February 15, 2011

Public Open Space: VEAC Submissions

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

Submissions made to the VEAC inquiry are now available online. We’ve uploaded both the MRC submission (here) and the Glen Eira Council submission.

This is one paragraph from the MRC submission (page 2) – Through the provision of dedicated unrestricted public open space and the provision of access to the Centre of the Racecourse the Reserve contributes to the mental and physical health of the local and broader Melbourne community. 

Here’s another – Glen Eira Council through their Planning Scheme and related permit controls, have required the Club to prepare a master plan for its freehold land holdings within thePhoenix Precinct. The proposed C60 Planning Scheme Amendment is the outcome of this master planning work. Through the Land Exchange, the Crown Land amenity is protected and enhanced while the C60 Amendment does not place additionalpressure on the pubic (sic!!!!!!!) space in the Centre of the Racecourse. 

We urge all readers interested in the Caufield Racecourse issue, the C60 and the general Open Space issues to please read and compare the various submissions. We also urge residents to ‘review’ the Glen Eira council submission! Links to various Council and community group submissions are provided below.

Bayside – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6746-Bayside_City_Council.pdf

Port Phillip – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6839-Port_Phillip_Conservation_Council.pdf 

Yarra – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6737-Yarra_City_Council.pdf

Boroondara – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6787-Boroondara_City_Council.pdf

Dept. Planning & Community Dev – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6801-Department_of_Planning_Community_Development.pdf 

Friends of Caulfield Park – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6810-Friends_of_Caulfield_Park.pdf

Manningham – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6822-Manningham_City_Council.pdf

Monash – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6827-Monash_City_Council.pdf

 

February 14, 2011

Why the Planning Scheme is a Total Shambles!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

We’ve commented numerous times on the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and its deficiencies and loopholes. In this post we pinpoint exactly why the scheme fails to do what it is supposed to do – ie provide a detailed and comprehensive blueprint for the future – a vision that has been developed in CONJUNCTION with residents and which has the full support of the community. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme is ill conceived, poorly articulated and does not benefit the majority of residents. As an integrated planning (as opposed to town planning) document it is a shambles. Here are our reasons why –

Quote from Ian Wood, President Save Our Suburbs:

“Found this recently: The Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy 2005 was endorsed by Council in March 2005. This strategy is yet to be incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. [http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=1641&h=1] [last updated 7 Sept.2010]!!!!! How bloody long does it take DPCD [Department of Planning & Community Development] to approve this stuff????”

COMMENT – If this is true, here are the likely reasons for the Glen Eira Activity Centre Strategy (GEACS) not  being incorporated i.e. not accepted by the Planning Minister:

