August 18, 2011

‘The Age’ Story

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[13] Comments

Mayor’s husband lobbied on heritage listing

Jason Dowling

August 18, 2011

Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street Caulfield South.

Art-deco maisonette at 2B Seaview Street Caulfield South. Photo: Gary Medlicott

A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s south-east is pushing to reject heritage protection for three homes – one owned by the mayor – despite four independent heritage experts and the council’s own heritage adviser recommending the houses be protected.

A planning mistake recently identified by Glen Eira City Council showed that while all three maisonette dwellings in the one building on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street, South Caulfield, were included on a heritage planning map, only the address of one home was recorded for heritage protection.

When the heritage anomaly was discovered, council staff last year recommended extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors rejected the advice and voted to begin a process to remove existing heritage protection from the entire site.

In a subsequent report to councillors in June, council staff advised emphatically that the building should be protected. ”Both past and present council heritage advisers have reviewed the site and concluded that it is worthy of heritage protection,” the report said. ”Council officers also sought the further views of four independent heritage consultants … all concluded that the property is worthy of heritage protection.” The state planning department also advised the council it was concerned about ”the lack of the strategic justification” in removing heritage protection. But the councillors disregarded the officers’ advice and voted unanimously to send the heritage removal proposal to an independent panel, which is now considering the issue.

One heritage expert consulted by the council, John Briggs, said he would be amazed if the panel did not recommend heritage protection for the three dwellings.

One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband, Jack.

Cr Esakoff, who did not return calls yesterday, has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from council meetings discussing the issue.

Jack Esakoff told The Age they bought the home before the council identified it for heritage protection. Protecting it retrospectively would penalise them, he said.

Mr Esakoff said he had lobbied Glen Eira councillors on the issue and taken them to inspect the building.

But he said he had not discussed the matter with his wife.

”It is something that we haven’t even discussed at home,” he said.

Deputy mayor Jamie Hyams said the councillors also had not discussed the issue with Cr Esakoff.

”She [the mayor] has also made the point of not talking to any of us about it,” he said.

He said the fact that one dwelling was owned by the mayor had not influenced councillors and it was not unusual for councillors to reject recommendations from council officers.

The Bracks government sacked Glen Eira Council, including Cr Esakoff, in 2005 after a report found the council was ”very badly governed”.

August 17, 2011

Let’s Talk Standards!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning
[12] Comments

Let’s talk standards and how these are mangled one by one if circumstances so dictate! Today there was the Panel hearing for the c83 amendment. To refresh readers minds it involved the 466 Hawthorn Rd property – the one where councillors voted against 6 Heritage Advisors recommendations to retain heritage listing on the 3 unit, Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property. The arguments put up were: heritage listing ‘restricts’ development; it’s a Housing Diversity Area near public transport; the property is not maintained, etc. etc.

What is remarkable about this case (apart from the fact that the Esakoffs are involved) is that Heritage listing was applied in 2003. Yet the proposals for Housing Diversity Areas were cooked up years previously and based on a report dating back to 1999. Thus, in 2003 numerous properties were designated as ‘heritage listed’ and worthy of protection, regardless of their location. We now have the absurd arguments that because a Heritage Listed property is in a Housing Diversity Area it no longer deserves protection and will ‘restrict’ medium to high density development. Council cannot have it both ways! Either properties are worthy of protection wherever they are, or there is no property that should have protection if they are in an area designated as Housing Diversity.

To top it off, we’ve learnt that council’s Heritage Advisor refused to be a witness at today’s Panel Hearing – declaring a potential conflict of interest. It seems that the Chair of the Panel was none too pleased at this point since attendance was mandatory!

And we mustn’t forget the most cogent fact that it is ratepayers who will be bearing the costs for this Panel hearing. It is ratepayers who forked out for an extra 4 Heritage advisors recommendations – whose ‘reports’ by the way were NOT INCLUDED in the documentation presented to council and which councillors never clapped eyes on! Perhaps if they had, then the above expenses might never have occurred? So, whose fault is all this? Councillors who don’t demand full information in order to make informed decisions? Or an administration that drip feeds councillors only the information it wants them to have? And the most important question: how can councillors vote to go to a Panel in the face of 6 recommendations and the Department’s reluctance to endorse the amendment straight off? And are ratepayers really expected to believe that any ordinary citizen would be accorded the same
treatment and course of action that has been bestowed on 466 Hawthorn Rd?

August 16, 2011

GESAC: The Basketball Mess

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

Page 7 of today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader features a half page colour ad which boldly states:

“BASKETBALL AT GESAC!

Starts this October

Enter your team now and play at Melbourne newest sports centre this summer.

Come and play Basketball with Melbourne’s most exciting Basketball Club, the GLEN EIRA WARRIORS!

Competition features:

U9, U11, U13, AND U17 Boys and Girls Competition for both Saturday & Sundays

U23, A Grade & B Grade Men’s and Women’s Competitions.

Competitions commence Saturday 15^th October

All Players & Teams Welcome

Should the GESAC centre be unavailable due to building delays, etc. alternative facilities will be made until GESAC official opening date

For more information and to register your interest (team or individual) go to www.warriorsbasketball.org”

COMMENTS:

The Glen Eira council logo is present at the bottom of this advertisement. Did Council pay for any of this ad?

A public question at last Council meeting asked how much more funding would be put into advertising GESAC. The response was that this had not yet been determined. But, less than one week later there is another full page colour ad for GESAC! This tells us two things: either planning is a little askew and decisions are made on the run, or the answer to the public question was far from completely forthcoming!

Also worthy of note is that the public announcement for the Special Racecourse Precinct Committee Meeting, appears as a tiny advertisement on page 22. The ‘rubber stamping'(?) date is August 29th!

August 15, 2011

A Developer’s Delight!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments

Squeeze planned on car parking spaces

John Masanauskas
From: Herald Sun
August 15, 2011 12:00AM

FINDING a parking place could get much worse under State Government plans to slash the number of car spaces required for new apartment blocks, shopping centres and offices.

The legal number of spaces per dwelling could be cut from two to zero in dozens of activity zones to accommodate Melbourne’s booming population.

And the carpark requirement is set to be halved in many residential, entertainment and business centres outside those zones.

The proposals are part of a Planning Department review that aims to reduce reliance on cars and encourage other ways of getting around, such as public transport and bicycles.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said if implemented, the changes would lead to parking chaos. “Local residents will be hemmed in in their own streets, which will overflow with cars from high-rise apartments and shops built with few if any parking spots,” he said.

Protector of Public Lands Victoria secretary Julianne Bell said fewer parking spaces would not necessarily encourage public transport use.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the review was finalised by the previous Labor government. “It beggars belief Labor would now seek to blame their own handiwork on the current Government,” he said.

August 15, 2011

From Bayside Weekly

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments

Site proof of residents’ angst

GLEN Eira’s own Wikileaks-style website has generated more than 100,000 hits in its first year, many from residents slamming the council’s planning decisions and governance.

But acting mayor Jamie Hyams said it was hard to take a website seriously when contributors did not put their names to it.

Two full-time moderators and two occasional helpers have managed the gleneira.wordpress. com site anonymously since it was founded in June 2010. Some contributors use their real names, others use a pseudonym.

The site publishes council meeting outcomes, petitions, reports and letters to and from councillors which residents analyse and discuss. Recent issues on the site include Glen Eira Swimming and Aquatic Centre’s construction and the Caulfield Racecourse development.

A moderator said several councillors had posted comments on the site and mentioned Glen Eira debates in council meetings, which showed the site was making councillors aware of the community’s discontent. ‘‘We don’t want to merely be hitting a nerve, we want dramatic change in the way this council has operated for over a decade now.’’

– Rebecca Thistleton

August 13, 2011

Public Questions

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s)
[7] Comments

From the minutes of August 9^th, 2011

Question 1. – Planning

“Could you please answer the following questions:

1. What is council’s policy and or current practice regarding notification to objectors as to the date of planning conferences?

2. On what criteria does determine the time span between the closing date of objections and the setting of the planning conference

3. Will council make the guidelines available to the community?

4. Why has the 15 August been selected which is only a week after objections close

5. Why is council website so behind – showing May 2011

6. Could council possibly postpone planning conference of 15 August?”

The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“1. The administration of planning conferences policy states that:- “The Planning Office will send invitation letters to all parties five days prior to the scheduled meeting.” In this case the planning conference invitation letters were sent to all parties on 1 August 2011.

2. There are no particular criteria beyond Council’s statutory responsibility to decide town planning applications within 60 statutory days.

3. Yes if requested.

4. Objections do not “close” until the time the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee decides the application.

5. More information is needed to answer this question. Where on the website does it refer to “May 2011”.

6. No reason is seen to delay the planning conference. A planning conference is a non-statutory step Glen Eira City Council chooses to take in the town planning decision making process.”

Question 2 – Planning & Costs

“Would Council please advise the specific terms of reference provided to the DPCD for the Planning Panel Hearing on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C83 (removal of Heritage Overlay HO114 on the properties at 466 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South and 2A and 2B Seaview Street, Caulfield South).”

The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The role of the Panel is to give submitters an opportunity to be heard by an independent forum in an informal, non-judicial manner. A Panel is not a court of law. Panels also give independent advice to the Planning Authority and the Minister about the
proposed amendment. Council does not provide the Panel with any terms of reference.”

Question 3 – Costs

3. What is the total cost to date for each of the following:

1. Engagement of an independent note taker

2. Engagement of a governance advisor to provide instruction as per the recommendations of the Municipal Inspector?

4. The total legal costs pertaining to the reappointment of the CEO in 2008?

5. The additional advice sought from 4 independent heritage advisors on the 466 Hawthorn Rd property?

6. What is the anticipated or actual cost for the external legal advice involved in the GESAC allocations to either the McKinnon Basketball Association, or the Oakleigh Warriors?

7. Will any of the above items be expected to accrue more costs? If so, which ones, and what is the range of this expectation?”

Part 3 of your question was deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iv) as it refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach the confidentiality provisions of the Local Governmant Act 1989

$5,148.00 2. $6,532.00 4. $29,502.83 5.$790.00 6. Current cost is $3,825.00

1 and 2 may accrue more costs and 6 will.

August 12, 2011

Newsflash: MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

We’ve just learnt that the scheduled Planning Conference for next Monday evening HAS BEEN CANCELLED!

This is an extraordinary turn of events for several reasons:

In the first place, Council initially decided that a one week time lag between the closing date for objections and the holding of the planning conference was sufficient ‘notice’. Given that objections might arrive at council late Friday afternoon, and that notification would then possibly not go out until the following Monday or Tuesday, this would mean that people would only receive notice of the meeting around Wednesday or Thursday – that is, 4 days notice only!
Now at the last minute, the meeting is cancelled. One can only speculate as to the reasons why and what is going on behind the scenes
The history of this application is definitely tainted – first the MRC withdraws just before the April 4th meeting; next there is the sudden ‘revitalisation’ of the application, and now, it’s pulled again.

Surely residents have every right to ask what is going on and who is responsible for all of the above?

August 12, 2011

MRC Application

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

A reminder that next Monday (15th August) the Planning Conference for the Centre of the Racecourse application is scheduled. Details are:

Time: 6.30pm

Location: Town Hall, Auditorium

August 11, 2011

Caulfield South: Sky’s The Limit

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off

For a vision of what’s potentially around the corner, residents might be interested in the following report:

Caulfield South Housing Diversity 1-1

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman Street, not far from here. I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities. I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people. And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira. In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

The article refers to a “legal stoush”, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Andrew Newton.

I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace. It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members. Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre. Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch. I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute. It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

Glen Eira Debates