We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.
Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.
Councillor Performance
Archived Posts from this Category
April 1, 2016
The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[13] Comments
March 31, 2016
Lest We Forget!!!!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
In 2010 Council went through the motions of a ‘review’ on its planning scheme. The councillors who partook in this ‘review’ and remain on council are: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Lobo. They resolved to pass the ‘action plan’ that is pictured below (from the minutes of August 2010).
We urge readers to note the following:
- Items highlighted in YELLOW have not been completed or even attempted as far as we know
- Time frames (ie the ‘when’ sections) mean absolutely nothing.
- All initiatives to be done ‘internally’ – very few reported on!
Thus, these images stand as a damning indictment of these councillors and administration. A repeat of this sham must not be allowed to happen with the current ‘review’.
March 30, 2016
News Flash: Wynne Orders Review
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[30] Comments
It is our understanding that Minister Wynne has ordered Glen Eira to finally undertake a Planning Scheme Review. He has also rejected we believe council’s attempt for an extension to the deadline he set.
March 29, 2016
The Zones ‘Review’ – #2
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
What stands out like a sore thumb in the Glen Eira submission is:
- the lack of detail and justification for the various positions – ie of the 72 ‘recommendations’ made by the committee, council does not provide any comment for 44 of these.
- The hypocrisy is literally astounding when we find that for some recommendations (ie inclusion of structure plans, urban design frameworks, etc Council is in agreement! Pity that this ‘agreement’ has not seen any action for the past 14 years!)
- Even more hypocritical is the repetition of this sentence – Boundaries should be based on housing policies and community consultation.
- All in all, council’s submission is another attempt to justify what it has done and to maintain the status quo. Developers should be very pleased with Council’s set of responses!
The ‘evidence’ for these claims is obvious once we compare Council’s stated position with some of its neighbours. Below is Glen Eira versus Bayside. Whilst these two councils do agree on numerous items, their differences are what is most telling. We focus in this post on the recommendations for the Residential Growth Zone only (RGZ). A quick summary –
Recommendation #20 – Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of the zone.
GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)
BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – The purpose of the RGZ is to enable new housing growth and diversity in locations that offer good access to services, transport and other infrastructure. In developed areas, a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth is required. A four storey development outcome will be appropriate in these circumstances and therefore it is recommended that the current reference remains in the purpose of the zone.
RECOMMENDATION #21 – Amend ResCode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within the RGZ contradict that of ResCode.
GLEN EIRA – AGREE – (no comment provided to justify or explain this position)
BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – ResCode was not intended to provide direction on apartment typology. It is recommended that the Better Apartments tool be implemented as the new assessment mechanism for apartment’s development of any scale.
RECOMMENDATION #30 – Apply Clause 55 to multi dwellings greater than four storeys.
GLEN EIRA – AGREE – ResCode should apply to all forms of multi-dwelling residential development. The lack of prescription in the State Government’s Higher Density Design Guidelines (6 storeys and above) creates uncertainty
BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – Rescode was not designed to assess multi storey building typology. A more appropriate tool such as the Better Apartments should apply for multi dwellings greater than four storeys
RECOMMENDATION #41 – Under Clause 32.07-9 Application requirements, delete: For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35.
GLEN EIRA – AGREE – Agree subject to ResCode applying to multi-dwelling residential developments of five or more storeys
BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – An urban context report and design response are required to ensure that the purpose of the zone, the future vision of the area and any sensitive interfaces are taken into consideration
RECOMMENDATION #42 – Under Clause 32.07-11 Dwelling and residential building, delete: For a development of five or more storeys,excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development
GLEN EIRA – AGREE (no comment or explanation provided)
BAYSIDE – DISAGREE – In the absence of a more current policy to guide Higher Density Residential Development it is considered that the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential should remain. It is recommended that it be replaced with the Better Apartments policy once it is implemented.
March 24, 2016
The Zones ‘Review’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[8] Comments
Glen Eira has finally published (without a formal council resolution and after the fact) its submission to the ‘review’ of the residential zones. This post is the first in a series where we will analyse this submission and highlight its incompetency, hypocrisy and once again council’s determination to insist that it got it right in August 2013.
Council’s incompetency and attempt to mislead is clearly shown in the following statement which comes from page 12 of its submission. (please note that the actual submission is really only a page or two since most of the 19 pages consist of regurgitating previous submissions and then tables from the committee’s recommendations).
Council writes –
Glen Eira will need to provide 800 dwellings (red line in Figure 1) each year to cater for the increase of 12000 households over the next 15 years.
Wrong on all counts!!! In the first place the figure of 12,000 households does not originate from 2016, as this sentence implies, but from 2011 as calculated by data from both Victoria in Future 2015, and profile.id. Thus what council has done is divide 12,000 by 15 years, instead of the 20 years specified by the government. That brings the average required addition of dwellings to 600 per year and NOT the claimed 800 per year.
Yet Glen Eira has over 2000 net new dwellings going up per year ever since the zones came in thus tripling its required net new dwellings in order to meet population growth. Nowhere in this submission will residents find any statement to this effect – unlike other councils’ submissions. In Glen Eira it is a case of the more the better, but without any thought given to ensuring that residential amenity, open space, infrastructure is capable of meeting this 300% over supply.
We urge all residents to read this council submission (uploaded here) and to ask themselves:
- How can such poor quality be produced time and time again?
- Why are residents deceived time and time again with faulty and incomplete data?
- Why is there no formal resolution by COUNCIL?
- Why can other councils produce pages and pages of well argued submissions, table their documents in council, and seek a formal resolution and this council can’t?
March 23, 2016
Some More, Great, Big, Whopping Porkies!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
Source: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Resident-services/Rates/Rates-and-charges
The ‘reality’? From the 2015/16 Strategic Resource Plan –
We wonder how long it will take council to remove this latest webpage!!!!!!!!!!
March 22, 2016
Lipshutz: Conflict Of Interest?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[20] Comments
At the first council meeting of the year, Lipshutz and Delahunty moved this motion – “Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Application No. GE/PP-28482/2015 allowing the construction of buildings and carrying out of works, use of the land at 2-4 Princes Street for a Place of Assembly associated with the Synagogue at 574 Inkerman Road and reduction of the car parking requirement in accordance with the following Conditions….”. The permit was granted, allowing events to occur weekdays until 11pm as well as increasing the number of ‘celebrations’ to 400 patrons in conjunction with normal prayer services. There were 16 objections.
Our concern is not with the application itself but whether Lipshutz should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the chamber. It’s not the first time that the question of conflict of interest raises its ugly head in relation to Lipshutz. We have had numerous instances of his failure to declare what most reasonable people would perceive as either a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. Some examples to refresh people’s memory:
- numerous items on the racecourse where both Esakoff and Hyams declared conflicts, yet Lipshutz stated that because he wasn’t a ‘member’ of the MRC he had no conflict of interest!
- in discussions on a petition where he, Hyams and Esakoff were named, yet he and the other two voted not to accept the petition
- the famous ‘how-to-vote-cards’ episode and the permit granted to Emmy Monash
- of course the famous Whiteside dummy spit over a permit for a property in Inkerman Road associated with the Gutnicks and where public open space was ceded to the applicant. Lipshutz’s ‘response’ was to label Whiteside as ‘anti-semitic’. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-bother-asks-former-glen-eira-mayor-20121022-281jw.html)
But in 2008 he saw fit to declare a conflict on an application for a mere two double storey townhouses in Daley St., Bentleigh – “Cr Lipshutz declared an Interest in this item as he knows the applicant and works with him on matters of communal interest.” (Minutes of 26th February 2008)
Thus ‘communal interest’ and ‘knows the applicant’ was enough back in 2008 to declare a conflict. What about currently? The image below comes from Page 12 of a document that originates from the applicant for the permit referred to in the opening paragraph. We have also uploaded the full document. (HERE).(Source for the following: http://www.caulfieldshule.com.au/about-us/admin/policies/item/95-child-protection-policy.html)
The ombudsman has made it absolutely clear that the public’s ‘perception’ of a conflict is a legitimate concern for any public official as it reduces trust in both the official and the status of local government. Lipshutz did not state at any time that he was the ‘independent member’ for this particular congregation. No records of assembly minutes reported that he had declared any conflicts. No other councillor uttered a word. Perhaps they didn’t know. If that is the case, we believe that it was incumbent on Lipshutz to let them know! How many more times will this councillor ignore the advice of the ombudsman and the constraints of the Local Government Act? And how many more times will councillors allow him to get away with such actions?
March 20, 2016
Racecourse Latest
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[18] Comments
Here is a summary of what we know in relation to the Caulfield Racecourse:
- There are 4 (not 2) Land Management Plans for the racecourse. Two are by the Trustees – one is a plan that includes training and the other plan is designed without training facilities. The third Land Management Plan is from the MRC (with State Government funding). The fourth plan (yet to be completed we understand) comes from the Melbourne Planning Authority (MPA) whose brief is to come up with a ‘precinct plan’ for Caulfield.
- The role of the MPA and its recommendations are crucial since both Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne Refresh designate ‘Caulfield’ (or what we presume to correlate with the Phoenix Precinct) as a major ‘employment hub’. Issues such as zoning, open space, transport and development are to feature prominently. Whether or not this plan will incorporate parts of Stonnington (as it should) we do not know at this point.
- So we now appear to have the most farcical situation possible. The MPA as the overarching authority will bring down a ‘precinct plan’ that in all probability is not co-ordinated with the State Government’s review of the zones, or the Better Apartments review, or even the consolidation of Plan Melbourne Refresh.
- Monash University is closing Berwick campus and seeking to rezone the land and then undoubtedly aims to sell it off for residential/mixed use development. That will provide them with the necessary funds to proceed full bore with their Fusion project for the Caulfield Campus. We remind readers that this involves (at this stage) the development of 800+ student accommodation facilities, plus the development of the entire Plaza area.
- We also believe that Council were offered the opportunity to be ‘the committee of management’ for the centre of the racecourse but knocked this back. Whether all councillors were made aware of this ‘offer’ is a moot point.
- The trustees will go, but what will replace them is still to be determined. Apparently the Minister does not have the power to sack them. Legislation has to be rescinded first, and then new legislation introduced.
- Community groups will be presenting to a parliamentary committee in early April. What influence these presentations will have, and how genuine the intent to listen to community views, remains to be seen.
- Yesterday (March 19th) there was another concert. Once again, the noise levels were unacceptable and could be heard from a kilometre away!
Some observations on the release of the minutes from 2014 –
- Why these minutes should appear now (18 months later) is open to speculation. The fact that neither the agenda, nor the minutes from the last meeting were published does not fill us with confidence that things are changing on the Trust. It will be interesting to see whether any agenda and/or minutes will be published for the March 30 meeting.
- Only one MRC member was highlighted in these minutes in relation to conflict of interest. Given that leases were discussed means, in our view, that ALL MRC members of the trust could be perceived to have a conflict of interest and not just one individual.
- The alleged 2009 ‘governance’ document has never seen the light of day.
- The fact that councillor representatives are ‘gagged’ is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is the fact that these same councillors have accepted this situation!
CONCLUSION
- An all mighty mess that has lasted for 150 years and looks like continuing for some time yet.
PS: the October 2014 minutes are uploaded here
March 18, 2016
Secrecy & Stuff Ups
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[15] Comments
Council’s Local Law (yes, the one we’ve been waiting to see ‘revised’ for the past 4 years) states: –Where a question is deemed inappropriate by the Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer or designated officer shall read to the meeting only the name and suburb of the person and the ground under sub-clause 232(2)(j) on which the question was ruled inappropriate.
This means that the actual question will not be revealed! Unfortunately for council they did publish one question (see below) that was deemed ‘inappropriate’. The alleged ‘justification’ cites Section 232 (j)(iv), which reads –
refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach any provision of the Information Privacy Act 2000 or the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act 1989
March 17, 2016
Lies?!!!!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[14] Comments
PS: the above page has now disappeared entirely from council’s website! Instead of removing the incriminating evidence, surely it would not have been that hard to state – “Apologies, we were wrong”!!!!!!!!!!
This is totally unbelievable. Either it is the most blatant lie ever perpetrated by this council, or it reveals how little credence is given to good governance and adhering to directions issued by the State Government.
If a planning scheme review was in fact undertaken, then Council is obliged according to Planning Practice Note No. 32 (uploaded here) to:
- Consult with the community
- Table a report to a full council
- Forward their review to the Minister
Readers should note that no Record of Assembly minutes contained any reference to a Planning Scheme Review. No documents have been tabled in council. No councillor has uttered a single word about a review.
If, on the other hand, no such review has been undertaken then what is up on council’s website can only be seen as an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. It should also be remembered that in response to a public question dated 8th April 2015 which asked when Council would be undertaking a full planning scheme review, the response provided was –
“Council will undertake a review of its planning scheme once the State Government has completed its comprehensive review of both the State and local planning policy frameworks. The State Government review will help to guide Council’s future planning scheme review.
Other Councils are also awaiting the completion of the State Government review before undertaking their respective planning scheme reviews.
Council will undertake public consultation of the next planning scheme review in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”
Thus we have two clear possibilities. Either the statement on council’s website is another example of deliberately hoodwinking the public, or a ‘review’ was carried out but without adhering to best practice and most importantly, letting residents know. Either way, this is totally unacceptable.
Glen Eira Debates 