  • The 2005 Strategy is inconsistent with Melbourne 2030 on the status of Glen Huntly;
  • The 2005 Strategy proposes no Structure Plans;
  • The 2005 Strategy has no impact statement on Centres due to population and housing growth;
  • The 2005 Strategy has no relevance to transport issues like congestion and level crossings;
  • The 2005 Strategy has not worked through its implications for the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Glen Eira PS) and Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) established prior to 2005;
  • The 2005 Strategy identified 52 shopping centres, but the MSS mentions only 17 centres;
  • In March 2005 Councillors who endorsed the GEACS were – Bury, Erlich, Grosbard, Hyams, Martens, Marwick,  and Sapir.  Esakoff, and Goudge opposed it.
  • In July 2006 the issue of the Glen Huntly status was deliberated and Councillors voted against developing a Structure Plan to determine its status. Councillors that unanimously rejected the Planning Minister’s suggestion were: Ashmor, Esakoff, Feldman, Lipshutz, Robilliard, Spaulding, Staikos, Tang, and Whiteside;
  • LPPF Section 21.03 Vision Strategic Framework states – “The Glen Eira Community Plan identifies the corporate direction of Council over a 3 year period (2001-2004)” and from 1996 “Glen Eira 2020 identifies a long-term vision for the municipality over the next 20 years. Glen Eira 2020 identifies a desired future for the City and was developed through analysis of trends and consultation with the community”. This is a back to the future Vision. Where is the new updated and accepted by the community, Community Plan?;
  • LPPF Section 21.04 Housing & Residential Development – extensive & detailed to develop 20% of Glen Eira, whereas only 8% development is needed. No justification for this course of action is given;
  • LPPF Section 21.06 Business – policy focus to improve Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie and nowhere else. That is in spite of the population and housing growth everywhere in Glen Eira;
  • LPPF Section 21.08 Institutional & Non-residential uses in Residential Areas – policy focus only on schools/hospitals. Nothing on “medical centres, churches, childcare and kindergartens”. Purpose of this policy is to “encourage uses that retain housing stock”;
  •  LPPF Section 21.09 Public Uses / Community Facilities – general and non-specific with this telling statement “With the corporatisation of a number of government utilities it is no longer necessary for sites owned by private utility company to be included in a Public Use Zone”. MRC was structured in 1990s to utilize this argument admirably;
  • LPPF Section 21.09 again “The plan also examines properties that are Council owned or zoned for public uses in order to determine the opportunities for each property to maximize the potential return to the community.” Can anyone explain this gobbledygook?
  • LPPF Section 21.12 Transport – Short and sweet. No problems. Forget about complaining;
  • LPPF Section 21.13 Open Space – states the shortage of Open Space. No mention of the Crown Land provisions at the Caulfield Racecourse and no strategy to increase the amount of Open Space. Accept the reality!
  • LPPF Section 21.14 Monitoring & Review – “A review of this planning scheme will be undertaken at least every three years”. The last Review accepted by the planning Minister occurred in 2004, gazetted with permanent control 27 May 2004. No acceptable review has taken place in 2007 or 2010;
  • LPPF Section 22.02 Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy – extensive & detailed description of how “medical centres, schools, parks, churches, childcare, and kindergartens [are placed and located] within residential areas”. No objective or policy analysis as to whether we need more or less of such community facilities and why we may need it. No factual information and data to support the objectives and policies. One of the objectives states “To encourage proposals that retain the existing housing stock within the municipality”. Increasing the stock is certainly retaining it;
  • LPPF Section 22.04 Commercial Centres Policy – Deals with Business Zone. Short and sweet. Only Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie are to develop their retailing space. The following telling statement summarises the Policy “Retail and commercial floorspace is at a level that currently serves the needs of the community. Additional floorspace must be closely monitored ensuring established centres are not weakened”. Can anyone explain how does the support of Caulfield Village with its proposed 35,000 square metres additional commercial floorspace maintain consistency with this Policy?
  • LPPF Section 22.05 Urban Villages Policy – Deals extensively and in detail with the 3 Urban Villages of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, whose Structure Plans were developed in June 1999. However, they never followed the guidelines of Melbourne 2030, in particular in regards to Community Consultation Process. For this reason those Plans are described in Structure Plans Status document as Other Spatial Plans. Essentially those plans have never had even a modicum of acceptance by the residents of those Villages. Each one of them has now got Residents Groups up in arms as to the way those areas are being developed 

All the information on LPPF and the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is available on line www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/gleneira/home.html . 

The question arises what makes for a good Planning Scheme. The answer is very simple. Any area plan affecting residents should have a modicum of support from people living in those areas. There is not one shred of evidence that this has happened in Glen Eira. The six point Community Consultation is a tick the box approach to satisfy the legislation and nothing else.  

Yet some stakeholders have benefited from the great development that has occurred in Glen Eira. The question arises who are those beneficiaries and who on the Council has also benefitted if there is no general support from the community?

 

February 13, 2011

Still Too Many ‘Fat Cats’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

We reported last year on the number of officers receiving over $200,000 per annum in Glen Eira as opposed to most of our benchmarking councils. We’ve repeated the exercise for 2010 and note that nothing much has changed. Our figures come from the published Annual Reports of the various councils, as well as the latest ABS population predictions for each of these areas for 2009. The numbers exclude CEO salaries.

Residents need to ask themselves why other councils can apparently manage with a leaner and less top heavy bureaucracy?

 

Glen Eira

 Stonnington Monash Kingston Bayside Port Phillip

Size(sq.k)

 38.7 26 82 91 37 20.62
Pop. 133,000 99,000 176,000 147,000 96,000

97,000
Officers over $210,000 5 1 1 2 1

1
 

February 13, 2011

There’s Smoke, But is There Fire?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[7] Comments 

When reporting on Glen Eira issues, the sad truth is that we’re often forced to rely on rumour and innuendo simply because the community is always the last to know what is really going on. What this means in reality is that the community has no say in anything. Decisions are inevitably made without transparency, without accountability, and without community input. The latest example concerns Booran Rd. Reservoir.

Here’s what we’ve been told –

  • It is currently being cleaned up
  • Workmen on the site claim that a kindergarten is on the cards
  • Neil Pilling is pushing for this

Terrific! Kindergartens are desperately needed in Glen Eira. But, and this is a big but, Glen Eira is only the MANAGER of the Booran Rd. Reserve. The terms of management designate the area for ‘recreation’. As ‘manager’ council does not have any say over use of the site – this must be determined by the State Government. Questions thus abound as to who is paying for what? What does this do to Magee’s plans for a kindergarten in his neck of the woods? Do all councillors know about such proposals? What about the desperate need for more open space? What’s happened to the promise for further ‘community consultation’ regarding use?

If these rumours prove correct, then it only reinforces the perception that backroom schemes and deals are the defining characteristic of Glen Eira administration and councillors.

 

February 11, 2011

Madden, the Ombudsman & Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[5] Comments 

The latest Ombudsman’s report into the Windsor Hotel scandal raises, in our opinion, some remarkable parallels with the goings on in Glen Eira under the reign of Andrew Newton. The Ombudsman has revealed how ‘public consultation’ on the Windsor development was nothing but a sham in order to provide the ‘evidence’ required for an already pre-determined decision. This echoes numerous public consultation issues in Glen Eira over the past decade where, we believe, decisions had already been determined prior to the obligatory ‘consultation’ . In short, ‘consultation’ shams. The examples are numerous – Caulfield Park Pavilion; Council Plan; Planning Scheme Review; DAMP plan; Councillor Code of Conduct and the 2009 Local Law ‘consultations’ . In each case, community views were largely ignored and certainly not incorporated in any significant way into the final policy/strategy. We are not alleging anything illegal here. Council only has to ‘consider’ public opinion. What we do believe is that ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira fails to implement the spirit of the law – council adheres only to the letter of the law. Hence, we feel that the ombudsman’s comments have real relevance for Glen Eira and its residents.

Some further evidence to support this view. The ombudsman found major faults with the record keeping processes and hence accountability of several key players. He concluded that: “I was also disappointed with the standard of record-keeping, especially that of the Department, Heritage Victoria, and the City of Melbourne. This included the failure of agencies to make and keep accurate records of key meetings and events relating to The Hotel Windsor planning and heritage applications. Poor file management practices were also evident.

In the absence of basic records detailing key meetings and discussions with agencies and individuals regarding the proposed redevelopment, it is difficult to have a complete appreciation of the processes followed.”

On November 3rd the administration’s response to a ‘Request for a Report’ was tabled at Council Meeting. The request was for ‘a report on each meeting during the past twelve months between Council’s officers acting in their official capacities and representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club and or of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees (those who are not also Glen Eira Councillors) including the normal details explaining the subjects discussed and any decisions reached.”

The report was tabled without names as to author – the first black mark against all notions of accountability and transparency! Secondly, we find this extract in the report:

“Throughout this process, there have been numerous meetings to give effect to the Council’s decisions and to prepare material for future Council decision-making. Officers do not hold delegated power to decide on planning scheme amendments and accordingly none of the meetings made Council decisions – nor was there any possibility of them doing so.

If Council wants staff of the Planning Office to attempt to identify the dates of meetings, that would involve time which would otherwise be spent addressing planning applications, amendments or appeals and it would be appreciated if Council would specifically direct that activity if it wishes.” (So much for at least file management practices!)

 Then there is also the following: “The MRC CEO and manager dropped in on the Council’s CEO at the end of one day in September (date unrecorded) to “clarify” MRC criticism of comments by Council’s Director of Community Relations about C60 in the Leader Newspaper (approx 5 minutes).”

 We find it incredible that dates are left ‘unrecorded’ especially since this is mandatory practice for all recordkeeping regimes. Yet, the time was noted!” 

Given the information at hand, we can only conclude one of two things: 

  1. The report to council is inadequate and doesn’t fulfil the requirements of good recordkeeping
  2. The report to council is deliberately obtuse and again doesn’t fulfil the directives of council decisions.

Perhaps the ombudsman should also be carefully investigating the planning processes that have occurred between Glen Eira and the MRC and the recordkeeping policies of this council and how well they are adhered to?

 

February 10, 2011

Planning: A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
1 Comment 

We received an email, plus attachment, from a local resident – Ms. Lisa DiMarco. We feel that the ideas expressed in the attached need to be carefully considered and discussed, especially in light of the upcoming C60 and the entire planning process of this Council.

Just another reminder to readers, that we welcome all contributions, information, correspondence from and with council, that is relevant to the issues which confront residents and which impacts on lifestyle, liveability, and ensuring that the community’s voice is heard.

Lisa’s email reads:

“Hi there
I think the attached article on public spaces in European cities is very interesting.  You might like to post it on the Glen Eira Debates website.  The lack of public open space in the proposed C60 development is such a shame.  We need to start thinking differently about planning.  We need car free squares, piazzas, malls where people can congregate and relax.”

 

February 9, 2011

Tang, Lipshutz and Conflict of Interest

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

The Victorian Ombudsman tabled a report in Parliament yesterday concerning the conduct of a Hume City councillor. It was alleged that this councillor ‘influenced’ a planning permit on behalf of a business ‘associate’. Our interest in the ombudsman’s findings relate to the perceived conflict of interest of both Tang and Lipshutz and their involvement in the ongoing saga of the Frisbee affair. Readers may remember a response from Tang on this blog, where he stated: “The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.  I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status.  I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.

The ombudsman interprets such ‘relationships’ differently. On page 9 of the report, relating to Cr. Atmaca of Hume City Council,  he states:

“In response to my concerns, Councillor Atmaca said:

There can be no conflict or perceived conflict by treating a friend or acquaintance in an identical fashion to all other people.

I consider that Councillor Atmaca has misunderstood the concept of conflict of interest. A person has a conflict of interest when they have a personal or private interest which could affect their role as a public officer; a conflict of interest can exist even if no improper act results from it.”

The ombudsman also goes on to make this statement (page 13) – “To protect the integrity of the local government system, a councillor is expected to exercise a high standard of conduct and must act positively to promote public trust in the tier of government said to be closest to the people. Without the public’s trust, local government becomes ineffective and superfluous.”

The recent truncation (censorship?) of the Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes, where the issue of unauthorised sporting groups was again (and again) discussed, does nothing to engender the public’s trust in the processes of this council and its mandate to be open, transparent, and accountable. Nor does the consistent refusal to directly answer public questions in any meaningful way engender ‘public trust’ in Glen Eira City elected members.

 

February 9, 2011

More of the Same!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

Last chance to have your say…

9 Feb 11 @ 12:41pm by Jenny Ling

The site of the proposed new six-storey development in Elsternwick.

The site of the proposed new six-storey development in Elsternwick.

RESIDENTS have until Friday (February 11) to have their say on revised plans for a multi-million dollar revamped Coles supermarket and apartments in Elsternwick.

Last year 66 residents objected to the original plans which included three buildings of up to seven storeys, 137 apartments, a new supermarket, shops and offices on Glenhuntly Rd, between Orrong Rd and Beavis St.

The original plan was rejected by Glen Eira Council and was appealed to VCAT last year.

Glen Eira councillors will form their view on the new plans, which include one six-storey building with 99 units and a supermarket, on February 22 before a three-day VCAT hearing on March 7.

Full details of the plans can be viewed at VCAT or Glen Eira Council. (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=190&h=0#BM8474)

 

February 9, 2011

Hansard: Southwick’s Maiden Speech

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
Comments Off on Hansard: Southwick’s Maiden Speech 

David Southwick, the newly elected Liberal Member for Caulfield, gave his maiden speech in parliament yesterday. Southwick outlined his career and his background, as well as acknowledging and thanking colleagues, supporters and friends. We’ve selected an extract of his speech which directly concerns Glen Eira and its issues –

“In describing my electorate of Caulfield I explained that we are proud of our location and are gifted with beautiful open spaces. Unfortunately the growth in development in recent years has threatened our local amenity. The city of Glen Eira is reported to have the lowest amount of public space in Melbourne. This report is concerning as it includes the Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse, which is currently not easily accessible to the public. I look forward to working with various stakeholders to get a better use of this public land for the community, while at the same time ensuring that the needs of racing are appropriately met on this historic site.

I have a real passion for youth and kids. They are our future and the opportunity to get things right. In particular we have a lot of work to do in early childhood development. Although there are no easy answers to this we need to ensure that the child is put first in any of our policy decisions. Government should provide a framework that recognises the need for a holistic view of the child. I know the coalition government will not be afraid to make some hard decisions in these important areas.

Education and training is an important area in which I hope to play a role. Non-government organisations promoting early intervention programs that engage business and community should be encouraged and supported. I look forward to working with my government colleagues to provide pathways and opportunities for our youth.

 

February 9, 2011

Regent St Protest

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[4] Comments 

Today’s Moorabbin Leader features an article by Jenny Ling on the Regent St. development and the ‘demonstration’ that occurred in Council chambers at last Tuesday night’s meeting. No mention in the Caulfield Leader!

Big cheer as council says no to school

But accusations fly at heated protest 

VOCAL protesters were jubilant after Glen Eira councillors rejected ‘‘ludicrous’’ plans for a boys’ school in Elsternwick. Up to 100 residents marched into the council chambers last Tuesday holding placards and chanting in opposition to revised plans for a two-storey Jewish school for 275 students at 46 Regent St.

But some comments prompted threats of eviction from the public gallery, including one protester who accused Cr Jamie Hyams of ‘‘corruption’’ then added: ‘‘I know where you live’’. Councillors were also unimpressed with emails from some objectors, including one to Frank Penhalluriak saying: ‘‘I recall your idiotic decision 12 months ago . . . let’s hope this time you get off your self-righteous stance and vote for common sense.’’ 

All councillors voted against the plans, which drew 88 objections because of traffic, parking, noise, security and vandalism concerns. VCAT will have the final say at a March 21 hearing. 

Applicant Network Planning Consultants, working on behalf of Yesodei Hatorah College which wants to move from the Elwood Shul Talmud Torah synagogue in Dickens St, originally submitted plans for a three-storey building for 325 students. It was rejected in February. Save Regent St Action Group spokesman Michael Leone said 100 residents of Regent, Sandham, Sinclair and Elizabeth streets and St Georges and Glen Eira roads had raised more than $50,000 to fight the development. 

Yesodei Hatorah College did not respond to the Leader before deadline.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »