Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 1, 2013

‘Consultation’ Glen Eira Style!

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

Residents beware! Council is pretending to undergo a ‘community consultation’ process on the Caulfield Park Conservatory. Despite the fact that the ill-named Community Plan endorses and emphasises the need for multiple methods of consultation, all that is being done in this case is a ‘survey’ with preset and predetermined questions. Far from being a ‘neutral’ set of questions, here we have questions that are not placed in context and completely fail to provide residents with the information that is essential in order for them to ‘prioritise’ a single thing. Grandiose statements such as “Council is asking residents to express their views via a survey” (from website) ignores the simple fact that there simply is no avenue for residents to write a single word about their views. It is all ‘tick the box’ approach to a predetermined and slanted set of questions.

Following a few demographic questions such as what use do you make of the park and whether the respondent is a resident or trader, the heart of the issue is presented as a series of ‘options’ that residents are requested to grade from 1 (most preferred) to 10 (least preferred). How convenient that ‘cafe’ is first in the alphabet and ‘repair/restore’ comes last!

Here are the relevant questions in the order they are presented:

Please list your preferred options for the Conservatory from 1 to 10 (1=most preferred to 10=least preferred).

Cafe – indoor/outdoor – capacity 50
Cafe/tearooms – indoor/outdoor – capacity 80-100
Children’s garden/playspace
Community room/s
Native/sustainable garden/environmental education hub
Plant nursery
Recreational/exercise area
Remove Conservatory and return to open space
Repair, restore and replant gardens
Other

No real definition of anything is provided nor the implications. If the ‘capacity’ of 80 -100 is chosen as Number 1, then what does this mean in terms of ‘footprint’ of the ‘café’. How much open space will be lost to accommodate this number since it is certain that the current conservatory size will never be capable of seating this number within its walls. And exactly what is a ‘café’? Will full meals be served? Will the place remain open until late at night? Will there be a liquor license? And what of toilets/sewerage, kitchens, loading bays, parking and general access? Will we have roads built into the park to enable access for all service deliveries? How much more land will be lost? How many trees will be placed in jeopardy?

Asking residents to ‘prioritise’ when they have absolutely no idea of what it is they are prioritising is devious, deceptive, and deliberately misleading. Yet, council has no qualms in spending ratepayers’ money on glossy, meaningless ‘surveys’ if they know it will get the Lipshutz’s of this world the result that he and the other ‘conservatives’ want!

Another issue – apart from the question of using public open space for commercial purposes – : who will pay for this ‘redevelopment’? Will council outfit the place and then simply lease it to some commercial operator as it has done with the café at GESAC for the princely sum of over $300,000? Will Council and therefore ratepayers pay for sewerage connections? Will we pay for access roads or will the lessee have to cover ALL the costs?

We reiterate! None of the answers to these questions have been included in the bogus ‘survey’. It is akin to asking people to vote on something that they have no idea of what they’re voting for. Only when residents can evaluate the options based on a full understanding of what they actually mean can we call this ‘consultation’. Only when residents are offered the opportunity to actually express their individual views as they wish, can we have any faith in any of the ‘consultation process’ that this council introduces.

June 29, 2013

News Flash: Is All 100% Kosher?

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

We have learnt that the Alma Club application has already been sent off to VCAT PRE-EMPTING, in all probability, any council resolution on Tuesday night. Why? Because Council did not finalise the application within the required 60 day limit.

This is both extraordinary and inexcusable and, in our view, raises serious questions about process, and potential secret deals that may have to ability to completely sideline both councillors and resident objectors. To refresh people’s memories here are the facts:

The application was received by Council on the 19^th March 2013 according to the planning register.
It was not until EARLY MAY that the yellow notice went up. Residents had until 14^th May to register their objections. That makes it roughly 6 weeks that Council sat on this application before presumably doing anything about it or informing residents.
A planning conference was held on the June 5^th.
The item was set down for decision this coming Tuesday – the 2^nd July.

There cannot be any excuse for this inaction, especially since Council would have been fully aware of the contentious nature of the application and its value in monetary terms. All stops should have been pulled out to ensure that the time limits were adhered to. Why weren’t they? What are the possible outcomes for the current situation – given that we’ve learnt that mediation and a 5 day VCAT hearing has been timetabled for several months down the track? Several potential scenarios now rear their ugly heads:

Any possible councillor resolution on Tuesday night is now a moot point and probably won’t go ahead
The developer ‘in consultation’ with officers will either submit amended plans directly to VCAT, or again in consultation with officers work out various ‘conditions’. In both cases the parameters will be set and both residents and councillors will not have a say.
Since a permit has not been granted, the prospect of ‘amended plans’ coming to a full council is most unlikely.

All of these scenarios raise serious questions about governance within Glen Eira; the role of the planning department and most importantly, who knew what and when. For example:

When did council officers know that the developers would be going to VCAT?
When did officers know or decide that the 60 day limit could not be met?
Do councillors know? Or do some councillors know since we’ve been informed that one particular councillor has been telling objectors to forget about appealing since VCAT will overrule anyway?
Even MP Southwick has got in on the act with an offer of ‘mediation’! Why, and what does he know that residents possibly don’t?
Why didn’t this well paid planning department get its act together on time?
Was this ‘delay’ in fact planned right from the start?
What ‘discussions’ went on between developer and planners? How often? When did these ‘discussions’ start?
Was there ever any discussion about time lines?
Has any officer actually kept records of these meetings and/or discussions as required under the Records Act?

There are many, many, other such questions – all of which only cement the already existing perception that all is not 100% kosher within Glen Eira– especially when it comes to planning matters!

June 26, 2013

Council Elections

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

Following the 2012 council elections the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) has released a discussion paper and an online survey.

The survey can be accessed via: http://surveys.infoxchange.net.au/s?s=2661

Discussion paper is available from: http://www.vlga.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Elections/2013/2013%20VLGA%20Issues%20Paper%20-%20Improving%20local%20government%20elections%20FINAL.pdf

Comments on developer contributions to candidates are featured at: http://www.vlga.org.au/Resources/Library/Vic_councils_probe_developer_donations_and_bad_candidate_co.aspx

June 25, 2013

Alma Club & ‘Concept Plans’

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

The Alma Club application for 75 units raises countless questions about process and the planning scheme itself. Here are a few:

Why should developers be allowed to submit CONCEPT PLANS that are vague and wishy-washy? Why should council planners then decide on the basis of such plans? Or could it possibly be that the developer is expecting some major changes that will then become the endorsed plans which will not be in the public domain – especially if these ‘new plans’ come within cooee (30%) of what is currently envisaged? That is, some sweetheart little deals between applicant and council?
Even if there is an appeal to VCAT, then there is the problem of amended plans, or council’s position – which will not feature in the public domain and certainly not go before council again. As with the C60, there is a proposal, but no real detail.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that if councillors agree to a downsizing on Tuesday night and objectors appeal this decision then the newly announced VCAT fees could be extremely expensive. Again, the developer is in the box seat! Councillors of course will then have their usual scapegoat – VCAT – and they come up smelling like roses instead of addressing the crux of the matter – ie the deficient and suspect planning scheme!

We’ve been forwarded these ‘concept plans’. Below are some extracts taken verbatim from these documents. The comments, conclusions and developerspeak are truly amazing!

The proposed development includes the construction of a medium density residential complex comprising a four storey residential apartment building, 17 two storey townhouses and 8 three storey townhouses with associated parking and landscaping.

The existing site levels provide the ability to achieve higher built form elements in parts of the site without any off-site amenity impacts. Different residential building typologies exist as part of the character of the area, and the introduction of an integrated medium density development would contribute to housing diversity in the area.

With regard to the relocation of the existing telecommunications facility, an indicative new location is shown on the roof of the building.

The subject site is greater than 7,000 sqm, and it is more than three times the 2,000sqm threshold noted above. The proposal also removes an existing non-residential use. For these reasons, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to pursue the type of development being proposed.

More specifically, the proposal will:

Deliver a greater diversity of housing;
Improve and protect the liveability, neighbourhood character and amenity of the area;
Promote environmental and social sustainability;
Assist in stimulating the viability of the Alma Village neighbourhood activity centre; and
Integrate with the existing neighbourhood

Turning to the provision of private open space, a schedule of areas is provided at Attachement 3. This demonstrates courtyard sizes for the townhouses ranging between 41.5sqm and 136sqm with the average being 61.96sqm. The Schedule to the Residnetial 1 Zone recommends provate open space provisions for dwelling in the Minimal Change Area of 60sqm, and therefore the average provision is considered acceptable.

Today’s Caulfield Leader also featured this article:

Resident ire over plans

Glen Eira residents opposed to development plans for the Alma Sports Club in Caulfield North have formed an association and are raising a war chest to take their fight to VCAT.

They have registered the name Glen Eira Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc with Consumer Arrairs Victoria, and are looking for moral and financial support.

Committee spokeswoman Vardit Sacks-Davis said the association was formed in response to the Wilks St permit application. The group’s long-term plan beyond that was not yet clear.

“Our aim is to protect, and advocate for, the rights of Glen Eira when threatened by inappropriate development,” she said. Monark Pty Ltd lodged a permit application with Glen Eira council seeking to demolish the historic Alma Sports Club and replace it with a four-storey apartment building with 50 apartments and 25 two and three-storey townhouses. The 7100sq m site is in a minimal change area.

Director Bill Michaelides told the Leader his team had taken a “very balanced approach” but residents maintained it was inappropriate “for many reasons”.

“If this goes to VCAT we intend to fight it there as well so it could be veryk expensive,” Ms Vardit Sacks-Davis said.

Email the group at almaclubobjectors@gmail.com

June 24, 2013

Agenda: Budget, Council Plan & Open Space

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

There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –

As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!

Open Space Policy

Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.

Defined Benefits Scheme

Here’s the Swabey recommendation –

“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June

2015 in accordance with the following schedule:

– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;

– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and

– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.

We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.

As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.

Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –

The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25^th June 2013)

On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.

Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.

June 21, 2013

Danby Vs Lipshutz & Kuran

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, June 21, page 23

A cheap misguided shot by Danby

Michael Danby’s blaming of the “conservative” councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation seems to be a shameful display of ignorance and politics.

Given there are nine councillors, of whom three are Labor and two are Greens, Danby must be referring to the four independent councillors – as “Conservative” and “Liberals”.

If Danby is truly interested in AJAX playing at Princes Park he should direct the three Labor councillors, including his protégé Cr Delahunty, to support a fair spots ground allocation policy so that there might be a successful outcome for AJAX.

Danby is politically opportunistic by blaming the Jewish councillors for AJAX not being awarded the Princes Park allocation and then misleadingly linking the decision to the Liberal Party by incorrectly labelling the Jewish councillors as Liberals.

This is despite each of us running as independents and not receiving support from any political party – unlike Labour and Green candidates.

Danby’s ignorance of local politics is hardly surprising, given that he has not attended one council meeting in the eight years I have been a councillor.

Taking cheap shots at council officers and Jewish councillors who work hard representing Jewish community interests and the interests of all Glen Eira residents is easy.

Rather than “turfing out” the Jewish councillors, Danby should explain how the Laor government’s recent decision not supporting Israel in the UN is not evidence of his irrelevance and lack of influence within the Labor Party and not reason enough to vote him out in September.

MICHAEL LIPSHUTZ

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

Danby is playing petty party politics

I hadn’t realised how concerned Michael Danby was that he might lose his seat until I saw his letter because it is clearly the work of a desperate politician clutching at straws.

Clearly, accurate counting is not a trait of the ALP. He attributes what he sees as the Glen Eira Council’s ills to the Liberal Party, but only three of the nine councillors are Liberals.

There are also three ALP members and two members of the Greens, and one independent.

As a member of the ALP/Greens coalition in Canberra, perhaps Mr Danby’s desire to influence local government would be better served speaking to the ALP/Greens majority on the Glen Eira Council.

However, I’m suyre the majority of ratepayers would prefer party politics were kept out of local government and would not appreciate Danby trying to politicise the council, or giving highly questionable and self-serving analysis of council processes.

They would also expect to see a federal MP show greater concern about council governance, especially after what the Victorian Ombudsman had to say about the Labor-dominated Brimbank Council in 2009, when its councillors got improperly involved in sports ground allocations.

Instead, Danby seems to be trying to encourage our councillors to repeat the misconduct that ultimately saw the Labor state government forced to sack that council.

I would love to see AJAX playing at Princes Park, but I doubt Danby’s ham-fisted approach would do anyting to help that cause.

He should try to do something constructive rather than playing petty party politics.

BERNIE KURAN

June 20, 2013

Oh What A Difference!

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

Hearty congratulations to Kingston City Council on their first public forum regarding the planning zone reforms. About 35 people were present tonight including the Mayor, one other councillor, plus 3 strategic planners and a full time mapping officer. Kingston had obviously gone to great lengths to ensure that information was freely available to residents – ie. the walls were plastered with maps, full colour booklets of 12 pages, and draft amendments including the all important schedules.

The Mayor introduced the evening and his focus throughout the 5 minute talk was that NO DECISION on anything had been made. That Kingston’s intent was to firstly inform their residents of the dramatic planning changes and to seek their input. All questions would be answered and there would be multiple forms of consultation – mailouts, website, council newspapers, advertisements, online discussion forums, etc. Residents had 6 weeks to consider all the information and then council would go away and draft its amendments. Another consultation would then follow before any final decision was made.

The Manager of Strategic Planning then provided a formal presentation with Powerpoint slides. The current Kingston planning scheme was explained as well as what the proposed changes meant for the city. The most striking features of the evening, apart from the genuine desire to inform and consult, were:

The extent of detailed local analyses that Kingston had already undertaken. Maps showed each suburb and included a breakdown of every single development – ie single house, 2 units, multi-units etc.
The projected population figures and the preferred locations – for example: areas that lacked public transport would be unlikely to be included in ‘growth zones’

The real highlight was the acknowledgement that there was tremendous flexibility available to councils to determine the future of their municipalities. All would depend on the schedules that accompanied each specific zone. In other words, the devil would be in the detail. Councils had the options of:

Determining height limits for specific locations
Determining setbacks
Determining permeability
Determining private open space
Determining Landscaping
Determining site coverage

Structure plans were another tool that assisted in the protection of specific areas.

All in all, the evening was a true eye opener to how different Kingston is to Glen Eira – both in objective and in performance. Unlike Glen Eira, public comment is actively, and we believe, genuinely sought. Further, the extent of the work already done by these officers is literally mind boggling. We can only ask our illustrious lot: why the 9 months of silence and when will they let the public in on what is going on? How much work on population and available lots has been done? Will residents really be informed and consulted, or fobbed off with half-truths and waffle? We wait with bated breath!

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Kingston claims to have very few of their planning decisions overturned. The reason? Because they have done their homework and ensured that their neighourhoods are holistically planned – in total contrast to the ad hoc and open slather approach of Glen Eira!

June 19, 2013

Hyams: Can We Believe Him?

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

The alleged comments by Hyams in this article raise major issues.

Why should residents believe him or his script writers?
Why is this council doing absolutely nothing in contrast to other councils, much less informing the public in a clear, direct and honest manner about its intentions and the real ramifications of what will happen from July 1^st and in the coming year?
Is this the most potent example of not merely fiddling whilst Rome is burning, but the clear intention of doing absolutely nothing to review, change or modify a strategic planning approach that is clearly incapable of protecting residents?
Could anything be clearer than the refusal to change a damn thing, since according to Hyams, ‘council was happy’ with the residential zones?

Below we feature some extracts from the agenda items for the next Kingston Council Ordinary Meeting. Not only is there a lengthy officer report on the implications of the commercial zone changes from July 1^st, but actions to try and ameliorate the potential damage (uploaded here). In Glen Eira all we get is silence, inaction, and misinformation!

With a Planning Permit previously prohibited locations can be used to create multiple Supermarket(s), shop(s) or Department Store(s).

The zoning translation, if not carefully managed at residential abuttals, also has the potential to create adverse amenity impacts with the ability of incompatible land uses to establish without a planning permit.

A Supermarket under 1800m2 or shop under 500m2 associated with or adjoining a Supermarket can be constructed without a Planning Permit. The definition of Shop also includes Bottle Shop. This would mean that beyond issues of policy matters such as loading times, hours of operation or other management issues associated with facilities that may impact on amenity of adjacent residential areas would not be able to be considered.

Businesses of all sizes have made investment decision in the City of Kingston based on the Local Planning Policy Frameowrk and the application of zones. These decisions for numerous business owners have the potential to be immediately and directly undermined through the application of the Commercial 2 Zone in location where certain activities where(sic) previously prohibited.

…it has also been necessary to consider that if the Commercial 2 zone were applied what levels of amenity protection would be provided for immediately adjacent or nearby residential areas when compared with the status quo.

The work of successive council’s (sic) in developing Structure Plans, Local Planning Policies, facilitating retail investment in planned locations and assisting diversifying its employment land will be undermined if the Commercial 2 Zone is introduced to replace the large areas in Kingston zoned Business 3 and 4.

Uses that are permissible under the Commercial 2 Zone such as Supermarket(s), Shop(s) and Department Store(s) that were previously prohibited will impact on small businesses that have invested in planned locations and on community service and infrastructure investment provided in Activity Centres.

The unintended consequence of the introduction of the commercial 2 Zone, is that land uses which Council’s Local Planning Policies clearly discourage in ‘out of centre locations’, become as of right or permissible.

June 18, 2013

ABC Studios

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

PS: The potential sale of the ABC studios is nothing new. In fact, it has been on the cards for at least ten years. That raises the question of what Council has been doing in the meantime? Is it another instance of too little, too late? The horse has already bolted? Below are some media reports that will interest residents. Please note one real estate agent’s comments regarding the lack of height limits set by council!

The Rippon Lea Estate point of view – http://www.nattrust.com.au/advocacy/campaigns/abc_for_rippon_lea

PLUS

ABC’s Slice of Rippon Lea Estate, Elsternwick, Expected to Sell For More than $25 Million

Written by Marc Pallisco

Monday, 26 October 2009 23:16

Rippon Lea

AN 8,000 square metre slice of Elsternwick’s historic Rippon Lea estate, compulsorily acquired by the State Government in the 1950s for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – is likely to be sold to residential developers, if the ABC vacates the property in 2012.

ABC project director Ray Moore told Secret Agent it is considering selling two Elsternwick properties, currently occupied as studios and offices, including a major complex on Gordon Street abutting Rippon Lea – built on what was once the property’s southern boundary.

Moneys raised from the sales will fund the development of a new $90 million studio at 102 Sturt Street in Southbank, Mr Moore said. The Sturt Street development, which would be next door to an existing ABC office at 120 Southbank Boulevard, is subject to parliamentary approval, but expected to occur.

Sources estimate the value of ABC’s outgoing Gordon Street office to be about $25 million.

They say the land could make way for an apartment complex, similar to that being proposed around the Stonington mansion in Malvern, or a lower density subdivision, as occurred behind Canterbury’s Frognall mansion in the early 1990s.

At close to a hectare, the site could also make way for several apartment towers offering Port Phillip and CBD views, over Rippon Lea’s established gardens.

ABC offices and studios were developed on part of the Rippon Lea estate, prior to the opening of the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games. Popular television shows including Countdown, The Big Gig and The Late Show were later recorded at what is known as the “Rippon Lea studio”.

The land occupied by the ABC is not on the Victorian Heritage Register, but a Heritage Victoria spokeswoman said the ABC could still return the land to the estate, if it wanted. The imposing Rippon Lea property is managed by the National Trust, and open to the public.

Source: http://www.realestatesource.com.au/abcs-slice-of-rippon-lea-estate-elsternwick-expected-to-sell-for-more-than-25-million.html

PLUS

ABC set to leave home

Phillip Hudson and Nathan Mawby

3 May 2013

Herald-Sun

THE ABC will be leaving its historic TV studios at Ripponlea and the valuable property may be sold for high-rise residential development under plans to build a new headquarters for the national broadcaster in Southbank.

Famous ABC programs such as Countdown were produced at the Gordon St studios, which opened in 1956 with the introduction of television.

In recent years, it has been home to programs such as Adam Hills chat show In Gordon Street Tonight and filming for the series Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries.

Under the plan, the ABC will build a five-storey headquarters next to its existing Southbank offices, where its TV news moved in 2001.

It will include new TV studios and a major TV production centre.

The overhaul is aimed at guaranteeing jobs and production in Victoria.

The Federal Government will loan the ABC $90 million, which it has to repay by 2020.

ABC managing director Mark Scott said the new building would be designed to put the ABC’s many services on show.

“All the plans for this area are to make it more visible, more highly trafficked by pedestrians, make it more of a centrepoint of the centre,” he said.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the new building would be home to the ABC’s radio, television and digital production operations as well as its broadcasting and support services.

Senator Conroy said consolidating operations would allow the ABC to achieve operational savings and productivity benefits.

Local architect Robert Mills said the Ripponlea site’s proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and shopping meant that while a feasibility study would be done, it would likely become a residential site.

“It will be controversial, but I predict the final outcome will be a high-rise,” he said.

Mr Mills said that while the building had no council height restrictions, its height would likely be limited by shading.

The former Channel 9 studios in Bendigo St, Richmond, are being transformed into apartments and townhouses, selling for up to $1.2 million.

June 16, 2013

Gardener’s Road Trees: Here Yesterday – Gone Today!

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

As we predicted the 80 – 100 foot gum that had its roots ripped out to make way for a $600,000 car park has now gone into the dustbin of history. Below we feature some of our earlier photos and the carnage that has (unnecessarily we believe) been wrought. Another huge gum along this stretch of redevelopment will, we believe, go the same way. Questions must be asked and answered about what is utter and total negligence and incompetence:

What precautions did council take to ensure the survival of these trees? Did they in fact give a damn?
Did the right hand (ie contractors) know what the left hand (arborists?) required to ensure survival? Was there any discussion preceding the commencement of works? Where is this documented?
What is the monetary value of these trees and how much will it cost to come within cooeee of a replacement?
What does this episode reveal about this council’s transparency and accountability when neither the officers’ report nor one single councillor had the integrity to state that open space would be lost and that mature and valuable trees would be hacked to pieces? And why weren’t residents “consulted” much less any traffic analysis provided?