September 24, 2013
PS: And from the Stonnington Leader we have Matthew Guy’s admonition to Councils to prepare structure plans following the Orrong Rd Supreme Court judgement. Funny how this not only contradicts the arguments against structure plans that have been endemic in Glen Eira, but reveals the complete failure(s) of this council’s approach to planning for the past decade.
September 23, 2013
Once again all information relating to GESAC is buried in the small print of the financial report in vague and obtuse language designed to reveal as little as possible. Attempting to piece together the various figures becomes an impossibility (deliberately so we believe) when no definitions of terms are provided, and no basic ledger of bottom line accounting on the project exists. Yet, there are still some startling announcements.
Below are some copied extracts. The last two are bolded because of their significance and we draw readers’ attention to the third extract in particular. Calling in bank guarantees is an astonishing move given that the court case is far from settled at this point in time. What happens if council loses? What does this say about the cash flow status if Council has to gamble in this manner for what is really a drop in the ocean of $1.8m in an overall budget? And what is the ‘unbudgeted variance’ of $99k for contractors? Surely not lawyers? Our guess at this stage is that the legal eagles’ costs would by now be triple this amount. Where is this figure in the accounts?
There are a number of issues concerning the building of the centre which are currently in dispute. They include the delay in completion of the centre (liquidated damages), variations, and back charges for use of Council utilities during construction and defects. The matters are the subject of civil proceedings brought by Council. A Directions Hearing on 23 August 2013 set dates for the parties to file documents. The parties are to confer and attempt to agree on a List of Issues. The parties are to hold formal mediation prior to 14 February 2014.
GESAC – Council has received income of $1.8M relating to the release of bank guarantees held by Council under the construction contract. This amount will be reflected in Council’s Income Statement on a progressive basis from August until 30 June 2014. The income recognised as at 31st August is $164K.
GESAC – there are unbudgeted costs associated with the defects and litigations issues relating to GESAC. These expenditure items will be treated as operational and will be offset (in part) by the income received from the release of the bank guarantees mentioned above. The unbudgeted variance in contractors relating to GESAC is $99K.
Yes, council is in a legal stoush, but this does not mean that residents (and probably councillors) should be kept like mushrooms in the dark as to the financial side of things. The lack of transparency and accountability, throughout this entire project demands a full, independent investigation.
September 21, 2013
The Phoenix Precinct has been moribund for years. Now it is officially dead with council’s proposed Amendment C109 in Tuesday night’s agenda. What was envisaged as a ‘grand plan’ that would look at an entire area (Caulfield Racecourse & Monash, plus surrounding areas and plan appropriately) has been hacked to pieces. The C60 was just the beginning of the dismantling. Now there is the Monash proposal (nothing definite of course!) and Council once again rolling over and complying with all developer requests – this time our old friend Urbis rather than Equiset.
The Amendment proposes to remove the Priority Development Zone and vest control in Council – which would have happened anyway with the demise of Priority Development Zones under the new planning laws. However, there will not be the NEED FOR ANY PLANNING PERMIT and that probably means no public input into the eventual plans. Worse is that the officer’s report only tells half the story. Reading this document we could be forgiven for thinking it is only about Derby Rd and a few shops. Hardly! The Monash Plan is now reinvigorated and will include – 800 student residences; retail, cafes, etc. (See: http://monash.edu/about/who/ambition/masterplan/). Yet all of this barely rates a mention. Why?
Just for a taste of what is to come, here is the award winning entry for a new building on Dandenong Rd – Source: http://www.australiandesignreview.com/news/26244-mcbride-charles-ryan-to-design-monash-uni-complex
Other Monash sites providing information on the development may be accessed at:
Our questions are straight forward –
September 20, 2013
We are continually amazed by this Council’s inefficiency and disregard for all principles of good governance. Nothing makes this clearer than Item 9.15 – Significant Tree Register. We present this in full.
PURPOSE: To seek direction
BACKGROUND: Council regularly includes conditions in planning permits which require the retention of existing trees or the planting of new trees. In addition, the Council Plan, adopted in June 2013, states: Action 7m: Introduce Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register”.
A similar action was in the 2012-13 action plan.
The Local Laws Advisory Committee has held a number of meetings on this issue and considered a range of approaches to regulating these matters. The issue has recently been considered at an Assembly of Councillors. The proposal did not attract majority support.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council provide direction.
COMMENT: It is nigh on a decade that the issue of a tree register has been lingering on and on with no outcome. Now we have the most absurd ANONYMOUS officer’s report that provides absolutely NO INFORMATION AND IN ITSELF POTENTIALLY REPRESENTS A BREACH OF BOTH THE Local Government Act and the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. It is clear that Lipshutz and his followers have been shafted on the issue. So how are these councillors meant to provide ‘direction’ or informed debate, when they are not permitted to disclose anything about discussions that occurred in assemblies? More to the point, if this is now coming up for some kind of council resolution, then the Act requires that the resolution be accompanied by reports or at least a summary of reports. Again, nothing is included.
Another agenda item that leaves egg on Lipshutz’s face is the Caulfield Park Conservatory debate. The majority of responses, even to this bogus survey and consultation, were opposed to the creation of a café and indicated that the conservatory should be maintained and restored. A good result. The pity is that ratepayers’ funds have been wasted (to the tune of over $17,000) on something that was decided by council years ago. Perhaps councillor Lipshutz could reimburse council and ratepayers for this profligacy?
Not so welcome is the report on the ‘design’ for Centenary Park and the amalgamation of the two car parks into one and the removal of the wooded area between the two carparks. Readers will remember that at council meeting it was stated that no decision would be made on this ‘amalgamation’ until the design was produced. Well the design is now in and of course the craze for bitumen and car parks and spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars is part of the design. It will be interesting to hear the take on this item and the ensuing resolution. Councillors have to decide whether car parks that already exist are to be ripped up, plus a well established nature area, so that more money may be needlessly wasted on new concrete and bitumen.
Another item of interest involves the Friends of Caulfield Park submission for a community grant in order to stage their concerts in the park. Whilst the recommendation does leave it open to councillors to decide whether to grant further funding to the group, the comments included in the Peter Jones report are quite remarkable. We quote:
While the program to be provided is likely to be worthwhile to the Caulfield community and park users Officers are concerned that the group are not working towards the event becoming financially sustainable in the future
COMMENT: It certainly looks good on the final community grant figures that organisations receive money for their events. The total is impressive. But, when one looks at the actual funding then a substantial amount is provided for the HIRING OF COUNCIL FACILITIES. Hence it is NOT money that comes out of council’s coffers and why groups should be made to jump through so many hoops to use council facilities that are paid for by ratepayer funds anyway is something that is never addressed. The other question of course is why a group providing such ‘worthwhile’ endeavours should be ‘sustainable’ anyway? When council spends a fortune on pavilions for sporting clubs or regrassing and regrassing sporting ovals do they insist that all these clubs are “sustainable”?
There are numerous other items that we will address in the days ahead – particularly on the ongoing fiasco of GESAC .
PS: We mustn’t forget another item that’s resulted from Delahunty’s request for a report on ‘pop-up parks’. Needless to say Council provides all the opposing arguments, some extremely dubious, rather than highlighting the positives. Here are some choice extracts opposing the introduction of such parks:
Consultation and feedback suggests that the Glen Eira community is seeking permanent new open spaces and at the quality that they are used to in Council’s existing parks.
When Council invited the community into open space, the Council has a duty of care that the land and improvements are safe. This includes managing any contamination, removal of hazards, provision of equipment (eg playgrounds) that can withstand heavy use, including use which is more than the intended use (eg attempts to vandalise). This usually involves materials of a higher than normal strength……..For the above reasons, the cost of making a pop up park available to the public may be similar to the cost of a permanent park – but without the longer period of the investment.
Conclusion
A pop up park may be considered where there is no option to provide a permanent park.
Where there are opportunities to provide permanent parks, that will generally achieve better parks, better use of public funds and a greater satisfaction of community needs.
September 18, 2013
The legal move comes after Eliezer (Eric) and Nicole Kornhauser failed to secure planning approval from the Glen Eira Council and lost an appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The dispute centres on the operation of an ”education centre” the Kornhausers have run from their two-storey contemporary mansion built across two allotments on Springfield Avenue in St Kilda East.
The northern wing of the U-shaped property holds classrooms where 14 boys receive Jewish religious instruction during the day, and intensive courses are held for young local and international Jewish women through the Merkos Women program.
VCAT member Philip Martin found the Kornhausers’ proposal represented a ”fatally poor planning outcome”.
”I have some sympathy for the line of thinking that a dead-end residential street zoned Residential 1 is not an obvious place to establish this type of combined ‘women’s and children’s religious studies’ use,” he said.
Mr Martin also found that it was likely that a 95-year-old covenant established over the southern allotment prohibiting the use of the land for ”any religious educational or charitable use” was being breached by students using the pool on the residential side of the property.
The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Nicole Kornhauser could not be reached for comment. A directions hearing is set for November 29.
cvedelago@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2fCUdkcti
September 17, 2013
PS: AND HERE’S HOW STONNINGTON DOES THINGS RE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES –
September 15, 2013
This afternoon’s LARGE Community Forum had a terrific turnout and very informative speakers. Apparently all Glen Eira councillors and some senior planning staff were invited. To their credit the only councillors to show up were Lobo, Delahunty and Magee. No officer turned up and no other councillors.
Since the afternoon was videotaped we’re assuming that LARGE will upload a full record of the formal presentation on their website (http://www.largeinc.com.au) so we won’t comment on this aspect of the event. Instead we will focus on some of the questions or comments that members of the audience made and the remarks made by the above councillors in response.
One resident asked that the map of the new zones be put up on the screen. He was from Wheeler St., Ormond which is a ‘purple area’ (4 storeys). He expressed ‘sorrow’ for anyone who lived in such areas because they were ‘high density zones’. His problem was that it was also a ‘flooding zone’ and there had been some progress with melbourne Water and council about upgrading drains but ‘without upgrades of infrastructure’ council is ‘still approving development’. They went to VCAT opposing a 3 storey development and they won. But that was several months ago, before the introduction of the zones, so the resident wanted to know what this means for the new development now – ie could there be another application and a permit granted because this is now a higher density zone. The resident asked if ‘council is stronger than VCAT?’
Professor Buxton explained that there are other forms of control via layers of overlays and if there is one he felt that VCAT would uphold it – although he didn’t know the extent of Glen Eira’s overlays. Delahunty then said that council is continuing to ‘look for new areas to apply neighbourhood character overlays’ and these are ‘primarily in the green section of the map’ (minimal change). Said that with permeability controls, height controls and other things that ‘we are quite proud of’ and that ‘VCAT cannot overturn’. She didn’t forsee any change to the current flooding zone.
Another member of the audience then began her question by saying that the data that the residential zones are based on comes from figures of the nineties. Things have changed a lot since then and the floods of 2011 impacted on a huge area near her. Yet council still grants permits and hasn’t taken into account ‘greater surface’ for buildings which means ‘greater flooding’ and all this whilst there’s been ‘limited infrastructure upgrades’. Said that she lived in the ‘purple zone’ and that council has been ‘quite remiss’ in blocking themselves off from the community. (applause). ‘there is definitely no regard for us living in this area’. Claimed that she had spoken with planners at council and asked what consideration was given to ‘infrastructure’ and their response was ‘oh, we looked at it in 2000’ and that she should take it to council. Mentioned ‘schools bursting at the seams’ and whilst a state responsibility, council still has to advocate but it ‘seems that our rights in Glen Eira have been overlooked’. Schools and kindergartens are ‘bursting at the seams’ and whilst there is a train station there is no bus service’. Talked about traffic and that ‘yes’ 3 storey limit is great’ but it’s not enough.
Another speaker then said that she finds the ‘of right uses’ (ie no permit required) ‘abhorrent’ since it removes her rights as a resident to object, ‘voice my concern, to be heard’. Asked if this is in fact an abuse of administrative and legal power as well as a ‘denial of natural justice’ (applause). Buxton answered that the government has justified this by granting ‘certainty’ and removing delays therefore saving money for everyone. Said irony of all this is that there are heaps of Section 2 uses (service stations etc.) that can then get permits. Government hasn’t prohibited anything and there are no height controls for commercial areas and will be a huge problem because these of right uses don’t have height limits applied to them.
Buxton also stated that the criteria to assess these uses in residential areas are ‘very vague’ so anything could go into a residential street. Said that these ‘criteria’ are supposed to be ‘performance measures’ but they are anything but performance measures – ie will they cause ‘detriment’ to someone. These are vague and all subjective. Buxton then went on to say that a planning scheme is a legal document and people’s rights are either ‘given’ or ‘taken away’ via the planning scheme.
Several residents then gave examples of battles they had won elsewhere and the call was for ‘people power’.
Another residents asked whether VCAT could still ignore ResCode standards if councils simply defaulted to these in its schedules since VCAT often ignored ResCode in the past. Buxton responded that if specified in the schedules such as height then this was mandatory but it was vital that councils apply ‘the maximum powers they have under the schedules’. Gave the example that council could have stipulated one dwelling per lot but Glen Eira didn’t – they’ve allowed 2 dwellings per lot. Where there is medium or high density and there is no specifications by council then they will be assessed under ResCode. Problem is that ResCode only applies to 3 storeys so applications for 4 or more storeys in Residential Growth Zones won’t even have these ‘standards’. ‘No developer in his or her right mind is going to apply for a 3 storey development in a commercial zone when there’s no height control’. Also the guide that assesses higher density is ‘even less strict than ResCode’. So ‘not only do you get an incentive to go over 3 storeys but you’re being assessed against a weaker code’…’you’d have to be nuts not to do it’.
One ‘brown zone’ resident said she was ‘shocked’ by what has been said. Asked if it’s true that those living in these areas have no rights and no protection and that the lovely heritage places around her have no value whatwoever except for developers. Buxton said that ‘you lose rights if application relates to Section 1 uses’ otherwise people can still go to VCAT. (SECTION 1 INCLUDES ‘food and drink premises’ within 100 metres of commercial zones; shops, medical centres, places of worship etc.) Many of these are ‘high impact’ that people won’t be able to do anything about. The other problem here is that there are no height limits on such uses so a hypothetical could be a 9 storey application with no rights to objection next door to a single storey.
Comments from Backlash about population growth and no planning for infrastructure – transport. Buxton claimed that no government is confronting the planning for a city of 6.5 million people by 2050 because it will cost 25 to 50 billion just in transport.
LOBO then spoke saying that ‘it’s a pity the other 6 councillors did not turn up’. Said that Labor lost ‘because of Justin Madden’ at the last election and now we’ve got Matthew Guy ‘who became mad’ and is ‘on his way out’. Told residents that they should ‘go to the State Member of Parliament’ and that when councillors promise to stop development so that the ‘next time’ they come to ‘your house’ asking for your vote ‘throw a bucket of water on their face’. He then said that ‘personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree’ and that ‘I made that very clear’ and as he’s already said that ‘Melbourne is going to be like Calcutta’.
After a few more questions and comments on community activism and networking Magee spoke.
MAGEE: said he wanted to bring the discussion back to ‘some basic’ facts. Said that previously they only had ‘policies’ and not ‘zones’ and the former weren’t ‘enforceable’. This meant that ‘quite often’ at VCAT the ‘developer would win’. Claimed that ‘now’ the green areas were about ‘78% of Glen Eira’ and that developers therefore know that 2 dwellings is the maximum and that 2 storeys is the maximum. ‘that is not arguable through VCAT’. The blue zones are ‘a maximum of 3 storeys’ and the light blue is also 3 storeys and has ‘the greatest setback between the light blue and the green’. Brown is another zone with 4 storey maximum. Said that even with permitted uses in Glen Eira ‘not a lot has changed’. Said that in 2010 there was ‘quite significant’ consultation althought people might disagree with this. So all that’s happened is that the policies have ‘been changed over to zones’.
Another resident then stated that the spin doctors were outin force because the zones were rushed through and therefore they didn’t have time to consult with residents. Said that previously there were transition areas between the brown and blue zones and now there isn’t any. Asked if you own a house in a green zone and next door in the brown zone someone builds a 4 storey and blocks your solar panels what rights do residents have?
MAGEE: conceded that buildings could be 4 storeys but that ‘have to set back from 4 to 3 to 2’ and said this was a ‘natural setback’ and even in the growth zones (brown) these are ‘bordered by general residential zone’ (light blue)
DELAHUNTY: said that council had tried to have ‘transition zones in the past. Now we actually have transition zones’ and that ResCode could be applied to 4 storey buildings and council was trying to make transition zones enforceable whereas before they weren’t and now they are.
One resident got up and asked that those councillors who are present take back to their groups the community feeling that community consultation is what is needed and that rather than having the plans ‘left at the library where someone has to go with a magnifying glass’ to make head or tails out of it.
MAGEE: said that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space and that ‘there is no way that we are looking to encroach on open space’. The white areas on the maps are open space but ‘predominantly commercial zones’. Said that the first test is ‘about to come up’ in regards to the Virginia Park industrial site. Claimed that the Minister was approached by the developer to rezone without public consultation. Said that MP Miller had written to council and ‘endorsed’ the Minister’s position ‘not to go to public consultation’. Said that ‘council has actually fought that’ and will be putting it out under normal amendment processes which means public consultation. ‘These things are not debatable in council’. Said that council and ‘i’m one of them, I’m very proud of these zones’. Said that nothing has changed except that they have ‘guaranteed’ ‘maximum height limits’ in 98%’ of the municipality.
September 13, 2013
One of the range of videos created by Moreland City Council on their proposed implementation of the new residential zones. Please note a couple of stark differences:
September 11, 2013
The saga with GESAC rolls on and on. Contractual problems such as liquidated damages, delays in opening, another year’s extension on final settlement, and now the unwilling admission that there are some major construction faults doesn’t paint a pretty picture of council’s oversighting of this entire project. There’s no doubt that there are problems when pools are closed for weeks at a time for ‘maintenance’ on a facility that has barely been in existence for a year. Lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank whilst council is still pouring more and more money into GESAC. In the past 6 months there’s been the diversion of $45,000 from a maternal child care centre to GESAC, plus another $15,000 recently announced. And we mustn’t forget 2 car park extensions and the ludicrous relocation of a playground that has ended up costing over a million dollars. Now full page colour advertisements have started again. When we’re repeatedly told that the place is a roaring success, then we have to ask whether continued, and expensive advertising, is warranted or even necessary.
The latest evidence of things not going smoothly just happens to be a tender advertisement in The Age.
“Contract No.: 2014.025
GESAC – Replacement of AHU and Associated Ducting
Requirement: Replacement of pool air handler and associated return & exhaust portion of ducting.
Tenders Closing date:
4 October 2013 by 4.00 pm.”
What caught our eye is the fact that it is not Hansen & Yuncken that are tendering but council. Does this therefore mean that ratepayers are footing another bill to rectify problems with GESAC? Given that this has gone out to tender, then we can assume that the costs will run into tens of thousands. Of course, expecting council to actually inform its residents as to the real state of affairs is nothing more than a pipe dream. The illusion of smooth sailing must be maintained. Here are some fundamental questions about GESAC and its overall governance:
September 11, 2013
The difference between Glen Eira’s open slather approach to development compared to other councils is made even clearer when the schedules for the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1) are looked at side by side. In Glen Eira, the GRZ1 has been applied holus bolus to existing ‘Neighbourhood Centres’ and Main Roads. Suddenly, developers have been given the green light for 3 storey apartment blocks in countless residential streets.
Instead of using the schedules to achieve a balance, and to ensure the protection of local amenity, Glen Eira’s councillors have simply rubber stamped the Newton and Akehurst agenda.
Please note carefully:
Here are the schedules from both Councils. We ask readers to compare and contrast and start questioning whether our elected representatives are indeed acting in the best interests of the community?
Here’s the Boroondara version for the identical zone –
Glen Eira Debates 