GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

September 11, 2025

Latest Government Planning Intervention(s)

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

The State Government has now released the next swathe of planning interventions for 25 activity centres. Whilst it may be argued that Glen Eira does slightly better than Bayside or Boroondara in terms of height limits, the overall impact of the proposed changes are catastrophic for residential amenity and urban living.

At the time of writing, we have not sighted any response from Glen Eira on their website. In contrast both Bayside and Boroondara were quick out of the blocks in condemning this latest intervention. See: https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/news/statement-activity-centres-program-consultation

and

https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/services/planning-and-building/planning/planning-scheme-and-amendments/victorian-government-planning-initiatives/victorian-government-changes-planning#toc-council-s-responses-and-reports

Once again there is nothing in these newly released documents which provide any information on: infrastructure costs, traffic, open space, etc. All we’re told is that developers can now build to their heart’s content and bypass resident objections in most cases. Even the government run consultation surveys are again nothing more than a tick the box exercise (see the Boroondara link for access details). We are still to see what plans are in store for Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Glen Huntly and others.

It is indeed extreme folly to believe that what will eventuate will be affordable housing. These inner suburbs basically cater for ‘luxury’ apartments selling between $2m and $3m or dog boxes that in no way suit a family.

Here’s what is proposed for Carnegie –

Whilst the council structure plan remains the same (and already includes allowance for 12 storeys) the surrounding areas are severely impacted. Please note that the light blue sections in the above image can now be built to 3 storeys and the darker blue to 4 storeys. If the land is ‘large’ (and this isn’t defined) then the limits go to 4 storeys or even 6 storeys.

When this is compared to the current zonings, then hundreds upon hundreds of sites are being earmarked for height increases and therefore a massive density rise. For example here are our current zonings:

All the areas shown as light pink in the following image are currently zoned as NRZ (neighbourhood residential zone) meaning they are either single or double storey dwellings. They can now become 3 and 4 storeys if they are on an average 500 square metre site, or if larger, the option is to go to 6 storeys.
There are very few 3 storey town houses, which means that most developments will consist of apartment blocks and not town houses. Besides, building an apartment means that more dwellings can be squeezed in compared to town houses.

What we are witnessing is the creation of unsustainable development that will become an urban wasteland that consists of apartment blocks following apartment blocks with no regard for heritage, open space, environment, and certainly no cheaper housing that suits families and downsizers. If our councillors aren’t screaming blue murder right now, then they are not doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

May 14, 2025

The Select Committee Report

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

The select committee’s report on its investigation into the recent planning provision amendments has now been released. In many respects, the report is a damning indictment of both process and the lack of transparency by this government. It is available via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/reports

The report contains 12 recommendations and 20 findings most of which are highly critical of government. These findings/recommendations are significant in that they highlight many of the issues that Glen Eira’s submission basically ignored and which we commented upon in our previous post! What is disappointing is that there is no specific recommendation regarding the proposed removal of third party objection rights. The committee basically states that this element has a long and important role in the state’s planning history!

We’ve highlighted some of the major comments and conclusions below. They are quoted verbatim.

A major problem facing the Committee was the absence of requested modelling from the Government, to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives. Without that modelling, the Committee was reluctant to downplay the many unintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identified by users of the planning system.

Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerning for me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code: the removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards in major local government areas, and the excessive removal of existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without also creating these new risks (from introduction by chair – David Ettershank)

Finding No. 5 – Little convincing evidence was advanced to the Inquiry that the State Government’s announced planning changes will guarantee additional housing and no substantive evidence was advanced that the Government’s plan would with certainty provide additional affordable housing.

FINDING 6: The Victorian Government did not properly consult on these three amendments and the Committee is of the view that the Minister has inappropriately exempted herself from expected consultation.

RECOMMENDATION 4: At a minimum, modification of planning scheme amendments should be undertaken after a round of genuine consultation with councils and communities.

FINDING 9: The Committee acknowledges that the concerns expressed by many submitters that heritage and heritage values are at serious risk of being compromised by these planning amendments are valid. Protections should be available to protect our city and its magnificent heritage buildings and zones.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The decision guidelines of clause 65 of the Victoria Planning Provisions should apply to all decisions made under clause 55. This is most important where risks to human life and health, and to the environment, should be identified and managed.

FINDING 15: Without being presented with any evidence to the contrary, the Committee is concerned that clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions may lead to the excessive removal of existing trees and reduce tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Victorian Government publish and release modelling regarding the expected impact of the planning scheme amendments on tree canopy and vegetation in areas affected by the changes.

RECOMMENDATION 10: That the Victorian Government make improvements to clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions including the addition of a separate landscaping objective and standards, and changes to the tree canopy cover objective and standards. The introduction of any improvements should be undertaken as early as possible.

RECOMMENDATION 11: That the Victorian Government promptly review and improve the environmentally sustainable development standards in clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions with a view to ensuring the statewide standards meet the higher standards found in 28 local government areas.

FINDING 18: The planning amendments mark a reduction in long standing third party appeal rights in the planning system.

December 22, 2024

Where Are You Glen Eira?

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

Whilst Glen Eira basically sits back and does practically nothing, apart from a very belated media release by the CEO, Bayside City Council has been working flat out to ensure that the community knows what the State Gov is planning for their council. They have:

Held a community forum on December 18^th with expert commentators where over 200 residents attended
Published summaries of what is proposed and its impact on their municipality

In contrast, residents of Glen Eira would be hard pressed to locate any specific information on council’s website, and there certainly has been no information sessions/forums held by our council.

Below are some of the links provided by Bayside –

Click to access Bayside%20Community%20Forum%20on%20Victorian%20Gov%20Planning%20Reforms%20Information%20Pack_0.pdf

Click to access Bayside%20Community%20Forum%20slides%2018%20December%202024.pdf

https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/services/planning-and-building/victorian-government-planning-initiatives

One activity centre of concern to Glen Eira is Moorabbin where the west side of South Road is in Glen Eira and the East covers Kingston and south Bayside. Here is what Bayside has said about the proposals for this area and its views on the proposed housing targets –

December 6, 2024

A New Beginning Or More Of The Same?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments

Perhaps it is a little bit early to pass complete judgement, but the hope that with this new council, decision making could potentially be free from political party alignments and/or affiliations appeared to be firmly dashed on Tuesday night. The item that illustrated this in spades was the proposed 3 storey development at the corner of Halstead and Hawthorn Road in Caulfield North.

Here are some details of the application:

3 storeys, 26 dwellings of which 12 are single bedroom and 14 double bedroom
The officer report recommended a permit and the waiver of 4 onsite parking spots
The double site is 1300 square metres and just outside the Caulfield North activity centre
The area is zoned GRZ2 and is located along a main road hence no requirement for visitor parking

Prior to the item being debated, Halstead Street residents voiced their strong opposition in the public participation section of the meeting. They emphasised again and again the lack of available street parking given the close proximity to the commercial core in Hawthorn Road which meant that visitors to the shops were often forced to park in surrounding residential streets. The result, according to residents, was that Halstead street was already ‘parked out’ and made it impossible for tradies, emergency vehicles, visitors, carers, etc. to find parking near their destinations. Interestingly, only 7 properties had been notified of the application and yet there were 32 objections.

Karslake moved the motion to accept the recommendation and this was seconded by Zhang. The ‘accepting’ vote went along indisputable ‘party lines’ with Karslake, Zhang and Ragni voting in favour of the permit and Esakoff, Daniel, Szmood, Kennedy and Rimbaldo voting against. The motion was thus defeated 5 to 3. Parasol had previously declared a conflict of interest.

Once the motion to grant a permit was defeated, Esakoff presented an alternate motion that the proposed 26 units be reduced to 22, and thus the allocated parking would not involve any waivers. This was passed 6 to 2 with the opposing councillors being Karslake and Zhang. Ragni decided to vote in favour of the motion this time around.

Whatever the outcome at the presumed future VCAT hearing, the issue here is not really about the merits of the application, but whether or not certain councillors will see their role as backing state government proposals instead of firmly representing their constituents and addressing the ills of our current strategic planning.

We’ve uploaded the comments made by Karslake, Zhang and Esakoff and ask readers to carefully listen to what was said and then decide as to the credibility of the arguments. We will also comment on the officer’s report for this item in our next post.

September 12, 2024

Where Tone Is Everything!

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

We have repeatedly contrasted how other councils approach dealings with the State Government and how their official communications vastly differ. In Glen Eira the criticisms and dare we say ‘outrage’ is muted and practically non-existent. Nor are residents truly informed as to what is going on behind the scenes.

This post concentrates on the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan released by the State Government in August 2024. Bayside publishes its proposed submission in the current agenda. Glen Eira merely presents a ‘summary’ of what officers will draft (September 3^rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain. The submissions are due on the 29^th September.

Bayside does not hold back in informing residents as to what occurred. Their officer’s report states:

The VPA and DTP scheduled a meeting with officers from Glen Eira, Bayside and Kingston City Councils on Wednesday 21 August, informing that Phase 2 Engagement on a Draft Plan for Moorabbin would likely occur within the coming days, and that the Draft Plan would be released to Council officers and the public at this time. On 22 August, release of the Draft Plan was made via an article in the Age

All we learn from Glen Eira via the September 3^rd report is:

The State Government has released the Draft Activity Centre Plans for Moorabbin and Chadstone for comment to both Council and the public on 22 August 2024.

No mention of the indecent haste; no mention of meetings and certainly no mention of the failure to inform council and the community directly. Is this a minor oversight, an unfortunate lapse? Or does it signify Glen Eira’s refusal to even imply major criticisms of the State Government’s processes and autocratic actions?

Here are some other comments made by Bayside in their officer’s report –

Council officers are extremely disappointed in the manner that the VPA and DTP has and continues to engage on this important project. The limited time and information available to provide meaningful feedback has created significant scepticism and lack of trust in the State Government’s ability to appropriately plan or manage such projects. Specifically, the approach provides little confidence and raises significant concern about the State Governments failure to follow its own planning framework and principles of the State Governments own Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the principles for a transparent planning process. Instead, the State Government, VPA and DTP are failing to openly engage with Council or the community, presenting all parties with plans for the Moorabbin Activity Centre without any technical reports, justification for the proposed approach, or any planning provisions.

There are grave concerns that the State Government is operating on the very outskirts of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the process of this program going far beyond what orderly and proper planning seeks to achieve. (Bayside bolding)

The Activity Centres program continues the State Government’s continued erosion of the community and local government participation in the planning process. It is based on the State Governments false narrative that Councils are a critical block in the delivery of housing.

The VPA and DTP have informed Council officers that there will not be an open or transparent review process. The plan will be presented to a Standing Advisory Committee on papers only – considering submissions raised. This approach will remove any peer review or cross examination of experts. The State Government, VPA, and DTP are running a process where there is no accountability or opportunity to question their work (which has not been released to the public).

It is understood that the Activity Centre Program is a pilot program which will be used as a basis to replicate across the metropolitan area. The approach undertaken by the VPA and DTP does not provide Bayside, nor should it provide the remainer of the Local Government Sector across Victoria, with any confidence that a replicated approach could be efficiently or effectively rolled out. The localised issues and needs of communities will be different and the work undertaken has not given due regard to the community expectations.

The VPA and DTP continue to inform Bayside of the program rather than genuinely consult or collaborate which represents a lost opportunity for a collaborative approach which could genuinely achieve improved outcomes. Bayside sees the output to date by the VPA and DTP as not having any real value or improved planning outcome beyond a small uplift in building heights in the most sensitive part of the project area.

There are plenty of other statements we could have included. This officer’s report is then followed by a 25 page formal submission. If the Glen Eira submission gets to even 12 pages we will be surprised!

The Bayside submission includes discussion on:

The State Government’s abandonment of its own planning rules and processes
Whether the gov’s draft plan is in accord with the ’purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone to facilitate commercial growth.
Affordable housing
Built form typologies and standards
Landscaping and trees
Infrastructure and open space
Transport and traffic
Environmentally Sustainable Design

(The full submission can be accessed at Item 10.3 via this link – https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/16_september_2024_council_meeting_agenda.pdf)

The 3^rd September Glen Eira report ignores most of the above categories. Not a word is stated in regard to: housing affordability; transport and traffic; Sustainable Design; actions/plans in accordance with the ‘purpose’ of an Activity Centre Zone. Whilst the 3^rd September report is supposed to be a ‘summary’ only of what will eventuate in the actual submission, its lack of coverage and detail is concerning. Of greatest concern is the overall TONE of the report. Yes, we get verbage such as ‘concern’, a token acknowledgement of the ‘community’ but nothing to match what Bayside sees as vital to full transparency and democratic process.

This isn’t simply an issue of semantics. When we have a State Government that bulldozes through ill thought out planning changes as a political escape clause to camouflage its incompetence and indifference to the housing crisis, then it is incumbent on ALL councils to stand united and to call out such incompetence in the strongest terms. Glen Eira remains the odd man out – refusing to call a spade a spade, and thereby failing in its obligations to the thousands of residents (and future residents) who will be impacted by these spurious ‘reforms’. As we’ve said before – why on earth is Glen Eira taking this course? What is really behind such mealy- mouthed responses?

September 4, 2024

Governance – #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[2] Comments

Last night’s ‘debate’ on the proposed new local law/meeting procedures belongs in the annals of high melodrama. It is also an indictment of councillors who once again failed miserably to support residents by ensuring democracy is alive and well in glen Eira.

What’s Missing

Cade moved the item and introduced several amendments – all technical – but without a single word explaining the necessity for these amendments. Residents would not have a clue what these things meant.

More concerning was that no councillor mentioned the most important aspects of the proposals such as we’ve highlighted in our previous post. Of course ‘best practice’ rated a few mentions!!!!

No one commented on:

Why the banning of notice of motion 6 months out of an election
Why Glen Eira differed so dramatically from what other councils have done
Why notices of motion could not apply to council policies
Why notices of motion required 3 signatories when other councils insist on one, or two signatories

Not one single mention was made of any of these points by any speaker. And we note that most councillors were silent and simply put up their hands at the end to vote these laws in unanimously! Surely when important issues are up for decision, residents have a right to know WHY councillors vote they way they do? Even the councillor Code of Conduct requires this – ie Councillors swear that they will: represent my views truthfully and be prepared to discuss how my views were formed. This did not occur. In the end residents are the losers as councillors meekly towed the party line and handed over full control to our unelected bureaucrats.

The Melodrama

All attention was focused on the clause which would ban placards and posters being brought into council meetings. Two councillors (Karslake and Athanasopolous) voted against the local law, solely it would seem, on this basis. Athansopolous even brought props with him – a walking stick, cakes of soap, handwash, and various bits of makeup that could reside in a woman’s handbag. His claim was that any of these things could be used as projectiles and since the proposed law didn’t cover these items, that concentrating on posters was basically discriminatory and ineffectual.

We take no position on this issue. What we do expect however is that ALL aspects of the proposed laws are given the same attention as this single clause. It wasn’t.

That leaves some questions:

Did all councillors agree with ALL the clauses of the proposed law? If not, then why not comment and provide your views? If they did agree, then again, the reasons should have been forthcoming.

Is the 9 to 7 vote real or simply a camouflage? If a camouflage then what does this say about the internal operations of this council and the pressure that is put on some councillors to keep shtum? And what does it say about the way in which this administration and councillors view and treat their residents?

Last night was indeed a sad day for Glen Eira ratepayers!

August 31, 2024

Good Governance Or Lack Thereof?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[3] Comments

The chasm between what council promises via its various policies and what actually happens is on full show with the proposed new governance and meeting procedure laws. (Item 8.3 in current agenda).

For starters, council’s Engagement Strategy tells us that residents will learn and understand how their feedback has influenced the final council decision. Here’s what page 25 of this strategy states:

Increase transparency about what the community feedback was, how it was considered and how it has influenced the decision.

Regularly publish on Council’s website what it was we wanted to know (we asked), what we heard from the community (you said), and how the feedback was used to influence Council’s decisions (we did).

The community will be able to see how their feedback has or has not influenced Council’s decisions.

Sounds great! In reality however nothing could be further from the truth. For item 8.3 of the agenda, there is not one word which explains why the views of residents were either ignored or, if genuinely considered, were rejected for inclusion in the final draft documents.

Adding further insult to injury, we have this comment in the officer’s report –

The full engagement summary report is provided as Attachment 4.

We have searched back over the past agenda items and this is the first time we have found the so called ‘engagement summary’. Adding to the confusion, it was only on the July 9^th council meeting that resident responses were published. This was NOT labelled as the ‘engagement summary report’. So why has it taken until now for this ‘summary’ report to be put into the public domain? And as for the report itself it again falls well below what residents should expect in terms of objective and comprehensive reporting on resident feedback.

Item 8.3 continually refers to council following ‘best practice’. This term is mentioned 5 times in this item. On perusing the July 9^th comments, one submission highlights what ‘best practice’ actually means by quoting from 6 of our surrounding councils and how they handle the notice of motion issue – Bayside, Monash, Boroondara, Kingston, Port Phillip and Stonnington. Why the final Glen Eira draft on this issue differs from ALL of these other councils is not explained or even mentioned. Residents have absolutely no idea as to why their recommendations and comments were ignored or ultimately incorporated. This practice does not adhere to the above quotes from council’s own engagement strategy!!!!!!!

Here is just one example of a resident’s views which did not eventuate in the final proposed draft. Again, no explanation as to why not!

While it may be helpful for those watching a meeting for officers to give the background to a report, if officers give the reasons for the recommendation, they are effectively debating the motion. This is not the role of officers. It should be left to the councillor moving the motion and the other councillors who support it to do this. As well as officers intruding into the role of councillors, it would also put those councillors who disagree with the recommendation, as is the absolute right of any councillor, in the awkward position of having to publicly disagree with the officer who has just spoken. This could also cause ill will on both sides, and is therefore detrimental for cohesion between officers and councillors.

Contrary to this recommendation, council proposes instead:

Before an Officer Report is considered by Council and any motion moved in relation to such report, the Chief Executive Officer may, at the invitation of the Chair, introduce the report by setting out in not more than 2 minutes: 30.1.1 its background; or 30.1.2 the reasons for any recommendation which appears.

Even more baffling and unexplained is council’s new ‘arrangements’ for a notice of motion –

Questions abound:

Why restrict notices of motion to more than 6 months out from an election? No other council we know of has done this!
Why when certain councillors have voiced public opposition to the need of 3 signatories, is this still in place?
6 ‘business days’ in effect means at least 9 days prior to a council meeting
Unclear if the officer report would be tabled at the designated council meeting or would this drag out for months until the report was written and tabled?
Why can’t a notice of motion have anything to do with council policies?

Basically, what all of the above ‘conditions’ establish is the previous iteration of the mooted local law – an officer report that would take an eternity to eventuate. Given that the purpose of a notice of motion is the ability for councillors to get something onto the agenda, especially if it is urgent, this is simply another attempt to limit the input and autonomy of councillors.

By way of contrast, please see the following from Bayside and Boroondara and the ‘restrictions’ they place on their councillors via the notice of motion issue.

There are countless other examples where the final drafts fall well short of ensuring that governance in Glen Eira meets the full standards adopted by other councils. Unless processes are spelt out fully then all remains in the hands of this administration and/or is left to the poorly defined discretion of the Mayor.

It would appear that once again residents have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As a local law that in all probability will remain untouched for the next 10 years, it binds the upcoming future councils to a set of processes that are anything but explicit, democratic, and transparent. It seems that this administration is determined to keep full control in their hands and to sideline as much as legally possible both councillors and residents!

July 24, 2024

Consultation!!!!

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

Last night’s council meeting unanimously passed the ‘updated’ Community Engagement Strategy/Policy. It was lauded as foundational to everything council did and how important community feedback was. There was not one reference to the quality of the ‘engagements’, the value of the continued pathetic surveys, nor the validity and accuracy of the various consultation summary reports.

We illustrate how skewed and manipulated these summary reports are by analysing the most recent effort – the fenced off leash area in the Caulfield Racecourse.

Here is a summary of what we’re told:

There were 368 comments made in the survey responses
There were 13 emails sent in as responses – none of the points made in these emails were cited or commented upon. In other words, we have absolutely no idea what these 13 emails stated!
The claim is that 62% were in favour of council’s proposal and 38% were opposed.

Here are some thoughts to ponder.

The vast majority of responses came (as expected) from dog owners. These participants used the racecourse more than any other cohort of users – ie 85% we’re told. So how are they likely to respond to the question asked – Do you support the proposal to formalise a fenced dog off-leash area in the north-west corner of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve? Given that there is nothing in the survey to tell participants anything about the site chosen – ie size, distance from water, etc. how many of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses can be taken at face value as support or opposition to the proposal? Over recent years there have been numerous public questions and requests to council to introduce fenced off leash areas. Council has responded that fencing does not fit in with their ‘open space’ planning. Thus, how many of the ‘yes’ responses are a result of wanting a fence, but not necessarily what has been put forward? Is the figure of 62% fully endorsing council’s plan, or simply endorsing the idea of a fenced area but not necessarily what is presented? We can’t tell based on how the question is presented and the lack of accompanying information.

We then get down to the nitty-gritty of the so called ‘Survey Data Analysis’ and this is assessed largely by the section called ‘Free Text Feedback Analysis’.. We are told:

Of the 325 responses which provided free-text feedback to question two, 185 responses support the proposal and 140 responses do not support the proposal.

The implication of such a sentence is clear – participants support the council proposal!

We then get this breakdown of written responses –

Please remember that the ‘conclusion’ was 140 responses DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL!!!!! Is this figure accurate? How is this number arrived at? What criteria was used to interpret the responses? Or were these ‘interpretations’ simply done to ‘confirm’ overall support’ and hence council’s stated position?!!!!!

We have highlighted in orange all those response which might be interpreted as opposed to the proposal – acknowledging that we can only go on the ‘themes’ that council claims came up more than 10 times in the responses. Given that council refuses to publish the comments, as they used to do, we have no idea of what was actually stated by participants!

The highlighted sections represent those responses that we are fairly confident might indicate opposition to the plan. The figures are: 94 + 53 + 22 + 19 + 14 + 13 + 10 + 6 + 5 + 3 = 239. Yet we’re told that the total number of opposed comments only equals 140!!!!! Tallying up even the first two categories alone (ie 94 +53) gives us a total of 147 and not the 140 cited!!! Subtracting some of the ambiguous ‘themes’ such as ‘dog training’, or ‘Exercise with dog’ still leaves us with numbers well and truly above the claimed 140!!!

The very act of enumerating ‘themes’ is a pointless exercise, as does counting the number of mentions. Unless the full comments are published we do not have any idea as to what the participants actually prioritised or thought.

There are plenty of other contentious ‘conclusions’ in this summary. Is it simply incompetence on the part of the report’s authors, or is such skewing of results deliberate and orchestrated?

Until we have a set of councillors who actually bother to analyse what is put in front of them, and who have the courage to call out such manipulative practices, then community consultation is Glen Eira will remain a farce.

July 21, 2024

The Downward Spiral Continues!

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

There are several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting which illustrate the utter cowardice and complicity of the Glen Eira administration with the State government’s ad hoc and appalling planning processes and plans. In addition there is the continued watering down of consultation protocols that further limit transparency and, most importantly, community involvement in decision making.

We will focus on these two separate items.

Proposed Government Planning for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre

Item 8.3 consists of 4 pages outlining the ‘preliminary/draft’ Moorabbin plans. Two of these pages consist of the maps created by the government. The other two pages are spin and summaries of what the government has stated as its goals. Throughout this verbage there is not one single criticism or even analysis of what is proposed. Instead, we are repeatedly told that:

Council officers are actively involved in these discussions

Council officers will continue to be involved in the briefings with the VPA/DTP and ensure appropriate feedback is provided on the proposed controls and the respective Activity Centre plans. Feedback will align with Council’s priorities and more importantly advocate to be coordinated with funded infrastructure improvements to ensure our communities are not disadvantaged unfairly.

It is anticipated that a significant level of change in these activity centres will be proposed with further changes to be seen in the surrounding catchment areas as depicted in the figures within this report.

Moorabbin Activity Centre planning does not merely impact on Glen Eira. It also includes Bayside and Kingston.

Here is what the Bayside officer report stated on the issue. All quotes come from the 21^st May agenda from that council. Please read carefully and ask yourselves which council is really standing up for its residents?

… there are concerns with the manner these projects are being undertaken, and the lack of genuine engagement with the affected councils

The program has been given an un-realistic deadline of implementation of planning controls into the planning scheme by December 2024. Council Officers have had minimal engagement with the project with the following key questions unable to be addressed by the VPA:

• What boundary of the activity centre is being used?

• What are the proposed planning controls to be used?

• What mechanisms for the collection of development contributions will be used to fund infrastructure triggered by the program?

• What technical studies are being undertaken to inform the work?

• How will the community and Council be meaningfully engaged in the process?

Until now, Council officers have had no meaningful engagement with this project, with no information forthcoming in response to any concerns

As this report critically points out, increasing population and development growth in these areas will only exacerbate the need for more infrastructure and community services. Victoria is already witnessing the amounting pressures on our public health system and ambulance services – a result of under resourcing and funding by the State Government. There is real concern that proper planning will not be accounted for as part of these Major Projects and impact the liveability of our current and future residents.

Council fundamentally questions where strategic justification for these targets has arisen from and whether the processes being led for these major projects are consistent with theoutcomes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the objectives of Planning in Victoria,

Council has previously raised concerns with the SRLA, Victorian Planning Authority and Department Transport and Planning regarding the process, governance and Council’s role within these major projects being led by the State Government. At present, Council has been mostly kept informed and ‘drip fed’ decisions rather than having any real ability to input into these processes and decisions being made.

There are also major concerns regarding the State Government’s agenda to ‘fast-track’ these projects. Proper planning takes time, resources and input at the local scale – this includes both local government and the community. Fast-tracking these major projects only further restricts Council and the community’s input and role in these processes.

Questions

Why is it that on the same issue, one council can have an officer report that is highly critical of what is happening and Glen Eira has taken 2 months to come up with a report that basically says nothing and is silent on the processes and impacts of the government proposal? Add this issue to the total deafening silence on the published housing targets of 65,000- net new dwelling by 2051, then this just confirms how little our administration cares about liveability and advocating for residents in Glen Eira.
Can we really trust the officers and their stated ‘involvement’ in any discussions? Are councillors informed of what is being discussed? Do they ever see hard copy printouts of discussion points or ‘resolutions’? Or are councillors, as usual, kept in the dark?
The real question is – what does council have to gain by being fully complicit with this government? Who is this administration really representing?
Community Engagement Strategy

The current Community Engagement Strategy, adopted in 2021, was supposed to run until 2026. So we now have a new strategy 2 years before the current one is set to expire. Why? What’s the rush? What’s the purpose of introducing a new strategy so far ahead of time?

Once the proposed draft is examined, we can achieve some understanding of why this administration is pushing for a new strategy. Put simply, it is to further reduce community input into council decision making.

The key paragraph of the new policy is to be found in these officer comments :

As the updated Policy does not substantively change the intent of the previous Policy, and was co-designed with the Community Engagement Advisory Committee, Council will undertake an ‘Inform’ level community engagement program.

The most important word here is ‘inform’. This is a reference to the IAPP standards of community engagement/consultation where we have ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’ as the steps on the ladder of full and meaningful consultation with the community. ‘Inform’ is the lowest level of consultation. It basically says, ‘here is what we will do and we’re simply telling you about it’. End of story.

When the initial strategy came to light, and included which plans, issues would occasion what sort of consultation, councillors passed the resolution that major issues such as structure plans, important infrastructure, etc. would go well beyond the ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ stage that was initially proposed for all consultations – apart from those mandated by legislation. Councillor then voted for this resolution:

Since the above resolution was passed we have not had ONE SINGLE ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ for any of the structure plans.

But what is even more alarming in the new proposed draft is the complete EXCLUSION of any link between projects and the anticipated level of consultation. We have no idea which issues will have more than ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ associated with them.

We have written previously on how other councils have designated their intended level of consultation. See: https://gleneira.blog/2021/01/07/consultation-2-2/. With this new draft all we get are motherhood statements, vague promises, and nil detail.

Here is one page from the ‘framework’ document. Please note:

‘Engagement Level’ has now nothing whatsoever to do with how council will consult, much less the level of consultation according to the IAPP standards. It now simply becomes a question of how long the consultation will last!

We then get another page that supposedly outlines the methods of consultation.

Once again we have no idea which projects will involve which levels of consultation. The stated methodology also leaves much to be desired. For example: the community engagement committee is stated as having input into the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ standards. To the best of our knowledge and according to the minutes of this committee, not once did this committee produce any ‘recommendations’ or even discuss the various draft structure plans. They certainly have had no input whatsoever into the framing, analyses and testing of the atrocious survey questions that are continually produced by this council.

The final outrage is that in the actual draft policy we find this table that is supposed to outline the level of consultation. The very inclusion of a sentence such as ‘Level to be selected depending on the complexity of the matter’ is the loophole that allows this administration to do whatever it likes, when it likes. In other words, because the standard isn’t in black and white, council can neatly side step the need for ‘involve’ and ‘collaborate’. This is both dishonest and devious!!!!!

We have previously shown how other councils specifically itemise the task and the appropriate level of consultation. None of this exists in this new proposal. It represents nothing more than a continued watering down of the fundamentals of sound governance and democratic process. Sadly, it also means that residents, and probably councillors are once again sidelined as much as is legally possible. What a sad state of affairs and what a self serving administration we truly have.

June 17, 2024

State Government Madness!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, Miscellaneous
[6] Comments

Hitting the news over the past few days has been the state government’s release of its preliminary housing targets for each municipality. Glen Eira is being geared to add another 65,000 net new dwellings by 2051 which represents, according to The Age, a 92% increase on current development rates.

Consultation is now open for comment by individuals and organisations. See: https://engage.vic.gov.au/project/shape-our-victoria/page/housing-targets-2051

No one denies the lack of affordable housing, or even housing itself – especially if population growth continues. But to simply decree that what will fix the problem is another 2,000,000 homes by 2051 without any planning for infrastructure, open space, and financial input is in our view sheer madness. Glen Eira has been more than pulling its weight over the past 15 years. To expect a doubling of construction is not planning – it is a recipe for destroying neighbourhoods and liveability – even if this target is possible given the rise in construction costs, labour shortages, and developers’ goal of ever increasing profit.

How on earth these numbers were derived is anyone’s guess. The government website simply justifies the data with the following:

The above ‘criteria’ raise a number of questions:

Glen Eira has 9 railway stations in 38.7Km of land. Add to this 6 Major Activity Centres/Comprehensive Development Zones, and about 11 neighbourhood centres that total a good proportion of available land then we can expect most of Glen Eira to be ‘built out’. When Glen Eira is compared to its neighbours and their targets we are certainly being overdeveloped. For example here are the targets for councils lumped together in the government map (highlighted as green) together with their size in square km –

Hobson’s Bay – 31,000 – 64km

Maribyrnong – 46,000 – 31.2 km

Moonee Valley – 57,000 – 43 km

Merri-bek – 72,000 – 51 km

Darebin – 72,000 – 54km

Banyule – 47,000 – 63km

Booroondara – 67,000 – 60 km

Manningham – 39,000 – 113 km

Whitehorse – 79,000 – 64 kn

Monash – 72,000 – 82km

Bayside – 31,000 – 37 km

Kingston – 59,000 – 91 km

As this shows, apart from Maribyrnong, Glen Eira is far smaller than all other council areas. Add to this the lack of open space, tree canopy loss, and wide areas subject to flood, then we are indeed in deep shit if this proposal is ever to eventuate.

Not a single word refers to population DENSITY and what the repercussions of living with increased density will mean in terms of traffic congestion, lack of open space, urban heat, overshadowing, etc. The basic question of what is an ‘acceptable’ number of people living in each square km is never addressed – and this assumes that infrastructure has been built, that jobs are available, schools nearby, roads accessible, and public transport vastly improved.

The question should be whether Glen Eira has already achieved saturation point. Below we present profile.id data that shows population density as of 2023 in our suburbs. What will this be in 2051 when we add another 65,000 dwellings?

DENSITY PER SUBURB

BENTLEIGH – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Bentleigh is 19,360, with a population density of 4,025 persons per square km.

BENTLEIGH EAST – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Bentleigh East is 31,214, with a population density of 3,476 persons per square km.

CARNEGIE – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Carnegie is 19,412, with a population density of 5,266 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield is 5,905, with a population density of 4,009 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD NORTH – CAULFIELD EAST – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield North – Caulfield East is 19,452, with a population density of 3,566 persons per square km.

CAULFIELD SOUTH – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Caulfield South is 12,748, with a population density of 3,897 persons per square km.

ELSTERNWICK-GARDENVALE – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Elsternwick – Gardenvale is 12,455, with a population density of 4,354 persons per square km.

GLEN HUNTLY – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Glen Huntly is 5,202, with a population density of 5,824 persons per square km.

MCKINNON – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for McKinnon is 7,205, with a population density of 4,536 persons per square km.

MURRUMBEENA – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Murrumbeena is 10,449, with a population density of 3,976 persons per square km.

ORMOND – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for Ormond is 8,956, with a population density of 4,323 persons per square km.

ST KILDA East – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for St Kilda East is 4,480, with a population density of 4,686 persons per square km.

TOTAL GLEN EIRA – The 2023 Estimated Resident Population for the City of Glen Eira is 156,837, with a population density of 4,056 persons per square km.

Source: https://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/about?WebID=10

Now is the time to provide your input into this government ‘plan’ if you don’t want to see your neighbourhoods completely destroyed. See the above link and please respond. And wouldn’t it be good if for once our council came out with some formal opposition to such planning?

Glen Eira Debates