March 20, 2012

A Mountain Of ‘Clerical Errors’?

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

We’ve received some emails from a reader in relation to the recent Planning Audit Report for 2010/11 published by the Department and which we highlighted several posts ago. The emails reveal that all the figures and graphs have been compiled on the basis of the data submitted to the Department – ie Councils have provided the stats. We are left to ponder once again whether the Glen Eira figures represent another ‘clerical error’?!!  Our focus is the stated increase in the car parking waivers. The bar graph shows that for this category in 2009/10 Glen Eira had 8 applications and in 2010/11 the claim is that they had 25 applications.

We cannot agree with these figures. The Department’s definition of this category is: “An application which requires consent for a waiver or reduction in car parking requirements” (page 201 from the full report). They have also written:

Put simply, any application for a planning permit received by Council (be it for a new permit, or an amendment to an existing permit) that includes a waiver/reduction of car parking should be marked as such. Be aware that whether the permit is issued/refused or winds up at VCAT should have no bearing on this number, as it is when the application is first received at Council that we count it.

Glen Eira claims that they have received approximately 1200 applications. Of these, only 25 included the request for a reduction/waiver in car parking schedules for the financial year of 2010/11.

We’ve therefore gone to the trouble of double checking all the VCAT reports contained in council minutes for the period under consideration. We’ve looked at all the scheduled hearings and their descriptions of the actual applications. Readers should note that the VCAT appeals represent applications that have already been decided – not simply applications that have been ‘received’. Even on these reduced figures we find that nothing tallies. VCAT appeals that contain car parking waivers tally over 30 and not the 25 that presumably council provided to the department. We emphasise that we have no way of knowing how many other applications that did not go to appeal and were simply decided via delegation also included the request for car parking waivers. It could tally hundreds and not merely 25 as claimed.

Listed below are the addresses that we’ve found of the VCAT appeals for 2010/11 that contain such waiver components. Even if not all of these were decided in the 2010/11 period, it would still not cover the countless decisions made under delegation, or by the full Council.

  • 1032 Dandenong Road, Carnegie
  • 439 and Lot S4 441-495 Inkerman Road St Kilda East
  • 82 Hotham Street, St Kilda East
  • 326-328 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North
  • 619 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield
  • 9 Morton Ave, Carnegie
  • 763 Centre Road, Bentleigh East
  • 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 356-364 Orrong Road Caulfield North
  • SUITE 1-2G, 261 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 1 & 1A Albany Court, Caulfield North
  • 142 McKinnon Road, McKinnon
  • 285-305 Centre Road, Bentleigh.
  • 233-247 Glen Huntly Road & 12-14 Ripon Grove, Elsternwick.
  • 15 Dudley Street, Caulfield East
  • 111-113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena.
  • 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.
  • 107-109 Gardenvale Road, Gardenvale.
  • 888-890 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South
  • 389-395 Neerim Road & 10 Emily Street, Carnegie.
  • 2-4 Station Street, Caulfield North.
  • 47 Kooyong Road, Caulfield.
  • 5 Dudley St & 1 Gibson St, Carnegie.
  • 183-189 Booran Road, Caulfield South (waiver of loading bay)
  • 715-727 Warrigal Road, Bentleigh East
  • 31-32 Leamington Street, Caulfield East.
  • 354 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick
  • 443-457 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield East.
  • 251 Koornang Road, Carnegie
  • 633 Centre Road, Bentleigh
  • 4 Maple Street Caulfield

GRAND TOTAL – 32

This of course leaves open to question how many other ‘clerical errors’ might be contained in the data that council sent off to the Department?

 

March 18, 2012

VCAT: Penhalluriack Vs Glen Eira

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

The lunacy continued at VCAT last week with a Council entourage of 7 individuals showing up to defend the Penhalluriack application for FOI release of documents pertaining to the mulch facility. Apart from the council barrister presenting council’s case, plus his instructing barrister or solicitor,  present were also Mr. Hayes (barrister) from Maddocks, Mr Peter Jones, Mr Mark Saunders,(as witnesses); Ms Rachel Kenyon and another council officer. In all, 7 very highly paid people, sitting around all day. How much this has cost ratepayers is anyone’s guess. Penhalluriack had his barrister presenting his case and the instructing barrister.

Council’s arguments focused on two facets of the Information Privacy Act – the 6 requested documents were ‘exempt’ since they constituted ‘working documents’, were ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ and that the public interest would not be served via their release. They were also labelled ‘personal affairs’ and if released would create public ‘speculation’. The following words arguing against the FOI application featured frequently in Council’s arguments – ‘misinformation’, ‘confusion’, ‘mischief’ etc. In other words, if the documents were to be released then the poor old public would be confused and ‘harmed’! Council’s barrister also highlighted that fact that it was only Penhalluriack who wasn’t ‘satisfied’ with the consultant’s ‘advice’. Case law supporting these contentions were  cited.

When discussion focused on the actual documents the room was cleared – since these were ‘confidential’ documents. However, the gallery did get the opportunity to witness the early part of Peter Jones in the witness stand. Asked by council’s barrister if he would like to change anything in his written statement, Jones asked for one sentence in a paragraph to be deleted. The barrister then had to remind him about several other paragraphs that contained identical sentences! Mr Jones also appeared very confused as to the YEAR of audit committee meetings, first stating 2010 and then (with prompting) from the barrister, changing this to 2011. Coaching of the witness was clearly evident, but it did not prevent Mr Jones from blushing bright red at his errors and apologising! When cross examination was about to begin, the gallery was cleared and during this time (over one hour) Mr Saunders was also cross examined.

Upon returning to the ‘chamber’ Penhalluriack was called to testify. Neither his, nor Council’s lawyer asked any questions!

Throughout this morning session it was made clear that the scientific consultant’s report had contained many more recommendations that did not make it into the public version of the report. The requested documents, we presume, pertain to these sections.

Following the lunch break, Penhalluriack’s lawyer presented the arguments for document release stating that this was a special case and earlier precedents of ‘working documents’ did not apply since (a) health and therefore the public interest was at stake and (b) since council had asked for ‘independent’ advice one should expect that consultants are in fact ‘independent’ and not regarded as council officers.

The decision will probably be handed down in a few weeks. A most expensive way to haggle over six pieces of paper!

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE MUNICIPAL INSPECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT CR PENHALLURIACK HAS NO ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF THE GLEN HUNTLY MULCH FACILITY. The 64 dollar question is: Will the Leader publish this latest news?!!!!!

 

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

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

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

 

March 17, 2012

WordPress Problem

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
Comments Off on WordPress Problem 

We’ve received quite a few emails from readers and commentators telling us that they can’t put up comments unless they log in with their real or fictitious email addresses. This is a WordPress glitch – not GE Debates. Hopefully it will be resolved quickly judging by the mountain of complaints up on their website.

In the interim, for those who have been trying to comment, we’ve set up a ‘generic’ email – rabbit@gmail.com

Simply put this in the email box if you’re not a WordPress subscriber, use your alias if you like, or leave blank, and press ‘send’. The comment will then get through to us [we hope:-)]

PS: As of 11.45 pm it looks like WordPress has fixed the problem. Readers may comment again anonymously without logging in via emails.

 

March 17, 2012

There’s Glen Eira & Then There Are Others

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 
Audit Committee – Expressions of interest  
Kingston City Council is seeking an independent, suitably qualified member of its Audit Committee for a 3 year term. The Audit Committee meets on a quarterly basis and is an independent advisory committee to Council operating in accordance with an adopted Audit Committee Charter.
Council welcomes expressions of interest from individuals with finance and accounting skills, legal compliance and risk management backgrounds. Additionally, applicants must be able to demonstrate a well developed ability to apply appropriate analytical and strategic management skills.
Further details on the requirements and a copy of the Audit Committee Charter can be downloaded here. Written expressions of interest close at 5pm on Friday, 13 April 2012 and should be forwarded to Sharon Banks, Kingston City Council, PO Box 1000, Mentone 3194 or emailed to sharon.banks@kingston.vic.gov.au.
Links
Download Files Information Package – Member Audit Committee 2012
 

March 16, 2012

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[5] Comments 

If any further evidence was required as to the machinations of this administration then readers need to look no further than the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. We will highlight just a few examples.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The incamera section of the agenda contains this item: “12.3 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee membership”. We assume that this refers to the reappointment (again, and again, and again) of either Mr Gibbs, or Mr McLean. We highlight the secrecy once more and the questionable probity of the potential presence of these men for a consistent and extended period of time on the most important committee in a council.

We also note the recommendations in the Officer’s Report (no name attached to this report – Again!) to reappoint Cr. Lipshutz and Magee to this advisory committee. We have previously stated our concerns about the unbroken presence of Cr. Lipshutz on this committee. If Council is really concerned about potential perceptions of good governance, and adhering to national and state standards, then there must be regular rotation of committee members. We have also stated that we believe the best candidates for this most important position are Crs Lobo and Penhalluriack.  Given their business and banking acumen and their long years of experience in worrying about bottom line figures and fiduciary responsibilities, they are both in our view, ideal councillor representatives on such a committee.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There are at least 2 highly contentious planning applications before council – the Morrice St, 2 storey 120 place child care centre, and the 3 story Mahvo St., development with 10 apartments. We have again noted how this planning department fails to adequately inform residents; how the number of notifications sent out appear to be directly correlated to the number of anticipated objections. For example: the erection of lighting in Caulfield Park, literally hundreds of metres away from the nearest house, occasioned over 500 notices. C60 which will have a direct and devastating impact on humdreds of homes, also had about 500-600 notices. Now we have these two applications, both of which were recommended for planning permit approval –

Morrice St – 20 properties notified; 23 notices; 76 objections & 1 letter of support.

Mahvo St. – 10 properties notified; 11 notices; 47 objections

In contrast we find the Lillimir application (which is already inundated with 3 storey developments and major multi units) received  86 notices sent and garnered 10 objections. This is not to decry the importance of this area. We are simply tired of the continual failure of the planning department to inform residents and to ensure that notices in all areas are distributed equitably and fairly. If people don’t know what’s going on, then how can they object? Could this in fact be the hidden agenda?

We are also taken aback at the sheer nonsense and gobbledygood that features in these officers reports. The reports lack substance, detail, statistics, and most importantly, they repeatedly fail to adequately address residents’ concerns. Here are just a few examples of this nonsense. We urge readers to note the vacuous/evasive language often used –

“Whilst there would be an appreciable increase in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon periods, these additional vehicle movements would not have an unreasonable effect on the current level of amenity of Morrice Street which would remain quiet throughout most of the day and at weekends.”

“Applying the State Government tests set out in Rescode, there will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties. There will be some overshadowing impacts to the habitable windows at 34 Mavho Street….The recommended increased setbacks at the first and second storeys will also assist in improving the degree of overshadowing.”

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

There are countless tit-bits of information in these ‘records’ that lead on to countless questions of planning, especially for GESAC. Here are a few –

7th February 2012 – GESAC indoor courts – update. Mayor to contact Bentleigh Secondary College

14th February – GESAC an update on the situation in relation to the allocation of time for basketball.

We’re also told that meeting resumed only in the presence of councillors. If so, then where is the ‘independent minute taker’? Was he/she present? If so, then why not listed? If not, then why not given the last Municipal Inspector’s recommendation and councillors promise to accept these recommendations?

Cr Hyams – informed the meeting that he had received a telephone call from the Municipal Inspectorate in relation to complaints and investigations.

Make of the above what you will!!!!!

 

March 16, 2012

Age Editorial

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
Comments Off on Age Editorial 

Good planning  must balance rights

March 16, 2012

STRIKING a balance between efficiency and fairness in urban planning is a  vexing challenge for state governments of whatever political persuasion. It is  precisely this tension – the need for a streamlined system of planning approvals  as against the rights of residents to shape their communities – that informs the  debate over a dramatic overhaul to Victoria’s planning system scheduled to be  introduced in State Parliament by July.

In one of the biggest reforms of the state’s planning laws in a decade,  councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area,  including height and density. Building applications that comply with the  guidelines would then be fast-tracked through the planning system. Crucially,  once the system is in place residents will no longer be notified of new  development proposals and will not be able to object.

The government envisages this ”code assess” system applying to more than  one in five development applications and will require them to be processed  within 10 working days. While councils will initially use the system to develop  guidelines for low-level applications – extensions and dual occupancy  developments, for instance – the changes are also intended to govern more  significant proposals, including high-rise towers in key suburbs targeted for  urban growth, such as Box Hill, Frankston, Ringwood and Dandenong.

The case for a planning shake-up is a compelling one. Developers, councils  and indeed the wider community pay a heavy price for the excessive red tape,  uncertainty and litigiousness that characterise the current system. The problems  consume council resources, and pose a threat to both the short-term imperative  of economic growth and the longer-term goal of urban consolidation. But given  the emphatic changes to residents’ rights, and we’re potentially talking about  residents watching helplessly as a high-rise suddenly goes up next door, the  onus is on the Planning Minister to ensure the laws do not strike at local  democracy. Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, is  correct in warning, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with  the community” before basic rights be removed.

The legislation must enshrine the principle of genuine community consultation  in the development of guidelines. And developers too must be denied  wriggle-room, losing all right of appeal if planning applications fall foul of  the guidelines. Certainty in planning must cut both ways.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/good-planning-must-balance-rights-20120315-1v86s.html#ixzz1pEPjMqUZ

 

March 15, 2012

GERA Forum

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Tonight’s GERA Overdevelopment Forum was a major success with well over 80 people cramming into the Bentleigh Club and, we’re told, many new memberships to GERA resulting.

Unfortunately Cr. Thomann was a no show, but Cr. West from Kingston was most informative and engaging. Residents received the clear message on how different Kingston Council was in its planning processes compared to Glen Eira. For example: the manner in which planning conferences are held, restricting planning officers’ delegatory powers, Kingston’s hiring of ‘experts’ to support resident objectors, and in the mere fact that Kingston has all those things which Glen Eira doesn’t – structure plans, height limits, developer contributions etc. Cr. West also emphasised the importance of lobbying individual councillors, especially with elections around the corner, and standing candidates who are truly representative of community wishes.

Speaking with people afterwards, their comments revealed how much they had learnt about good planning processes and how much needs to change in Glen Eira.

It was also obvious that upon listening to the audience’s questions and comments Cr. West was astounded at some of the stories and how planning matters are handled in our fair city.

We congratulate GERA for their efforts in this inaugural event and look forward to many more forums that focus on residents and their concerns.

 

March 15, 2012

Another Windsor Hotel Exercise?

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

Planning reform blocks appeals

Jason Dowling
March 15, 2012

A DRAMATIC overhaul to the state’s planning system will soon mean residents will not be notified of thousands of new development proposals or be able to object to them.

The government says the new planning system to be introduced in State Parliament by July will cut red tape, reduce waiting times and free up council resources for complex planning issues.

Under the changes – one of the biggest overhauls of the state’s planning laws in a decade – councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density, and then applications matching the definition will be fast-tracked through the planning system.
0pposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new system would reduce community consultation in planning decisions.

”Communities will be locked out and watch helplessly as historical buildings and tree-lined streets are attacked by [Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s] wrecking ball and replaced by high-rise skyscrapers,” he said.

The new planning system is expected to apply to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days with no notification or appeal rights for neighbours.

The system, called ”code assess”, will initially be used by local councils for processing low-level planning issues such as extensions and dual occupancy developments.

But the system is also intended for key development areas across Melbourne – Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston, and Ringwood – to process development applications that could include apartment towers of more than 20 storeys.

Mr Guy said the new system would add ”certainty and clarity” to planning.

He said guidelines for development set by councils and communities would be mandatory and developers would only be able to appeal a council’s decision if it was inconsistent with the area’s new planning code.

”It will determine what can be built and where,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said the planning system needed improvement but warned, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community before removing public notice and third party appeal rights”.

”Until this happens, councils will remain concerned about including some single dwellings, extensions and multi-units in a fast-track process,” he said.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said councils and the community should set the rules for development in their areas and developers should not be able to appeal the decisions under the new accelerated planning process. ”If it’s out – it’s out,” she said.

Victoria’s building and development industry has long advocated for an accelerated planning application system. The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said changes to planning laws would help economic growth.

Gil King, of the Housing Industry Association, said developments that met existing planning guidelines were chewing up council time and resources in a drawn-out approval process.

”This will actually make it clearer, if it meets the requirements it will be approved much more quickly, it will streamline the whole process.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planning-reform-blocks-appeals-20120314-1v3li.html#ixzz1p87UvdML

 

March 15, 2012

GERA On Overdevelopment

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

A reminder about tonight’s GERA Community Forum.

TIME: 7.30 (nibbles at 7)

VENUE: The Bentleigh Club, Yawla St., Bentleigh.

For full information see: http://geresidents.wordpress.com

PS: From today’s Age. Does C60 and 1400 units also qualify?

Health fear on  estates

Miki Perkins
March 15, 2012

NEW suburbs in Melbourne are so poorly designed that residents face an  epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity and depression that will cost the  health system millions of dollars, a state government inquiry has been told.

Councils in  outer growth areas say soaring populations have outstripped  their ability to provide basic infrastructure such as public transport, parks  and medical services, and are creating ”obesogenic” environments that promote  weight gain.

The concerns have prompted a state government inquiry into the impacts of  urban design on health, and fuelled calls to make health a priority in planning  laws.  ”When it comes to urban planning, we are building suburbs that in 20  years will be ghettos of ill health,” said Margaret Beavis, a Melbourne doctor  who appeared before the inquiry.

Wyndham, in Melbourne’s outer west, is the fastest growing municipality in  Australia in percentage terms. Each week about 60 babies are born and the  council receives 120 new requests for a bin service.

Mayor Kim McAliney said research showed residents were  suffering from an  ”epidemic” of obesity and diabetes exacerbated by decades of car-focused  planning, which meant locals had limited or no public transport within walking  distance.

”We are beholden to the annual budget cycles of central governments to get  buses, trains and arterial roads,” said Ms McAliney. ”Being the fastest  growing area is not something we wear as a badge of honour.”

Other councils in areas of rapid growth – such as Whittlesea, which  expects  a 90 per cent increase in population in the next two decades – face similar  concerns.

A VicHealth submission said children living in  growth areas reported higher  hospital admissions for respiratory problems, which were likely to be from air  pollution from road traffic.

VicHealth also wants planning regulations to take account of the risks  associated with bottle shops, which are concentrated in poorer communities.

For every 10,000 litres of pure alcohol sold from a liquor shop, the risk of  violence on residential properties nearby increased by 26 per cent.

”We are designing communities that are making people sick and politicians  have to listen to that,” said opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee.

Melbourne University planning expert Carolyn Whitzman said Melbourne needed  to stick to its urban growth boundary and encourage mid-rise development  throughout, rather than ”sprawl”  on the fringes and high-rise in and around  the centre.

In 2010, the Brumby government extended Melbourne’s urban growth boundary by 43,600 hectares – increasing what was already one of the world’s most sprawling  urban areas,  stretching 100 kilometres from east to west.

Many experts told the panel that health needed to be made a key objective in  the state’s planning laws.   The Age contacted Planning Minister  Matthew Guy but did not receive a comment before deadline.

The committee is expected to release its report by June.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/health-fear-on-estates-20120314-1v3lw.html#ixzz1p7r0VxVr

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »