From Council’s website:
| Ombudsman’s Report: Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council | |
|
March 28, 2012
Penhalluriack: Ombudsman’s Report
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance[32] Comments
March 28, 2012
Delegations & Failure To Insist On Councillor ‘Call-In’
Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning[7] Comments
We’ve received the following email from a reader –
In planning permit GE/PP-24534/2012, the Elsternwick Club, already a privileged operator in a residential zone with a 24 hour liqour licence, machine gambling, food and its expensive and non-green bowling green (massive use of chemicals and insecticides at present well beyond that expected in a “garden” region) had applied to Glen Eira Council to have a licence to run a restaurant and cafe business for the financial benefit of its members (who will retain non-exclusive use of the bar and gambling areas as well as the green and surrounds).
The current use is already a burden to particular residents (including the correspondent) in terms of loss of amenity. The officers have advised Council that the matter be considered by the Delegated PLanning Committee tomorrow 28/3/2012, on the basis that the matter is either insufficiently significant of there have not been enough respondents.
Council sent information to the immediate neighbours including… (a) neighbour in hospital recovering from hip surgery, the corner owner spending a large amount on a major renewal without advance warning of the potential reduction of amenity, notices to new residents unaware of the potential impact a fully commercialised business might have in a previously exclusively residential area.
I doubt that anyone else except me saw the second and smaller notice of application to the Justice Dept for a second licence for alcohol provision in addition to the 24 hour existent licence for gamblers and club members (and their “guests”) in time to protest this as well.
My wife is caring for her recently widowed mother who is in hospital after fracturing her hip, I am (phrase deleted to maintain anonymity) and don’t have the time or a great deal of energy to go door to door to arouse local interest in this matter, sufficient to draw actual councillors’ attention to what appears to be an underhand way of achieving what is in reality, a highly significant and fundamental alteration to the character and amenity of our block of Elsternwick.
This area is already well served by the RSL and local pubs and restaurants. What next? Private hotels, bars, home based restaurants and shops, even brothels in our streets?
I doubt that the local business folk know that the club, which has the unique advantage of the attraction of a summer bowling attrraction and open access machine gambling is intending to take customers from their doors. The only advantaged groups are the club and the council which may be able to charge better rates for a business than for a private club.
Is anybody out there aware of this or concerned about the subtle changes council officers are able to create without necessarily bringing matters to council attention?
March 27, 2012
Grattan Institute: Social Cities
Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
The Grattan Institute yesterday released its insightful report Social Cities. We’ve selected a few extracts and ask readers to contemplate what can be done and how well our councillors and planners are moving in this direction – if at all? The full report is available from: http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/137_report_social_cities.pdf
“…quality of open space is just as important as the quantity. A small park that is well maintained and watered, with established trees to provide shade, vibrant flower gardens for visual pleasure, quality seating and creative playgrounds, will be used far more actively than a park that is far larger but less inviting. In fact without appropriate design, parks can be too big for comfort. In his pioneering work William H Whyte demonstrated that people prefer to congregate on the edges of public spaces (see Figure 18). So if seating and play equipment are stranded in the middle of large open areas they will not get much use, because people will feel exposed and vulnerable. This is particularly true when a park is bounded by busy roads, blank walls and fences or vacant and derelict land.
Some of the most successful parks are intimate mini-parks or ‘pocket parks’. Pocket parks are often created on irregular-shaped patches of land that are too small for building, or on vacant lots between other developments. Sometimes the developers of major projects are required to include pocket parks as part of their planning approval. In response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the City of Los Angeles is transforming foreclosed properties into pocket parks with the aim of adding amenity and raising the value of surrounding houses and neighbourhoods at the same time.
In the 1980s in the UK, Northamptonshire planner Alan Teulon pioneered the idea of pocket parks by involving local residents in identifying, creating and maintaining small, local parks. This evolved into the Doorstep Greens program that, for a small investment, has transformed more than 100 neglected public areas into popular green spaces. Strong public engagement and volunteering has helped to keep costs and vandalism down. The process of developing these pocket parks has brought local residents together and helped to foster social connection.(p.23)
Traffic
In his pioneering work on streets, Donald Appleyard showed that residents in a street with light traffic flow (2,000 vehicles per day) had three times more friends living in the street (and twice as many acquaintances) than residents on a street with heavy traffic flow (16,000 vehicles per day).
The heavily trafficked street had little or no sidewalk activity while on the street with light traffic, front steps were frequently used for sitting and chatting, and there was play and casual conversation on the pavement.
More recent studies confirm the impact that traffic has on the time people spend on the street. In New York, 44% of people who live on streets with heavy traffic say they respond by going out less often. This compares to only 7% of people who live in medium traffic areas, and 3% of people in light traffic areas. (p.36-7)
There are many ways to shift the role of streets from the car dominated default. The first and most obvious is to reduce speed limits in residential streets. In recent years the default speed limit in built-up areas in many Australian cities has been reduced from 60 to 50km/h. Road safety experts say Australia should follow the Swedish example and further reduce residential speed limits to 30km/h, a speed below which pedestrians have dramatically improved chances of surviving the impact of being hit by a car.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, a significant reduction in speed limits is predicted to have only a minor impact on average travel times (p.38)
March 27, 2012
Scraping The Bottom Of The Barrel
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
After being sent packing by VCAT to redo their allegations against Cr Penhalluriack, Council’s lawyers (Maddocks) have come up with the following gem in their long list of complaints. We quote:
“it is alleged that the Respondent acted unreasonably towards the Applicant’s Director Assets and Facilities by criticising him at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010, by: referring to a project in respect of stormwater harvesting in Boyd Park, Murrumbeena as a ‘ridiculous project’ and a ‘waste of money”.
We’ve double checked what occurred at this meeting and in our post of the 15th December 2010 we reported:
Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).
Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’
Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.
Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed”.
COMMENT
Councillors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most efficient and responsible manner. Councillors also have the right to demand complete and full information prior to their decision making. Debates are part of the political process. What occurred on December 14th 2010 is exactly what should happen – 4 councillors questioning the lack of detail in an officer’s report. Yet, only Penhalluriack is accused of ‘acting inappropriately’ and ‘criticising’ Peter Waite. If this is representative of the quality and substance of Council’s allegations then a full inquiry is necessary to determine how and why tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in an orchestrated witch hunt against Penhalluriack. As for Waite’s ‘embarrassment’ we leave this up to readers to determine.
March 26, 2012
Newton V’s Penhalluriack
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance[37] Comments
Hardware rebel faces anti-bully drill
Melissa Fyfe and Jason Dowling
March 26, 2012
THE rebel hardware seller who went to jail over Sunday trading laws in the 1980s has been ordered to undergo anti-bullying training after an independent council report found he had bullied and harassed the Glen Eira City Council chief executive.
Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has denied the report’s findings, claiming he is the victim of a “kangaroo court” and says chief executive Andrew Newton is trying to get him kicked off council. “He doesn’t like me because I ask too many questions,” he told The Age.
The bullying report — completed last June by workplace lawyer Tracey O’Neill — was kept secret from the community. The findings have emerged only now among the documents filed in a misconduct case against Cr Penhalluriack, to be heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal next month.
The council has already spent about $65,000 on legal costs for inquiries and proceedings relating to Cr Penhalluriack.
Ms O’Neill, who investigated Mr Newton’s allegations against Cr Penhalluriack on behalf of the council, found the hardware store owner in breach of the councillors’ code of conduct, which states they must not “harass, bully, vilify or discriminate against colleagues or members of the public” and must “conduct themselves constructively”.
The report found Cr Penhalluriack had humiliated the chief executive officer by making derogatory public statements about him and placed unnecessary stress and pressure on him to resolve a personal matter regarding his hardware store.
Ms O’Neill found council officers felt “under attack” from Cr Penhalluriack who, she said, had been behaving unreasonably towards them for “a significant period of time”.
Ms O’Neill also noted Cr Penhalluriack had challenged her (Ms O’Neill) in a “confrontational and aggressive manner”. She concluded that while she did not consider Cr Penhalluriack malicious, “this does not alter that he has engaged in repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety”.
Glen Eira Council has faced a string of controversies in recent years. In 2005 the then Bracks government sacked the council after a scathing report found it had degenerated into a hotbed of “personality clashes, politics and egos”. More recently there have been controversies surrounding councillor actions on planning issues and the council’s decision to close a mulch facility. The Ombudsman’s office is also believed to be investigating some areas at the council.
Cr Penhalluriack — who in the 1980s famously opened his Caulfield hardware store outside the regulated times to highlight what he saw as outdated trading hours — has now hired expensive lawyers to fight the misconduct case. He said it was unfortunate but he was “adamant” ratepayers would pick up the bill and blamed the impasse on Mr Newton for not going to mediation.
The councillor has also filed a Workcover claim against the council, saying the situation is making him sick with stress. He told The Age he blamed his recent hospitalisation for a heart problem on his elevated stress levels.
Cr Penhalluriack said he might regret some things said in anger, but denied bullying or harassing anyone at the council. He acknowledged that before becoming a councillor he had battled with the council.
March 24, 2012
The table below comprises:
- decisions made by this group of councillors (Dec. 2008 until February 2012)
- decisions which represent mere ‘tinkering’ with the original applications
- not included are all those decisions which were simply passed without such ‘tinkering’
- not included are those decisions which Council did refuse (that will come in a separate post)
- not included are those decisions which councillors went against officers’ recommendations – (again, a separate post)
Our constant claim has been that this Council is not doing enough to protect its residents – especially in so called Housing Diversity Areas which dominate this table. Reducing the number of units, or even the number of storeys, is applying cosmetic treatment rather than the required radical surgery – the complete makeover of the Planning Scheme.
We further restate our belief that many decisions made over these years have nothing to do with existing planning policy, but resident opposition. It would seem that anything over 40 objections suddenly has traction, especially in 2012 with the election looming large. Our sacrosanct planning policy is thus receiving a hell of a battering from certain councillors suddenly aware that their jobs may be on the line.
|
ADDRESS |
APPLICATION |
DECISION |
| 40 Koornang Rd, Carnegie | 5 storeys & 26 units | 4 storey & 16 units |
| 135 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 3 storey & 44 units | 3 storey & 33 units |
| 309 Hawthorn Rd., North Caulfield | 2 storey & 7 units | 2 storey & 6 units |
| 7-13 Dudley St., Caulfield North | 4 storey & 112 units | 4 storey & 100 units |
| 273 Grange Rd., Ormond | 3 storey & 19 units | 2 storey & 14 units |
| 19 Parker St., Ormond | 4 dwellings 2 double storey and 2 single storey at rear | 1 double storey & 3 single storey at rear |
| 1902 Glen Huntly rd., Glen Huntly | 3 storey & 10 units | 3 storey & 8 units |
| 29 Holloway St., Ormond | 2 storey & 14 units | 2 storey & 10 units |
| 846-848 Centre Rd. Bentleigh | 2 storey & 14 units | 2 storey & 10 units |
| 341-55 Murumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena | 4 storey & 40 units & 6 shops | 3 storey, 23 units & 6 shops. |
| 443-57 Hawthorn Rd., Caulfield | 5 storey, 42 units, 7 shops | 4 STOREY |
| 400 Dandenong Rd., Caulfield Nth | 3 storey & 18 units | 3 storey & 17 units |
| 894-900 Glen Huntly Rd., Caulfield | 4 storey, 24 units & 1 shop | 3 storey, 16 units & 1 shop |
| 2-4 William St., Murrumbeena | 4 storey & 41 units | 3 storey & 29 units |
| 111-113 Poath Rd., Murrumbeena | 4 storey, 10 units & 2 shops | 3 storey, 8 units & 2 shops |
| 15 Dudley St., East Caulfield | 5 storey & 29 units | 4 storeys & 27 units |
| 17 Railway Pde., Murrumbeena | 3 storeys & 19 units | 3 storeys & 16 units |
| 243-247 Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick | 10 storey & 130 units | 8 storeys & 95 units |
| 41 Murrumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena | 2-3 storey & 59 units | 2 storey & 50 units |
| 385-95 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 4 storey & 32 units
17 double storey units (Emily St.) |
3 storey & 25 units
12 double storey units (Emily St.) |
| 2 Anzac St., Carnegie | 3 storey & 22 units | 2 storey & 19 units |
| 16 Malane St., East Bentleigh | 2 storey & 8 units | 2 storey & 6 units |
| 221-29 Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick | 14 storey & 3 shops & 109 units | 7 storey & 46 units & 2 shops |
| 22 Station St McKinnon | 7 double storeys units | 6 double storey units |
| 54-56 Rosstown Rd., Carnegie | 5 storey & 20 units | 3 storey 10 units |
| 402-4 Dandenong Rd., Nth Caulfield | 3 storey & 37 units | 3 storey & 32 units |
| 276-280 Neerim Rd., Carnegie | 5 storey & 42 units | 4 storey & 30 units |
| 188 Hawthorn Rd Caulfield | 3 storey & 8 units | 3 storey & 6 units |
| 259-61 East Boundary Rd, East Bentleigh | 3 storey & 9 units & shop | 3 storey & 5 units & shop |
| 127-129 Murray St., Caulfield | 4 storey & 31 units | 3 storey & 21 units |
March 23, 2012
GESAC & Lost Revenue & Secrecy
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
True to form, GESAC barely rated a mention at Tuesday night’s council meeting. No Pools Steering Committee report, nothing in the Audit Committee ‘minutes’. But buried in the Financial Report, there are the following statements:
“Please note that GESAC forecast income has been reduced by $520K in order to more accurately reflect the timing of opening the Centre. This reduction in income has been offset by a reduction in employee benefits expenditure of $220K”.
“Unfavourable variance in User Fees and Charges $1.12M (includes delay in income expected from GESAC $1.33M)”.
The listed ‘income’ from GESAC is the princely sum of $3,000 and expenditure of $1,187,000. The black hole of lost income is turning into the Grand Canyon, especially when there could be further ratepayers’ subsidies that cover up for the basketball allocation fiasco. Here’s a public question that was asked on Tuesday night and the typical non-answer –
1. Will all the existing basketball courts be fully utilised by the Warriors each week from the opening date?
2. If some courts stand empty, will the Warriors be paying for any courts they do not use?
3. If unused courts are not paid for by the Warriors, what is the expected revenue loss to Council?
4. What is the anticipated duration of any ‘under booking’?
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “The Warriors will be utilising the indoor courts in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. All Councillors have previously received copies of the EOI which is confidential.”
March 22, 2012
What’s A Few Porkies Between Friends?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning[11] Comments
The Mahvo Street development was the second application to be tossed out at Tuesday night’s Council Meeting. A terrific result and we once again applaud the efforts of residents. But, as with the previous Morrice St decision, consistency has never been a hallmark of this council. We note that telling a few porkies to the assembled throng in order to back up spurious arguments also doesn’t hurt.
What needs to be strongly emphasised is:
- Mahvo Street is anything but INTACT – a word employed by several councillors. Of the 40 plus houses in the street proper, countless are recent developments and multiple single and double storey units are common. There are also old, run down weatherboards just waiting to be picked off by developers.
- Council’s own Online Planning Register reveals that from March 2000 there were 20 applications for this street. 9 were for 2 lot subdivisions. Of these 20 applications only 2 were refused and 1 withdrawn. Far from an ‘intact’ area!
- The claim that it is ‘predominantly single dwelling’ is thus also dubious. What WERE once single lots have now been subdivided and replaced by two and more dwellings Just under half of the street features these subdivisions and most are now double storey dwellings.
When councillors get up and propagate falsehoods in support of their arguments, then there is something drastically wrong with our council, our system, and the ability of these people to represent us! Either these councillors never visited the street and are relying on dubious reports, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Neither possibility is enough to excuse them.
We provide our ‘evidence’ below. These photos were all taken on the 22nd March, 2012. Two photos feature the view facing onto Centre Rd and are taken from Mahvo Street itself. There were many other residences which included long driveways with units nestled in the back which we didn’t bother to photograph and encroach on people’s private property.
As for the ‘debate’, here’s what happened.
Lobo moved the motion to refuse on the grounds not compatible with urban and neighbourhood character, mass, bulk, streetscape, neighbourhood character, set back, parking, design, ‘detrimental impact’ on surrounding areas/neighbours. Magee seconded.
LOBO: ‘predominantly single dwelling’ (street and family oriented). Stated that the planning conference ‘clearly showed the troubled state of mind of the residents’. Claimed that this proposed development is ‘nothing but insane’ and a ‘monstrosity’. Height will cause lack of privacy and enjoyment of lifestyle. Also will be ‘traffic chaos’ because of proximity to Centre Rd, train station and bus stops. Ambulances therefore wouldn’t have a clear run with all this congestion and people parking on the street and nature strips. Flow on effect to other streets and would set a precedent ‘for other builders’. Impact will be on streetscape and the ‘investment’ of people. Size of objectors must be ‘acknowledged’. Government’s attempt to have 5 million people settled in Melbourne shows ‘who cares a rats for the value of the property’. Stated that the government needs to get its act together and that ‘before long’ film producers will be making the equivalent of Slum Dog Millionaire in Melbourne.
MAGEE: ‘Mahvo street at the moment is INTACT’ unlike Lillimur St. There’s an ‘opportunity’ to save ‘not just this street but’ (most of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh). Said that because these are in an ‘urban street’ he would ‘treat them as a Minimal Change Area’ (because) ‘there’s no difference from this house to my house up in East Bentleigh’…..’deliberate overdevelopment of this site’…’beginning of the end for this street’ (if we let developer go through with this). Claimed that this was the perfect example of ‘inappropriate development’ and that at last election councillors had vowed to fight this..’Let’s save this street, let’s save Bentleigh, let’s save East Bentleigh…’
LIPSHUTZ: Admitted to chairing the planning conference and hearing objections. Stated that as councillors they have to ‘approach this from the point of view of planning law’ (disagreed with Lobo’s claim about loss of value of property). Reminisced about when he was growing up there were many red clinker brick properties in the street and on a recent visit to that street they were now gone, and ‘street is ruined’. So with a street like Mahvo, which is ‘INTACT’, ‘I think that’s an issue that has to be considered’. Thought that 3 stories was too high although thought that the street would ultimately have development….’this development is not sympathetic’ to neighbouhood. Spoke about traffic and lack of trees that were ‘on paper’ in the plans but weren’t there in reality. In the end it’s an ‘inappropriate development’.
FORGE: It’s a Major Activity Centre and there’s a ‘problem with grade separation’ because of the station, leading to terrible traffic jams. 3 storeys would set a precedent. Knows the area very well and until there’s grade separation then there’s going to be ‘constant gridlock’. Safety is another concern.’ we have to take care of the local community….overdevelopment’.
HYAMS: Mahvo St is in an ‘urban village’, on regular sized lot, ‘there’s nothing like it in the street at the moment’. Stated that even ‘in an Urban Village we should still be respecting’ neighbourhood character. He and people are ‘looking for sympathetic development’. When he visited there were cars coming down both ends of street and they didn’t have ‘anywhere to go’ because the street is ‘narrow’ and ‘parked out’. Denied the rumour that council wanted to change the planning for that street and that policy has been in since 2004 and ‘only after….extensive consultation’ of 4 years.
TANG: ‘wrong development for the block’. Disagreed with some points such as property values and said that 3 storeys would increase value of properties because of development potential. Tribunal would reject this argument. Reminded councillors that ‘our policy promotes change in this area’….’Mavho st residents will have to accept more applications’…‘we can’t say ….that it’s not (entirely our) fault’ (since we’ve set the areas where there will be development). ‘There will be change’….(and that some will) ‘go into residential streets like Mahvo’.
LOBO: thanked Tang and Lipshutz. Said he understood the policy from 2004 but that some residents weren’t living here in 2004. Admitted that he himself ‘didn’t know what was happening in 2004’. This development will create traffic problems and should be considered.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT: When countless other applications have NOT BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT and mere cosmetic conditions put on (ie 8 storeys instead of 10; 8 units instead of 12, etc) and the consistent argument for such decisions is that VCAT will permit what the developer wants, if not more, then all we can conclude is that elections are indeed around the corner! If these councillors are going to reject applications outright, then at least be consistent in both words and actions for all unreasonable applications!
March 21, 2012
Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning[6] Comments
It’s quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!
Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!
Morrice St Child Care Centre
LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.
Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)
LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)
PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)
HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’
MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.
FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)
TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)
HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.
TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’
PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.
LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)
MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING
March 20, 2012
Governance: How Low Can You Go?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance[12] Comments
The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.
Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.
HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.
Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.
No councillor commented on this response!
Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.
HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’
Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.
We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 