One of the most important functions that any council has, especially in these ‘pro development’ times, is the power to refuse, or to grant a permit. We’ve previously pointed out how the Glen Eira delegations to officers in effect removes many powers from councillors (as a council) and redirects them to select officers.  We’ve also pointed out how this council differs fundamentally from the delegations and planning committee rules that other councils see fit to impose. But there’s worse! The very language that Glen Eira uses in its delegations is deliberately vague, obtuse, and hence allows subjective judgements rather than stringent and explicit policy to provide the framework for decision making. The end result can only be the further erosion of Council powers. We refer in particular to Section 61 (1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act which covers delegates power to grant a permit. Glen Eira proposes the following ‘conditions and limitations’ –

“the exercise of this power is limited to the following circumstances:

i)               There has been no objections lodged; and

ii)             The application/amending plan is generally in compliance with existing policy or guidelines;

iii)           The application has not been referred to the Council or the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) for determination

The power cannot be exercised where:

i)               an application is for use of land for a brothel; or

ii)             An application is for use of land for gaming machines; or

iii)           An application is for extension of time for tennis court illumination beyond 10,00pm; or

iv)            A proposal involves dwellings exceeding one level, except where the delegate is DCD, MTP or MStatP who may grant a permit allowing a double storey development.

The permit must not be inconsistent with a cultural heritage management plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.”

Readers should take careful note of the above bolded and underlined words and phrases. Exactly what does ‘generally’ mean? If there are 10 conditions, will someone still get a permit if they only meet 5, or 6, or 7 of those conditions? Thus subjectivity on the part of the officer is enough it seems. As to the issue of double storey developments, compare the above with the Port Phillip version. Implicit in the latter’s delegation conditions is the acknowledgement that councillors will ACTUALLY KNOW about all applications – that they are informed. Can we say the same about the processes at work in Glen Eira? And of course, in Port Phillip and numerous other councils but NOT Glen Eira, there is the ubiquitous ‘councillor call in’ principle stated clearly again and again – “Decision to grant a permit where the application involves a two storey extension and a ‘line of sight’ principle is involved and the proposal does not meet the prescription but does, in the officers view, meet the performance approach set out in the Heritage Policy and unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.”  

It’s really time that councillors took control of this council and fulfilled their fiduciary duties to the community.

Our recent post on the upcoming council meeting highlighted the Recreation Committee’s Action Item to continue to ‘monitor’ sporting grounds. The ‘matter’ of unauthorised sporting groups and ground allocations is to be ‘considered at a future date.’ Please note that NO DATE was set, no real action taken, and hence nothing resolved. What is even more revealing is that the Council Meeting of 8th June, 2010 included minutes from the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting that took place on 1st April 2010. We quote:

“Level of Unauthorised Use on Sports Grounds

Cr Tang sought the views of Officers in relation to recent public questions and informal suggestions that clubs may have concerns about the use of sports facilities by groups without allocations..

MR&YS (Linda Smith) believes the relaxation of water restrictions will allow increased club allocation of sports grounds. This will likely reduce the level of discontent amongst clubs who often saw unauthorised users on grounds they could not use.

Action: Recreation staff to continue to monitor sports grounds.”

So, 10 months later we are still in the same position. Officers are to MONITOR. Gosh the wheels of democracy move at a glacial pace. No decisions, and no clarity. Well done administrators and councillors! We can only assume that when the problem becomes embarrassing, or difficult, the best solution is hope it goes away, or pretend that something is being done.

We’ve received a Position Paper from Mr. Orek Tenen on the entire Phoenix Precinct and the Racecourse/C60 amendment. Mr. Tenen’s paper is quite lengthy, and there are many attachments. (+2). We’ve uploaded the full paper here, but present in abridged form his conclusions and recommendations below:  

Suggestions 

To change the unsatisfactory situation and to ensure that Phoenix Precinct satisfies and complies with the designated original Crown Land provisions and community wishes, the following points should be progressed:

  1. The whole Original Crown Land (page 86 of Murray & Well book on History of Caulfield Ref) should be strategically planned as one entity of State significance (202 ha) together with all stakeholders and residents;
  2. Glen Eira and Stonnington Councils to ask the State Government to establish a Priority Development Zone for this whole area;
  3. Current Caulfield Racecourse trustees to be replaced with those that can appropriately represent the Crown Grant terms and conditions i.e. three functions (Racecourse, Public Recreation & Public Park) plus Glen Eira Council as a Planning and Responsible Authority, and State Government as the owner of the Crown Land;
  4. Amendment C60 to be abandoned, but C60 area to be developed as a Technology Park and not a shopping centre;
  5. Training of horses to be removed from the Caulfield Racecourse public Recreation ground & public Park (CRRP);
  6. The present training track to be used by the public for close viewing of races as is done at Flemington racecourse. This will increase the attendance of the Caulfield racecourse racing as is the wish of the racing fraternity and MRC;
  7. Fencing around the Racecourse to be transformed to a modern type that allows visualisation of the CRRP ground and activities on it;
  8. Increase the Recreation & Public Park elements of CRRP to be fully within safe racing track as it is done in so many overseas and Australia’s premier racecourses;
  9. Improve access to the CRRP Recreation & Public Park elements of the racecourse;
  10. Caulfield Station to be developed as a major Transit Station, particularly for goods transport linking East and West of Victoria i.e. deep channel Westernport Bay and Avalon Airport;
  11. Remove level crossings as a priority in getting the goods transport on line(s) that link Westernport and Avalon Airport;
  12. To ensure proper implementation establish a Steering Committee and an Implementation Authority.

 

Key findings:

  1. The original 1858 Caulfield Heath land size earmarked for recreation reserve was 440 acres (137.6 ha).  The Caulfield Racecourse is all that remains of that with 54 ha, of which only about 8 ha is supposedly reserved as a Public Recreation and Public Park. And even that is yet to become fully available to residents with an unknown timetable.
  2. Health & Environment issues should be the driver of the Build Environment if Quality of Life is to be improved;
  3. Councils are to properly plan for the future together with their community and not rely only on legislation and bureaucratic processes. This is important for the Victorian Government as well if it is to achieve its objectives for the State;
  4. Phoenix Precinct and Caulfield Racecourse to become a State significant Project, whose economic value exceeds $10 billion. Glen Eira Council has not got the capacity or staff to handle such a big Project.
  5. Caulfield Station in a middle rank LGA is a pre-eminent junction station and should be developed as a Transit Station for goods transport to connect East with West Victoria, specifically Westernport deep channel facility with Avalon Airport.
  6. Key to the success of Caulfield Junction is a program of removing Level Crossings between Westernport and Avalon Airport to ensure cost benefit of goods transport, both on rails and roads.

 

Orek Tenen,

Secretary

Sustainable Villages & Suburbs Inc

Tuesday night’s agenda contains several interesting items. We have reports from the Pools Steering Committee and the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee. In typical Glen Eira fashion both of these so called ‘minutes’ have assumed the mantle of ‘Records of Assembly’ – meaning that one line sentences are legally the official ‘minutes’ of these meetings. For example, all we get from the Pool Steering Committee is:

“Matters considered 

(i) Previous Minutes

Security over Shutdown Period 

(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”

 The recreation committee is a little more forthcoming with information but it still remains on the very, very scant side – ie.

“Public Questions – ground allocations

Discussion regarding public questions in relation to ground allocations and authorised and unauthorised usage. Discussions covered;

• enforcement of the Local Law,

• fencing/taping off the ovals to keep unauthorised groups off and protect the grounds,

• perceptions of conflict of interest,

• usefulness of the Local Law,

• Local Laws in other municipalities,

• distribution of the Frisbee Report,

• guidance provided to Officers in relation to the Frisbee report,

• outcomes of the Municipal Investigation in relation to matters concerning the Frisbee group, and

• whether the Local Laws needed to be changed.

Action: Officers continue to monitor the situation and the matter be considered at a future date”.

 Then of course, there are the planning applications. As per usual, those which are likely to be the most contentious have the least number of notifications, yet the highest number of objections. Council obviously works on the principle of inverse relationships! Here is a table which we’ve drawn up from the various items to illustrate our point.

121-123 Murrumbeena Rd 3 storey (32 units) 18 properties notified (28 notices) 51 objections
51 Hill St Double storey (8 units) 12 properties notified (22 notices) 20 objections
16 Malane St Double storey (8 units) 9 properties notified (13 notices) 60 objections

 There’s also a VCAT appeal where officers recommend acceptance of amended plans. The number of notifications is not listed, but there are 88 objections.

Finally a couple of interesting items from the in camera section – (1) again legal advice pertaining to the payment of ‘legal fees’, we presume, for councillors fronting the municipal inspector with their lawyers, and (2) under ‘personnel’ an item about contracts. Given that the only contract that council has control over is the CEO’s, then speculation should be rife about what’s going on here!

 

A previous post commented on the upcoming delegations to officers, paying particular attention to the ‘Conditions and Limitations’ under the Planning and Environment Act. We noted the fact that in Glen Eira the Planning Committee is NOT a special committee; that there is no official ‘councillor call in’, nor does the Planning Committee consist of councillors as community reps. In our municipality power is wielded by unelected officers as outlined in this council description of what the Delegated Planning Committee is. As a further means of comparison, we’ve uploaded the current Stonnington ‘Planning Delegation Guidelines’ .  Apart from the differences in composition, and the limitations on the powers of the committee, the fact that this document is freely available online, again stands in stark contrast to the practices of Glen Eira.

Stonnington is not alone in providing its residents with policy manuals and information as to the protocols under which a variety of services operate. Kingston, for example, has  a complete listing of all its protocols and guidelines online. We challenge readers to locate any similar documents on the Glen Eira website – assuming of course, that they even exist!

Today’s Caulfield Leader –

Development protesters have got it right  

REGARDING the proposed Murrumbeena Rd/Emily St developments, I totally agree with the protesters. Buildings of this size are not appropriate in the area for all the reasons stated (‘‘Flat out protesting’’, Leader, December 14). I live in Omama Rd and there was a recent proposal to build eight units in our street. A number of residents attended the Glen Eira Council offices at the time of the submission, which was rejected by council as being inappropriate for the area. However, by the time it went to VCAT, the council had done a backflip and did not dispute the building of six units with only one visitor parking space. I can only imagine the impact in an area that is already notorious for its railway crossing. 

Green land disappearing  

LITTLE wonder Glen Eira has the lowest (amount of) space, they are developing there like crazy. The Caulfield Racecourse reserve is a classic example. Public land about to be developed into 23-storey buildings, and hardly anyone is really questioning it. In a decade or two, the racecourse club is said to have plans to sell the whole course for development. This means no more park in the centre and no trees or green areas. 

Developers close in  

UNDER the highly controversial planning scheme Melbourne 2030, developers were given a free hand to develop all over Melbourne, with no regard to the effects on the people. Now with this report, we are seeing the damage it is doing to our way of life (‘‘Space race as Glen Eira feels the big squeeze’’, Leader, January 18). It’s time for a change of direction quick smart.

A message from Peter Marshall, Vice-President Administration

2011 PARKING PERMIT ARRANGEMENTS – CAULFIELD CAMPUS

I am writing to you as a staff member who will be eligible to purchase a Caulfield campus parking permit in 2011. 

In previous years, all of the parking bays utilised by holders of a blue parking permit at the Caulfield campus have been located on property owned by the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC).  MRC has formally advised the university that as a result of the proposed racecourse precinct redevelopment, commencing in mid to late 2011, the MRC cannot guarantee the availability of land for parking beyond  31 July 2011.

 To ensure we can guarantee the availability of parking spaces across the full year we will no longer utilise the car parks at the MRC previously utilised for blue permit parking.  To replace these parking spaces we will redesignate 240 metered parking spaces in the multi- deck car park on the campus as blue permit spaces, and provide an appropriate number of blue parking permits available for sale in 2011. We will also redesignate a further 80 metered spaces as red permit spaces.

To ensure these additional blue permits and the associated spaces are available to students, staff members will no longer be eligible to purchase a blue parking permit at the Caulfield campus.  Staff members will continue to be able to purchase red parking permits and we expect the increase in red permit spaces to be sufficient to meet demand based on past usage rates.

It is emphasized that to optimize usage of available spaces, red parking permit holders are guaranteed the availability of a parking space, while the availability of spaces for  blue parking permit holders depends on the level of daily demand.  This system is similar to parking across the university. The prices for the parking permits at Caulfield will remain as advertised, which are $650 for red parking permits and $350 for blue parking permits.   

We do understand this change to parking arrangements may cause some concern to staff and students at the Caulfield campus however we stress that this matter is beyond the control of the university.  The impact of the reduction in blue permit parking is offset to some extent by the excellent public transport servicing the campus and we strongly encourage students and staff to consider alternative transport options. Further information on alternative transport can be found at the website of the Office of Environmental Sustainability at http://fsd.monash.edu.au/travel-parking.

Queries and comments regarding car parking arrangements in 2011 should be forwarded to: https://my.monash.edu.au/askmonash

 
 


The lack of transparency and accountability in the way that Advisory Committees are set up and run by this Council remains an issue of great concern. By exempting Advisory Committees from the strictures imposed on Council Meetings, and Special Committee Meetings as a result of the ‘meeting procedures’ of the Local Law, there is the resultant decision making behind closed doors syndrome, as well as, the failure to be transparent about the bases for such decision making.

Let’s elaborate! The Local Government Act, under Section 93:6(d) states: “in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process”.  When Advisory Committee notes are tabled in Council, there is the inevitable motion to accept the ‘recommendations’ made by these committees. Only on the rarest occasions has there been any documentation that accompanies such ‘minutes’. Hence the community has no real knowledge,  or understanding, of WHY certain recommendations have been made. Nor are they in possession of the necessary facts and figures which might account for such decision making.

Also at issue is the question of how well the entire group of councillors participates and understands why such recommendations have been made. Each advisory committee (although open to all councillors) usually consists of two to three councillors and an equal if not greater number of officers. Our questions are:

  • do all 9 councillors get to see, much less read, the reports tabled by officers at these various Advisory Committee meetings?
  • If they don’t then does this make a mockery of the rubber stamping which goes on a full council meetings?
  • With no public disclosure of officers’ reports, are the very principles of transparency and good governance rendered null and void?

Readers also need to be aware that these Advisory Committee meetings are in reality ‘secret’ – that is, they do not disclose agendas, do not allow public attendance, and as with the Environment  and Consultation Committees, can take up to 7 months for ‘minutes’ to be finally tabled at council meetings – when often the recommendations for certain actions have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!!!

The ongoing justification is that councillors need to ‘firm up’ a view via discussion. Fine, but their recommendations are generally made on the bases of officers’ reports. These are either firm positions, or the officers proffer various options. This information should be available to the public. Officers and councillors must be accountable. With the current set up they are not!

Finally, one needs to consider again why other councils deem it appropriate to include community reps on advisory committees; why other councils publish agendas of these committee meetings; why other councils allow full public attandance at these meetings. Why is it that Glen Eira’s formats do not come within a bull’s roar of such procedures? We suggest that the answers to these questions all go to the heart of governance issues at Glen Eira.

Streuth has posted a comment which we repeat as a separate post:

Streuth, reading ‘gleneira’ makes me sick in the stomach as so much wrong is happening in our Council compared to other Councils. Concerned Resident, you are right to suggest Councillors should delegate their authority to staff within limits. Since Andrew Newton came to Glen Eira, first as a Chief Financial Officer, then Director of Corporate Development, and finally as a CEO, he has usurped year by year the authority, power and full control over Council affairs. The result of that is now very clear. Newton has sold out Glen Eira in every possible way: population wise, land wise, service ways.

All this has happened under the watch of elected Councillors: Grossbard, Erlich, Martens, Kennedy, Neve, Longmuir, Marwick, Sapir, Goudge, Esakoff, Hyams, Bloom, Walsh, Bury, Lipshutz, Staikos, Whiteside, Robilliard, Spaulding, Feldman, and Ashmor. Newton ‘the Wizard of Oz’, once uncovered, is simply a manipulator, scaremonger and autocrat. And none of the Councillors mentioned could or can do anything about it as Newton intimidates, and in all probability threatens legal action if need be. He does not shirk from strong arm tactics, calling the police if necessary, and sacking staff he does not like or are not in line with his politics. It is not an accident that there were 3 investigations in Glen Eira since 1998. He has never been a passive participant in any of those investigations.

The new Councillors are ‘babes in the woods’ and signs are already there that they are going the same way as the previous lot. They cannot manage Andrew Newton, manage properly controlled and limited delegations, setting performance criteria for him, and assessing appropriately his performance. Barring a Royal Commission to find out the truth, or a Revolution to get rid of all the old Councillors and Newton – the long suffering Public will just have to cop it sweet.

Concerned Resident, (I’m assuming you’re the same individual who used to post to Mary Walsh’s old blog) you might know all that as you seem to have been there and you may still communicate with the top brass through the master ‘spin doctor’ Paul Burke, manipulator extraordinaire, who knows how to divide and rule. You should be concerned Concerned Resident, but your concern should be directed towards poor residents, poor ordinary staff, and poor Councillors, who are subjected to this regime of undemocratic, autocratic, and unethical behaviour.

From today’s Stonnington Leader –

Move over, racing industry

JUST south of Stonnington lies the least used park in metropolitan Melbourne.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is 25 times larger than the MCG, yet it has just 20 race meetings a year. The problem lies with the 600 horses stabled and trained there.

They make it virtually impossible for the public to use what is zoned as a ‘‘recreation ground and public park’’. Horses are dangerous; it’s time to shift them to country Victoria, where horses can frolic and be free. Already 80 per cent of horses running in those 20 race meetings are trucked in. Why not truck them all in? Stonnington and Glen Eira are starved of open space. Sorry, racing industry – it’s time to selflessly move over, and give the public a go.

Cr Frank Penhalluriack, City of Glen Eira.