Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 11, 2014

Southwick: More Wheeling & Dealing?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

The following is taken verbatim from Tuesday’s publication of Hansard.

Caulfield Park Conservatory

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise today to raise a matter with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in regard to the Caulfield Park conservatory. The action I seek is for the minister to conditionally approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to the vacant space at Caulfield Park being appropriately utilised as a feature within the park. The conservatory was in fact originally located at Rippon Lea as a greenhouse, but the original burnt down in the 1920s. There has been a great level of community concern and a big local campaign to save the conservatory. Unfortunately the structure has been let to run down over the years, and the Glen Eira City Council surveyed residents to explore options of either developing, demolishing or refurbishing the site known as the conservatory. One of the proposals included a cafe, which was completely rejected by the community.

The building is in worse shape than originally thought, and even though the most preferred option from the community consultation was to refurbish the conservatory, the Glen Eira council has voted to demolish it. I am told the actual cost of refurbishing the conservatory is estimated to be in excess of $250 000, and council has only set aside $100 000 to do the work. As a result, due to the overwhelming community concern and the historical nature of the conservatory, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has offered to relocate the structure back to the Rippon Lea estate. I have been informed that the council supports this new approach and is willing to fund the relocation of the conservatory.

I believe this is a good option, as we will still retain the conservatory in the area and in fact return it to its original home. This also opens up the possibility of upgrading the space and better utilising it for local residents, who have been advocating for more seating for the elderly and families in Caulfield Park. I would be prepared to organise a meeting, under the minister’s direction, with council and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries to explore these possibilities and opportunities. It is on these grounds that I ask that the minister approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to discussion with the council, and to appropriately upgrade the vacant land and keep it as a unique feature within the park.

Caulfield Park is a great park. As I have said on many occasions, it is the jewel in the crown in our open space in Caulfield, and we are looking at relocating the depot to Booran Reserve and to be able to look at this particular conservatory as one of the key projects. It is certainly a historic building. It has historic significance, as I said, back to the 1920s. To take that building back to its original home at Rippon Lea gardens would be a great opportunity for all, and I ask the minister to consider this matter.

RESPONSE:

Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change)—I rise to respond to the members for Caulfield and Seymour. The member for Caulfield raised issues about the relocation of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. As the member representing a municipality that has the lowest amount of public open space in the metropolitan Melbourne I have to say that he has been a great advocate for the good use of the public space that is available. I have asked him to convene a group of people who have an interest in using the open space in his electorate, and he is doing a very good job in making sure that in discussing the moving of the Glen Eira council depot from Caulfield Park to the open space at Booran Road we get the very best outcomes we possibly can. In doing so he will be discussing that issue with a number of sporting clubs and other users in the area. I will certainly be happy to accommodate the meeting he has asked for to ensure we get a good outcome.

 

COMMENT

We note the:

  • alleged council involvement and contributing of funds – all done of course without a formal resolution, nor consultation, nor revealing the costs involved – if even known as yet. Does “council” in this instance mean officers, councillors, or a combination of both? If ‘discussed’, then where is the record of this discussion and who was involved?
  • emphases on discussion with sporting groups
  • what logistic analyses has been done to ensure that the size of Booran Park can in reality accommodate what is now the Caulfield Depot – the size of at least 8 house blocks and this land is only 984 square metres!
  • What road safety analyses has been done to ensure that trucks, etc. leaving Booran Park do not constitute any threat to traffic, pedestrians, cyclists?
  • If this becomes a depot, or even a sporting ground, what happens to those trees originally deemed ‘significant’?

All in all, lots and lots of questions and typically no answers and just more back room wheeling and dealing in secret.

 

 

June 11, 2014

Ho, Ho, Ho – It’s the ‘Silly Season’

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

Item 9.8 featured Xmas/Chanukah decorations. We note at the outset this item probably involved the longest ‘discussion’ of the evening going on for about 20 minutes. Far more than delegations, planning applications, financial reports, Amendments, etc. Good to see that councillors know what deserves top billing! We also remind readers that the razing of the conservatory was voted in on the basis that ‘restoration’ was too expensive and that council had to be frugal with its limited finances!

Lipshutz ‘expanded’ the recommendation to include lighting, Xmas trees and Chanukias in all four libraries, at the town hall and at Gesac. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: said there was some ‘vexed issues’ about installing both Xmas trees and Chanukias. Stated that this is a ‘largely Christian’ society where ‘Christmas is celebrated’ so it’s ‘appropriate’ to have ‘festive lights’ and a tree. Even people who aren’t religious still ‘celebrate Christmas’. Glen Eira has the largest Jewish population of ‘anywhere in Australia’ and since Chanukah ‘falls around the same time’ as Christmas it’s appropriate that ‘we also recognise that’. Council shouldn’t be just looking at ‘bricks and mortar’ but also how ‘people feel’ and that Council should recognise that there are people who want to ‘celebrate Christmas, celebrate Chanukah’.

OKOTEL: delighted with the motion because she has been ‘envious’ of what other councils such as Stonnington do in comparison to the ‘bare town hall’ that is in Glen Eira and thought that it was ’embarrassing’ that there’s nothing at the town hall here. Even though some people might think of such decorations as ‘trivial’ she doesn’t think so. Having decorations brings ‘hope’ and a feeling of ‘celebration’. Council should ‘help’ and ‘facilitate’ people entering into ‘that festive season’. Decorations are ‘simple’ but it helps people enter ‘into that spirit’.

SOUNNESS: said he was sorry because he thought that they should be ‘doing councillor’ things and not so much about religion which ‘isn’t to my comfort’. Foreshadowed that he would abstain from the vote.

DELAHUNTY: asked anyone that since Lipshutz’s motion covered all the recommendations plus the extra one about Gesac, she wanted to know what this added to the $40,000 cost.

JONES: said he assumed that ‘we would be adding an additional’ Christmas tree and Chanukiah but ‘wasn’t quite sure’ what the answer was.

After some confusion it was decided that this would be an extra $2000 – making it $42,000

DELAHUNTY: said she was in ‘two minds’ on the issue. Was happy with lighting but not with ‘religious icons on state buildings’. Said that what needed to be ‘weighed up’ wasn’t just the money but ‘the value’. Claimed that $42,000 wasn’t a ‘relatively small amount of money’ and what was important was the ‘value that the community could get from that’ and she wasn’t sure that the value was there. Didn’t think that one the one hand councillors could argue about being treated like adults (ie the previous item on the agenda about rate capping) and then turn around and argue that $42,000 was a small amount of money. Can’t support anything but Option A because she thought that’s what would best suit the community. Nothing wrong with having the town hall lit as ‘opposed to religious events’.

MAGEE: started by saying that of the 140,000 residents that each experiences Christmas differently. For some it’s ‘spiritual’, and for others just a holiday. Didn’t see any of the options as ‘particularly religious for myself’. Said he saw this as a ‘multicultural item’ and not a ‘spiritual’ item. Just like Chinese new year and the dragon, it was good to watch but that ‘doesnt mean that I would build one’. Didn’t see the Christmas tree as a ‘religious symbol’ but just a ‘symbol of Christmas’. Even with 20% of the community being Jewish he thought that ‘every single one of them’ would have a different view and for some it would be ‘spiritual’ and for others it ‘would be just a symbol’. Saw this as an opportunity to ‘stop being politically correct’ and ‘just be ourselves’. Saw this as an ‘acknowledgement of the time of year’. Nothing wrong with that.

HYAMS: said that all they’re doing is ‘acknowledging the two largest cultures’ in the community and it’s not only about ‘recognising minorities’ but recognising ‘all cultures’ and most people would be ‘Christian or Jewish’. He knows plenty of people who aren’t religious but still have Christmas trees or Chanukiah at home at this time of year. This would ‘add a lot to the festive feel of the city’. It’s like saying that the City of Melbourne shouldn’t be spending a lot on fireworks but people do ‘get a lot out of it’ and ‘enjoy it’. Same goes for mixing state and religion because that would mean not having Carols in the Park. He goes and doesn’t feel offended by carols that have ‘got a lot to do with a religion that I don’t believe’. It’s ‘all part of being in a multicultural society’. Melbourne city council puts up a chanukiah in Fed Square and so does New York but they have a huge Jewish population. Saw it as ‘acknowledging a multicultural society’.

ESAKOFF: was ‘sitting on the fence’ and she really wanted only lighting and what the motion is, is even more than what Stonnington has got. Said she was ‘hesitating’ to go for all the options. ‘At this stage’ she was more in favour of Option B.

DELAHUNTY then asked about acknowledging the ‘traditional owners of the land’ and the past issue of putting up the aboriginal flag at the town hall.

PILLING: said that council doesn’t have a ‘continual presence’ but only during Reconciliation Week.

DELAHUNTY said that it was before her time, but she was wondering about a request for a report on putting up a flagpole for the aboriginal flag ‘in line with many other councils including Stonnington’. Wanted to know what the ‘cost of that was’.

Again, confusion and Burke said that ‘off the top my head’ he didn’t remember the cost.

Delahunty then asked if this was going to be a yearly cost. Jones said that it would be a once off cost apart from maintenance.

HYAMS then said that according to his memory cost wasn’t the only reason against the aboriginal flag but the question was about flagpoles of the same height as the Australian flag. Burke confirmed this.

PILLING: was in favour of Option A because it ‘wasn’t too costly’

LOBO: said that the Christmas tree ‘has a significance’. Asked ‘why don’t we give the same money to the charities?’ The season is meant to ‘give out things to the poor’ so it should go to charity.

LI8PSHUTZ: said this isn’t only about ‘dollars’ but ‘human capitol’. Council does have parties in the park but it’s not like Christmas and that’s the time when it’s a ‘festive season’ for everyone. Thousands show up for Chanukah in the park and they aren’t all Jewish. ‘It’s summer, it’s warm, it’s Christmas’ and ‘people feel good about it’. So it’s an ‘opportunity’ for council to ‘do something about it’. If it was a continual cost of $42,000 then he wouldn’t be in favour of it, but it’s only a start up cost and then a ‘very small’ maintenance cost and it will ‘go on for years and years’. In Australia there isn’t the ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘we’re not scared of offending’ by ‘having a Christmas tree’ and not scared of offending Muslims by having a Chanukiah, or offending Christians.’We are a multicultural society’ and when people see the Christmas trees, Chanukiah and lights they will ‘recognise it’. It’s important and council spends money on infrastructure and ‘improving our libraries’, streets, but a criticism is given about what council doesn’t do in ‘bringing people together’. It will ‘make people feel good’

 

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: VOTING FOR – LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST: DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

 

June 9, 2014

Secrecy Versus Transparency!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

This paragraph featured in our post of March 23rd, 2011 –

We’ve written that secrecy and transparency do not mix. Secrecy invites speculation; it encourages distrust; and it reinforces a siege mentality – all counterproductive. Yet this is the way that this council has been perceived for years. Residents are not viewed as colleagues and/or collaborators in planning, setting visions for the future, or merely partaking in democratic processes. They are viewed as troublesome cash cows that need to be managed, sidelined and ignored whenever the legislation unwittingly allows for such manoeuvres.

Item 9.11 in the current agenda is another case where secrecy rules the roost – the Municipal Emergency Management Plan. For a council which has one of the highest flood risks in the metropolitan area and where hundreds of homes and businesses were inundated by the floods of February 2011 it is frankly unconscionable that the following statement is made by Waite –

A copy of the current version of the Plan is available in the Councillors’ Room for Councillors to view. As it contains personal information, it is not a public document.

There can be no excuse as to why this document is kept under wraps, especially not when it has the potential to impact on countless lives. Residents have every right to know exactly what the ‘changes’ are and how well positioned this council is in order to respond to any kind of large-scale emergency. Resorting to claims of ‘personal information’ simply will not do – and especially not when all of the following councils (to name but a few!) see no problem in publishing their Emergency Plans on their websites!

As always, the focus needs to be on councillors and whether they have the will to ensure that such practices are put to an end.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-moreland/emergency-management/municipal-emergency-management-plan.html

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Municipal-Emergency-Management-Plan.html

http://www.centralgoldfields.com.au/?id=23510100B6A0B1D9AEE15DBACA25799900168F98

http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/MEMP.aspx

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/governance/documents/item/b9ccbf99.aspx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=municipal+emergency+plan

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Services-and-Support/Emergency-Information/Emergency-Information

 

 

June 7, 2014

Amendment C102: Con Job Par Excellence!

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

Apologies for this long post – but it’s important!

Item 9.2 for Tuesday night’s council meeting exemplifies in our view the continued ‘con job’ that this administration foists on residents and probably most councillors. Here are some very illuminating facts:

  1. The bogus Planning Scheme Review of 2010 resolved to review all policies
  2. In June 2012, Amendment C102 first reared its ugly head
  3. GE DEBATES at the time provided the following commentary –

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY PROPOSED   CHANGES
To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas   which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side.   Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

 

 

The   proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

 

 

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

 

 

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

he  standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car  parking and public transport.

 

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

 

Where  car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

 

 

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

 To  encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

 

 

Encourage the   location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably   compromised.

 

DISAPPEARED   and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas   (as defined in Clause 22.08)

 

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in   a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

 

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

 

 

Retain any high priority significant trees  or landscape features within the design where possible.

 

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in  a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

 

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

 

 

DISAPPEARED

At the July 2012 Council meeting an unanimous resolution was passed to DEFER THE AMENDMENT. Here is the what Tang, Hyams, Esakoff, and Lobo stated at the time –

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog  and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views  and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS:  Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own.  Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-whiff-of-revolution/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/

So now, AFTER A 2 YEAR DELAY, Amendment C102 makes a comeback! Has it changed? Has it addressed all the concerns that were evident in 2012? Not by a long shot. Admittedly some things have changed as a result of the New Zones – but the basics, such as protecting ‘significant trees’, setbacks, drainage, and many of the other points we raised are still valid, relevant and represent a bonus to applicants and not residents!

That of course raises the very serious question of:

  • Where is corporate memory, and especially the memory of councillors who (pretended?) at the time that they weren’t satisfied with the proposed changes? Since the 2012 and 2014 version are practically identical, and so is the officer’s report (word for word) why did they permit this amendment to be advertised as it stood? And the $64 question – how will they vote? Surely if it wasn’t good enough in 2012, it can’t be good enough now?
  • Or was this all smoke and mirrors – with knowledge of what was to come via the new zones legislation and the 100 metre extension around activity centres for uses without permits? There can be absolutely no excuse for a delay of 2 years from Version 1 to Version 2, when there have hardly been any changes whatsoever except the removal of the car parking measures and objectives.
  • Do the powers that be simply rely on poor memory so that they can ram through whatever accommodates developers rather than doing their jobs of trying their utmost to protect neighbourhood amenity? It would seem so we believe.
  • The councillors ‘excuses’ this coming Tuesday should be a highlight!

Residents and readers also need to take a very, very close look at Amendment C120 (open space levy) and how this has been manipulated. We will comment in detail on this in the coming weeks.

 

June 6, 2014

Agenda Items: More Emasculation?

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is quite literally a ‘doozy’! What stands out clearly is the ceding of more and more power to unelected bureaucrats and removing the ‘influence’ of councillors even further. This has been done via suggested changes to the Planning Delegations. Councillors have never had (unlike other councils) the option of ‘legalised’ ‘call ins’. That is, if one councillor decides that an application should come before council for decision, that option is open to him/her. This does not exist in Glen Eira. What is now up for decision makes the sidelining of councillors even more ‘efficient’. The proposal is that if no more than 3 objections come into an application, then officers may decide. They may also decide if an objector has received a phone call from a planning officer and thereby had the ‘opportunity’ to voice concerns! Even worse is that the power to grant an amended permit for three storeys is now also in the hands of the unelected if they have previously been involved.

Akehurst provides SOME details of other councils’ delegations and how Glen Eira fares in comparison. For example, he cites that Port Phillip requires 15 objections, Stonnington 6 objections. However, what is conveniently omitted in relation to these other councils is the option for a single councillor to insist that the application come before council – ie. even on parking dispensations the Port Phillip delegation states: Non-compliance with residential parking requirements (except that a minor dispensation can be determined by the Manager City Development or Neighbourhood Coordinators unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.

The best line however comes in the conclusion  to his report – Even with the recommended 3 objection limit our delegations would be more conservative than all the above mentioned Councils but our decision making performance would significantly improve. How effective ‘decision making’ is predicated on the number of objections is, of course, unstated and ultimately quite ridiculous.

But there’s even more of totally unsubstantiated and suspect logic. We quote directly from Akehurst’s report –

Attendees at DPC are dropping. Increasingly objectors and even applicants are not attending. This is likely the outcome of town planning rules which are now clearer.

Council also proposes to shorten the ‘lay off period’ over Christmas since this disadvantages the applicant and ‘benefits the objector’. During this time, phone calls may suffice! – On the last dot point, it is proposed that each objector has been spoken to either in person or telephone by a senior planning officer as delegated by the manager (the outcomes of which would be formally recorded on file). The senior officer will repeatedly attempt to contact an objector over a 48 hour period, after which a decision can be made.

This approach would still satisfy a fundamental principle of Glen Eira’s town planning process by allowing objectors an opportunity to elaborate on their objection with the decision maker. This would build on and follow the recent ‘consultation/mediation’ process adopted for applications with 1 objection.

Ironically we also have in this same agenda more evidence of how poorly council informs residents of what is going on in their direct vicinity. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the practise of minimal notification whenever many objections are anticipated, is alive and well. Item 9.1 features an application for 13 double storeys in Carnegie. Only 13 properties were notified, 16 notices sent and 44 objections received.

There is much more more that we will be commenting upon in the days ahead. However of real interest is this in camera item

12.2 which relates to the awarding of the contract for 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – New Building, Civil Works and Landscaping.

Number of tenders received Four

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against Three

Estimated contract value $8m

Surely residents deserve some public statement on what is happening at Duncan Mackinnon and why a project that originally was costed at 7 million has blown out to nearly ten million and now another 8 million possibly? And why the years and years of delay?

PS – UNRELATED, BUT WE’VE RECEIVED A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY BY A RESIDENT WHICH REVEALS THE CARNAGE ALREADY UNDERWAY FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE. Location is corner of Bond/Station Streets.

031

 

June 2, 2014

Good Or Bad?

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

Bayside has implemented what the latest bill before parliament proposes – the setting up of a CEO employment committee. How this will ultimately impact on the ‘job for life’ approach taken in Glen Eira is open to debate. We remind readers that since Newton was appointed in 2000 his contract has NEVER BEEN ADVERTISED; the community is not privy to the Key Performance Indicators of the contract, and legal battles have raged periodically.

Below is the Bayside Media Release and a rundown of neighbouring councils and the dates of their CEO appointments.

CEO Employment Matters Committee – Chairperson

Bayside City Council invites applications from suitably qualified persons for appointment to Council’s Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee as Chairperson for an initial term of up to three years with an option to review annually.

It is proposed that the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee will meet approximately five (5) times per year.  A per meeting remuneration fee is offered with this role.

The Chief Executive Officers Employment Matters Committee will operate as an Advisory Committee to Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.  The key functions and responsibilities of this Committee are:

  • To make recommendations to Council on contractual matters relating to the Chief Executive Officer or the person appointed to act as the Chief Executive Officer including the following:
    • The appointment of the Chief Executive Officer;
    • Remuneration and conditions of appointment of the Chief Executive Officer
    • Any extension of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94(4)
  • To conduct performance reviews of the Chief Executive Officer; and
  • To perform any other prescribed functions and responsibilities.

Applications received for the role of Chairperson will be assessed against:

  • Demonstrated human resource management skills, senior business experience and qualifications;
  • Experience in senior management recruitment;
  • Recognised ability in relation to performance management and development of Executive level staff; and
  • Previous experience or facilitation experience working with Executive Governance bodies or Board Members in membership and/or facilitation roles.

Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee Charter (PDF, 902KB)

Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/latest_news.htm

Bayside – Adrian Robb – 2008

Port Phillip – Tracey Slatter – 2013

Kingston – John Nevins – 2005

Stonnington – Warren Roberts – 2009

Boroondara – Philip Storer – 2012

Manningham – Joe Carbone – 2012

Monash – Andi Diamond – 2012

 

May 29, 2014

Notice Of Motion

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

The next Kingston Council Meeting set down for June 2nd should be well worth watching on their live streaming. Several Notices of Motion stand out for their call for greater transparency and accountability and hence overall governance practices. None of these, of course, could ever happen in Glen Eira given the current status of Meeting Procedures as well as a culture that shuns public scrutiny on all matters.

Here are the most ‘interesting’ items –

(Councillor Bearsley) – I Move

A. That council launches an independent review of the following areas in order of priority:

a. Community Engagement

b. Economic Development

c. Communications

d. Statutory Planning

B. That council scopes a tender process for an efficiency and effectiveness report for whole of council to be compiled by a reputable accounting/auditing firm and completed no later than August 2014.

C. That council develops an annual assessment and review process of efficiency and effectiveness of the council organisation with appropriate reporting measures which improve accountability and transparency.

D. That performance reporting KPIs be incorporated as part of an annual review.

 

(Cr Eden) – I move that:

Kingston Council seek to appoint an independently appointed observer to explore whether there are poor practices at Kingston Council, and whether Councillors have been acting in a questionable manner with respect to Planning matters.

 

(Cr Bearsley) – I move :

I move that planning officers prepare a report that details all developments, over the past two years, that have significantly breached the approved permit conditions and required amendment/resolution. The report is to indicate the breach, address, owner/applicant and final outcome. The report should include ways Kingston identify and minimise such breaches occurring and be provided by the 30th June.

 

(Cr Eden) – I move :

1. Council record the ‘in camera’ part of the Council meeting, so that if & when the item(s) are later made public the debate / discussion accompanying the confidential item will also be available to the public.

2. That officers report to Council on the reasons for ‘glitches / errors’ in the live recording and streaming of council meetings, and possible actions to rectify these problems, including:

a) That officers explore alternative mechanisms for recording the sound generated at meetings to ensure that regardless of whether the person speaking has their microphone on, their comments will be recorded – this will ensure if there is debate /discussions around the room that such comments are captured.

b) Officers implement a system to ensure that the live recording / streaming is working during meetings, and that Councillors are immediately notified if there are ‘technical issues’.

++++++++++

Another agenda item includes an indepth report on items declared ‘confidential’ which is well worth reading.

 

May 27, 2014

A Second Class Citizenry!

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

carnegie

The above graphic is the perfect illustration of how inept and indifferent to residential amenity this council really is. Newton and his band of willing accomplices (ie councillors) have succeeded in creating thousands upon thousands of second class citizens in Glen Eira. These residents do not deserve open space, sunlight, “diversity” of apartments and parking. In short, if people happen to dwell within cooee of an activity or neighbourhood centre then they have become the sacrificial lambs to rampant over development and, all achieved of course, in secret, and without any public consultation.

The featured map makes a mockery of any suggestion of ‘buffer zones’. Zoning a commercial centre that has no height limits, right up against a residential zone is planning gone mad and, if not ineptitude, then total disregard for those particular residents and their rights.

217 Koornang Road is a recent VCAT decision which approved a three storey building, 13 dwellings, 3 offices and waiver of car parking. Council did oppose this application, but its zoning, and therefore planning scheme was the chief culprit in the decision. The inequity of standards is made starkly real in the following statements by the member. We quote from the judgement –

“Ms Rawadi was particularly concerned about overshadowing of her north facing windows and the open space of her dwelling to the south of the subject land. In RPC architects Member Cimino, having discussed in some detail the reasonable amenity expectations of a dwelling in a Commercial 1 Zone (then the Business 1 Zone) when confronted with the redevelopment of another site in the Commercial 1 Zone to the north reached the following conclusion:

  1. Given this, it is unrealistic to expect that solar access in accordance with the relevant standard of Clause 55 be maintained to north facing windows or that the backyard will not be overshadowed to a substantial extent.
  • I agree with this assessment. The overshadowing impact of the proposed development on Ms Rawadi’s windows and open space will be significant and would not be acceptable if both properties were located within a residential zone. However, the properties are located within a Commercial 1 Zone and in that context the amenity relationship including that in respect of overshadowing which will result from the construction of the proposed building is an acceptable outcome. It should be noted that the dwelling and open space to the south will not be overshadowed for the entire year. I would expect that for approximately 5 months of the year the north facing windows of the dwelling will receive some sunlight ranging from relatively unfettered solar access at the summer solstice to more limited solar access towards the middle of the day close to the equinoxes. A greater level of solar access will be enjoyed by the open space areas”.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/561.html

The take home message? For all the spin and propaganda there are no ‘buffer zones’ in Glen Eira. Even in NRZ1 zones where 2 storeys are permitted, there is no guarantee that neighbours will not be deprived of sunlight and bear the brunt of significant overlooking.

PS: Residents should also note the following. On the 30th August 2011, Council passed unanimously the following resolution:

Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.

In December 2011, according to the Quarterly Reports the Minister had given ‘conditional’ approval for exhibition. This was supposed to be exhibited in March 2012. The next Quarterly Report noted that the exhibition period would now be May/June 2012. Then, in the minutes of 30th November 2012, there is this buried little sentence – “Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones”.

No public statement explaining why this amendment was not exhibited as the resolution mandated has ever been given. As per usual, residents have been left in the dark. Whilst C90 was full of loop holes, the ensuing Residential Zones ignored much of what was then stipulated. Stealth, secrecy and keeping the public as ignorant as possible is the continued and unacceptable modus operandi of this council.

 

 

May 26, 2014

Delahunty: Right Of Reply

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[25] Comments 

11.2 Right of reply
(a) Cr Delahunty.

“I feel that my decision making has been misrepresented by comments made by the friends of Caulfield Park president David Wilde and reported in today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader on-line and I seek to restore the balance to the public debate. In other mediums by the same person purporting to represent the entire group I and one of my colleagues was described as grossly incompetent and treacherous. In a further public flyer it was intimated that I said the conservatory was an icon and that I was hypocritical and deceptive. In yet another piece of correspondence I along with other Councillors were described as arrogant and deceptive. About these comments I would like to say that I will always defend the rights of people to disagree with me but I will not stand by and allow unprofessional and seemingly contradictory insults to be used. I condemn those comments as I have done in the past.

So onto the misrepresentation of my decision making in the comments today. The comments today suggest that we have snubbed our nose at the community. So to address the survey results. The report showed that the structural issues were so great that retention as the community called for was not really an option. Instead, as I spoke about at the Council Meeting
at the time the conservatory would have been a substantially new one if we were to go ahead with it. I therefore felt that the community consultation was based on a now unrealistic premise that there was an option to actually retain the conservatory in the first place. The advice we received also said there is no heritage value in to current structure. Instead it is largely, like my house, owed to 1970s architecture.

The cost is significant not as the comments say today merely insignificant and I take all decisions on costs very seriously regardless of how minor they might seem in the overall budget. The comments today also suggest that we should be condemned for the money we are spending on open space in other areas of the municipality areas that do not have parks let alone ones as large as Caulfield Park. Areas where residents get into a car to drive to find access to public space. It is money well spent and it is spent at the behest of the wider municipality. We could go back into consultation and check with the community and we could ask. So substantially the question would probably be; would you like to build a pretty much new conservatory using elements of an old conservatory without any historical significance in Caulfield Park for around half a million dollars at the very least. If so, please nominate which areas of Glen Eira you would like us to remove services from or which areas of open space you would like us to forego in order to provide this or please indicate if you are happy to have your rates increased to accommodate this expenditure. See, I don’t need to spend more ratepayers money to have this conversation because I already know what the answer will be. With the cost of living increases that families are facing in Glen Eira in the face of a cruel Federal Budget it seems rather elitist to insist that Council reach into the pockets of residents to deliver a conservatory to Caulfield Park and I hope this goes some way to balancing the public debate in this area.”

 

May 23, 2014

Flip-Flopping & Musical Chairs!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

The continued ‘musical chairs’ between Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz on the issue of conflicts of interest show no sign of abating. What was a new step on Tuesday night is that both Hyams and Esakoff did not declare a conflict in relation to the MRC giant screen application under the clauses they had previously used (78B), but instead declared a ‘personal interest’ under Section 79B. The minutes record the following:

Cr Hyams applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act stating that there is no Conflict of Interest as such but as he is a member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust which has also needed to look at this issue.

Cr Esakoff applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act as she is a member of the Trust that has looked at this issue.

8.48PM Cr Hyams and Cr Esakoff left the Chamber.

In the interests of complete accuracy, here is what Section 79B of the Local Government Act States. We draw readers’ attention to clause 2 and 5.

Conflicting personal interest

    (1)     This section does not apply to a Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest in the matter.

    (2)     If a Councillor or a member of a special committee considers that he or she has a personal interest in relation to a matter that is in conflict with his or her public duty in relation to the matter, the Councillor or member may, immediately before the matter is considered at the relevant meeting, apply to the Council or special committee to be exempted from voting on the matter.

    (3)     If a Councillor or member of a special committee makes an application under subsection (2), he or she must give reasons in support of the application.

    (4)     A Council or special committee may consent to an application made under subsection (2) and must not unreasonably withhold consent.

    (5)     If a Council or special committee consents to an application under subsection (4), sections 79(6), 79(7), 79(8) and 79(9) apply as if the personal interest that is the subject of an application under subsection (2) were a conflict of interest specified under this Act.

Lipshutz remained in the chamber, seconded the motion, spoke to it and voted! His ‘explanation’ and comments were –

LIPSHUTZ: began by declaring that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest in this item ‘because I am not a member of the MRC’ and that ‘when I look at this (application) it is appropriate‘. Since one of the purposes of the racecourse is ‘racing’ and the screen isn’t any ‘bigger than the one in NSW’ and that racing brings in a ‘lot of revenue for the State’ and ‘I think it’s important’. Said that this doesn’t mean that it’s ‘more important than the other two purposes’ (ie park). This is ‘appropriate’ and won’t have any ‘impact on houses nearby’ and isn’t an ‘amenity issue’. He saw ‘no reason to refuse it’.

All in all quite staggering we say. How one councillor continually adjudges that his position is different to two other councillors in the identical situation is mind boggling. And of course, this application has never rested on the premise as to whether anyone is a member of the MRC. That is a nonsense, since it is the Trust which has legal oversight of the MRC. Even more disturbing is that not one single councillor has challenged Lipshutz in his refusal to leave the chamber, or possibly to leave councillor assemblies. So much for adhering to the principles of ‘conflict of interest’.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »