Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 18, 2013

Policies, Strategies & Plain Old Humbug!

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

Readers may remember that at the second last council meeting Cr Delahunty was not satisfied with an answer to a public question and asked that the question be responded to adequately either directly to the resident or via herself. From the resident’s latest public question, it is clear that in the space of three weeks no further communication had been entered into! Below is the question and council’s ‘new’ response. Please note the implications of what is being stated, namely:

Glen Eira Council’s policies and/or strategies are indeed ‘flexible’ beasts, able to be changed, altered, ignored, or simply not adhered to whenever suits
The above may occur without full council approval
Decision makers on what will change and when, is left strictly in the hands of those ‘faceless’ and unaccountable administrators

Here’s the question and the response:

“The response given to my public question (24 Sep 2013), apart from being demonstrably wrong on most points, was not relevant to my question, so I am resubmitting in the hope of getting accurate information from either Councillor Delahunty (who said at the last meeting she would make inquiries), other councillors, or the administration. Earlier this year, after rows of exotic trees were planted in Marara Road Reserve, which is designated for native plantings, the council explained that the 1988 written strategy had been superseded.

1. If the 1998 strategy is superseded then where is this decision recorded, and

2. who made the decision, and

3. why was the strategy superseded, and

4. when was the strategy superseded?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“I refer you to the answer given to your Public Question at the 24 September 2013 Council Meeting and add the following:

The 1998 Open Space Strategy has provided Council with a strategic framework to guide its approach to open space. Council has been able to implement many of its recommendations. The strategy has not been superseded.

From time to time changes and developments happen or issues come to light that create the need to change, modify or amend a specific part of a wider guiding strategy. This happened in the case of the specific matter you refer to.

The reasons for recently planting exotics in the reserve are outlined in response to your 24 September 2013 Public Question.”

No further utterance from any councillor when this was read out. We can only assume that silence is consent and that appropriate governance does not concern those sitting in chamber!

October 16, 2013

Still Going Round The Mulberry Bush – 10 Years On!

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

TREE REGISTER

Lipshutz moved motion not to accept Tree Register. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: started by saying that this has been up at council many times and that it’s a ‘vexed’ issue and many in the community want a register for the ‘best of our best trees’. Claimed that it was ‘a very long and ardous process’ that the Local Law Committee went through in trying to determine how this could be achieved and the other major consideration was the ‘protection of property rights’ and ‘the two don’t mix’. Said that trees on public land are ‘protected’ by council but this is ‘your own land’ and you should be able to protect that ‘as you wish’. Went on to give example of someone with a significant tree and ‘if they want to develop their land’ then ‘they will not be able to do so’. There’s also the question of ‘how do you determine what is a significant tree?’. Problem is that ‘some third party’ will ‘make that decision’ and that worries him. Said that heritage advisors come along and decide that something is heritage ‘when many people think it is not heritage’ so then they ‘can’t develop can’t do what they want to do on their own land’. In his opinion when ‘you buy your land it is your land’ so you can ‘deal with it as you wish’. Gave the example again of when he bought his place and there were trees which he kept but over the years they’ve now gone. He isn’t referring to ‘moonscaping’ because what he’s on about is simply ‘people who want to develop their land’. In the end it’s a ‘toss up’ as to what people think is more important – ‘other people’s trees’ because no-one ‘really puts their own trees on the register’ or ‘property rights’. He thinks property rights are important and that’s why there is the motion.

OKOTEL: thought that council already has ‘appropriate mechanisms in place’ to stop moonscaping and removal of trees. Went through the options in the officer’s report and said that trees are ‘protected’ under ‘our current scheme’. Said that ‘we do have regulations against moonscaping’ such as the penalties. Admitted that the register was only applicable to trees on private and not public land. Said that it is ‘incumbent’ on council to look after trees that ‘are important’ on public land and that at times councillors have ‘robust discussions’ about chopping down trees in parks that are ‘dear’ to residents and that she ‘would welcome’ the community having input into those trees about whether they should be ‘retained or not’. But in relation to the motion she thought that the ‘only appropriate action’ for council was not to impinge on property rights. People themselves are ‘capable’ of looking after their own trees ‘if it is important’ to them and if they’ve got a ‘sentimental attachment to the tree’ or ‘if it is particularly beautiful’. So in these circumstances people would ‘themselves look after’ that tree so there is ‘no need’ for the register. ‘Endorsed’ Lipshutz’s comments that ‘at the end of the day it is someone’s property’ and they should be able to do ‘what they like, of course, within limits’. Having a tree register will be ‘costly to council’ and it’s not ‘cheap to hire consultants’ to go round identifying trees, ‘prosecute people’. Rather than spending money on this she’d be in favour of using that money to plant more trees. Thought that planting trees in streets where there aren’t trees and around roundabouts would be a ‘far more useful’ use of money than a register and forcing people to ‘maintain trees that they may not want’. People should be able to make decisions about ‘what’s best for their property’ and even ‘what’s best for their tree’.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got a view of the local law and would expect that it shouldn’t be so ‘obstructive’ and ‘bureaucratic’ ‘as the current one’. Whilst the community plan recommended the ‘introduction of a local law’ he feels that ‘there was a lost opportunity’ to find out from the community what ‘kind of local law’ they are ‘amendable to’. Said that his preferred option would be to discover how the community and council can come to some resolution on how best to preserve the ‘residential landscape’. Thought that what is presented is ‘the wrong approach’ because there are ‘many ways of doing things’. As it stands there are opportunities for appeal but that would take ‘weeks, months’ and then other people would sit on the review. Said that the East West tunnel proposal has got less appeal rights than this document for a tree. ‘Recognised’ that trees are ‘an emotional matter’ and that council has got a duty as ‘custodians’ but that council ‘could be more friendly’ to residents who want trees protected. Accepted that the planning scheme provides protection and this was ‘valuable’ but there’s the need for ‘more conversations about that’. Said he’d vote against the motion and if lost then he is foreshadowing another motion – that council accepts Option B. (ie planning scheme amendment).

MAGEE: said that his view is ‘selfish’. He’s in favour of council protecting trees in parks and on nature strips but on private land that’s something that ‘belongs to myself and my family’. And from this he thinks that only he and his family have got the ‘right to decide what trees grow on our land’. Said he’s lived on his block for 27 years and it’s been cleared twice and revegetated and he is even thinking now of putting in a swimming pool, so the land will be cleared again. ‘I will fight for my right and my neighbour’s rights’ to do what they want with their land. Residents have got the right to ‘decide what tree they plant’ or ‘whether they take it away’. Went through the current ‘protections’ from the planning department. Claimed that ‘99% of those who live in Glen Eira would not deliberately destroy their gardens’. A tree register ‘is fine on council land, but not on my land’.

ESAKOFF: shouldn’t have controls on people ‘in their own gardens’ from pruning. She is ‘a firm believer’ that people ‘love’ the trees they’ve got in their gardens and they don’t remove them ‘unless there’s a valid need to do so’. Didn’t think that council has the ‘right’ to impose restrictions on what people ‘can do in their own gardens’ since there’s already enough ‘red tape and hoops for people to jump through’. Went on to say that all the complaints that she’s heard about relate to moonscaping and developers and not one about what people do in their ‘back gardens’ and there are good protections currently existing via what council already has to deal with moonscaping. Mentioned ResCode and how this ‘removes the advantage that developers gain’. Permits also come with conditions that trees can’t be removed but this also has a ‘down side’ because years later there’s the request for a change in condition so these trees which are now ‘causing damage’ can be removed. There have to be avenues of appeal with the tree register because that would make it ‘fair’ and to remove ‘those rights of appeal would not be a fair process’. Said that ‘my position remains unchanged’ and that she is against ‘tree control in Glen Eira’.

PILLING: said there’s a ‘lot of history’ here and it’s not about ‘tree control’ but ‘tree register’. Part of community plan as well and it’s not about ‘being selfish’ as Magee stated. Said that many ‘councils have the approach’ of Option C (ie local law). Went over some of the history such as previous council’s majority vote to go ahead with register. Thought this was a ‘modest, reasonable proposal that most other councils do’. Thought that the community would readily accept this. That was already approved with the approval of the community plan but ‘what’s come back’ from the local laws committee is ‘way over the top’ and that the committee has been ‘over zealous’ . Also thought that the argument on ‘property rights’ was ‘way overstated’ since there already are many laws which restrict what property owners can do such as fences, pergolas, etc and this is ‘no different’. Said if the motion failed then he’s also foreshadowing a motion that this go back to the local laws committee and that they ‘redraft’ a proposal on the ‘same basis’ as other permits.

LOBO: said that the vast majority of residents believe that councils only deal with ‘rates, rubbish and roads’ even though they keep saying ‘in chambers’ that councils do much more. Thought that having a tree register is ‘a dictatorial way’ since ‘we are saying that this tree in your house cannot be touched’. Went on to extrapolate from this by saying that ‘tomorrow we will say’ that ‘this child of yours cannot get married’ and ‘this child of yours cannot leave the house’. Didn’t understand why anyone could ‘come in my yard and look at my tree’ and they could even ‘look through the toilet’. Said he was ‘against this and I agree with Cr Sounness’.

HYAMS: began by saying that if Lobo was against the register then he shouldn’t be agreeing with Sounness. Didn’t agree with Lipshutz but did agree that it’s about ‘competing considerations’ such as protecting ‘people’s property rights’ opposed to ‘protecting neighbourhood character’. Admitted that it’s ‘not quite true’ that council doesn’t interfere with ‘people’s properties’ and gave the example of the new zones where 80% of people are told that they ‘can only build 2’ units on their land. So ‘regardless of what they want to do’ this is now the situation. Same applies for heritage areas. Overall, ‘it’s a balancing act’. Current planning law is ‘about any tree on the property’ and not just ‘landscaping’, so ‘we already do that’ (ie protect what’s on private property) and ‘no one is saying we shouldn’t do that’. It’s not about ‘protecting every tree in Glen Eira’ but just those deemed ‘valuable’. Not saying ‘you can’t prune the tree’ because the local law says you can prune up to 25% of the tree ‘before it’s considered lopping’. Aim is to ‘strike a balance’ between protection of neighbourhoods and ‘letting people do what they want on their own property’ and a tree register ‘does that’. So he’s in favour of a ‘minimal’ tree register in contrast to what other councils have.

LIPSHUTZ: said that when the local laws committee first started thinking about the issue they knew that council just wanted a ‘bare bones’ register. But with investigation they found that it was ‘not possible to do that’. Said that Sounness’ and Pilling’s argument about the East West tunnel and the lack of appeal rights is correct, but that doesn’t mean that just because this project hasn’t got enough appeal rights that ‘we shouldn’t have appeal rights here’. Said that there is a ‘whole raft of potential issues’ that have to be taken into consideration like classifying the tree in the first place. Someone who nobody knows, and perhaps nobody trusts comes out to make the decision. What happens then if someone says it’s a classified tree and someone else says it isn’t? That’s why there are appeal rights. Then the tree may be ‘knocked down’ and the owner claims it was dangerous and someone else says ‘no it wasn’t’ and that a planning permit should have been gotten to start with. So people have to ‘have appeal rights’. ‘The more and more we went along’ the committee found that it became ‘more and more difficult’. The real issue however is ‘whether we have the tree register at all’. If there’s a register then in his view you ‘can’t have a bare bones law’ but something that ‘deals with every eventuality’ so that in the end it ‘becomes quite complex’. ‘Do we want to dictate to our neighbours that you must have this or not’. He would guess that Glen Eira has got plenty of significant trees but if council approached the owners and said we think your tree is significant and ‘would like to put a covenant on your property’ they would be opposed. He thinks that it would be ‘some third party coming along’ and demanding that trees of neighbours be put on the register. If by chance there are owners in Glen Eira ‘who are so committed to their trees’ then ‘they are welcome to put covenants on their property’.

MOTION PUT AND VOTE WENT 4 TO 4. VOTING FOR THE MOTION NOT TO HAVE A TREE REGISTER – LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL AND MAGEE. VOTING AGAINST MOTION – LOBO, PILLING, SOUNNESS AND HYAMS.

HYAMS: said that he was ‘surprised’ at Lobo’s vote for a tree register given that he ‘had spoken so much against the tree register’

LOBO: claimed that he had changed his mind after ‘hearing you and Michael’ – ‘that’s my prerogative’.

HYAMS: confirmed that it’s Lobo’s prerogative and that he would be voting against the motion with his casting vote.

MOTION THEREFORE LOST AND PILLING MOVED MOTION THAT THE REGISTER GO BACK TO LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE AND ‘TONED DOWN’ AND BE ON THE BASIS OF OTHER COUNCILS. SOUNNESS SECONDED.

Both Pilling and Sounness affirmed that they had already made their views known so didn’t speak to the motion. Okotel spoke again.

OKOTEL: said that the issue now revolved around appeal rights and that in other aspects like planning there are appeal rights which are ‘exhaustive’. Said that with planning objectors have rights to make submissions to council, attend dpc or planning conferences and ultimately vcat and even further to the supreme court. Even on simple infringements people can appeal to council, then if not happy to the courts, and all of these involve ‘lengthy periods of time’ and if still unsatisfied people can go to county courts, magistrate courts and then again to supreme court. So for a minor traffic offence of $50 there is leeway to do all the above. Claimed that with the tree register appeals a court won’t ‘deal with such matters’ so there has to be something in the local law that provides that.

LIPSHUTZ: doesn’t support register but if council is going to have it then he’s in favour of 4.1 rather than 4.2. SAid the appeal rights cover all possibilities and ‘allow for representation’ which is important since not too many people know anything about trees. ‘I know nothing about trees, I should be able to have representation there’. Same for damaged trees and if you claim you didn’t damage it and that someone else did, so there ‘ought to be appeal rights’. With a ‘bare bones law’ you can’t ‘have that’ and ‘you have to have appeal rights’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Lipshutz and that if ‘you don’t like dictatorial government’ then ‘you’ve got it in 4.2″ whereas 4.1 ‘leaves avenues of appeal’.

HYAMS: reminded people that if the motion is passed then there still isn’t a tree register but just sending it back to the local laws committee to ‘redraft’ and then ‘putting it out to public consultation’ with the ‘rest of the local law changes’. Then after this ‘consultation’ they make the decision about ‘whether there should be a classified tree register’. ‘This is the opportunity to find out what the community wants’. If they don’t ‘put it out for community consultation’ then there might be a ‘backlash’ and people saying that’s it’s an infringement on property rights. So Hyams would accept the public views. Said that he ‘wasn’t comfortable’ with either 4.1 or 4.2 because as it stands it’s ‘a bit too comprehensive’ but on the other hand comparing it to other sections of the local law because ‘it is more of an impingement on people’s rights’ than some of the other things in the local law. ‘There should be some appeal rights’ but not sure ‘where they should be’. Said that he’s not voting that ‘there be a classified tree register’ but just moving the process along and ‘to see what the community’ thinks so he will support Pilling’s motion. He also noted that he is probably speaking for Delahunty as well given her views on the subject.

PILLING: re-read the motion. Lipshutz brought up a point of order that what Pilling read out wasn’t ‘what was originally put to council’. Pilling read the motion again. Agreed with Hyams that this was another step in the process and that there would be community involvement on ‘whether they do want a tree register’ or not. This is then ‘the best way forward’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. LOBO ASKED FOR A DIVISION. IN FAVOUR – SOUNNESS, HYAMS, LOBO, PILLING, MAGEE. AGAINST – ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL.

COMMENT

Several things need to be made 100% clear. With typical sleight of hand, Hyams and then followed by Pilling, argue that what will happen is that the community will be ‘involved’ in deciding whether they want a tree register or not. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! When the Local Laws Committee finally gets its act together and produces the draft law, then the LAW will be put out for submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act. This will not be a ‘consultation’ on whether or not the community wants a tree register, but what their view is of the proposed local law addressing the issue. If council was really interested in gauging community feeling on the issue then it could have done this years ago. A simple question such as ‘Are you in favour of……..’ would have sufficed. This has NEVER BEEN DONE and this process will not allow this either. This is not ‘consultation’ on the issue – it is anything but satisfactory consultation – especially when this section of the local law will be enmeshed in countless other ‘changes’ such as the organised sport, (can’t wait for that one and what happens to Frisbee!) and hopefully meeting procedures.

We also need to point out that when Lobo voted FOR the tree register the look on Hyams’ face was priceless. We can only assume that Hyams would have thought that the ‘no tree register’ gang had the motion in the bag and thus he would not be called upon to exercise his casting vote. Having basically spruiked in favour of the register, he was now beholden to vote accordingly and use his casting vote to oppose Lipshutz, Okotel and Esakoff. If planned by Lobo, then we congratulate him on his political manoeuvring!

Finally, we remind readers that in February 2013 when the Tree Register was last on the agenda, Magee voted in favour. Time can certainly do strange things to men of principle!

October 16, 2013

C60 & More Trees Get The Chop

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

C60 AMENDMENT

Moved to accept by Esakoff and seconded by Sounness

ESAKOFF: said that council could only express its view on this since it came from the developer to the Minister and it’s the Minister’s decisions as ‘to whether he approves this or not’. Council can’t abandon the amendment. Said that the over-riding document is the ‘incorporated plan’ and whether the applilcation would meet ‘the requirements of that’. On the various divergences (height) Esakoff said that ‘it’s usual practice to allow for that intrusion’ and for plant equipment ‘sometimes there is a height adjustment there’. Balcony intrustion are also ‘common practice’. Third request on the development plans is ‘simply’ a ‘trigger’ if outside the stipulations. The final change regarding sequencing of building is there to ‘allow flexibility’ within the ‘precinct boundaries’ and ‘that’s considered to have’ ‘no impact and is considered reasonable’. It’s not council’s role to ‘oppose’ the amendment, merely to ‘add some words’ especially about height in the Incorporated Plan and ‘this already applies’ so it’s just a matter of ‘repeating’ the stipulations.

SOUNNESS: thought that developers should have the opportunity for ‘minor’ ‘cosmetic changes’ to ‘facade’ and ‘structure’ of buildings. Admitted that the C60 is ‘contentious’ and ‘I had very little dealing with it’ and that he’s new and that there are ‘strong feelings’ about it. Said that it was ‘worthwhile’ for council to ‘provide helpful commentary’ and that he thought this was ‘quite reasonable’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: not for the first time does Sounness claim ‘innocence’ . That is, he wasn’t involved, he knows nothing. Whilst true, we do not believe that after serving on council for a year that this excuse carries weight any longer. Surely it is not too difficult to ask for previous reports? previous decisions? previous background on all matters? Surely when making decisions for the future of the municipality it is incumbent on councillors to ensure they have a good grasp on what has occurred and why. We note that no councillor and certainly nothing in the officer’s report even came close to justifying why something is earmarked as ‘reasonable’ and why, oh why, not one iota of real information as to what these ‘intrusions’ might mean has been provided. It is council once again acting blindly, or willingly, and making decisions based on no upfront evidence.

KOORNANG RD TREES

Moved by Esakoff and seconded by Pilling

ESAKOFF: said it’s not a ‘simple’ decision because there were ’11 for and 11 against’ the proposal to remove the trees. The ‘best outcome’ is a ‘compromise’ and that’ what she’s looking for. Said that most people against removal of the ‘very old’ cypress ‘hedge’ were concerned about the traffic on Koornang Rd and noise. Said that her proposal would provide something like a ‘buffer’ to the noise. These new planting would replace the ‘partly diseased’ and ‘stressed’ cypress trees. Claimed that these cypresses had ‘been there for a very long time’ even when she was a young girl. Spoke about Caulfield Park and Duncan McKinnon suffering the same fate because the cypresses there were ‘at the end of their useful life’. Hoped that people would be ‘satisfied’ with her ‘compromise’ and that this would ‘bring all parties on board’.

PILLING: thought that Esakoff’s motions addressed ‘some of the concerns’ that people had raised. Was in favour of making parks ‘accessible’ to the community. Said that the cypress trees are ‘in a fairly poor state’ but ‘accepts that there are some concerns’. Said that the concept plans went out to 1500 nearby residents so the responses represent only a ‘small number’ but he still supports the motion.

HYAMS: congratulated Esakoff and Pilling on ‘their efforts’ for a compromise because both council’s and residents’ concerns are dealt with. Council has in the past removed trees but they will be ‘replaced’ so the place won’t be ‘bare’ and then said that one of the most vocal opponents to removal of trees at Duncan McKinnon had rung him months after they were removed and told him that he ‘was right’ and that the place is improved.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

October 15, 2013

Back To The Drawing Board!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s)
1 Comment

Here’s a rundown of council decisions from tonight. The full reports in coming days. It should be noted that Delahunty was absent.

C60 Amendment – passed unanimously in about 2.5 minutes
Koornang Rd trees – all to go. This took about 5 minutes to decide.
Tree Register – back to Local Laws committee. About 20 minutes of awe inspiring argument – we are joking of course!
Magee’s request for a report that police not use council land for hidden traffic cameras – longest ‘debate’ of the evening perhaps. Shows a fantastic grasp of priorities by these councillors.
Open Space strategy – passed unanimously – maybe 6 minutes.

It would also appear that the penny has well and truly dropped for Cr Lobo in his realisation that he will not be Mayor next year. Lobo provided the fireworks tonight and achieved one spectacular result – pulling the rug from under Hyams feet on the Tree Register item. More on this soon.

All in all, another evening of stunning grandstanding, misleading statements (ie cypress trees are only ‘hedges’) and arguments based on anecdote, emotions, and very, very short on substance, logic, and plain old ‘facts’.

October 15, 2013

Letters To The Editor

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

October 14, 2013

The Saga Of The Tree Register

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

A long, but important post on the Tree Register saga, so apologies. The following should be borne in mind:

At least ten years in the making and still no satisfactory resolution
Residents and councillors are totally excluded from the processes that are about to be implemented. Thus full control and decision making power resides exclusively with unnamed and unaccountable officers.
The suggested Tree Register has slowly morphed into only applying to private property when its original intention was to include both public and private land as enunciated in the Community Plan. Of course, no public consultation has occurred to validate this surreptitious ‘transition’.
Glen Eira has a Street Tree Policy, which is primarily concerned with what to plant and where.
Glen Eira does not have a Tree Maintenance Policy – only a Tree Removal Policy
Glen Eira does not have any policy whatsoever that can assure residents that trees are not the victims of greedy developers or poor maintenance.

All of the above coalesce in the again UNNAMED OFFICER’S REPORT for Tuesday. The report is largely a verbatim repetition of the document that appeared in February 2013. This time however, pretending to be ‘seeking guidance’ by proffering 4 totally skewed and misleading ‘arguments’. All are heavily weighted to achieve only one outcome – that which has already been pre-determined. We will go through each one of these spurious arguments by quoting directly from the officer’s report and then commenting.

Given around 1,200 planning applications per year, many being for residential development, it is estimated that over 200 valued existing trees are protected each year. Removal of a tree contrary to a planning permit is a breach of the Planning and Environment Act which can attract court penalties far in excess of any breach of a local law. Penalties of between $5,000 to $20,000 are relatively common.

COMMENT

Here’s some terrific bluff and bluster but what this doesn’t tell us is:

What protection is there against any owner who decides to CUT DOWN a tree on his property not at a subsequent planning application stage, but at the perhaps initial SUBDIVISION stage?
What happens if the property is landbanked for years and years, no application goes in, and then suddenly a tree is gone? Or what if one year and one day after an application has gone in, the tree is removed?
How many prosecutions has council actually followed through on?
How many fines have been issued (and paid) in the last ten years?
How many ‘valued’ trees on public or private land have been added in the past ten years?
How many trees have been removed from public parks and streets WITHOUT a full arborist’s report?
How many healthy trees have been planted on streets and then removed within months in order to aid and abet the installation of a carriageway in a new development?
What if any notice is provided to residents about the intended removal of park and street trees – especially when this is done en masse?

The ResCode mechanism is that any tree removed within 12 months of a town planning application being lodged must be assessed as though the “removed” tree is still in place. This has proven to be somewhat of a defacto tree retention control because it has effectively removed any advantage a developer could gain from moonscaping. This means that any town planning application for medium density dwellings needs to consider existing trees/vegetation.

COMMENT

We love the first sentence for its sheer inanity! The TREE IS GONE – end of story! For a developer the risk of being prosecuted by a pro development council is minimal. Secondly, even if there was some action taken, the advantage of being able to squeeze another unit, worth maybe $400000 – $500000 onto a property compared with a paltry fine of even $20,000 is a total no brainer!

We repeat our message from an earlier post that included photograph after photograph of moonscaped properties – bereft of any vegetation including trees. Only one property still retained a palm tree in the corner of the site. All other developments resembled the Sahara Desert. And yet council has the gall to claim that it is successful in preventing rampant moonscaping!

The problem is that the Planning Scheme is designed to regulate matters which are unlikely to change over the short to medium term (eg buildings) whereas trees grow, become senescent, may become hazardous and die. Over time, the Planning Scheme will include trees which need, for safety reasons, to be removed. To reflect that in the Scheme would require a full Planning Scheme Amendment process in each case which would be cumbersome.

COMMENT

Never, but never put anything into a Planning Scheme because that becomes far too binding and gives residents the legal potential to object to council decisions. Via a Local Law, which provides no leeway for resident objections, this little obstacle is overcome!

So, after much manoeuvring we’re left with the obvious solution – proposal D which reads –

A Local Law but only over Classified Trees

This option also uses a Local Law which covers only those trees which the Council has included on a Classified Tree Register. The Register would include those trees which the Council had assessed and considered were important to protect. The owner would have the opportunity to challenge whether the tree would be included in the Register or not. Once included, a permit would be required to lop or remove the tree.

COMMENT

This represents the heart of the issue. It is officers only who will decide on what is ‘valuable’. No outside interference from residents or councillors permitted. No ‘suggestions’ for trees on public land. No objection rights for resident neighbours – only developers. Residents won’t even know when a tree will be gone. The chain saws will come out one morning and poof – gone with the wind! No notice, no explanation, no objection rights, and only profit for the developer.

Given this current state of affairs it is worth pointing out the radically different approach taken by countless other councils. Some have vegetation overlays in their planning schemes; some have opted to include the requirement for a permit within these planning schemes. Those that have the need for permits only as part of a Local Law at least request residents to nominate trees on both public and private land and residents are given full notification and objection rights if a decision is made to cut down a tree. Many make their policies and laws applicable not only to a tree register which might consist of only 100 to 200 trees, but to any tree earmarked for removal. Here are some examples:

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/tree_protection.htm

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-city/trees/significant-trees http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-Building/Significant-Tree-Register

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/environment_trees.htm

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Environment/Trees/Register_of_Significant_Trees_on_Public_Land/index.aspx

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/environment/trees/significant-tree-register/http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files/Item_8.4_Appendix_A_-_Report_to_Council_on_17_September_2012.pdf

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Environment-and-Sustainabilty/Trees-and-Plants/Significant-Tree-Register

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/document/23514/trees

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/UrbanForest/ExceptionalTrees/Pages/AssessmentInfo.aspx

http://www.mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/long-term-planning-in-moonee-valley/significant-trees.aspx)

THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW

We make the following observations on the draft Local Law:

The appeal process consists of officers and ‘independent’ arborists. No councillors of course and no need for a council resolution or public documentation to support any decision making. All is to be left in the ‘capable’ hands of administrators. There is not even the requirement that results of such appeals be placed in the public domain, or that any documentation sees the light of day. Again in stark contrast to what happens at other councils such as Bayside.

Last but definitely not least, we remind readers of the previously stated opinions of Lipshutz, and Esakoff. Okotel also voted against having a Tree Register in February. We will now see whether consistency is their strong point, since the circumstances have not changed and the anti arguments certainly have not changed. Maybe they will cut their losses and think that a minimalist Tree Register of only 50 or so trees, or even 100 trees is better than letting the public in on anything. So the question is: Will they become turncoats and vote for a register, or will they introduce some nice little pre-orchestrated amendment? Here’s what they said way back in February (from our post of the time) –

ESAKOFF: didn’t support ‘tree protection’ and that people in general ‘do appreciate the value of trees’ and that people don’t remove trees ‘without good reason’ ( such as property damage, or dangerous). Thought that people ‘should have the right of choice’ over their own property and shouldn’t have to pay to get a permit to prune, or ‘being forced’ to hire an arborist to ‘report on whether they should be allowed to prune’. Accepted that there are a ‘range of views’ and that some people would feel that ‘they are over-governed’ and to introduce a tree register ‘will only cement that view’. Existing mechanisms include town planning, so that if there is a significant tree then town planning conditions are ‘put in place to protect them’. There are also ‘large penalties’ for ‘breach of those conditions’. Other safeguards are landscape plans, 4 metre setbacks and open space requirements which means that more trees can be planted. ‘There are enough hoops to jump through’ without adding to them.

LIPSHUTZ: said this has been up to council a ‘number of times’ and council has changed its mind a few times. Doesn’t support a tree register for the reasons basically outlined by Esakoff. Said that his worry is that ‘I don’t trust the arborist’…’I don’t trust the people who make the heritage decisions’. He sees heritage advisors saying it’s heritage but ‘I see nothing heritage about it’….’it’s in the eyes of the beholder’ since there’s ‘no scientific way of saying this is heritage or this is a significant tree’. Said that laws exist. Reflected on his personal trees but ‘over the last 20 years’ they’ve gone because they were ‘ordinary specimens and they’ve been replaced’, Now he’s got ‘nicer’ and ‘better trees’….It was my choice to do that’. Doesn’t want people telling him ‘this is the way to do it’. Local laws committee has ‘investigated’ this and ‘gone a fair way down the track’. In the end it’s about ‘making a decision on your tree’. Didn’t believe it’s ‘our’ role to ‘implement this law which infringes on our rights’.

OKOTEL: talked about the expense of this and trees on private property that can’t be removed. There will be ‘ongoing costs…..increased red tape’ and ‘continuous discussion’ about what is or is not a significant tree. She thought that residents ‘are more than sensible enough to know’ what’s a good tree and ‘what’s appropriate to maintain’ and ‘to make those decisions for themselves’.

October 11, 2013

Cramming It All In – As Per Usual!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off

Tuesday night’s agenda contains at least 4 crucial items for decision and discussion –

The Draft Open Space Strategy
The Tree Register
Caulfield Racecourse and the C60
Koornang Park removal of Cypress Trees

We will need some time to fully digest the implications of all these documents and recommendations. What is obvious from a superficial reading is:

Nothing much will change in terms of open space – everything is qualified by the term ‘where feasible’ – the typical Glen Eira Council jargon for ‘we will decide what, when and if something is ‘feasible’.
Developers have hit another home run with the mooted changes to the Incorporated Development Scheme for C60. Council officers do not see too much wrong with ‘little’ changes such as intrusions, height, etc.
It’s ironic that when on the one hand council consistently states its commitment to trees and landscape in Glen Eira it is again so willing to take out the axes to an entire group of trees in Koornang Park. Taken together with the lame waffle that constitutes the tree register report (no author assigned of course!) developers are again given a free hand to remove as many trees as they like.

We urge all residents to carefully read these agenda items. We will provide our analysis of each in the next few days.

October 9, 2013

How It Can & Should Be Done!

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

PS: More grist to the mill comes from Whitehorse City Council on the residential zones. In the extract below this council makes it absolutely clear why CURRENT ANALYSIS is required in order to obtain maximum benefit from the new zones. They are currently undertaking full community consultation on: Housing and Neighborhood Review; Drafting new Urban Design Guidelines and reviewing the Whitehorse Housing Study. Only then, will they embark on shaping the residential zones. We repeat – when is the last time that Glen Eira undertook any analysis, any genuine consultation? Here’s what Whitehorse has to say. The full explanation is available at: http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html

Why do we need the Whitehorse Housing and Neighbourhood Character Review 2013?

Council currently has two main studies that guide decisions on housing development:

The Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study 2003
The Whitehorse Housing Study 2003

Both documents were prepared some time ago, and there have been changes both in terms of the housing development which taken place since the studies were prepared, and the needs of the residential community into the future.

Council faces changes in its future housing demand, with a trend towards smaller household sizes, a more diverse mix of household compositions and backgrounds, and an ageing population. The number of households to be accommodated is expected to grow.

The review seeks to ensure that Whitehorse can cater for these changing needs, while still ensuring the City’s preferred future neighbourhood character can be maintained and enhanced. It is also important that the new strategies and corresponding controls (including designating substantial, incremental and minimal change areas) reflect changes that have occurred over the past 10 years and provide opportunities to meet the future needs of Whitehorse residents.

There have also been a number of developments within some of Whitehorse’s smaller shopping centres, referred to as Neighbourhood Activity Centres. To provide greater direction in determining the form of development which may be suitable for these locations, draft Urban Design Guidelines have been prepared for most centres

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

The contrast between Glen Eira Council’s secrecy, lack of up-to-date planning, and total disregard for residents is becoming more and more evident when compared to what lengths other councils are going to in order to both INFORM and CONSULT with their residents on the residential zones. Below we feature two screen dumps from the Boroondara Council’s website on the issue. Please note that their draft document is:

Going out to full consultation
Is based on years of local analysis (Neighbourhood Character Study) and research where their municipality was divided up into 75 individual precincts. The document was only finalised as recently as this month. When did Glen Eira last perform such a study that covered the entire municipality?
The expense and technological wizardry that Boroondara has gone to should be applauded. Residents are able to use the ‘interactive’ maps to locate their homes and immediately see the proposed zoning, and the statements on ‘preferred character’ for that area, as well as the related schedules. Glen Eira in all its documents has no ‘preferred character’ statements for ANY of their zones – that would only handicap future development if actually expressed in black and white.
We’ve already noted the schedules and how vastly different they are to the Glen Eira ones in an earlier post.

The Boroondara effort can be viewed in detail at: http://www.boroondara.characterstudy.com.au/

October 8, 2013

Do You Want This Man?

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

The Local Government Act requires that if a council intends to advertise its CEO position then that must be done 6 months prior to the termination of the current CEO’s contract. Newton’s contract expires in early April 2014. As far as we know, council has not placed another miniscule advertisement in The Age, nor have they made any public announcement on their website. We can only conclude, since the 6 month deadline has passed, that once again this group of councillors have decided to renew Newton’s contract without advertising his position. What we don’t know is whether they have handed Newton another 2, 3, or the maximum 5 year contract.

That will make it contract after contract that has never been advertised; contract after contract where we, the salary paying public, have no idea of Key Performance Indicators, no idea of the voting figures, and no idea of how Newton measures up against any standards. All we ever get is the party line that he is doing a good job so why look elsewhere. The simple answer to this is: how do you know that someone else might not do a better job if you don’t even bother to look and test the waters? In our view, no position anywhere should be for life. More importantly, best practice dictates that there is a ‘time limit’ for CEO’s in any major organisation. Newton has been there since 199/2000. During this time his rule has been mired with controversy after controversy; legal threats; and let’s not forget the sacking of council. We know of no other council that has had to endure 3 formal Municipal Inspector Investigations, and heaven knows, how many ombudsman official and ‘unofficial’ investigations. Coincidence? Perhaps, but possibly also a reflection on the one constant throughout this entire time – Newton.

More importantly from residents’ points of view, under his stewardship, every vestige of real transparency and accountability has been eroded and reduced to nothing – secrecy and a culture of ‘we are right’ over-rides every facet of good governance. Oh, we acknowledge the puerile argument that officers do not vote and that it is councillors who make resolutions. However, what pressures are brought to bear? What tainted information is provided upon which to base such decisions? And why on why are certain councillors continually voting en bloc for the vast majority of Newton’s anti community recommendations?

Several years ago, 586 residents signed a petition requesting that councillors advertise the CEO position in order simply to ‘test the waters’ and see who else is available. We remind readers that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz voted against the acceptance of such a petition – a first, we believe in Glen Eira – and hence emblematic of the undemocratic culture that now rules Glen Eira Council.

October 7, 2013

Trees V’s Concrete: Guess What Wins In Glen Eira!

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

Storms are an act of god. Falling tree limbs may also be an act of god. What is not an act of god is ensuring that large, mature trees become unstable because you have hacked their root systems to pieces so that any breath of wind is likely to topple them over. That is not an act of god – especially when you have been warned that this could happen. That’s the story of the GESAC car park extension in Gardener’s Road. Council killed off one huge gum almost immediately; last week’s winds completed the job with the remaining 2 huge gums being downed.

Council should be mightily relieved that no-one was killed or injured and that cars just happened NOT to be parked directly under these massive trees. We’ve previously shown photos of the damage done to the roots. Here are the latest shots of the downed trees. Residents may well ask why trees are always second to concrete in Glen Eira and whether or not indifference, if not straight out negligence, ensured the demise of these particular trees.