From the VEAC website:
Final Report
A final report was submitted to the Minister on 1 August 2011.
The report will be available to the public from 8 August 2011.
August 1, 2011
July 31, 2011
MSAC & GESAC: What A Difference!
Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
From the minutes of Port Phillip’s last council meeting on the Community Representative sitting on the Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee. Note the contrast with GESAC’s Pool Committee!
CITY OF PORT PHILLIP
2011
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MELBOURNE SPORTS AND AQUATIC CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- Purpose
The purpose of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee is to assist Council to get the best result by ensuring that the views of relevant community members, government agencies and others are expressed and taken into account in the ongoing operation of the Centre. The Committee will:
Provide advice to Council on matters associated with Council’s interest and involvement in the development of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre at Albert Park Reserve, and, in particular, the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.
Represent the interest of Council and the community and, in particular, in respect to those matters associated with the Community Aquatic Centre’s design, management and pricing structures.
Pursue a pro-active role in gathering information relating to the operation of aquatic facilities elsewhere, with the view to presenting issues and information to the Aquatic Centre which might be of benefit in improving the design, management and/or operation of the Community Aquatic Facility component of the overall complex.
Pursue on behalf of Council and the community the following objectives in relation to the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.
………..
The council will appoint members of the Committee. The membership of the Committee will be:
City of Port Phillip (Councillors) x2
City of Port Phillip (staff)
Joint Councils Access for All Abilities
Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (MSAC)
Swim School
Regular community MSAC aquatic centre user X2
Inner South Community Health Service
(Allied health professional qualified in hydrotherapy)
Regular MSAC Hydrotherapy user
The Chairperson will be one of the Councillors.
Community members of the Aquatic Advisory Committee will be appointed by Council for a period of up to 2 years. Every 2 years positions will be advertised through the local paper, on notices at MSAC information boards, on the MSAC website and in the Divercity publication.
July 29, 2011
Planning: Still Singing From the Same (Pro-Development) Song Sheet!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning[7] Comments
At the last council meeting, one item in particular highlighted the schemozzle that is the current Planning Scheme. It focused on transition zones between Diversity Areas and Minimal Change Areas. The application was on Dandenong Rd – Item 9.2 in the agenda.
This is not the first time that the issue of high rise/multiple storeys adjacent to minimal change areas has cropped up. Several meetings previously Penhalluriack noted the failure to address the issue of transition zones. Here’s what Magee said last week on this application:
MAGEE: (on the surface looks okay but had) the opportunity to stand in the back yard of one of the houses (affected) ….what I was faced with was looking up….(and seeing in time) 3 storeys of concrete looking down over a back garden…Problem I have is in diversity areas it’s all well and true and fitting…..but over the back fence is minimal change….so really what we’re imposing on minimal change is a housing diversity area…..I don’t know where you draw the line….do we respect the minimal change or do we respect the housing diversity area? I don’t think we can do both….I couldn’t live to doing that to someone (neighbours)…..(he chose minimal change to live in so that there wouldn’t be tall building next to him)…and I think a lot of these people have done exactly the same and I think it’s unfair of us to do that….
Even more damning is the fact that in August 2007 Spaulding and Esakoff requested a report on:
“That a report be prepared outlining what planning mechanisms/ tools are available to provide greater certainty for development outcomes in the buffer area between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.”
We note:
- 4 years on, nothing has changed except that the problem has worsened
- Logic is again a severe casualty in the report – ie. no need for prescriptive criteria since VCAT doesn’t have to adhere to them!!!
- The report itself is full of self congratulations so that the recommendation is that nothing be done since Glen Eira is handling the problem marvellously well. We’ve uploaded the ‘report’ and invite comments from readers.
(diagrams and footnotes have been left out) - How much longer will councillors allow this situation to continue before they demand that the Planning Scheme is amended and that proper buffer zones are included around Activity centres and Housing diversity areas that front Minimal Change Areas?
- The ‘report’ resorts to dissembling quite often, especially in its claims that the majority of residents were supportive of the amendments. The real question is: how well did residents understand the implications of the amendment? How much information was provided?
How many more times must residents be assailed with hand wringing and ‘woe is us’ from councillors before they decide that a major part of the problem begins and ends with the Planning Scheme? When will they actually do their jobs and start setting policy?
July 28, 2011
An email from a resident regarding the MRC centre of the racecourse application and the closing dates for objections –
Dear Friends of the Racecourse Reserve,
All Victorian residents should note this seems a reasonable proposal to spend over a million dollars on the centre but when one tries to read the fine print of the displayed plans it is quite obviously yet another attempt to alienate another area from the people of Victoria from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for the folllowing reasons:-
1 The area promised as a park for our access is about 10% of total reserve!
2 There is no indication we will be able to play ball there.
3. The stated intention calls for approval to build a 25 car parking lot for us, however, it does not make it very clear that a plan for a “concretised path 2-3 metres wide” (sufficiently wide for cars) which in turn will provide parking for 1,200 cars.
4. Perhaps more objectionable will be the erection of black chain wire fences about 2.1 metres high, which will make park users feel as if they are in the former Villawood Detention Centre or a resident of a war time camp, but incidentally will assist the MRC in its horse training and commercial activities. Also the MRC will further obscure the ability of the public to see through the fence by using other screening material to be recommended by the trainers.
PLEASE FORWARD YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THIS WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK. WE MUST MAKE OUR POINT FIRMLY ON THIS ISSUE!!!!!!
July 27, 2011
July 26, 2011
Council and community heard on Boronia planning
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Knox City Council will be able to consider whatever height limits it chooses in the Boronia activities centre, after constructive discussions with Planning Minister Matthew Guy.
The Council sought authorisation from the Minister to implement discretionary height controls of 7.5 metres in residential areas of the Boronia activities centre, as part of the Boronia Structure Plan by the Council.
The previous Labor Government bullied the Council and refused this request, stating it would not accept any height limit under 9 metres.
Mr Guy said he had heard the Council and the community’s concerns on the height issue, and wants the Knox City Council to be able to consider 7.5 metre discretionary height limits.
“I have listened to the community and recognise there needs to be some guidance on what is considered reasonable residential development in residential areas that adjoin activity centres. Planning should never be a ‘one size fits all’ approach,” Mr Guy said.
“It is important we support appropriate development in key defined areas while still providing protection for neighbouring residential amenity.
“I have written to Knox City Council advising I want the Council to provide me with its recommendation, not one dictated to it by the previous Labor Planning Minister. If the Council feels 7.5 metre discretionary height limits in this area can be justified, they can make that determination.”
Member for Ferntree Gully Nick Wakeling and Member for Bayswater Heidi Victoria said they supported Mr Guy’s decision to give the Council its say on height limits, and that community concerns could be heard through the council process.
COMMENTS: We’ve said it before and will say it again. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, 14 storey developments in Activity Centres are here to stay. Without properly researched and implemented transition zones Minimal Change Areas will be looking up at 5 and 6 storey developments. Without a total revamp of the Planning Scheme – in genuine consultation with residents – this Council remains a sitting duck! Residents should ask council:
- Have you applied to the Minister for height limits? If not, why not?
- What are your reasons (fully explained) for rejecting structure plans – (and forget cost if you’re prepared to spend a million in the coming year on car parks!)
- Why has the housing policy not been updated for over a decade?
July 26, 2011
Compare & Contrast: Community Satisfaction
Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance[6] Comments
We’ve commented frequently on the difference between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours. We’ve also remarked on the Caulfield Leader’s possible editorial policy when it comes to reporting on council matters. The most recent example is the recant by the Caulfield Leader on the State run Community Satisfaction Survey. In contrast, we publish below the Bayside Leader’s appraisal of that municipality’s results, as well as citing from the Agenda items Bayside Council’s response to the survey. Readers should note that this year Glen Eira has not issued one single word (either as a press release, or any comment) on the results. As for including an officer’s report in the agenda items for council meetings, this has never been done as far as we know. Whereas Bayside appears quite willing to admit that there is room for improvement, Glen Eira remains silent and possibly hoping that the issue quickly fades away.
Bayside Leader
Jon Andrews
Poll slams planning department: Bayside residents far from impressed
BAYSIDE Council’s planning department is one of the poorest performers in the state, according to a survey. In a damning local government poll, far more people were unhappy with the municipality’s planning sector than were happy.
Fifty-three per cent said the department ‘‘needs some improvement’’ or ‘‘needs a lot of improvement’’. Just 3 per cent thought it ‘‘excellent’’. Nineteen per cent said it was ‘‘good’’, while the remaining 26 per cent believed it ‘‘adequate’’.
Bayside Ratepayers’ Association president George Reynolds said the council’s town planning performance was ‘‘dismal’’, and the council did not seem to take into account residents’ needs. Other sectors that didn’t fare well include parking, local roads, footpaths and community engagement, while the council excelled at waste management, recreation, health services and local law enforcement.
Cr Michael Norris defended the council’s performance, saying Bayside residents had ‘‘higher expectations’’ than many other Victorians.
************
Council Agenda – 12th July 2011
“…the survey is valuable in measuring changes in perceptions of a Council’s performance over time. This can be used to influence the allocation of budgets and service levels, to introduce new services or adjust priorities between Council services and projects.”
“In comparison to all Councils in the Inner Metropolitan Melbourne local government grouping Bayside records higher results for waste management, and lower results in areas of advocacy, community engagement, customer contact, and town planning policy and approvals.
One area that continues to record low perception scores in this survey is town planning policy and approvals. In this instance 47 per cent of respondents rated town planning policy and approvals as Excellent, Good or Adequate and although this is consistent with the trend overtime, satisfaction results have reduced by five percent from 2010.
The Customer Window: Key areas for Improvement chart (p9) shows that while perceived performance has remained unchanged in the area of Community Engagement, it remains a key areas for Bayside to continue improving. Community Engagement also has the highest relative importance to residents. In the 2011-12 Annual Action Plan, Council has committed to reviewing Council’s Community Engagement Framework of 2009 and develop of a suite of products that outline appropriate tools for engagement opportunities with the community.
Another key area for improvement is Local Roads and Footpaths, with 36% of residents seeking improvement in this area. Council has recently endorsed Bayside’s Road Asset Management Plan designed to provide guiding principles for the long term management of Council’s road and pavement assets. The plan will ensure that there is a defined methodology and management
and process improvement for Council’s road and pavement asset well into the future.
It is reasonable to expect that the measures in place will contribute to the improvement of satisfaction outcomes in coming years. Bayside uses the DPCD survey results to help guide its service planning with the indicated priority areas reflected in the Annual Service Plans”
“Council has committed in its Council Plan to seek engagement with the Bayside community and to making decisions based on evidence. The Annual Community Satisfaction Survey results make a significant contribution to Council meeting this commitment.”
July 25, 2011
Council worker sacked over Facebook ‘slack’ slam
Brendan Gullifer
The Age: July 22, 2011
A young council roads worker has been sacked after commenting on Facebook that the council had too many office staff and not enough workers.
Alec Armstrong, 21, posted the remarks on a Hepburn Shireresidents’ page last month and had his employment terminated five weeks later for what the Victorian council called “intimidating or offensive” behaviour.
In postings made after hours on June 2, Mr Armstrong said council had 140 staff, but only 30 who worked outdoors. “Shows you how top heavy they are,” he posted. He said outdoor employees never had enough money to do the job properly.
“I work on the roads for the shire. There would be four office staff to one of us. Their (sic) slack, and we need less office staff who aren’t slack and do the job a bit more. We never have enough money to do a job the way it should be done. That’s why rates are going up. Keep blaming it on the useless staff above us.”
And in a post later that night, Mr Armstrong wrote: “Most of the staff don’t live in the shire. It’s like they give a s…t about nothing but their pay packet.”
When confronted by office managers about the postings, Mr Armstrong said he immediately removed them and apologised. In a letter to council chief executive officer Kaylene Conrick July 7, Mr Armstrong expressed his “deep regrets” over the incident.
He admitted it was “inappropriate, disrespectful and lacked the professionalism” required by Hepburn Shire Council employees.
In the letter, Mr Armstrong pleaded to keep his job. “As a younger employee I would like the chance to learn from my mistake and in future be more mature and respectful about what is said,” he wrote.
“I understand that I have done the wrong thing and that I will have to deal with the consequences of my actions.”
Mr Armstrong said yesterday he recognised that unauthorised media commentary was prohibited under the shire’s employee code of conduct but at the time didn’t understand that included social media, such as Facebook.
But in a letter to Mr Armstrong, a senior council officer called the comments “seriously wilful conduct” that “may have damaged the reputation of the council”.
Mr Armstrong was one of two new employees featured in a council bulletin in 2008. Under the headline “Council commits to youth – trainee and apprentice appointed”, the council said Mr Armstrong and another employee were two successful job candidates from more than 60 applications.
Hepburn Shire Acting CEO Evan King said the decision to sack Mr Armstrong was made following due process. In a written statement he said: “The employee breached the code of conduct, and based on an assessment of the seriousness of the breach, it was deemed the employment of the employee should be terminated.”
Dave Beckley from the Australian Services Union said yesterday a case for unfair dismissal of Mr Armstrong was being prepared for Fair Work Australia.
July 22, 2011
Governance: Residents Should Know How Their Money Is Squandered!
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance[6] Comments
At last council meeting there was the (eventual) tabling of questions previously taken on notice. The time lag was 2 months! More significantly, two questions concerned the costs to ratepayers over legal proceedings and the machinations over the reappointment of Newton.
We report that the first question printed below was declared ‘inadmissable’ under Local Law 232 and the provisions of the Local Government Act – it was regarded as ‘confidential information’. Part 3 of another question received similar treatment. The rest of the question was taken on notice. In the public interest, since this information will not appear in the minutes, we publish in full both questions.
The ‘inappropriate’ question was:
“What is the current cost to council for:
1. Ms O’Neill in her brief to investigate allegations of bullying/harassment against Cr. Penhalluriack?
2. Have other lawyers also been engaged by council in this matter? If so, what is the total cost of their engagement to date?”
The second question was:
“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?
3. Any third party consultant’s fees in the performance appraisal of the current CEO? (ruled inappropriate)
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?”
COMMENTS: The barred first question did not seek any information regarding outcomes of Newton’s bullying claims. Nor did it seek information as to who else might have been engaged in this matter. The question was purely monetary. As ratepayers footing the bills for such exercises, we believe that residents certainly have a right to know how much such behaviour is costing us!
The second question is similar in that it simply requests financial data – not information on actual appraisals. Hence, residents have a right to know how their money is spent on an issue that has been a festering sore in this municipality for nigh on a decade. Three Municipal Investigations are proof of that!
July 21, 2011
We’ve received an email from a resident alerting us to the following planning application –
Planning application Permit Number GE/PP-23761/2011
Property 200 East Boundary Road East Bentleigh
Proposal: Use of land as a medical centre, Beauty salon and food and drink premises and a reduction in the standard car parking and bicycle facility requirements.
This application was very surreptitiously placed against the yellow construction fence where no-one in the suburb would see it. Everyone I mention it to does not know a thing about it, though they are outraged when I tell them the news.
The subject will discussed at a planning conferance in the Yarra room at council 6.30pm on Monday 25th July.
We can’t believe they want to allow the developer the right to decrease parking to put in more shops – which we do not need! – and on the other hand they want to destroy the park to facilitate the parking requirements that should have been thought of in the first place. Just what is going on in this suburb?”
COMMENTS:
- With the Clover Estate, GESAC, and soon the Virginia Estate, East Boundary Rd. and the many suburban streets it serves will be entirely grid locked.
- Bicycles? If application is accepted, what does this say about the much trumpeted ‘Bicycle Strategy’ and overall ‘Sustainable Transport Strategy’?
- We wonder how many ‘notifications’ actually went out for this development?
- Watch this space since there is also an application in for 23 double storeys practically next door!
Glen Eira Debates 