GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

August 11, 2023

Elsternwick: Planning At Its Worst!

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

Council has released its revised structure plan for Elsternwick.

Here is what is now envisaged. Please note carefully the proposed heights (remembering that many are discretionary) and ask yourselves why the height in metres has increased dramatically from the current interim Design & Development overlay.

 As expected, what we now have is nothing more than some minor tinkering from what was initially proposed. Despite the majority of community feedback opposed to the suggested (discretionary) heights, the need for sunlight on southern footpaths at the winter solstice, and the lack of sufficient open space, Council has seen fit to ignore all of these concerns. We still have:

  • No change to suggested building heights along Glen Huntly Road
  • No protection of southern footpaths at the winter solstice

Instead, council has simply changed some of the upper level setbacks for (some) heritage sites from 5 metres to 6 metres. Of course, we are not provided with any specifics or ‘evidence’ as to how this change will impact on overshadowing – especially to the southern side of Glen Huntly Road. We are supposed to take council at its word!

Yes, some originally proposed heights have been reduced – ie Horne Street from 12 storeys down to 8 storeys (discretionary). But they back onto Ross Street which is a tiny, narrow street consisting primarily of single storey homes.  As with Bentleigh, council sees nothing wrong with having towers abutting single storey properties. This isn’t planning. It is literally a ‘f-ck you’ to residents!

The officer’s report makes the above sentiment absolutely clear when we are told the following:

The report outlines the revisions to the final structure plan in response to community comments, however there are components of the draft plan which remain unchanged. The consultation outcomes identified that proposed building heights were of concern for some but whilst making wholesale changes to building heights may seem popular, these cannot be justified or pursued based on community preference.

COMMENT:  The question isn’t  solely about ‘community preference’ but sound and valid strategic planning. Why and how can a 12 storey building be justified when the projected population growth is only 1400 residents by 2036. We’re told that population per dwelling will drop to 2.3 individuals in 2036. Even if we’re looking at 3 individuals per dwelling, or for that matter only 1 individual per dwelling, that means that we have a range of 460 to 1400 net new dwellings that are required over a period of 15 years. Council of course claims that they have to look beyond the 2036 date – the inference being that once adopted this structure plan will not be touched again for at least 20 years. That is council’s history and modus operandi! Whilst we’re promised a ‘review’ every four years, the results of this ‘review’ will only be to communicate what was been done in the intervening period we strongly suspect. We also have to laugh at council’s ‘implementation’ timelines. We find that ‘immediate’ means 1 to 5 years; ‘medium’ means 5 to 10 years and ‘long term’ blows out to over 10 years! Thus a Development Contributions Levy on developers could be 5 years down the track after it was ‘promised’ in 2016. Or, affordable housing, open space, and community uses might not happen for 10 years. But in the meantime of course, development will steam roll ahead!!!!!

The other amazing comment from the officer’s report is:

We are pursuing winter shadow protection for existing and potential future public open spaces including Elsternwick Plaza. However, winter shadow controls cannot be pursued for the southern footpath as many forms of redevelopment would be severely limited. This is contrary to the role of a MAC to accommodate future growth. For these areas, the equinox shadow is the standard to apply.

COMMENT: What the above makes absolutely clear is that anything that is likely to put a constraint upon development will not be pursued. Thus heritage and sunlight is expendable when it comes to the potential of facilitating more development. What is not stated is that ‘future growth’ can be accommodated according to what is required as shown above, and not what will benefit developers. Interestingly the Bentleigh traffic report provided figures on the net number of new dwellings anticipated by their draft structure plan which showed that over 2000 net new dwellings could be squeezed into Bentleigh. We do not remember seeing any such figure for Elsternwick. So if Elsternwick is proposing 12 storeys and Bentleigh 8, then we can only assume that Elsternwick is trying to ensure more than 2000 net new dwellings – regardless of whether we actually need this number in the ensuing 15 years!

CONCLUSION

Planning in Glen Eira continues to be driven by the development industry and by an administration that does not care one iota for its community and residential amenity. We have had consultations after consultations that are meaningless, ignored, and consultant reports that do nothing more than attempt to confirm decisions already made. Plus we have certain councillors who simply do not appear to care, or have the integrity to challenge such poor planning. Which leaves us with the question that if council is now claiming to have made changes in response to community input, and gone out again to so called ‘experts’, then why couldn’t these revised views and expensive ‘expert’ reviews been done initially? Or is it more of the same? – the pretending that we have listened to the community but in the end, done very little to ameliorate our concerns?

 

August 1, 2023

Community Consultation Is Dead!

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

It’s time to call a spade a spade when it comes to this administration and its disregard of residents. To put it bluntly:

  • Resident views simply don’t matter, especially if they are opposed to council’s pro-development agenda and its predetermined decision making.
  • Council engages with residents, in the most minimalist manner on all important projects because the law says they must and NOT because there is any real intention to seek genuine resident feedback.
  • Only two conclusions are possible when it comes to evaluating council’s approach to seeking feedback from the community. Either we have some completely incompetent officers who are incapable of devising a survey/questionnaire that will deliver valid results, or the resulting surveys are designed with leading questions that can only be used to support already predetermined decisions. The latest example is the Bentleigh Structure Plan survey.
  • To avoid any meaningful input by either councillors or the community, the now released survey has been rushed through to publication. The original officer’s report stated that consultation would begin towards the end of the first week of August. It has been brought forward (without explanation) to July 31st. This doesn’t sound like much, but what it means is that councillors have had minimal time to evaluate the survey and that the Community Consultation committee has again been successfully bypassed!
  • It’s also worth remembering that originally this administration had no wish to include a survey in its consultation – as it has done with other structure planning. It was quite prepared for the ‘quick and dirty’ route of formal submissions, and ‘meet and greet’ with officers – with 3 out of the 4 proposed times being totally inappropriate for the vast majority of residents. It was only after councillors requested a survey that we get to this point. 

The resulting survey can be located via this link: https://www.haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/draft-bentleigh-structure-plan-2023

WHEN A ‘SUMMARY’ IS NOT A SUMMARY!

At the last council meeting one public question asked that a succinct bullet point summary of proposed heights, setbacks, and overshadowing analyses be part of the consultation process. The question and answer are below:

What we get is an 18 page so called summary, that is full of spin and guilty of the sins of omission! The ability to decipher exactly what is proposed from this document is impossible given that the full picture is never revealed in a concise and honest fashion. For example, when referring to proposed building heights, this administration chose to include the following map.

Why couldn’t this document include the following image that featured at the 25th July council meeting? Is it because this map is far easier to decipher?

We then get only one example (for a heritage site) of the proposed setbacks as depicted below.

What we aren’t told is anything about rear and side setbacks, for a proposed 7 or 8 storey building that is NOT heritage listed.

In short, this ‘summary’ is a carefully manipulated document that fails to fully inform the community of what the draft structure plan intends to achieve.

THE SURVEY

Any decent survey should never include leading questions. This survey is replete with either useless questions of this ilk, or questions that don’t provide the necessary information in order to elicit fair and valid responses. Here are some examples:

Question: Do you agree that we should seek opportunities to create open space in the draft Plan?

Comment: Of course, nearly everyone would answer ‘yes’ to this question given Glen Eira’s lack of public open space. But does a ‘yes’ response to this mean that everyone is in agreement with the possibility of flogging off other council owned land for mixed use development? And will the additional open space of whatever size (since this is yet to be determined) be large enough to cater satisfactorily for the projected population increase?

Question: Do you think accommodating growth above the commercial strip is better than doing it in other parts of Bentleigh?

Comment: Even if the majority of responses are ‘yes’ to this question, it does not mean that those individuals who ticked the ‘yes’ box, are in favour of discretionary heights of 7 and 8 storeys! Without revealing the full extent of the ‘growth’ proposed any answer needs to be treated with caution. But of course, council can use the ‘yes’ responses to support their high rise agenda! Furthermore, the question fails to take into account issues of adequate infrastructure, parking, overshadowing, etc.

Question: The draft Plan recommends height limits and upper-level setbacks for new development. Do you agree that such measures would help to retain the character of Centre Road?

Comment: If respondents have no idea of what the height limits and the setbacks are for various sections of Centre Road, any responses given will be meaningless. Furthermore, unless they are au fait with which sites are heritage listed, then again the notion of ‘retaining the character’ of the area is nothing more than subterfuge. How on earth it is even possible to use the word ‘retain’ when discretionary heights of 7, and 8 storeys are nominated is obscene!

Question: The draft Plan identifies the western and eastern ends of the centre as the most suitable for higher density buildings as they would be away from the more sensitive heritage shops. Do you think this is a suitable approach?

Comment:  Again, the question is deliberately misleading in that what is NOT mentioned is the fact that the highest proposed heights directly abutt either single storey dwellings in heritage overlays, or other residential areas. Nor are the proposed heights nominated. Plus, the recommendations fly in the face of council’s previous decisions on Bentleigh, that high rise should be located near the railway station and not at the extremes of the activity centre. Again, no explanation for this change in approach. Nor the question of whether this is indeed good strategic planning!

CONCLUSION

There are many other questions we could have commented upon, but the above should suffice. This is the latest example of how little respect is afforded to residents and how contrived and manipulated all community consultation processes are in this council. It is more than incompetence! It is a deliberate and disgraceful attempt to bypass the community, and even councillors, in order to achieve more and more development and to fill the pockets of developers and probably to earn more brownie points from the increasingly autocratic government.  

 

July 21, 2023

Down, Down, & More Down!

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

If one was to rely exclusively on council’s take on the state run Community Satisfaction Survey, it would be quite easy to believe that Glen Eira is doing extremely well. (See: https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/about-council/our-performance/community-satisfaction-survey)

The table included in the above however is the dead give away! On every single important variable council has gone backwards since last year – and in some instances, dramatically! For example:

Overall performance has dropped from 69 to 65

Making community decisions – 62 to 57

Community consultations 60 – 57

Overall council direction – 53-50

Value for money – 65-61

Whilst it is true that in comparison to the metropolitan and state average, Glen Eira does okay, that is irrelevant when we consider that for the past decade at least, town planning, population growth and consultation has shown the largest discrepancy between the importance that people place on these categories and their perception(s) of actual performance. Glen Eira excels in regularly having a 15 to 22 point gap for these categories. So knowing all the areas that council needs to improve on for at least the past decade, we are continuing to go backwards! Put bluntly, council has achieved nothing in terms of addressing its well known shortcomings!

The following screen dumps make this absolutely clear!

And there is also this ‘warning’ –

Nothing would be clearer! Residents are fed up with poor strategic planning, lack of genuine consultation, and importantly, the lack of ‘value for money’ that their hard earned cash is wasted upon!

 

July 15, 2023

Bentleigh: Esakoff & Zyngier

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

Presented below are the comments made by Esakoff and Zyngier on the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan at the last council meeting. Unlike the majority of those who spoke in favour of the draft, at least in these comments the ‘problems’ are clearly identified instead of resorting to generalities and spin.

 

July 13, 2023

Bentleigh: Where Is The Transparency?

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

If one counts the number of times that various councillors used the phrase ‘better controls’ or ‘better managed growth’ or ‘better planning’  in terms of the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan, one should conclude that the draft is god’s gift to planning acumen and a truly wonderful improvement for residents. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We do currently have interim controls via a Design & Development Overlay in Bentleigh that will not expire until December 31st, 2024. Whilst Amendment C228 changed the DDO to only include the commercial and mixed use, it begs the question of why the current draft structure plan sees fit to include some residential rezonings in its borders. Surely this flies in the face of Amendment c228? Regardless of this anomaly, the existing DDO still represents a vast improvement on what is currently proposed. It stipulates:

  • Mandatory height controls along all of Centre Road
  • Lower heights in metres for equivalent number of storeys to what is now proposed
  • Far greater setbacks than in the current draft for certain conditions

Here is what the existing DDO consists of:

Readers will see: Nothing above 5 storeys. The current version is up to 8 storeys DISCRETIONARY

To therefore argue that the current draft structure plan will provide ‘better controls’ is beyond belief. Nor is it acceptable to argue that without rear setbacks for commercial sites that are not heritage listed that abutting heritage places will be better protected – as Athanasopolous would like us to believe.

So what has changed in the space of 15 months? Why is council so gung-ho on creating strategies that are far, far worse than what currently exist? What communication has taken place between officers and the department? Were councillors ever present at these meetings, or have they been privy to any of the communications? Why aren’t such communications made public or, at the very least, a report on what has taken place in such meetings?

Even if we accept that population will increase by approx 2000 over the next 15 years, how does this justify the proposed changes? And what guarantee is there that with increased apartments there will be more affordable housing? According to the latest census results, we already have 9+% of dwellings standing vacant across the municipality. Why? Are these properties that are already too expensive? Owned by foreign investors? Land banking until prices rise by developers?

No councillor at Tuesday night’s meeting had the courage to state the bleeding obvious! Zhang went on about how wonderful it was that streets currently zoned as RGZ (4 storeys) would now be reduced to 2 storeys because they are in a heritage overlay. She of course doesn’t mention how many four storey developments already exist in these streets, nor how many sites will be ‘upgraded’ to go from 2 storeys to 3 and 4 storey heights. When these are added up, they far exceed the number of properties that have had a reduction in height! What this also reveals is that the original introduction of the residential zones in 2013 was a disaster. No area under a heritage overlay should have been zoned for 4 storeys. And neither should all those properties that lie in the flood plain (SBO overlay) been zoned for three storeys or even included in the borders of the activity centre. . Of course, this was all ignored by the ‘guru’ of planning (Akehurst) and his complicit councillors!

The machinations and inconsistencies of this planning department continue unabated. There are numerous allusions to a ‘transport and assessment’ study and potential resulting actions. This document has not been made available and we doubt that even councillors have been provided with the opportunity to clap eyes on it. So once again, councillors are forced to make decisions without having all the information at their fingertips.  The inconsistency is that for the Elsternwick structure plan, there was an accompanying traffic report. Why the difference? It simply is not good enough that residents will have all the requisite information only when the formal amendment is advertised. This approach entirely invalidates any attempt at genuine consultation. If other councils such as Port Phillip can publish all their documentation at the first stage of consultation, we see no reason why Glen Eira can’t – except of course to keep the plebs (and councillors?) as ignorant as possible until it is too late.

Much has to change in Glen Eira if this council is to live up to its stated charter of full ‘transparency’ and accountability.

PS: To put some historical perspective onto what’s been happening in Bentleigh, we’ve revisited an important VCAT decision (17th October, 2017) which granted a permit for a 7 storey development in Centre Road.

What’s fascinating about this decision, isn’t so much the outcome, but the arguments presented by the Council rep. The application was refused by council and thus ended up at VCAT. We quote verbatim what council had to say to support its refusal –

It was further put that guidelines relating to setbacks, height and amenity create further impetus to provide a more sensitive transition between the review site and the surrounding residential hinterland. Council put that Objective 5.1.2(a) of the Urban Design Guidelines seeks ‘To ensure the activity centre provides a graduated transition between different building scales and uses’. It was further put that it is Council’s view that the emphasis on the transitional role of buildings at the edge of an activity centre is greater in the Urban Design Guidelines.

·  However, Council put to us that the proposed development is inappropriate at seven storeys because of the limitations imposed on the site due to the adjoining residential hinterland, the provisions of the DDO8 and the height and scale of development on the immediately abutting land.

·  We make the observation that when assessed against broad strategic policies, the site is well located for redevelopment. However, Council put that the proposed development is in conflict with the vision of the DDO8 which establishes a preferred height of 5 storeys.

Council further submitted that the proposed development exceeds the maximum preferred height by 2 storeys and over 5 metres.

fails to perform a transitional function, which will necessarily cause a jarring impact at the edge of the Urban Village.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1656.html?context=1;query=centre%20road%20bentleigh;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT

COMMENTS: So, in 2017 council was concerned about ‘transition’ – especially to the residential areas. With the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan this has gone out the window, where there is no problem with a potential 5 storey (and more if exceeding the preferred heights) of ‘transition’. How laughable! Furthermore, council’s preferred maximum height of 5 storeys has also gone out the winder by 2 storeys. That’s what ‘discretionary’ heights can produce!

Appropriate transitions remain relevant in all planning. In Glen Eira and with this draft, this no longer appears to be the case.

 

July 5, 2023

A Resident’s View On Bentleigh Structure Plan

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

The following audio is taken from last night’s council meeting where once again the council was split in voting 5 to 4 to send the draft structure plan out for consultation. There were many criticisms of the current draft, plus some fear mongering from certain councillors and the administration. The final vote was – AGAINST: Esakoff, Szmood, Zyngier, Pennicuik. Those who voted FOR were: Cade, Zhang, Athanasopolous, Magee and Parasol. We note that not for the first time, Parasol did not utter a word as to the reasoning behind his vote. He simply put up his hand.

Here is what one resident had to say about the draft and its unbelievable shortcomings:

We will comment more fully on what transpired in discussion on this item in the days ahead.

PS: In the above audio, Torres tried to negate the potential for a ten storey development by referring to the ‘setbacks’. What he doesn’t state is that rear setbacks for commercial dwellings backing on to heritage areas are NOT MANDATORY. They are DISCRETIONARY – and we all know how little control DISCRETIONARY provides!

 

June 30, 2023

Draft Bentleigh Structure Plan

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting includes our first look at the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan.  The recommendation is to put this document out for public consultation for a period of 6 weeks. We know little about the nature of this consultation, except that it will include: a range of in-person and online opportunities for the community to provide comments, feedback and ask questions. In other words, we anticipate another mock consultation that only achieves the ‘consult’ range rather than the ‘involve’ stage recommended in the IAPP2 ladder for public participation.

Far more depressing are the actual recommendations contained in this draft. A short summary follows:

  • Discretionary heights of up to 8 storeys along Centre Road for non heritage buildings – which means developments could be even higher.
  • Only heritage buildings to have a mandatory 5 storey height limit (17.8 Metres) along Centre road
  • A discretionary 7 storey height directly abutting a two storey heritage overlay along Campbell and other streets
  • The real possibility of a reduction in onsite care parking requirements
  • No mandatory rear site setbacks for developments abutting residential/heritage
  • Discretionary front setbacks for non heritage properties
  • Potential sell-off of council owned land for mixed use development that might include social housing. Please remember that council’s policy as it stands only asks for a 5% component for large developments. Other councils have asked for as much as 20%!
  • Winter solstice considerations only to be taken into account at a measurement of 3.9 metres from the site boundary in side/local streets. How many of these streets have footpaths that are a bare 2.5 metres in width?

Here’s a run down of the proposed heights. CLICK TO ENLARGE THE IMAGE

Readers should note the following:

  • Only those hatched sites (ie with///////markings are heritage listed). Thus all other sites earmarked as 5 storeys could potentially be much higher.
  • The number of residential properties that are currently in NRZ that will have a discretionary 7 or 8 storey building backing onto them – ie Wheatley Road, Campbell street, Smith Street, etc. Clearly a difference of 5 or 6 storeys does not matter to our council planners!

Finally, what’s not shown in the above map are the proposed future rezonings of the residential hinterland.

We urge all readers to carefully consider the published documents and to partake in the upcoming consultation.

 

May 25, 2023

Elsternwick Forum

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

Last night saw a great turnout  of over 90 residents for the Elsternwick structure plan forum. Also in attendance were: David Southwick, Simone Szmood, David Zyngier, Sam Parasol, Jim Magee. Apologies came from two councillors when first invited (Esakoff and Zhang) and after accepting the invite, Athanasopolous was once again a very, very late apology! His record of ‘no shows’ stands intact!

Residents made their concerns and objections very clear. The same old issues surfaced time and again – the need to protect heritage; the importance of sunlight and avoiding overshadowing; the nonsense of allowing 12 storey buildings next to heritage, or even 4 storey developments behind single storey homes. Traffic congestion and parking was also commented on several times. The lack of open space also featured prominently.

Councillors acknowledged that officers were looking at the draft plan and attempting to make changes in response to community feedback. We will not hold our breath! We anticipate that in all likelihood the final structure plan will simply be a tinkering so that 12 storeys discretionary becomes 9 or 10 storeys discretionary (instead of mandatory) and heritage sites will now drop down to 5 storeys instead of 6 storeys. If this does eventuate, then it does little to address resident concerns!

What has been happening in Elsternwick, and in Glen Eira overall, according to the last two sets of census data, makes it crystal clear, how council’s stated objectives and strategies are nothing more than dismal failures. Please look carefully at the following table which features the Elsternwick data from the 2016 and the 2021 census. We then comment on what this table reveals.

Source:

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2016/SSC20858

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL20864

COMMENTS

Here’s what these stats illustrate:

  • Elsternwick, like all of Glen Eira, is continuing to lose its detached housing at an alarming rate. Yet, they are not being replaced by family ‘friendly’ dwellings. Instead we are getting more and more one and two bedroom dog boxes and in Elsternwick a reduction in 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings.
  • Elsternwick is already the densest suburb in all of Glen Eira – 4,207 individuals per hectare. But the question of density is never addressed nor even questioned as to what it does in terms of overall psycho-social health, the need for more and more open space, sunlight etc. Other councils have realised that personal open space is vital, so in their planning schemes they have succeeded in stipulating that balconies should be a minimum of 12 square metres and 2 metres in width. In Glen Eira we are forever stuck with 8 square metres and a width of 1.8 metres. Yes, a small example but it can be done if there’s the will.
  • Council seemingly plucked out of nowhere a figure of 50:50 ratio of public transport transition and to make this happen, intends to reduce (or completely remove) the requirement for onsite parking in certain spots. As far as the 50:50 figure is concerned, we cannot find one bit of evidence to support this. Yet this becomes the ‘standard’ for all future planning throughout Glen Eira (and at one stage it even became 60:40 for the urban renewal south areas before this was abandoned completely.) Looking at the census stats it is obvious that car ownership in Elsternwick is climbing and that there is a continued decline of dwellings without cars throughout Glen Eira as a whole. The message should be clear – ie that removing onsite parking will not force people to use public transport or to forgo owning a car. The number of dwellings continues to climb, whilst the number of dwellings without cars continues to fall.
  • Even in 2016, in a suburb like Elsternwick which has train, tram and bus services only 25% of residents used public transport and 53.6% travelled to work by car. The data for 2021 can be ignored since this was during COVID and many people simply worked from home.

So what’s the take home message from all of the above?  Council has absolutely no power to force developers into building 3 and 4 bedroom homes. They have absolutely no control over ‘affordability’ so even if townhouses and apartments of3 and 4 bedrooms increases to cater for families, the asking price will still remain high and unaffordable for many people. The Housing Strategy wants more townhouses and more dwellings on various sites. Again, no guarantee that this will meet affordability hopes, or that cramming more and more people into an area of 2.6 square km will achieve ‘liveability’.

What’s also important is that the feedback from this forum does rate a comprehensive mention in any ensuing officer’s report. It is simply not good enough that council’s fallback argument is that this was not a council initiated consultation process and therefore can simply waft into the stratoshere and be completely ignored and forgotten.

Finally, what residents want is not the Magee spiel of last night, that the government will not agree to mandatory heights, or other specifications. This may well be correct. But what residents want is to see their councillors fight tooth and nail for them and to put public and outspoken pressure on a state government that is becoming more and more dictatorial in its processes.

 

April 30, 2023

The Draft Budget

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

Council has released its draft 2023/4 budget. Despite a drop in forecast surplus to a mere $3m+, and fraught economic conditions, council is roaring head with a $37M loan so that by the end of the next financial year, residents will find themselves in debt to the tune of $63M!!!!

Much is made of council’s claims about community consultation for the budget.  The claim is as follows:

We have listened to our community and understand their priorities and areas of focus for the draft 2023-24 Budget. This includes investment in maintenance of roads and footpaths, climate response initiatives and service provision (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets). (page 54)

When we actually peruse the draft budget the above proves to be nothing more than spin! It raises the question of why even bother spending money on ‘consultation’ when resident views are so regularly ignored!

According to the consultation feedback, we learn that:

The top three categories where participants want Council to increase spending were:

o Maintenance for roads and footpaths

o Climate response initiatives

o Services (aged care, seniors, youth, family, children, disability, accessibility and pets)

The top three categories where participants want Council to reduce spending were:

o Business and community support

o Sport, leisure and recreation

o Climate response initiatives

Council’s response and assumed explanation of how resident views were incorporated into the budget comes with this paragraph –

Council has considered the community’s feedback on reducing spend in certain categories. More participants wanted more spending on climate response initiatives than less expenditure. The proposed budget, for consultation, provides $652k lift in spending for sport, leisure and recreation and $183k less spending for business and community support. (page 60)

The real slap in the face to residents comes with council’s response to the Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) and other sustainability projects. Surely the prime objective of the UFS is to increase our rapidly declining tree canopy. So how does this year’s funding for increased tree planting compare to last year’s budget? Here are the relevant screen dumps from the 2022/3 budget and the current proposals.

The tree planting component has dropped from $1.35M to $827,000. We do not know how many trees have, or will be replaced, nor how much each tree or sapling has increased in price. What is clear is that the number of tree plantings can only decline given this budget allocation. So much for increasing our tree canopy!!!!! Whilst one might argue that increasing maintenance and tree pruning is justified, is it justified to the extent of an extra one million dollars? And does this imply that previous maintenance was found wanting and insufficient?  

Also disturbing is the continual smoke and mirrors throughout the budget. It becomes near impossible to drill down and determine precisely what is proposed to be spent where. This is largely due to the fact that so many departments and services are lumped together without clear differentiation.

On footpaths we get:

In addition, footpaths are funded at $1.92m to ensure the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects.

Yet in the 2022/3 budget we find the following:

Council’s budget allocation of $2.15m for footpaths ensures the continuation of the critical footpath renewal program, which is identified through Council’s inspection programs. The proposed allocation is based on current data on footpath condition and defects and includes $100k for enhancement of ‘Great Walking Streets’. (Page 154 – 2022/3 budget)

Making things even more clouded is council’s claim that the current capital works program includes $14M carry over from the previous budget. The financial report included in the current agenda tells us that the carry over includes $578,000 for the footpath allocation. Does this therefore mean that the newly proposed $1.92 allocation is really only $1.342M?

We also take issue with the following paragraph that is a verbatim repetition of what was in last year’s budget papers –

The City is substantially developed and while it is experiencing an increase in property numbers, these mainly arise from higher density developments. This impacts on the budget as Council has to deal with the replacement of infrastructure, such as drains, that cannot cope with the higher density. These costs cannot be passed on to the developer and are paid for from rates. The rates received from new dwellings do not offset the significant infrastructure costs.

In the 2016 Planning Scheme Review, the issue of introducing a Development Contributions Levy and a Community Infrastructure Levy was promised by council. Countless other municipalities have such a levy but not Glen Eira which allowed its previous levy to lapse close to a decade ago. It is now 2023 and we are still waiting for council to come up with such a levy in the face of massive development throughout the municipality. It should not take seven plus years to stop subsidising developers!!!!!

Perhaps the simplest way of highlighting what is proposed is to compare the previous budget with the current one. All highlighted red squares in the following images represent a decrease in proposed new capital works spending – apart from the ‘buildings’ component which has sky rocketed.

Finally, we have scoured the budget and been unable to find a single word regarding pensioner rebates on their rates. Readers will remember that this rebate has been reduced year after year so what started at $150 dwindled to a piddling $19 last year. No mention is made of this in the 2023/4 budget so we can reasonably assume that council’s largesse has finally come to a screaming halt. But that has not stopped council from implementing its ‘traditional’ price hikes on child care ($3 per day), rubbish bins ($46 for a 240 Litre bin) GESAC prices, etc. And rates of course have jumped to a 3.5% increase.

In our view budgets should include ‘efficiencies’ – where and how council is saving money. Contractor costs, staff costs, etc continue to climb despite the stated objective of reducing reliance on consultants. Instead all we get in this budget is spin, obfuscation, and a full system go on more and more major projects costing the earth. Surely not what the community consultation feedback wanted?!

 

April 26, 2023

Ring a Bell?

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

A council in Melbourne’s south-west has been urged to ditch plans for a lavish new $60 million pool complex, which locals say they don’t need, and the council can’t afford to build.

Hobsons Bay City Council voted last month to spend $2 million on design plans for the proposed Western Aquatic and Early Years Learning Centre in Altona Meadows, despite hundreds of residents signing a petition calling for an existing pool in the neighbouring suburb of Laverton to be refurbished instead.

Locals like Stephen Morgan, president of the Rainbow Club charity which supports disabled people to learn to swim, want the Laverton pool revamped instead of an expensive new facility.

Laverton resident Victoria Mikula, who presented the 784-signature petition to the council, said the existing pool was partly funded by residents in the 1970s and was an important part of the area’s history.

“Laverton is a low socio-economic area and for years the council has been slowly removing our services and relocating them to other suburbs,” she said. “Laverton pool is all we have left.”

The Rainbow Club, a charity that runs several weekly swim classes for disabled children and adults at the Laverton pool, said the new facility would not be suitable for its clients.

 “The new pool will be a loud, major aquatic centre in a fairly small space,” said Stephen Morgan, the founder of the club’s Point Cook chapter.

“It has too many distractions and too much noise, which doesn’t help people with neuro diverse challenges.”

The council plans to decommission the pool at Laverton’s Swim and Fitness Centre and redevelop it as a water play and youth facility, but without a pool.

Last year, then-mayor Peter Hemphill referred to a 2018 council review of the 50-year-old pool, and said it was not viable to redevelop it as a modern indoor aquatic centre. However, the same review found the pool could exist for another 30 years if properly maintained.

“Our city is growing – we’ll have about 112,000 residents by 2036,” Hemphill said in August. “The Laverton Swim and Fitness Centre has served our community well for decades, but it was not technically or financially prudent to redevelop it as a modern indoor aquatic and leisure centre.”

The council has committed $20 million to the new aquatic facility. The state government has promised another $10 million, leaving Hobsons Bay $30 million short of committed funds.

The council has also acknowledged the works could blow out by as much as 40 per cent. A 40 per cent increase on $60 million would be $84 million.

Hobsons Bay councillor Daria Kellander abstained from last month’s vote to spend $2 million on design plans for the centre because she wasn’t convinced the full funding would be secured.

“The council doesn’t have the money, yet it is pushing ahead as if this is something that is going to happen within the next five years,” Kellander said.

 “This is a very ambitious project and our ratepayers shouldn’t be treated like an open cheque book. The state and federal governments are clamping down now trying to cut costs, so I really don’t know where the council is going to get that money from.”

A spokesman for the council said it needed to invest in the pool design to secure funding from both state and federal governments.

“This level of commitment to the design phase is vital to ensuring we can accurately plan for project delivery once funding is secured,” he said. “Having the project ‘shovel-ready’ also gives us the best chance of obtaining state and federal funding for this major advocacy priority.”

The spokesman said the council would continue seeking state and federal funding despite budgetary constraints.

Dean Hurlston, vice president of ratepayer advocacy group Council Watch Victoria, slammed Hobsons Bay for pushing ahead with the pool design.

“The cost of the pool has now blown out to at least $84 million as disclosed recently in the council meeting,” Hurlston said.

“I see hundreds of these projects across Victoria, but I’ve never seen a council commit to a project with a $54 million shortfall. It’s very irresponsible.

“The fact that [Hobsons Bay Council] has now agreed to spend $2 million to draw up plans to try and apply for funding is just absolutely idiotic.”

Hurlston also criticised the council for refusing to release the business case for the pool to residents, about which he has complained to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s office said it could not confirm whether it was investigating the matter. The council also declined to provide a copy of the business case to The Age.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/residents-fight-council-s-plans-for-absolutely-idiotic-60-million-pool-20230417-p5d0z4.html

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »