Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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?

HERE’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW

June 16, 2013

Community Plan Versus Council Plan

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

No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.

LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.

DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.

HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

June 14, 2013

Danby & The Blue Bloods!

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

Source: Australian Jewish News, 12th June 2013, Page 21

Time to Throw out Conservative councillors

A few weekends ago nearly 1500 locals gathered to support AJAX Senior Football Club when it recently played away at Princes Park in South Caulfield. Yet this club has been barred from home games at the ground by an unfair and unknown decision-making process wielded by the seemingly all powerful bureaucrats hidden in the halls of Glen Eira Town Hall.

Over a decade in politics I have observed with increasing bemusement the relative weakness of most elected councillors compared to the officials who seem to dominate Glen Eira Council. It must be said that the chief executive Andrew Newton of Glen Eira Council is polite and highly professional.

Many of the Glen Eira councillors are well-intentioned people but their conservative values dictated by the Liberal party have put them at odds with their community, have made them weak and they have not sought to bring much needed transparency to decision-making. New Councillor Mary Delahunty will make a difference.

Residents of Caulfield are fed up by the popular local footy club being barred from its local ground or by its over-development by a rapacious racing club fawned over by conservative councillors.

Sorry to say, however, the answer for Glen Eira residents fed up with overweening power of unelected professionals is more politics, not less.

Glen Eira voters must turf out the conservative councillors afraid to take on the bureaucrats.

Their replacements must run on an explicit program of asserting themselves over the civil servants of Glen Eira.

I am afraid that is the only way AJAX Senior Football will get to Princes Park, where so many of their boisterous local family and friends celebrated the opportunity for them to play in an “away” game.

MICHAEL DANBY

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

Challenging council on ground allocation

Regarding Council allocation Mayor Hyams has not quite got it right/ Ajax could have got the Princes Park allocation and Old Haileybury could have stayed at McKinnon Reserve.

Alternatively, Old Haileybury could have been sent to GlenHuntly Oval and shared that ground with Caulfield Grammarians, where no junior Sunday games occur.

That way, no existing ground allocation would need to be cut. Glen Eira Council could have catered for the existing tenants and also catered for its real community club around Princes Park – AJAX FC where the junior play on a Sunday.

So as Councillor Hyams has advised in Council Minutes – that Old Haileybury has been moved due to the need to give the Mckinnon Reserve a rest. It is safe to assume that Old Haileybury will be moved back to its traditional home ground for 2014 opening the EOI (expression of interest) process for Princes Park?

IAN FAYMAN

June 12, 2013

More Spin

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

PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!

LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE

LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.

The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law. For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.

On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.

COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.

OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.

LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’ and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.

HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.

MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.

COMMENT: Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.

Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.

June 7, 2013

Snails & Glaciers

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

The snail’s pace of innovation, or simply change at Glen Eira, is exemplified by several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE MINUTES

The Tree Register is still a work in progress after years and years of talking
Organised sport under section 326 still requires further ‘amendments’ – again 8 years down the track
Alcohol Free Zones in Bentleigh. We must admit to loving the convoluted logic in this one.

The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government. No further action.

Readers will remember that this issue has been on the agenda for at least 3 years now. More to the point, Councils have the responsibility of introducing the alcohol free zone via their planning scheme as they did with the Caulfield Racecourse zone. Other councils (ie Kingston recently) seem to believe that public safety and security come first and have introduced such zones in the past year. Glen Eira continually passes the buck. Introducing such as zone is not a police matter – it is 100% in Council’s purview.

We also question the ‘no further action’ take. How a minority set of councillors can make such a recommendation prior to full discussion and debate in council chamber is unbelievable. Given that the practice in Glen Eira is simply to ‘accept’ all committee recommendations this will probably become ‘law’ but without full and open discussion. The community deserves far better. What are the real facts? What are the statistics? Where is the research? How many incidents have occurred in this area? Where is the transparency and accountability?

Finally, there is the following gem ironically listed under ‘other business’. We would have thought that the following item represents the core business of this committee!

Possible review of all of Council’s Local Law with public consultation.

Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.

We can only presume that this is Glen Eira Speak for the ‘potential’ review of Meeting Procedures with the proviso that it’s a mere ‘maybe’ and that it shouldn’t stop all the other tinkering that is in the pipe line. It’s also worth remembering that the Councillor Questions policy was removed from the 2010 review of the Local Law with the ‘promise’ that the policy would be looked at again. Now three years later, it is still unsighted and rotting in the archives.

There is plenty more in this agenda which needs commenting upon. For this post we will simply conclude with this from the incamera discussions –

12.2 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution

We again can only surmise that this means some form of payment to individuals/companies etc. It would certainly be welcomed if residents were informed as to whether the issue is now resolved and what the outcomes were!

June 5, 2013

How To Rig The Game!

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

Tonight’s Planning Conference on the Alma Club development revealed in all its sordid glory how rigged the game really is. To their credit however, the developers’ rep did show up and fronted an audience of over 50 people including councillors Delahunty, Hyams, Lobo and Sounness. Magee chaired the conference. Andrew Bromley was the council planner. Even Newton made an appearance for a short time.

Several points need to be highlighted right from the start –

The developers and council have agreed that a 4.75% open space levy will be applied. Absolutely amazing when other councils (Bayside, Port Phillip, Moreland and countless others have introduced a MINIMUM of 5% levy across their entire municipalities for a meagre 3 lot subdivision. Here we have 75 units and the blood money is a paltry 4.75%. It would also be interesting to know: who agreed to this? when was it signed on the dotted line?
The developers ‘experts’ have verified that 4 visitor car parking spots are ‘adequate’
The one bedroom apartments will be exempt from car parking spots!
The claim is that the units (in a Minimal Change Area) equate to 42% of site coverage. We are certainly sceptical of this figure judging by the plans!
The most vital question however is that given this is in a Minimal Change Area and suggest 4 storey development, then why oh why wasn’t this application rejected right from the start under delegation? The single fact that it is a large site should not over-ride every other single ‘standard’ that is applied to the Minimal Change Area.
As a ‘planning conference’ this failed dismally to live up to the published council propaganda – ie ‘Where possible, attempt to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute’. Nothing of the kind happened or was even attempted!

Here is the sequence of events:

Magee claimed that residents were extremely lucky to have these ‘conferences’ because many other councils didn’t do this. Sadly, Magee neglected to mention that other councils have Planning Committees made up of councillors and residents are permitted to address full council on their objections. In Glen Eira objectors do not learn of the planners recommendations until the Friday before the application is set down for council decision and then there is no opportunity to address the council. Magee even had the gall to state that residents should wait for the recommendations and THEN LOBBY THEIR COUNCILLORS!

Bromley started ‘the process’ by explaining the plans. 75 dwellings, 4 storeys. Internal departments had had a look at the application. Objections were basically about: intensity of develolpment, streetscape, parking and traffic, loss of amenity, overlooking/overshadowing, storm water etc. Bromley emphasised that his decision would be mainly looking at the Minimal Change Policy and Neighborhood Character and parking. His report would go to council for decision on the 2^nd July.

Objectors then had the opportunity to speak. First speaker said that she represented 22 households and asked for clarification. Said that the Minimal Change policy talked about ‘higher yield’ which doesn’t necessarily mean ‘higher density’ and this term refers to 4 storeys and above.

Asked about the telecommunications pole and the setbacks which weren’t clear from the plans. There was also an issue about an oak tree and wanted to know how this was to be protected. Said there were ‘unclear items’ on the plans. In terms of amenity for surrounding properties, there is a substation kiosk and exhaust right near fences. How many cars each day, etc. Wanted clarification on all these issues. Also wanted to know about the ‘internal amenity’ in the 4 storey apartments because of 4 light courts from the rooftoop to ‘ground level’ as this is the only light source and none will have ventilation. Also asked about drainage and whether this had been ‘factored into the design’. Finally given the layout, how emergency services vehicles were going to have access to the apartments.

MAGEE then said that these were a lot of questions and that the answers would ‘come out in the report’

Next speaker stated that the only large dwellings were basically on Dandenong Rd and a couple along Waiora Rd but they were ‘well set back’. Was also concerned about the body corporate and the decision making when so many owners would be involved and with elevators and other things there would be long term maintenance issues.

Another Waiora Rd residents spoke about a 7 unit development next to her and there were 20 odd cars coming in and out just from this one site. Said it was a ‘complete fiasco’ that that’s been accepted by Council. This application could have over 200 cars and ‘where are they supposed to come out from’? Asked if this was ‘responsible’ for councillors to accept something like this design.

MAGEE then said that it’s the state government who is responsible for setting parking allocations and ‘it’s not something that council can change’.

Another residents said that there were ‘natural springs’ there underground and a while back water came up on Alma Rd. Wanted to know about the water tables on the site and that this site was the centre of the spring, so what measures will be taken to remove the water. And if removed will it come up in someone else’s back yard and what is the process for compensation to residents affected by this? Wanted to know if any of this has been considered and what the strategy is to deal with this. Also wanted ‘assurance’ that the pedestrian right of way would still be open to people. Bemoaned the fact that council didn’t buy the property when it had the chance.

One lady said that she has recently sold her house because she believes that ‘the amenity of the area has been destroyed’ because of all these developments, especially along Dandenong Rd. Said that she lost about $50,000 because of this when she sold. She then took Magee to task stating that the Council had violated ResCode numerous times and ‘that it is only a guideline not a rule’. Listed several properties that don’t have the car parking that ResCode advises.

Next resident said that anyone who believes that 75 dwellings in a dead end street should have ‘their licence taken away’. Said that plenty of his friends who live in apartments have ‘two or three’ visitor car parks for blocks of 10 units. ‘How 4 car spaces could possibly serve 75′ units ..’is beyond me’.

Another Norwood St resident stated that he had ‘difficulty parking outside my own house’ because of the developments and Norwood has become a rat run through to Dandenong Rd and King David. Said that with what’s happening there are now over 120 new apartments ‘in less than two years’. Said that everything in the area has been ‘altered’ and all to the negative. Said that ‘rates have gone up and property values have gone down’.

One Wilks St resident stated that an application for 2 town houses had been rejected because it was considered ‘high density’ in a minimal change area but ’75 apartments seems to be okay’. Said that in a 16 dwelling street this represents over 400% increase. Said there’s already problems with flooding because of the slope of the land and there have been sandbags in the street.

An Alma Rd resident talked about the traffic which she knows well since she’s lived there since 1986. Said the intersection was dangerous and more traffic is only going to make it worse. Reminded councillors that they’re supposed to represent residents! Caulfield North used to be a ‘blue ribbon’ area and now it’s not. Prices are dropping and thus her children’s futures are affected.

One resident asked that the application not be ‘negotiated’ but ‘flatly rejected’.

The next few speakers all spoke about the traffic and parking and that it’s ‘out of character’ with minimal change. Asked ‘what’s the point of having minimal change’? Reiterated that ResCode is nothing but a guide and an ‘absolute minimum’. Dandenong Rd will have 300% increase in dwellings in the next few years and that ‘will flow on’ into Norwood and Palm Avenue. Said that the area had been flooded 3 times in the last few years and that’s ‘no attention’ in the plan for this. Talked about the tennis pavilion and said that it was considered for heritage listing which never came through and he wonders why. Thought it should be retained in the development.

Next resident asked about the actual construction phase and the congestion, pollution that would occur. Was concerned about the oak tree and the safety issue if it wasn’t protected fully.

One resident highlighted that council approved permits all the time and that if the new unit windows are 9 metres away then that’s okay because these new people ‘are blind’ and ‘can’t see’ anyway! Was disappointed with council for not collecting all the money it could from developers and then open space is further lost to buildings.Asked why this council is going beyond the population figures that the government expects them to meet. Said that the population had increased proportionately more than anywhere else.

One person commented that this would go to VCAT and he doubted that council could stop the development but that they had to ‘draw a line in the sand’ and insist that there be no residents parking permits for this development.

Another resident talked about the tonnes and tonnes of excavation materials that would need to be moved and estimated about 2000 truck movements ‘over four or five months’. Council therefore needs to put ‘a very big bond on the developer’ to ‘rebuild Wilks St’ because it will be ruined. Magee then said that ‘construction plans’ are often ‘put in place’ and that will ‘be part of the process’.

THE DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE

Said that he wasn’t here ‘to solve’ the issues but that’s it’s all about ‘information’ and him ‘learning from what’s been said’. Said to the first speaker that the architects’ would be happy to sit down with her and explain in ‘more detail’. Said that the planning scheme does acknowledge that it can ‘accommodate’ an area in minimal change if it’s just under 7000 square metres. Said that that’s ‘going to be the real test’ and that’s what ‘officers’ will have to do. Their view is that the proposed density ‘fits’ and that in terms of contemporary planning its becoming less important in the assessment and more about ‘quality of development’. Said it wasn’t an ambit claim and that was put together by consultants.

Said that the telecommunications tower issue is being discussed and will be moved. An arborist looked at the oak tree and they’ll ask that ‘he has another look at that issue’. Said there was no ‘unreasonable overshadowing’; car parking was ‘sufficient’ and that they provide ‘what the planning scheme says we need to provide’ but they are seeking a reduction in visitor car parking. The traffic report says that they’re ‘providing the right nunmber’ but that needs to be ‘tested’. Admitted that there would be ‘additional traffic in Wilks St.’ but they’re not starting from a ‘base line’ where there’s no traffic in Wilks St. There are 100 car parking spots on site and average it out then that will give about 500 extra movements in Wilks St but the street ‘can take that’ according to their traffic advice.

Said that site coverage is 42% because of basement car parking. There is a landscape plan and on drainage they got engineer’s advice. Not a planning issue because there’s no flooding overlay and they are ‘following it up’. If they’re successful and subdivided they will pay 4.75% of land value. Said that insurance, pedestrian right of way still needs to be negotiated with council. On construction there would be a management plan. If successful they were also willing to ‘make streetscape improvements’ in Wilks St.

There was discussion on how the money from the open space levy would be spent and Magee said that would be up to council and not the developer. Also discussion on whether the walkway represents ‘open space’ and the safety given that there had been several attacks in recent years.

When asked if anyone on the team had a concern about the people and ethics the developer’s rep responded that he took advice from experts and was guided by the planning scheme. Said that the traffic engineers have done surveys in comparable developments and they say that 4 spaces are ‘sufficient’.

Magee then summed up saying that on 2nd July the application would be decided but people can’t speak. Their opportunity will come on the 28th when the agenda goes up with the officer’s recommendations. ‘You then have the opportunity to contact the 9 councillors….you’ve got Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday’. Councillors can accept the officers’ recommendations or reject, modify them. Applicants or objectors can then go to VCAT.

One resident asked that the meeting be adjourned and that people who couldn’t be present come along for another meeting. Magee declared the meeting closed.

PS: we thought it would be informative if we uploaded one of the pages for the plans. Please note:

the ‘gated city’ effect so that emergency vehicles have literally no access.
the lack of sufficient open space

June 4, 2013

Coincidence?

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

On 4th September 2012 Council passed a resolution to refuse an application for a 3 storey, 11 unit development in Cromwell St, North Caulfield. Officers had recommended the go ahead arguing the usual – housing diversity, near a tram line and commercial centre, etc. On the same night, there was another application for a 4 storey development in Howitt Road. Lipshutz and Esakoff sought to reduce this second application to 3 storeys. It abutted a Minimal Change Area. In the end the 4 storey motion got through. Whilst it could be argued that we are comparing apples and oranges, it’s perhaps worthy of noting that the Cromwell St application (for 3 storeys) was rejected. We also ask, how many other 3 storey applications have got the gong from these councillors in the recent past? There was also this declaration –

Cr Lipshutz declared a conflict of interest in this item pursuant to Section 78E of the Local Government Act being an indirect interest by reason of his mother being an objector to the application.
8.19PM Cr Lipshutz left the Chamber.

The Cromwell St. saga now features in today’s Leader.

June 3, 2013

Local Law

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

We’ve been waiting and waiting for the promised March appearance of the ‘review’ of the Local Law. Of particular interest will be: the fiddling with the ‘organised sport’ clause and the much awaited euphemistically called ‘tree register’ controls. More importantly we envisage that the meeting procedures aspects of the current anti-democratic law will largely remain untouched and buried in the publicity that will surround other aspects. In other words absolutely no intention of:

Introducing a Notice of Motion
Introducing a Dissent From Chair
Introducing a Rescission Clause

If our suspicions prove correct, then it will be most interesting to hear the arguments of Pilling who is on record as supporting a Notice of Motion and some of the other councillors. Residents should also be prepared to highlight this ‘oversight’ in their submissions.

By way of contrast once again, here is what Kingston Council is contemplating for their Local Law Amendments for the above categories (UPLOADED HERE). We remind readers once again that Glen Eira is the ONLY COUNCIL IN THE STATE OF VICTORIA that does not have a notice of motion enshrined in its local law.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates