Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 1, 2012

Hyams: How Soon We Forget!

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

Featured below is only one comment attributed to Hyams following the release of the Ombudsman’s report. There were of course many comments which taken together reveal once more the thinking that is undoubtedly behind much of what has happened. It’s an election year first and foremost and the pressure is definitely on. We restrict ourselves however to only one of Hyams’ alleged statements published in the Melbourne Bayside Weekly because of the sublime irony it contains –

Glen Eira mayor Jamie Hyams said voters should take the report’s findings into account at the next election. “The decision to run is up to Frank,” he said.

Leaving aside the sheer political expediency (nastiness?) of such a comment, we simply ask: Is this the reason Hyams didn’t run in 2005 after he had been sacked by the Minister? The fear that voters would ‘take the report’s findings into account’? Three years later, when he stood for election, we presume there was always the hope that the notoriety would have slipped voters’ minds! Ah, how soon some of us do forget and would like others to forget!

 

March 30, 2012

Mulch: The Acid Test

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

One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY.  Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:

  • The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
  • The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks

Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.

Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?

Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?

We should remember that:

  • In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
  • When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
  • Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.

The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.

At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.

This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?

 

March 30, 2012

The Ombudsman’s Report: A Resident’s View

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

Based on a careful reading of the report, the public should be concerned about the role of Ombudsman in investigating people as distinct from government organisations, practices, and legislation. I’d be furious if a report was written as maliciously about me. As for the timing, designed to prejudice a matter before VCAT, one good thing to emerge so far from VCAT is that it criticized the lack of specifics in Council’s case. The Ombudsman makes the same mistakes, and adds several of his own. The overall impression is that the Ombudsman is not a reasonable person, is incapable of critically analysing information, and is prepared to use his incredible coercive powers to assist (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of a fellow bureaucrat.

Analyzing the report properly would take a similar amount of space to that of the Ombudsman’s, which would be about as tedious as his own report. For the moment I’ll just make the following general comments.

The report is not about conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council. The report makes that claim, but the contents reveal that the report is only concerned with Cr Penhalluriack. No investigation of poor governance or bullying by other members of council or council staff has been done.

Although Worksafe appears in a list of reports done by the Ombudsman, there is no appearance of Worksafe with respect to various accusations made about bullying, harrassment, humiliation. Its almost as if Council is aware that should Worksafe be involved, the behaviour of other individuals, include the Mayor and CEO, would be examined. Maybe they have received legal advice warning them not to involve Worksafe. I have previously pointed out some behaviours that constitute bullying according to examples provided by Worksafe. Incidentally, there is only one piece of evidence in the report concerning harrassment, and the victim was Cr Penhalluriack.

The expression “conflict of interest” is bandied about in the report carelessly. “Conflict of Interest” is defined in Local Government Act, which also places limitations on what is conflict of interest. Both Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman are aware of LGA 77A(4). The Ombudsman sneeringly dismisses it (“irrelevant”), but doesn’t say why. Quite simply, the Ombudsman despite *all* the evidence available to him concerning the mulch heap, doesn’t see it as a health issue. Even the CEO did though, taking some actions to soften the criticism when it emerged that the facility was a health risk and was poorly operated. The CEO, as the driving force for the relocation, is embarrassed about his failure to do due diligence about the site and its operation.

The interpretation of 77A(4) is critical to much that is at stake here–whether a perceived conflict (as defined) can “reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter”. The Ombudsman has revealed elsewhere his belief that $20 is sufficient to be capable of influencing an officer. [Unless they’re Musical Viva tickets.] The trouble with being a martinet and expecting others to follow is that it leads to poor governance. Few of us were happy that a Gang of Four (GoF) were given delegated authority for matters as important as C60. It came about because of the interpretation some councillors placed on matters as trivial as having a drink with a member of MRC executive. (MODERATORS: Sentence deleted).

There is a particularly telling section in the report, #151, in which the Ombudsman quotes uncritically a Council resolution to make certain matters public. From the resolution: “and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a Councillor or Councillors”. Of course, the legislation doesn’t state that. The legislation very clearly provides 81B(1)(a), meaning Council can apply. It is symptomatic of the carelessness plaguing both investigations and Council’s efforts, in which honesty and integrity have been sacrificed.

The Ombudsman claims repeatedly that council officers have been diverted by Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour and not focusing on what they should be. He didn’t provide any evidence or justification for saying this, although the lack of structure plans, open space, openness in decision-making does support the view that council and officers haven’t been doing what they should.

The Ombudsman also makes the extraordinary claim, without evidence, that Cr Penhalluriack’s “services on the council have not been of assistance to the good government of the City of Glen Eira”. This is an unforgivable abuse of his powers. Cr Penhalluriack has been prepared to ask questions and to analyze critically Council reports, and at least made a token effort to resist the culture of secrecy that pervades our council. Accountability is so important, it appears multiple times in the Preamble, the very *first* section, of LGA. The Ombudsman has not been elected to his office and is not accountable to the people of Victoria. If he doesn’t like elected representatives then he should advocate shorter terms for Council like we once had.

In several places the Ombudsman refers to carefully selected past incidents in an attempt to use prejudice to strengthen the case against Cr Penhalluriack. The Ombudsman should have known, given his extraordinary coercive powers, of the long history of ill-feeling between the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). He should also have known of the matter between the CEO and Cr Grossbard previously, of the sacking of Council in 2005, the members of that council who are currently councillors, of the manner in which Andrew contributed to (some may say engineered) the downfall of a previous CEO, of the embarrassing “apology” issued by Cr Esakoff to the CEO concerning the seeking of the reasons why a long list of requested reports had not been published in Council Minutes, the hissy fit he threw in public when Cr Penhalluriack asked his reasonable question. This should have been either stated or acknowledged when attaching weight to the statements he accepted uncritically and the ones he rejected when statements conflicted.

And so it goes. Instead of improving governance in Glen Eira, such as by tackling the excessive use of secrecy, the Ombudsman has chosen to add to the problem. Only he knows why.

 

March 28, 2012

Penhalluriack: Ombudsman’s Report

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

From Council’s website:

Ombudsman’s Report: Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council  
On 28 March 2012 the Ombudsman tabled a Report in the Victorian Parliament. The Report is titled ”Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira”.
 [DOWNLOAD REPORT HERE]
Notwithstanding the difficulties disclosed in the Report over the last two years:
  • we were rated 1st in the State for “responsiveness in dealing with the public” (84%), May 2011
  • we won the Institute of Chartered Accountants / MAV award for Best Annual Report by a Victorian Council (June 2011)
  • we are the only organisation in the Victorian Public Sector to receive a favourable Performance Audit by the Victorian Auditor General during the current Term of Parliament. (Performance audit of investment planning and community engagement, September 2011)
  • we were rated 1st of 17 inner-metro councils by the Auditor General for Renewal of Community infrastructure (November 2011)
  • we eliminated waiting times for Kindergarten for our juniors and Home Care for our seniors (2012)
  • and we have built Melbourne’s best Aquatic and Recreation Centre (“GESAC”): under budget and about to open in April 2012.
Thank you to all those who, notwithstanding difficult circumstances, have performed strongly for our Community.

Andrew Newton Chief Executive Officer Glen Eira City Council

 

March 27, 2012

Scraping The Bottom Of The Barrel

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

After being sent packing by VCAT to redo their allegations against Cr Penhalluriack, Council’s lawyers (Maddocks) have come up with the following gem in their long list of complaints. We quote:

“it is alleged that the Respondent acted unreasonably towards the Applicant’s Director Assets and Facilities by criticising him at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010, by: referring to a project in respect of stormwater harvesting in Boyd Park, Murrumbeena as a ‘ridiculous project’ and a ‘waste of money”.

We’ve double checked what occurred at this meeting and in our post of the 15th December 2010 we reported:

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed”.

COMMENT

Councillors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most efficient and responsible manner. Councillors also have the right to demand complete and full information prior to their decision making. Debates are part of the political process. What occurred on December 14th 2010 is exactly what should happen – 4 councillors questioning the lack of detail in an officer’s report. Yet, only Penhalluriack is accused of ‘acting inappropriately’ and ‘criticising’ Peter Waite. If this is representative of the quality and substance of Council’s allegations then a full inquiry is necessary to determine how and why tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in an orchestrated witch hunt against Penhalluriack. As for Waite’s ‘embarrassment’ we leave this up to readers to determine.

 

March 26, 2012

Newton V’s Penhalluriack

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

Hardware rebel  faces anti-bully drill

Melissa Fyfe and Jason Dowling
March 26, 2012

THE rebel hardware seller who went to jail over Sunday trading laws in the  1980s has been ordered to undergo anti-bullying training after an independent  council report found he had bullied and harassed the Glen Eira City Council  chief executive.

Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack has denied the report’s findings,  claiming he is the victim of a “kangaroo court” and says chief executive Andrew  Newton is trying to get him kicked off council. “He doesn’t like me because I  ask too many questions,” he told The Age.

The bullying report — completed last June by workplace lawyer Tracey O’Neill — was kept secret from the community. The findings have emerged only now among  the documents filed in a misconduct case against Cr Penhalluriack, to be heard  in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal next month.

The council has already spent about $65,000 on legal costs for inquiries and  proceedings relating to Cr Penhalluriack.

Ms O’Neill, who investigated Mr Newton’s allegations against Cr Penhalluriack  on behalf of the council, found the hardware store owner in breach of the  councillors’ code of conduct, which states they must not “harass, bully, vilify  or discriminate against colleagues or members of the public”  and must “conduct  themselves constructively”.

The report found Cr Penhalluriack had humiliated the chief executive officer  by making derogatory public statements about him and placed unnecessary stress  and pressure on him to resolve a personal matter regarding his hardware  store.

Ms O’Neill found council officers felt “under attack” from Cr Penhalluriack  who, she said, had been behaving unreasonably towards them for  “a significant  period of time”.

Ms O’Neill also noted Cr Penhalluriack had challenged her (Ms O’Neill)  in a  “confrontational and aggressive manner”. She concluded that while she did not  consider Cr Penhalluriack malicious, “this does not alter that he has engaged in  repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety”.

Glen Eira Council has faced a string of controversies in recent years. In  2005 the then Bracks government sacked the council after a scathing report found  it had degenerated into a hotbed of  “personality clashes, politics and egos”.  More recently there have been controversies surrounding councillor actions on  planning issues and the council’s decision to close a mulch facility. The  Ombudsman’s office is also believed to be investigating some areas at the  council.

Cr Penhalluriack — who in the 1980s famously opened his Caulfield hardware  store outside the regulated times to highlight what he saw as outdated trading  hours — has now hired expensive lawyers to fight the misconduct case. He  said  it was unfortunate but he was “adamant” ratepayers would pick up the bill and  blamed the impasse on Mr Newton for not going to mediation.

The councillor has also filed a Workcover claim against the council, saying  the situation is making him sick with stress. He told The Age he blamed  his recent hospitalisation for a heart problem on his elevated stress  levels.

Cr Penhalluriack said he might regret some things said in anger, but denied  bullying or harassing anyone at the council. He acknowledged that before  becoming a councillor he had battled with the council.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hardware-rebel-faces-antibully-drill-20120325-1vsit.html#ixzz1q8KJdeKh

 

March 24, 2012

For The Record

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

The table below comprises:

  • decisions made by this group of councillors (Dec. 2008  until February 2012)
  • decisions which represent mere ‘tinkering’ with the original applications
  • not included are all those decisions which were simply passed without such ‘tinkering’
  • not included are those decisions which Council did refuse (that will come in a separate post)
  • not included are those decisions which councillors went against officers’ recommendations – (again, a separate post)

Our constant claim has been that this Council is not doing enough to protect its residents – especially in so called Housing Diversity Areas which dominate this table. Reducing the number of units, or even the number of storeys, is applying cosmetic treatment rather than the required radical surgery – the complete makeover of the Planning Scheme.

We further restate our belief that many decisions made over these years have nothing to do with existing planning policy, but resident opposition. It would seem that anything over 40 objections suddenly has traction, especially in 2012 with the election looming large. Our sacrosanct planning policy is  thus receiving a hell of a battering from certain councillors suddenly aware that their jobs may be on the line.

ADDRESS

APPLICATION

DECISION
40   Koornang Rd, Carnegie 5 storeys   & 26 units 4 storey   & 16 units
135 Neerim   Rd., Carnegie 3 storey   & 44 units 3 storey   & 33 units
309   Hawthorn Rd., North Caulfield 2 storey   & 7 units 2 storey   & 6 units
7-13   Dudley St., Caulfield North 4 storey   & 112 units 4 storey   & 100 units
273 Grange   Rd., Ormond 3 storey   & 19 units 2 storey   & 14 units
19 Parker   St., Ormond 4   dwellings 2 double storey and 2 single storey at rear 1 double   storey & 3 single storey at rear
1902 Glen Huntly   rd., Glen Huntly 3 storey   & 10 units 3 storey   & 8 units
29   Holloway St., Ormond 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
846-848   Centre Rd. Bentleigh 2 storey   & 14 units 2 storey   & 10 units
341-55   Murumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 40 units & 6 shops 3 storey,   23 units & 6 shops.
443-57   Hawthorn Rd., Caulfield 5 storey,   42 units, 7 shops 4 STOREY
400   Dandenong Rd., Caulfield Nth 3 storey   & 18 units 3 storey   & 17 units
894-900   Glen Huntly Rd., Caulfield 4 storey,   24 units & 1 shop 3 storey, 16   units & 1 shop
2-4   William St., Murrumbeena 4 storey   & 41 units 3 storey   & 29 units
111-113   Poath Rd., Murrumbeena 4 storey,   10 units & 2 shops 3 storey,   8 units & 2 shops
15 Dudley   St., East Caulfield 5 storey   & 29 units 4 storeys   & 27 units
17 Railway   Pde., Murrumbeena 3 storeys   & 19 units 3 storeys   & 16 units
243-247   Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick 10 storey   & 130 units 8 storeys   & 95 units
41   Murrumbeena Rd., Murrumbeena 2-3 storey   & 59 units 2 storey   & 50 units
385-95   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 4 storey   & 32 units

17 double   storey units (Emily St.)

 3 storey   & 25 units

12 double   storey units (Emily St.)
2 Anzac   St., Carnegie 3 storey   & 22 units 2 storey   & 19 units
16 Malane   St., East Bentleigh 2 storey   & 8 units 2 storey   & 6 units
221-29   Glen Huntly Rd, Elsternwick 14 storey   & 3 shops & 109 units 7 storey   & 46 units & 2 shops
22 Station   St McKinnon 7 double   storeys units 6 double   storey units
54-56   Rosstown Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 20 units 3 storey   10 units
402-4   Dandenong Rd., Nth Caulfield 3 storey   & 37 units 3 storey   & 32 units
276-280   Neerim Rd., Carnegie 5 storey   & 42 units 4 storey   & 30 units
188   Hawthorn Rd Caulfield 3 storey   & 8 units 3 storey   & 6 units
259-61   East Boundary Rd, East Bentleigh 3 storey   & 9 units & shop 3 storey   & 5 units & shop
127-129   Murray St., Caulfield 4 storey   & 31 units 3 storey   & 21 units

 

 

March 23, 2012

GESAC & Lost Revenue & Secrecy

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

True to form, GESAC barely rated a mention at Tuesday night’s council meeting. No Pools Steering Committee report, nothing in the Audit Committee ‘minutes’. But buried in the Financial Report, there are the following statements:

“Please note that GESAC forecast income has been reduced by $520K in order to more accurately reflect the timing of opening the Centre. This reduction in income has been offset by a reduction in employee benefits expenditure of $220K”.

“Unfavourable variance in User Fees and Charges $1.12M (includes delay in income expected from GESAC $1.33M)”.

The listed ‘income’ from GESAC is the princely sum of $3,000 and expenditure of $1,187,000. The black hole of lost income is turning into the Grand Canyon, especially when there could be further ratepayers’ subsidies that cover up for the basketball allocation fiasco. Here’s a public question that was asked on Tuesday night and the typical non-answer –

1. Will all the existing basketball courts be fully utilised by the Warriors each week from the opening date?

2. If some courts stand empty, will the Warriors be paying for any courts they do not use?

3. If unused courts are not paid for by the Warriors, what is the expected revenue loss to Council?

4. What is the anticipated duration of any ‘under booking’?

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “The Warriors will be utilising the indoor courts in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. All Councillors have previously received copies of the EOI which is confidential.”

 

March 22, 2012

What’s A Few Porkies Between Friends?

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

The Mahvo Street development was the second application to be tossed out at Tuesday night’s Council Meeting. A terrific result and we once again applaud the efforts of residents. But, as with the previous Morrice St decision, consistency has never been a hallmark of this council. We note that telling a few porkies to the assembled throng in order to back up spurious arguments also doesn’t hurt.

What needs to be strongly emphasised is:

  • Mahvo Street is anything but INTACT – a word employed by several councillors. Of the 40 plus houses in the street proper, countless are recent developments and multiple single and double storey units are common. There are also old, run down weatherboards just waiting to be picked off by developers.
  • Council’s own Online Planning Register reveals that from March 2000 there were 20 applications for this street. 9 were for 2 lot subdivisions. Of these 20 applications only 2 were refused and 1 withdrawn. Far from an ‘intact’ area!
  • The claim that it is ‘predominantly single dwelling’ is thus also dubious. What WERE once single lots have now been subdivided and replaced by two and more dwellings Just under half of the street features these subdivisions and most are now double storey dwellings.

When councillors get up and propagate falsehoods in support of their arguments, then there is something drastically wrong with our council, our system, and the ability of these people to represent us! Either these councillors never visited the street and are relying on dubious reports, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Neither possibility is enough to excuse them.

We provide our ‘evidence’ below. These photos were all taken on the 22nd March, 2012. Two photos feature the view facing onto Centre Rd and are taken from Mahvo Street itself. There were many other residences which included long driveways with units nestled in the back which we didn’t bother to photograph and encroach on people’s private property.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As for the ‘debate’, here’s what happened.

Lobo moved the motion to refuse on the grounds not compatible with urban and neighbourhood character, mass, bulk, streetscape, neighbourhood character, set back, parking, design, ‘detrimental impact’ on surrounding areas/neighbours. Magee seconded.

LOBO: ‘predominantly single dwelling’ (street and family oriented). Stated that the planning conference ‘clearly showed the troubled state of mind of the residents’. Claimed that this proposed development is ‘nothing but insane’ and a ‘monstrosity’. Height will cause lack of privacy and enjoyment of lifestyle. Also will be ‘traffic chaos’ because of proximity to Centre Rd, train station and bus stops. Ambulances therefore wouldn’t have a clear run with all this congestion and people parking on the street and nature strips. Flow on effect to other streets and would set a precedent ‘for other builders’. Impact will be on streetscape and the ‘investment’ of people. Size of objectors must be ‘acknowledged’. Government’s attempt to have 5 million people settled in Melbourne shows ‘who cares a rats for the value of the property’. Stated that the government needs to get its act together and that ‘before long’ film producers will be making the equivalent of Slum Dog Millionaire in Melbourne.

MAGEE: ‘Mahvo street at the moment is INTACT’ unlike Lillimur St. There’s an ‘opportunity’ to save ‘not just this street but’ (most of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh). Said that because these are in an ‘urban street’ he would ‘treat them as a Minimal Change Area’ (because) ‘there’s no difference from this house to my house up in East Bentleigh’…..’deliberate overdevelopment of this site’…’beginning of the end for this street’ (if we let developer go through with this). Claimed that this was the perfect example of ‘inappropriate development’ and that at last election councillors had vowed to fight this..’Let’s save this street, let’s save Bentleigh, let’s save East Bentleigh…’

LIPSHUTZ: Admitted to chairing the planning conference and hearing objections. Stated that as councillors they have to ‘approach this from the point of view of planning law’ (disagreed with Lobo’s claim about loss of value of property). Reminisced about when he was growing up there were many red clinker brick properties in the street and on a recent visit to that street they were now gone, and ‘street is ruined’. So with a street like Mahvo, which is ‘INTACT’, ‘I think that’s an issue that has to be considered’. Thought that 3 stories was too high although thought that the street would ultimately have development….’this development is not sympathetic’ to neighbouhood. Spoke about traffic and lack of trees that were ‘on paper’ in the plans but weren’t there in reality. In the end it’s an ‘inappropriate development’.

FORGE: It’s a Major Activity Centre and there’s a ‘problem with grade separation’ because of the station, leading to terrible traffic jams. 3 storeys would set a precedent. Knows the area very well and until there’s grade separation then there’s going to be ‘constant gridlock’. Safety is another concern.’ we have to take care of the local community….overdevelopment’.

HYAMS: Mahvo St is in an ‘urban village’, on regular sized lot, ‘there’s nothing like it in the street at the moment’. Stated that even ‘in an Urban Village we should still be respecting’ neighbourhood character. He and people are ‘looking for sympathetic development’. When he visited there were cars coming down both ends of street and they didn’t have ‘anywhere to go’ because the street is ‘narrow’ and ‘parked out’. Denied the rumour that council wanted to change the planning for that street and that policy has been in since 2004 and ‘only after….extensive consultation’ of 4 years.

TANG: ‘wrong development for the block’. Disagreed with some points such as property values and said that 3 storeys would increase value of properties because of development potential. Tribunal would reject this argument. Reminded councillors that ‘our policy promotes change in this area’….’Mavho st residents will have to accept more applications’…‘we can’t say ….that it’s not (entirely our) fault’ (since we’ve set the areas where there will be development). ‘There will be change’….(and that some will) ‘go into residential streets like Mahvo’.

LOBO: thanked Tang and Lipshutz. Said he understood the policy from 2004 but that some residents weren’t living here in 2004. Admitted that he himself ‘didn’t know what was happening in 2004’. This development will create traffic problems and should be considered.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: When countless other applications have NOT BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT and mere cosmetic conditions put on (ie 8 storeys instead of 10; 8 units instead of 12, etc) and the consistent argument for such decisions is that VCAT will permit what the developer wants, if not more, then all we can conclude is that elections are indeed around the corner! If these councillors are going to reject applications outright, then at least be consistent in both words and actions for all unreasonable applications!

 

March 21, 2012

Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery

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

It’s  quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!

Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!

Morrice St Child Care Centre

LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.

Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)

LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)

PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)

HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’

MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.

FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of  Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)

TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)

HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.

TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’

PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »