Glen Eira Debates

Council has repeatedly got up on its high horse and asked that developer application fees be raised so that near ‘full cost recovery’ be returned to council. We have no problem with this. What we do have a major problem with is the appalling lack of governance that was exhibited at the MAV State Conference and the motion put up by Esakoff. Not for the first time are motions submitted that have not been determined in open council (hence authorised by a council resolution) but decided in backroom discussions. This time however, the motion flies in the face of a council resolution that was passed on the 28^th April 2015.

Here is what the resolution stated:

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

1. That Council note the enclosed case study in which Government set a fee of $10,261 to cover State government costs for VCAT but only $4,939 for much more work undertaken at the expense of Council (ie ratepayers).
2. That Council note that ratepayers are subsidising property developers by more than $1m each year because State Governments have not increased planning application fees at all since 2009.
3. That Council notes that all rates are higher than they would otherwise be in order to cover the cost of processing developers’ applications.
4. That Council write to the Minister for Planning, enclosing this Item,and requesting him to increase the planning application fees for developments over $500,000 to cover the full cost of administering applications (including the costs of taking part in VCAT proceedings and administering conditions of permits), or to the levels already set by the State government for VCAT, whichever is higher.
5. That, if the Minister implements part (d) of this resolution, Council undertakes to pass on the full effect of the savings (estimated at around $1m pa) to ratepayers in the first available rates year to the satisfaction of the Auditor General and/or Essential Services Commission.
6. That Council copies this correspondence to the Premier of Victoria and the Minister for Local Government and also to the relevant state representatives of the Southern MetropolitanRegion, Caulfield, Bentleigh and Oakleigh and also to the Chari (sic)of the Essential Services Commission for their information.
7. That Council also forward a copy of this report and motion to the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association to assist in their efforts to save the ratepayers of Victoria subsidising the costs of developers.

AMENDMENT

Crs Lipshutz/Okotel

That paragraph e  be excised from the Motion. (this refers to returning monies to ratepayers – our explanation)

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

Several things are worth noting in the above –

• God forbid that money should be returned back to ratepayers and rates reduced! Better that it go into council coffers
• No surprises in who pushed for this amendment

But then there is the question of Esakoff’s motion at the recent State Council. It read –

That the MAV calls on the State Government to increase town planning application fees for commercial projects to full cost recovery

The resolution of April 2015 did not single out COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. In fact, the wording was crystal clear – all projects over $500,000. This motion has not been rescinded. Therefore it still stands. So why, did Esakoff table such a motion that did not adhere to council’s formal position?

In our view, this is just another example of the wheeling and dealing, and abysmal level of governance that occurs in this council. Decision after decision is made in the backroom with no concern for residents and no concern for alleviating their rate burden.

PS: a reminder as to which councillors voted for the amendment – ie not returning any savings to residents. No prizes for guessing who they are –

LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS.

PS: We’ve been alerted to several new Change.org petitions now online seeking a review of zoning in Carnegie as well as Mimosa Road. The petitions are also to go to the Minister as well as Council. We urge all readers to sign –

https://www.change.org/p/state-planning-minister-glen-eira-council-petition-to-review-the-current-residential-zoning-of-carnegie

https://www.change.org/p/glen-eira-council-state-planning-minister-petition-to-review-the-current-residential-development-zoning-of-mimosa-road-carnegie?recruiter=376782380&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Whatever ‘action’ this wonderful council decides upon it can never make up for the loss of 90+ trees on the Frogmore site. Whatever action this council pursues can never make up for the fact that a building worthy of local heritage listing was demolished and residents were never given the opportunity to present their views at a so called ‘independent’ planning panel. Whatever action this council now takes can never make up for decades of neglect in regards to trees on private property that are razed with or without permission. Frogmore just happens to be the biggest individual act of vandalism in recent times – aided and abetted by councillors and not just the 3 councillors who made this happen. Esakoff’s and Delahunty’s spurious conflict of interest claims will be long remembered. Magee? Well we have some doubts as to his non-appearance for the vote!

It would be fascinating to know:

• Of the near 2000 planning applications that come in each year, how many officer reports determine that at least one tree should be retained on the property?
• How many fines for removal of trees has council imposed in the past 10 years?
• How many prosecutions have taken place?
• How many permits have been amended so that trees can be removed?

In August of this year, Minister Wynne wrote to councils asking for their ‘feedback’ on the new zones. Thus far, both Glen Eira and Bayside have published his letter as well as their individual responses. The differences between the two are literally staggering. Whilst Glen Eira’s is more of the same bunkum, stating how wonderful they are, Bayside at least seeks to address some of the issues. There are specific recommendations and noticeably, no real self-promotion. Glen Eira’s effort represents another instance of sheer arrogance. That council can even contemplate writing such drivel to a minister says a lot about the planning department, Magee who signed the letter (presumably on behalf of other councillors), and of course, how little concerned council is with the impact of their handiwork on residents.

We have uploaded both submissions (see below) and urge readers to compare. In summary –

• The first 4 pages of the Glen Eira version of reality are nothing more than regurgitating what a success they are, and how everything is the result of the building boom. Once on a good wicket, then stick to it, it seems. There is perhaps 1% of self promotion in Bayside’s version, but it is in context.
• Once again, the truth is distorted and inaccurate. On page 5 of the Glen Eira submission there is this comment – In the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, there is limited ability to customise the zone through a Schedule to allow for more than 2 dwellings on large lots such as those greater than 2,OOOm2 in area. Subdivision of the large lot is possible but subdivision does not enable the community to comment on a detailed development. As if council really cares what the community thinks, especially when their secret ‘negotiations’ with Guy, stated that the problem could be overcome by subdividing first! More relevant is the fact that the schedules provided the opportunity for councils to designate minimum lot sizes. Many have. Bayside is even now, with its Amendment C140 attempting to introduce a minimum lot size subdivision of 800 square metres. Furthermore, this entire sentence begs the question of what happens when one developer decides to go to VCAT and because his land may be 1200 square metres use the planning scheme clause that larger lot sizes in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are to be evaluated against the General Residential Zone schedules!
• On ‘community response’ there is this wonderful statement – ‘Many have appreciated the certainty’. Evidence? Well a ‘group of residents’ in Elsternwick and the fact that land owners are ‘consolidating’ and selling their land together is supposed to be due to their desire to ‘increase property value’ and ‘development potential’. Not a word that people are getting out BECAUSE OF THE ZONES and what it is doing to their suburbs and local streets.
• We also get the ‘sting in the tail’ statement on the following page – just to remind the minister that possibly the community wants more than the untrue figure of 78% zoned as neighbourhood residential zone! Which would represent a real headache for any government! Pity that the statistic is so untrue!– ie They would like to see the proportion of land zoned Neighbourhood Residential increased from the present 78%.
• And just in case the minister wants to appease developers we also find – Developers continue to claim that the municipality has been ‘locked down’. They would like to see more areas zoned General Residential and Residential Growth

What is particularly galling for residents about this entire submission comes towards the end (page 7) where in the totally irrelevant points on Level Crossing Removals, we get a further inkling into Glen Eira’s pro-development, and more and more high rise philosophy –

This will make these centres more attractive as places to live and easier to move around.

They will be more attractive centres to develop.

The present residential zones framework (together with the Commercial Zone) is equipped to respond to this.

In summary, the submission is disgraceful, inadequate, self-promoting, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally dismissive of the problems which have already surfaced. We sincerely hope that Minister Wynne and his minders have a good laugh!

Here is the Bayside effort and HERE the Glen Eira one.

We urge readers to compare and contrast and remember!