Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 11, 2011

Council Meeting: More Secrecy

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

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

  • Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
  • Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
  • Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
  • One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
  • Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
  • Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
  • Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

 

October 7, 2011

Records Of Assembly

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

There are definitely very strange goings on in the Assembly of Councillors. We highlight only a handful:

  1. Meeting of 13th September
  • Tang arrived nearly two hours late
  • Various officers’ reports which haven’t been tabled in council meetings
  • Fiddling with the previous minutes (again) – Hyams’ suggestions mostly. One especially interesting one concerns an ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ (bullying?) where the previous ‘record’ had simply stated that Penhalluriack left the room. Hyams’ wanted this altered to Penhalluriack declaring a conflict of interest and then leaving.
  • 4 of the 6 officers walk out when an OH & S issue is being discussed. Later another one leaves. Bladder problems really strike at this point and the comings and goings are like a revolving door. Interestingly, no-one declared a conflict of interest!

2.      Meeting of 20th September

  • Tang’s there on time!
  • Again, when OH & S is discussed all but one officer leave the room. No declaration of conflict of interest.

3.    Meeting of 27th September

  • GESAC basketball discussions get an ‘update’ from Hyams
  • Forge mentions council ‘representation’ at a Department Planning Review Meeting
  • Again 4 officers walk out (2 remain) when the OH & S issue comes up. No conflict of interest declared.
  • Regulations for Local Government Act discussed. These regulations contain information on registers of interests and council and special committees.
  • There is then discussion on Special Committee and again OH & S

COMMENTS

After nearly 4 months, and a Request for a Report, nothing has yet appeared before council on the GESAC basketball allocations – yet the Warriors website continues to splash the council logo!!!

Council’s submission (reported in the Melbourne Bayside Leader) has yet to make it into the public domain and to be presented at a full council meeting. According to this newspaper it appears as if Esakoff signed off (as she did with the VEAC submission) rather than the CEO.

Obviously the Special Committee was discussed and set up in secret. No minutes as yet, no delegations as yet, and no terms of reference have been made public. Nor any reason provided as to why Penhalluriack is not a member of this committee!

OH & S features regularly. One strange sentence in these documents was the linking of OH& S AND ‘APPRAISAL matters’. Appraisal of what and whom, we ask? And why should these two items be linked?

Our conclusion – what a strange, strange council we have!

 

October 3, 2011

Move Over James Bond!

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

What would any reasonable person conclude from the following sentence? –

“Council can assure you that emails to Councillors are treated in accordance with the wishes of individual Councillors”.

This sentence comes from the response to a public question (10th April, 2006) and signed off by the then Mayor, David Feldman. It suggests that vetting, intercepting, archiving, of emails is done with the INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OF EACH COUNCILLOR. Reality, however might suggest something entirely different. We might even contemplate whether each and every councillor is aware that this happens, the full extent of the ‘surveillance’, and if they are aware, whether or not they have ever granted their unequivocal, individual consent. It also raises many legal questions as to what constitutes ‘official council business”. If residents email a councillor inviting him/her to a private party because he/she happens to be friends with these residents, then what right have anonymous officers got  to view such private emails? And who is the ultimate arbiter of ‘official business’ anyway? The real issue though is how can something be classified as ‘official business’ unless it is first opened and read by an anonymous council-appointed censor?

The Whelan Report made it absolutely clear that the siege mentality of this administration is to gather as much ‘information’ (on councillor activity?) as possible –“The administration has adopted the practice of retaining copious records as protection against possible accusations by Councillors”. Logically then, in order to sift through what might be ‘accusatory’, everything must be captured, logged, archived, and kept in a little black book on someone’s desk.

Surveillance is enshrined even further through the Staff Code of Conduct – “Staff members must keep their manager/Director informed about information/requests from Councillors. If a matter is of interest to a Councillor, the Councillor may raise it with the Director or CEO and they ought to be aware of it so that they can respond effectively. The only officers who are authorised to provide written information to Councillors are the CEO and Directors. This includes faxes and emails. The reason is that the CEO and Directors meet regularly with Councillors and are aware of the context of requests and issues. All written information to Councillors goes via the Councillors’ secretariat in the CEO’s Office”.

In most organisations, this is innocuous and reasonable. How benign such as state of affairs is in Glen Eira is the fundamental question. Senior administration have elevated themselves to the role of self-appointed gatekeepers, collecting and feeding whatever information they want to councillors. Further, it could be argued that other staff are dragooned into being pseudo spies, reporting every conversation and request to those on high. We know of repeated councillor requests for information which have failed to materialise, or have been delayed for so long that the issue is dead and buried.

One thing is absolutely clear to many residents. The corporate culture of Glen Eira is in desperate need of change. Only Councillors can enact this change – if there’s the will and the courage – as demonstrated in the Gold Coast councillors’ resolution.

 

September 23, 2011

A Penny For Your Thoughts!

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

We’ve previously reported on the allegations of bullying and harassment made against Cr. Penhalluriack by Andrew Newton. We’ve also highlighted the fact that such allegations are not a new tactic by Mr. Newton – as evidenced in the Whelan Report.

We believe that it is in the public interest to reveal some further information on this issue so that the record is set straight and people may make up their own minds as to what is actually going on. The facts are:

  • Council (rather than WorkSafe) hired Ms. O’Neill to conduct an ‘investigation’ into the bullying allegations
  • Ms. O’Neill is a lawyer specialising in workplace issues
  • Two residents were interviewed by Ms. O’Neill at the request of Cr. Penhalluriack
  • These residents were asked for their views on the ‘interactions’ between Cr. Penhalluriack and Newton at 4 separate Council Meetings. They were also asked for their opinion as to whether these ‘interactions’ were ‘appropriate’
  • The specific council meetings primarily involved Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings between the MRC and Newton; the mulch heap fiasco and the Boyd park grant for drainage.

Both residents confirmed the following:

  • Penhalluriack was fulfilling his legal and fiduciary duty in highlighting possible health risks which could place Council (and its employees) at risk if not attended to. It was also noted that only two councillors voted against the motion. Hence a majority were in agreement with Penhalluriack
  • That as a councillor Penhalluriack has a legal and fiduciary duty to ensure that funding is spent in the most cost-effective manner and to the benefit of the residents of the municipality
  • That other councillors over the years have also expressed ‘disappointment’ with the content, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of officers’ reports. That current councillors, apart from Penhalluriack, have questioned procedures and the need for cost-benefit analyses in reports.
  • That in their view, Penhalluriack’s language, demeanour, and questioning of officers is perfectly appropriate given his role and legal obligations as a councillor. At no time could either resident perceive these ‘interchanges’ as bullying and harassment.

Admittedly, neither of these residents are privy to what goes on behind closed doors. They could only attest to what they had witnessed. However, several points need to be made:

  • Are we really and truly expected to believe that a seasoned bureaucrat like Newton suddenly feels threatened because a councillor sees fit to ask uncomfortable questions in public and/or in private? Or that he demands reports that are detailed and comprehensive?
  • Should residents accept the silence and refusal to answer public questions on how much this investigation has cost them? We have stated before that any lawyer worth a cracker would probably be charging somewhere between $150 and $400 per hour. Then there’s also the writing of the report and god knows how many people were interviewed. So what is the pay out to O’Neill? We hazard a guess that it could be well over $30,000.
  • History tells us that the bullying card has been played before by Newton. Really amazing that a man who has worked in Canberra and at State level and undoubtedly experienced much pressure in these jobs, should twice in 6 years suddenly feel ‘bullied’ by mere part timers, who ostensibly, are simply doing their elected tasks.
  • What further machinations are being played out behind closed doors, since the in camera items continue to feature ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ items which we presume relates to this affair?

We’ve also stated several times that the history of Glen Eira is besmirched with dismissals, disagreements, and now 4 Municipal Investigations. All (serendipitously) coincide with the arrival of Newton. He remains the solitary common denominator in all these trials and tribulations. The next month is thus crucial. Councillors must decide whether to anoint him for another 2 years, or seek a new CEO that will bring a breath of fresh air into Glen Eira and transform what many residents see as a repressive and out of touch corporate culture.

 

September 22, 2011

All Is ‘Flexible” – When It Suits!

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

One of the items at the last Council Meetings was the $500,000 grant provided by MP Miller and the State Government for the redevelopment of the Centenary Park Pavilion. Fantastic that this money was forthcoming and as numerous councillors stated, that election commitments were upheld. However, the discussion that is reported below reveals several chinks in what has always been council’s argument for its wonderful ‘objective’ priority pavilion list. Time and time again residents (especially those from Victory Park) have been told that you’re down the list of ‘priorities’. Suddenly, such lists morph into ‘guides’ only –  please note the remarkable (and supercilious) Hyams’ comment on this point.

It also strains credibility when we are asked to accept the fact that suddenly grants of $500,000 appear magically out of nowhere and with no extensive lobbying, application, submissions and justification (ie. paper work). We conclude that the $500,000 for Centenary park was achieved without due regard for this wonderful ‘priority list’; that lists such as this are not only flexible, but irrelevant when it comes to assigning priorities. We will also remind readers of the Vunabere Avenue works when it was listed hundreds and hundreds of places below other streets deserving attention – yet it was done ahead of countless others. In short, ‘priority lists’ are essentially not worth the paper they’re written on. Such lists only serve the purpose of a public relations exercise and justification to be used against residents’ requests for action. Now for the discussion –

Motion to Accept – Esakoff/Magee

ESAKOFF: half a million dollars for redevelopment of centenary park pavilion from State Government. Stated that the current pavilion had ‘outgrown’ the numbers using it….’will be council’s next priiority for works’….consultation for these works is now going to commence….(already allocated $200,000 for design)…grant….’allows us to move this forward’….(thanks MP Miller) ‘for fulfilling her commitment to the local community’

MAGEE: ‘we wanted (this) upgraded and redeveloped for many, many years’…(always going to be done after Duncan McKinnon) ‘nice to get the $500,000 from Elizabeth Miller….’Opportunities now for stakeholders around Centenary Park….important….we have to take a lot of notice of….(ask them) exactly what their needs are…..(will be with us for 50 to 70 years)….’great step forward and another great development….Tucker Ward is finally being noticed by Glen Eira Council’…(that there is land south of North Rd)…..(Before election Miller promised to make Victory Park next) ‘I eagerly await an announcement of a similar amount in the near future’…’I would expect no less than $500,000’.

HYAMS: also ‘grateful’ to Miller for ‘first identifying this need prior to election’ (then securing funding and delivering the money)….’Cooper Pavilion not large enough to cater for all’ (the needs)…’children have to get changed outside so….defeats purpose of having a pavilion’…‘we have had other priorities which is the reason it hasn’t been done up to now’….(Caulfield Park Pavilion, Duncan mcKinnon Pavilion rated higher)…‘on the objective ranking table’ (priority list)…(now) ‘Centenary Park’s turn’.

TANG: Asked a question since Hyams referred to the priority list and that Cooper reserve was next on priority list – ‘In my understanding it wasn’t in our publicised pavilion ranking list….(so asked question of Magee, Hyams or officer)…’how this can be called the next priority in the list?’

HYAMS: Stated that he was referring to the 2007 list where Marlborough pavilion was listed but ‘that list was only a guide and subject to subsequent decisions and if we pass this motion tonight we will be making a subsequent decision’…’low use of Marlborough….pavilion…(and there has been further discussion on priority lists in assembly meetings).

TANG: Stated that he’s not against the Julia Cooper pavilion being rebuilt….‘my problem though is that council has not been transparent in its change of priorities’….(one reason could be a grant from government) ‘and in this instance $500,000 is a quarter of the estimated’ (cost)….’so if government grants (are responsible for changing priority listing) ‘then that should also be transparent’ …’so Marlborough reserve is missing out at the expense of the Julia cooper Pavilion’…‘this is probably a premature decision of council. We should first indicate if our priorities have changed….’foreshadowing a motion of deferral’.

HYAMS: was ‘putting officers on the spot’ with his question – ‘have there been other instances where we’ve moved capital works ahead of other capital works’ (because of grants)?

OFFICER: Response was ‘yes’ in relation to grasses at Lord Reserve.

ESAKOFF: ‘welcome commitment’….certainly look forward to progressing with Centenary Park next year…’

MOTION PASSED: Tang voted Against. Magee called for a Division.

 

September 21, 2011

Too Little, Too Late?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[9] Comments 

At Tuesday night’s council meeting, Cr. Pilling requested an officer’s report on the enormous charge increases for 3 year old kindergartens. He stipulated that the report should also provide comparisons with prices at neighbouring councils. Pilling also expressed concern that the Glen Eira charges were at the ‘steep end’ of charges, especially in comparison to other councils. This request for a report was passed unanimously.

Pilling should be commended for his request and concern. However, we remind readers that we raised this matter as soon as the draft budget was published. We pointed out that by June 2012, parents of 3 year olds would be paying an extra $155 per week for their toddlers to attend a council run kindergarten. There was also a major story in the Leader which we featured. Alarm bells were thus ringing loud and clear months and months ago. So, why wasn’t this ‘concern’ expressed loudly and clearly at budget time – or even prior to then when plans were first being drawn up? Why is the request for a report put in months later, when the charges are already set in concrete? Perhaps Cr. Pilling did raise the matter in Assemblies. We don’t know. But the end result was that the budget was passed unanimously with a few minor adjustments (ie. 2 less sports grounds redone and  a rate drop to 6.5% instead of 6.95%).

So, we are now in the position of waiting for the Officer’s report – which could take months. And what will this actually achieve anyway? Will it bring charges down this year, next year? Will it actually make any difference to anyone? We can only conclude that if Cr. Pilling and others were so concerned about the exorbitant increase then they should have rejected the budget when they had the opportunity. To cry crocodile tears now is far too late.  And an Officer’s Report will fix nothing. It will be ‘noted’, and most probably go into the dustbin of history.

 

September 21, 2011

The Chamber of Spin!

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

Item 9.3 – Heritage status

Esakoff declared three conflicts of interest and vacated the chair. Hyams took over.

Motion to accept as printed – Penhalluriack/Pilling

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had attended the Panel hearing and that ‘there seemed to be very little indecision on their part’ and that he’s ‘happy’ to adopt the panel’s conclusions.

PILLING: Also supported panel’s recommendations.

TANG: Is in favour but ‘surprised’ that no-one has spoken against the motion, especially since ‘this council has a recent history of preferencing property owner’s rights’. Reminded council that he and Pilling had on two previous occasions tried to protect such rights by an application where conditions for removing trees were to ‘preference property owner’s rights’  and concern about ‘falling leaves’ ….(this example shows how council were reluctant to) ‘interfere with ‘property rights’….an ‘innocent mistake had occurred in the planning system’ (where owners weren’t notified and as a result)’ council entertained removing that heritage overlay’…..(but didn’t see the )’strategic justification earlier than this point’….’what this shows is that there is a very high threshold….to interference with property rights….in this instance the experts’ advice and the panel….has swayed council to interfere with property rights…..(still surprised but if council does impose heritage overlay it will be because of) ‘overwhelming evidence’ in the panel report.

LIPSHUTZ: Went over history of site and awareness of error was ‘not from mayor’s husband but another owner’…’council loooked at the issue and at the time council considered that there was not an appropriate case’ to impose heritage listing…’that was council’s view’….’has gone to a panel…..would be difficult (now) to reject the recommendation….’I do deplore the publicity in The Age….innuendo (that mayor had involvement or that councillors were biased)….’that is not the case….it is absolutely scurrilous…’mayor absented herself from meetings,….innuendo was perfectly clear that council was helping the family’….

HYAMS: Agreed with the panel and experts but ‘if the proposed amendment had no merit at all the minister would not have allowed it to be prepared…..(minister has to alllow council to prepare and then exhibit)…’we initially did what we thought was merited….(considered that many of the important heritage features) ‘had gone’….’we didn’t cause a panel hearing by that….(if motion was to extend over all three properties then)’owners would have objected and ‘would have had to go to independent panel anyway’…..’so all of you who are claiming that we have cost the ratepayers money….do not know what you are talking about….(if amendment was abandoned earlier) ‘the anomaly would have still been there, then to get rid of the anomaly (the whole process had to be gone through)….’clearly the anomaly was a problem’ (that’s why officers started this process in the beginning)…’had we started the process again we would have had to apply for permission…(consultation, objections and then panel)…’so if we’d knocked it off last time we would have been wasting time and money’ (that’s why decision to go to panel)…..’Panel report did not say that we shouldn’t have done this….implicitly endorsed the fact that we gave owners the opportunity (to be heard)…..’we have not treated this any differently had the owner not been a councillor….(has no doubt that those) condemning us would have taken the owner’s side’ (if not a councillor)…’councillors do not have more rights than the rest of the community, but neither do we have fewer rights than the rest of the community….Mayor has been exemplary in her conduct….(declared conflict of interest) ‘refrained from lobbying us’…

PENAHLLURIACK: Summed up by stating that ‘property rights are important….I did not want either of those trees chopped down Cr. Tang…

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ITEM 9.4 COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY (AMENDMENT C93)

Motion – Pilling/Forge

PILLING: ‘first stage’ (for this proposed amendment. Has checked with the planning department and been told that there are ‘issues of duplication’

FORGE: Forge started speaking about a planning conference – was addressing the wrong item!!!! Esakoff then asked her if she still wanted to second the motion. Following an embarrassing pause Forge replied ‘yes’ and that she had seen some ‘correspondence’ regarding the matter but will still second the motion.

PENHALLURIACK: Commercial centres ‘are relevant, very relevant’ and there are ‘times when this council has ignored the import of this commercial centres policy’. Gave examples where policy was ignored in relation to C60. Read out some passages from Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme to illustrate this. Doesn’t believe that local shopping strips ‘were properly considered’…’when the C60 was passed’ The policy also states ‘address the decline of smaller centres’….’ensure the established centres are not weakened’….’these are things that this council needs to stand by’….’this is important for the commercial centres throughout this complete city’….(read more clauses from the policy)…’we don’t have….from the planning department…the alternatives (to this policy)…I would urge councillors to stand back for a little while and say (why the need to throw out the baby with the bath water)…this is a very important…policy…I believe we should  be retaining it until there is evidence (of something better).

HYAMS: ‘what we start an amendment process may not be what we finish with….very first step (asking minister for permission to prepare amendment for advertising and will then go through all the other steps)….the advice that we have is that every single provision…is duplicated in other policies….can see disadvantage of…two different documents that do the same thing….not really on same page (people referring to different things)….might find by way of this amendment process there are ways to improve this particular policy so it does do something that it doesn’t do at the moment….we might end up….with a better policy….the most effective way for that to happen is to start this process…..(all we’re doing is preparing this to go out to the public) ‘right way to go about it’.

TANG: Disagreed with ‘something that Cr. Hyams said at outset….don’t think the advice that we’ve received is that every single element ….is recreated elsewhere….(urban villages does appear elsewhere, support for strip centres is also there)…(Hyams is) ‘right….we may improve the planning scheme overall….Planning Scheme Review of 2010 has identified the commercial….is an area that it should review….gone through an internal review….conculsion that the policy is redundant…good idea to test that conclusion….bonus of panel is that you get experts views (and also allows for submissions)…in everyone’s interests…..that this does go to a panel process….raises (other issues) such as correctness of points in policy…(ie hierarchy of elsternwick, Carnegie and start looking at other centres)…’such as Glen Huntly that has communicated with council….and asked about their place in …hierarchy…a panel…is a really good one for this…and ultimately if council doesn’t go down the path it’s embarked on to remove the policy (or if it does)…at least it would have gone through a process….of rigorous public input and testing.

PILLING: Read the policy and ‘I do believe it has been superceded’…(lots of things have changed over the last ecade)…’opportunity
to improve’…

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: PENHALLURIACK, MAGEE, LOBO.

 

September 20, 2011

Time For Humble Pie?

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

The 466 Hawthorn Rd. Heritage listing is also on tonight’s agenda items. Officer recommendations are to accept the Panel Report recommendations and to include the 2 Seaview properties under the Heritage listing. Should we therefore expect some humble pie tonight from councillors? After all, they have cost residents an extra 4 Heritage Advisors ‘reports’; a panel hearing, lawyers and staff time. In short, quite a few thousand dollars that has been needlessly flushed down the toilet. Readers should also remember Cr. Lipshutz’s new found expertise in Heritage matters. We also had Tang and Hyams claiming that recourse to a Panel was to ensure that a member of the community wasn’t disadvantaged simply because of who he was.

We anticipate that this will be the constant refrain tonight – council has only acted in the best interests of social justice, blah, blah, blah. No apologies, and no accounting for the dismal performance of Council lawyers in this matter. But, we still have had no real plausible explanation of how and why this stuff up occurred in the first place. Nor what role the planning department played in this entire fiasco.

 

September 17, 2011

Proposed C93 Amendment – More Stealth?

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

This item must surely win the award for obfuscation and keeping everyone in the dark. Here we have a 2 page officer’s report proposing the removal of the Commercial Centre Policy from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. One page is fully taken up with the processes involved in seeking an amendment – ie. permission to advertise, submissions, perhaps a panel, etc. The first page is nothing more than waffle, and we believe a deliberate attempt to disguise what is really going on and the motives behind such a move. When any amendment is proposed, residents have every right to expect the following:

  • Clear, comprehensible, and comprehensive information as to the reasons which justify the amendment. In this case, all the rationale states is that the original policy dates from 1998 and is ‘redundant’. Not good enough we say. What’s wrong with updating and improving a policy rather than removing it entirely?
  • No explanation is given as to the potential ramifications if the policy is removed. What will it mean to traders? To residents? To the neighbourhood? To those little shopping strip centres that are already struggling against the big ones, Chadstone and now the C60 stores? Where are the statistics, planning strategies – in short, where is the evidence that this policy is now ‘outdated’ as claimed and that the municipality will be better off without Clause 22.04 remaining in the Planning Scheme?
  • We also wonder whether the removal of the Commercial Centres policy is simply one way of declaring open slather for all  forms of (residential) development and council washing its hands of all strip shopping centres except for the big three – Centre Rd, Carnegie & Elsternwick. So much for enhancing, developing, and maintaining local strip shopping! So much for looking after this sector of the community!

If councillors pass this as stands then we believe they are again not fulfilling their obligations as councillors. They must question in depth this proposal and not simply sit there and rubber stamp everything that is stuck under their noses. Such a report should never be accepted. It is bereft of detail, logic, and argument. It remains a ‘report’ in name only and certainly a below par effort. But then again, perhaps this is the objective – to get something through with as little fuss, furore, discussion and debate as possible? Rule by stealth perhaps? Make up your own mind when you read these paltry few pages.

 

September 6, 2011

The Age Revisits Heritage

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

Council’s  heritage decision panned

Jason Dowling

September 6, 2011
A COUNCIL decision to reject heritage protection for three homes in Caulfield  South – one owned by the mayor  – has been  rebuffed by an independent planning  panel.

Glen Eira councillors ignored the advice of  the council’s own heritage and  planning advisers, and additional advice from independent heritage experts, to  extend heritage protection to all three homes.

In a sharp critique of the council’s decision to push to have the three  maisonette dwellings on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street not  heritage protected, the panel found ”there should be good reasons when officer  and expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance”.
When asked by the panel why it had not accepted the expert advice, the  council stated that ”council may form its own view”.The heritage dispute arose when the council discovered a heritage planning  anomaly for the three dwellings.

While the entire building containing the three dwellings was included on a  heritage planning map, only the address of one of the three individual dwellings  was recorded for heritage protection.

One of the two dwellings (2B Seaview Street) in the building not currently  heritage protected is owned by Glen Eira mayor Margaret Esakoff and her husband,  Jack.

Cr Esakoff has declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from  council meetings discussing the issue.

When council staff discovered the heritage anomaly, they recommended  extending heritage protection to all three dwellings. But Glen Eira councillors  rejected the advice of its own heritage staff on two occasions and voted to  begin a process to remove heritage protection from the entire site.

The matter was referred to an expert planning panel and the panel’s findings  were released publicly on Friday.

The panel’s report recommends the council’s attempt to remove heritage  protection from the building be dismissed and calls on the Planning Minister to  extend heritage protection to all three dwellings.

The panel said it was not provided with any justification to disregard the  view of heritage experts that the  entire apartment building deserved heritage  protection.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/councils-heritage-decision-panned-20110905-1jua1.html#ixzz1X5YPNCID

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »