Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 8, 2013

Magee’s Request For A Report & Car Sharing

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

Magee’s report asked for whether in the ‘last few years’ demand has been ‘matched’ by supply for sports grounds. He also asked that included in the report be information on whether clubs have ‘exceeded their allocation’ and whether players have been turned away. Also asked for ‘advice’ on recreational ‘uses of the land’ in the ‘centre of the racecourse reserve’ if horse training was gone. He wanted this information in a ‘conceptual format’ rather than a ‘detailed format’ and that it should look at both ‘active and passive recreation’ and ‘not limited to soccer, football, netball’ and cricket. ‘all weather surfaces’ should also be looked at. This report should be ‘attained’ via external, qualified consultants. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said his past experience has shown that they could have had more teams but these couldn’t be ‘accommodated’ because of lack of allocations and grounds so they had to tell kids to ‘go to Murrumbeena’ to ‘make sure they played somewhere’. Claimed that many clubs complain that they’ve applied for so many allocations but only been given a minimum of grounds. ‘how do we turn away these children?’ Said that there are 40 or 50 extra teams that ‘we can’t accommodate’ so its ‘throughout the municipality’ and not just one club. Went on to say that he looks at the racecourse and after ‘going through contract after contract’ (as a trustee of the racecourse) and knowing what the centre ‘was meant to be’ (park, recreation, racing). ‘It has never been used’ as a recreational park. Said that in 2 years time there is the end of one maintenance lease and that the view of the trustees is to get rid of this and ‘incorporate the centre of the racecourse into a 21 year lease’ so that in ‘2 years time we will miss the opportunity’ to do anything. He wants an ‘independent’ assessment and if the report come back saying that the ‘centre of the racecourse is not suitable’ he would accept it but ‘doubts’ that this will be the outcome of the report. He wants to know how many kids have not been part of organised sport because they couldn’t be ‘accommodated’. Not fair on administrators and clubs and having to say to kids ‘you’re a victim of your own success’. this is an opportunity to ‘get all the facts, all the figures’. Could cost $10,000 but thinks that ‘at some point’ this council has to say – “here is our plan for the centre of the racecourse’ and sport in Glen Eira. ‘Where are we in ten years time’ whether council will still be saying ‘bloody racecourse – we should be using that’ space. Said that people ask where ‘training is going to go’ and that he’d pulled out press releases which showed the government pouring ‘heaps of money’ into Packenham and Moe racecourses who are welcoming new trainers. Moving training to these areas shouldn’t ‘upset too many people’ but will ‘make a huge difference to the people of Glen Eira’. Mentioned the agreement which said that the MRC ‘wanted training removed’ because it costs them 1 million per annum but noone is doing anything. Council ‘needs to be proactive’ because nothing ‘has happened’ in the past decade and unless they get active, nothing will happen in the next ten years except that in 2 years time ‘a 21 year lease will be signed’. With state and federal elections looming council should be ‘advocating’ for the proper split of the racecourse (park, recreation, racing). councillors shouldn’t oppose this request for a report because it’s ‘not an action’ and not saying that we’re ‘doing anything’ just calling for information ‘so we can plan’ about the next 5 or ten years.

DELAHUNTY: supports the motion. Need for ‘strategic thinking’ because ‘there’s no bigger issue’ in Glen Eira. Said council has to get it right and decisions have to be ‘underpinned’ on the ‘basis of knowledge’ and ‘independent reporting’. Said that with the MRC current ‘financial status’ she doesn’t see how they can turn away training and its their job as councillors ‘to make our position known’ that ‘they need to seek training elsewhere’ and ‘rearrange their business’. Said that the Caulfield Village will provide them with money so they should be able to move training elsewhere. But the c60 also says ‘how many more people are going to be calling for open space’ and if council does nothing then those people will have a ‘brilliant view of those horses training’ and they won’t have anywhere to do their own jogging. That’s ‘not right’. The report will tell them the potential uses of the land.

Lipshutz asked how much the report would cost. Burke replied that it would be in the ‘vicinity’ of between $8000 – $15000

LIPSHUTZ: ‘commended’ Magee’s ‘passion’ but logic was needed because Council doesn’t ‘own the racecourse’ and even the MRC doesn’t – it’s the trustees. The only way to settle the issue about the centre of the racecourse is to ‘advocate’ that the trustees be abolished and that a committee of ‘community management’ be set up which is ‘independent’. Everyone knows that the ‘majority’ of trustees are ‘in control of the MRC’ so this has to be dealt with first. Said that the agreement was ‘the best we could get’ at the time. He also wants to see ‘training go’. Council could spend the money and get the report ‘based on a theory’ and the future lease ‘will be signed irrespective of what we do’ because the MRC ‘controls the trust’. He supports the first part of Magee’s request for a report but not the. second. You can look now and see what you can put there. You don’t need to ‘plan that’. Recalled the Caulfield Master Plan and said that when they implemented that, council was criticised because they were implementing a plan that ‘was ten years old’. So getting a ‘conceptual plan’ that only tells us what we ‘already know’ isn’t ‘going to achieve a hell of a lot’. Part 2 of Magee’s request is ‘nonsensical’ and a proposal which isn’t ‘appropriate’ and to spend $150000 on a plan that is only going to ‘gather dust’ and a ‘total waste’. ‘Let’s advocate’.

OKOTEL asked whether the open space strategy review will be looking at the ‘actual uses’ of that open space. Burke answered ‘not in relation’ to the racecourse. It also won’t ‘go into detail’ because it’s not land that is ‘directly under council’s control’. Okotel repeated and clarified her original question asking whether the open space strategy would look at the ‘potential uses’ of open space. Burke then said ‘It will’ but not necessarily ‘in relation’ to the MRC site.

LOBO: said that what they’re not realising is that if the report is $15,000, then the value of the land is $2 billion. Said that ‘we need to exercise our authority’ and help all those kids who are missing out.

SOUNNESS: supports the first part of the report ‘wholeheartedly’ but the second part lacks a ‘little clarity’. He understands ‘the principle’ and wants to see how the relationship with the MRC develops.

PILLING: said that the request was unusual because ‘it does involve cost’ and request for reports don’t usually do this. Because elections are coming up he did see ‘some merit’ in having an ‘advocating tool’. Thought that the money was ‘reasonable’ to ‘move things forward’

HYAMS: even though Glen Eira is short of open space, the centre of the racecourse shouldn’t be ‘seen as a panacea’. races will continue on Saturdays so you wouldn’t have sporting games then. You’d also have to build pavilions and other facilities and this would mean that people couldn’t see ‘right across the racecourse’ which is necessary. Supports the request except for the call for an independent consultant becaue he has ‘faith’ in council’s recreation department to do the job ‘more quickly’ because no need for tender and they’d probably get ‘the same result’. Asked Burke if ‘he felt officers would be capable’. Burke said ‘yes’ that they’ve got the sufficient ‘experience’ and skill.

Hyams then wanted to move the amendment that the last sentence be removed. Magee didn’t agree so Hyams moved the formal amendment. Okotel seconded.

Magee spoke against the amendment saying that ‘it was crucial’ that this remain not because he doubted officer’s ability but if they’re going toj present this to outside parties like government it was important that it be seen as entirely objective.

DELAHUNTY: also didn’t see the request for independents as a ‘comment’ on officers. It was a step to ‘ensure’ that it be seen as ‘independent’. It’s not ‘frivolous’ spending of money.

LOBO asked about the indpeendent off leash review how much it cost and was it independent. Hyams said he didn’t know off hand. Burke confirmed that it was done by an independent. Hyams then followed up with saying that on this issue officers didn’t have the necessary ‘expertise’ in the area so that’s why it was independent. Lobo then reaffirmed that it was ‘independent’ and that it would ‘be good’ to also get independent ‘advice’ here.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR THE AMENDMENT – OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, HYAMS.

VOTING AGAINST AMENDMENT – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, PILLNG,SOUNNESS

MAGEE: summed up by answering Lipshutz’s statement that the land was MRC’s land. He said ‘it’s crown land…it belongs to you and me’. Trustees are ruling body and that government has been called upon to review this. Went into the make-up of the trustee and said that ‘it’s in the mind’ of the premier and minister’s that ‘there is an issue here’ , Said that positive ‘comments’ had been coming from local MPs such as Southwick  that ‘he would like to see training gone’. Repeated that ‘this is a call for a report. Nothing more’. The money is ‘well spent’. Council needs to start ‘developing a policy, a framework, a direction’. For ten years nothing’s been done and no council has done anything about ‘opening up the centre of the racecourse’. There’s been a lot of talk but he’s seen ‘very, very little’. Said that there’s now a pathway and toilets but years ago those who parked in the centre of the course complained that they were ‘getting dirty’ getting to the stands because the grounds were muddy and if they ‘had to go back to their car’ there were ‘no toilets’. So the MRC did this and called it a ‘community thing. It’s for racing’. ‘It’s a great community asset if the community can get in there’ when they have to wait for the ‘gate to be opened…if the gate opens’. Said we need report and councillors to support him.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR MOTION – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, LOBO, PILLING, SOUNNESS, ESAKOFF

VOTING AGAINST – OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ

PS: Here’s the Leader’s story/article on this issue –

Glen Eira Council to spend up to $15,000 investigating the availability of sports grounds.

  • Andrea Kellett
  • February 08, 2013 1:09PM

GLEN Eira Council will spent up to $15,000 investigating if local sports clubs are turning players away because of a lack of sports grounds.

An independent recreation specialist will be paid to advise the council, instead of council officers.

The specialist will also be instructed to look into opportunities for more sport in the city if horse training was relocated away from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

Councillors clashed over the cost of a specialist, but agreed on the need for more open space, the need to look into claims that sports clubs were turning children away and the need to consider opportunities at the racecourse reserve.

Councillor Jim Magee told the meeting there were “40 or 50 extra teams that we can’t accommodate”.

Does your sports club have to turn players away? Tell us below.

“How many children in Glen Eira have missed out on playing sport?” he said.

“It’s crucial to the credibility of this report that it’s independent.”

CAR SHARING

SOUNNESS moved the motion that council ‘monitor’ the car sharing work done by other councils and that a report come back to council ‘in twelve months time’. Delahunty seconded.

SOUNNESS: started by saying that we all ‘drive cars’ and therefore need to park them ‘somewhere’ and that some people even have more than one car. Car sharing is one option but it’s ‘an idea’ and it needs to ‘mature’ which ‘isn’t here at the moment’. ‘Personally’ he thinks it’s a great idea and that it would be a ‘worthwhile community asset’ but only ‘when the time is right’.

DELAHUNTY: supports car sharing ‘very strongly’ and as this ‘moves forward’ in other councils, then Glen Eira should also have it. As a municipality close to the city it makes great sense to have car sharing especially around train stations. When others come from other muniicipalities and park in the car sharing spots then it’ll be good for local traders and environment. ‘we will keep a close eye on this’ and in 12 months she is of ‘no doubt’ that the report back to council will show that a trial ‘especially around Camden ward will be welcomed’.

MOTION PUT. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd: #2

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

Below is our report on the second Glen Huntly Rd application. We suggest that readers pay careful attention to the following:

  • The total inanity of Sounness’ arguments – ie admitting that this is an ‘overdevelopment’ but that’s not ‘compelling’ enough reason to deny a permit! From a planner, this is an astounding statement!
  • Magee’s inconsistency! Vote in favour of no permit first off, and then turn around and vote for 3 storeys. Incomprehensible!
  • Please, please councillors, can we please discover a new vocabulary to justify the unjustifiable – “appropriate’ is becoming incredibly tiresome and meaningless
  • Consistency or lack of, is really baffling. Why not a motion to reject 8 storeys, but one to reject 4? especially when they’re on the same road and the planning scheme indicates this as a major transport/arterial road?

Here’s the discussion. It is not worthy of the label ‘debate’!

Lobo moved to reject on grounds of consistency with ‘urban design’, setbacks, streetscape, car parking, etc. Delahunty seconded.

LOBO: went into the history of the site (ie previous application for lesser no of storeys and dwellings). Said that previously there was ‘already the issue of overlooking’ and with a bigger size development now this will be worse for traffic. Lobo said that Glen Eira is ‘already a busy suburb with trains…..making a nuisance’. Said he was ‘concerned’ and asked himself ‘whom am I working for?’ – residents or developers? Mentioned the interface with minimal change, mass, overshadowing and the health issues associated with this. Will be a problem for residents who ‘pay their rates’ and will soon cop the fire levy.

DELAHUNTY: thought that Lobo summarised the ‘main issues’ such as car parking pretty well and protection of amenity. She therefore supported the motion to refuse.

PILLING: went into the history slightly but said that the developer had ‘redesigned’ the building and that this was a ‘reasonable site’ for this kind of application. Foreshadowed that if the motion failed he was going to move an alternate motion to accept.

ESAKOFF: thought that it was ‘an over-reaction in refusing’ but would wait for the foreshadowed motion.

LIPSHUTZ: supports Pilling ‘in what he said’. Went on to state that they’ve just approved a 6 storey building and this is only 4 storey so ‘it’s a little harsh’ to reject and he won’t support the motion.

MAGEE: said that Glen Huntly Rd had been ‘identified as a major opportunity for developers’ to ‘go for broke’ – ‘go for 8, go for 10, there is no height limits’…’have a crack and see what you can come up with’. Probably their applications would be ‘halved’ but ‘this is a failure of councils over many, many years’ (but not just the recent council or Glen Eira alone). Said that the planning scheme ‘doesn’t protect municipalities’. This is not in the shopping centre and they’re ‘still looking at 4 and 6 storey buildings’. Claimed that what was happening was ‘filling in the gaps’ and the reduction of 2 storeys here and there was pointless when it came to a 10 storey development. The result will be that ‘Glen Huntly Rd is (no longer) Glen Huntly Rd. ‘We need to show some courage here’, and reject the application. People live around here and ‘it’s not fair’. He wouldn’t want to ‘live next to sit’ so he’s not giving his vote for something that he wouldn’t like next door to him.

HYAMS: agreed that 4 storeys was ‘inappropriate’ because there’s nothing similar in the area ‘unlike the previous application’ – so 3 storeys is appropriate. Talked about ‘taking off the top floor’, setbacks, and laneways which meant that the impacts ‘wouldn’t be so severe’. By refusing it’s saying that this is ‘no good’ and it will go to vcat and vcat ‘will be relying on precedent’ and that what a rejection means is that ‘basically wasted council’s time’. Said that the question arose about whether councillors work for developers or residents but that when applications come ‘we’re not working for anyone’ and that what they are doing is function as a ‘judicial body’, ‘we’re applying planning law according to the planning law’. If ‘we were working for the residents’ then they’d be refusing ‘everything’ that there was an objection to. Then the govt would ‘in very short order say this is a complete farce’ and council’s power to decide would be ‘removed’. ‘What we need to do is apply the planning law appropriately’. Referred to Magee’s statement about failure of planning law. Hyams said that this is the result of ‘successive state governments’ so ‘you can’t blame councils’ who have to abide by the parameters. Soon with the reforms there will be hopefully the opportunity to ‘produce better outcomes’ when councils can have a say. Said that they work for residents in trying to produce the best law for Glen Eira and therefore they have to be ‘impartial’.

LOBO: didn’t have any more to say.

MOTION WAS PUT AND LOST. Voting in favour of motion – Lobo, Delahunty, Okotel, Magee.

AGAINST: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling, Sounness

Pilling then moved his foreshadowed motion to accept 3 storeys, etc. Seconded by Lipshutz

PILLING: said that the ‘size and scale’ of the building is pretty close to the original application that was approved by VCAT. Thought this was ‘a reasonable outcome’ and that by taking off one storey this ‘satisfies some of the residents’ concerns’ and is a ‘reasonable outcome to the streetscape’ and it’s ‘in line….with council policy’.

LIPSHUTZ: 4 storeys isn’t ‘appropriate’ and that there aren’t any longer ‘issues of overlooking’ or Lobo’s ‘concerns about people’s bathrooms’ and therefore ‘it is appropriate’.

SOUNNESS: just wanted this ‘for the record’ that he recognised tht there’s a permit for 3 storeys and 19 units that he would ‘prefer’ that now there is something ‘close’ to that number again, but council is increasing the number. Would prefer a greater reduction in units but even though ‘it’s an overdevelopment of the site’ that’s not ‘a compelling enough reason to refuse it’.

PUT TO THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. VOTING IN FAVOUR WERE – MAGEE, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING

AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO, DELAHUNTY

 

February 6, 2013

Glen Huntly Rd

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

Lipshutz moved motion to permit 6 storeys, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and 45 dwellings.  Seconded by Sounness.

LIPSHUTZ: was ‘conscious’ of residents around area and that there were lots of high rise with ‘no infrastructure’ to go with them. Traffic is a problem especially with 6 storey development very close by. There is ‘creeping development’ and therefore he’s seeking to ‘reduce it to 6’ storeys which is ‘more in line’ with what’s already going up.

SOUNNESS: did ‘recognise’ that an urban village has got ‘certain features’ and that if this was close to a train station 8 storeys would be suitable. Since it’s not, then 6 storeys is “appropriate”. ‘Recognised’ that the ‘design of the building is good’. Said he was “a bit uncomfortable with 6′ but ‘can’t see any compelling reasons to refuse’ the application. For him, ‘6 is a compromise’. It’s not ideal but is better than refusal which ‘may not stand up to scrutiny at VCAT’.

DELAHUNTY: favoured a ‘refusal’. Said that there are more and more ‘high quality apartments’ and she does support high density living but ‘not at the expense of infrastructure’. Spoke about real estate agents telling people that Glen Eira is not like Richmond because Glen Eira doesn’t have the same open space problems, traffic problems, etc. But that in time ‘the more we allow’ these sorts of building to go up, then the more ‘we’ve moving towards being like Richmond’ and it’s the residents who have to put up with this. Said that until developers leave the city ‘as they found it’ (ie with open space, ‘and traffic catered for’) she won’t support this application/motion.

LOBO: Said that councillors had promised not to ‘encourage development of such monstrosity’. Said that people want to know the definition of ‘intense development’. Lobo then asked Akehurst to define it. Akehurst  said that the terms of ‘low, medium, high’ density aren’t defined in the Planning Scheme. Lobo then quoted from the planning scheme about being as ‘sympathetic as possible to neighbourhood character’ and wanted to know how the state was going to achieve a population of 5 million people. Asked ‘why are we ignoring’ transport’… ‘this is beyond my comprehension’. Said that the policy from 1999 ‘needs a review’ and that Rescode recipe for parking spaces ‘is a joke’ since most dwellings have 2 cars and people don’t always use public tranport. Went on to talk about overshadowing, and overlooking ‘neighbours bathroom’ so people can’t have showers ‘in their birthday suits’ and will possibly end up ‘using pyjamas’ whilst showering. Said that it’s ‘disappointing’ that councillors are now reneging on the election promises.

PILLING: ‘sympathised’ with Lobo and Delahunty but refusing isn’t the answer as it ‘will lead to’ vcat perhaps giving 8 storeys. This solution of 6 storeys is ‘more practical outcome’. Also said that ‘looking at the bigger picture’ there are issues about height and that there’s ‘increasingly’ a diversion of views between councillors and the community about ‘what is a reasonable height’. Said that that’s where the ‘heart of the issue lies’ and that all they’ve been doing is ‘tinkering’ at the edges and that ‘we really need to develop a more solid approach’ so that when developers come to council they fully know ‘what’s expected’. Said that this is worse than the previous 12 storey application in Carnegie because the Carnegie one was at least a ‘commercial’ area but this one is smaller and backs onto 2 storey places. Said that there ‘needs to be more guidance’ about height levels and expectations because ‘at the moment the sky….is the limit’. Said he ‘wasn’t sure’ about the answer, but knew that they ‘had to do something’ because at ‘the moment it’s become increasingly ad hoc’.

HYAMS: asked Lobo whether he said that Lipshutz was ignoring the recommendations of transport planning. Lobo answered that he didn’t say that and Hyams then ‘confirmed’ that Lobo ‘didn’t say that we were ignoring’ transport recommendations. Said that Lobo talked about what councillors said in election campaigns but that he only said that he would ‘be opposing inappropriate development’ and ‘inappropriate’ is all in ‘the eye of the beholder’. It doesn’t mean ‘oppose everything’ and that people have to ‘apply the planning law’ in order to decide whether an application is ‘appropriate or not’. Said this was an urban village and went on to list the cirteria such as size, orientation, etc. He agreed that ‘8 storeys is too high’ but since there was going to be 6 storeys near Coles, that this one was ‘probably appropriate’. Went on to talk about how the impact was taken into consideration by the waste management plan and other imposed conditions. Agreed with Pilling’s concerns about height and said that ‘it is a bit of a dog’s breakfast’. Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. Also council policies ‘aren’t enforceable at VCAT’. Talked about the zoning reforms and that these would be ‘prescriptive’ so the ‘greater certainty’ that they want will ‘come in’ in the next year or so. In this case he thought that Lipshutz’s motion was ‘appropriate’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that both Lobo and Delahunty had identified ‘deficiencies in the planning system’. Said that Melbourne was going to get higher density without sufficient transport, but all this isn’t ‘for us to decide’. Said that things aren’t going to stay the same. Councillors have to make decisions on planning law and they are a ‘quasi tribunal’ and the ‘law is not scientific’ and on what each individual regards ‘as appropriate or inappropriate’. Said he’d like to see no changes along Glen Huntly Rd but ‘that isn’t going to happen’ and that by voting against he’s ‘not doing anyone a service’ because the ‘developer will go to VCAT and get his 8 storeys’. Putting down 6 storeys means that ‘you can go to vcat and argue that cogently’/ It’s ‘nice’ to be populist but that’s not ‘realistic’ and ‘I’d rather be realistic’. 6 storeys ‘is a compromise’ but which ‘vcat more than likely will support’.

MOTION PUT. Lobo asked for a division.

IN FAVOUR – PILLING, ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL

AGAINST – DELAHUNTY, LOBO, MAGEE

 

February 5, 2013

What A Surprise!

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

A very quick summary of the decisions from tonight’s council meeting. There were no surprises. The same old cliches, contradictions, and lamentable arguments were trotted out on cue. The gang has now definitely recruited another member – Thomas Sounness to join Pilling!

We will provide a full account of the ‘debate’ in the days ahead. Here are the outcomes:

1. 8 storey Glen Huntly Rd – reduced to 6 storeys.

2. 4 storey Glen Huntly Rd – reduced to 3 storeys

3. James St – reduced by one unit

4. Tree Register – passed – but all in the hands of officers and will account for less than 1% of trees

5. Car sharing – another ‘review’ in a year’s time!

6. Public questions – none answered satisfactorily

7. Magee’s Request for a Report – after much argey bargey finally got through plus $15,000 expenditure on ‘external’ report by consultant.

 

February 5, 2013

From The Leader

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

sports

letterstreescrossing

 

February 1, 2013

More Of The Same – Only 10X Worse!

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

In our opinion, many of the items set down for next Tuesday night’s council meeting are nothing short of disastrous for residents. We apologise for the length of this post, but the issues are extremely important.

Item: 483-493 Glen Huntly Rd

Application is for 8 storeys; 4 shops, 57 dwellings and car parking and loading bay waiver. Ron Torres recommends acceptance of application with some minor conditions thrown in. We do not really have to say anything but let the report itself tell the full story. Here are the relevant extracts:

Taking up opportunities for more intense development in the appropriate locations gives Council greater legitimacy and credibility in limiting development in Minimal Change Areas. In other words, it’s okay to sacrifice 20% of Glen Eira without ever defining what “intense development” really means!

It is considered the building itself is of a high quality architectural design that compliments the rhythm of the narrow Glen Huntly Road shop fronts and will make a positive contribution to the emerging character of the Urban Village. In this context, it is considered the proposed building at a height of 8 sotreys is consistent with the policy expectation for this site. Here is it in black and white! 8 storeys is the benchmark for this council! Beware the Planning Zone Reforms! We could also be quite pedantic and wonder what on earth ‘rhythm’ has got to do with ‘planning law’ as so constantly noted by Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams. How exactly ‘rhythm’ is quantified is of course another question. We suppose it just sounds good and will surely now feature regularly in future officer reports.

The report however gets even better! –It is proposed to provide 66 on site car spaces within 3 levels of basement car parking. The planning scheme requires 82 car parking spaces. Torres goes on with this feeble rationalisation – In this case, a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement is justified. If sustainable transport modes are to be promoted, then a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement should be encouraged. It is considered appropriate to provide a modest level of visitor parking. However providing additional on-site parking for visitors will only encourage more vehicle traffic to an area which anecdotally has issues with traffic. It is also noted that a visitor parking rate of 1 space per 10 dwelling (as proposed in this case) has been supported previously in activity centre locations. The logic is incredible here. Visitor parking will encourage more cars – but allowing 8 storeys and countless dwellings presumably won’t – or at least this isn’t mentioned. Readers should also note the reference to ‘anecdotal’. Pity that there is not one scrap of data in any part of this report to substantiate any of the claims made!

But the best is yet to come! The Transport Department had this to say – Providing less than half the required number of residential visitor spaces on the site is not appropriate. A minimum of 9 on-site visitor car spaces is recommended.

Urban Design then has this to say: There are several trees on the property to the north which have the potential to be impacted upon by the proposed development. The size and extent of basement will mean there are no realistic opportunities for tree planting and the concept landscape plan is not supported. So, here we have traffic and urban design saying ‘nay’ – yet the proposal gets through. Residents should be asking exactly how many ticks in the boxes does it take before a proposal is rejected? What is the priority listing for all these boxes? For example: is parking given greater weighting than landscaping or natural light?

Then there’s this further icing on the cake: The existing street tree can be removed at the permit holder’s expense.  So much for a ‘green, gregarious garden city’!!!!

Item 687-689 Glen Huntly Rd.

The application was for a 4 storey, 29 dwellings, 2 offices, and a reduction in visitor car parking. Recommendation was to accept, but with 28 dwellings! There’s also an interface with Minimal Change Area. The report notes that the property has a permit for 3 storeys and 19 dwellings + 2 offices. This application is to increase dwellings and height. The ‘reason’ not to grant the full 29 dwellings but rather 28 is: ….it is recommended that Units 401 and 402 on the third floor be consolidated to form one 3 bedroom dwelling, thereby contributing to housing diversity and reducing bulk/mass impacts. Wow! Does this mean that out of 29/28 units ONLY ONE will be a 3 bedroom outfit? That is really encouraging ‘housing diversity’ to cater for families, etc.!

On car parking we have this gem: It is proposed to provide 33 car spaces in the basement. This satisfies the planning scheme for the dwellings and offices but not for visitor parking. Only one visitor space is proposed whilst the planning scheme asks for five. Council’s Transport Planning Department has suggested that at least 3 on-site car spaces should be provided for visitors.

Item 6 James Street, Caulfield South.

The application is for 3 storeys and 10 dwellings. Interestingly, the site is labelled as South Caulfield. It is Glen Huntly! Officer’s recommendation is for 9 units. A notation states: In 2011, an application was refused which proposed a two storey building with seven dwellings. It was found to be an overdevelopment of the site…..The current proposal is for ten dwellings. It is however, not an overdevelopment like the previous proposal. Reasons given are that car parking is now ‘adequate’ and site coverage has ‘fallen from 59% to 46%.’

What’s particularly galling is the argument that is then trotted out: …the proposal is more akin to the characteristics of the emerging character of the area. Recently approved, at the direction of VCAT, is a 27 dwelling, four storey development at 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly, located two properties east from the subject site. Once again, the folly of lack of height limits is exposed. Now the argument becomes because the precedent is already there so further development is okay.

One other very important aspect of this application concerns the destruction of a liquidamber. We highlight this aspect given the spin that is the item on Significant Tree Register also in the agenda. The comment reads: There is a tree located at the rear of the site (Liquidambar) that is proposed to be removed. Its removal is considered acceptable given the site’s location in a Housing Diversity area where this type of development is envisaged and where replacement trees can provide for more appropriate landscaping.  Housing Diversity Areas are again sacrificed. They do not need trees, open space, or normal amenities. Exactly what “appropriate landscaping’ means is again not explained.

ITEM TREE PROTECTION

We remind readers that the issue of a Significant Tree Register has been rearing its ugly head since at least 2003.  That’s ten years of doing absolutely nothing. The unnamed officer’s report on this issue is another piece of spin, dissembling, and the failure to adequately inform. Given the comments from the James St. application the irony of the comments found in this report should be obvious to all readers. We quote:

The normal processing of town planning applications provides on going protection of over 200 valued existing trees and the planning of over 1,000 future canopy trees each year.

Where values trees are identified, the town planning assessment will regularly incorporate permit conditions which require protection during construction and a tree management condition to ensure the ongoing retention of the tree/s. Where a tree to be retained is near a proposed building, further conditions are applied for special foundations which do not disturb or damage the root system. Similarly, the proposed building is protected from future damage from the tree roots. Such foundations often add thousands of dollars to construction costs. Wonderful isn’t it?  Who identifies ‘valuable trees’? Certainly not residents or councillors! How many trees have been allowed to be cut down (as with James St) in order to squeeze more units onto a block? How well ‘safeguarded’ are such trees by the planning processes?

We’re then told that there are penalties for removal of trees without a permit. We wonder how many prosecutions this council has carried out in the past decade?

After a page and a half of self praise, the report finally gets to the nitty gritty, with:

Approaches to supplement existing levels of tree protection include the following.

Introduce a Local Law to require a permit to remove any tree of more than a specified size, usually measured by circumference of the trunk. This involves property owners applying for a permit, paying a fee, possibly requiring a report by an arborist, with the Council determining whether to grant the permit or not. Many Councils have this approach.

Introduce a Classified Tree Register where there is a Local Law requiring a permit but only for those high quality trees which Council has included in the Register.

That’s it as far as details go. Nothing about resident rights to object to street tree removal; nothing about private versus public property; nothing about giving residents the opportunity to have input into ‘valued’ trees; nothing to restrain this council from chopping down tree after tree without producing a qualified arborist’s report.

There are many other items in this agenda which deserve to be severely criticised. We will do this in the days ahead.

PS: Just for the heck of it, here’s the 6 James St. proposed development PLUS THE ‘INSIGNIFICANT TREE’ that’s about to get the chop!

Untitled

 

January 30, 2013

Traffic, Parking & Lack Of Planning!

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

The latest Census figures literally make a mockery of both the State Government’s, but more importantly, council’s pronouncements. The over-riding rhetoric has been that people who live near railways, major transport routes (in essence, Housing Diversity Areas) will not require as many cars. This myth, and its associated problems, has been further compounded by council’s failure to:

  • Implement Parking Precinct Plans across the municipality, and especially in Activity zones even though the planning scheme still contains clauses that promise to do this. We’re still waiting!
  • Council continually waives car parking requirements in development after development. The argument is that residents will avail themselves of public transport!
  • There is no home-grown analysis of the impact of parking in adjacent streets or the creation of ever increasing ‘rat-runs’.
  • Potential, albeit partial ‘solutions’ such as car share are pooh-poohed by administrators and put on hold
  • Residential parking permits are handed out almost willy-nilly with no thought, or follow up, of what happens in all those ‘adjacent’ streets
  • We also remind readers that there was the promise to ‘incorporate’ all the latest Census figures into the Community Plan once they were available. The community plan is coming up for review. We won’t hold our breaths however for any radical revisions!

The following statistics taken from the VicRoads Transport Portal (http://www1.transport.vic.gov.au/VTSP/homepage.html) should be carefully assessed by all residents. They reveal what we already know – a steadily worsening situation!

  • We learn that there are about 48,500 cars in Glen Eira.  Of the 131,000 estimated population, just on 30,000 are 19 years or younger. That means there is close to one car in Glen Eira for just about every 2 people eligible to drive.
  • We also learn that the numbers of people driving to work has increased by 2,200 since the 2006 census. Bike riding has only gone up by 170 individuals.

The ramifications of these figures must be addressed. The problems associated with parking and general traffic management have been brought up again and again by residents. Yet Council, true to form, has done practically nothing except produce ‘policies’ that are good on rhetoric and spin, but totally deficient in action, planning, and real analysis that should form the bedrock of all action plans. Real vision and long term planning simply does not exist.

Here are the stats. Click on each image to enlarge.

cars age2

age2

car numbersage profile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 29, 2013

More Open Space?

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

Refreshing Park News

The Fixer gets the right fix for popular plaza

Andrea Kellett

ELSTERWICK plaza has finally received the green light to start its transformation from eyesore to community gateway.

After the Leader’s The Fixer  column publicised the problem (“Park goes from lovely to eyesore, October 22, 2012), community leaders called for a revamp of the prime land next to the railway station, backed by Transport Minister Terry Mulder.

Caulfield state MP David Southwick has now negotiated a 20 to 25 year lease from the landowner, railway authority VicTrack.

It is conditional on a commitment from Glen Eira Council to “invest substantially in the improvement, beautification and upgrade of the park”, he said.

We’ve secured this as public open space,” Mr Southwick said. “This is a prime piece of real estate and we want it to be a community asset.

The council has sought a lengthy lease from VicTrack, which would justify a costly revamp, and has been trying to change its year-by-year lease arrangement since 2007.

Mayor Jamie Hyams said the council had not wanted to invest ratepayers’ money without a long lease. He, Mr Southwick, traders and residents agree the plaza and historic rifle range are dilapidated, unsafe and overdue for a facelift.

“Council has been pushing for this for a long time,” Cr Hyams said. “I would hope funding for the park would be in the next council budget so works could be carried out in the next financial year.”

Elsternwick Main Street Committee chairman Brent Howard said he was delighted. “We want to encourage as many people as possible to come and the more vibrant it is, the better retailers will do,” Mr Howard said.

Camden Ward Cr Mary Delahunty described the outcome as a “victory for the people of Elsternwick”.

 

January 26, 2013

Is The Game Rigged?

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

This post is simply pointing out some ostensible patterns or trends and is positing some questions for residents’ consideration.

Over the years there have been many complaints about the running of the so called ‘planning conferences’  – ie. how objectors are not given the opportunity to ask the developer questions (that’s when they deign to even show up as with the centre of the racecourse debacle); how the planner’s final report is only available on the Friday before the council meeting, and so forth. The stated objective is that these planning conferences function as opportunities for dialogue and the potential resolution of differences. We wonder how much dialogue and subsequent compromise ever eventuates – especially when no real reports or ‘satisfaction survey’ results are made public.

Related to these conferences is the question of who chairs them. Should only local councillors chair such meetings if the application relates to their ward? Or should everyone be sent throughout the municipality since, as Lipshutz so often delights in telling people, he doesn’t just represent Camden Ward, but all of Glen Eira! It’s very strange then, that the vast majority of his chairmanship just happened to involve applications that were located in Camden!

Next is the NUMBER of planning conferences chaired by the various councillors, and the nature of the respective applications. Our analysis tells us that when the stakes are pretty big (such as major high rise developments, or important amendments such as C87, or applications that have garnered large numbers of objections) then the ‘big guns’ – ie Hyams, Lipshutz and early on, Magee – are dragooned into action. What also stands out is that throughout the duration of the last council, Penhalluriack DID NOT CHAIR ONE PLANNING CONFERENCE! Why, we wonder?

Here are some stats outlining the number of times each councillor chaired a meeting. We’ve omitted Staikos and Whiteside.

Hyams – 28

Lipshutz – 23

Magee – 25

Esakoff – 14

Tang – 5

Pilling – 19

Lobo – 7

Forge – 8

When we start looking at the individual councillor and the individual application, then there is definitely a trend. For example: on the few times that Lipshutz ventured out of his electorate it was to chair pretty contentious development proposals, that either drew heaps of objections or, were ‘unusual’. (ie the sell off of Station St to the Port Phillip Housing Association for $3.1m; Mavho St with stacks of objections). Magee was the ‘jack of all trades’, especially early when he was presumably ‘one of the boys’ – so he also got a few major projects. Then there’s our erstwhile Mayor. He’s indispensible, peripatetic, and seemingly most available – especially for many of the really top notch and contentious proposals (C87 Amendment; 10 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd.). Most of the other councillors were left with run-of-the-mill stuff such as double storey applications in minimal change areas. The over-riding impression is that the gang, including Pilling of recent times, generally get the really important proposals and the rest of the councillors all the left-overs.

Some other questions to consider:

  • Are these conferences allocated or do councillors ‘volunteer’?
  • If allocated, what is the rationale for picking which councillor chairs each meeting? (availability assumed)
  • And the $64 question? How many ‘discussions’ has the chair already had with the developer prior to the conference as opposed to the number of discussions had with objectors? And as revealed at a recent council meeting with Lipshutz and his ‘volunteer’ in handing out how to vote cards, what about the potential for conflict of interest?

All in all, like everything else to do with planning, there is plenty of opportunity for manipulation and rigging the game – especially when there’s the oft repeated ‘threat’ of closing the meeting if too many people ask too many embarrassing questions!

 

January 24, 2013

Does Council Support Residents Or Developers?

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

First some background to refresh people’s memory. An application for a 3 storey, 10 unit development on Mavho St., Bentleigh was rejected unanimously by all councillors in March 2012. Planning officers had recommended a permit. The earlier planning conference was severely criticised by residents. Lipshutz was accused of gagging residents (See our earlier post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/tansparency-accountability-who-do-councillors-really-represent/). Objections then ensued from the applicant and residents and the case was set down for a VCAT hearing this Monday and Tuesday (21st & 22nd January).

We present below an email exchange between one of the objectors and Hyams. Names are deleted.

Dear Jamie & Oscar

It is with great disappointment that I write to you both about the recent correspondence from the Council’s planning office (received today) (Thursday 17th January). Attached is the Planning departments proposal for VCAT hearing which arrived today! The hearing is on the 21st & 22nd of Jan. Your Planning department is putting forward a proposal for 10 apartments! Were you aware of this situation? Did you follow up with the so called planning experts as to how they planned to stand their ground at defending the councils decision to reject the development? I fully understand that:

“While Council has prepared suggested conditions in accordance with this VCAT requirement, it is emphasised that Council continues to oppose the proposal.”

Please explain why the residents, that have so vehemently rejected this entire development, not been privy to this compromised proposal by your planning department till the last minute?  Is this draft proposal a joke? It beggars belief that the person representing the Council (and by default, the residents of the area) is committed to the decision that the Mayor and all Councillors took in the Chambers.

You will recall that the meeting of the erstwhile Councillors (elected representatives of the residents of Glen Eira) had rejected the development outright. Is the representation at VCAT not to defend the councils decision on the day? The rather late receipt of this draft simply reinforces belief that the developers are in cahoots with the planning department and the residents are mere fools, misled by those in power. Let me assure you that as residents we oppose this draft. We are left with no time to question anyone in the planning department.

We are shocked that the amendment has been sent to all of us a day before the hearing is set? A clever ploy by the Council’s planning department to avoid any discussion on the matter. You leave us with no time to question the draft.

Jamie, in all you correspondence to me, you had assured me that the Council representative at VCAT would be an independent person. It seems otherwise. Whilst the Council would not be using a qualified legal representative, it would have an expert, independent planning authority. Correspondence received today leaves us with little hope and confidence.

The representation should be without FAVOUR or FEAR. This hearing/case will set a precedent for all of Bentleigh and it should be monitored and dealt with extreme due diligence. Given the timing of this draft proposal (attached above) by the council, perhaps, you are happy for the develpers to PLUNDER the residential streets of not just Bentleigh, but all of Glen Eira. The preparation for the VCAT hearing should focus on complete rejection and NOT COMPROMISE in favour of the developer.

Please treat this as a matter or urgency and reply ASAP.

Thank you

Regards

Xxxxx

 ++++++++++

Dear xxxx

Thank you for your email. I understand your concern as to how this looks. However, it is a requirement of VCAT that whenever Council refuses an application, it must still draw up a set of conditions to assist VCAT. This is the requirement set out in Practice Note PNEP1, referred to in the covering letter. It is a legal requirement, but does not in any way mean that Council will not be defending its decision to refuse the application.

Council’s representative at the hearing will be independent of Council’s planning department, as you mentioned I had previously advised you. We will be using a well-regarded private planning consultant named Andrew Crack.

If you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Good luck with the hearing.

Regards,

Jamie

+++++++++

 Dear Jamie

I am certain that you do not understand my concerns. The key issue has not been answered by you. Why have the concerned residents been informed of the proposed, back up draft plan at the nth hour? The planners in all their arrogance have assumed that what they recommend will suit the residents. This development, if approved, will have an adverse impact on lot of people. The correct process is that the objecting parties have to be kept in the loop about all suggested changes to the plans.

I request you to explain why we have received the draft suggestions a day before the hearing?

+++++++

Dear xxxxx,

I agree that the short notice given was inappropriate. The VCAT requirement is that such notices are sent out 5 business days prior to the hearing. In this case, the notices were sent out later than that. I am informed that this was a rare lapse, and was because the relevant officers were just returning from their annual leave. 

However, the important point is that, as I mentioned, Council will be defending the refusal, not advocating for the draft plan.

Regards,

Jamie

+++++++++

Dear Jamie

Once again you defend the planning departments shortcomings. The VCAT requirement gives you more than 5 days. I have a copy of the PNEP. A rare lapse? I had made it very clear to you in my email in December that given the timing of this hearing and the holiday season, particular attention needs to be paid to this case. I had pre empted the planning departments lack of diligence and bought the timing to your attention. Lo and behold! You come back to me saying the employee concerned was on annual leave!! This once again reflects on the inefficiencies of your planning department and further consolidates our belief about how the departments favour the developers. 

What your planning departments treats with such non chalance is blood, sweat and tears for the residents of Glen Eira. We need some answers and someone needs to be made accountable.

Thank you

COMMENT

The hearing took place as scheduled. We have been told that the ‘expert’ consultant spent most of his time holding up photographs of ‘high’ buildings already located in the street! A strange way to argue a case AGAINST DEVELOPMENT we suggest! The question thus becomes:

  • Why is council spending ratepayers’ money on consultants if this is the best they can do, or the best they are ‘allowed’ to do?
  • How can a planning department get things so wrong so often? Even if staff take leave, surely they must have some procedures in place to ensure that all runs smoothly over the xmas holidays? Further, they MUST know what cases are coming up and require attention? Or is it simply that no-one cares – after all these are only residents?
  • Whilst we commented from the start that we believed the councillor vote was largely due to an election year and the volume of loud protest, it still does not excuse the failure of officers to actively, diligently and professionally support councillors’ decision and residents.
  • The usual excuse will be that the planning department should enforce planning law (ie the planning scheme). Councillors will (pretend?) outrage no doubt and blame VCAT when the decision is handed down. What they have never done is to demand a total and full review of the planning scheme. What they have never done is ask for detailed justification as to how and why a house that sits 100 metres on one side of a street is in a Housing Diversity area, and a house that sits directly opposite is in Minimal Change.
  • Okotel recently asked for a report on the information provided to residents and applicants. The result was a glowing endorsement by her and other councillors. It’s time that the following happened:
  1. Delegatory authority to officers on planning be cut back substantially and councillors have ‘call in options’
  2. Councillors be informed BEFOREHAND and IN DETAIL of any DPC scheduled meetings. We believe that currently they often do not even know what is up for decision.
  3. Councillors attend DPC meetings or this officer love-in be disbanded and a formal special committee instituted to consider planning applications as happens in so many other councils.
  4. A total review is required of notification processes
  • Finally, we’ve uploaded the Practice Note (here) and invite residents to compare the wording of Hyams’ email with what the Practice Note actually says!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »