Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 6, 2013

When Is A ‘Report’ Not A Report?

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

What does ‘Report to Council’ mean, especially when part of a proposed ‘Action Plan’ that is the foundation of a Community/Council Plan? In other councils such a phrase would be self evident – ie an officer’s report tabled and discussed at an ordinary council meeting. Not in Glen Eira. Here it can mean anything and everything, including disappearing entirely and never to be heard of again.

We’ve compared the 2012/2013 Action Plan against the objectives for the coming financial year and there are indeed some strange goings on. Apart from the usual humbug of measures not having anything whatsoever to do with objectives, there are many ‘reports to council’ which never saw the light of day in a transparent and accountable fashion. Perhaps they never even landed in the hands of councillors behind those tightly closed doors? Here is just a sample and we cite verbatim:

  1. Review and update council policy ‘Exclusion of Specific Developments’ from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme to implement measures to ensure multi-dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking. MEASURE: Report a revised policy to Council.
  2. Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan. MEASURE: Report provided to Council.(We note that on June 28th 2011 this was removed from the Planning Scheme. This also applies to the ‘Transition Zone’ policy which we discover is now ‘on hold’)
  3. Council Engagement Strategy and consultation processes reviewed. MEASURE: Engagement strategy updated and posted on Council’s website. (Please note that the Engagement strategy was last looked at by council on the 11th October 2011. Not only hasn’t this been revisited since but the full policy is nowhere to be found on Council’s website. What is up there is the pathetic little ‘6 steps’ which date back to at least 2009).

There are many, many more omissions and changes that the current Community Plan does not even mention or account for. Residents should not have to scour through the fine print in order to discover what is truly happening. Nor should secrecy and the pathetic games of semantics replace transparency and good governance. When the stated outcome is ‘report provided to council’ that must mean one thing only – a full and comprehensive document that is produced in the agenda for ordinary council meetings. We repeat ourselves ad nauseum – secrecy is the opposite of good governance, transparency and accountability.

 

May 3, 2013

The Budget

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

This is our first preliminary look at the proposed budget. It is admittedly a very pleasant surprise that the rate increase will be kept to 6.5%. It is however worth pointing out the rate increases at neighbouring councils –

Manningham – 4.8%

Whitehorse – 4.1%

Kingston – 4.45%

Port Phillip – 4.5%

Bayside – 3.5%

Stonnington – 4.3%

Boroondara – 4.7%

SUPERANNUATION LIABILITY

Glen Eira has decided on the following strategy – “ The Defined Benefit Superannuation Call will be paid off over three years (before the next Review comes into effect) without reducing services of capital investment or increasing Rates”. This is presented as $2.4 million repayment the coming financial year and then $2.3 for the following 2 years. We do not know the interest rate on this debt!

Other councils have opted for different strategies and their comments are worthy of note –

Council’s Budget and Strategic Resource Plan shows that Council has forecast to borrow $7.90 million during 2013/14 to repay a liability Council has to the Vision Super Fund for a shortfall in earnings by Vision Super to meet its actuarial forecast for payments to defined benefits superannuants. This borrowing is consistent with the Financial Strategy as the alternative to borrowing is a debt repayment schedule offered by Vision Super with an effective interest rate of 8.82%: bank loans are lower than the Vision Super rate and therefore are an economic alternative. (Manningham)

The increase in net cash inflows from operating activities is primarily due Council paying $9.78 million to Vision Super in August 2012, being the discounted call amount for Council’s share of the Local Authorities Superannuation Defined Benefits Scheme liability shortfall.

In August 2012 the Local Government Defined Benefit Superannuation Scheme sent us an invoice for $14.3 million to cover our share of the shortfall in employee superannuation. It is payable immediately after 1 July 2013. This impost presents us with a major financial challenge not of our own making. While a likely shortfall was noted in last year’s budget the actual amount was well beyond what we expected. Because we don’t keep that sort of surplus cash in the bank, we will borrow to repay the liability in full – taking advantage of the relatively low interest rates currently available. In addition, we will repay the loan in just five years at an annual cost of $3.3 million. This strategy will save ratepayers over $9 million in interest compared to a standard twenty year loan. Our rate rise this year could have been a little lower but the savings we achieve with our approach will give the community a much better result (Boroondara).

There’s therefore much that is not revealed. Is Glen Eira ‘borrowing’ from the Vision Fund at 8.82% per annum? Did they investigate any cheaper bank loans? Would any bank even give them a loan since recent borrowings totalled $25 million? Clearly Glen Eira was never in a position to pay out up front. The result is probably millions in further interest repayments.

FEES AND CHARGES

  • Many of GESAC user costs have increased. What impact will this have on membership and attendance? Why the need for these increases? Isn’t this a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Is this why there’s the neat little rider in the budget about handing control to increase prices to the Manager of GESAC?
  • Bin charges go up and up again – 240 litre bin up by another $17 to $377 pa and the 120 litre bin up by $8 to $173 pa.
  • Child care fees up again – $5 per day for 3 to 5 year olds to $100 per day.
  • No figure provided for council’s actual contribution to pensioner rebate. Has it gone down?
  • Staff numbers keep increasing – another $5million in staff costs and numbers up by 28 for EFT

OPEN SPACE

There’s a welcome addition in terms of open space via the statement: “As part of the current budget process, Council will adopt a Policy that all Public Open Space Contributions will be used solely for the acquisition of additional public open space or the upgrading of additional public open space for community use. Contributions would not be spent on existing open space. (Additional open space includes the disused Glen Huntly Reservoir)….In 2013-14, the Budget provides $250K for the upgrading of Elsternwick Plaza, owned by VicTrack”.

The budget also contains this plan – $5 million in 2015/6 and $4.5 million in 2016/17 for the Booran Rd Reservoir. Last year the budget papers had it down as – 4 million in 2017/18 and 3.5 million in 2018/19. So, the ‘redevelopment’ has been moved forward a year or so, but the estimated cost has escalated another 1.5 million. In other words, all that has been gained by this ‘policy’ is not MORE open space in the next financial year but some neat account balancing.

We ask: is the above more sleight of hand, especially since only $250,000 has been made available in the upcoming financial year. What happens if a property does suddenly become available? Will council even consider its purchase?

This is our most important comment however. Council estimates that the open space levies for the coming year will only bring in $2 million. Last year the figure was $1.9 million. Given that there are over 1000 subdivisions in Glen Eira per year, and at least 20 to 30% of these would be for 3 subdivisions and more, then an increase of a piddling $100,000 is quite unbelievable. So how many developers are thus being let off the hook? And why is there no mention of the potential increase in the open space levy given that countless other councils are exacting at least 5% across all of their municipalities.

We will comment further in the days ahead once we’ve had a chance to go through the budget in greater detail.

PS: there is one current ‘innovation’ in this budget that rears its head for the first time. In all previous budgets Council saw fit to include after each category the FINAL FINANCIAL FIGURES for that category in the User Fees & Charges – for example: “Total Asset Management”; “Total Glen Works”; “Total Property and Facilities” etc. This year, no such figures are provided! Hence residents have absolutely no idea how much revenue is brought in for each of these individual categories. Transparency and accountability have again taken a huge hit, despite the Auditor General’s recent report on the need for councils to justify every single cent in language that is accessible, and comprehensible!

 

May 1, 2013

The Conservatory ‘Debate’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space
[14] Comments 

Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:

  • For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
  • Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
  • If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
  • Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!

LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.

DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.

MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.

LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’.  Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.

SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.

OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey.  Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.

ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.

HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’.  Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’.  ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.

LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.

Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.

 

April 30, 2013

Tonight’s Voting!

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Lipshutz moved the motion to accept recommendations. Delahunty seconded. The final vote went 5 to 4 to accept motion.

In favour: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Delahunty, Okotel

Against: Lobo, Pilling, Sounness, Magee

We will report on the ‘debate’ in the days ahead.

Item 9.1 – Railway Cresc. application

Esakoff moved motion that instead of 3 storeys and 10 dwellings this be reduced to 3 storeys and 8 dwellings plus including a visitor car park. Lipshutz seconded. Even though Lobo spoke against the motion, the final vote in favour was unanimous.

 

 

April 29, 2013

The Conservatory: 12 Years Of Neglect!

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

P1000140

P1000139

P1000141

conservatory1

P1000136

P1000137

 

April 23, 2013

Short Changed – Again & Again!

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

Newton, Southwick, and the notorious Special Racecourse Committee should hang their heads in shame or better still, resign! The so-called ‘negotiating’ team has been a total disaster in terms of what they have delivered to the Glen Eira community. The Centre of the Racecourse and the so called ‘agreements’ are not worth a cracker. We maintain that:

  • This is not a ‘park’ and never will be as long as fences continue to mushroom everywhere
  • Access remains limited
  • Terms of the ‘agreement’ are not being met
  • Playground is NOT a playground
  • Landscaping is appalling
  • People would need a GPS system to find their way through all the fences and of course, no signage or directions anywhere
  • Concrete paths are cracking every 2 to 3 metres
  • No shade over barbecue tables
  • Signage on ‘entrance’ points is contradictory (and again not in accordance with the ‘agreement’)
  • One would need to be a mountain goat to scale the Queen’s Rd., entrance – plus no disability access through this entrance whatsoever.
  • If this token ‘development’ really cost $1.8 million, then someone has been ripped off big time. It fails on all criteria of aesthetic, environmental, and open space design.

We will let our photos do the talking. But, how on earth any of this was ‘negotiated’ and how this council can continue to let the MRC get away with blue murder is unforgiveable. Lipshutz, Hyams, Newton, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick are fully to blame for their monumental sellout of a potentially great community asset.

Here are a few photos and then a slideshow. Please read carefully the nonsense that the MRC has been allowed to post at the entrances. Special attention should be paid to: the statement about ‘restricted areas’; times of opening; and the totally inaccurate maps.

P1000111

For the historical record here’s what was said by residents and these councillors when the application came up for approval. The relevant URLs are:

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mrc-planning-conference-the-farce-continues/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mrc-planning-conference-part-2/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/2594/

And some of the most pertinent comments are highlighted, especially ESKAOFF’s –

SPEAKER #11: Asked if playground was part of application – was told ‘yes’. No detail provided about the playground; Tangalakis then asked if the speaker was an original objector and if so she would have seen the drawings. Speaker responded that what she’d seen were ‘board games’  and “I think that is a silly idea’. Stated that she has young children and couldn’t imagine anyone bothering to go over to a board game if that’s all that was going to be offered.  Kids need better designed playgrounds. ..’.waste of money to put a board game there’. Suggested that unless decent scale is erected then it would remain ‘isolated’ and ‘neglected’. Queried the location adjacent to a lake – safety. Needs fencing and will be cold. Looked at plans, ‘i tried but I could not work out the scale so had no idea’ of anything. In support of developing centre, but if the plan goes ahead it will simply be a ‘lost opportunity’ to do something worthwhile. Concerned that this is all MRC work and that council should ‘independently assess’ merits. Objects to fence, and ‘why it’s necessary’ since access is denied until training over, so why need it? Access point for family not officially recognised so makes it difficult for people to get to facilities. Needs to be ‘equitable access’ to these facilities.

ESAKOFF: Concurred with both Hyams and Pilling. The post and rail fence becomes ‘something more acceptable….we will be pursuing further (playground) equipment….other than that I’m happy with this approval…

 

April 22, 2013

Oooh Calcutta!

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

The government has released the figures on the planning activity audit for 2011/12. We’ve commented previously on the highly dubious figures submitted by Glen Eira (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/a-mountain-of-clerical-errors/) so it would not surprise us if this year’s data is equally suspect. However, even given these figures, the trends are alarming and the future is writ large once comparisons are made with surrounding councils. With over 1000 subdivisions and 1000 planning permits granted in 2011/12 Glen Eira is paving the way for more and more (over) development. Further, the much vaunted ‘safeguarding’ of Minimal Change Areas is also becoming exposed for what it is – a myth!

Below are some maps detailing permits for all the areas. Please note the distribution in Glen Eira for both permits and subdivisions. Under Newton and Akehurst, Glen Eira is fast becoming what Lobo would call ‘Calcutta’!

GLEN EIRA

GLEN EIRA SUBDIVISIONS

stonnington

bayside

yarra

boroondara

port phillip

 

April 17, 2013

Moonscaping

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

Drive or walk anywhere throughout Glen Eira and you’ll find block after block waiting to be developed, or in various stages of development. What they all have in common (with some very rare exceptions) is that they are treeless and that every remnant of vegetation has been ripped out in order to cram bigger or higher density development onto the land. Moonscaping is definitely a most appropriate name for all this.

Yet, when it comes to tree registers and their protection on private property, the arguments put up by some councillors are that the current planning scheme and the application process ensures that moonscaping doesn’t happen. Esakoff even complains that there is no need to make people ‘jump through more hoops’ – that the rigours of the planning scheme are sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wonder:

  • Of the 1200 planning applications that come in each year, how many trees have been ‘protected’ on these properties?
  • How many applicants have been fined for removing said trees?
  • How many prosecutions have actually taken place?

Glen Eira is supposed to be ‘green’ – a city that values its trees, vegetation, and ‘garden’ atmosphere. These photos all taken in the space of half an hour, are just a glimpse into how little this council does to ensure that the environment is just as important as multi-unit development. Please note: there are many more photos we could have put up.

P1000087

moonscaping1

moonscaping4

moonscaping3

moonscaping6

moonscaping5

PS: A FEW MORE!

ms

 

ms2

 

April 16, 2013

What’s The Real Agenda?

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

A very recent VCAT decision highlights once again how residents are personae non gratis when it comes to this council’s planning department and the sycophantic councillors who allow Newton and Akehurst to literally do as they please. Here’s a little bit of history.

On the 30th August 2011 councillors voted unanimously to pass the following motion – “Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas”.

Nearly a year later we find out in the fine print of the Quarterly Reports that HERE IS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CARRIED OUT. Nor has there been any motion to withdraw, rescind, put on hold, etc. The amendment has never been advertised, never had submissions called and been allowed to disappear into the ether. No public announcement has been made as to the reasons why officers have failed to carry out a council resolution. All that we know is that there suddenly appeared the minimalist sentence ‘Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones’. Who made this decision? When was it made? And how can a council resolution suddenly be overturned in secret?

That’s only half of the story because whilst countless other councils are passing amendment after amendment in the attempt to shore up as many safety precautions as possible for when the planning zone reforms come in, Glen Eira is sitting on its hands and doing bugger all. The ramifications of this inaction was evident in a recent vcat appeal and decision.

The VCAT hearing involved an application for a 3 storey building, multiple dwellings and reduced car parking. The site was Glen Huntly Rd (housing diversity/tram lines) and abutted Minimal Change. Hence the proposed amendment would have been extremely important here in protecting residential amenity. Here are the lamentable arguments put up by council and relevant extracts from the final decision. (See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/381.html for the full decision)

Council advised that these setback distances were recommended in its proposed amendment C90 to manage the interface between housing diversity and minimal change areas, and as a response to Clause 22.07 to reduce the visibility of additional levels when the proposal is higher than the prevailing height of an area.

Council noted that it did not impose the minimum setback of 4 metres on the ground level as recommended in the amendment, acknowledging that there are currently out buildings in the rear yards of 6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street. Conceding that Amendment C90 has yet been exhibited, Council still wished to pursue the desired setback as a reflection of its thinking of interface management.

Council has imposed permit conditions to require the first and second floor to be further recessed to manage the change from a housing diversity area to a minimal change area, as recommended by its Amendment C90, which will result in the loss of dwellings.

As Mr. Bissett pointed out (for developer), Amendment C90 is not a seriously entertained planning proposal. It has not been on exhibition and it is premature to implement the setbacks recommended in this amendment. The approach should be one of the particular set of circumstances and the context of the site: that is whether the proposed setbacks of the various floors an acceptable interface with.6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street.

Given all this, questions have to be asked:

  1. Why has a council resolution not been carried out?
  2. Who made the decision to withdraw or abandon? When was it made? and most importantly – WHY was it made?
  3. What is the real agenda behind all this?
  4. Why are councillors allowing employees to rule the roost?
  5. Why aren’t residents afforded the full protection as originally intended?
  6. Why after two years has nothing happened? What aren’t residents being told?
  7. Why didn’t this development come to a full council meeting in the first place? What is the precise criteria that determines whether an application remains in the hands of the hired help?
  8. When will councillors start exercising their mandated duties and INSIST that proper transparency and governance occurs in this council?
  9. When will councillors finally get off their backsides and insist that ALL of the outcomes of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review are carried out. 3 years of deferment, inaction, and silence is not good enough.
  10. When will they stop being accomplices to the continued failure of good governance in Glen Eira?
 

April 13, 2013

Is Consistency Too Much To Ask For?

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

Item 9.1 of last Tuesday night’s agenda concerned the amended permit application for a Tavern in Centre Road. Please note:

  • We are not questioning the right of anyone to submit an application
  • We are not questioning the right of any commercial enterprise to grow its business

What we are questioning is the woeful decision making capacity of this planning department and councillors; the continued shonky reports that fail to come up under scrutiny and finally the clear bias evident in the report. We are also highly critical of the inconsistency trotted out by Lipshutz and some others.

In July 2011 (that is LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO) Lipshutz and Hyams moved the motion to accept the conversion of a ‘café’ to a ‘tavern’ that extended the hours of opening, waived car parking, and included a liquor license for footpath trading. The motion was carried unanimously. At the time objectors also claimed that the premises had been operating ‘without a permit’. Now there’s another application to extend existing hours to 3am, include live music and increase seating from 24 to 64 plus an increase of staff. All well and good, EXCEPT that the current officer’s report just happens to state – “The site context has not changed significantly from the time the previous approval was granted in that the residential properties to the north are still separated from the subject site by an Australia Post dispatch facility and a petrol station that is open 24 hours a day.”

In other words the surrounding environment, which has not changed, was good enough for the planning department to impose limits on numbers, hours, music and staff back in 2009, but not today when these exact some conditions persist! So, if nothing much has changed then how can something be regarded as having an adverse impact in 2011 and 21 months later suddenly be deemed as appropriate for a threefold increase in clientele, staff, and hours of operation? Did Ron Torres just happen to conveniently forget what he wrote at that time and now just regurgitates what happens to suit the decision for the go ahead?

We’ve drawn up a table that compares the officer’s report from 2011 and 2013. There’s much, much more that was in the 2011 report that has suddenly disappeared from the current version. What is repeated is merely all those points that would provide support for the current application. If that’s not ‘doctoring’ a document, then we certainly don’t know what is.

July 19th 2011 Minutes

April 9th 2013 Minutes
28 properties notified; 48 notices sent (owners and occupiers) 6 properties notified; 29 notices sent (owners and occupiers)
N/A Since then, the business has continued to grow and the restrictions on their current planning permit have become onerous.
The current approved hours of operation are considered to be low impact in terms of causing significant noise that would affect the amenity of the local area. The current approved hours of operation are considered to be relatively “low impact” in terms of potential to cause significant noise that would unreasonably affect the amenity of the local area.
The focus of this application is on the 3 additional hours Monday to Thursday (11pm closing) and the 2 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (1am next day closing). The focus of this application is on: the 3 additional hours on Monday to Thursday (closing at 1am); the 3 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (closing at 3am); the 2 additional hours on Sunday (closing at 1am); andthe associated additional live music performances.
Noise from patrons leaving after 8pm weeknights and after 11pm Friday and Saturday would potentially disrupt the amenity of local residents. MISSING
It is considered that a reasonable closing time for Monday to Thursday would be 10pm. An additional 2 hours on weeknights is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines and a requirement to limit live music to Friday, Saturday and Sunday and to prohibit the sale and consumption of liquor on the footpath. The proposed closing time for Sunday to Thursday of 1am the following day is considered excessive for a weeknight. A more reasonable closing time for weeknights (Sunday to Thursday) would be 11pm. This is a reasonable compromise to what is being sought in light of the context. An additional 1 hour on weeknights (as recommended in the appendix to this report) is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with current permit conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines.
For Friday and Saturday nights, it is considered that a closing time of 1am the following day is likely to cause disruptive late night noise and a closing time of midnight is recommended. Additionally, live music performances on Friday, Saturday and Sunday will be required to be finished at least 1 hour before the closing time to further ensure that the impact on the nearby residential area is moderated. For Friday and Saturday nights a closing time of 3am the following day as proposed is likely to cause unreasonable disruptive noise in the early hours of the morning to local residents. A closing time of 1am is recommended as a condition in the appendix as 1 additional hour on weekends is considered reasonable and will have minimal additional amenity impacts.The current permit restricts live music
Recommended conditions will prevent live music in the rear courtyard. No dance floor will be allowed. The current permit does not allow live music performances within the rear courtyard  yet the proposal seeks to allow them between 12 noon and 7pm. This is considered reasonable as the courtyard is adjacent to commercial car parking areas which provide a buffer of over 30 metres to nearby residential land located to the north, and after 7pm the live performances will be restricted to inside the venue.
Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its  potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of the venue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
The impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic would be noticeable to the local residents. Council’s Transport Planning Department do not object to the proposed extension of trading hours.ANDGiven the above, the increased impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic will not be unreasonable.
Council’s Transport Planners have confirmed that Centre Road can accommodate the additional parking that is likely to be generated by the use. The amount of additional parking will be kept to a small increase by applying a condition to restrict the maximum number of patrons to twenty four (24) at any one time. This figure matches the number of patron seats applied for. Staff numbers will be kept at the current level of three (3). Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of thevenue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
Victoria police

  • • Caulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area.However, concern was expressed that noise from live music might impact the nearby residential area. The Police confirmed that they can issue fines for breaches of noise restrictions.
 Victoria policeCaulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area. Support the proposed increase in patron numbers and increased hours of operation. Support live music performances on all days subject to it finishing by 11pm

Sunday to Thursday and 1am the following day on Friday and Saturday.

No issues with live music performances being conducted in the courtyard between 12 noon and 7pm.

 The sale and consumption of alcohol in the footpath seating area should be prohibited after 9pm to minimise the effect on residents directly across the road.

 Restricting staff numbers is not beneficial to the proper running of the venue and

do not support a restriction placed on staff numbers.

So how did councillors handle all this? – especially those who were party to the original permit? Here’s what happened –

MAGEE: moved that a permit be granted for 12 months only. Delahunty seconded. Magee went on to say that ‘this gives the operator what they are wanting’ and since there have been complaints from people and ‘council has some concerns‘ the permit is only for 12 months and the applicant has to then come back and reapply. The objective is for the applicant to ‘show us’ that ‘you can adhere to this permit’ and then council would issue the extension of the permit.

DELAHUNTY: said that this motion would ‘strike a balance’ between business and community ‘wants’. Said that it’s in everyone’s best interests to have ‘private business’ in the city but ‘they must be good neighbours’   so the motion is trying to ‘strike a balance’ between these two things. Looked forward to a year down the track and that the applicants can ‘show they’ve been well behaved’.

LIPSHUTZ: at first he was going to support it but ‘I’ve changed my mind’.  He’s got emails from people complaining and that recently officers had discovered that there were more people on the premises than allowed and that ‘bands were playing’ so they ‘had breached their license‘. So, when people come and ‘seek the indulgence of council’ you have to come with ‘clean hands’ and not treat both residents and council ‘with contempt’. Magee’s motion does ‘put them on notice’ that they have to ‘do the right thing’ but ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with more’. It’s only ‘when you can show you’re a good neighbour’ that you should come to council instead of ‘asking for more’.

PILLING: supports the motion. Outlined where residential and commercial properties are. The motion ‘does strike a balance’ and he thinks the times are ‘reasonable’ and a good ‘alternative’ and ‘respects the wishes of residents’.

SOUNNESS: was at the planning conference and noted that ‘there comes a point when a development has reached its capacity’ and more makes it an ‘over development’. With this application there can’t be more space since the building isn’t big enough. Thought that the development was ‘overly ambitious’ and that there had been issues about ‘management’ of the place. So even though Magee’s motion takes this ‘down the right path’ it doesn’t take it ‘far enough’.

HYAMS: said it was a ‘strange planning conference’ in that there were opposite views expressed. People from ‘500 metres away’ said they could hear the music but patrons said that they ‘go there’ so they can actually talk with each other ‘above the music’ so ‘it’s not that loud’. Said the police were happy for the extended hours and that officers on the occasions they went there ‘reported’ that the tavern was ‘conforming’ to the permit. But then Lipshutz has said that ‘on one occasion they weren’t’. So he’s ‘happy’ with the ‘sunset clause’ and that the place will be ‘monitored’ and ‘if we’re happy’ then they ‘can go ahead’. Said that at the planning conference objectors said that people were urinating outside but this was denied by applicant. So there is a need for more staff to supervise this outside.

MAGEE; said that council ‘want to see business succeed’ and for residents to ‘live in peace and quiet’. The applicant has now got 12 months to show that ‘they are good operators of the business’. The tavern is a ‘bit of an icon’ in Bentleigh and gives the area ‘its bit of uniqueness’. It’s never ‘raised its head before as a concern with me’. He had walked past there recently and all was well. Hoped that ‘the business will succeed’ and that surrounding people ‘will accept it’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS

COMMENT: This is not the first time that breaches of conditions have occurred on numerous permits and not the first time that nothing much has been done about it by council. In the past Lipshutz and his cohorts have seen fit to ignore such breaches and to vote in favour of the permits. All that has been said by them is that council will be ‘vigilant’ and will come down on them ‘like a ton of bricks’ if the new permits are abused. How hypocritical then of Lipshutz to now get on his high horse and say that this application should be refused because the applicants have treated council with ‘contempt’. If Lipshutz is to stand on his record then the public has a right to demand consistency.

We draw readers’ attention to his stance on the extended 1A Albany Court decision (as just one example!) which involved a synagogue that had continually breached its conditions and which the VCAT member made absolutely clear that council had done nothing to ensure compliance. See https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/vcat-more-council-failures/. This is not an isolated example.

How many more times will we hear about council not informing all relevant parties on VCAT hearings as in the above judgement? How many more times will some applications get up because of what can only be reasonably perceived to be clear, vested interests and despite the fact that they have treated the permit conditions with ‘contempt’? How many more times will this planning department be permitted to produce reports that are short on argument, detail, and full justification for their recommendations?

This entire application history epitomises the failures of this council to embark on any decision making that is consistent, transparent, and protects residential amenity.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »