Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

August 21, 2013

Pilling’s Blog

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

We take this opportunity to respond to the comments made by Cr Pilling featured above. It’s worth noting that this posting has now been removed!

GE Debates is labelled as ‘unfair’, ‘irrelevant’, consisting of ‘cowards’ and ‘untruths’ amongst other things. It is also claimed that we do not ‘verify’ our data. All of these labels are symptomatic of a council and its councillors who believe that by attacking the messenger they can absolve themselves from having to deal with the countless issues we have raised over the past 3 years. On every vital aspect of governance this council has underperformed. Here is a list in case Cr Pilling has forgotten –

Meeting procedures that stand in stark contrast to every other council in the state
Consultation or lack thereof especially in relation to the residential zones, budgets and council plans
Lack of transparency re countless decision making processes – especially planning and role of the DPC
Acceptance of sub-standard reporting by officers
Lack of commitment and action on numerous issues – carbon reduction targets; tree register, vegie gardens, cctv cameras; car sharing; ESD policies; WSUD policies; Urban Design Frameworks – and the list goes on and on.
Repeated failures to provide comprehensive cost-benefit analysis within officer reports

For each of these issues we have taken the time and effort to contrast this council’s performance with that of its neighbours. We have supplied facts, figures, statistics, and we believe sound argument. Glen Eira Council, in contrast, has repeatedly come up short when it comes to these basic elements. Residents need to ask themselves just one thing – Why? Why is it that other councils can achieve all these things and Glen Eira is incapable, or even worse, unwilling? And, if we are so ‘irrelevant’ then why bother putting up such a post and why the repeated attempts in council meetings to answer our criticisms.

Pilling’s post is typical then of the modus operandi of this council. Ignore the issue and slay the messenger. If the issue just can’t be ignored then there is always spin or secrecy. The most self incriminating comment that Pilling can make and which exemplifies his own inadequacies is the sentence – In my view the authors of this blog are trapped in the bitterness and outdated practices of local government as conducted in the last century….. . It is certainly illuminating and sad, that a current councillor believes that the call for transparency, accountability, and sound financial management belongs in the last century! Our view is that times may have changed, but that Glen Eira Council remains marooned in a past where oligarchies ruled and their actions went unquestioned. In 2013 thanks to the internet and social media all is open to scrutiny. That is the foundation of good government – so sorely missing in Glen Eira thanks to the inability of its councillors to recognise and accept this simple fact. As decision makers councillors should be called to account when their decisions so often fly in the face of community aspirations and their arguments lack all credibility and substance.

Finally it is worth pointing out that over 461,000 hits must be a sure sign of ‘irrelevance’!!!!!!

August 21, 2013

Letters To The Editor

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

August 20, 2013

Racecourse Trustees

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

August 18, 2013

Worse Than Car Salesmen!

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

Below are the ‘responses’ to last week’s public questions. We ask readers to consider:

How much credibility do any of these ‘responses’ deserve?
How much faith should residents place in the imputation that the zones are largely the handiwork of the Minister and that little ‘ol Glen Eira Council was not the instigator and/or responsible for the outcomes?
Why would a Minister bother with such a small site as the Alma Club when he hasn’t intervened in the C60 or other major developments such as the Clover Estate, etc? In our view, the rezoning of the Alma Club and other sites has to be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of Council and not the Minister.
Who wrote the schedules? Surely not the Minister?
Please note how many sections of these questions are totally ignored
Once again, not all public questions were read out or their existence even acknowledged.
And the most important question was – why the secrecy?

QUESTION 1

1. On what precise date was Amendment C110 (Residential zones) submitted to the Minister and/or DPCD?

2. Why hasn’t the full Amendment and its schedules been made public by council prior to its being gazetted – especially since it has now been announced?

“Council does not have Amendment C110. It is, of course, not possible for Council to publish a document that is not in our possession.

When the Minister announced the creation of three new residential zones in March 2013, he said that he would translate Councils’ planning schemes into the new zones by Ministerial Amendment. A Ministerial Amendment is different to the process you are familiar with which involves Exhibition, an Independent Panel and Adoption.

After the Minister announced his openness to Ministerial Amendments, this Council sought differential zones and mandatory maximum height limits, which the Glen Eira community and Council have sought for many years, based on the established Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies. On 5 August, the Minister announced that he had approved a translation into the new residential zones and issued a Media Release to that effect.

Ministerial Amendment C110 also includes some elements which Council did not raise such as the rezoning of the site of the former Alma Club in Caulfield North to the General Residential Zone and the rezoning of the ABC’s studios in Gordon St, Elsternwick to the Residential Growth Zone.

It follows that there was no precise date on which Amendment C110 was submitted to the Minister in the way that most planning scheme amendments which have been prepared and adopted by a Council.

Amendment C110 is scheduled to be Gazetted on 23 August 2013. The mandatory maximum height limits and other benefits will apply to applications lodged on and after that date.”

QUESTION 2

New Residential Zones were announced last week which show 1 Wilks St site allocated General Residential Zone Schedule 1 with minimal setbacks to the abutting Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1. This fails to meet the Transition Buffers as elucidated to in “5.9 Transition Buffers” of the Guide to the New Residential Zones; buffers which apply to all other abutting transitions.

Question 1. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning for 1 Wilks St site was not retained as Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the equivalent of the old Minimal Change Area, particularly as it completely contravenes all the reasons given by Council for unanimously rejecting the Planning Application GE/PP25557/2013?

Question 2. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning was made General Residential Schedule 1 not General Residential Schedule 2, particularly as 1 Wilks St is abutted on over 3 sides by Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1?

Question 3. Who (officer, department, council or government person or the like) made these aberrant recommendations and who authorised these aberrant decisions?

Question 4. Under whose or what authority were these decisions made?

Question 5. Further to my question on zoning of 1 Wilks St, what action is Council now taking, or intends to take to rectify the error in Transition Buffers for all properties abutting the 1 Wilks St site?

The Minister for Planning applied the new zones by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account and largely adopting requests from Council. However, Council did not canvass any change for the site of the former Alma Club at 1 Wilks Street, Caulfield North. Council assumed a direct translation from Minimal Change to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Council was advised on 5 August that the former Alma Club had been included in the General Residential Zone. Council’s understanding is that the site will have its own Schedule which will be consistent with the setbacks set out in the officer report on the planning application considered by Council on 2 July 2013. Details should be clear by the time of Gazettal which is scheduled for 23 August.

The planning application for the site is before VCAT. That appeal would be determined in accordance with the rules which applied at the time the application was lodged, including the Minimal Change policy

QUESTION 3

Given that the

1. Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010 and scheduled for the 4 yearly review in 2014 and

2. Council had 12 months to implement the new residential zones Could Council please provide its reasons for electing not to consult with the community on the introduction of the new residential zones?

Glen Eira has had policies in the Planning Scheme for the last nine years which differentiate the municipality into Minimal Change Areas and Housing Diversity Areas. Those policies were incorporated into the Planning Scheme following extensive community consultation. The policies are well understood within our community. (Policies are, however, open to interpretation as is regularly seen at VCAT and greater certainty could only be achieved by the use of controls ie zones.)

Council undertook a Review of the Planning Scheme in 2010-11. Through the consultative mechanisms of the Review, the community made clear that it is seeking:

 mandatory maximum height limits binding on all parties, including VCAT;

 transition controls to step development more gradually between higher and lower density areas; and

 greater certainty for both existing residents and providers of additional residential housing.

The three new zones provide the opportunity to achieve these enhancements which are not possible under a policy framework.

Based on the outcomes of these consultative processes, Council sought a direct and neutral conversion to the new zones which achieved the outcomes sought by the community. If the process had not addressed the community’s expressed priorities, Council would have discontinued that process.

The translation which has been approved introduces greater protections for the benefit of existing residents as well as greater clarity for those wishing to proceed with residential development. The mix of zones, like the policies before them, provides for a clearer balance between retaining valued Neighbourhood Character and opportunities for higher density sustainable development at appropriate locations around public transport and shopping centres.

It is important to bear in mind that these zones were applied by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account, and largely adopting, Council requests. It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community.”

August 16, 2013

Where To For Glen Eira?

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

Here are some questions for residents to consider:

Why are so many decisions in Glen Eira City Council made in secret?
Why is the community voice so often ignored?
Why are the principles of good governance in terms of open and transparent decision making repeatedly abused and perverted?
Why does this council consistently resort to spin, obfuscation instead of disseminating the truth in an open and honest fashion? Why are they so scared of the truth?
Why is this the only council in the state not to accord its councillors true democratic process via its meeting procedures?
Why do public questions so often go astray?
Why are there no community representatives on the vast majority of advisory committees?
Why is there no real ‘debate’ in council chambers but far too often the mere rubber stamping of officer recommendations?
Why do councillors accept sub-standard reporting from officers?
Why has Newton’s position never been advertised?
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION – WHO STANDS TO GAIN THE MOST FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE AND THE CULTURE THAT IS NOW ENTRENCHED IN GLEN EIRA COUNCIL?

August 14, 2013

Truth & Mistruth and The Ways of Council

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

On Tuesday evening Glen Eira City Council basically washed its hands of nearly all responsibility for the introduction of the new residential zones. According to their version of events:

They had nothing to do with numerous areas in Glen Eira suddenly changing from Minimal Change to General Residential Zone. It was all the Minister’s fault!
In response to numerous public questions over the past few council meetings they had no idea about when and if public consultation would be held – it all depended if there was a ‘discrepancy’ between the old and the new zones. Well there are plenty of ‘discrepancies’ yet public consultation never eventuated!
Dates as to when amendments or proposals went into the department and/or minister just don’t exist.
They don’t even have a copy of the amendment when the Minister thanked officers for their ‘submission’. Semantics at its best! Council’s ‘submissions’ are surely available!
They claim not to know anything about the most relevant bits –ie the schedules. Yet, they were in constant ‘discussion’ and even quote from the upcoming schedules. These constitute the most important part of the amendment since it is councils which are able to determine standards etc.

Every single aspect of this entire saga is besmirched with dissembling, and untruths in our view. The fact that everything has been conducted in secret and without community input is indefensible. All of this goes to the heart of governance. Please note that:

Amendment C110 does not rate a mention in the Records of Assembly yet it was obviously ‘discussed’ but hidden under the rubric of ‘residential zones’.
Nothing was stated in any media release, much less the plot that was clearly being hatched
Where and when was the decision made not to engage the public? Clearly behind closed doors and not in accordance with the Local Government Act that stipulates that council decisions are made on the chamber floor and not in little tete a tetes behind locked doors.

The most damning indictment of this council and its operations comes from VCAT itself. In a hearing that took place on a Minimal Change Application on June 27^th (ie well before the various public questions were put): the member writes

Council is proposing to include the subject site in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Although this proposed change does not have any bearing on the decision making regarding the subject proposal, I note that the Neighbourhood Residential Zone allows for two storey high, dual occupancy developments.

(See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1382.html)

So here we have the ludicrous situation that VCAT is privileged to information that the community is denied! And us poor ratepayers are supposed to swallow the guff that emanates from this administration and its lackey councillors. Council knew, probably a year ago, what it was about to do and all these responses were designed to avoid the truth and hide the facts.

There’s much, much more however. In the carefully crafted spin that accompanies the agenda item and what’s up on Council’s website, we find the following paragraph:

VCAT has generally followed Glen Eira‘s Housing Diversity and Minimal Change policies. A reading of VCAT judgements over the years shows that VCAT commonly applies the Minimal Change policy, not because Council has a policy that says that higher density development is not appropriate on the subject site but because Council’s Planning Scheme has gone on to identify Housing Diversity Areas where such development is more appropriate.

We’ve done a tally of all objections to VCAT going back nearly 2 years that involved Minimal Change Areas, ignoring those developments that included student housing, or non-residential uses in residential areas. The table below includes the address of the property; the council decision as to whether or not to grant a permit, and the final VCAT decision on the permit.

The facts reveal that NOT ONLY VCAT but Council itself does not follow its own Minimal Change Policy. VCAT did not ‘generally follow’ this policy and it certainly did not ‘commonly apply’ it either.

Of the 33 VCAT decisions, Council agreed to 7 permits. All were then agreed to by VCAT and the original conditions imposed by council were either relaxed or withdrawn completely.

VCAT overturned 11 where council had refused. Hence more than HALF of the VCAT decisions relating to Minimal Change areas went the way of developers – either through council granting permits with conditions (and being watered down by VCAT) or overturning council’s decision OUTRIGHT. Why any of this should change is open to conjecture and will not only be revealed in the details of the schedules, but on the decision making of council planners. Will they continue on in their merry way ignoring many of the ‘standards’ and grant permits when only half of the criteria are met? That remains to be seen. Our view is that a leopard does not change its spots!

Finally, we need to point out that the table below only deals with those applications that end up at VCAT. What decisions are made by delegation are largely unknown – there are no locations given, no minutes, no planning officer reports. None of this ends up in the public domain. The abysmal record of secrecy and lack of transparency is most evident here. With the advent of C110 we do not hold out much hope that things will change given the history of this administration and the failure of councillors to insist on proper governance. When practically all control is handed over via delegations then councillors are not fulfilling their legal duties of oversight and representing the best interests of the community. When councillors accept shonky reports without question, they again are failing to exercise their legal mandates.

Address	Council Decision (permit)	VCAT decision (permit)
60 Neville Street, Carnegie	No	YES
10 – 12 Cromwell Street, Caulfield North	No	No
2A & 2B Huon Grove, Bentleigh East	No	Yes
41a Godfrey Street, Bentleigh	No	No
312 Glen Eira Road, Elsternwick	No	Yes
9 Brian Street, Bentleigh East	Yes	Yes
28 Griffith Street Caulfield South	No	No
24 Marara Road, Caulfield South	No	Yes
16 Miles Street, Bentleigh	No	No
280 Ormond Road, Ormond	No	Yes
2 Tovan Akas Avenue, Bentleigh.	No	No
11 Fallon Street, Caulfield	No	No
304 Glen Eira Road, ELSTERNWICK, VIC,	No	No
3 Osborne Avenue, Bentleigh	Yes	Yes
7 Irving Avenue, Murrumbeena	Yes	Yes
5 Yendon Road, Carnegie	No	Yes
3/18 North Avenue, Bentleigh	No	No
37a Amelia Street, McKinnon	No	No
466 Kooyong Road Caulfield South	Yes	Yes
9 Brian Street, Bentleigh East	No	No
9 Latham Street, Bentleigh East	No	No
5 Pell Street, Bentleigh East	No	Yes
142 Booran Road Glen Huntly	No	No
688 Inkerman Road, Caulfield North	No	Yes
2 Mawby Street, Bentleigh East	No	No
19 McKittrick Street, Bentleigh	Yes	Yes
No. 5 Service Street, Caufield North	YES	Yes
6 David Street, St Kilda East	No	Yes
6 David Street, St Kilda East	No	No
2 Osborne Avenue, Bentleigh	No	Yes
113 Bambra Road CAULFIELD	No	Yes
29-31 Hawson Avenue, Glen Huntly	No	No
25 Tambet Street BENTLEIGH EAST	Yes	Yes

August 13, 2013

Residential Zones

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

Pilling and Sounness were absent. Lipshutz moved a motion that the Residential zones item (listed last on the agenda) be considered first. Motion passed unanimously.

Hyams moved motion and added that council writes to Minister thanking him for ‘translating our existing policies’ into the new zones. Seconded by Lobo.

HYAMS: started off by saying that this is ‘possibly’ the most “important planning reform’ in history. Council introduced in 2004 the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity/Urban Villages policies but this isk even more ‘important’ because these are ‘mandatory zones’. ‘So what we say goes’. That contrasts to the past where VCAT could ignore council because they were only ‘guidelines’ and this ‘will no longer exist under these zones’. Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’. Stated that Glen Eira is the first council to ‘achieve’ this. Talked about the 78% being Neighbourhood Residential Zones and these were all the previous minimal change areas. These will have 8 metre height limit; 2 units per block, 50% site coverage and 25% permeability. All of this ‘will preserve the leafy backyard character’ of most residences. Next there’s the General Residential Zone (previous housing diversity) and this will have 10.5 metre height. Said that there would be ‘two types’ here – Schedule 1 ‘in the neighbourhood centres’ and Schedule 2 along tramlines. These latter ones that abut ‘neighbourhood residential zones’ and ‘they will have increased rear setbacks’. Last is Growth zones and they ‘conform’ to villages and height limit of 4 storeys and ‘mandatory setbacks’. ‘These are great outcomes for Glen Eira’ because development can still go on but is ‘directed to the right areas’ whilst ‘residential areas are protected from over development’. There’s also ‘certainty’ which is good for both residents and developers. Back in 2010/11 when the community was consulted, people said they wanted mandatory height limits and ‘now they have those’. Also achieved increase in permeability from 20 to 25%. ‘That’s basically why we didn’t consult this time around’ since ‘we had the old Minimal Change Areas and Housing diversity Areas which were well understood’ plus they got what the community wanted. Said that even if they had consulted he couldn’t see how ‘we would have got a better outcome’.

Said that the zones are ‘applied’ by the Minister in ‘discussions with us’ and ‘we got most of what we were after’ because they could show that there is ‘adequate’ space for ‘growth in Glen Eira including the C60 Caulfield Village’ and because the staff had ‘such a good grasp’ of all the issues in Glen Eira. They could answer all questions and ‘put a case very quickly and convincingly’. Congratulated Newton and Akehurst. Said that existing applications would be considered on old scheme and it could take a year before all of these were gone through.

LOBO: said that residents have been saying that Glen Eira needs a ‘structure planning policy’ to protect ‘people’s greatest asset’. Said that many residents had ‘borrowed from the greedy banks’ or used their super money to pay out the banks and ‘free themselves from the big claws’ of these banks. So they are now realising that ‘good attention’ is needed for ‘good planning’. What’s happening in the streets is of ‘great concern’ and people are right because ‘the value of the property will decrease’ and they took this into account when ‘preparing the new zones’. Matthew guy created the zones ‘earlier this year’ and ‘he has a carte blanche authority’ and that this is ‘different’ to the normal exhibition and panels for amendments. The Minister ‘has amended the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and included ‘many things that council wanted’ as well as ‘changes initiated by the Minister’ such as rezoning the Alma Club site and the Ripponlea ABC studio site to what was formerly Housing Diversity from minimal change. Residents got what they asked for ‘three years ago’. Now people will know ‘for certain what areas will be clearly protected’ and what areas will be developed. ‘With this, the wings of VCAT will be clipped’.

LIPSHUTZ: Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’. “it is revolutionary’ because VCAT can’t now ignore. It’s LAW. Said that newspaper reports say that it will ‘stifle development’ but as he ‘lives in the area, I don’t want high rise in my suburbs’ . there are ‘appropriate’ areas for high rise but ‘not in many of these areas where we have fine homes’ or heritage, or ‘single storey’. The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. Congratulated officers and ‘the government’ because the latter ‘had the guts’ to do something about an issue that has been going on for years.

ESAKOFF: stated that in the past VCAT only had to ‘consider’ policy and now it is mandatory. Was sure that there ‘would be far less applications to VCAT’. Noted that there are ‘other zones’ but they’re not included in the amendment and ‘they will be treated the way they have always been treated’.

MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’. Said he bought his house in minimal change and away from main roads but his back door neighbour built 3 units and he can touch them ‘with a broom’ and that ‘this won’t happen again’ with these zones. Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’

DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites.

OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty.This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

August 13, 2013

Chaos Til 2028?

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

Source: http://www.probuild.com.au/projects/caulfield-village/

Click on image to enlarge.

August 11, 2013

More Wool Pulling!

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

Several agenda items set down for next Tuesday deserve comment. We will dissect the secret Amendment C110 once it is made public and the schedules are released. It’s worth repeating that this entire episode was devised and implemented without any community input and without any notification whatsoever. So much for claims of transparency and accountability from all concerned.

Records of Assembly

Two council meetings on we have yet to see the response to Delahunty’s request for a report on Notice of Motion. However, there is one mention of ‘meeting procedures’ in the records of assembly so we can only wonder whether this is another instance of requests for reports NOT being tabled in an ordinary council meeting and instead going behind closed doors. An old Newtonian trick!
Councillors code of conduct – what further draconian measures will be attempted or will there be some positive changes?
Cr Delahunty – a response she has received from the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) in relation to matters raised concerning the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. May also need to consider referring the matters to the Ombudsman Victoria.
Cr Hyams – advised councillors in general terms about the deliberations of the Caulfield Racecourse Rserve Trust including on(sic) the progress of the leases.
Cr Sounness – Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust – lack of accessibility to the minutes of the Trust.

Comment: what a ludicrous situation! 3 councillor trustees who owe their first allegiance we’ve been told to the Racecourse group, yet sitting, listening and undoubtedly discussing how the Trust is a secret organisation not acting in accordance with governance guidelines. This is definitely Monty Python territory!

PUBLISHING OF SUBMISSIONS

We note again the lack of consistency by this council in making available public submissions that do not come under Section 223 of the Local Government Act (ie submissions on budget, council plan, local law, etc). The most important public responses are NOT MADE PUBLIC and incorporated into council minutes. Residents did not see the full submissions to the Planning Scheme Review of 2010 – although this is now the basis for the argument that there was extensive consultation and council is following the community viewpoint. What is made public are responses to issues that are far less controversial such as Toilet Strategy and now the Environmental Sustainability Strategy.

The extent of consultation is another inconsistency and a means of limiting public involvement – as well as achieving the desired and preset outcomes. The controversial Caulfield Park conservatory matter (which thus far has cost over $17,000) only managed to achieve the doctored ‘survey’ in both hard copy and on the Bang The Table online version. Others (less controversial and likely to draw only a minority of comments) have included a methodology that is far more expansive.

QUARTERLY REPORTING

No mention of C110
Statistics on DPC versus Council Resolution on planning applications are meaningless since the chart only reports on VCAT appeals. Further, there is no information provided on the decisions and the nature of the application, nor its location. Nor are residents any wiser as to why 37 were decided by the DPC and only 1 went to full council. The criteria, as always, is nebulous, vague, and lacks transparency and accountability.
Action plan related to the Council Plan continually fails to respond to the original measures indicated in the Community/Council Plan. For example: the original resolution stated that council was to provide numbers for dwellings in Housing Diversity/Minimal Change. This now becomes a meaningless percentage. Of greater import is the following:

Objective: Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.

Measure: Reduce the number of applications being referred to DPC for a decision by trialling a mediation process and report the results to Council. Provide an information video which explains the DPC role and purpose for the benefit of residents involved.

Progress June 2013: DPC Video has been finalised and is being shown to participants prior to meetings. 14 successful mediation meetings held and THUS NOT NEEDING A DPC OR COUNCIL DECISION BY RESOLUTION

Comment: How a video can achieve ‘transparency’ in all of town planning when it focuses on ‘mediation’ is mind boggling. The statistical validity of 14 ‘mediations’ also leaves us scratching our heads. Note – we’re not told how many were ‘unsuccessfully mediated’!

Our favourite mangling is:

Objective: Investigate ways of making proceedings for Council meetings easier to follow including the use of audio-visual technology.

Measure: Investigation completed

Progress: – Completed

Will this ‘investigation’ ever see the light of public scrutiny? We seriously doubt it!

ACTION PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

We highlight some of the officers’ responses to resident submissions:

Instead of introducing Environmental Sustainability policies into its planning scheme, council’s response was to produce a glossy booklet. When asked how effective such a booklet has been, this is the response: Council reviews publications on a regular basis. There are no plans to monitor whether recommendations are taken up because of the resource intensive nature of this.

In other words, let’s waste money producing something and then not worry about whether that money has been well spent since we don’t have the foggiest as to whether it’s serving its purpose!

August 6, 2013

Why The Newton Spin Won’t Wash!

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

The State Government and Council’s strategy is transparently obvious [reduce amenity for all but start with the significant minority in “targetted” areas] and it continues an inglorious tradition started by Labor when Melbourne 2030 was released. Remember this statement: “The character of established residential areas will be protected through Rescode, and increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity.”? Not that Council or VCAT ever took it seriously.

Yesterday’s announcement reaffirms the Government’s belief that it should be able to reduce people’s amenity without consulting them; taxation without representation. It doesn’t matter whether Lib or Lab or Brown, that is the principle.

Look at the huge chunk of Residential 1 Zone properties that are now about to find themselves in Residential Growth Zones or General Residential Zones. Where once they had ResCode, which included a 9m height limit, now they don’t. Council argues quite shamelessly that people will be better off because now there is “certainty”, since previously Council and VCAT ignored ResCode if it suited them. The same people who repeatedly abused the planning scheme are still in charge. What guarantee do residents have that whatever the schedules might say (and of course these remain top secret) that this planning department won’t continue with its old ways of handing out dispensations on countless of these ‘standards’?

Remember too that height limits only apply to dwellings or residential buildings. It won’t be long before we see some imaginative applications that push the envelope, quite literally. And of course, there simply aren’t any height limits for the old major activity centres and the main roads they sit on. Glen Huntly Road already has 10 storeys. That is the future – minimal ‘commercial’ or ‘retail’ and stacks of apartments.

Then there’s some seemingly random choices made, all without any transparency. Glen Huntly, which is a major activity centre, is now to be surrounded by GRZ. It has a railway, a tramway, 2 State Arterial Roads, and open space. Then look at what Council is doing to a bunch of Edwardian homes and California bungalows in Carnegie, which instead is to be rezoned RGZ.

The media releases remain silent on the contents of the Schedules to the Zones, yet the map does give a strong hint that at least some content has been inserted to replace “none specified” for various amenity standards. Who decided what should be inserted? Council staff. Council couldn’t even be bothered to vote on it.

The recent decision to refuse a Permit for Wilks St (Alma Club) is suddenly looking shaky, until such time as people can evaluate the implications of being rezoned to GRZ and Schedule 1 (no increase in rear setbacks). It’s no surprise that this has suddenly dropped its Minimal Change status and is now designated as General Residential Zone. In other words, 3 storeys is fine and 75 units in a dead end street is perfectly okay.

If Elizabeth Miller believes “the Victorian Coalition Government is delivering on their promise of protecting residents’ backyards” then she should be prepared to state how many backyards have just been condemned to being buried underneath concrete. I wonder if she even knows. Yesterday’s obligatory soundbite was carefully filmed in a tree-lined street. There won’t be many trees left when there’s no permeable soil available for roots in the targeted areas.

Will the State Government accept responsibility for flood damage when the drains are inadequate for the rapid runoff of water from these concrete ghettos? Does it have a crime strategy for the consequences of creating an unhealthy imbalance in demographics? Has it identified where the new sports facilities will be located?

Expect traffic to be managed when areas that you have to pass through have their population swollen by several thousand residents? There are no amenity standards for traffic congestion, no money to eliminate railway level crossings in the municipality, and it’s not even safe to ride a bike since Council/VCAT encourages street parking for multi-unit development [count the number of applications which seek and obtain a waiver]. Besides, the speed limits are generally too high for the population density. Will people be walking to their nearest open space? Depends how far it is. Yesterday’s announcement ignored that element of community well-being.

Clearly the policies behind yesterday’s announcement are unstable. If you increase the population faster than the jobs in an area, then more people will have to be travelling further distances at a slower average speed by less convenient means. Council admits its planning for an extra 18000+ people over 20 years, so it should be able to show its traffic modelling along with documented assumptions like where they have to go for work, recreation, services. Of course such detailed planning is not Glen Eira’s forte. The irony is that when council officers front up at VCAT and argue that the municipality has already exceeded its population forecasts, then that only throws more doubt on the figures produced by council this time around.

Planning for a community is so much more than trumpeting a bunch of discriminatory height restrictions. This entirely begs the question of where council has been for the past 10 years? No height limits throughout this time; no structure plans; no parking precinct plans (then or now); no Environmental Sustainable Design (then or now); no Urban Design Framework (then or now). It’s been hell bent on more and more development. This latest announcement only provides further evidence that the philosophy, strategy, and ambition remains intact. Glen Eira will remain the developer’s paradise.

Finally, we remind readers that in March 2012 the officers in their wisdom wanted to introduce a greater percentage of permeable surfaces but ONLY FOR MINIMAL CHANGE. Councillors passed a resolution that in part read: “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to lower the percentage of impervious surfaces within the Minimal Change Area and Housing Diversity Areas.”. No such amendment has seen the light, so we can only conclude that once again a council resolution has been ignored or conveniently forgotten and not acted upon in a ‘timely manner’ as required by law. Now we discover that the ORIGINAL recommendation of 25% permeable surfaces will only apply in what was formerly known as Minimal Change. This is how this council works and residents need to be not merely aware but alarmed at how their rights have been continually trampled upon.

Last but not least, here is a glimpse into the future for all those areas with the nice little light blue lines marked on them!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates