GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

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 3rd council meeting) and then resolves to send this off without placing the eventual submission into the public domain.  The submissions are due on the 29th 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 9th 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 9th 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:

  1. Why restrict notices of motion to more than 6 months out from an election? No other council we know of has done this!
  2. Why when certain councillors have voiced public opposition to the need of 3 signatories, is this still in place?
  3. 6 ‘business days’ in effect means at least 9 days prior to a council meeting
  4. 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?
  5. 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.

  1. 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 21st 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?

 

May 8, 2024

Our Rights Being Reduced!

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

Glen Eira clearly makes up its own rules as it goes along, regardless of whether or not these rules are in accordance with its adopted policies and governance rules and which are still current. Recent meetings provide us with conclusive evidence of these machinations.  We refer to public participation and written questions to council.

Public Participation

Out of nowhere we are now being informed that residents in the public participation section of a council meeting have only 3 minutes in which to address council. Also, that the time allotted will be no longer than 15 minutes. Why? When was this decision made? And by whom? Most importantly, this new ‘law/policy’ is NOT IN ACCORD with the existing (2020) policy that clearly states at clause B(15) –

Members of the public addressing the Ordinary council Meeting are permitted to speak for a maximum of five (5) minutes (unless granted an extension of time by the Chairperson)

At last week’s council meeting one resident politely asked if he could have a 15 second extension. This was refused by Cade. Please listen carefully to this audio –

Neither the current guidelines nor the Local Law state the duration of public participation or the public question sections. Yet throughout most of this year we are told that they will last 15 minutes only. It’s important to note that the so called ‘guidelines’ which determine procedures have NOT BEEN AMENDED at the time of writing.

Public Questions

When compared to other councils we again fall short. Here’s what they do:

Monash – Public question time is limited to 30 minutes, unless otherwise resolved by Council.

Darebin – Public Question Time will not exceed 30 minutes in duration unless extended by resolution of Council through a procedural motion, in which case, it may only be extended for one (1) period of up to 30 minutes.

Merribek – The time provided for questions of Council and community statements will not exceed 30 minutes in duration, unless by resolution of Council, in which case, the time may be extended for one period of up to 30 minutes.

Boroondara – The time allocation of 15 minutes may be extended by resolution of Council.

Hobson’s Bay – Twenty minutes will be allocated in the agenda for Public Question Time. However, the Chairperson may vary the time allocated depending on the business to be considered at the meeting. No resolution of Council is required to extend Public Question Time.

Maribyrnong – Public question time will not exceed 15 minutes in duration unless the Councillors present unanimously agree to the time extension, in which case Public Question Time can be extended for further blocks of 15 minutes.

We certainly accept that when a contentious issue arises, there may be numerous residents who wish to address council meetings or submit a public question. Given the length of some agendas, it may therefore not be possible to allow everyone to speak or to answer all the public questions. But we would also argue, that if an issue is so contentious and/or divisive, that it has caused a massive public response, then the onus is on council to provide as much time as possible for councillors to listen to their constituents. Councillors must be provided with the right to extend both public participation times and public question times. Otherwise the perception remains that all council is doing is attempting to limit as much as possible resident voices.

All of the above is important because the draft governance rules and the associated policies are now out for public consultation. They basically seek to legally cement what has been happening this year, and hence are unacceptable.

Unlike other councils, Glen Eira’s governance rules in regard to public participation and public questions are basically bereft of important detail. What becomes the ruling factor are the so called ‘policies’. Whilst neighbouring councils itemise all aspects and procedures, Glen Eira relies primarily on the policies. Why? We believe that this action is designed to side-step the need for public consultation which a formal amendment requires as part of Local Law procedures. It also allows council to tinker repeatedly with these policies as they see fit. This is not sound governance and certainly not in the public interest.

The latest drafts for public participation and for public questions specify a 15 minute time limit. They do not provide any time duration for a resident addressing council in the public participation format. Everything is left open to the ‘discretion’ of the Chairperson (ie mayor). Nor are we told whether residents must be present in chamber for their question to be read out and answered as stipulated in the 2020 changes.

These above points are important because council has always operated on the principle that if it isn’t in the ‘rules’ then we don’t have to do it! Or conversely, because it isn’t in the rules, we can do it! One should expect that something as important as governance rules be spelt out to the nth degree. Not only do these new proposed rules represent a deterioration in governance at Glen Eira, they also further sideline councillors and residents.   

 

May 1, 2024

Snowed Under!

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

We have to question what is really happening with consultation in Glen Eira. Residents and councillors are literally snowed under with a plethora of current consultations. After tonight’s council meeting there will be seven issues that are currently open for input/submissions. Very soon, another 2 important planning items will be added – the Bentleigh and Elsternwick structure plans.

Questions abound! Why so many, why now, and how vital are they all at this point in time? And most importantly, what impact does a deluge of consultations have on community feedback and on councillors themselves? Was it really necessary that we now have a consultation on gambling, or even the economic plan? Considering that the budget will be discussed tonight, then surely this should precede an ‘economic plan’ so that the budget would set the parameters.

It is asking a lot for residents to partake in any meaningful manner on these consultations. Admittedly, not every issue will be of concern to all residents. Some may be interested in the annual budget, and not in gambling policy. People will pick and choose and decide if they have the time and energy to provide feedback. Glen Eira will of course continue the rhetoric that it cares about consultation and consults regularly. Over the years however, feedback on many of these consultations have been extremely poor – apart from the really contentious issues such as the Inkerman bike path, or the Queen’s Avenue cycling path. Yet, council has never really investigated why there has been a low feedback rate, and nor have they come up with any answers.

If there is simply apathy, then it is incumbent on council to explore why. Could it possibly be that once bitten twice shy?  When people have taken the time to provide feedback and then discover that nothing they have said has been responded to or even listed in summary reports they give up and believe that council simply doesn’t listen or act upon their suggestions? This would be enough to put anyone off from trying again! A truly responsive council is one that monitors and investigates the results of all its consultations. We don’t believe this is happening in Glen Eira!

 We have long advocated for the following to occur:

  • A short succinct summary of proposals that don’t require residents to plough through hundreds of pages (mostly of spin) prior to submitting their feedback
  • Surveys that are deliberately open ended instead of question upon question that is geared to garner the required response.
  • The involvement of councillors and the consultation committee in vetting questions and processes prior to consultation

In the next month or so residents and councillors will be confronted with up to 9 consultations occurring simultaneously. That is nothing but a recipe for disaster! But is this what council really wants?

 

February 25, 2024

Tree Protection: The Need For Full Transparency

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

Council is proposing a new Local Law designed to protect not only SIGNIFICANT trees, but also canopy trees on private property which qualify under height and width criteria. This is certainly an improvement and should protect more existing trees. However, how many existing canopy trees will actually be covered by the proposal(s) depends to a large extent on how well the upcoming Local Law is written and what is its true intent. What also needs to be considered is to what extent all decisions will be fully transparent and who will make these decisions. Will it be left entirely in the hands of officers, or will councillors have the final say as in numerous other councils on which permit applications are granted or refused?

The officer’s report includes the following paragraphs on this last point:

The above is very ambiguous. We are told that officers will presumably undertake the initial assessment when there has been a permit application, and this is fair enough. The final paragraph however clearly states that there will be an ‘internal review process’ but only for those applicants who have requested a review. Thus, if a permit has been granted, then there is no need for a review! Officer’s will have made the decision and that’s the end of it with no councillor involvement, or no objection rights by anyone it would seem.

The paragraph continues that a report will be prepared but this is dependent on whether or not the applicant has chosen to seek a review as stated previously. What remains unclear is whether the officer report will also cover applications that have been granted a permit ‘internally’ and whether the tabled report is there simply for ‘noting’ or for councillors to make actual decisions? Even with the existing significant Tree register local law, councillors are sidelined and all decisions are made by officers. There is therefore no transparency and no accountability for decision making. We suspect that the proposed new law will be the same. Surely the onus on council is to clear up any ambiguity  and to ensure residents that trees will be fully protected.

There are other issues with the proposals as well. Here is our take on these:

Clause 2(b)of the proposed Local Law states that a permit is required to prune or direct, authorise or allow to be pruned a Classified Tree or a Canopy. But we then get the ‘exemption’ that this clause does not apply if Council is notified within five (5) working days of the commencement of the pruning.

 This may sound quite innocuous, but it has major repercussions. Why the 5 days grace? Most pruning would be concluded well within 5 days. If an applicant then calls council and says ‘I’ve pruned my tree’ what evidence exists that the pruning was in accordance with the 10% maximum reduction of canopy allowed? What evidence do we have that the branches were less than 10cm in width?

Bayside, by contrast, has processes that would ensure the pruning is done legally. They insist on:

  • Photos taken BEFORE and AFTER
  • That the work be done by a qualified arborist
  • That the arborist has to sign off by certifying the work done.

NONE of the above applies in Glen Eira!!! This leaves a huge loop hole that can easily be taken advantage of.

Compounding the problem we then get this additional clause regarding pruning:

Subclause (2)(b) does not apply to pruning, which is carried out to the following specifications—

(a) up to a maximum of 10% of the Classified Tree’s or Canopy Tree’s total volume within 12 calendar Months

We assume that this means there can be numerous episodes of lopping throughout a 12 month period. But given that no permit is required we again lack evidence that only 10% has been lopped? Nor are we told whether or not each lopping requires council to be notified – even within the 5 day period.

One other change to the current Local Law is also worth commenting upon. Please read the following carefully:

Questions abound. Consider this scenario – No permit has been applied for. A neighbour complains to council  that a large canopy tree is being removed next door. According to the current Local Law, the property could be entered by a council officer and inspected. With the proposed new law, this could only happen if the owner of the tree has ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. If he/she hasn’t, then they the new law does not provide them with the power to investigate and potentially call a halt to the tree removal!

CONCLUSION

Whilst these proposed changes are definitely an improvement and an attempt to protect our existing canopy trees, they simply do not go far enough. We fully accept that there may be situations where a tree presents a major health risk due to storms, etc and should be lopped/removed in the name of safety. But, there are far too many loopholes in the proposed new law that can be exploited. All that is required is that clauses such as Bayside and other councils have is included and that the essential role of monitoring evaluations occurs by councillors. What role councillors will play needs to be spelt out clearly. This has not been done.

Leaving everything in the hands of officers does not engender full transparency and accountability in decision making. Bayside for example also publishes on a regular basis a list of permits granted for the removal of trees. There is nothing in this proposed law which will ensure that decisions on whether to refuse or grant a permit will ultimately be made in the full council chamber so that all residents can see and listen to the evidence.

ONE FINAL POINT. All of the above of course is dependent on whether a planning permit for the site has been granted. The permit could and often does include permission to remove existing trees. Given that planning permits are largely decided by officers and that at least 15 objections are required before the application can go to council, this again places enormous power in the hands of officers.

 

January 31, 2024

Why Genuine Consultation Is Dead In Glen Eira!

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

Over the past few years more and more residents are feeling aggrieved at the bogus consultation methodologies that this council trots out. Here is a summary of what is wrong with the entire process –

  • Survey questions are designed to elicit the required response. They are either totally irrelevant to the core issue or are simply vague and nothing more than motherhood statements. We are not told who designs these questions but more importantly whether they are first road tested with councillors and the community consultation committee. The latter group remains nothing but a public relations enterprise given that they have no real input into design or decision making of surveys or issues.
  • Public forums are also carefully manipulated and engineered. Half of the time officers present their  (positive) take on an issue and little time is left for resident queries and comments. Secondly the chat function is often turned off so that participants can’t communicate with each other and again recordings of the forums seldom are available to review. The latest forum on the Queen’s Avenue trees is the perfect example with council stating that they can’t release the video because of LXRP ‘requirements’ and conversely the LXRP stating that it is council’s forum and hence up to their discretion.
  • Consultation summaries are anything but accurate representations of what was stated. Often residents have to be satisfied with a sprinkling of what participants said instead of being able to read in full everything that everyone stated. FOI requests are met with sheer nonsense such as releasing all commentary would be an impingement on council resources and take time away from their other business. When the survey responses are anonymous and collected in a single file the excuse of a drain on council resources is sheer bunkum!
  • Often residents find themselves having to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages in order to get to the crux of the matter. Council refuses to provide short summaries of the major issues so that residents can know exactly what is at stake.
  • Meetings with officers are generally a waste of time. They trot out all the positives but neglect any negatives. Furthermore the times set aside for such activities are mostly during the day – hardly suitable for people who work, or have small children.

So how can all this be fixed? Here are some suggestions that we’ve made in the past –

  • Ensure that survey questions are reviewed by both councillors and the community consultation committee before anything goes public. Avoid generalities, closed questions, motherhood statements. Provide a short, succinct summary that addresses all the pros and cons of the matter. For major issues a Discussion paper is vital.
  • Given that council was quite prepared to release all commentary on its consultations several years ago, the current approach on the most contentious issues such as structure planning and the housing strategy, has been to cover up and hide as much of the negative feedback as possible. This has to change. All comments, emails (redacted to protect privacy) must be available.
  • Major consultations remain at the ‘consult’ level. According to the IAP2 we should surely be at the very least at the ‘involve’ level. Councillors have the power to ensure this occurs.
  • Forums either public or Zoom must include the chat facility so that participants can interact. Secondly the full version must be available for those who missed out. The focus should always be on resident feedback and NOT officer reports.
  • Finally, it is imperative that before residents are asked for their views, all information is provided to them. We have had councillors complaining that they don’t get to see some documentation prior to their voting, or that not sufficient time has been provided for them to digest the data. Residents also need to have all the facts before they commit to providing responses.

All of this is important if the community is to have any faith and confidence in this council. Refusing to implement genuine consultation only serves to foster suspicion and shows how the essential priority of transparency is moribund in Glen Eira.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »