GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2017

How Important Is Heritage?

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

At the last council meeting, and following the wide media coverage, this resolution was passed –

Moved: Cr Delahunty Seconded: Cr Silver

That Council requests the Minister for Planning to prepare, adopt and approve a Planning Scheme Amendment in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an interim heritage control over the property at 450 Dandenong Road, Caulfield North.

All well and good, but there is no guarantee that the Minister will accede to this request. Nor do we know whether council has in fact conducted any heritage evaluation of the building in order to provide sound strategic justification. In short, is this simply another example of an ad hoc reactive measure to recent publicity?

The same old questions surface time and time again –

Why is it that other councils can be so proactive on heritage?
Why hasn’t council allocated funds to ensure more than an ‘update’ of a ‘Reference Document’ that has existed for 15 years but never been included as such in the planning scheme?
Why must residents wait for at least another 2 years before there is the chance to include other properties such as the Dandenong Road one onto the Heritage listing in the Planning Scheme? Why can’t residents start nominating sites now? Why can’t the work begin now?

In March 2017 Council applied to advertise its ‘updated’ policy and to include this document only as a ‘Reference Document’ in the Planning Scheme. The officer report specifically noted the following –

What should also be noted by readers is that Reference Documents have very little influence in decision making as stated in the Government’s Practice Note 13 — –Reference documents have only a limited role in decision-making as they are not part of the planning scheme. They do not have the status of incorporated documents or carry the same weight. (Planning Practice Note 13: Incorporated & Reference Documents)

Stonnington by contrast has done its homework and has come up with an amendment that seeks to include 60 new sites at the same time into its Heritage Overlays. (Agenda item for July 2017) None of this one by one ad hoc approach that is favoured by Glen Eira and which according to Stonnington is far from cost effective.

Conclusion?

We see no reason why Glen Eira cannot proceed along similar lines to Stonnington – unless of course there is no money for heritage consultants. That comes back to priorities. When a budget is willing to spend $282,000 on concrete plinths, instead of using this money to preserve our past, then we claim that council priorities are way out of kilter with what most people would want. Of course, we have never been asked what our real priorities are and where we would like our money spent!

The tragedy is that by the time council gets around to investigating what other properties should be included in a heritage overlay it will be too late.

July 4, 2017

The ‘Excuses’ Keep Coming!

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

We’re repeating the gist of one of our previous posts since the Glen Eira Leader (below) provides Council’s ‘response’ through the Mayor. As we’ve stated, year after year the same poor results in planning, traffic, etc. rear their ugly heads – yet, if the survey can be ‘criticised’ because it is ‘perception based’, then surely this also applies to council’s good results regarding rubbish and the service centre? Not a word on this of course.

Readers might also find it informative to go back 5 years and see what councillors had to say (especially Hyams and Esakoff who are still on council) on equally bad results in 2012 – even before the introduction of the zones? [See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/community-dissatisfaction-survey/ ]

June 30, 2017

Virginia Estate – Council Outdoes Gillon & Co!

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

Council has published its ‘draft’ Structure Plan for the development of Virginia Estate. It has also announced that in the next few weeks it will be calling for expressions of interest for residents to partake in a Community Reference Group. A tad too late we suggest since the ‘draft’ has already been formulated and given past experience very little is likely to change.

The only ‘improvement’ that is clear is the statement that a 1 hectare public open space will be included. Issues regarding schools and transport are still being ‘negotiated’ with the State Government.

The most disturbing aspect of this ‘draft’ Structure Plan is that council’s nominated height limits are in fact even higher than the proposals from the developers. We’ve uploaded the Gillon & Co draft plan as well as the Council nominated version below. Please compare carefully!

No information is forthcoming as to potential number of residential developments, the number(s) and area of retail, etc. More to follow in the days ahead on this item.

PS: Council claims that the above draft is in response to community feedback thus far. At the May forum we reported that residents stated the following:

Problem with language – people did not know what ‘innovation’ referred to – far too vague.
More clarity required about the term ‘affordable housing’ and this should be changed to ‘diversity of housing’
Questions about what ‘village’ means and is this a ‘village’
Traffic and car parking are major problems
Desire for low rise townhouses. Some tables nominated a maximum height limit of 3 storeys and others up to 6 storeys.
Diverse views on the need for another school and whether this should be part of McKinnon High or another new school entirely.
Open space that wasn’t covered over in concrete
A new supermarket required but also not a threat to other existing businesses in the area.
No waiving of car parking spots
Environmental sustainability across the entire centre including flood mitigation

Council has now decided to amend the ‘vision’ statement. It remains full of gobbledy gook, and DOES NOT address the responses listed above. Below is the original ‘vision’ and then the latest updated version.

East Village will be a thriving, mixed use precinct with a focus on employment, innovation, education and housing affordability. (Version 1)

‘East Village will be a sustainable mixed use precinct with a focus on innovative employment and education opportunities. Enhanced by green spaces and places for people, it will be supported by a diverse range of high quality housing and retail that caters for all.’ (Version 2)

June 29, 2017

Exploiting The Loopholes – Vickery Street?

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

When a development application comes in, there are several processes that are legally required to be followed. The application can be rejected or approved under delegated authority or booted up to a full council decision which may also reject, amend, or grant the permit. The developer and/or objectors then have the option of going to VCAT.

At VCAT, there are another series of processes. There can be what is known as a Practice Day Hearing, which is basically to iron out some detail. There is a full hearing where VCAT publishes the decision and objectors are given notice. And there is what is called a compulsory hearing. This is where the problems lie since:

Such hearings are ‘confidential’ and no public record is available
Objectors are ‘ordered’ to appear if they have been part of the initial objection and wish to remain so
Written objections are ignored
The VCAT member is at liberty to issue ‘orders’ after hearing from both sides (and objectors)

In recent times it would appear that Council has managed to use this ‘loophole’ of ‘secrecy’ to avoid a full public hearing and therefore an open and easily accessible record of the outcome. More disconcerting, is that if no objector is party to these compulsory conferences, then any deals made between council and the developer is entirely up to them. History would suggest that council’s performance at these ‘compulsory conferences’ is nothing short of total cave-ins to developers – regardless as to whether or not there have been amended plans submitted.

We find it extraordinary that in the past 3 weeks (from 7/6/2017 to the schedule for the 29/6/2017) Council appears in 16 VCAT sessions. The breakdown of these 16 appearances is:

7 Compulsory Conferences
7 Practice Day Hearings, and only
2 public hearings

A recent example should suffice in illustrating why heading off to a compulsory conference is far from satisfactory to residents. The case we use to illustrate is 24-26 Vickery St, Bentleigh. An application for a 4 storey, 36 apartment development came up for council decision on the 28^th June 2016 after being submitted in May 2016. The officer recommendation was for a 4 storey and 33 apartments. There were 10 objections. Councillors, as is their want, decided that instead of a permit for 4 storeys they would reduce this to 3 storeys and 27 units. Remember, we have stated time and again that every single time such a decision has been made, the developer simply goes to VCAT and gets what he wants.

This application of course also ended up at VCAT – BUT first as a listed ‘compulsory conference’. No hearing followed. Unfortunately the objector was not able to attend. This meant that it was council and the developer who appeared. The outcome was that the VCAT member issued an order for a 4 storey development and the original number of dwellings applied for. Adding further insult to injury, was that some of the conditions stipulated by councillors in their decision were now also gone.

Thus a full open hearing was avoided. Since these compulsory conferences are ‘secret’, then no one really knows why the council representative decided to go against a full council resolution and cave-in to the developer.

What is concerning about this tactic is the following:

Countless applications are now being decided in compulsory conferences in favour of the developer
Many of these applications that end up at compulsory conferences have been first decided under Manager delegation. That means no advertising and no-one really gets to know that an application has even come into council. (The Caulfield Village Precinct 2 was a perfect example – rejected outright under ‘Manager’ delegation , a compulsory conference called, and made public only after it was highlighted via a public question that this had occurred. This did ultimately go to a full hearing where the MRC won hands down).
No reasons are published as to why the developer got his permit – hence transparency and accountability are non-existent
More concerning is that cases listed for hearings do not even proceed to this stage but are determined between council and the developer. Most end up with their permits which would indicate that council has agreed in the vast majority of cases.

A few other points are worth making –

When a resident wanted to check on the final permit granted for Vickery Street – to really see whether it was back to 4 storeys, since the member’s order was unclear – they were told by officers that they would have to pay a hefty $70 fee to retrieve the documents from the archives.
Once the resident cited the legislation to council, they did eventually agree to ‘waive’ the ‘fee’ ‘in this instance’. The Planning & Environment Act, 1987, Section 70 grants anybody the right to inspect any permit granted by council for free!!!!!
Council’s regular VCAT Watch, features the cases set down for VCAT. Many involve compulsory conferences that do not proceed to full hearings, yet permits are granted. Even those listed for ordinary hearings don’t always end up at the hearings. And again we find that permits have been granted. Residents should be privy to the reasons for every single decision. That is what transparency and accountability demands. When council does cave in (and we do not deny that in some instances a developer may have caved in to council’s wishes) then they must be accountable for such actions – especially when this goes against the wishes of the councillor group and a formal council resolution as in the case of Vickery Street.
So, we leave it to residents to decide whether council has conveniently discovered another loophole in the legislation and is using it to full advantage without ensuring full transparency and accountability to those who pay the bills – us!

June 27, 2017

Beware The Hidden Agenda!

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

The most important page that has thus far been published by council is the following because it provides a clue as to what council is really planning and why residents across Glen Eira should be very, very concerned. Our take is that council intends to facilitate and expand development across Glen Eira – especially in those areas which happen to be close to railway stations and along major roads.

The Draft Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy makes this absolutely clear. Here is the relevant screen dump (page 10). Please note the following:

At least 3 current Local Centres will be upgraded to Neighbourhood Centres – Patterson, Ripponlea, and Garden Vale. That means more apartments!
Moorabbin which is a current Neighbourhood Centre will now be a Major Activity Centre as will Glen Huntly (we acknowledge that the latter has always been seen by the Government as a Major Centre. Council has insisted on calling it a Neighbourhood Centre).
Caulfield and Virginia Estate are givens – just the amount of residential development is unclear. We estimate another 5000 dwellings at least on these two sites.

Council has refused to deny the possibility that properties currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential will suddenly find themselves zoned as General Residential or Residential Growth. Or those zoned as General Residential will be ‘upgraded’ to Residential Growth. Without a straight out denial, that convinces us even more that the probability of this occurring is already set in concrete. The question is how many homes will be affected? How many residents will wake up one morning to find that they can now have 11 and 13.5 metre dwellings (at best) right next door to them?

As an example of what currently exists we use Patterson as a model. Here is a map of this currently designated Local Centre. Please note that it consists of a handful of shops zoned Commercial 1, but surrounded entirely by sites zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Activity centres by definition include Neighbourhood Centres and every single activity centre contains sites zoned as either Commercial, Mixed Use, General Residential or Residential Growth Zone. They do NOT contain properties zoned Neighbourhood Residential – especially not in Glen Eira.

It is definitely time that council for once provided residents with a clear and truthful version of what is in store. A simple, unequivocal ‘no’ to our suggestion that countless properties will be rezoned to GRZ or RGZ would alleviate much angst.

June 24, 2017

The Continuing Downward Spiral

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

One of the stated strategic objectives of the latest Community Plan promises residents that Council will – Provide you with regular and transparent reports on key outcomes and on our performance.

If this is truly the objective, then why is the latest State Government Community Satisfaction Survey results buried deep on council’s website and no officer reports extolling the virtues of this council have made it onto the agenda for the past two years – in stark contrast to what was previous practice?

The answer of course is that Glen Eira is on a continuous downward spiral when it comes to residents’ perceptions of performance. The dissatisfaction with those old perennials of planning, traffic, consultation have never reached such a low ebb. Many of the results listed are below both the Metropolitan average as well as the State average for all councils.

The most important indicator in our view is the differential score between ‘importance’ and ‘performance’. In other words, how important residents regard a particular aspect of council’s work compared to the actual performance of that work. Glen Eira has never had a differential of over 30 points as this year’s survey reveals. Year after year these areas have been highlighted by responses as basically failing resident expectations. That this is still the case, and worsening, says much about how council is addressing residents’ concerns.

Below are some screen dumps of the ‘lowlights’ –

June 12, 2017

More ‘Do Nothings’

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

Item 9.8 of the current agenda features council’s approach to Environmental Sustainability. That is, let’s not do anything and wait another two to three years for the State Government to introduce legislation. This ‘recommendation’ is despite all resident feedback on the need to increase open space in developments; to increase permeability and to introduce some decent amendments that will address the lack of any decent environmental measures in the current planning scheme.

We must also point out the complete lack of ‘objectivity’ in the officer’s report. Six metropolitan councils have been successful in introducing their own Environmental Sustainability Design amendments. Admittedly, these expire at the end of December 2017 as noted in the report. What is not noted is:

Are these councils seeking to extend their sunset clause?
What benefits have already been derived by having policy in place for nearly 3 years?
What damage will continue to occur in Glen Eira over the next 3 years whilst this council sits on its hands?
What of Water Sensitive Urban Design policies that these councils have with NO expiry date?

Every time that there is the possibility of introducing some new measure to protect the environment, or residential amenity, this council resorts to its old tricks – let’s wait for a couple of years because it is a state responsibility and not ours! Imagine how many more trees will go and how much more concrete will be poured whilst this council does nothing!!!!!!!

Here are the ‘unbiased’ officer recommendations –

June 3, 2017

Selling The Myths!

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

The above image comes from page 93 of council’s commissioned Housing Report. We highlight this paragraph because it illustrates completely how statistics can be used to distort situations, especially when only half of the story is presented.

Both Plan Melbourne and Victoria in Future 2016 are cited, leading to two possible scenarios required to meet Glen Eira’s population growth – either 28,600 net new dwellings, or 32,500 required dwellings. Thirty two thousand certainly sounds a lot, and is intended to. What readers need to remember is that these figures are projections for the next thirty-three (33) years up to 2050 or 2051. Thus if we are indeed in need of another 32,500 new dwellings, then all Glen Eira has to average is 970 net new dwellings per year! And for the past 5 years this pro-development council has averaged 2000+ per annum – OVER DOUBLE WHAT IS ‘REQUIRED’!!!!!

Why couldn’t the document state this simple fact? Why do residents have to perform some basic arithmetic in order to come up with a scenario that is far more ‘realistic’ and accurate? When put into perspective isn’t the issue that Glen Eira doesn’t need to:

Expand its activity centre borders as we suspect will happen
Maintain a growth that is double and triple what is required
Maintain a growth that increases density per square km that is totally unsustainable
Make Glen Eira the development ‘capitol’ of the Southern Region?

To illustrate all of the above here are the ABS building approval figures up to the end of March 2017 – that is, 9 months of building approvals. At this rate the year’s total will be approximately another 2000 new dwellings.

Residents need to understand that council’s mantra is and has always been to welcome development irrespective of its cost to residential amenity, sustainability, and overall density. Residents also need to demand answers as to why this council isn’t screaming blue murder as a result of Wynne’s recent amendments and why no genuine attempt is being made to rein in development?

Finally, it is also worth pointing out that the very figures presented by Plan Melbourne are highly questionable. Victoria in Future 2016 only shows projections up to the year 2031. Yet Plan Melbourne sites this source as projecting to 2051. There’s also the question as to how Glen Eira is supposed to represent 26% of the required new dwellings when there are only 4 municipalities included in the Inner Southern Region – Glen Eira, Stonnington, Bayside and Boroondara? Surely that’s 25%? Plenty of other stats in all of these documents can and should be called into question.

June 1, 2017

Social Housing

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

Thanks to the Stonnington agenda, we now know that the state government’s promise to facilitate social housing is a step closer. We’ve uploaded Stonnington’s submission, plus provided extracts from their officer’s report. Whether or not this will be another example of government policy railroaded through on the back of poorly drafted legislation and with little thought given to the countless loopholes that can be exploited, remains to be seen.

Here are the officer report extracts –

Proposed Planning Reforms

Council was notified on 22 May 2017 that the Minister for Planning is seeking feedback on proposed reforms to the Victoria Planning Provisions to provide permit exemptions or streamline permit application processes for specified accommodation land uses.

Comments on the proposed reforms are due by Friday, 16 June 2017. Due to the short consultation timeframe and the timing of Council report cycles, this provides Council a short time frame to review the reforms and prepare a submission for Council endorsement.

Facilitation of public housing

The Government argues that there is a pressing need to increase the supply of social housing in Victoria. The reforms are intended to help support government policy to replace ageing public housing stock and develop new public housing.

The reforms seek to streamline the planning permit process for the development of no more than 10 dwellings on a lot by, or on behalf of, a public authority such as the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It exempts assessment under Clause 55 (ResCode) and car parking requirements if specified requirements are met. In addition, it exempts an application from public notice and review requirement

Rooming house

The term “shared housing” is proposed to be replaced by the term “rooming house” (a newly defined land use term under Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme) which clarifies that other land uses such as a backpackers accommodation, boarding houses and hostels cannot benefit from the provision. The provision proposes to provide a permit exemption for use and development of land for a rooming house where specified requirements are met supporting the development of ‘domestic scale’ rooming houses under the proposed draft provisions.

The requirements propose limits of 12 persons, 8 bedrooms and a gross floor area of 300 square metres. It proposes to exempt applications by public authorities from public notice and review requirements.

Council is not confident that the draft controls will result in a high level accommodation that is respectful of its neighbourhood character, context or surrounding amenity.

The draft controls propose to provide a reduced assessment threshold to a proportion of Public Housing, Community Care Accommodation and Rooming Houses. This raises concern in relation to whether adequate levels of internal amenity, managing off -site amenity impacts and how successful integration of development within its neighbourhood context will be achieved.

The lower assessment threshold may lead to an increase in such developments, creating a loop hole for the development of sub -standard accommodation if the buildings are retro fitted into private apartment buildings in the future.

It is also considered that the Clauses as drafted will pose challenges in the extent of public notice and review exemptions. The lack of notice and review means that where otherwise affected parties would be able to make submissions, there will not be an opportunity to do so.

The proposed exemption from notice and review may result in a disconnected community and potentially increased compliance expectations on Council

Stonnington’s submission uploaded HERE

May 30, 2017

The Rot Has Started!

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

In March 2017, Wynne gazetted Amendment VC110 which is the latest version of the residential zones and the one trumpeted to ‘save our backyards’. Practically every other council has at least put up on its website information about this amendment. Many have included an officer’s report in their agenda papers and some like Banyule and Boroondara (see images below) have voiced strong concerns/objections to the amendment. Glen Eira on the other hand has maintained a stony silence! Not a public peep has come out from any councillor and certainly not from any administrative quarters via a media release, a web page announcement. Nothing but silence! Why? Is this another foray into keeping the public ignorant? Or is it more to do with not wanting to ‘antagonise’ Wynne and the Labor party so that brokered secret deals can go through? How much is politics at play here rather than transparent planning? Why, when after years and years of patting itself on the back for achieving such ‘largesse’ from Matthew Guy (ie mandatory heights, 2 dwellings per nrz) is council now silent when these very ‘achievements’ are about to go down the drain?

And if we are correct, then the rot has already started for the Neighbourhood Residential Zones. An application is in for 76 Bignell Road, Bentleigh East. This is a site in the NRZ of 580 Sqm and was sold in September 2016 for $1m. The application is for 3 attached double storeys! And all is ‘legal’ since March 2017 thanks to Wynne. We therefore urge all residents in both the NRZ and GRZ zones to be on the look out for this new threat to our neighbourhoods – one that council is hoping will slip through unnoticed no doubt! Wynne’s amendment we suggest sits well with council’s long history of a pro-development agenda. Like VCAT it will eventually become the convenient scapegoat for over a decade of appalling strategic planning and gang after gang of complicit councillors.

We will report on the potential impacts of Wynne’s amendment in posts to come. In the meantime, here are some screen dumps from a recent Banyule council meeting and the letter that Boroondara sent out to its residents –