Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 3, 2014

Penhalluriack Charges Dropped!

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

Glen Eira Council withdraws rooming house charges against former councillor

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 03, 2014 11:32AM

GLEN Eira council has withdrawn all rooming house charges against former councillor Frank Penhalluriack and his family company.

A three-day contest due to start in Melbourne Magistrates Court at 10am today over in less than one hour.

Mr Penhalluriack says the council had no basis to its claim and that it was an unnecessary expenditure of ratepayers’ money, “which should be justified by those who brought the proceedings”.

The council had also, months earlier, withdrawn the same charge against Mrs Penhalluriack.

His tenant, Tomer Raba, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to register a rooming house and was convicted, placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond and ordered to pay $2000 to the court fund.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENT

After two years of relentlessly pursuing Penhalluriack  Council has dropped all charges. In fact, council’s barrister after claiming so adamantly late last year that the charged were in cahoots now had a different tone and a different language. It was now Mr Raba who was the sole “proprietor” and not simply the “manager”.  This now comes on top of countless council instigated delays in hearings, thousands spent on summonses, and doubtless tens and tens of thousands of ratepayer dollars spent on lawyers. Residents should not forget the previous $12,000 that was paid out to the defence lawyers because council could not get its act together on hearsay evidence – and this $12,000 did not include the costs of council’s legal eagles. What a waste and what total disregard for the public purse.

We also remind readers that the infamous ‘mulch’ facility fracas has now also proven Penhalluriack correct with council’s new ‘warning’ notice, and the installation of a sprinkler system – as Penhalluriack advocated right from the beginning. The warning notice even includes the words ‘Legionnaire’s’ and we remind readers that Penhalluriack was denied access to the full scientific documents that would establish whether any bacteria and/or Legionnaires were present in the mulch at the time of testing. This of course begs the question entirely why the facility was allowed to operate for just on two years without any of these now installed safety precautions and why even after the scientific report, it took council another year to meet all of the report’s recommendations. Even now, employees working with this mulch in various parts of the municipality do so without goggles, masks and gloves as specified in the warning.

There is much that this Council and some of its councillors have to answer for in their relentless pursuit of one individual who has now been vindicated in all of his concerns. The same cannot be said for those who instigated all these proceedings and who were hell bent on ensuring his non re-election  – and all at ratepayers’ expense.

2014 02 Mulch Heap Norticiation0001

 

February 28, 2014

Who Is Footing The Bill?

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

Below we present a series of facts and leave readers to draw their own conclusions.

  1. In 2005 the Auditor General reported that Glen Eira’s drainage system was well below par
  2. In February 2011 many parts of Glen Eira were under flood – particularly in Carnegie, McKinnon, Murrumbeena and Ormond areas
  3. The Caulfield Village development is the largest ever to take place in Glen Eira. The drainage plans indicate a coefficient of 1 meaning a 100% runoff (or 100% impermeable surfaces).
  4. Council’s drains surround the Caulfield Village site and not Melbourne Water. The latter has indicated that their drains (primarily one through Caulfield Park) will not cause ‘environmental damage’.
  5. The Caulfield Village land slopes down from the Smith St area towards Caulfield Park and Dandenong Road and there are two primary catchments involved. Sections of the land and its surrounds have been declared as a flood zone and are therefore subject to a Special Building Overlay.
  6. In the past 18 or so months there has been a frenzy of activity surrounding the Caulfield Village site. Many of these drainage projects have been through public tender and listed in the in camera items at council meetings. Others have not since the CEO has the delegated authority to grant contracts for drainage up to $750,000. The recent Stanley Parade works were stated to cost $490,000 – but this is only for Stage 1. Presumably there is also a Stage 2, and perhaps a Stage 3. The final cost is thus unknown.
  7. The Caulfield Village development proposes to largely install 300 mm diameter size drainage infrastructure that will then meet up with council’s drains
  8. The map below indicates all known drainage works that have recently taken place around the Caulfield Village development

drainage works

The cost to ratepayers is itemised below:

ADDRESS

COST

DIAMETER OF DRAINS
Caraddock Ave/Keverall Road $914,532.80 inclusive of GST 1800 mm
Halstead St $812,399.50 inclusive of GST 600 mm
Stanley Parade $490,000 (Stage One) 1200 mm
Ward Avenue Unknown (tender closed 20th September 2013) 1200 mm
Hudson Street $876,970.82 750 mm

Below is a photo of the drains going into Keverell/Hawthorn Rd

hawthorn 9. Proposed Caulfield Village drainage

proposed drainage scheme

10. Results of increased impervious surface (from Wikipedia)

Natural_&_impervious_cover_diagrams_EPA

11. Yesterday (February 27th) saw the gazetting of Amendment C99 which declared a Parking Overlay for Student Accommodation. The parking overlays apply to most of the above streets and have the potential to be approved in ALL HOUSING DIVERSITY AREAS. There is no visitor onsite car parking provision and for some areas the onsite parking formula is 0.3 spaces for each ‘bed’. The Amendment was first requested by council in March 2013 under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act – meaning ministerial approval and no public consultation or right to object.

PS: The Section 173 Agreement between Council and the MRC originated in November 2010 according to the draft contained in the minutes of April 2011. The Agreement specifies that council does not have a Development Contributions Levy in its planning scheme. It must be noted that the Development Contributions Levy was gazetted and removed from the Planning Scheme on the 8th September 2011 – 5 months after the C60 decision was made and nearly 18 months following the draft Section 173 agreement. Therefore, did the MRC know more than residents?

PPS: we’ve uploaded a paper that was delivered at an international conference in December 2011 where Glen Eira was the ‘case study’. Particular attention should be placed on the table provided on page 6 of the paper. Needless to say none of this information has been made freely available to residents. Readers can upload the document HERE

 

February 27, 2014

Public Questions

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

Another two instances reveal what a joke Council Minutes are turning into. The (infamous) Lipshutz Right of Reply fails to include his little ‘addendum’ that was not in the printed agenda version. This in itself calls into question council’s Local Law since it specifies that all rights of reply have to be published in the agenda. Lipshutz’s concluding paragraph (relating the experience of a relative under Nazism) was not in the agenda. This was an ‘add on’ and has now been left out of the draft minutes.

The far more important omission from the minutes relates to a public question where a resident asked why previous minutes did not include the Delahunty phrase ‘be provided’. By excluding this phrase, the administration is not ORDERED to produce the vital traffic management studies on surrounding streets to the Caulfield Village Development. The fact that time and again councillors sit in silence and accept the distortion of history without a whimper should give residents an insight into the machinations that occur in this council and the integrity of those who sit in chambers.

Below are a selection of these public questions and their non-answers.

Question – On December 17th 2013 Cr Delahunty stated that Council had undertaken some ‘recent’ traffic studies on Queen’s Avenue, Eskdale Road and the surrounds of Sir John Monash Drive. I ask:
(1) Why have these studies not been placed in the public domain so that residents may be privy to all relevant information that could help inform their submissions to the MRC Development Plan?
(2) Why have the minutes of this December 17th meeting not included Delahunty’s words that the studies be ‘provided’ – presumably to councillors and potentially the public?
(3) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with hard copies of these studies? If so, when?
(4) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with verbal reports of these studies? If so, when?”

Response –

1. Generally ‘traffic studies’ are undertaken by Council on an ongoing basis. Detailed traffic studies have been (and are continuing to be) undertaken by Caulfield Village’s traffic engineers to determine the extent and appropriateness of the required traffic management works as part of Amendment C60. These studies have been placed in the public domain. In turn, Council’s traffic engineers are reviewing the traffic studies to ensure that the appropriate analysis is undertaken.
2. At the Council Meeting on 4 February 2014 Council unanimously confirmed the Minutes of the 17 December 2013 Council Meeting without any changes to the Minutes.
3. Councillors were provided with written advice in January 2014 that provided information about the Queens Avenue / Normanby Road intersection, the Queens Avenue / Sir John Monash Drive roundabout, Eskdale Road and pedestrian conditions in Queens Avenue.
4. I refer you to 3 above.”

COMMENT

It should be carefully noted that ‘reviewing’ the MRC’s traffic studies is not what Delahunty requested. Secondly ‘written advice’ is not the same as providing councillors with the hard copy studies themselves. It is more than likely that it is a short memo crafted by the admin. We further believe that no councillor has as yet clapped eyes on the traffic studies.

Question – In 2011 Council rejected C60 Panel’s view that there shouldn’t be preferred maximum height limits near Monash University. On 10 October 2013 Council voted not to oppose the changes sought by the developer through Ministerial Amendment C111, to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the Caulfield Mixed Use Incorporated Plan, which removed height limits from that portion of C60.

What were Council’s reasons for supporting the removal of height limits from a portion of the precinct, and what were Council’s reasons for deciding to exempt balconies when assessing fit with the specified building envelope, which makes it inconsistent with the rest of the Planning Scheme, and why were the details of the changes being sought not included in the Agenda or Minutes? Was Council misled about the extent of the changes that it voted on and ultimately supported?

Response –

Council officers identified what was a DTPLI’s error with respect to the Smith Street height limits in the approved documentation for Amendment C111. The height limit was not proposed to be altered by Council under Amendment C111. The DTPLI has acknowledged its error and is currently in the process of reinstating the height limit within the Smith Street precinct to reflect the maximum height limit of 120m AHD (typically 20 storeys).

With respect to balcony projections, it is common for minor building intrusions to be disregarded in setback distances prescribed. The State Government’s Rescode specifically states that verandahs, porches, pergolas and eaves are allowable encroachments. It is noted that if Council is not ultimately happy with the extent of any balcony intrusions, it can either condition a development plan to alter or remove the intrusions or refuse the development plan outright.

COMMENT

Another example of the incompetence of both Council and the Department as we have previously commented. More importantly, the reference to ResCode is quite laughable and designed to camouflage the truth since ResCode does not apply to buildings of this proposed height. Add to this that to the best of our knowledge there is nothing in the MRC’s plans which indicate the EXTENT OF INTRUSION in the ‘sacrosanct’ set backs, nor is this spelt out in the officer’s report, and we have before us in this response the biggest con job of all time.

From the in camera items we have this notice:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

Note that the proceedings brought by Council have been settled by the payment to Council of $2,000,000.00 and that this part of the resolution be incorporated in the public Minutes of this Meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENT

This really does not tell us a thing since:

1. Council was still with-holding close to $2M from the original contract
2. It does not state who is paying for lawyers
3. Nor does it tell us if any penalties were applied
4. Nor does it tell us if the counter claim by Hansen and Yuncken is still going ahead

PS: And to completely shatter the myth of a ‘united’ councillor group here is the Lobo gem taken from the minutes –

Cr Lobo: “I foreshadow a right of reply at the next Council Meeting.
Cr Lipshutz is yet to apologise to me for asking me in writing if my previous employers in Middle East and I were involved in terrorism and then dismissing the written words as innocuous, a word he has used again in tonight’s
meeting.
When Councillor Lipshutz apologies to me in writing then he might be in a position to lecture on appropriate behaviour to the friends of Caulfield.

 

February 25, 2014

Shonky, Shonky, Shonky!

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

Tonight’s council meeting started with a whimper and ended with a real bang – especially in relation to the public questions and the Delahunty Request for a Report. Here is just a brief summary of what occurred. Details of all council’s shenanigans will be up over the next few days. The most important things to note are:

  • Glen Eira Debates takes a lot of the credit for pointing out the continual stuff ups that this Council and the Department oversees. Our recent post highlighted the discrepancy between the 2009 and the November 2013 ‘preferred height limits’ in the respective Incorporated Plans for the Caulfield Village. Well, lo and behold, this was another ‘clerical error’ and the Department is now working on correcting it!
  • Councillors have not got a copy of council’s ‘recent’ (pre December 2013) traffic analysis. The answer to this public question basically said that the Caulfield Village people (not to be confused with the Village People!) have done extensive studies and that’s what is basically relied upon. We wonder if these bunnies have even bothered to DEMAND access to these reports or as with the Redan St. stuff up they still maintain their unshakeable faith in the abilities of the traffic department?
  • Delahunty requested a report that sought the Valuer General’s estimation of the ‘value’ of the Caufield Racecourse Reserve. She stated that he had never been approached to provide a valuation. Please note: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF did NOT DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND VOTED ON THIS ITEM.
  • Pilling will be chairing the Planning Conference on Monday evening. We maintain that this represents ANOTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
  • Our final comment relates to the foreshadowing by Lobo of his Right of Reply to Lipshutz asking him (years ago now!) whether the banks he had worked for were in any way associated with terrorism?
 

February 25, 2014

Subsidising the MRC?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 
 

We’ve received the following comment from a reader and believe it deserves to be highlighted as a separate post. The issues that are raised are significant –

  • To what extent is Council ‘facilitating’ the C60 development with ratepayer funds?
  • How ‘competent’ is the traffic department’s report and when errors are pointed out these are totally ignored? Why?
  • Council’s ‘policy’ states that any traffic calming initiatives must first undergo ‘community consultation’. When 92% of residents in a local street state that suggested works are unnecessary, then why is Council so insistent that the works go ahead?
  • If councillors ‘decided’ to support officers, then again and again we have major governance issues relating to decision making behind closed doors.

 

The Redan Road bicycle lane installation smacks of collusion – everywhere else in the municipality installing bicycle lanes only involves painting a white line on either side of the road and adding some cycling symbols.

Not so Redan Road – it involved
– landscaped traffic calming treatments all along the street and which at one point reduced a wide four lane road to one lane
– a loss of about 15 on street parking spaces (a number of residences are single fronted Victorian/Edwardian that have limited on-site parking capacity and on-street parking is already in high demand) which was disputed by the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Department who claimed only a loss 5)
– 93% of residents signed a petition against it – under the proposal several the landscaped traffic treatments would permanently prevent them from parking within 100 metres of their residence.
– Resident discussions with Ward Councillor/s and the Glen Eira/O’Brien Traffic Engineers proved several of the engineers claims blatantly wrong, described the cost of the installation as a waste of ratepayers money particularly as all residents wanted was a couple of speed humps and the cycling lanes.
– Residents and Councillor/s agreed the speed hump solution would be pursued.
– Residents have now been advised that at the last Councillor Assembly (despite the local law prohibits decisions being made in Assemblies) it was decided to implement the Glen Eira/O’Brien recommendation. No doubt the tactic of letting ward councillors off the hook on contentious issues by non-ward councillors (who have probably never seen the Road) out voting them on the basis of “greater good” for the community is once again being played.

Oh did I forget to mention
. Redan Road, North Caulfield, is an wide angled road (approx. 400 metres in length) that links Balaclava Road with Kambrook Road.
. The Balaclava junction is smack dab across from Caulfield Park next to the controlled Bambra and Balaclava Roads intersection.
. Kambrook Road end is smack dab opposite the MRC’s Caulfield Village’s main Kambrook Road pedestrian access point and that the MRC is going to undertake the installation of pedestrian safety treatments at the Kambrook Road/Redan Road intersection.
. That Redan Road residents do not have a major traffic volume/speed issue since the 40 k/h speed limit and combined the restricted left turn and pedestrian safety refuge (from Kambrook to Redan) was implemented in 2007/2008. Ditto with the Balaclava Road/Redan Road intersection.
. That the Caulfield Village Development Plans focus on Redan Road as a major pedestrian/cycling route to access Caulfield Park and a tram stop that is further away then the Kambrook/Balaclava tram stop.
. How lovely it would be for the Caulfield Village residents to stroll/cycle down a wide, landscaped, tree lined avenue on their way to the already “at capacity” Caulfield Park – not to mention a photo op for the Caulfield Village marketing materials.

No doubt the Redan Road residents are greatly consoled by the fact that their already Caulfield Village impacted amenity will be further reduced by unwanted traffic treatments, that will prevent them from parking near their residences and that are being partly funded from their rates.
 

February 23, 2014

Trickey Dickies & Governance!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

Presented below are a series of pages from the various versions of the Incorporated Plans for the (euphemistically labelled) ‘Caulfield Village’. They raise innumerable questions as to process and overall governance by this Council. The first set of plans clearly illustrate:

  • The April 2011 version which became the official C60 and which was never given to residents prior to the formal consultation process, and
  • The latest 2013 version which is again different to one that was extant several months previously (ie also in 2013)
  • Readers need to take careful note of the differences in ‘preferred heights’ from both documents.

april 2011

september 2010

Here’s an even earlier version that again shows the not so gradual creep of these plans and Council’s acceptance of these. In July 2008 we were told 15 storeys –

july2008What is even more farcical is that when we compare council’s own comments on the first MRC proposal for a Priority Development Zone/Amendment C60 (minutes of 4th September 2007) we find that nothing much has changed and that council’s comments then are still valid for the latest version of the Development Plan. We quote –
(k) The MRC envisages the amendment facilitating office development of 20,000 sq.m, retailing of 10,000 sq. m (including 4,500sqm supermarket) and cafes of 5,000 sq.m for a total of 35,000sq.m. This makes it three times the size of the Glen Huntly shopping centre, with less planning control than for a simple dual occupancy.
(l) It is also important to note, however, that the actual floor areas proposed are not articulated anywhere in the amendment documentation and have only been referred to obliquely in various technical reports supporting the draft masterplan lodged in November 2006. These floor areas have also been subject to change. For example, up to 10th August 2007 the office component of the development was quantified at 10,000sqm. On 10 August, Council was advised that it had increased to 20,000sqm.

Such (road) closures, however, will also be the subject of commercial negotiations with Council to ensure fair
return to ratepayers for Council-owned land.
(o) The amendment also proposes the downgrading of Station Street in order to provide on-street carparking, taxi ranks and access to the racecourse. In effect, this results in a discontinuance of this road in its current form. No
Road Closure Overlay, however, is being proposed to address this issue.

The most damning comment is –
This then becomes a problem of a flawed process. If the path of a priority Development Zone were to be followed, when the public has the opportunity to comment, there would be little to comment on; when details were available, there would be no opportunity to comment.

Readers should also keep in mind that the subsequent C60 Amendment is literally full of loop holes allowing the MRC in concert with Council to do whatever they like. It reads:

A development plan may be approved by the responsible authority:

 with or without conditions relating to the use and/or development of the land;

 which exceeds the preferred maximum heights or reduces the setbacks in the Preferred Maximum Height and Setback Diagrams in the Incorporated Plan; or which alters the Precinct Boundaries or the Staged Development Areas shown in the Precinct Plan of the Incorporated Plan and in this Schedule.

Given the history of this council’s acquiescence to the wishes of the MRC, and their failures to adequately consult and act in accordance with community wishes, the above clauses should be enough to set off many alarm bells for residents.

 

February 21, 2014

Ho, Ho, Ho, – It’s Off To Court We Go!

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

Ratepayers had better prepare themselves for humungous legal costs, on top of what has already been forked out, if our assumptions are correct.  Today’s agenda features the monthly ‘financial report’. Unlike previous versions, the notation about ‘mediation’ with Hansen Yuncken set down for 14th February is no longer present. Add to this the in camera  item about ‘legal advice’ and the GESAC construction contract, and we would bet our socks that mediation has failed and that we’re now all heading for a major court case. Lawyers are laughing their heads off at their windfall no doubt.

When this is seen in conjunction with the Duncan Mackinnon Maxstra contract and the mega bucks already spent on pursuing Penhalluriack, then real questions need to be asked about the way that this administration does business.

On wastage of public monies, it looks like there could be a repeat of the ‘try, try again’ farce that has occurred with the Caulfield Park conservatory. Readers will remember the three time attempt at public consultation over cafes in the park versus restoration. Now the Booran Road Reservoir is up for the same treatment judging by this little sentence buried in the Records of Assembly –

Former Glen Huntly Reservoir – Councillors asked that a second option involving passive and active use and not just passive use be prepared for public consultation

We simply ask: how much did the original ‘concept plans’ cost? How much did the ‘consultation cost’? And why can’t this council accept the over-riding public response that the vast majority of residents opted for PASSIVE space?

There’s also the tacit admission of a major planning stuff up due to the ungodly haste in ramming through as quickly as possible the Residential Zones. One application asks for a 4 storey development for a school – in other words coming under the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’. The officer’s comments are illuminating –

A height of 13.9m is proposed with a 2.1m plant/lift overrun screening above. The school is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 where a 10.5m height limit is imposed to residential buildings and dwellings only. As the proposal is non-residential, this height limit does not apply. Council recently agreed to review the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy such that the height applicable to residential uses carries across to non-residential uses. This revised policy intention has no status at this time.

Last but not least, we have the full text of the Lipshutz Right of Reply. Such a pity that on other countless issues, the voices of residents remain muted, unacknowledged, and ignored!

Shortly prior to Christmas last year I saw a flyer from the Friends of Caulfield Park which described the Council contractors removing trees from Caulfield Park as “storm troopers”. I full well appreciate the passion some have in relation to Park and the issue of Council’s actions but the term “storm troopers” went beyond the pale.

Melbourne is the home to the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita outside Israel and the vast majority of Jews in Melbourne are either Holocaust survivors or children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Accordingly to equate Council’s actions with the actions of Storm troopers was highly offensive.

While the expression storm troopers has been used in the Star Wars movies I suggest that the FOCP were not using that analogy but clearly equating the actions of the Council with the actions of Nazi storm troopers.

I am former President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and  former Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission I have perhaps by that reason a fairly prominent profile in the Jewish Community. As such I received over 40 phone calls from people who effectively said that they were offended by what had been written. Many others approached me at Synagogue and other places making similar comment. When I returned home from overseas in January there were also voice messages making similar comment. One elderly lady asked me if FOCP really knew what storm troopers were and how they acted. She was a Holocaust survivor a person who had first hand experience.

I do not say for an instance that the authors of the flyer are anti-Semitic and I do not make any accusation as to racism; indeed knowing some of the people at FOCP I believe that the words used were rather an expression of their passion. Nevertheless the words used were insensitive given the connotation of storm troopers with Nazi Germany. The expression used was clearly over the top and indeed I believe was counter-productive.

Councillors unanimously agreed to proceed with the upgrade of Caulfield Park. We listened to representatives of FOCP and we questioned and queried Officers before proceeding. Council did nothing by stealth.

Those that oppose Council’s actions have every right in our democratic and free society to make their views known, however to describe Council contractors as storm troopers was excessive in the extreme.

In my experience in public life, going beyond my years on Council I have seen that most people who are able to present a reasoned, intelligent and unemotional argument bereft of abuse will be listened to. To exaggerate however and suggest that Councillors are stupid or are in the pocket It (sic) of Council officers doing their bidding as if puppets is not likely to endear themselves or win any argument. Similarly to describe Council contractors as storm troopers full well knowing the connotation that expression raises is either obtuse or thoughtless.

While no doubt there are some Jews who would not find that comment offensive there are many that have and it is therefore appropriate for the authors to apologise and retract that offensive innuendo.

 

February 19, 2014

Please Don’t Spew!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Pages from 8_Urban_Analysis_and_Design_Response_ReportApart from the above over-the-top market hype, readers should take careful note of the so called ‘green spine’ that is to serve as public open space and a pedestrian ‘carriage way’ to public transport. No amount of pretty drawings and promises can hide the fact that:

  • No figures are given for overall AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE within the precinct
  • Width of entrance via Kambrook Road is barely enough to swing a couple of cats through – 9.6 metres which will in effect be reduced once ‘plantings’ go in.
  • No mention is made of the ‘canyon effect’ and resulting potential for wind tunnels
  • Glossy pictures of tall new vegetation leave us unimpressed given that much of this ‘green spine’ will be in shadow for much of the day – see diagram below.

Pages from 8_Urban_Analysis_and_Design_Response_Report-2

 

February 18, 2014

FYI

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

c60

PS: Below is a map produced by Monash Uni of Melbourne’s ‘vulnerable’ areas to heat exposure. Readers will see that Carnegie, major parts of Bentleigh East, and the Caulfield North areas even before the 2046 dwellings arrive as part of the Caulfield Village, are given the highest danger ratings. And all this whilst Glen Eira Council still refuses to introduce a Significant Tree Register that actually has some bite and prevents moonscaping. This map also highlights how planning has directly contributed to this via the inequities of Minimal Change versus Housing Diversity. See: http://www.mappingvulnerabilityindex.com/home/melbournevi

vulnerability index

 

February 16, 2014

Section 173 ‘Agreement’

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

On the 28th April 2011, the select group of 4 councillors passed a resolution that a Section 173 Agreement be entered into with the MRC. It is our contention that:

  • This Agreement must be redrafted and renegotiated PRIOR to any approval of the Development Plan
  • The existing Agreement represents a financial windfall for the MRC and a burden on Glen Eira ratepayers.

Here is what the Agreement states:

  1. Certain infrastructure requirements are listed as ‘Required Infrastructure Projects’ and pertain almost exclusively to land within the boundaries of the Incorporated Plan – apart from traffic management at the corner of Koornang and Station Street and as listed in the works contained in Schedule 2.
  2. ‘Additional Infrastructure Projects’ is defined as being tied in with Part 3B of the Planning and Environment Act. Since this part of the legislation refers to Development Contributions, and Council has removed this section from its Planning Scheme, there is no way for council to exact payment from the MRC for anything ‘additional’ without the MRC’s agreement.

What the Agreement ensures is that approval for its Development Plan (even with conditions) comes first! Then there is the necessary argey bargey for ‘additional infrastructure’ works. In other words, Council is signing a blank cheque! Having approved the Development Plan, they would then need to go cap in hand and ask the MRC for ‘additional infrastructure works’. Nothing would compel the MRC to agree with any such request once they have got their Development Plan approved.

Here’s some extracts:

The development of the land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan will generate a need for certain infrastructure to be provided. Some of that infrastructure is identifiable as at the date of this Agreement while the need for other infrastructure may only become apparent upon the approval of development plans under the Schedule to the Priority Development Zone.

Required Infrastructure Projects means infrastructure works not included in Schedule 2 that are fairly and reasonably required as a result of the development of the Subject Land under the Planning Scheme and which are included as a conditlon in the approval of a development plan or a planning permit pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Priority Development Zone.

We then get to Additional Infrastructure Projects with the wonderful ‘escape clause’ for the MRC –

the Additional Infrastructure Projects may benefit other land owners in the vicinity of the Subject Land and that it may be fair, just and equitable for contributions for the provision of this infrastructure to be provided by other persons in addition to the Owner.

if, at any time, Council introduces a development contributions plan, pursuant to Part 38 of the Act or otherwise, then any payment made by way of contribution for an Additional Infrastructure Project may be credited towards any payments required for works, services or facilities pursuant to the development contributions plan.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that:

7.1.1 the plans and specifications required for the Required Infrastructure Projects are intended to facilitate works to a standard required only by the development of the Subject Land within the parameters of the Incorporated Plan and not to a standard required to compensate for any inadequacy in the infrastructure that currently services existing developments or as a result of development on any other land.

7.1.3 the amount of contribution required for the Additional Infrastructure Projects will be determined as far as practicable having regard to the principles developed through relevant Victorian law which would apply to the assessment of a contribution pursuant to an approved development contributions plan under the Act.

COMMENTS

Approving any Development Plan without first analysing the overall potential impact on surrounding areas and demanding adequate compensation is sheer folly. It is simply not good enough that the Transport Plan only looks at a handful of adjoining streets and totally ignores the flow on effects of 2046 units and 13,500 square metres of retail/commercial space.

It is also not good enough that in catering for a possible 2046 units that the MRC be responsible for drainage and other service infrastructure ONLY within the bounds of the Precincts and expect residents to pay for the additional necessary upgrading of infrastructure that exists outside of the land’s borders.

Here we have a Section 173 that is not only reliant on the MRC agreeing to pay for anything that someone might struggle to define as ‘reasonable’ but is largely reliant on a Development Contributions Levy which does not exist and even if it did exist would not go anywhere in meeting the costs of the additional infrastructure that is undoubtedly required.

For this situation we can thank our brilliant ‘negotiating’ team of Newton, Pilling, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. Having stuffed up once before, it is imperative that this not happen again. Development Plan approval must come after a fully detailed and updated Agreement that itemises all necessary works throughout the entire 3 precincts and all the surrounding areas. Ratepayers should not be subsidising the profit making enterprises of any developer.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »