Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 22, 2015

Virginia Estate History

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

As with the Caulfield Village, the history of Virginia Estate goes back many years. The processes involved are subtle, incremental, and ultimately identical – namely:

Rezoning to allow high density development
Removal of third party objection rights via Incorporated/Development Plans

The First Amendment

On the 4^th November 2009, council first considered the question of rezoning Virginia Estate from Industrial to Business 2 and Business 3 – thus allowing for residential development to occur. The proposed amendment also introduced the euphemistically entitled ‘Development Plan Overlay’. This set the scene for 10 storey development in the centre of Virginia Estate.

As to the purpose of the amendment, the officer’s report stated:

The amendment seeks to facilitate a shift from traditional heavy industrial and warehouse uses, to technology based industries and office uses. It will also enable a limited amount of retail, directly related to the uses on the site, to meet the needs of tenants.

The word residential did not appear once in this report or the public notice. Conclusion? Devious, deceptive, and not stating up front in clear, precise language exactly what this amendment would mean.

The resolution read:

Crs Hyams/Magee

That this item be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 24 to allow Council to receive more detail.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously (Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest)

Meeting of 24^th November 2009

No ‘more detail’ was provided in the officer’s report this time around and incredibly placed last (Item 8.17) in a long, long agenda list. Given that the resolution stated that it was ‘Council’ (with a Capital ‘C’) to receive this additional ‘detail’, then this additional ‘detail’ should have been included in the officer’s report. It wasn’t. Instead the November 24^th version was identical, word for word, with the 4^th November effort. Thus once again, decisions are made on the basis of information with-held from the public, and the public record and decided behind closed doors.

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Council

Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C75.
Exhibit the amendment no earlier than January 27 2010.

Meeting of 8^th June 2010

The amendment (following advertising) was considered again. No submissions were published and officer comments were largely supportive of the amendment.

Euphemisms continued as per the following:

Proposal – Amendment C75 proposes to rezone the Virginia Park ‘industrial’ estate in East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East to a Business 2 and 3 Zone to facilitate commercial redevelopment.

14 submissions were submitted. No detail given as to how many opposed the amendment and how many supported the amendment. The resulting decision was to send off to a panel.

Meeting of 15^th March 2011 & The Panel Report

The following paragraph from the Planning Panel report is significant in that it mirrors exactly what happened with the C60 version(s) of the Incorporated Plan – ie. residents were not privy to the ‘negotiations’ taking place between the developer and council and hence their objections were based on what had been advertised and NOT what was now before the panel. Further, since none of the submitters attended the panel hearing, presumably believing that their submissions addressed what was advertised, they were not provided with the time, or the opportunity, to challenge the changes. One must seriously question whether ‘natural justice’ had been afforded to objectors.

A schedule to the DPO was exhibited with the Amendment. Council submitted a revised schedule on 24 August 2010 and Mr Scally on behalf of the proponent tabled a tracked changes version of the schedule at the hearing. It is understood this version followed further discussion between Council and the proponent before the hearing. The blue text is the further changes proposed by Council and the red text is the further changes proposed by the proponent. It is proposed to use this version as the working document in this report

The council resolution stated:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

CURRENTLY

As we’ve stated previously, resolutions mean nothing in Glen Eira. Here was a decision regarding setbacks and now the amendment wishes to reduce this setback. No Section 173 agreement has been made public.

CONCLUSION

Residents should ask themselves:

Why does this council continually agree to remove resident third party objection rights?
Why does this council continually cave-in and meet the vast majority of developer demands?
Why does this council continually fail to advertise and inform widely on such important issues?
Why should residents have any faith that the projected 4,600+ dwellings is the final figure, given the experience of C60?

June 18, 2015

Virginia Estate Planning Conference

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

Over the past 4 weeks we have received numerous emails from residents complaining that they know nothing about the proposed rezoning of Virginia Estate and where they can find information. This is a damning indictment of council’s failure to not only live up to its charter and Community Plan in ‘ensuring’ community input into development, but we would go further and allege that this is all part of the culture of this council – ie the less people know what is going on, then the better from the point of view of ramming things through. God forbid, there should be extensive community involvement!

Council has spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars upgrading its website. We challenge anyone to find any ‘useful’, coherent information on the plans for Virginia Estate. It’s not listed under ‘Major Projects’ (in fact, nothing is at the time of writing). Under ‘Public Notices’ one would have to know which amendment number refers to the Virginia Estate proposal. In other words, users have to click on every single amendment listed. Not only is this woeful website design that a 4 year old could do better, but it makes things as difficult and time consuming as possible for people.

Once found as Amendment C135 residents are overjoyed to find the following ‘explanation’

(The Amendment proposes to rezone part of the land to Commercial 1 to enable an integrated mixed use development over the entire site and amends Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) to enable a broader mix of uses across the site)

Accurate? Of course! Informative? Never! How many residents really know what Schedule 2 is and means? How many know what the ramifications of rezoning to C1Z means? And as for Development Plan Overlay, that belongs in the stratosphere 0f total incomprehension for most people. There is absolutely no excuse why Council can place ad after ad in the Leader for GESAC, (at what cost?) and only one notice about Virginia Estate which would be the largest single development in the municipality’s history. Don’t people deserve to know what is really going on and what it could potentially mean?

Compare this with Bayside and the documentation that accompanies their proposals – ie actual documents online; ‘have your say’ available, and most importantly, a PLAIN ENGLISH EXPLANATION of what is proposed AND WHY! http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/living_in_bayside/amendment_C139_bayside_drainage_development_contributions_plan.htm

The same can be said for Boroondara and countless others – http://boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/building-planning/strategic-planning/amendments/amendment-c178-introducing-permanent-heritage-overlays

Even typing the word ‘amendment’ into council’s search engine brings up a page of gobbledygook – ie a list of amendments. Click on any one, and all that comes up is the ‘public notice’ published in the Leader. Informative? Conducive to resident involvement? No way!

We are now living in the age of social media. Glen Eira Council still belongs in the dark ages. We also believe that the substandard website is nothing more than the physical manifestation of this culture which is determined to carry on business as if residents don’t matter, shouldn’t know, and definitely not be given the best chance of becoming involved and voicing their opinion(s). Yes, council adheres to the legislation – at the literal and minimal level. It will not go one step further in ensuring that people know exactly what is going on.

How much more incompetence, sub-standard performance, and anti-community behaviour, will this set of 9 councillors allow? When will they exert their legal muscle and say ‘enough is enough’?

We urge as many residents as possible to attend Monday night and for once, let us hear the community – loud and clear!

June 16, 2015

Frogmore: Hello Bulldozers!

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

Before we report on the farce that occurred at last Tuesday night’s council meeting we wish to make the following comments and ask residents to carefully consider what occurred and the questions raised.

Why is it that in Glen Eira resolutions mean bugger all – that they can be ignored, changed, forgotten about, and reneged upon at will, or presumably at the behest of vested interests? Not for the first time have those same councillors (Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling) totally ignored resident views and aspirations. It is significant that not one single councillor mentioned the fact that a petition of near a thousand signatures was tabled seeking to preserve Frogmore, nor that over 300 submissions came in supporting the amendment for a heritage overlay.

We also find it extraordinary that at the very last moment both Delahunty and Esakoff just happened to discover that they’ve got a conflict of interest. We remind readers that this conflict did not exist when both voted to go to Heritage Victoria and then to draw up the amendment a few short months ago. Surely aged relations couldn’t have aged that rapidly to suddenly find themselves in need of an aged care facility that will take at the very least two years to be operational? We certainly anticipate plenty of objections once the plans are submitted and people trot off to VCAT so it is likely to be even longer than two years.

The result is that 3 councillors – a minority – decided what happens in Glen Eira. That isn’t ‘representative government’ and nor is it listening to the community. Just as with the C60, residents are being duped and dudded and repeatedly ignored.

And as always, the level of argument is abysmal. How on earth Okotel can speak about costs, and then in the very next sentence ask for 3 additional heritage reports, is mind numbing. Or more to the point, how all her arguments suggest opposition to going to the panel and then to vote in favour of going to a panel is equally mind numbing.

For a council that repeats ad nauseum that it is ‘planning law’ and ‘policy’ that determines decisions, ‘planning law’ fails to get a mention in the ‘debate’. Not one word on ‘planning law’ from councillors and not one word from the officer’s report. Instead it’s all smoke and mirrors and pure unadulterated gibberish and misrepresentation of the facts – as so clearly pointed out by the National Trust (see link below). Further, how dare Hyams and Okotel argue that cost should be the determinant of whether or not something goes to a panel, or (worse) what is financially ‘viable’ for the prospective developer. Even here, Hyams’ claims are far from the truth when he asserts that ONLY a 120 bed facility is worthwhile for the developer. In Glen Eira there are currently plenty of aged care facilities that offer far less than 120 beds and have managed to stay in operation for eons – eg: Estia Health Bentleigh has 45 beds; Claremont Terrace has 94 beds; Lovell House has 40 beds; Victoria by the Park has 70 beds; Hammond Care has 60 beds and Montgomery has 30 beds and there are plenty of others in this category.

We might also quibble with Hyams’ assertion that the Churches of Christ were forced to sell because 60 mere beds is ‘not viable’. In the first place, the current owners are based in Queensland. They only have 3 aged care premises in Melbourne and are currently looking to invest far more heavily in their own home state as their Annual Reports and corporate strategy documents indicate. Perhaps it’s simply the old adage of ‘charity begins at home’ – ie Queensland – and not because a 60 bed home that has been in existence for decades is suddenly going to the wall?

All of this leads us to ask these fair and reasonable questions:

Is it coincidence that Delahunty and Esakoff suddenly discovered a conflict of interest? Or is their ‘maybe’ conflict nothing more than a political shirking of the necessity for a vote?
Have some of these councillors learnt their lesson about Planning Panels and Heritage – ie remember the Esakoff Seaview property fiasco where the Panel came down in favour of objectors? Is that why going to another Panel was deemed too great a risk– especially in light of the damning comments of the National Trust and the most recent (and hence valid) heritage assessement? See: http://www.trustadvocate.org.au/frogmore-soon-to-be-no-more/?
If the prospective buyer was other than Jewish Care would the Frogmore case now be firmly set for a panel hearing rather than demolition?

Here’s what happened. Please read carefully.

Delahunty declared a conflict of interest under Section 78(b)(1a) of the Local Government Act in that she’s a ‘manager of a company’ that ‘may have an interest’ in the proposal. Pilling then assumed the chair. Esakoff then declared a conflict under Section 79(b) under ‘conflicting personal interest’ in that she has ‘very close relatives’ who are ‘currently looking for aged care places’ and that she ‘feels’ that this wouldn’t be out of the question for them as a residence. ‘On that basis I request leave’ to declare the interest.

Pilling said that ‘I understand that I have to put that to a vote’. Hyams then said that ‘our current practice’ is for those making the request to leave the chamber. Esakoff left the chamber, vote was put and passed unanimously.

Lipshutz then moved to accept the motion (ie abandonment of heritage amendment) ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he had gone down to have a look at the Wahgoo property and it is ‘old’ and just because it is old does not ‘make it heritage’. Said that council had gone ahead with Heritage Victoria and they reported that the building was ‘not significant’ and that ‘in my view council should abandon the proposal’ for a heritage overlay.

HYAMS: called this item a ‘tough one’ since he claimed that ‘I do care’ about history and heritage as a member of the Historical Society. Also said that ‘council’ cares a lot about heritage and ‘that’s why there are 3,893 properties’ in Glen Eira listed under heritage zones and this includes over 100 individual properties. Said that ‘we conducted an exhaustive heritage assessment between 1996 and 2003’ and Wahgoo property was ‘not quite considered worthy’. Reason for this is that ‘it can’t be seen from the street’, and ‘modern additions obscuring it’ and there have been ‘fairly significant changes made’ to the building. Heritage Victoria ‘looked in detail’ and from the 8 criteria ‘determined that 3’ are ‘likely to be satisfied’ but ‘not at the State level’. Said that the 3 criteria relate to ‘historic’ and not ‘aesthetic’ reasons. Read out some of the judgements – ie that Frogmore is ‘one of a vast number’ of this type of buildings throughout Glen Eira. It also doesn’t have ‘novel or outstanding features’. The report ‘certainly doesn’t state’ why it should be heritage protected. If the additions hadn’t been added and if it was visible from the street then he thinks it would be ‘heritage worthy’. Council needs to balance the ‘benefit to the community’ and that would be ‘120 beds’ for aged care. ‘We have to accept’ that aged care places need this number of beds ‘to be viable’. So it’s ‘not a matter of having fewer beds’ and the ‘previous facility’ was ‘shut down because it was not viable’ and it had 60 beds. ‘We also need to respect the integrity of our planning system’ and the ‘would be purchaser’ and the current owners ‘rely on our planning system’ and that ‘we did exhaustively assess the heritage value’ of properties in Glen Eira in 1996 to 2003. Thus it is ‘preferable on the balance’ that the amendment is abandoned and that ‘we allow’ the plan to be submitted. ‘It is a reluctant decision on my part’.

SOUNNESS: said he was against the recommendation and concerned about ‘process’ – that if there is benefit that needs to be ‘documented’ and looked at closely and ‘that is the process that is in place for amendments’. Said that this ‘isn’t due process’ and it should go to those people who have greater ‘understanding’ of heritage. If it goes to a panel they might decide against heritage or they might determine that there is heritage value. What’s going to happen to the site ‘is not finished’ because plans are ‘sitting to one side’ and there are ‘many good sites’ that make an ‘effort to do heritage interpretation’. Acknowledged that when heritage ‘was done’ years ago the ‘problem’ of significant vegetation ‘wasn’t mentioned’. Said he suspects that many residents would believe that council isn’t really protecting minimal change areas and that this ‘is further proof that Glen Eira is not doing things effectively’ and not protecting minimal change areas ‘in the way that residents feel it should be done’. He is voting against because ‘at the very least due process’ means going to a panel. It will ‘delay things – that’s the process’ and that from the purchasers point of view this is being held up. He ‘regrets that’, but ‘we have a process’ and that’s the role of council who has the ‘authority’ and is representing residents. If the motion is defeated, then he is foreshadowing a motion to send to a planning panel.

OKOTEL: said that this isn’t ‘an easy decision’. Said the prospective purchasers acted in ‘good faith’. They did their research, and searches. As councillors they have the ‘initial assessment’ from heritage which said that there was no ‘heritage significance’ and ‘provided a grading of C’. If it had been C+ then ‘it would have been put in the register’. ‘More recently we’ve had the independent assessment’ and that decided there was ‘local significance on 3 grounds’ . Council then went to Heritage Victoria and they decided there ‘wasn’t any state significance’ but ‘acknowledged and agreed with the 3 grounds’ of the independent assessment’ but stopped short of endorsing ‘heritage significance’. (Member from gallery then stated – ‘at the State level). Okotel corrected and said ‘state level’ but it ‘didn’t conclude that there was’ significance at the ‘local level’. (again gallery comment – ‘they didn’t have to’) Okotel – ‘all right’. So the two reports are saying opposite things – early one no heritage value and independent assessment that there is heritage value. Okotel’s ‘difficulty’ is that there isn’t ‘sufficient detail as to whether or not’ to ‘warrant heritage’. Said she asked Heritage Victoria whether there was ‘evidence’ to warrant ‘local signficance’ and they replied that any ‘written’ statements would not ‘be specifying whether or not’ there was local significance’. Didn’t think that there is ‘enough evidence at this time’ for council to make the decision about whether Frogmore is worthy of local heritage protection and to ‘refer this matter to a panel’. Said that if referred to a panel as Sounness wants, then this would ’cause delay’ and would put the parties involved into ‘significant financial expenses’ such as ‘engaging lawyers’ planners and other ‘experts’. It would also ‘cost Council about $10,000’ and would ‘likely cost other parties that amount’. This would result in ‘two non-profit groups’ experiencing ‘significant additional expenses’ and even cost community groups is ‘they were to advocate on this issue as well’. So ‘it would be unfair to progress the matter’ to a panel. She thought it ‘would be more appropriate’ for Council to get ‘more information’ by engaging ‘three additional independent heritage assessors’ so then’council might make a decision, a more informed decision’ about whether to go to a panel.

LOBO: said that Frogmore mightn’t be ‘heritage’ listed but it’s been in ‘existence since 1889-90 so ‘it has been a part of people’s upbringing, culture, education’. He ‘understands the needs of an ageing populating’ but deciding on the issue ‘without another opinion’ from the panel is also fraught. The site ‘may or may not be an ideal place’ for an aged care facility. In order to vote on this, he said he needs to ‘depend on an independent panel’.

PILLING: thanked residents for their strong campaign and emails, posters, and ‘kudos for raising the issue’. Said he is trying to ‘make a balanced decision’ and looking at the ‘long term best interests of the community’. In 1996 they had a heritage assessment and ‘at the time the property wasn’t protected’ and the most recent assessment did recommend protection. The director of Heritage Victoria found that of the 8 criteria, the building only met 3 of the criteria and ‘last Thursday Heritage Victoria voted’ not to grant state level protection. Said ‘all councillors’ visited Frogmore ‘this morning’ and the pictures that some of the gallery are holding isn’t what the site looks like now. Said it is ‘a compromised site’ and at present is ‘derelict’. The two parties want to settle and Jewish Care wants to put in a 120 bed facility. He ‘feared’ that if this wasn’t ‘settled’ then the site ‘could be rezoned’ for residential and have ‘multi-unit developments on it’. He would ‘much prefer a community asset’. Said that ‘if someone wants to come along with $10 million to develop’ like Ripponlea then great but ‘I don’t think that is going to happen’. As Lipshutz said ‘we live in the real world’. Said he ‘understands’ the issue of ‘losing our older’ buildings such as the Boyd House in Murrumbeena but they are now faced with making a ‘decision on balance’ as to what is best for the community. Going to a panel when state institutions ‘won’t protect it’ and just because a former mayor lived there, and there are other houses where councillors/mayors have lived ‘does that make it heritage?’ This ‘is a compromised site’ and ‘it is not pristine’ and ‘I will be voting in favour of abandoning the amendment’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘perhaps’ they should have ‘preserved heritage’ before. There was a property in Bambra road that was an ‘old mansion’ and was ‘turned into a hospital’ and ‘someone came along’ and put a home there and he thinks ‘it’s great’. ‘this property has been certainly compromised’ and isn’t the ‘pristine property it was when it was built’. Also ‘it doesn’t accord with the requirements of heritage’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED ON CASTING VOTE OF PILLING. VOTING IN FAVOUR OF ABANDONING AMENDMENT – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, PILLING. VOTING AGAINST – LOBO, SOUNNESS, OKOTEL. PILLING, AS CHAIR, THEN HAD THE DECIDING VOTE.

And for the last few bits of info, see The Age article at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/residents-fail-in-attempt-to-preserve-historic-frogmore-house-from-demolition-20150610-ghkyz7.html

Also an audio interview with resident Jan Armstrong – http://www.magic1278.com.au/news/historic-home-to-face-the-wrecking-ball-20150611-ghlcfs.html

Plus a posting from Glen Eira Residents’ Association – http://geresidents.wordpress.com

and last but not least, the Leader’s contribution –

June 14, 2015

Councillors – Pass Or Fail?

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

Here is part of the record of the voting pattern from our 9 elected representatives since the introduction of the new zones. – ie September 2013 up to, and including the meeting of 19 May 2015. That is 20 months worth of decisions.

Please note that these are applications decided by a full council and does not include the multitude decided behind closed doors by the (anonymous) Delegated Planning Committee or the faceless ‘manager’. Further, according to planning permit Activity reports, 95% of decisions are made under delegation and not by councillors. That means that what is presented here is a minute fraction of all decisions and permits granted by Glen Eira Council.

Several trends are absolutely clear –

Generally speaking the higher the number of objections the more pressure councillors feel and hence the greater the chance that they will reject the application outright. This should be a clear message to residents – organise, agitate, and inform the community as to what is going on in various suburbs.
For those who are sceptical about the above, we’ve uploaded a conference paper which substantiates these claims.
The vast majority of applications coming before council were given the green light – by both officers and councillors. Only a handful went against officer recommendations and each garnered much publicity, complaints and objections (ie Penang Street, McKinnon; Mavho Street, Bentleigh)
Many of the decisions listed as ‘carried’ are a result of only one or two councillors voting against the motion – notably Lobo. The consistent performers in voting for development were Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Delahunty and Magee. Hence the majority of councillors still supported the officer’s recommendations.
In two instances, councillors granted a permit, only to have this refused by VCAT. For example, an Ames Avenue application was refused, but a new one, for one less dwelling has been resubmitted and approved at the last council meeting.
The total number of new units approved is literally staggering – even without the cave-ins over the Caulfield Village. Our count is for over 1800 new dwellings approved just by this group of councillors. Please remember that this figure represents only a small percentage of all decisions.
Please also note the number of applications which were passed UNANIMOUSLY. So much for all the concern, all the crocodile tears, all the hand wringing. If councillors were really that concerned then amendment after amendment would already have been rushed through. The truth of the matter is that the pro-development mentality of this administration is holding sway and councillors are generally going along for the ride.

The Unanimous Decisions

149-153 NEERIM ROAD & 4 HINTON ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY – 17 double storeys
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – Six storey building 40 dwellings
674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 storey building,2 shops, 8 dwellings
730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey, 21 dwellings
677-679 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey, 2 shops, 10 dwellings
534-538 North Road ORMOND – 4 storey, 2 shops, 20 dwellings
7 Ormond Road ORMOND – 3 storey, 15 dwellings
115-125 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 4 storey, 2 offices, 33 dwellings
15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 52 dwellings (vote was for 47 units – VCAT permitted up to 52 units)
22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 36 dwellings
1A Orrong Crescent and 632A Inkerman Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 3 storey, 3 shops, 16 dwellings

Some Other Significant Applications

Gordon Street (8 storey and 55 units) was rejected on a split vote. Those in favour were – Lipshutz, Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
Loranne Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 28 units. Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling, Sounness, Esakoff, Delahunty, Magee
24-26 Mavho Street BENTLEIGH – cut down to 3 storey; 25 dwellings. Voting for maximum proposed – Pilling

There are countless other decisions that have been passed – either unanimously, or with this mob’s usual tactic of lopping off one storey, and a handful of units. The result is VCAT and if the Planning Scheme does not have the necessary ‘tools’ to protect neighbourhoods, then there is no reason why the VCAT member should accept such minute tinkering by councillors!

There is overdevelopment. That is beyond argument. Yet Glen Eira Councillors have failed to set appropriate policy and have failed dismally to listen to residents’ demands for a comprehensive review of the Planning Scheme’s shortcomings and gaps. Until this has been initiated and acted upon by councillors, then residents can have very little faith that these 9 men and women are in fact fulfilling their statutary and ethical mandate to listen to the community and act in their best interests.

June 12, 2015

Hansard & Council

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

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh)—It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. This has been a big issue—I know other colleagues have said similar things—in my community, particularly around Carnegie, Ormond and around parts of Murrumbeena and Notting Hill, covering two different councils: Glen Eira and Monash. The many hundreds of people in my community whom I spoke to in relation to this specific issue feel quite let down by the previous government’s handling of development generally. In my view the bill addresses some of the current imbalances in the planning system. I disagree entirely that it is underwhelming. You are damned by the opposition if you make any little bit of progress in this area, and you are also damned if you do not do anything.

Just to be clear, the bill amends two key provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987—sections 60 and 84B—to set out that the responsible authority must consider, before deciding on a permit application, the volume of community objection and community concern. My issue with planning in the municipalities my electorate covers is that while there has been an increase in development pressure over the years, including in our previous time in government, the last few years under the previous government saw an acceleration of that pressure and in my view there was not a commensurate response by the previous government.

Firstly, we had the imposition of the commercial zones with no height limits. After that we had inconsistent application of residential zones. For example, Glen Eira City Council applied for and received from the then government and the then Minister for Planning a translation of the zones from the old to the new without consultation with the community. I remember the language from when I was on the Monash City Council—it said that it was a ‘direct translation’ between those incoming zones and the zones that existed. That is a misnomer; there is no direct translation. There is an approximate translation. My concern about that is that the new zones have different attributes to those that were ‘directly’ translated.

An example of that for my community, particularly around Carnegie, is around the streets on the south side of Neerim Road—streets like Shepparton Avenue, Belsize Avenue, Tranmere Avenue, Elliott Avenue and others. For any normal layperson Neerim Road would be quite a hard-and-fast border in terms of separating a clearly residential zone from an activity zone where the railway station and shopping centre are. The so-called direct translation meant that probably the first 10 houses or so on the south side of Neerim Road ended up being subject to this high-growth zone and the ability to have high-density development while the half the street does not have that. To me, that does not make sense. If that is what was meant by ‘direct translation’, it has failed.

There is an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence in Glen Eira specifically but in other areas in Monash as well where the development pressure is intense. Just the other week we had a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) about a 12-storey apartment building in Carnegie—12 storeys! We are not talking about Richmond; we are talking about Carnegie. It will be the highest apartment building in Carnegie and the highest in the whole city of Glen Eira, and it is entirely inappropriate. That is one example.

I also have here a report from the City of Glen Eira from its meeting of 28 April. Item 9.8 on the agenda for that council meeting shows the number of new dwellings approved for the period before the residential zones came in and the number for the period after. In the 15 months before, May 2012 to July 2013, in Carnegie there were 92 new dwellings. In the 15 months after the new zones came in there were 221 new dwellings. That is an enormous increase. I do not necessarily ascribe every single one of those new dwellings to the residential zones, but you cannot look at those statistics and not find a causal relationship between those two things. Ormond in the same period went from 19 to 55, more than doubling.

This has been said before, but I have no issue with development. I have an issue with development that is out of step with community expectations. While community expectations are hard to define, if you do enough work, you can define what they are. My personal view is that VCAT is out of step with community expectations. What ends up happening, in my view, is that councillors and council offices end up self-regulating in anticipation of a VCAT outcome.

You then start having conversations with the community, saying, ‘We should do this because you could get a far worse outcome at VCAT’. I do not think they are the kinds of conversations that are constructive.

This bill is not a magic pill—I want to make that really clear to my community—and it will not relieve all our development pressures. It will not be a magic pill for some of the most offensive development applications, unfortunately. It will, however, be one of a number of tools in our armoury as residents to fight the most excessive elements of development. This government is not just introducing one bill to equalise the current imbalance that exists between the planning system and residents. I note that the Minister for Planning has also released a discussion paper, Better Apartments. The minister and the government have made a commitment to review the implementation of residential zones later this year. This is the third initiative that makes changes to what VCAT and the authorities must consider. In my view these three things will together lead to an outcome which equalises the current power imbalance between residents and the development process.

I am proud to speak on this bill. I look forward to the other two initiatives announced by the government and the minister taking shape and starting to enhance the planning system for residents so that they have a say in the planning of their community and their future. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015, which implements the government’s election commitment to require the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) where appropriate to take into account the extent of community opposition to planning proposals.

Like many in this house, I have served in local government as a councillor, and I now serve as a local member of Parliament, so I am fully aware of how emotive town planning can be. A day does not go by without somebody contacting my office to talk about a planning application that has been advertised. My electorate is a special place, with a market gardening heritage of which people are very proud. The suburb of Bentleigh was developed around the 1920s, and the Californian bungalows that line its residential streets are characteristic of Bentleigh. The suburb has a significant neighbourhood character.

I understand that earlier today the member for South Barwon referred to a neighbourhood character zone. If only such a zone existed! New residential zones were introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was planning minister, but a neighbourhood character zone is not one of them. I am not surprised that the member for South Barwon is not aware of that, given that the minister for Ventnor conducted his consultations around kitchen tables at Phillip Island. Members of this government operate in a different manner.

The zones introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was planning minister have absolutely been a problem. If we look at what is happening in the Bentleigh electorate, where we have a residential growth zone, we can see that four-storey buildings are being built with anything up to 40 apartments in residential streets, such as Bent Street and Mavho Street. I was down at Mavho Street the other day, and the local residents are absolutely beside themselves. I will tell you what: when the Leader of the Opposition was planning minister, it would have been great if he had taken a walk down Bent Street or Mavho Street instead of spending all that time in Ventnor; it would have been absolutely fantastic.

What is worse is that the local council and the former government introduced these zones without consultation. We have heard that this was a direct translation and that there is no need for consultation, but that is not the case, as we have heard from the member for Oakleigh. If we look at the council’s own statistics—which do not include the March quarter but include the 15 months prior to that—they show that in the residential growth zone in the suburb of Bentleigh development has doubled.

It is important to note when we talk about social effects that one of the social effects is on the McKinnon school zone. McKinnon Secondary College is a highly valued secondary school in this state. It is a public school, and I am very proud of it and proud that the Andrews government is investing $9 million to rebuild it.

Mr Pearson interjected.

Mr STAIKOS—Nine million dollars—zero from the other side, but $9 million from us. Quite rightly the school community and the principal are very concerned about the impact of development in these zones on the school population, which is already nearly 2000 students. It is a relatively small school zone, and within it are included a general residential zone and a residential growth zone. Quite rightly, this is a cause for concern.

I note that in an article in the Age this week on this very issue, the mayor of the City of Glen Eira acknowledged that the former government’s residential planning zones had made the area more attractive to developers. He also said that before too long the school would be accommodating 4000 students. I think that is a bit of hyperbole, but nonetheless, there is a problem to address. I am glad that the mayor now acknowledges that perhaps these new residential zones are a problem, and the council needs to get on board to address this problem.

It makes absolute sense that this government would introduce legislation into this house to ensure that VCAT is democratised—that is, that VCAT takes into consideration the volume of objections to a development. We have heard of examples in the past where VCAT has said it does not take such considerations on board. One that I do not think has been mentioned today but was just outside my electorate is the case of Minawood Pty Ltd v. Bayside City Council, from a few years ago. VCAT said:

…numbers for or against a proposal are not relevant per se in administrative decision-making.

Last year a significant planning case in McKinnon concerned an application for a 24-apartment development in Penang Street. Fortunately the local council quite rightly rejected that application for 24 units on a street in McKinnon that currently accommodates 10 houses. That matter has been sent to VCAT, and more than 100 local people have objected to it. Their voices should be heard, and that is why this government has introduced this legislation.

The former shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, who I acknowledge for announcing this policy last year, visited Penang Street on two occasions. Despite many requests made of the Leader of the Opposition when he was planning minister, Penang Street was never visited by him, but Brian Tee met with the local residents, heard their views and listened to them, and today we are debating what is a good piece of legislation, which I commend to the house.

AND PART OF MR. T.SMITH’S (KEW)ADDRESS

This amendment, however well meaning, will not actually change anything. This is the key point we have to make. The language used in the amendment is not a compulsion. There are too many ‘mays’, there are too many ‘shoulds’ and there are no ‘musts’. We all know that planning is one of those areas of public policy where frankly there are so many inconsistencies. It is comprehensively confusing most the time.

Unless you use the language of compulsion—the musts, not the shoulds—you end up with a situation in which very skilful lawyers at VCAT, essentially against local objectors, are able to drive a truck through community objections and allow large-scale developers to win the day.

We on this side of the house support the community’s right to object to what is to be built over their back fences or next door to their primary assets. I fundamentally believe the property rights of those folk who are already living in local areas ought to be defended against the applications for development made by other people that may undermine the value of the community’s primary assets. However, I do not believe in giving false hope to objectors or in encouraging councils to behave in a fashion whereby they attempt to hold up legitimate developments with genuine planning merit by claiming that there is a quantum of objectors greater than one might have expected. This bill does not change that. This amendment will not change the fact that at the end of the day responsible authorities should judge a planning application on its merits. It means that councils have to do the work to appropriately zone land in a way that is consistent with the expectations of the local community. Indeed the state government ought to have a mind to the wants and wishes of the local community.

June 10, 2015

Mavho Street Decision

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

Magee was an apology. Delahunty took the chair.

Hyams moved motion to refuse application on the grounds that it is an ‘overdevelopment’ and doesn’t ‘respect’ the ‘existing character’ – latter repeated countless times. Seconded by Lobo.

HYAMS: called the officer recommendation ‘reasonable’ and that they’ve ‘done a professional job of it’. He just happens to ‘disagree’ with them. Said that the officers believe that since this property abuts a commercial zone that they don’t have to ‘adhere’ to ResCode quite so strictly. He believes that it is ‘still a residential zone and should be treated as such’. Also, this is a single block and you ‘wouldn’t have four storeys’ on a single block ‘unless it was pretty large’. Thought that the recommended conditions (ie car parking, setbacks) ‘are good’ but not enough. Street and side setbacks, ‘don’t comply with ResCode’ and neither does permeability and site coverage. So this ‘convinces’ him that ‘the only reasonable thing to do is refuse it’. The application fails to ‘tick the box’ and ‘too many things about this that don’t comply’. Said that parking issues were mentioned at the planning conference because ‘the street is getting very busy’ and that ‘builders in the area’ are not ‘complying’ with the law. So ‘in the next few weeks’ there will be ‘investigating’ and ‘we are cracking down’ on enforcement especially about parking. He will ‘pass on’ the results when they come back.

LOBO: said he has consistently opposed developments because they have ‘domino effects on the people’. Mavho is an ‘avocado street’ – ie ‘the builder now has butter, jam, and avocado on his toast’. The street ‘is gone’ and has experienced ‘tears and sleepless nights’ by residents. Itemised all the developments in Mavho in the recent past and that another two properties have now been sold together. Said that ‘oversupply’ was a concern and that ‘many dwellings will be occupied by pigeons’ and other birds. Said that to ‘put dwellings’ in Mavho which is a ‘lovely street’ and which backs Loranne is ‘catastrophic’. In about 100 metres of street there are now ‘almost 130’ new dwellings which ‘in any language’ would suggest that ‘this is not a place to live’. There was an application for a massage parlour with the first application and now with all these new apartments ‘there will be the need for 2 or 3 massage parlours’.

LIPSHUTZ: Lobo mentioned 2 ‘things that resonate with me’ – agreed that the street ‘has gone’. Other point was about more developments in the street. Claimed it was ‘unfortunate’ because when the first application came in ‘I voted against it’ but it lost and went to VCAT and VCAT gave the developer what he wanted. Said he could ‘stand here and be popular’ and say all the things that people ‘want to hear’ but this wouldn’t be ‘doing anybody any favours’. He has for 6 years been talking about VCAT Watch and again VCAT in today’s agenda ‘overturned council’s decision’. SAid that ‘none of us’ want this kind of development ‘in our streets’ and that council ‘has been advocating very strongly against’ such developments. Reality is that ‘the government wants these types of developments’ and VCAT ‘is approving them’. Said if the application is refused it ‘will go to VCAT’ and he ‘guarantees’ that VCAT ‘will approve’ and therefore ‘some of the things that council has put in’ will be gone. That’s what happened with one of the applications in VCAT Watch. Council tried to make ‘things better for residents’ and VCAT ‘said ‘no’ we can’t allow that to happen’. Said he ‘would rather have something there than nothing’. This wouldn’t be very ‘popular’ with people because they want rejection of application but he has to do this ‘properly and unemotionally’ and therefore he has to ‘support the’ recommendations. Claimed that officers have tried to make a ‘bad situation’ better. Wouldn’t like this development in his street but ‘because’ the ‘street is gone’ ‘VCAT is going to allow it’.

ESAKOFF: this application ‘is so far removed from what is a normal requirement’ that she can’t support it. ‘On principle’ she can’t support the recommendation just because it abuts commercial zones. Said that 78% site coverage ‘when it ought to be 60 is too far over’. Can be ‘lenient’ but this is too much. It’s also ‘not meeting’ permeability and setbacks. Thought that council needs ‘to maintain the limits we have on things’ like permeability and site coverage. Also wouldn’t ‘support reduced parking’.

PILLING: admitted that when there are ‘two zones there is always a tension’. The planning department ‘has done the best to alleviate’ this tension. Listening to the arguments that the application is ‘too far over’ the limits so they’ve got nothing to lost, he will ‘probably’ vote to refuse.

SOUNNESS: said he is ‘conflicted’ since he knows that council tried to improve its planning by ‘taking what was offered’ by the minister via the new zones. Said this was a bit like Ford – you can have any colour but all that’s available is black. Said that in ‘negotiations’ about the zones ‘we were given a limited range of tools’. Since this abuts a commercial zone ‘quite large buildings can go there’ and this mightn’t be ‘comfortable’ for everyone. The recommendations ‘propose’ what ‘may happen in the commercial zones’. Said that in 15 years time people won’t be saying that ‘this is grossly’ out of place. His ‘concern’ was that in ’20 to 25 years time’ there won’t be ‘any street trees’. Said he wants a ‘condition’ about appropriate landscaping area. in 20 years time ‘we will have a different streetscape’ but still needs trees. Recognises that this is a ‘development’ area and he is ‘uncomfortable’ now but in ’20 years time I do not think I will be uncomfortable’. Said he is against refusal and if the motion doesn’t get up he will introduce a new motion to increase front setbacks to enhance landscaping.

OKOTEL: supported refusal and disagreed with Lipshutz on VCAT’s record. Whilst it’s likely to end up at VCAT it isn’t ‘an inevitability that it will’. Hoped that the ‘applicant would put in more appropriate plans’. Even if it goes to VCAT she doesn’t think it’s a ‘certainty’ that he will get what he wants. Said there could be amended plans, negotiations, and then mediated agreement. Said that council has to apply ‘policy and planning law’ and therefore agreed with Lipshutz that because ‘we sit as a quasi tribunal’ emotion can’t be part of decision making. Hyam’s motion is ‘based on policy and law’ and the refusal isn’t ‘based on flimsy reasons, not emotional reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: thought all arguments were well put and that there is a ‘reasonableness to refusal’ because it’s an ‘unusual application’. With permeability and landscaping ‘issues’ she would lean towards refusal. Said that she is concerned about arguments that say that ‘bringing apartments into a street means that the neighbourhood is gone’. Said that people want to live where ‘some of us live’ and ‘we know how gorgeous’ these places are. It doesn’t detract from ‘how beautiful it is’ by ‘having more people there’. Talking about the ‘neighbourhood going is emotive’ and ‘potentially unfair to people moving in’. Supports the idea that ‘there should be more development there’ even though the application might ‘lack’ some important things. Whatever ‘ends up there’ will be ‘good’ for the area and for the people coming in.

HYAMS: didn’t think that ‘the street is gone’ – ‘people still live there’. ‘we should live and die by ResCode in our policies and not by populism’ and ‘not by what we think VCAT may or may not do’. Gave example of VCAT refusing Ames Avenue when council approved it which was a ‘surprise’. Thought that VCAT would ‘impose further conditions’ on ‘ones we refuse’ rather than on ‘ones we approve’. Regardless of what VCAT might do, councillors have to do ‘what we think is right’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. VOTING AGAINST REFUSAL – LIPSHUTZ AND SOUNNESS

COMMENT

Lipshutz has no problem in presenting half truths when it suits his nonsense arguments. For example: the first application (March 2012) for a major development in Mavho Street was refused unanimously by all councillors. It was not a case of Lipshutz voting against and other councillors voting for the development – as could be interpreted from his comments. Secondly, the development was for 3 storeys and ten units only – a far cry from the 4 storey largesse that council has now granted to large slabs of Mavho Street – thanks to its zones. PS; also worth pointing out that for this first application only 10 properties were notified and there were 47 objections!
The old bogey of VCAT is trotted out again and again – opposed to that nasty old concept of ‘populism’. Well, the facts of the matter are incontrovertible – councillors (apart from the Caulfield Village) vote with one eye on their re-election chances. Refusals by councillors are either recommended by officers, or when the number of objections become too large to be ignored. Countless phone calls and emails from residents also exert the necessary pressure. The message to all residents is clear – object, object and keep objecting.
We also find it quite laughable that Hyams’ grounds for refusal focus on ‘existing character’. The ‘existing character’ of Mavho Street is now 3 and 4 storey developments – thanks again to council’s new zones. With no preferred character statement for housing diversity developers have been handed a carte blanche to do what they like with council’s blessings.
Hyams’ claim that you ‘wouldn’t have’ four storeys on a single block is also quite laughable. Here are two examples of single blocks that have received permits from council (one admittedly for 3 storeys, but that is big enough in itself). The examples – 1100 Dandenong Road (4 storeys and 22 dwellings. The land is roughly 570 square metres); 1170 Dandenong Road (3 storeys and 23 dwellings)
Delahunty’s and Sounness’ arguments deserve close attention by residents. We invite comments as you see fit.
Not one councillor had the courage to state the obvious – a pathetic and sub-standard officer’s report that is anything but ‘professional’ and ‘reasonable’. And of course, not one councillor had the courage to question the efficacy and wisdom of the new zones.
Please note that nearly every single ‘local centre’ in Glen Eira is now zoned commercial and directly abuts residential zones – and quite often Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Another instance of shocking planning by Glen Eira. Will we therefore see a repeat performance of this circus every single time an application comes in from these areas?

June 9, 2015

The Zones Or Not The Zones?

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

McKinnon Secondary College discovers downside of being popular school

Date: June 9, 2015 – 6:49AM

Henrietta Cook, Education Reporter

Development is rampant in McKinnon. Ben Ryde orchestrated the sale of his home and those of three of his neighbours to a developer.

Has one of Victoria’s most sought-after state schools become a victim of its own success?

McKinnon Secondary College principal Pitsa Binnion said an explosion of high-density “monstrosities” in the school’s coveted zone has put huge pressure on the community.

She criticised developers for demolishing single-storey homes and replacing them with 80-unit apartments so more families could secure places at the high-performing school.

“Where once upon a time it used to be one house with two or three children, you will now have three units with eight children. Everybody is subdividing and you are seeing a change in the face of the little McKinnon suburb that once was.”

She urged council to slow down on the approval of new apartments in the area.

While the school’s zone has not changed dramatically for more than two decades, its population has grown from 1100 to 1950 students.

This has coincided with a steady improvement in the school’s VCE performance, with senior students achieving 233 scores of “40 plus” in individual subjects last year.

“How big can the school become? We need to really maintain the integrity of the school.” Ms Binnion said the zone was not the problem, but rather the increasing density of the housing within it. Heavy traffic is another unintended consequence of the school’s popularity. Just last week, during the chaos of the afternoon pick-up, a student was rushed to hospital after he was hit by a car driven by a parent at the school.

The school’s infrastructure is also under pressure, with 32 portables now dotting the grounds.

Glen Eira Mayor Jim Magee – who is also a parent at the school and on its council – said the former government’s new residential planning zones had made the area more attractive to developers.

He said the solution was to build the school upwards, and within the next decade he expected it would accommodate 4000 students. “It’s a victim of its own success.”

The Andrews government has promised the school $9 million for a new multi-storey building with classrooms.

Bentleigh MP Nick Staikos said new laws introduced into parliament by Labor would “democratise VCAT” to ensure the tribunal took into account the volume of objections to a proposed development. This could halt unpopular developments in the area. He reminded parents that there were other fantastic state schools in the area, including Bentleigh, Brighton and Cheltenham Secondary College.

“But I don’t blame people for wanting to send their children to McKinnon.”

henrietta.cook@fairfaxmedia.com.au

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mckinnon-secondary-college-discovers-downside-of-being-popular-school-20150608-ghj59t.html

June 8, 2015

Mavho Street Application

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

The officer recommendation is 4 storeys and 23 units instead of 25 units. Worthy of pointing out is that for this application there were 2 planning conferences held since first time around not all objectors were notified, and one objector received his letter the day after the meeting was held! The excuse and the culprit? Australia Post of course and not the inefficiency of council!

Then there’s the so-called ‘justification’ for recommending a permit. Please consider this extract as just one example:

The development does not satisfy some of the numerical requirements of ResCode in relation to street setbacks, side setbacks and walls on boundaries, site coverage and permeability. However, the design of the development will provide for an appropriate transition from the adjoining commercial properties to the north and east, to the residential sites to the south, particularly when the recent approvals and recommended changes are taken into consideration.

COMMENT – note the terminology used. ResCode is no longer referred to as ‘prescriptive’ as has occurred in recent applications, but has morphed into ‘numerical requirements’ that can be overlooked at will by council when it suits their purpose. The farce gets much worse however when it is admitted that side, and street setbacks do not meet these ‘requirements’; nor does site coverage and permeability. But it is still okay and ‘appropriate’ to grant a permit. What we are left with is the completely spurious, nonsensical assertion that ‘design’ and the imposition of questionable ‘conditions’ is enough to compensate for the failure to protect the most minimal residential amenity demands of ResCode. How many ‘standards’ can be breached before an application is refused outright? How many more times will VCAT have to inform council planners that insisting that the developer puts up a sign regarding residential parking permits is not on and does not belong in the formal ‘conditions’ part of a permit?

Even more disconcerting is the inclusion of the developer’s argument into a document that is supposed to be ‘neutral’, ‘objective’, ‘unbiased’ and which relies solely on ‘planning law’. Whilst the ‘argument’ does not win out, we question why it is even there, and especially why it features far more prominently and extensively than resident objections.

The rear dwelling of 38 Mavho Street is provided with two north facing ground floor habitable room windows that are within 3 metres of the boundary of the subject site. The development does not comply with the minimum requirements of ResCode for these windows. The applicant has indicated that one of habitable rooms is provided with a secondary light source and both rooms are not considered to be primary living areas. It is also noted that the existing boundary fence is 2.5 metres high. On this basis they have sought a variation from the minimum setback requirements of ResCode.

Planning conferences according to council have the prime objective of hearing resident and developer views and (if possible) reaching consensus and compromise. Below is what this developer had to say. No attempt made to reach ‘consensus’; no offer of ‘compromise’. In our experience this is par for the course given that developers know they are on ‘easy street’ in Glen Eira!

DEVELOPER – – said that the site was surrounded by commercial zones and that there is a ‘brand new’ 3 storey apartment block ‘across the road’. Site is in Residential Growth zone so allowed 13.5 metres height so this is ‘the best place’ to be allowed to develop to ‘that density’. On car parking they are meeting the standards of 1 car park per dwelling but asking for a reduction of 3 visitor parking because ‘the history and the facts are on our side’ since ‘no visitors ever use basement car parking’. They hired a consultant to do a ‘study on general impact’ of parking and traffic. Consultants are ‘respected’ by councils, ‘traffic engineers’ and ‘are well respected by VCAT’. What they propose is going to have a ‘minimum impact’. Doesn’t matter if it’s 25 apartments or 5 apartments or 100 apartments ‘it’s irrelevant’ since it’s ‘what development does to the neighbourhood’ and their study shows that the impact is ‘minimal’.

June 6, 2015

The Budget: From The Sublime To The Ridiculous!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments

Residents have their chance to address council on the budget this Tuesday night. 17 submissions have been sent in – a huge increase. The comments (highlights presented below) range from unacceptable charges and rate increases, poor policy documents, that are so out of date they belong in a museum, and lack of real consultation with residents.

Before presenting these ‘highlights’, we draw readers’ attention the most ridiculous set of tenders ever entertained by this council. When councils all over Victoria are being urged to tighten their belts and be accountable for the expenditure of ratepayers’ hard earned dollars, Glen Eira council is its wisdom is about to spend a million dollars on unnecessary ‘trifles’. It appears that for this council the major priority is to promote itself rather than address the needs of residents. Here are the details of the proposed tenders –

Mystery shopping program for GESAC – $40,000
Point of Sale system for Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – $150,000
The supply of promotional items for sale/giveaway from Glen Eira City Council – $400,000
And $390,000 to plant a few trees and grass in the Carnegie forecourt! (mind you, no ADDITIONAL open space, just the usual expensive tinkering – which begs the question why the first design was ever countenanced).

This expenditure should be read in the light of resident comments below –

Deliberate, repeated deception and secrecy in governance and cover up continuing

I note that Glen Eira’s half-page Street Lighting policy dates from 2002 and as such is completely out of date. I suggest that this policy be comprehensively revised with the inclusion of the environmental and health impacts of light at night before such a program (ie LED) is contemplated.

…this year’s planned increase in rates of approximately 4.94 per cent, which is almost four times the current inflation rate, is completely unnecessary and unacceptable. (Please note: this resident has obviously been duped by the manner in which council has publicised its rate increase. The increase is 6.5% and NOT 4.94%!)…During March of this year, most of the kerbing, footpath and landscaping at this location, has been reworked at considerable expense to the Ratepayers of the City. In my opinion, the works appear to have only completed superficial changes, which I regard as unnecessary. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the developer of this site is able to reap the profits, when the roadworks surrounding this property development have been required to be reworked as a direct cost to Glen Eira Ratepayers. ….it appears that the Council decision makers are intending to apply different principles because their accountability is obscure, and Ratepayers do not generally feel that the outcome of the objection process is likely to be worthy.

I consider the $450,000 allocated towards the construction of the Eskdale Road/Fitzgibbon Crescent Caulfield North new open space to be an unnecessary and terribly wasteful expense. The proposed new open space is small and is unwarranted as it is located within easy walking distance of Caulfield Park and therefore is unlikely to be used by many residents.

Supply of places (childcare) may exceed demand due to council charging too high fees for the service the centres provide. Whilst I am very conscious of the quality of care and the homely environment provided for children at the centre my child attends (which was a primary factor in choosing this centre), it is my understanding that other centres in Glen Eira provide nappies and even cooked meals. Parents have to provide these at the conoucil-run centre in Carnegie. Other centres also provide excursions…..It is actually my understanding that kinder places are funded by the State or Federal Government (which makes the cost significantly lower for parent who have the flexibility to put their child into a straight-up kinder program) and that the City of Glen Eira is not passing that funding on to parents through reduced fees for children in the Kinder-year.

Currently, there is no allocation in the budget to redress the steady erosion of resources and facilities for passive usage of Caulfield Park….Since the Conservatory has been removed, there is no shelter in the western end. This means that young and old have neighter shelter from the scorching heat of the summer sun, nor from biting winter wind and rain.

I appreciate that there are many opportunities for community input and consultation to Council deliberations generally, however feel that one area in which these opportunities are lacking, is in relation to the Children’s Centre. As far as I am aware, formal parent involvement in the governance of the centres is limited to an annual online survey, the results of which are not communicated. Input from the parents and the community has the potential to have direct impact on the bottom line, through suggestions that have cost savings, or revenue enhancement, implications.

As I can see the tennis courts are regulary used (ie at Carnegie pool) and appear to be in very good condition, why is $130,000 being spent to change them? Has there been any community consultation, and what is the reason for the change? (ie to convert to small sided soccer pitch)

The Draft Community Plan – Transport – page 28 proposes to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities but “only where balanced against maintaining traffic flows”. Is the council really wanting “more traffic faster” as the overriding objection of transport planning in Glen Eira? The priority for more faster traffic reads like a strategy from the 1960’s for freeways and not a way to create a livable local community with good sustainable transport choices. Instead the plan and councils transport planning programs and works should firstly prioritise pedestrians, then bikes, then public transport and lastly cars – as is current transport planning best practice…..The Walking Plan is mentioned in the transport section but is missing from the list of all strategies on page 42 – is that an oversight or a statement of priority?….The proposed investment of $150,000 would be insufficient to build more than 1 set of traffic lights on the Rosstown Rail Trail – let alone the many that are required. Does carrying over funds from last year also indicate poor action on implementation and a need to review how the plan is managed?

How can $50,000 be allocated to Thomas Street Reserve, McKinnon? Surely, four large old trees surrounded by bark and drought affected grass, on a double housing block, doesn’t constitute a ‘Reserve’….Only two seats are provided at bus stops between Thomas Stret and Wheatley Road North side and no seats on the South side. Elderly people sitting on fences and students sitting on the kerb, waiting for the bus, is demeaning.

June 5, 2015

News Flash: 12 Storeys & Council Incompetence

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

VCAT is no friend of residents. However, if there ever was a more clear-cut condemnation of the ineptitude, and indifference of Glen Eira City Council to land use planning, then it comes in the decision for a 12 storey, and 134 units, plus shops, plus waiver of some visitor parking in Woorayl Street, Carnegie.

Every single resident should read the judgement and in particular the following extracts. They will show:

How policies that expired in 2007 have not been touched since
How maps in the planning scheme contradict policy
The failure to include overlays and urban frameworks – the ‘tools’ that Sounness so easily reneged on
This judgement reads as a litany of utter failure to protect neighbourhoods

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/735.html

“We have found that although a 12-storey building will represent a highly visible built form change on the review site and nearby, this outcome is supported by policy that aims to increase intensity of development in activity centres close to public transport and provide the highest density of dwellings within Urban Villages including Carnegie. In reaching that conclusion, we have had regard to the absence of overlay or schedule provisions containing preferred heights and the local policy framework that provides little specific guidance on height or built form outcomes sought for the area.

The policy includes a map that divides the Carnegie Urban Village into nine precincts. The review site is within Precinct 1 that contains most of the area between Dandenong Road and the railway line. There are specific built form policies for all precincts except Precinct 1. The policy for Precinct 1 expired on 30 September 2007. There was reference to the expired policy in various submissions and evidence at the hearing. We indicated at the hearing and confirm in this decision that we give no weight to a policy that, despite referring to objectives for the precinct, expired over seven years ago

We find clause 22.05 on Urban Villages provides general direction on how Carnegie is expected to change. Its general principles are relevant and its Precinct Map provides direction on land uses, street interfaces and the treatment of public places. It provides little direction on the height, scale or form of new development, which we consider are important elements of any statement of preferred character. As such, we find this policy allows great scope in interpreting what the preferred character might be.

The Urban Village Structure Plan is a Reference document to this policy. It identifies a Precinct layout that differs from what is in Clause 22.05 and includes the review site in a Mixed Use precinct, east of Koornang Road. It says this area is ideal for high intensity activity due to its proximity to the shopping centre, public transport and major road network. It says the Council should strongly consider purchasing the open space north of the railway reserve and when purchased redeveloped with seating, play equipment and lighting. It recommends that development avoid overshadowing the rail reserve’s open space. It also encourages a pedestrian walkway between Woorayl and Arawatta Streets, a new road link between these streets and the closure of the western end of Woorayl Street. We place little weight on this document. As a reference document, it provides background to the Urban Village policy. It does not substitute for the policy and is not a replacement for the expired policy in the Planning Scheme for Precinct 1. As such, we find it does not justify the Council’s submissions regarding the height of new development on this site or its submissions that that the site should provide a pedestrian link between Woorayl and Arawatta Streets.

A building must not exceed the maximum height specified in a relevant Schedule; however, the relevant Schedule sets no maximum height. The decision guidelines require consideration of State and local planning policy and the Guidelines for a development of five or more storeys.

Council is concerned that the proposal will result in significant shadow and associated loss of amenity to the public open space area on the south side of Woorayl Street. In the context of the urban village, Council contends this is unacceptable especially given there is no other open space in the activity centre or nearby. The unreasonable shadow impact in Council’s submission will occur in winter as well as spring and this outcome is contrary to policy that seeks to improve the quality of open space, to the DSE guidelines that aim to avoid reduction of sunlight to important public places and to the concerted efforts Council is making to improve quality and quantity of open space in the municipality. The City of Glen Eira Open Space Strategy 2014 recommends securing this reserve as a high priority and identifies it as an important open space for the community living and working north of the railway line. In addition, this Strategy includes guidelines that seek between 9am and 3pm a minimum of three hours direct sunlight at the winter solstice and five hours at the equinox.
It is the applicant’s submission that it is not reasonable to expect that there will be no winter shadow to the reserve opposite. The applicant says the shadow outcome is acceptable having regard to its role and function, the limited improvements, the public use zoning and the lack of any evidence that Council has a prospect of obtaining the land for public open space.
Ideally there would be no shadow cast to the reserve but on balance we consider the extent is acceptable having regard to the following matters:
The reserve is owned by VicTrack and zoned for Public Use –Transport. It is not zoned for public open space and it is not subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay.
Although there are Council aspirations to secure the reserve for open space, that conclusion is not assured. The plan to secure the reserve has been in place since 1998 with no apparent advancement to that end and the uncertainty about the future of the land is increased by potential rail works to provide grade separation at Carnegie with implications for land owned by VicTrack

The objective in the DSE Guidelines to avoid reducing sunlight to public places applies to ‘important’ places and refers to the option of local policy identifying public spaces that should be protected at the winter solstice. There is no such policy in the Planning Scheme but rather in a reference document and the importance of the space is reduced, in our view, by its unknown future.

Council criticised the proposal for failing to provide a public pedestrian link from Woorayl Street to Arawatta Street through to Dandenong Road as sought in the expired local policy for the precinct and supported by the Urban Village Structure Plan 1999. Council says such a link would assist in increasing permeability though the precinct and specifically would assist with improving walkability and access to the train station.
We have already indicated that we give the expired policy no weight. Whilst we acknowledge the Urban Village Structure Plan refers to a pedestrian link that would improve connectivity to Dandenong Road, we consider a 15 year old suggestion in a Reference document with no ongoing translation into policy is difficult to support. There are no obvious pedestrian link opportunities between Arawatta Street and Dandenong Road with no footpaths adjacent to the vehicle access to the car park, no pedestrian entry to the Spotlight development from Arawatta Street and Council did not identify any detailed analysis to support the concept. We consider the need for the link is not clear and would not refuse the application for this reason.

There are 134 dwellings proposed of which 123 are one or two bedroom and 11 are three bedroom.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates