Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 3, 2013

Silence Is Golden!

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

Readers will remember the 12 storey, 173 dwelling application for Dandenong Rd. that went to council on November 13th 2012. Lipshutz, Magee, Sounness and Pilling all thought that 12 storeys was fine but the rest of the councillors reduced this to 8 storeys and 90+ dwellings. The officer’s report had the following to say about traffic –

“The proposal is considered to activate the Dandenong Road Frontage

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in an intensification of vehicle movements in the area. This is a by-product of both State and Local Planning policies channeling more intensive development and use into activity centres such as Carnegie. An opportunity to exit onto Dandenong Road is considered to be a significant advantage for this development site.”

We’ve since come across a Youtube video created by a Monash student (see below). What is most striking about the video is the sound. Listen carefully and ask yourselves, is this really a ‘significant advantage for this development site’.

 

January 2, 2013

GESAC: What’s Really Going On?

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

GESAC and its costs remain a mystery. We would bet that it is even a mystery to councillors. There is the incredible spin of success after success – 7,000 members, then 8,000 members, now 9,000 members (all in the space of 3 months) and the forecast of 10,000 members by the end of the month. All remains talk as far as we’re concerned. Not once has this council published a full and comprehensive list of expenses versus income. Nothing about memberships has been put in writing, such as what do these 9000 alleged members currently consist of? Are they FULL memberships? Part memberships? How many people have NOT renewed memberships? How much money has had to be refunded? How much is staff costing? How much is maintenance costing per week or month or even year?

Nor has there been any update on legal costs and the liquidated damages bills with Hansen and Yuncken. The same repetitious blurb has appeared in the monthly financial reports for the past 3 months. Hardly an ‘update’ to inform residents as to what is going on!

Nor has there been any murmur about the basketball court allocations. Burke’s report shows that the Warriors aren’t fulfilling their terms of contract as to hourly court hire. How much have ratepayers therefore subsidised the under-usage of the courts by the warriors? How much longer will this continue? What is happening now that the contract is due for re-appraisal? What are the criteria? Will councillors have the guts to insist that sport allocations become open and transparent rather than left in the hands of public servants?

All we know about GESAC are the incredible claims and the spread of bitumen and concrete for more and more car parking. Our questions are therefore quite simple –

  • If GESAC is such a raging success, then why is this council continuing to splurge money on full paid colour ads in all the local papers?
  • Why is council now offering to waive registration fees for new members if numbers are going through the roof as they claim?
  • When will these councillors insist on a full and comprehensive ledger which shows every dollar of income and every single expense?

The spin must stop and be replaced with facts, figures, and open transparent governance. Here’s the latest extravagance:

gesac

 

December 29, 2012

Some Standout Quotes

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

The year is rapidly drawing to a close, so we thought it would be fascinating to review what ‘progress’ has been made in the past 18 months on some of the major issues which have confronted this council. These include: C60 and the centre of the racecourse; GESAC basketball allocations, Notice of Motion. There are many others that will feature in future posts.

December 2011 Pilling (from his blog) – “In the aftermath of this year’s Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.”

29th April, 2011- Media Release Headline – “Council places limits on C60”

Pilling on centre of racecourse – Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…”

Hyams on centre of racecourse – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’.”

Esakoff on centre of racecourse – The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

May 2011 – Council response to submissions on local law – ““A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

Southwick, Hansard, May 3rd 2011 – “This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement”.

June 2011 – Dropping the Development contributions levy – officer report – ““It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”

Friends of Caulfield Park submission – “We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.

Lipshutz on Heritage expert advice on Seaview property – .‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’

Lipshutz on Notice of Motion – “‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’….I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that…..the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.”

 

 

December 27, 2012

More Do Nothing Reports

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

Another example of councillors doing nothing is evidenced by their resolution on the car sharing item from last Council meeting. Please note that the issue itself is not our focus. What is our focus is the process that this council adopts in the attempt to get anything done. Here’s the recommendation and the ensuing resolution

That Council:

i) Notes the report.

ii) Notes that car share systems could be used within new developments in the future.

 Crs Sounness/Lipshutz

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(iii) That a further report be provided on how car sharing policies operate in other Victorian Councils (eg Cities of Melbourne, Stonnington and Port Phillip), and the effectiveness of these policies in improving public and private sustainable transport options.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

So, here we go again. Another report, another time lag, another example of inefficiency, added cost, and temerity. The inefficiency relates to both councillors and officers. The supposed objective of this first report was to outline the “benefits/impact’ of car sharing. What we ended up with in the Akehurst version was waffle, generalities, and the predicted recommendation to look to the ‘future’. The only other council mentioned, as we’ve already noted was Melbourne City Council. Surely any report attempting to fulfill the terms of ‘benefits/impact’ would provide a far more extensive analysis than simply looking at one council? Why didn’t Akehurst include commentary/analyses from these other councils to begin with? How about some real statistics? Our take is that when you’re trying to push a particular line you never give too much away – especially if the ‘findings’ of the analysis are all ‘positive’ and your position is one of ‘do nothing’.

Councillors should not escape unscathed either. So they’ll get another report which will undoubtedly say that although there are some positives in these councils’ plans it will cost too much; nothing is budgeted for and hence Glen Eira needs to delay until funds are available. The hidden issue of course is what this might mean for the entire parking allocation system in the municipality. When development after development is allowed to get away with waiving car parking spaces and nearby streets are permitted as surrogates, then to create car share spaces could be a major problem. Instead of looking at the entire system, we have another tinkering with the periphery and thus not even coming close to addressing the real issues.

The ‘report’ will come in at some stage and given past history councillors will meekly accept whatever recommendation is put before them. End of story!

 

December 22, 2012

Be Alarmed, Not Just Alert!

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

As one of our final posts for the year we thought it would be helpful to emphasise again how the governance of this council is totally out of step with the vast majority of its neighbours. Last council meeting featured the incredible spectacle of several councillors attempting to justify why Gibbs and McLean have repeatedly been reappointed to their posts as ‘independent’ members of the Audit committee.

At its last council meeting Port Phillip just happened to appoint totally new members to their committee. We quote from the officers’ report:

“3.3.6 External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.

3.4 Council is reminded that as the Charter states that ….. “External members will be appointed for a three (3) year term, renewable to a maximum of one (1) additional term, with the terms of appointment being staggered one year apart.” Mr Densem’s term is for an additional 3 years with no further option to renew.”

Please also note that this is tabled at an open council meeting. NO IN CAMERA SECRECY!

By sheer serendipity, Port Phillip also considered Amendment C97 – Energy Efficient Design which proposes to “include a Local Planning Policy relating to environmental sustainable design’ and to request permission from the Minister to exhibit. Readers will remember that at the last Glen Eira council meeting, the Akehurst report had stated : “Building approval is universally required for all developments. This point alone places building in front of town planning for applying any ESD standards. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) currently sets energy efficiency standards that both residential and commercial developments need to meet. These provisions were reviewed in 2011 and have been increased to require a 6 Star Energy Rating for new residential buildings and a significant increase in energy efficiency requirements for all new commercial buildings.”

Here is the Port Phillip ‘answer’ to this position:

Currently the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is limited to setting minimum standards for energy efficiency of new buildings, as opposed to the holistic elements of best practice sustainable design, which typically includes water, stormwater, transport, waste and landscape. It is considered that leaving sustainable design requirements to the building approvals stage is too late in the design process after important design decisions, such as siting, have already been made through planning approvals.”

Diametrically opposed points of view it seems! Whom would you believe?

Sadly, our Glen Eira representatives merely delayed things once again. Another report! Another do nothing action! Their resolution read:

Crs Sounness/Okotel

That the recommendation in the report be adopted with the addition of the following:

(d) requests a report on the status of Environmental Sustainable Design principles being developed for incorporation into the Building Code of Australia by the Australian Building Codes Board.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Also of real interest is the BAYSIDE SUBMISSION to  a KINGSTON PLANNING AMENDMENT! Kingston has put out for consultation its proposed Structure Planning Amendment for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre. Bayside, as the neighbouring council, has some concerns over height limits, and the need for ‘negotiation’ between these councils – AND GLEN EIRA. Strange, that we have not heard a single whisper from our planners. Even Stonnington, in one of its planning applications raised concerns about what is happening in Glen Eira along Dandenong Rd and how it will impact on its municipality. When all is said and done, our glorious council remains the lone ranger – unwilling to publicise anything, and perhaps even unwilling to work in collaboration with other councils to achieve the optimum outcome for residents. What a sad state of affairs!

In the light of what is happening in other councils, Glen Eira’s inactivity is deplorable. The status quo of open slather for inappropriate development, the lack of structure planning, and real environmental initiatives are the legacy that future generations will continue to bear.

The coming 10 months are vital for the future of this municipality. We will see:

  • Decisions on CEO appointment
  • Planning zone reforms
  • Community plan
  • Local law and probably the attempt to maintain the current abhorrent meeting procedures
  • Open space strategy

Watch this space – and be alarmed not merely alert! 2013 is certainly not going to be dull.

 

December 22, 2012

More Perfection!

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

FINANCIAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: ‘excellent result’. Said that Delahunty had asked that the reports be more ‘intensive’ and they’ve now included a few additional items as a result. “Council has got a work strategy’; capital works is ‘slightly behind forecast’ and they’ll catch up by the ‘end of the year’. “Council liquidity is tracking well’ and although council has to be ‘careful’ all is going well.

DELAHUNTY: ‘great’ that there is more detail in the report and ‘helps us do our job’ so that councillors can get a ‘greater picture of the finances’. There are 1.3 billion dollars of assets so the ‘big picture’ is needed. ‘Peter’ is right about cash flow in that ‘there is a definite need for caution’. ‘Our position is strong, the balance sheet position is strong’ and GESAC is ‘an absolute standout’ and because membership is growing ‘we may not see a dip’.

LOBO: said the report ‘really shows the financial strength of this council’ and not the things ‘that come on Glen Eira Debates’. There are ‘doubting Thomases’ writing ‘day in and day out’ and they write and ‘hide’ under the ‘name of anonymity’. Said that if people really believe that ‘there is a problem put your name and address’. Went on to say that being ‘negative will not keep you in good health’ because ‘negativity doesn’t give good health of mind and body’. Concluded with the hope that ‘you can take a new leaf from this’ as well as ‘stop your Glen Eira Debates’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

COMMENT

  • Caution has been urged month after month yet Lipshutz still refers to  $600,000 as ‘little’!
  • No real explanation of why capital works and other projects are so far behind schedule? It couldn’t be anything with ‘saving money’ and managing the cash flow, could it?
  • We note that $529,000 is now to be returned to the government as a result of the decision on Boyd Park water harvesting. Another ‘cash flow’ problem?
  • Previously Hyams saw no problem in calling certain councillors to account when their comments were totally irrelevant to the item under discussion. We wonder why this was not done in the case of Lobo’s comments? There was a 5 second statement about the financial report and the remainder of his ‘speech’ addressed ourselves. We are indeed flattered by the attention.
 

December 21, 2012

Ain’t We Perfect?

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

AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: started off by explaining the function of the committee and its duty to report annually to council. “The Audit committee does a great job’. Not an ‘oversight committee’ but ensures that risks ‘are looked at’. The ‘auditors identify areas that can be improved’ so it’s not a question of sitting on one’s laurels and officers implement the suggestions.

MAGEE: stated that Gibbs & McLean have been on the committee for ‘many, many years’ and they are ‘very, very capable and very, very professional’. Gibbs asks ‘pointed’ questions of officers. He’s ‘very straight’ and ‘takes no nonsense’ and if people saw how he operated they’d be very happy. McLean is a ‘very astute accountant’. They’ve been on the committee a long time but that ‘benefits our council’ because they ‘know our history’ and ‘they certainly know where council wants to head’. Magee is ‘very comfortable in working with those two’.

HYAMS: endorsed Magee’s comments since he’s ‘sat in’ on 4 meetings. Said that there had been suggestions that ‘external members had been there for too long’ and ‘getting a too comfortable relationship with our officers’ but if people could see what happens then they would never be ‘under that misapprehension’ because they ‘rigorously examine our officers’. ‘You replace someone if they’re not doing a good enough job….’or if you think’ there’s someone out there who is better. Hyams finished by saying ‘I’m very pleased with the audit committee performance’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he’s been on the committee since 2005 and that both Gibbs and Mclean have a terrific knowledge of council and ‘add value’. They’re ‘doing the job’ and respected and ‘should remain for some time; they are a bonus to council’

COMMENT

When the Minister issues guidelines, 99.9% of councils treat such guidelines as the Holy Bible. Not so in Glen Eira. Even council’s own charter is ignored when it comes to the continual re-appointment of Audit Committee members. Both the charter and the guidelines (plus best practice) recommend that there be a fixed term for members and that regular rotation of members is essential. Gibbs and McLean have been appointed and reappointed numerous times since at least 1998. Lipshutz has been on the committee for what will now be 8 years straight.

Other councils routinely advertise the positions. Glen Eira hides behind the veil of secrecy. These reappointments are made in camera with no public announcements. Why? Could it be that full public disclosure of what is going on might be a tad embarrassing given that the obvious intent of LGA is thus continually abused and perverted? When other councils see nothing wrong in tabling their deliberations on independent membership, then questions need to be asked as to why Glen Eira treats the issue the way it does.

We are not in any way doubting the qualifications, experience, nor professionalism of these members. We do however insist that when guidelines are promulgated they should be adhered to. Secrecy and the perception of cronyism undermines the very principles embedded in the guidelines and the committee’s own charter.

Finally we wish to note that this year at least Council has decided to adhere to the charter by tabling the Committee’s Annual Report at a council meeting. Last year this did not happen and when questioned about it the ‘answer’ was that the report was published in Council’s Annual Report. It had never been presented at a formal council meeting!

AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT

LIPSHUTZ: reported on the Auditor General’s visit that not only is Glen Eira the ‘template’ for other councils but in terms of ‘best practice’ it is fabulous. ‘We are outstanding….doesn’t mean we can’t improve’ but Glen Eira is probably the ‘leading council in Victoria’ on issues. Said that council went through a rigorous process on the borrowings for GESAC and council was commended by the Auditor General. The issue of ‘reserves’ doesn’t give ‘any rise for concerns’. Glen Eira is the ‘leading exponent in terms of risk’. About ‘liquidity’ Glen Eira is ‘low risk’. The previous council said ‘we’re high risk’….’problems’…’that’s all poppycock’. Said that ‘this council is doing very well’. A ‘fantastic result’. Other councils come to Glen Eira to see how it’s done and great staff are responsible. ‘We are at the top’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘a fantastic report’ and commented on Lipshutz’s statement on risk and said that when she attended the Audit Committee and saw the Operational Risk Framework that had been done by officers she thought it was ‘exceptional’, ‘I’ve never seen anything as quite as detailed’….’something to behold’

HYAMS: congratulated officers and ‘decisions’ taken by previous councils. ‘Good news…..for all the residents of Glen Eira’. People should be happy that ‘their council is regarded so highly by the Auditor General’. Unable to help himself, Hyams then said that some people would ‘scuttle off home after this meeting and portray this as negatively as they can’ but for everyone else who really cares about ‘how the council is perceived and performs’ then this is great news.

COMMENT

Corporate memory, or Lipshutz’s memory is indeed a worry. Particularly so when less than a month ago Delahunty herself referred to the Auditor General’s classification of Glen Eira as ‘high risk’! Yes, council is now deemed ‘low risk’ but the initial grading did happen. ‘Risk’ is still risk, isn’t it?

We also raise the question that why shouldn’t this ‘exceptional’ Operational Risk Framework’ be public? If it is indeed ‘something to behold’, then shouldn’t the public see it? After all, it is only a ‘framework’ – figures, names, etc. could be removed and thus confidentiality maintained.

Our final comment pertains to the efforts that go into self-promotion and self congratulations. If a fraction of the time and expense that was expended on such exercises was actually put into listening and responding to residents’ concerns then we have no doubt that this municipality would be a far better place and organisation.

 

December 19, 2012

GESAC: Read & Weep!

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

LIPSHUTZ moved to accept recommendations and Option A. ($600,000 Gardener’s Rd revamp) Lobo seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: “We are the victims of our success”. They did not ‘in any way imagine’ that there would be 9000 members and ‘probably growing”. He thought that by the ‘end of summer’ there would be over 10,000 members. Gesac was ‘visionary’ but ‘unfortunately’ success brings ‘car parking problems’. The car parking has been ‘extended somewhat’ but they are realising that it’s ‘not sufficient’ so ‘the appropriate course’ is to increase car parking. Best way is to do it is through extending Gardener’s Rd because this won’t have an impact ‘at all’ on residents nor the park itself. Admitted that in the end council might have to build an underground car park or above ground car park but ‘that’s for the future’. Said that ‘if people can”t get in, they won’t go’ and the ‘more car park space we have the more GESAC will be a success’. Said that Option A is the ‘appropriate way to go’. Said that $600,000 is ‘little’ and would be recouped through increased patronage.

LOBO: ‘fully agree(d)” with Lipshutz. Went on to say that currently there’s an ‘inherent risk’ for children crossing the carpark to get to the facility and also at Bailey Reserve for the soccer players. ‘We cannot afford to have a tragedy” and “delay this any more”. Went on to say that ‘someone’ has written in the newspaper that consultation should be done. ‘You can’t do community consultations all the time”. When there’s a risk, and ‘council knows there is a risk” things have to be done. Therefore he supports Option A.

SOUNNESS: Said that council is very proud of it’s ‘risk profile’ but that ‘it’s completely got car parking wrong for GESAC’. Admitted that his ‘weakness’ was that he doesn’t know the ‘history of the site’ but after 3 council meetings that he’s attended if ‘you still have to go back to the drawing board’ and it’s still not right then ‘somewhere the sums have gone wrong’. He doesn’t doubt the success of GESAC but ‘why is it that car parking was so grossly miscalculated?’. Compared GESAC to MSAC and the fact that they’ve got heaps of car parking around, plus public transport, cycle paths, etc. Said he knows he will be in a minority but that ‘somewhere in the background there’s been a miscalculation’. Stated that many things are unfeasible such as railway line and even cycle paths won’t make much of a difference. Said he’s got real doubts and wants more information and that the community can rightly ask whether the park is now ‘just a sea of asphalt’.

MAGEE: challenged Lipshutz’s statement that people didn’t envisage that GESAC would be that popular and that ‘there was never any doubt in my mind”. Talked about the 7000 signature petition and that he had “many, many” more sheets that were signed by people who now might also become members. GESAC is an ‘outstanding success”. It won’t “please everybody” but does please thousands of people. “I’m very happy to see this parking go in” and that “this is not the end of the parking”. Saw a “need” for parking in “the centre of East Boundary Rd” and hoped that Vic Roads would grant permission for this. Saw this as a “great opportunity for a staff car park” and this would ‘free up another 30 or 40 spots” in the main car park. People shouldn’t “ignore the fact that GESAC is such a success” and all that’s happening is “taking away a bit of nature strip” in order to get “a much needed car park”. Concluded that he was “happy” to debate this with “anyone who wants to take this up with me personally”.

DELAHUNTY: Said that she liked Option A and that her husband was present to “make sure” that she voted for more carparking. She particularly liked the “drop off zone” and that this would “ease congestion”. GESAC “is an incredible success” and thought has to be given to how to get 9000 people there efficiently, safely and also thinking about the environment. Urged for more advocacy to get a bus route.

OKOTEL: in favour of Option A but still did share the “concerns’ of Sounness and Magee in that “further car parking will be required”. Said that in relation to Options C and D that these were “under study” and that she would welcome the results.

HYAMS: asked the movers if they would consider adding to the motion that Option D be continued to be considered (ie median strip parking in the centre of East Boundary Rd). Both Lipshutz & Lobo agreed.

OKOTEL: if the new amendment was accepted whether there might not also ‘be support for Option C?” (ie time restrictions on East Boundary Rd). Again accepted by mover and seconder.

HYAMS: asked Burke that if time restrictions come in on East Boundary Rd and already in the Bailey Reserve carpark whether this would be a problem for those cricket administrators ‘who spend all day’ there when the teams are playing?

BURKE: said ‘yes – it’s one of the concerns”

HYAMS: then wanted to move an amendment that the wording about Option C ‘be removed”. Asked for a seconder to the amendment. Lipshutz didn’t accept so Hyams moved it as a formal amendment. Delahunty seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: ” don’t say that we shouldn’t do it’ just needs to be seen if this is viable and therefore a report needs to be asked for – like he did with the Wi Fi request for a report.

OKOTEL: said that this study is already underway regarding Option C and that since the ‘study is already being prepared” that council should wait.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Lipshutz and Okotel that ‘this needs to be investigated’ and that there could ‘be a possibility of providing exemptions’ for ‘certain officials that require them’.

MAGEE: Said that ‘this is all about going backwards with GESAC’ since GESAC is ‘about encouraging people to come’. The amendment says that if you come for sporting activity like cricket which can go on for 5 or 6 hours so with timed restrictions ‘this is not a welcoming thing’. Said that as a ‘cricketer, I need somewhere to park, my children need somewhere to park’ and the ‘only avenue’ is Next we’ll ‘be pushed down’ to using the East Bentleigh shopping centre and local streets.on East Boundary Rd.

HYAMS: said that with Esakoff statement about certain officials, there are also cricketing, and other sporting groups so hard to ‘work out a system that would also include them’. Said that asking for a report is only ‘putting fear into the people that use’ the facilities and that ‘we don’t want to add to that stress’ when people are trying to park.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST: voted for: MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS.

AGAINST: LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, SOUNNESS, ESAKOFF, LOBO

LIPSHUTZ: said that GESAC has ‘the best consultants in Australia’ and they came to the ‘conclusion that certain parking was required’. There was also a ‘cost factor’ and safety factor and they didn’t put in an underground/above ground car park because ‘women do not like’ to use these. ‘We are a victim of our success’ and no one expected to have 9000 members. They knew it would be a success but ‘not to this extent’. Half way through building they realised that there wouldn’t be enough car parking space. So, ‘there’s no issue here of poor planning’ just a ‘huge success’ and ‘we will probably have to deal with (more) car parking in the future’. Council has to choose Option A otherwise GESAC won’t have ‘sufficient car park’ and that Option C should be ‘explored’ so as not to ‘impact on cricketers and people who use the park’

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED: For – Lipshutz, Lobo, Esakoff, Hyams, Delahunty, Magee,Okotel.

AGAINST – Sounness

COMMENTS

Once again the lack of consistency and logic in these discussions leaves much to be desired. Please note the following:

  • Suddenly there is an ‘inherent’ danger for pedestrians according to Lobo and that’s why he wants more cars on the adjacent street. Even better, he seems to have totally forgotten that on September 24th 2012 (less than 3 months ago!) a report was tabled on the ‘safety audit’ at GESAC which included the following statements:

“It is considered that the GESAC car park and Bailey Reserve provide a safe environment for pedestrians” AND

“The audit (May 2012) provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented.” Lobo himself then moved the motion to accept the report’s recommendations.

There are 3 possibilities here: (1) either safety issues have suddenly cropped up which would of course make a mockery of the safety audit, or (2) the report was entirely inaccurate, or (3) Lobo’s memory is failing rapidly!

  • We also take issue with Lipshutz’s statements that the problem with car parking is not a ‘planning issue’. Surely if a project of this size and cost is correctly planned then all contingencies are considered – from worse case scenarios, to best case scenarios? Further, what’s important is NOT the number of memberships, but the number of DAILY VISITORS. GESAC was stated to attract 500,000 visitors per year. We were told recently that the centre has 1500 visitors per day. That would mean that the yearly patronage still comes in at 547,000. Hardly a huge blowout from the original prognostication. Thus the question remains – how good was the original planning? Or is this ‘staged’ increase in car parking deliberate?
  • There is not one single word  in any of this discussion (apart from Lipshutz’s aside that there are no problems) about the traffic impact in Gardiner’s Rd, or any mention of the residents that live along this road. There have already been petitions from this group of residents as well as media coverage. We’re told that ‘consultation’ took place eons ago and that their fears were allayed. We wonder how ‘allayed’ their fears are now and whether they were even informed that this is happening?
  • It is surely most comforting to have Hyams so concerned about raising residents’ ‘fears’ by asking for a report. Ignorance is bliss we guess!
  • We congratulate Sounness for at least having the courage to call a spade a shovel. There have been major ‘miscalculations’ and all the spin, smoke and mirrors, and plain old propaganda cannot hide or disguise this self-evident truth.
  • Finally, we have to ask why oh why if GESAC is so successful is there still a need to place full page colour advertisements in the local newspapers on a weekly (and expensive) basis – especially given the financial report’s continuous urging for frugality?
 

December 19, 2012

Conflict of Interest #2

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

Item 9.1 – Emmy Monash (Hawthorn Rd) 4 storey development

Pilling was absent. Lipshutz moved an amendment that the officer’s recommendations for setbacks be reduced. Seconded by Okotel

LIPSHUTZ: Moved the motion to delete some of the paragraphs related to setbacks. Said that Emmy Monash does a ‘wonderful job’ with aged care and that there’s a ‘huge demand’ for aged care in Glen Eira. Architects did a fabulous job and they should be ‘commended’ and that ‘they’ve worked very closely with Council’  and the plans end up respecting neighbours and streetscape. Said he chaired the planning conference and that the major concerns were ‘overlooking and overshadowing’ and that proposed tree plantings would cause problems with roots down the track. This latter concern is ‘minor’ and overshadowing meets the regulations as they stand since ‘the law says we must look at the equinox’ (ie summer rather than winter). On setbacks, Lipshutz had ‘looked at that’ and thought ‘there was no need to have further setbacks’ since the developer’s setback is ‘greater than ResCode’. Uban designer wanted more landscaping but given the location Lipshutz ‘commended the application’.

OKOTEL: was very happy with the developer’s efforts to ‘ensure that…character (is) maintained’. Was also pleased that this would ‘provide a much needed facility’ for aged care.

DELAHUNTY: Asked Akehurst why the urban designer had included the set backs

AKEHURST: Said that he understood it wasn’t about the set backs but ‘access’ to the building and the driveway which ‘probably takes up opportunities for landscaping’ so it’s all about getting more landscaping in.

DELAHUNTY: agreed that there’s a strong need for aged care and that the development proposal had taken ‘up much time’ for the Emmy Monash  board and staff. Said that the president had written to all councillors ‘outlining the consultation processes’ with neighbours and the expense they had gone to. Said that she first met the president on the ‘campaign trail’ when she was ‘campaigning on my own behalf and he was campaigning’ on behalf of ‘councillor colleagues’ and ‘now we are here again meeting’ over the application. Said that the urban designer had recommended further setbacks and that this ‘was made clear (to applicant) during pre-certification process’ and that it would ‘reduce visual impact of building’.  Said that the setback was a ‘sensible compromise’ between community need and ‘neighbourhood amenity’.

SOUNNESS: Admitted that he had spent time with ‘Joe’ as well and thought that the plans were ‘excellent’. There is a need for aged care and the community would support it. Said the setbacks were also supported by the Landscape officer and that for the people who will live there access to the ‘environment is important’. Said that trees are a feature of this area. The design does have 4 storeys and bulk in contrast to the church next door which is ‘setback magnificently’. Said that with the setbacks the possibilities of a 20, 30 metre tree are all ‘compromised’ by the reduction of these setbacks. Said that this is a ‘beautiful development’ but he’s got this reservation about the lack of trees in the area and the bulk and height of the proposed development and therefore against the amendment.

LOBO: said that this was a ‘state of the art’ building and it couldn’t be better. His concern is setback because ‘we always struggle on informing people about setbacks’. Here it is ‘in front’ and he’s got ‘no problems’ since he was told that it is permissable.

ESAKOFF: said that the setbacks are ‘generous’ and ‘in excess’ of what’s ‘legally required’. It’s a much need facility and will be providing ’94 very spacious rooms’ and ‘enormous communal spaces’. Facilities are ‘magnificent’. Said she’s never seen anything that ‘provides the sorts of spaces’ that’s included in the plans. The plans are ‘fantastic’ and will create ‘new benchmarks’ for the future. Well placed and set back from ‘residential properties’ and ‘maximum protection’ from overlooking and overshadowing. They will also be ‘no doubt’ good neighbours, ‘quiet, respectful’.

MAGEE: when he first read it he was ‘quite happy’ with the setback and he was more concerned about the 4th storey. His concern is ‘does it fit’ into the streetscape. Said that he would have been happy with the lower floor setback leaving 1st and 2nd floor ‘exactly as they are’. Won’t support the recommendation because of the 4th floor and that the added 2 metre setback ‘is appropriate’.

HYAMS: welcomed the president to the meeting and said that it’s important to ‘note’ that Emmy Monash is a not for profit organisation so the developer isn’t doing this for his ‘own pocket’. Main concern is about the further 2 metre setback or not. Said he had ‘wrestled’ with this and the issue is about providing canopy trees or providing for people so it ‘comes down to trees versus rooms’. Quoted from the report about ‘social’ needs and ‘community needs’. Spoke about other building and their setbacks including student housing that has a ‘lesser setback’ than proposed here. Because the building is on an angle this would make it ‘less visually dominant’. He’s never seen such an application where there is ‘more planning spaces than required’. Just in case he would need to use his casting vote he ‘takes comfort’ from the fact that Pilling had said he would support the Lipshutz motion.

LIPSHUTZ: said it ‘wasn’t a question of no trees’ but a question of ‘how many trees you have and how much landscaping you do’ and that if he was to ‘weigh up’ amenity and rooms against ‘trees’ the former would win. Also, ‘you can always have more trees’. This application is a ‘template’ of how it should be done because developers worked ‘strongly’ with council, neighbours and ‘took into account’ the objections. Went on to say since Delahunty ‘raised it’ that Krampl certainly did hand out How To Vote Cards for certain candidates’ that this ‘had nothing to do with the application’. Council looks at the application ‘on its merits and not on personality’. The application is ‘well designed’

MOTION PUT TO VOTE AND CARRIED. FOR – ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, OKOTEL, HYAMS

AGAINST; DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, MAGEE

 

December 18, 2012

Conflict Of Interest?

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

It’s clear that when it comes to Cr Lipshutz there is no such thing as ‘conflict of interest’. From the ‘debate’ that occurred regarding the Emmy Monash 4 storey aged care application in Hawthorn Rd comments were made that the applicant just happened to be handing out ‘How to Vote Cards’ for certain councillor/s. We assume that the councillor in question was Lipshutz, especially since prior to the meeting there was a very, very warm handshake between these individuals and both were on a first name basis.

On GESAC and extended car parking on Gardener’s Rd – it, of course, got the go ahead with the prospect of further car parking ‘arrangements’ to be undertaken since, as Lipshutz stated, council was the ‘victim of its (GESAC’s) success’! Again potential questions of conflict of interest were ignored with Hyams moving an amendment that sporting clubs and their officials should have extended parking rights (defeated). Magee agreed with Hyams. Given that both belong to such sporting clubs, one could ask whether this might constitute another conflict of interest?

We will report in detail on these and other decisions in the coming days.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »