Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 21, 2013

What’s Safety Worth?

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

Most readers will have seen the Leader’s articles on council’s steadfast refusal to implement CCTV cameras in Bentleigh and how this has been contrasted to the actions of Kingston. (see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/glen-eira-council-wont-take-cash-for-cameras-despite-residents-support/story-fni0fit3-1226680390247

AND

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/glen-eira-council-says-position-unchanged-on-bentleigh-cctv-cameras-for-two-years/story-fngnvmhm-1226681231971

Several things need to be pointed out:

  • As with the alcohol free zone in Bentleigh, this is another instance of repeated buck passing.
  • The looking of a gift horse in the mouth is unconscionable where public safety is concerned. This council repeatedly complains that it receives less in government grants than other councils. Yet, when $155,000 is handed to them on a platter, the money is refused.
  • The issue of CCTV cameras has now been dragging on for years.

There’s a wonderful irony that next Tuesday the Municipal Health & Well Being plan is up for ratification. Here are some quotes from this very policy which should be read in conjunction with this refusal to enact what countless other councils and government regard as ‘safety initiatives’

 “Community safety

During consultations it was identified that feeling safe to go out at night would lead to more opportunities for physical activity and social activities which were both key priority areas for health.”

We are fortunate that Glen Eira residents enjoy a health status above the state average. However risk factors for our community are expected to increase with population ageing. The provision of information, services and programs and the continued provision of a safe environment enables residents to make healthy lifestyle decisions ensuring a healthy future for Glen Eira.

Council will focus activity on improving social, physical and economic environments”.

Then there are the following 2 quotes:

“A safe environment where people can live work or play has a direct impact on the community’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing (Better Health Channel, 2013).

Promoting safety and safe practices within the community can contribute to increasing the confidence of residents about safety (Victoria Police, 2013).”

And how will Council ensure that these ‘vision statements’ are fulfilled? With their usual nonsense objectives and indicators!

Objective: “Promote and implement a range of community safety information and programs during community safety month.

Measures: “Three community safety initiatives held during Community Safety Month.”

Finally, there is another issue of governance. On the 14th August 2012, the following resolution was passed –

Cr Magee/Forge

a. That Council notes the report;

b. That Council writes to the Chief Commissioner of Police requesting the

Police review their decision not to monitor CCTV in Bentleigh

c. That a report come back to Council at the next Ordinary Council Meeting

after the response is received.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED. 

To the best of our knowledge no such report has surfaced. We also find it difficult to believe that there has not been anything coming back to council, especially since the Records of Assembly report that Hyams spoke with the Minister.

We can even go back to the 18th March 2008 when graffiti and the call for CCTV cameras in Elsternwick hit the news. The final sentence in this news report read: “Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke said the council used CCTV cameras at problem hot spots, with the next area for focus to be the public toilets in Bentleigh.”

We do not know whether CCTV cameras are installed at the toilets. If they are, then clearly it is possible to do what is required in the interests of public safety. If they aren’t installed, then once again this council is full of promises, hot air, and no action!

 

July 19, 2013

Agenda: Delegations & Community Reps

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

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature several important items

DELEGATIONS

Once again councillors are largely sidelined when it comes to planning matters and the most important powers are ceded to officers. We reiterate what we’ve said in the past:

  • No councillor ‘call-in’ on applications – ie. countless other councils deem it essential that a councillor be given the right to insist that a planning application be decided by a full council rather than 3 bureaucrats as happens in Glen Eira under the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) structure
  • The criteria for determination remains vague and unquantified. For example: the Schedule to the DPC states that this committee may decide upon applications when “There has been significant objection/s in terms of substance or number received to an application, amendment or any other matter”. Precisely what ‘significant’ entails is of course not stated. Are we talking 5 objections, 10 objections, 50 objections? We note again that numerous other councils specify the number of objections that will automatically see the application go to a full council meeting.
  • There are other nebulous phrases contained in this schedule for the DPC: ‘significant departure from policy”. Again, what does significant mean in this context, and who is to decide? Certainly not councillors!
  • We refer readers to a previous post where the significance of such delegations is outlined in greater depth: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/delegations-the-glen-eira-way/
  • We also note that Newton’s spending power has now reached $750,000. This amount does not require a council resolution!

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

The farce of ‘consultation’ in Glen Eira continues with the minutes for this meeting. The positions for community reps will be readvertised since according to the spin – “The committee discussed the lack of diversity of applicants in relation to young people and families and thought that it was important to seek applicants from a broader range of community members.” Strange that we happen to know of at least 2 applications from well versed residents who just happen to also be ‘family’ members with young children. Their ‘rejection’ has more to do with whom council doesn’t want representing the community voice than with whom they do want. Intelligent, articulate, and pro-community people we suspect would be anathema to the powers that be!

There’s also a paragraph on the review of the overall consultation strategy itself. We find the following particularly relevant: “In section on engagement tools and techniques include: disadvantage to meetings and forums as ‘can be dominated by interest groups, and disadvantage of social media as ‘individuals may submit multiple times’. Does this augur the demise of ‘multiple methods’ of community consultation?

Finally, the proposed terms of reference for the committee when it is eventually reconstituted with community reps includes the rider that VOTING POWER will only be granted to councillors! Reps will be selected on ‘agreed criteria’. Of course, these criteria remain top secret!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

See the following as items of real interest:

“Cr Lipshutz – a development in Inkerman Road that has a Condition requiring that a laneway be properly made that will cost the developer. Asked that this Condition be reviewed.”

“Cr Delahunty – advised that she had met with the Chairperson of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust who had updated her on thek Trust’s current deliberations. Said that she understood that there is nothing preventing the Councillor Trustee members keeping the full Cpouncillor group updated on the Trust’s deliberations.”

Readers should also peruse the report on the ABC studios site and its potential sale for residential development.

PS: A very quick search has revealed some further fascinating comparisons between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours regarding the delegation to the CEO. Unlike Glen Eira, these other councils have imposed certain limitations on the powers of their CEOs. Glen Eira appears to set no limits!

Stonnington – without the concurrence of the Mayor communicated to the delegate at a meeting or conference convened by him or the Mayor for the purpose of informal discussion (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/about-council/council-delegations/)

Bayside – If the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action, act or thing which involves:

4.1 awarding a contract exceeding the value of $300,000 for an annual capital works contract;

4.2 awarding a contract exceeding $100,000 per annum for the supply of goods and services for a period exceeding 5 years;

4.3 approving a contract variation that exceeds 20% of the original contract sum, where the original contract sum is $250,001 or greater;

(http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/10.15_Instrument_of_Delegation_to_CEO_-_2013.pdf)

 

Boroondara – A new power to acquire or dispose of other interests in land to the value of $500,000 or less (excluding GST) is inserted.

Under the existing delegation, the Chief Executive Officer also has the power to vary contracts which were approved by Council. The power is conditional upon expenditure limits, being: [if] the value of the contract is greater than $500,000, the aggregate value of the contract (taking into account the value of expenditure for the further term and the value of the variation) may not increase by more than or 10% or $100,000 whichever is lesser.

(http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Meetings%20and%20Agendas/Council/20130527/Report7%20Instruments%20of%20Delegation.pdf)

Monash – Increase the maximum value of contracts that can be awarded by the Chief Executive Officer, to $250,000.

(http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/reports/pdftext/cp28may13/6.1.pdf)

 

 

July 17, 2013

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting……

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

concern

letters

 

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

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

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

  1. A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
  2. The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
  3. The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
  4. The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
  5. The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28th May and submissions closed on the 6th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

  • How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
  • Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
  • Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
  • How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
  • To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
  • What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

 

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

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

plazaCOMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

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

And from The Stonnington Leader –

car share

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

 

July 10, 2013

When Is Enough, Enough?

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

zone1

zone2

 

July 7, 2013

Silence, Secrecy & Subterfuge

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

Over the past week there have been numerous announcements about the Residential Zones and their implementation. First off the 7pm ABC News stated that Boroondara and Glen Eira were to be the first to introduce the new zones. Next came 2 Age articles where again Glen Eira was mentioned as being first cab off the rank. Even the Minister’s Media Release this week highlighted the fact that he thought that many councils would introduce the zones within 4 months.

We don’t for a second think that there is nothing to these stories. Such stories don’t just happen. They must have originated from somewhere! You don’t just pluck one or two councils out from 79! What irks us even more is that for the past year not a single statement has come out about the new zones from Glen Eira councillors or administrators – except for the formal submission. Residents have not been informed about a single thing. We do not know:

  • Whether there will be any public consultation – which has already been ongoing in countless other councils
  • Whether the shambles that constitutes Housing Diversity and Minimal Change will remain untouched?
  • What the available height limits will be. Remember nothing is mandatory in Activity Centres.
  • Whether Council will abide by the minimalist ResCode standards or attempt to introduce their own?
  • Or whether this council is content to rely on plans drawn up eons ago with no further local analyses and comprehensive planning – despite the burgeoning population and the growth of dwellings?

What makes us even more suspicious regarding the intent of excluding the public is that under Section 20 of the Planning and Environment Act, Council has the power to simply request the minister to authorise an amendment without formally notifying residents or seeking submissions. Further, Council’s response to 2 public questions on Tuesday night has only added fuel to the suspicion that residents will be left out in the cold and that the new zones are already a fait accompli.

One question specifically asked when council would begin its public consultation process. The answer was incredibly brief – “Council has not yet decided” and typically uninformative. The other question noted the media reports. Council’s response was that they don’t control the media. True, but when the Leader has in the past published negative articles Council was very quick to denounce and deny the articles. No denial was proffered to this question. We do not for one moment believe that nothing has been decided. And, if ‘undecided’ then what does it say about the overall planning capability of this council and getting their act together in a timely fashion? These zone reforms are important. Council has had a year to decide on the appropriate time. It is far more likely that this answer has as much veracity as countless other public statements by council. We firmly believe that:

  • This council will secretly and surreptitiously introduce the new zones
  • There will be no public consultation whatsoever
  • The anomalies and injustices of planning will continue

If we are right, then every single resident in Glen Eira should be outraged. The Minimal Change and Housing Diversity zoning is a failure. It is a myth that 80% of the municipality is protected. Housing Diversity areas have expanded and expanded to now include all major roads and those roads with trams. Activity centre and neighbourhood centre ‘borders’ have also grown – especially if they are anywhere near a railway line. Thus if anything, it is no longer 80/20 but a conservative 70/30. Furthermore, most high density is in these growing areas where we’ve had 8, 10 and 12 storeys approved. It is no longer a single application for dual townhouses. Blocks of land are now seen to quite comfortably accommodate 3-4 storeys and 30 units. And even in the much lauded Minimal Change, if the land is on a corner block, or happens to be a tad larger than the average, or lies a few hundred metres from an Activity Centre, then it’s become the norm for multi-unit development.

Our guesstimate is that as a result of this cramming, perhaps 50% of Glen Eira’s population now resides in these areas. Council of course hasn’t undertaken a ‘review’ of its Housing Strategy since the dark ages and it wouldn’t surprise us at all if they have absolutely no idea of population densities in each suburb. That’s the sort of work that needed to be going on over the past few years and definitely needs to be going on now – BEFORE any arbitrary zoning lines are drawn on the municipal map. If any of these figures are available, then we simply challenge this council to produce them and argue its case.

What is even more discriminatory is that these high density areas are not accorded the basics of social and environmental amenity according to this planning scheme. They lack adequate open space provision; landscaping; onsite car parking. They are also subject to greater site coverage and it is not considered too bad if 25% of dwelling don’t get natural sunlight. That is the legacy of this planning scheme and its creators. And this is what will continue if the zones are simply rubber stamped. In 2002 people did not realise the repercussions of the amendment which established all this (c25). Now it is clear to everyone. Residents must have a say on their future. If not, this council should be dismissed.

Finally, we include the consultation program that Stonnington has set out for the next few months. Its willingness to engage and encourage residents is the total reverse of what happens in Glen Eira on so many fronts.

Pages from stonnington consultation_Page_1 Pages from stonnington consultation_Page_2

 

July 4, 2013

Public Questions: Hide & Seek!

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

The tradition of Glen Eira Council not responding to public questions in an open, honest, and forthright manner continues. Specifics are ignored, even though the questions focus on specifics; sniping when possible is taken full advantage of, instead of treating all residents with respect. This is par for the course.

But, what is happening far more frequently is the inexcusable failure to read out and answer all questions that have been submitted. We know of at least 3 questions that were submitted via email and the internet for last Tuesday. None of these were read out – they simply did not exist. There was no mention of them on any grounds under the ‘inadmissable’ section of the Local Law. Other questions in the past have been deposited at the front desk, received the requested ‘receipt’ and were clearly marked as ‘public questions’. These also failed to show up at council meetings. For an organisation that continually trumpets its marvellous efficiency, we find it extremely difficult to believe that these questions were not received by council.

So what can we conclude? That all of these questions just happened to disappear? That we are having a plague of ‘clerical errors’? That the fortune that is spent on council computer systems may just be a dud? That there is major inefficiency within the ranks? Or simply, that council did not want these questions in the public domain and they certainly didn’t want to answer them?

It’s also worth reporting on what occurred following the reading out of SOME of the submitted questions:

PILLING: asked whether there are any ‘outstanding questions’ – in particular from one resident.

BURKE: ‘As far as I know’ Burke claimed there weren’t.

HYAMS: then said that there was one question that was read out that they hadn’t received in the normal form because the resident then emailed again to reinforce that she had submitted the question.

BURKE: since Mr xxxxx was ‘actually in the audience’ Burke wanted to remind him of a conversation they had a ‘few months back’ where the resident thought ‘he sent a couple of items in’ but they weren’t received and that when the resident checked his Sent-Box ‘you couldn’t find them either’.

RESIDENT: stated that he had resent them but would have to double check if they went to the ‘right address’.

HYAMS: welcomed the resident resubmitting. Delahunty then interceded.

DELAHUNTY: Asked whether the resident could ask his ‘question now‘.

HYAMS: (Quite flummoxed at this point) ‘Well….generally, the Local Law’ (more mumble, mumble) determines what might be considered out of order and – that was not to suggest that what the resident was asking out of order, but there was the issue of ‘precedence’. Also ‘the chances of getting an answer now’ would be small. ‘So we will move on’!

COMMENT: God forbid that this council sets a ‘precedent’! In fact, it wouldn’t be a precedent since according to the Local Law the chairman is able to do wondrous things at his discretion. The bottom line is that this has got nothing to do with the Local Law and everything to do with Hyams and this council’s terror in permitting residents to speak their minds, offer a view, or even ask a question that might just get a more honest response from the spin doctors without the necessary time to fudge, dissemble, and deflect.

Our next post will illustrate why none of the questions asked received an answer!

 

July 3, 2013

Delahunty & Notice Of Motion

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

DELAHUNTY: asked for a report on how Section 3 of the Local Law (Meeting Procedures) ‘compare’ to other councils and ‘best practice’. Also wanted the report to include ‘published opinions and guidelines’ from ‘peak bodies’ and to look at the absence of notice of motion in current local law as well as to ‘assess the effectiveness of section 232’ (public questions) and again compare this with best practice. Also wanted an assessment of ‘effectiveness’ of Section 238 (Right to make a Statement) and to ‘compare this procedure against other councils’. Magee seconded.

Delahunty went on to say that she recognised that this had been ‘discussed’ in the past but it should be discussed again. Since the local law is currently being reviewed by the Local Laws Committee asking for the report now is ‘timely’ in ‘order to inform our discussions’ so they know if they’re ‘consistent with other councils’ and learning from others. Not ‘necessarily’ a ‘call to change the local law’ but a call to ‘inform a discussion’. Wanted data about other councils so that there is some ‘benchmark’. Said that in her personal view ‘council is out of step with what could be considered as best practice’ in these areas. Councillors have to make sure that they are ‘all comfortable’ with how meetings ‘are run’. The report should ‘guide us’ on ‘how to increase transparency and accountability’ and ‘community participation’. Said she ‘believed’ that ‘all councillors have right to raise notice of motion’ and that residents should ‘be heard at meetings’ so if it’s all about transparency, accountability and participation then those things need to ‘be fixed’ in the Local Law. Said that she’d ‘like to know’ that Glen Eira is acting in concert with other councils so that people who come from elsewhere ‘don’t fall down in their ability to be able to participate’ and that all councillors everywhere have the ‘same participation rights’. Wanted to know that if this is about transparency then how the processes aid ‘public perception’ of transparency. Wanted to know ‘how we can encourage our community to take a more active role in the meetings’. Wants the report back ‘in a timely manner’. (applause)

MAGEE: said he supports the motion and ‘eagerly awaits the report’.

SOUNNESS: said he doesn’t know ‘what’s broken’ he only knows this council. Was also looking forward to the report and seeing how other councils do things and whether councillors ‘throw each other’ in chambers’…’it will be interesting’.

PILLING: thanked Delahunty. Acknowledged that this had come up before but thought it was right that the ‘new council’ looked at it again. ‘Suspected’ that there is a ‘historical context’ that would explain why Glen Eira ‘does what it does’ but thought that it ‘is time’ to ‘potentially think about modernising‘. The report will ‘give us an idea of where we stand’.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty was right about it coming up previously and that back in 2004 he had wanted a notice of motion and that it had also ‘been discussed in last term of council’ but he was ‘happy to have the discussion again’. Asked Delahunty to clarify saying that her request could be ‘read as the whole local law’ or was she just wanting the 3 things that she’d nominated? Delahunty reiterated that she’s asking about the Section 3 of the local law. Hyams then asked whether she wanted the ‘whole section’ compared or just the 3 things within that section.

DELAHUNTY stated that knowing it had come up before she didn’t want a report that was ‘too narrow’ and if there is something in that particular division of the local law that ‘was inconsistent with other councils’ that the report should also highlight these things. The 3 things mentioned she wants ‘particularly noted’ but also ‘leeway to raise any other options’.

Thought that the discussion would be ‘lively’. Was looking forward to what the report had to say about other councils and how Glen Eira could increase transparency and accountability and she wanted to know ‘how question time can work a bit better’. Read out a bit from the  ‘governance grab’ from government that said question time should ‘be engaging and responsive’. The quote went on to say that having someone read out the public question in a ‘monotone …can be deadening’. ‘That’s exactly what we do’ with our public questions. ‘No wonder, or it’s possible’ about the lack of ‘public participation’ and whether this ‘trickles down’ to the voting and ‘the feel about local government’ and wanted to know what can be done to ‘improve this’. On notice of motion she said that she would ‘find it very hard to be convinced that we don’t deserve the right to raise notices of motion’. Residents also deserve the right to ‘expect us to raise’ these motions and act ‘within the councillor code of conduct’. Notice of motion shouldn’t be thought of as ‘a nuisance’ but part of the process ‘that is afforded to pretty much every other council in Victoria apart from us’.

Thought that the Right of Reply was also ‘inconsistent’ and that it should be available to the individual who ‘wants to make the reply’. Gave the example that if she ‘had an issue with a letter that was written’ into a local newspaper and ‘might have said that I lied about’ councillor campaign donations and made that ‘comment about two of my other councillor colleagues’ and if she wanted to make that reply she would have to ‘write it and have someone else read it out for me’. ‘Now if I’m so incensed at being called as liar…have my integrity questioned….I’d like to read that out myself’. So this aspect also ‘needs addressing’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

July 3, 2013

The Alma Club Decision

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

It was standing room only at tonight’s council meeting which was taken full advantage of by most councillors with further academy award performances by several. Here’s a brief summary of what occurred apart from the Alma Club application which is reported on in full –

  • Alma Club development rejected unanimously
  • Lipshutz arguments totally inconsistent and arrogant
  • Delahunty threw down the gauntlet regarding a request for a report on Notice of Motion and other aspects of the Local Law Meeting Procedures. Newton was looking decidedly uncomfortable.
  • Hyams could not help himself once again with personal attacks on a resident and a former councillor, plus of course, allusions to this blog!
  • Sounness remains a major concern, and Okotel appears way out of her depth. Esakoff was absent again.
  • Not one councillor uttered the word planning or traffic management when it came to how wonderful the Community Satisfaction Survey was despite the fact that the gap between ‘importance’ and ‘performance’ had grown in some crucial areas.
  • Public questions remained unanswered, or even worse, lost in the ether somewhere – for the second council meeting running!

ALMA CLUB DEVELOPMENT

Magee moved the motion to reject on several grounds: minimal change area, size, bulk, traffic, neighbourhood character, landscaping, lack of sunlight for dwellings, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

MAGEE: asked Akehurst to ‘explain’ why the application has already ended up at VCAT

AKEHURST: started off by saying that under the law councils had 60 days to make the decision regardless of the complexity of the proposal. This one wasn’t ‘minor’ or simple and because of the ‘sheer amount of referrals’ to various departments that caused the delay. The planning conference and its organisation also caused a delay and this was something that council didn’t have to do, but council does it anyway because ‘it provides an opportunity for residents to better understand the application and express their views’. This ‘throws’ some time into the process of ‘getting a decision’. He then went on to ‘conjecture’ and thought it ‘fair to say’ that the developer had ‘read the tea leaves’ and guessed that it would end up at VCAT so he probably ‘thought let’s stand in the VCAT queue’ and that’s the reason for this ‘failure appeal’. Claimed that this was ‘good news’ from council’s and residents’ viewpoints since he didn’t think there was any ‘disadvantage to what council does’ about its position. Said that council still has to ‘form a view’ and that all this means is that council doesn’t have to ‘formalise’ its view and that will be the view presented at VCAT.

MAGEE: said that developers have a ‘right to develop land’ and if this was in a different area, bigger street, then ‘it would be fine’. Claimed it ‘would suit Dandenong Rd’ and other areas in Glen Eira. But it ‘doesn’t suit a street that’s a dead end’. Claimed that he’d sat in his car in Wilks St for about 45 minutes and that he ‘didn’t see a lot of traffic’ but that he would ‘hate this development to be in my street’. Admitted that none of the councillors are town planners or experts and all they do is ‘look at the information we’re given’ and then they make a ‘judgement call’. Councillors after all are only ‘mums and dads’ and they judge ‘things on what is acceptable’ and what should be ‘imposed on others’. Said that they’re there to listen and sometimes they make decisions that aren’t popular but this one is ‘easy’. Councillors at last election said they wouldn’t support inappropriate development and ‘this is an imappropriate development’. Finally it’s not the ‘right development for the right street’. (applause).

LIPSHUTZ: started with what he’s always said that ‘I won’t make a decision because it’s a popular decision. I will make a decision because I believe it is the right decision’. People have told him that they voted for him and now he should do what they say but ‘I won’t do that, I’ll do what is right’. Said that he looked at the plans, the site, and thought it was a ‘good development for the site’ because it was large and was going to be developed anyway. Said that he’d been ‘contacted about 50 or 60 times’ by residents and had emails, phone calls, letters, and ‘many of them I disregarded’ because he didn’t ‘think they were valid’. In the end he did what Magee did by asking himself if he was living there ‘would I want this in my street’ and decided ‘I wouldn’t’. Also thought that if they reject and it goes to VCAT then VCAT ‘won’t have anything in-between’ and thought that councillors could still seek to ‘modify’ the development and it will be developed but ‘it has to be appropriate development’. Said he wasn’t ‘convinced’ by arguments about looking at a wall across from houses because the set backs allow it. Also wasn’t convinced that ‘there may be flooding’ because that’s a building issue and ‘not a planning issue’. Traffic also wasn’t convincing because if you’ve got 73 apartments or 50 apartments ‘you’re going to have traffic’. Said that council would probably make this non residential parking permits for the units. Said he was ‘concerned about the mass and the bulk’ since it was ‘too big, too large’ and inappropriate. Said he represents ‘you as residents’ and that he’s ‘got to do what is right’ and ‘not popular’ but here ‘it’s probably both’. Went on to say he was concerned about ‘mischief making’ by some people for claiming that ‘this wouldn’t have happened’ if council had bought the land. Claimed that ‘it was never offered to council’…’council was never going to buy this development’…’it was never offered to council’. Said that council wouldn’t spend 8 million to buy the site and that it is ‘an inappropriate place for a park’. Said that ‘it was always going to be a development site’.

DELAHUNTY: spoke to the gallery saying that they are a wonderful community group and hoped that their opposition would continue and that she’d been told that people had met each other and that’s what ‘community groups are about’. Went on to pay her respects to the work done by the community on this and to Cheryl Forge who was present. Said that all of the points people wrote were ‘well made’ and even though ‘they may feel flippant’ to some other councillors they do ‘impact’ on people’s lives. The points people raised ‘informed our discussions’ and officer reports and her decision to reject the application. The main question was whether the application is ‘appropriate to the site’ and most agree that it isn’t. Even though the officers’ report tried to make this more appropriate she still ‘rejects the premise of the argument’ – that it can be ‘intense development’. Instead of ‘fiddling’ with the proposal via conditions and since they’re not experts then it ‘makes sense’ to reject it. Said that her job as councillor is to ‘bring together the objectives of the planning scheme and your views’. She quoted from the planning scheme about ‘protecting the liveability’ of residents and ‘amenity of Glen Eira’ and any new development ‘provides a high level of amenity’. Admitted that ‘amenity’ was hard to define but it also included parks and as far as as 1998 the old Open Space strategy noted the lack of open space in this area of the municipality. Another statement from this old plan was to be continually on the lookout to acquire more open space ‘so I don’t think it’s mischief making to wonder whether or not Council seriously considered’ buying the land. It’s too late now and ‘nothing’ can be done (applause). Told people ‘never to feel’ that their participation has ‘been a waste of time’ and ‘don’t listen to anyone who tells you that’…’even if those people are sitting around this table’….your participation in this process is what gives our argument validity’. Residents put councillors in their position to ‘carry your arguments forward’. (applause).

SOUNNESS; said if the site was ‘elsewhere’ it might be okay but not where it was in a minimal change area. He would love council to be able to say we’d love only ‘so many units’ but they can’t since it ‘would become unrecognisable’ from its ‘current form’. ‘I’d like to say 20 is enough, 2 storeys is enough’ but ‘we can’t do that’ only respond’ to what has been submitted. When the VCAT hearing come up ‘there will have to be negotiations’. Hoped that there would be ‘a satisfactory outcome down the line’.

LOBO: started off by reading from the Local Government act talking about the role of council to ensure the ‘long term’ benefits for residents. Said the development was ‘an eve of destruction’ and that its ‘intensity’ would ruin ‘neighbourhood character’ and have impact ‘long after the developer has disappeared with a fortune’. (applause). Said that residents need to be ‘looked after’ because they pay their rates and pay for the councillors ‘including the Mayor and all the officers’. ‘Our duty of care and loyalty must be towards our masters and that is you in the gallery’. The development will be an ‘eyesore’ and building it will be like ‘establishing the second alcatraz prison’. Mentioned a couple of permits granted to places in Wilks st – such as a doctors rooms and another 2 unit lot so the impact of traffic and parking is already felt. Said that people are wondering why there isn’t such development ‘on the other side of the road’ in Stonnington, ‘they feel that Glen Eira is a soft target to the developers’ when compared to Stonnington. Houses will be overshadowed and that will affect the existing solar panels on some. ‘This monstrosity of a development’ will cause ‘stress’. Said that ResCode was a ‘joke’ with its parking quotas. The development could have 125 cars and comparing this to what the traffic was when the club was operating is like the second ‘coming of David and Goliath’. Constructionww ould also create ‘chaos’. Let the State Government ‘have blood on their hands’ and the ‘madness of development’. (applause).

OKOTEL: others had already spoken well and ‘eloquently’. For here 2 issues – minimal change area and an ‘overdevelopment’ and ‘inappropriate development’. Said there were ‘technical defects’ like ‘overlooking’ and ‘lack of natural light’ and ‘landscaping of area’. Therefore there are ‘many reasons’ why the application should fail. (applause).

HYAMS: started off by saying that ‘council’s role is not to necessarily represent the people’.Rather they are a ‘quasi-judicial body’ and have to look at planning law. He decides on how he thinks the planning law should ‘be interpreted’. Trouble with saying that they represent the people is that if there is an objection then they’d have to vote with that objection ‘so nothing would ever get through’. ‘So we do need to be responsible’. His decision is ‘therefore based on planning law’. Said it wasn’t an ‘easy decision’ and that he could understand the officers and their recommendations. Saw the ‘major stumbling block’ that it was in a minimal change area but there’s an ‘exception’ if it’s a large block which this is. Said that people who live in a minimal change area have the ‘right to expect’ that there be town houses next to them but not something like this. He would prefer subdivision into houses but ‘it’s not our role to tell the applicant what to do’. Said that a public question asked about the VCAT appeal and when council found out about it. He provided the answer here even though public questions swere usually held at the end. Said that the 60 days ended on June 17th; the appeal was lodged on 21st June and council were notified on the 26th June. Went on to explain that VCAT will now come back to council and ask them to provide a set of conditions for what might be acceptable  if they would contemplate giving a permit but this still doesn’t negate council’s opposition to the permit, it will just be a ‘draft permit’ with ‘conditions’.

Went on to answer some of the questions raised at the planning conference. Drainage is part of the building permit so not ‘ignored’. Parking permits would also be banned. Named one individual who had said that Glen Eira is the ‘fastest growing municipality’. He didn’t want people to think that they’re cramming people in so got the ‘census figures’ and ‘there are 17 that grow faster than us’ and ’13 that grow less fast’. Claimed that population had increased by 5.5% and Whyndham had increase by over 40% and Port Phillip and Yarra had also increased more than Glen Eira. Said that it was also ‘suggested that we do nothing to protect our residents from overdevelopment’ but that Glen Eira does have a minimal change policy and ‘that does a lot to protect’ people.‘So it’s a shame that someone who didn’t really have a connection to this application felt the need to come in and say things like that’. Went on to talk about the purchase of the site and said that ‘there was an offer put to us’ to pay off the 3 million debt but ‘we wouldn’t have had the site’ because ‘to buy it would have cost 8 million’ and then redeveloping it another ‘couple of million more’. They also didn’t think that this site was appropriate for a park since they want parks to be ‘more accessible to the community’ but this one was ‘down a narrow one way street’. Said he was ‘surprised’ that Forge suggested this since in her ‘election campaign’ said that ‘our debt was unmanageable and there should be no rate rises’ but still find 10 million for this one. Wished everyone ‘luck’ at VCAT.

MAGEE: disagreed with what Hyams said about Forge since she has always been an ‘advocate’ for ‘financial management’ and always did things with ‘the best conscience’ and ‘best intentions’ whilst a councillor and that ‘she’s still a good friend of mine’. Went on to give advice to developer that it should ‘improve the amenity of the street’ and that it shouldn’t ‘set the amenity’. They have potential to set precedents but change has to ‘enhance’ and not reduce amenity. (applause)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »