Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

December 18, 2012

What’s Safety Worth?

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

Murrumbeena students at risk, says mum

18 Dec 12 @ 05:00am by Donna Carton

Parents and students from Murrumbeena Primary School are campaigning for a school crossing on Murrumbeena Rd.

Parents and students from Murrumbeena Primary School are campaigning for a school crossing on Murrumbeena Rd.

WORRIED parents say busy Murrumbeena Rd is now too dangerous for schoolchildren.

They want a crossing supervisor at the busy road to allow Murrumbeena Primary students to walk to school and ease traffic congestion at pick-up and drop-off times.

A VicRoads assessment has found not enough schoolchildren cross the road to warrant a crossing.

But mum Christine Farnan said many parents drove their kids to Murrumbeena Primary, even if it’s a short journey, rather than let them negotiate the road on their own.

“For years we have been asking for a crossing to be built,”Ms Farnham said. “Parents drive their children due to the traffic dangers.”

Parents have now requested Glen Eira Council employ a supervisor to help children at the Murrumbeena and Dandenong roads lights crossing.

“It’s not ideal. That is a very busy spot, but it is better than nothing,” Ms Farnan said.

Cr Neil Pilling said he had spoken to worried parents and would ask for more council investigation.

“Council should re-examine this. This is a very busy road, not helped by one of the worst level crossings (at Murrumbeena),” he said.

“I will advocate for a crossing supervisor funded either wholly by council or shared with VicRoads.”

COMMENTS

Ostensibly this sounds like a pretty straight forward problem. However it reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of this council and the temerity of many of its councillors. Instead of real action, all Pilling can do is ask for ‘more council investigation’! If this Council was really run by its councillors instead of administrators, and the Local Laws reflected this, then the solution would be simple:

  • At tonight’s council meeting Pilling would move the motion that a part time lolly pop person be employed. End of story! Or since this council has delegated practically all responsibility to officers and the CEO has control over the hiring of staff, the issue could be solved in a matter of moments – if councillors simply ‘request’ the exercise of this delegated power.
  • We are not talking huge salaries (crossing supervisors are part time, and earn about $12 per hour). This shouldn’t even descend into the farce of Vic Roads versus Council responsibility. When Caulfield Park can be earmarked for about half a million dollars of concrete plinthing then the argument of who pays becomes obscene.
  • Given the current rigging of the Local Law meeting procedures councillors have no control over the agenda; there is no notice of motion; ‘urgent’ matters have to fall within the space of agenda release and council meeting – which wouldn’t apply in this case since the issue has been ongoing for some time; and finally, councillors have been told time and time again that they shouldn’t make any decisions without the good advice provided by officers – ie reports! Thus the wheels of democratic efficiency flounder time and time again on such utter nonsense!
  • We anticipate that Pilling may ask for a Request for A Report. If so, that will now not surface until February 5th next year – at the earliest. Kids will already be back at school by then!
 

December 6, 2012

Why We Should Be Concerned!

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

This is a long post on the Planning Zone Reforms, but we believe an exceedingly important one. We urge readers to carefully consider the contents and to compare this Stonnington effort (Council meeting 3rd December) to what is occurring in Glen Eira. A few things require highlighting:

  • Glen Eira Council is yet to publish its FINAL submission to Government. All that is available on council’s website is the draft proposal tabled at council and not the final submission. This has never been made public!
  • No update or progress report has emanated from council. There is also no mention of the ‘metropolitan strategy’.
  • Stonnington held community forums and information evenings. No such events occurred in Glen Eira.
  • Council writes of ‘smooth transitions’ to the new zones. Our interpretation of this is simply that Glen Eira will steam roll ahead with what currently exists. Information will be minimal and consultation outcomes eventually ignored as per usual.
  • Please note the tone of the Stonnington report and their concerns. These are sure to be similar in Glen Eira.
  • Bolded sections are our emphases.

‘PLANNING ZONE REFORMS

Manager:  Stephen Lardner

Executive Manager: Karen Watson

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the planning zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning.

Background

The proposed zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning in July 2012 represent a significant change to the Victorian Planning System. The consultation period for the planning zones ran for 2 months from 11 July until 28 September 2012 (this was extended from the 21 September 2012). A discussion paper, fact sheets for each zone and an online form (all available on the DPCD website) were released for the public and Councils to utilise throughout the consultation period.

The Minister has indicated that the objectives of the proposed zone reforms include simplifying requirements and providing greater certainty, to allow a broader range of activities to be considered (in support of improved economic performance) and to improve the range of zones to better manage growth. However no explanatory report to justify or outline how the new zones will achieve these objectives and outcome was made available, nor has one been released since the close of consultation.

The reforms propose three new residential zones, a new commercial zone and a change to the mixed-use zone and an industrial zone relevant to Stonnington. The key features and issues of the proposed zoning reforms that will impact on Stonnington can be found in Attachment 1.

Officers assessed the changes in detail and sought clarification and justification where possible to enable an informed consideration of how the planning zone reforms will impact on the Municipality. In response to requests for further information by community groups and individuals, Council held a community information session on 30 August 2012.  Peter Allen, Executive Director of Statutory Planning Systems Reforms, Department of Planning and Community Development and local Member for Prahran Clem Newton-Brown both presented on the reforms. The event was received well with approximately 60 residents and stakeholders in attendance.

On 10 September 2012, Council adopted the submission in response to the Planning Zone Reforms consultation as outlined in Attachment 2 to this report. Officer’s assessment of the implications of the new zones identified major concerns.  The main issues identified are as follows:

  • A lack of strategic justification, identification and understanding of the economic and social impacts of the reforms.
  • The negative impact of Activity Centres from the proposed expansion and dispersal of commercial uses into adjoining residential areas.
  • Reduced residential amenity from ‘as of right’ commercial uses in residential zones and the intended expansions of Activity Centres into residential zones.
  • The reforms encourage high density housing in all Activity Centres, without context or control.
  • There is no economic study, no housing strategy, no capacity assessment or targets to provide the context which justifies the reforms.
  • A lack of detailed information on key issues including transitioning to the new zones, consultation, resourcing, strategic context, current planning applications and VCAT appeals.

Discussion

It was initially stipulated that after the Government’s consultation period concluded in September 2012, the reformed commercial and industrial zones would be automatically implemented and local planning scheme schedules would be adjusted to align with the changes required. In its submission, Council raised concerns about the timing and resources of converting the zones.

Councils were to be given 12 months from the finalisation of the zones, to consider and apply for a conversion of existing residential zones. There were no criteria available to assist with this conversion process during the consultation stage. It is anticipated that the transitional process for the residential zones will require a major Planning Scheme Amendment process which would take up significant Council resources. Following the State Planning Scheme Amendment process, this would be both costly and time consuming and would well exceed the 12 months allowed.

On 14 September 2012 the Minister for Planning announced an advisory committee with Geoff Underwood as Chair and Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will provide advice about the final form of the proposed zones and how they should be introduced (see Attachment 3 – Terms of Reference). They will recommend a set of criteria to help determine the appropriate application of the reformed residential zones

The Committee has been asked to submit its findings and recommendations in relation to:

  • the reformed residential zones and their criteria in December 2012
  • other zones in February 2013.

Submissions to the reforms will be available to view on the DPCD website in December 2012.

One of the key deficiencies with the reforms is that it has been released and potentially will be implemented before the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy.  The zones are a strategy implementation tool and the strategy does not yet exist. On October 26 2012 the Minister for Planning launched ‘Melbourne, let’s talk about the future’, a discussion paper to inform the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy and to seek further public consultation into the development of the strategy. This is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.

The identification of Council’s new Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas and existing Heritage Overlays will assist in clarifying the most sensitive areas within residential zones in Stonnington and will facilitate the translation of appropriate areas to the new residential zones. The proposed new residential zones also provide an opportunity to transfer general neighbourhood character objectives for the City into the applicable new residential zone.

At this stage, there is no updated advice from DPCD on the transition process and the status of other initiatives such as new policies or the application of other controls.

Policy Implications

Objectives of Stonnington’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) will be challenged by the introduction of high density residential development in all Activity Centres including Neighbourhood Activity Centres. Many policies in the MSS will become redundant without triggers for a permit.

Maintaining the hierarchy of commercial development is a policy objective for the existing Metropolitan Strategy “Melbourne 2030” specifically;

“The viability of many existing activity centres is threatened by retail and commercial developments that are set up some distance from them, particularly stand-alone developments such as corporate offices, strings of super-stores along main roads, or clusters of highway convenience retail outlets. Often these have poor accessibility to public transport and rely on car-based transport.

In aiming to maintain a hierarchy of centres, activity centre policy has given clear direction for a number of larger activity centres but limited direction for mid-sized and neighbourhood centres.”

Financial and Resources Implications

An assessment of the financial implications to Council will be undertaken following the release of the conversion and strategic justification criteria. The process may take several years to implement largely at the cost of the Council and local community.  It will also require a major commitment from community groups and individuals responding to the wide-spread impacts of these changes. 

Legal Advice and Implications

Legal advice may be sought for the next stage of the process.

Conclusion

These proposed reforms change the fundamental principals embedded in the planning scheme, without the necessary detail to understand and assess these changes.

The political purpose of these reforms is to provide developers with greater opportunities for development and stimulate economic activity. The other purpose is to give residents greater certainty and stop redevelopment in select residential areas. In doing so, it potentially fails to address the broader planning, economic and social consequences of only considering these two interest groups.

The combined impact of these changes will have a significant effect on the future character and liveability of Melbourne and its long history of community participation in planning. Further reports will be made to Council as the reforms progress.

Human Rights Consideration

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

There are potential issues within reforms including changes to Third Party Appeal Rights and the established understanding of allowable uses which can occur within Residential Zones which could be considered as impinging on Human Rights.

Recommendation

That Council note the update to the Planning Zone Reforms.

 

 

December 3, 2012

The Spin Doctors At Work

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

At the last council meeting officers provided a report in response to the motion moved by Okotel and Esakoff.

“In the interest of transparency and demystifying the planning process for residents and ratepayers, I request a report on:

(a) The information provided to applicants and objectors in relation to Council’s procedures in dealing with planning applications; and

(b) If and how applicants and objectors are informed about the points along the process where they can be involved or express their views.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”

In accepting this report both councillors praised its ‘fulsome’ and ‘comprehensive nature’ although Okotel did comment on several ‘misprints’ that managed to worm their way into official documents. Sadly she did not elaborate! We beg to differ on these  evaluations of the report.

The entire report, presumably by Jeff Akehurst since his name is provided for ‘enquiries’, is merely a regurgitation of the current provided information, and the usual litany of self-congratulatory statements. For example, one sentence claims that both the DPC and the Planning Conferences are a result of “Council choos(ing) to have these public forums in the interest of broader community involvement in town planning decision making.” “Community involvement’ is a wonderful catchcry. It is however illusory in Glen Eira when the implementation of these committees are examined in detail.

The DPC meetings are far from encouraging ‘broader community involvement’ for the following reasons:

  1. Objectors, if they’re lucky, receive only 5 days notice! Further it is not clear whether this means that letters are posted 5 days earlier, or whether council ensures via earlier posting, that objectors have the full 5 days notice. It is even conceivable that if the letters are posted on a Friday, and the DPC meeting is arranged for a Tuesday or Wednesday, that objectors would only receive the notification on the Monday. Hardly a full 5 days notice. Surely if ‘broader community involvement’ was the real objective, Council would inform objectors far earlier of the set dates.
  2. DPC meetings are scheduled DURING OFFICE HOURS. Hardly an appropriate time for resident objectors to attend such a conference if they work. Once again, this would limit and hinder full participation by all objectors. Since community forums and other countless meetings are held in the evening, and if the desire for ‘broader community involvement’ was genuine, then DPC meetings would also be held in the evenings when a far greater number of residents would be likely to attend.
  3. No councillor is granted decision making authority for these meetings. We even wonder whether councillors know which applications are being considered by the DPC, or more significantly, when they find out. Before the fact, or after the permit has been granted or refused? In this instance, councillors are sidelined as effectively as residents. All committee members are officers and the meetings generally go for about one hour. It is further not compulsory for applicants to attend. No minutes or records of DPC decisions are available for public scrutiny. Hardly a transparent and accountable process!

 

PLANNING CONFERENCES

Whilst a councillor is chair of such meetings, and planning conferences usually go to council for ultimate decision making, the procedures are again non conducive to ‘broader community involvement’. Some of the reasons are the same as those outlined above –

  • The lack of sufficient notice
  • The repeated gagging of objector comments and questions (ie Mahvo St is the perfect example)
  • Applicants often do not attend and hence are not available for questioning and ‘compromise’ with residents

The greatest drawback however is that NO OFFICER recommendations are available until the application appears as a report in council agenda papers. This is made public on Friday – usually late in the afternoon on Council’s website. It should again be pointed out that most people work. Most people would also be respectful of councillors’ weekends. So that means that objectors only have 2 working days in order to analyse the officer’s recommendations, contact their councillors and attempt to achieve some favourable outcomes. Timing is everything. Why aren’t the officers’ recommendations reported back to objectors well before the item surfaces as a council agenda item? The 64 dollar question would be – are developers notified of officer recommendations in the same manner or do they get a look in well before objectors find out the fate of the application?

The entire planning processes in Glen Eira are designed to favour the applicant rather than the resident objector. Okotel and Esakoff may continue singing the praises of officer reports, but in doing so they fail to address the central concerns of how such information is disseminated and what protocols are in existence to ensure a fair hearing for both objectors and applicants.

 

December 2, 2012

Even Greater Nonsense!

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

Here’s the unbelievable response to a public question asked at last council meeting. We draw readers’ attention to:

  • The waffle & irrelevance
  • The failure to address the major concern of the question – ie why officer reports do not directly engage (and hence answer) the questions raised via the Request for a Report
  • The unnecessary length

Subject: McKinnon Reserve fence.

The McKinnon Reserve fencing report does not provide Council with an opportunity to decide if gates should be installed at the McKinnon Reserve or if no gates are more appropriate in a fenced reserve. Surely when there are a number of residents requesting gates be returned to the reserve, it is for Council not Officers to decide if the community’s wishes are to be heard? The complete removal, rather than the careful management of the so called ‘dangerous’ Cypress trees along Tucker Road remains a mystery to many residents as the Cypress trees inside the reserve itself remain (although whats done is done). When will this Council provide local residents with an on-going opportunity to have their say in the improvements and changes made in our local reserves?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council dealt with this matter earlier in the meeting at Agenda Item 9.4 and you will be able to find Council’s resolution in the Minutes of the meeting.

Your assertions are not correct. The report at Agenda Item 9.4 presents the Council with the opportunity to make whatever decision it wishes to. Had Councillors chosen to have gates installed, we could have passed a motion to that effect. It is the Council and not as you assert Council Officers that decide resolutions of Council.

It is Council Policy to remove trees in only a limited number of circumstances. Such circumstances include a tree being dead, close to death or structurally unsound.Residents whose properties back on to the Reserve and users of the reserve had expressed ongoing concern about the Cypress trees at the southern end of the reserve. Concerns included the declining appearance of the trees and the increasing number of limb failures.

Council’s records indicate that between January 2008 and April 2009 alone, twelve structural branches fell. The electricity company had also been in contact with Council and required Council to prune the trees to comply with the Victorian Government’s new Electrical Line Clearance Regulations (2010).

In response to the community’s concerns and the electricity companies’ direction, Council commissioned an independent arboricultural report of the trees. Key findings were:

 The trees would no longer be viable if pruned to the extent the new Regulations required

 The trees had reached the end of their safe useful life

 The risk of further limb failure was high

 The trees should be removed

The Cypress trees in the north of the reserve were not identified as a risk at that time. Given the findings of the report, there was no other option but for Council to remove the Cypress trees in the south of the reserve.

To inform the community of this, Council’s Parks Services Department:

 Hand delivered letters to 186-236 Tucker Rd, 197 Tucker Rd, 17-25 St James Ave, 2 and 2A Osborne Ave, and

 Erected nine A3 size signs in the reserve: four along the Tucker Road frontage; two at the front entrance; two at the cricket practice nets; and one at the rear entrance.

The letter to residents was dated 22 August 2011 and read as follows:

“TO THE RESIDENT AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR COUNCIL

Dear Resident

Re. McKinnon Reserve – Tree removal works

Council recently commissioned an arboricultural report on the health and condition of the rows of Cypress trees located in McKinnon Reserve.

The report identified that the Cypress trees along the southern boundary and eastern boundary (Tucker Road frontage) of the reserve are over mature, have poor structure and the likelihood of significant limb failure is high. As a consequence the risk to people, powerlines and property is high. The report recommends the removal of the entire southern and eastern rows of 178 Cypress trees.

Council plans to commence removing the trees on Monday 29th August 2011. The immediate area around the affected trees will be fenced off during works to ensure the safety to park users. Replacement trees will be planted later in 2011.

If you need any further information on this matter please contact Council’s Tree Maintenance Coordinator Mr David Edwards on 9524 3333.

Yours sincerely,

Laurie Unwin

Manager Park Services”

The nine signs that were erected around the Reserve read as follows:

“PUBLIC NOTICE – Tree Removal Works

An independent arborist has identified the need to remove the southern and eastern rows of over mature Cypress trees in McKinnon Reserve (178 trees in total).The trees are in poor condition, have poor structure and many have had branches fail and fall.

To eliminate the risk to people, powerlines and property Council will commence removing the trees on the southern and Tucker Road boundaries on Monday 29th August.

To ensure safety, Council will fence off the effected trees before starting works and request that park users do not enter these areas. Council is planning to plant new trees later in 2011.”

The independent arborist who is professionally qualified in these matters did not regard the trees that required removing as ‘so called dangerous’.

This Council has always provided opportunities for input into the development of our City. Public consultation is a feature that has informed Council’s development of park masterplans and strategies and the elected Councillors will be continuing with this feature. Previous examples include:

 Boyd Park Management Plan

 Caulfield Park Masterplan

 Bentleigh Hodgson Masterplan

 Packer Park Masterplan

 Princes Park Masterplan

 The Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC)

 The Dog off leash review

 Bicycle Strategy

 Packer Park West development

 Duncan Mackinnon Reserve Masterplan

 Murrumbeena Play space redevelopment

 Former Booran Road Reservoir Redevelopment.

A forthcoming example will be the Open Space Strategy review that will commence in the near future. This will involve wide consultation.

Of course, residents can also always contact Council or Councillors about any concerns they have in relation to any park and these will be examined and considered.”

 

November 30, 2012

Open Space, Lost Opportunities & More Bloody Pavilions!

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

This post attempts to tie together 3 consistent themes and to ask the basic question: are pavilions that cost millions a greater priority in Glen Eira that the creation (and preservation) of open space?

This question is the result of MP Miller’s announcement in Hansard (29th November) that a $500,000 grant has been awarded by the State Government for the development of a ‘brand new pavilion, including changing rooms and clubhouse facilities” at Centenary Park. In 2007, according to the ‘Priority List’ established for pavilions, the estimated cost was ‘more than $2,000,000”. The Duncan McKinnon development at the time was listed as ‘more than $6,000,000’. That means that council will be forking out at least a few million for another pavilion!

Let us state clearly that we are not against the (re)development of existing pavilions. What we question are the priorities of this council when literally millions upon millions are poured into very questionable taj mahals and practically nothing is spent on what residents and some councillors have identified as a major need in Glen Eira – the acquisition of more open space.

Opportunity after opportunity to acquire more land has gone begging. Even when land is available council does nothing about it – ie. the Booran Rd Reservoir will stand untouched for another 4 years. What a disgrace that no funding has been allocated to this important potential source of open space when the issue has dragged on for nearly 10 years. We also remind readers of the recent debacle over the Alma Club when for $3 million council could have acquired property that eventually sold for just under $8 million.

Now there is another opportunity – the sale of 487 Neerim Rd. The real estate advertisement (below) shows that it is right in a reserve. Why can’t this be purchased? Why must new pavilions be built year after year (rather than upgraded) at the expense of what residents have repeatedly highlighted as one of the three major concerns – overdevelopment, consultation and lack of open space. Why must this perfect potential for more passive parkland be ignored so that more units, and cars can clog Neerim Rd which is already a disaster? Why has nothing been done about the Open Space Levy and its ridiculously low cost to developers – especially since this was mooted to be ‘looked at’ nearly 3 years ago and especially since other councils are applying a 5% levy across their entire municipalities? And why, oh why, aren’t the funds collected from this levy used in the manner that the legislation primarily intended – the acquisition of public open space?

Finally, we wish to point out the obvious. The delicate position of MP Miller in Bentleigh leads to all kinds of pork barrelling by the Libs. But $500,000 doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It has to be asked for, and a project nominated. Council obviously asked for the Centenary Park funding. They could just as easily have applied for anything else. The priorities of this administration and some of its councillors needs to be questioned and they need to justify why sporting facilities are continually more important than plain old open space. And open space that is likely to shrink even further once the footprint of these pavilions encroaches on parkland, car parks are extended and concrete, yellow brick roads continue to overtake green parkland.

PS: We’ve done some further homework on this site and there’s a long history associated with 487 Neerim Rd. None of it flatters our administration! Here are the facts:

  • In 1985 there was a subdivision for 2 houses to be subdivided
  • In 2005 an application went in for 9 double storey dwellings (refused)
  • In 2008,3 storey dwelling; 26 dwellings (refused)
  • In 2009, the officers recommended a permit for two storeys and 23 dwellings. Councillors refused a permit
  • In 2009 VCAT (on amended plans) accepted 3 storeys and 28 dwellings (See:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/2529.html)
  • THE AREA IS MINIMAL CHANGE!

So what does all this mean? First off, it tells us that the saga of 487 Neerim Rd. has been on the horizon for nearly 20 years and not once has council apparently thought of purchasing the land even though it has a Special Building Overlay and is prone to flooding. Secondly, if officers recommended 2 storeys eons ago, the likelihood is that this will now occasion at least a 5 storey development. Thirdly, given this history, it is most likely that there is an existing permit on this land – something council clearly would know about. Again, they have been quite content to sit back and allow it to go to developers! So much for the empty refrain of lack of open space, the protected nature of minimal change areas, and the danger of flooding. What should be open space will likely become a living nightmare for residents of Murrumbeena.

 

November 29, 2012

More Nonsense

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

PS: By way of contrast we’re adding this titbit of news from the Port Phillip Council Meeting Minutes of 27th November 2012, Page 3. The difference to the way things are done in Glen Eira is, of course, staggering.

“A petition was received from 14 signatories in relation to parking on Bridge Street between Lyons Street to Esplanade East, Port Melbourne.

MOVED BY CRS TOUZEAU/VOSS

That Council:

Receives the petitions and refers it to officers for investigation. A proposal will then be developed for possible new parking restrictions. A subsequent survey/questionnaire will be distributed to properties adjacent to Bridge Street Port Melbourne seeking feedback.The survey will inform any new parking restrictions that may be implemented.

A vote was taken and the motion was carried”

 

COMMENTS

We find it most refreshing that councillors actually TELL officers what to do! We also find it most refreshing that decisions are made on the spot, not a year later. We also find it most refreshing that transparency and consultation is an integral part of a response. The take home message for our councillors is that where there’s a will , there’s definitely a way!

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

The minutes of 7th February 2012 recorded this petition from residents:

A petition co-signed by 23 signatories was tabled which read as follows:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council our wish that there be trees planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond. Prioritising tree planting on our street will help realise the Glen Eira Community Plan, Street Tree Strategy and Environmental Sustainability Strategy. We believe that this action will significantly improve the psychological, social and environmental quality of our street. We understand that trees would have to be planted on the road and that there will be some associated loss of car parking space. Your petitioners therefore pray that trees are planted on Murray Road, Mckinnon/Ormond as soon as possible.”

The petition, as per normal was ‘received and noted’ unanimously.

Now, 9 months later at Tuesday night’s council meeting Pilling submitted a request for a report on the planting of street trees in Murray Rd. This was seconded by Esakoff. Pilling said that it’s a narrow street and lacks trees and there was the need to improve the ‘amenity of the street’. Esakoff agreed that ‘the street could certainly do with some greening’. Okotel  was ‘pleased’ because this issue was ‘long overdue’ and that concerns of residents ‘are being heard’ and that the report will be the means to ‘ensure that (the issue) ‘will be addressed without further delay”.

We highlight this Request for a Report because it again illustrates the failure of this council and its councillors to institute processes that respond in a timely fashion to resident concerns. We note the following:

  • In other councils petitions are not merely ‘noted’ – they are immediately passed on to the relevant department for action. In Glen Eira petitions generally disappear into the ether and unless residents keep the issue up front, they are invariably ignored and forgotten.
  • Now we have the farce of waiting for another officer’s report. With NO NOTICE OF MOTION available to councillors, the community is again in the hands of officers who may take months and months to report back and then possibly another major time lag before anything is actually planted.
  • The ‘solution’ is very simple it would seem to us. Councillors must ensure that when petitions are tabled they are acted upon, or responded to immediately. It is literally a joke that it takes 9 months, and another officers’ report in order to get anything done in Glen Eira. Not only is this a slap in the face to residents, but it also means more time and expense wasted on unnecessary paper work by officers.
  • Further, if councillors were so concerned about ‘greening’ Murray Rd. did the thought ever occur to them that a simple resolution which stated ’30 street trees to be planted in Murray Rd’ might have sufficed? That is of course, if such a motion passed the ‘no surprises’ component of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law and if it could somehow be squeezed into an agenda set by Newton!
 

November 27, 2012

What A Welcoming, Flexible Council This Is!

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

The fully orchestrated nature of the councillor briefing was evident in the first item of tonight’s council meeting. Esakoff moved to accept the minutes of previous meeting “as printed” when Hyams said “Are you sure of that?”. Esakoff then looked at her notes and moved that there be a correction – changing the printed days from a Monday to a Tuesday for the Special Council Meeting! But the meeting reached new heights of arrogance, if not sheer lunacy when it came to public questions. One question asked what input residents could have as to the development and maintenance of their parks and facilities. The response was a world record no doubt – at least 5 minutes of the most inane, irrelevant and arrogant waffle ever produced by any council we would think. Once the full minutes come out we urge all readers to take the time to peruse this response. It is quite unbelievable.

GARDENVALE RD DEVELOPMENT

Delahunty moved an amendment which basically included changes and additions to the conditions imposed on the application – ie. carparking, insertion of bollards, car stackers to be maintained by body corporate ‘in good working order’. Seconder was Lipshutz.

DELAHUNTY: Said that this area ‘was very close’ to her heart and that she had spent many hours in this area. The proposed development ‘has some excellent features’ and doesn’t impact on residential areas and that a notice is published about residents not being issued with residential parking. Stated that since it’s so close to the railway station it will be ‘a selling point for the developers’. Went on to say that the Martin St., shopping strip belongs to Bayside Council and that right now that council ‘is considering the development of structure plans…..(and is)’recognition that (the area) is growing (into an important community centre and Bayside see the preparation of a structure plan as ‘required’. The ‘structure plan is a long term guide for land use….it creates the framework of how  a centre is planned….and the actions needed to realise that framework’. Concluded by ‘urging’ councillors to consider the ‘greater strategic role’ for shaping Gardenvale ‘through the use of structure plans’.

LIPSHUTZ: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’.

ESAKOFF: doesn’t support the recommendation because she felt that ‘the number of car parking spaces for visitors….should be provided’. The area is already ‘busy’ and ‘it would be an unfortunate precedent’ not to insist on visitor car parking spaces. Said that these requirements should have been applied and if they couldn’t be then another option was to ‘reduce the number of dwellings’. Confirmed that ‘parking is an ongoing issue in Glen Eira’ so even though it might seem a ‘small reason’ not to support the recommendation ‘but it’s my reason’.

OKOTEL: supported Esakoff. Said that the planning scheme requires that there be 2 visitor car parking spaces ‘as a starting point’ but this could be waived ‘depending on’ evidence. Said that she didn’t think that this ‘warrants a waiver’…’important that we ensure there is compliance with’ the planning scheme.

AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY ASKED IF HE COULD SPEAK. HYAMS SAID ‘NO WE’VE HAD A PLANNING CONFERENCE WHICH’ gives the opportunity for the public to speak….’we don’t allow members of the public to address council’. The resident then asked ‘when is the planning conference?’. Hyams said that it had been held and that all objectors were notified.Resident said that ‘I’ve got a notice here saying that there’s a council meeting’ on the 27th’ ‘and I’m invited to attend’. Hyams then said ‘Yes but it doesn’t say you’re invited to speak’. Resident said ‘I’ve got a problem with this’. Hyams – ‘said he ‘understood’ but the Local Law is ‘that councillors speak at council meetings’ unless it’s on the agenda that the public is ‘invited to speak’. Went on to say that they ‘specifically’ have planning conferences where the public can ‘address’ councillors…’it’s not a statutary requirement, but we do it’ and people can then speak to council. ‘Council meeting is not the forum’.

Went on to the application. ‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: Voting for were: Hyams, Delahunty, Pilling, Souness, Lipshutz. Against – Okotel, Esakoff, Magee (Lobo was absent)

We will follow up with the rest of the items in the coming days.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »