identified as having significant   character. Prepare a planning scheme amendment which uses the Neighbourhood   Character overlay to better protect areas displaying significant character. Following   a report of independent Panel, Neighbourhood Character Overlay actioned in  accordance with Council resolution
5.    Reduce the   intensity of residential development within Housing Diversity areas which   interface with minimal change areas. Prepare a planning scheme amendment which moderates the intensity of   residential development at the interface of the Housing diversity/ Minimal Change   policy areas. Once   authorisation for the planning scheme amendment is obtained from State   Government place the Transitions Policy on public exhibition
6.    Encourage and   support community involvement in the planning permit application   process. Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit   application processes. Publish a Glen Eira News  article
7.    Provide an   opportunity for all residents to be informed and to participate in town   planning applications where they (and others) object. Maintain both the non-statutory planning Conference (Council decision by resolution) and Delegated Planning Committee as forums for resident involvement in the   town planning process. Report on   a quarterly basis the number of planning conferences and Delegated Planning   Committee meetings held
8.    Provide a fair,   transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process. Review the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) process and introduce process improvement which   benefits all parties. Trial a   mediation process and report to Council on the results. Prove an information   video which explains the DPC process for the benefit of residents involved
9.    Ensure residents   and ratepayers have access to simple and easy to use information about the Council town planning process, the   responsibilities of developers and how to participate in the process. Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) factsheet on town planning   processes and controls FAQ fact   sheet developed and posted on the Council website.
10.  Undertake   community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal   Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process   meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process and   identify areas for improvement Report   survey results back to Council
11. Encourage   environmentally sustainable design (ESD) for new buildings. Produce a standard information kit for planning applications to define   ESD and Water Sensitive Urban Design in developments Information   kit distributed and placed on council website

 

QUESTION #1: Do the listed Measures really ‘measure’ what the ‘action’ proposes?

  • We are bemused by the notion that merely listing the ‘number’ of applications can in any shape or form influence the nature of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom unit developments in our neighbourhoods.
  • Measures 1 and 3 are practically identical, and further, simple ‘reporting’ on the ‘number’ of assessments does not influence the outcome of those assessments.
  • When there are over 1200 applications per year ,and consistently growing, do 200 and even 300 ‘proactive’ inspections ensure sufficient supervision? Also, what if any action follows such inspections? For example: does Council pursue developers for infringements? How many? How often?
  • Measures 1, 2 and 3 are identical to those listed in the 2011/12 Action Plan – despite the increase in applications. Hence nothing has changed. The budget and Council Plan promise the maintaining of existing services. Keeping the same target does not meet this objective.  More importantly, Council has failed to act in accordance with its own promises. THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN BOTH MINIMAL CHANGE AND HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED. What has been provided in the Quarterly Reports are PERCENTAGES and even these do not provide any guidance on the NUMBERS for Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change.
  • Encouraging ‘community involvement’ in the planning process is admirable. However the Action relates to the Fast Track program and can hardly be said to apply to the vast majority of residents. The program is primarily geared to developers. Further an article in the Glen Eira News is hardly a convincing ‘measure’ of ‘support’.
  • Item 10 speaks of broad issues such as the MSS, and the Planning Scheme. The objective is to ensure that ‘it meets the needs’ of the community. But once again, the actions and measures employed to achieve this are meaningless – ie. a ‘survey’ of participants in the DPC and the ‘reporting’ of results. Readers may remember that this is really a blast from the past in that years ago, such surveys were conducted and were actually published in Council minutes.

QUESTION #2: Do any of these ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ solve the planning issues as repeatedly stated by residents?

  • Nothing new, or effective, has been done in relation to the Planning Scheme itself. The current situation remains. References to ‘transition policy’ refer to last year’s resolution where all ‘transition’ means is a greater setback for multiple storeys, rather than an actual ‘transition zone’ that takes in a specific area. Residents can therefore still find themselves living next to 3, 4 or even 5 stories if they happen to abut Housing Diversity Areas. The same may be said for the recent C87 decision to go to a Panel. The Amendment covers less than 3% of the municipality and both residents and councillors were never provided with the opportunity to submit their own recommendations or suggestions for inclusion in this overlay.
  • Information sheets are fine as far as they go. There already are plenty of ‘information sheets’ available on Council’s website. Will this just be more of the same?

CONCLUSIONS

There’s plenty more that we could say – but the post would be far too long. What’s particularly disappointing is that after all the hullaballoo about ‘consulting’ with the community and acknowledging the angst that inappropriate development is causing, this Action Plan does not deviate one iota in any meaningful sense from the set in concrete agenda of this council. The Planning scheme will only be tinkered with, and the essential questions as to the 80/20 divide, structure plans, height limits, public realm policies, etc. remain untouched. Perhaps in the end Council could have saved themselves mega-bucks rather than going through the charade of ‘intensive community consultation’ – especially when there was never any intention to actually do anything to remedy what residents see as intolerable.

 

May 5, 2012

How (Not) Green Is My Valley!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

There can be no doubt about it – green grass is taboo in Glen Eira – unless it’s a sporting oval! Otherwise it is becoming the concrete and mulch capital of the world! The latest atrocity concerns the Elster Creek Trail that we have commented upon previously. Readers will remember the Keystone incompetence such as:

  • Building concrete pathways on private land
  • Creating flood plains
  • Spending tens of thousands in ripping up hundreds of metres of grass and replacing it with ‘instant’ turf

Now we have the following:

  • Removal of perfectly sound wooden logs that function as barriers to entrances (and provide seating) and replacing these with low, environmentally unfriendly, (and ugly) concrete plinthing
  • The complete spreading of mulch everywhere so that not a blade of grass (including the thousands spent on the recent instant grass) is allowed to survive
  • Mulch that literally stinks to high heaven
  • Mulch that rests along private entrances as well as fence lines
  • Mulch that is up against tree trunks
  • Planting of countless gums less than 1.5m apart
  • Planting of gums where roots will undoubtedly be water logged
  • Ripping out flame trees planted less than 2 years ago to ensure a ‘straight line’ of 8 gums

We can only conjecture at the sheer waste, not to mention inconvenience to residents,  that all this has cost. Given that this council is classified as ‘high risk’; that we are facing a ‘cash crisis’; that GESAC will continue to be a burden for at least the next decade, and that other major projects have been delayed and delayed (Duncan McKinnon; Booran Rd Reservoir) we cannot fathom the sheer profligacy of this administration. Yes, it’s great that new trees are planted. But how many will be nurtured, pruned regularly and actually survive? Yes, it’s great that trees are mulched – but does that mean that all grass has to be sacrificed instead of simply mulching near the base and circumference? Elster Creek Trail, from a pleasant, green and unobtrusive landscape has been turned into a stinking, concrete and mulch swamp! We invite councillors to come along and take a whiff – but please bring your face masks!

In time of course, the mulch will settle creating 3 to 4 inch drops off the path edges and thus creating a real risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Solution? More mulch! And when it rains, how much mulch will be swept into the drains as has already happened on a regular bases?

The photos below do not capture the current status. Most of the mulch has now been spread – so it is ‘goodbye grass’ and ‘hello stinking mulchville’!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

May 4, 2012

Budget: What We’ll Be Slugged!

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

Rate increase of 6.5% for 2012/13 and again NEXT YEAR

  • Rate increases for the past 8 years are: 

2004/5 – 4%

2005/6 – 4.1%

2006/7 – 4%

2007/8 – 6.5%

2008/9 – 6.5%

2009/10 – 6.5%

2010/11 – 6.5%

2011/12 – 6.00%

2012/13 – 6.5%

TOTAL – 50.6% INCREASE IN 8 YEARS!

INCREASED CHARGES 

  • 240 litre bin charge up $50
  • 120 litre bin charge up $20
  • 240 litre family bin up $32
  • Childcare for 3-5 year olds, up $10 per day 

We will comment in greater detail once we’ve had time to fully digest these documents.

 

May 3, 2012

At Long, Long, Long, Last!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

From Council’s website

GESAC Open Monday 7 May 2012  
GESAC will open to the community from 6am Monday 7 May 2012.
The whole facility will be open. Details of programs and services are set out on the GESAC website www.gesac.com.au
“The certificate of occupancy was issued on Monday 30 April and the builder handed over the facility to Council on Wednesday 2 May. Council’s GESAC staff are to be congratulated on opening the facility within a few days of taking control of the site,” Chairman of the Pools Steering Committee Cr Michael Lipshutz said.
“For the first time, Glen Eira City Council will be offering all-year-round health and fitness facilities for the whole Community. GESAC will bring benefits to thousands of people for many years to come. Council would like to thank the Commonwealth and State Governments for their financial support for the project. Both Governments will be invited to take part in an official opening shortly,” Glen Eira Mayor Cr Jamie Hyams said.
 

May 3, 2012

More Mulch

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

Item 9.5 Leaf and Chipped Garden Waste

Penhalluriack left the room. Lipshutz moved and Magee seconded motion.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that this has been a ‘vexed issue for some time now’ and been dealt with by the Ombudsman. Said that Penhalluriack had raised the issue of legionella disease and potential risk to workers. Said that ‘we have a proper’ report that recommends ‘some safeguards which will protect’ users. Claimed that what the Arnold report does say is that ‘bacteria’ is ‘found in all sorts of’ gardens and waste. Went on to say that he personally was ‘not aware of any person contracting Legionnaires disease by using our mulch facility’. In these ‘circumstances it is appropriate’ to reopen the facility with the ‘safeguards as outlined’.

MAGEE: Said that last year he had no ‘hesitation’ in voting to close the facility because ‘there was a potential risk to members of our community’. But now after reading a lot more and ‘given the 6 recommendations’ by the Arnold report it was okay. Noted that there was also a letter from Arnold that came in April. Read from the letter where it was claimed that they tested ‘both the air and the mulch’ and that ‘legionella was not detected’. ‘I’m more than comfortable with that paragraph’ and together with the recommendations was happy to ‘reverse the decision I made’. Was now ‘confident’ that there isn’t any risk.

LOBO:  began by referring to what he had said at last council meeting about the Ombudsman’s title to his report and that he was ‘misquoted by the local Glen Eira Debates’ blog. Reiterated that the title is ‘not a good reflection’ on councillors when it says that governance ‘involves each and every one of us’. Defined governance in terms of ‘processes’ and ‘procedures’ and ‘accountable’. Said that he believed that ‘as councillors we have done what we could’ so therefore the ombudsman’s title should have simply said ‘poor governance…..by a councillor’… ‘it should not be a reflection’ on others. Went on to say that as soon as councillors were aware following the O’Neill report they sent Penhalluriack off to a Code of Conduct Panel. ‘Painting everyone with the same brush was not appropriate’ and all this does is ‘show the over enthusiasm of the ombudsman’.  Said that when he last raised the issue ‘I was criticised by Glen Eira Debates….(claimed not to be reading it) ‘regularly but I do go on it once a month’. There was the need for Glen Eira Debates to ‘be careful in information….particularly those (that write under) cover (of anonymity)….’they should be courageous enough to say who they are’ so that councillors could reply. Went on to say that when he ‘had the guts’ to show up at a recent community forum one ‘over enthusiastic resident’ attacked councillors who were ‘painted as useless’ and that the ‘community should get rid of all the councillors’….’ I don’t understand all this garbage’ and that Glen Eira Debates should think about the positive things that council is doing and not be ‘negative’.

ESAKOFF:  Agreed with Magee that the recommendations were ‘competent’ and that ‘there will be no issue in the area’ and that there will be ‘more than a few residents’ who will be pleased with the reopening.

HYAMS:  Said that the ‘first part’ of the motion is to note the ombudsman’s report ‘on these matters’. Agreed with Lobo’s comments that the title is ‘unfortunate and doesn’t reflect the contents of the report’ and also ‘endorsed’ Lobo’s comments on those ‘without the integrity to put their names to their criticisms’. They ‘hide behind anonymity’ and ‘cowardice’. The further letter from Noel Arnold ‘proves that contrary to much speculation’ the mulch was checked but that isn’t ‘an indication of whether the mulch facility causes a risk to health’ because there’s always ‘things in dirt’. Said that the ‘real test’ is checking the air and that was done. Officers ‘weren’t able to find’ any other location that was as good as Glen Huntly Park because of ‘the size of the car park’. Since the facility was closed there had been a lot of ‘feedback’ from people that it shouldn’t have been closed. Said that when he voted to close it his real concern was that ‘people may not handle it safely’, ‘but I guess there is only so much that you can do’ (so the recommendations and the debate would alert people. Also they might try and get it from other sites that don’t have these safety precautions).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5 councillors with Pilling, Tang & Forge absent).

 

May 2, 2012

C87 & Crocodile Tears

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

The C87 Amendment was passed unanimously as expected. What was, in our view,  most revealing was the superb crocodile tears performance put on by several councillors. They literally shed buckets in bemoaning the fact that the Amendment was incapable of including residents’ recommendations for inclusion into the Significant Character Areas – especially Normanby Rd. We shake our heads in wonderment and ask:

  • Are councillors that impotent or stupid or guilty of collusion not to realise that when they allow the cart to be put before the horse this will be the inevitable outcome? One of our previous posts commented on the fact that the only recommendations sought came from council officers and Planisphere. Even councillors and of course residents were totally excluded from making suggestions! To now turn around and say that our hands are tied is indeed laughable. All that was needed was a motion that residents could submit their own proposals for inclusion. Simple and democratic – but obviously something that is anathema to those running Glen Eira.
  • Instead, we now have further expenditure on ‘legal advice’ to ensure that nothing can be done with this amendment! It all has to start again via a new amendment if residents are to have a say.  Oh yes, the  crocodile tears flowed in Oscar winning performances.
  • We also suggested in our earlier post that the chances of the Planning Panel actually accepting, much less listening to residents’ submissions on areas that should be included was buckleys and none! We stick with this conclusion!

The ‘debate’ went as follows:

Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Lipshutz moved that C87 be exhibited with the removal of properties from Poath Rd. Seconded by Penhalluriack.

LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that VCAT ‘basically ignores’ council’s policy and that policy by itself is not the ‘appropriate method to ensure’ that neighbourhoods are protected. ‘The way to go about it’ is to pass the motion so that there’s an overlay on these areas. Said that this was a ‘vexed’ issue because some people didn’t want it and others did. Said that the Normanby Rd people ‘believe that their street has such significance’ that they should be included. ‘Unfortunately the motion…..does not provide for this…..the motion seeks to preserve their current position and will allow for a panel to consider their submissions….‘. People who think that their properties shouldn’t be there are also free to make a submission to panel. Spoke about The Highway and if the amendment would ‘restrict’ the possibility of ‘dual occupancy’ in that street. Said that wouldn’t impact adversely and that ‘panel can consider this’ and that council ‘can then determine the issue’. Amendment ‘starts the process’….‘we’ve had the submissions, we’ve had the conferences’…’the intent of c87 is to provide stronger safeguards’….(and those areas outside heritage) ‘can at least be preserved’.

PENHALLURIACK: The motion is ‘disappointing’ since ‘so many’ people around the c60 and racecourse, especially along Normanby Rd ‘are missing out’. Said he looked at old maps of the area and that there are some beautiful old homes and ‘I can’t read the mind of the town planner who said this area isn’t worthy of being included’….’but because he made that decision we are now caught between a rock and a hard place’. Said that people can go to the panel, but the amendment is ‘lacking the jewel in the crown’ (Park, Kambrook, Normanby Rd). ‘I can’t do anything, I’m tormented, I think this is a tragedy….but the officers assure me there is no option….(ultimately has to come back to council and start whole thing again. Said that maybe council should look at heritage overlays as well).

HYAMS: Reassured everyone that the status quo remains until the ‘amendment goes through’. Explained that the Significant Character Area only covers double dwelling and doesn’t protect against someone building a terrible single dwelling..’policy doesn’t have the strength at VCAT…these are less than heritage….you can demolish….pros are …protects the neighbourhood….cons are….restricts what people can do with their own houses….so not something we would impose without going through….thorough community consultation process’. Said that community does generally support this as spoken about in the various community forums. Claimed it was ‘disappointing’ that after all the letters sent out council only got 59 submissions back ‘you could read that as people being apathetic’….’people happy with the amendment’ so no need to write in. Said that the planning conference that was held had more people in favour than against the amendment. Claimed to have ‘door knocked a couple of the streets’ to get a feel for what people wanted and ‘overwhelming majority’ supported the amendment. Admitted that some areas are ‘out of character, but still worth preserving of what remains of character’. Agreed that Normanby Rd is ‘a very nice area’ and that he was ‘disappointed’ that it wasn’t included. Said that there was some discussion at the planning conference whether it could be included and that council had obtained ‘further legal advice’ which concluded that once something is ‘exhibited’ you ‘can’t put other areas in’ because it ‘denies natural justice to those people’ in that area…..’that’s the legal advice so we can’t do that unfortunately’. Summarised the processes of the panel, what they will do and how they will look at the submissions ‘in depth’….’still quite a few steps to take’.

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted that people of Normanby Rd have been ‘badly done by’ and ‘very unfortunate that they can’t be included’….(that this is the )’best we can do in the circumstances’….(Urged people who thought they should be included) ‘to make submissions to the panel’….’Id be very supportive of inclusion’. Explained process – ie goes to panel and then council will decide whether to accept or reject. Process is ‘independent and fair’. said that heritage overlay is ‘very, very restrictive’ and that there’s a difference between Normanby Rd and council’s heritage areas.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »