GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

October 12, 2016

Consider This When You Vote!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

We’ve uploaded several pages from a secret report by Charter Keck Cramer. The report was obviously commissioned well before July 2013 (the date the report was completed). The report is courtesy of the Department and its objective was to use GLEN EIRA AS A MODEL for the introduction of the new zones. Thus Council was well and truly up to its eyeballs in secret meetings with Guy, and the department in order to be the ‘first’ council in the state to introduce the new residential zones.

What is significant in the following pages (obtained under FOI) is:

The emphases on state revenue via property tax and stamp duty
Job creation for the construction industry, and
Housing supply

There is not one word in this analysis regarding impact on existing neighbourhoods or the deterioration of residential amenity. No mention of required infrastructure; no mention of open space and no concern about transparency and community consultation. Even more astounding is that Glen Eira claimed to have 85 years worth of development potential and 89 years worth once the commercial areas were included! Notes of meetings between the parties reveals that ALL COUNCILLORS were in favour of the introduction of the horrendous zones.

The crucial questions here are:

Were all councillors provided with a copy of this report? If so, what questions did they ask? If not all councillors were provided with the report, then why not?
Exactly what were councillors told about the secret meetings between Guy, Newton, Akehurst and Hyams?
What role did the Liberals on Council (ie Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel, ‘Pilling’) have in endorsing this secrecy and collusion with Matthew Guy and his bureaucrats?

As we have repeatedly stated, there is no excuse for responses to public questions being lies. There is no excuse for the failure to inform the community as to what is about to happen. There is no excuse for appalling planning and definitely no excuse for failure to implement planning controls for the past decade. All current councillors are responsible for these failures and the damage they have caused to countless residents.

October 8, 2016

Why They Must Go!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[22] Comments

PS: An update on this afternoon’s Tucker Ward ‘Meet the Candidates’. Those present were: Magee, Lobo, Taylor, Searle, Brewster, Mackie, De’Arth.

ABSENT: Hyams, Okotel, Bonney, Elliott, Karlik, Cade and Andonopoulos – the last with apology due to family wedding.

We have reported on planning decisions made by these councillors over the past 4 years. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/for-the-record-2/). This post we concentrate on the area that has bedevilled this council for over a decade – governance and how community aspirations have been continually ignored and/or thwarted.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Councils had until June 30^th 2014 to introduce their individual versions of the new residential zones. Glen Eira was the first, with Guy’s announcement on August 5^th 2013 followed by official gazetting on 23^rd August 2013. Countless other councils held extensive community consultations. Glen Eira did not. Even those councils which applied for the ‘fast track’ ministerial intervention under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, tabled their intentions and the relevant details of the proposed zonings at formal council meetings. This was then voted on by councillors in an open and transparent fashion at their respective council meetings. Thus their citizens could see what was to occur and had the opportunity to at least contact their representatives. Glen Eira did not, thus being the only council in the state which did not provide its residents with any information and any opportunity to voice an opinion. There was no council resolution and no official ratification of anything. Another example of decision making behind closed doors!

Add to this various public questions dating from July 2013 asking when council would begin its community consultations and we find responses that were blatantly untrue and designed to mislead and deceive. There was never any intention to alert the public or consult with them. We know this because as far back as 2009 Akehurst had written an officer’s report that said there would be no community consultation if the zones, as they were proposed in 2008 were ever to come in. We also know that Guy, the department honchos, Hyams, Newton and Akehurst had been busy meeting since at least April 2013 and spending taxpayers’ money on getting legal advice as to how best to thwart any potential legal challenges and, we assume, whether or not a formal resolution had to be tabled at council meetings. The intent was always to avoid public consultation and accountability. We, the residents, were irrelevant to the devious and secret collusion going on between Matthew Guy, the department and council.

The following comes from the documents obtained under FOI and reveals the full treachery that all the present councillors allowed to occur and some positively encouraged –

NOTICE OF MOTION & PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Notice of motion is an essential element of good governance and community representation since it allows a councillor (once seconded by another councillor) to have an item placed on the agenda for full and open debate and decision. Glen Eira is the only council in the state that has repeatedly refused to grant this right to councillors – and therefore residents who request a councillor to initiate some action on an issue. It has come up at least twice in the past 4 years and been defeated by the conservative faction led by Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel and Lipshutz.

Adding insult to injury, the recent changes to the public question format means that unless the questioner is present in chamber the response will not be recorded in the official minutes. The result? No public record that will provide interested residents with any idea of what council’s position is and what the issues that concern some residents are. With no public record there is no accountability and certainly no transparency.

Those councillors who vetoed these democratic rights are: LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING & HO

GUNS IN THE PARK

Readers will remember the furore created by this secret (and potentially illegal) in camera vote that permitted private security guards to carry guns in local parks. Those responsible for keeping this secret and deciding that this was in the best interests of the entire community were – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, MAGEE

FROGMORE

When Council had the opportunity to proceed to a Panel Hearing over the application to build a Jewish Care aged care home at Frogmore, the proposed heritage amendment was abandoned. This meant that the developer moved in overnight and demolished the building and removed nearly 90 trees – 4 of which were categorised as ‘significant’. Over 1000 signatures on a petition had requested council to implement heritage protection and another 200+ submissions had gone in anticipating a formal panel hearing where residents would get the opportunity to have their say and to present their well researched evidence. Esakoff and Delahunty conveniently declared a ‘conflict of interest’ and Magee was absent. Pilling used his casting vote to ensure that Frogmore was no more. Those who voted against going to the panel were: PILLING, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ. Thus 3 councillors (a minority) thwarted the stated wishes of over a 1000 residents!

CONSERVATORY

Two expensive community consultations, plus several council resolutions, made it clear that the conservatory at Caulfield Park be maintained and restored. Not satisfied with the results, there was another go to get rid of the building. This time it worked. Those councillors who ignored community views, their own previous resolutions and succeeded in removing the structure were: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, DELAHUNTY, PILLING

CONCLUSION

These examples are only some of the outrages that have occurred during this council’s term of office. If residents want more of the same, if they want to be continually ignored and told fairy tales, if they want more internal strife and division, then they should retain the incumbents. However, if residents feel that Glen Eira must change and improve their overall performance in so many areas, then these sitting councillors have to go. Most of them have been there for 8 years. They have achieved very little except to alienate countless residents, each other, and cost ratepayers a fortune in legal fees – which by the way is far from over given this statement from the 2015/16 Annual Report just published –

Contingent liabilities

(a) Arising from legal matters

Council is presently involved in several confidential legal matters, which are being conducted through Council’s solicitors.

As these matters are yet to be finalised and the financial outcomes are unable to be reliably estimated, no allowance for these contingencies has been made in the Financial Report. (page 214)

Open and transparent governance is dead in Glen Eira thanks to those councillors named above. Glen Eira desperately needs new councillors who put community, honesty and fiscal responsibility first!

October 6, 2016

A Resident’s Questions To Candidates

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

A comment has been received from a resident which we feel should be highlighted here as a separate post. The suggested questions are excellent and the recommendations sound and pragmatic.

We have commented numerous times on how many dwellings have already gone into Glen Eira in the past 5 years and how we are well ahead of projected population growth if this trend continues much longer. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/more-on-hyams/

We have also highlighted how the recent planning scheme review and its ‘workplan’ will take up to 20 years to complete if this council has its way. That is literally much too late to save the neighbourhood centres such as McKinnon, Bentleigh East, Ormond, Caulfield South, etc. We are already seeing 7 storeys in Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.

Thus, instead of producing a meagre 2 structure plans in 4 years (and somehow Elsternwick has already been written off without any community consultation), action is required now. That means reorganising the budget, setting aside funding for outside consultants and beginning the work immediately. We also have to question why, when the Minister ordered council to move its butt way back in December 2015, the first structure plan isn’t already on the drawing boards and in the public domain for consultation.

We repeat again. These councillors have failed its residents and do not deserve to be re-elected.

Here is Mr. Ptok’s comment in full –

I was not able to attend, but am grateful for the information provided here, and the comments.

As someone involved in objecting to a number of developments in Carnegie (including appearing at VCAT at the recent 90-94 Mimosa Road application, which got approved today), I have penned a few questions I emailed the candidates in Rosstown Ward. Still waiting to hear back from some of them, but the following includes some key steps which, I believe, will help strengthen council’s position in VCAT hearings. Especially in light of today’s decision, I have concluded that the only hope of preserving anything of our neighbourhoods, is implementing the full Planning Scheme Review Work Plan in the coming term of council. This may require paying external consultants, but if it’s not done, looking at the speed of development in Carnegie, there won’t be much left of the old Carnegie come 2020.

Please feel free to circulate / ask your candidates, if you think any of the following can help strike a better balance between competing needs:

Dear [candidate],

I am a resident and voter in Carnegie.

I believe that whilst development is necessary, it needs to strike a balance between the needs of existing community, the developers, and future residents. Having been involved in a number of VCAT hearings, I believe there are things council can do to better manage the developments.

Could I ask which, if any, of the following actions you are willing to initiate and support, if elected to council:

1. Regular (at least quarterly) reporting on net dwelling approvals and dwelling type. This should include retrospective reporting, at least to 2013 when the new residential zones were adopted, ideally to 2003 when the municipality adopted policies to differentiate the municipality into housing diversity and minimal change areas.
This will allow comparison of dwelling approvals to population targets, and confident answering of the question: “is Glen Eira doing its fair share of meeting new housing required in Melbourne?”

2. Council’s VCAT watch report should include, where decisions went against council, a section on “actions council can take to avoid a similar outcome in future”.
This will give Councillors a clear idea of what would “strengthen” the Glen Eira planning scheme to ensure council decisions stand.

3. A review of the Planning Scheme Review Work Plan, including a presentation of council’s representative at VCAT. As the workplan currently spans more than a decade and relies heavily on internal resources to be completed, the concern from a resident point of view is that by the time the workplan is completed, the municipality will no longer be recognisable. As resident and ratepayer, I would be very happy if council used funds to pay external consultants so the work required can be completed in the next term of council.
A review of the work plan will give the newly elected Councillors an early opportunity to shape the management of development in Glen Eira.

4. Seek an amendment to the planning scheme to better manage change in neighbourhoods and where different planning zones meet. The amendment I am suggesting is that the maximum building height of any new development be the lower of:
– the height of the lowest adjoining property (including across the road) plus two stories, or
– the maximum height permitted under the zones.
This approach strikes a balance between the needs of neighbours (who would prefer a 1 storey increase) and developers (who would prefer going straight to the maximum), and allows for more managed change of neighbourhood character over time.

I am asking the same questions of all candidates in Rosstown Ward and look forward to your reply. If you require any further information on any of the points raise, I am of course happy to answer any questions.

Kind regards,

Greg Ptok

September 25, 2016

More On Hyams!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments

Several weeks ago Hyams & Delahunty were interviewed on the JAir radio station. Below we present the opening section with Hyams. The audio goes for 5.24 minutes.

As per usual with Hyams he is not averse to making statements that are misleading, incorrect, and blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Here are some examples:

HYAMS: What’s going on in Glen Eira is actually a lot less than what’s been going in some of the neighbouring municipalities

COMMENT

Dead wrong! We have compiled data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on building permits for the past 5 years and uploaded the 2015/16 data HERE so that readers can check for themselves. What residents need to realise is:

Of our ‘neighbouring municipalities’ Bayside, Kingston, Port Phillip, and Monash have had less development over the past 5 years! The only ‘neighbours’ with greater numbers are Stonnington and Boroondara – and there are some good reasons for this!
Glen Eira has 2.8% zoned Commercial. Stonnington according to the recent State of Play Reports has 8%, Boroondar has 3.6% and Port Phillip has 12% plus this latter municipality being in the unique position of being ‘capital city’ zone and a tourist hub. In these municipalities the majority of new development occurs in these commercial areas, whereas in Glen Eira, the overwhelming majority of new dwellings are in our quiet residential streets – thanks to the zoning and the small percent zoned commercial.
The number of houses built in Glen Eira is small compared to many other municipalities – thus development in Glen Eira is primarily apartment blocks
Other municipalities are double or triple the size of Glen Eira which already has the highest density per kilometre in the Southern Region. The impact on density and liveability is thus far greater in Glen Eira than say Kingston.
Victoria in Future 2016’s projections (UPLOADED HERE) indicate that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira will require an additional 11,800+ new dwellings to meet its population needs. The figures on building permits show that in Glen Eira more than half of this target has been reached in the space of 5 years AND these figures DO NOT INCLUDE THE 1500+ UNITS FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE AND POTENTIALLY ANOTHER 4000+ FOR VIRGINIA ESTATE. At this rate, Glen Eira will meet its ‘target’ not in 2031 but in 2020. Then what?

Please consider the following table carefully. The figures in parenthesis represent the number of houses with building permits for that year.

There are plenty of other statements that amount to arrant nonsense and we believe designed to deliberately mislead:

Minimal change areas have had 50% site coverage, 25% permeability, and 4 metre setbacks since Amendment C25 which was gazetted in 2004. The only thing the zones have changed is making 8 metres mandatory and 2 dwellings per site – and not as Hyams so inaccurately portrays that these ‘additional’ protections are a result of the zones! What he also neglects to mention is that even this ‘protection’ is not sacrosanct if the size of the lot happens to be larger than its surrounding blocks of land. In Glen Eira at the time of the introduction of the new zones there were 1,795 lots of land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which were greater than 800 square metres. (Source: DEWLP document procured under FOI)
There are no setbacks to the Residential Growth Zones apart from ResCode. They have been there since time immemorial and again have nothing to do with the zones!
Developers buy up multiple blocks because they can squeeze more units on and this is explicitly encouraged in the Planning Scheme!
Glen Eira does not have 78% zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – it has just under 70%

But the best line must be – It’s not like we changed the zones to allow more development without telling anyone…..

Really? Is that why the zones were introduced in secret and public question responses were nothing but lies and all such responses ‘signed off’ by councillors without a single murmur?

There’s much, more more that could be said on Hyams’ performance on JAir. We will leave it to our readers to comment further.

September 18, 2016

Agenda: Open Space

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

Item 9.12 deals with the proposed closure of Fosbery/St Aubins Avenue to create open space. What will be fascinating is to see whether resident concerns are acted upon by councillors or ignored entirely.

The report states that for traffic in Kambea and Otira Road – The majority of the feedback was strongly opposed to the proposal based on concerns around traffic volume, congestion and vehicle movement. Responding to this opposition we have –

The analysis of this data indicates that:

Σ There would not be any noticeable change in the daily traffic conditions in Fosbery Avenue (north of St Aubins Avenue) and at Otira Road.

Σ Daily traffic volumes in Fosbery Avenue, south of the proposed open space area would decrease by approximately 70%.

Σ Traffic volumes along St Aubins Avenue are also expected to decrease.

Σ Traffic volumes at Kambea Grove, west of Fosbery Avenue would be expected to increase by approximately 219 vehicle movements per day, and up to 44 vehicle movements in the AM peak hour.

Σ The traffic volumes are considered appropriate noting the acceptable threshold volume for a local street under State Government planning guidelines is variously 2,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.

The most incredible paragraph in response to the potential speed of cars reads –

The location of the proposed open space was not identified in order to address a specific traffic concern, although wider streets like St Aubins Avenue and the southern section of Fosbery Avenue (south of the dogleg) can attract more traffic ‘cutting through’ and travelling at higher speeds, due to ease of access.

Surely when up to half a million dollars of ratepayer funds is about to be spent on a project, all aspects should be considered and fully investigated. We also remind readers that less than 2 years ago a tender was granted for the ‘redevelopment’ of this site for approximately $930,000. We have wondered whether this means that work previously done will now be ripped up to make way for this project?

Some further information on open space

Page 212 of the agenda states – Purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue for a potential new open space opportunity in Caulfield South.

We assume that this relates to some recent in camera items and the resolution to ‘accept’ the officer’s report presumably for purchase. Readers should note:

Recent sales in Aileen Avenue are listed as over $2 million
Council’s purchase of a property in Aileen Avenue repeats the ongoing trend of concentrating on Camden ward to the exclusion of the far more ‘high priority’ recommendations from the Open Space Strategy for the Carnegie area. Why?
And why oh why is council continuing to spend valuable money on new open space that is literally a stone’s throw from existing open space? – ie Fitzgibbon/Eskdale (Caulfield Park); St Aubins/Fosbery (Greenmeadows)? And now Aileen Avenue – Princes Park?

September 15, 2016

Residents, Candidate Promises, & How To Decide

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning,

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for?

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what.

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry.

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other.

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

September 15, 2016

Ms ‘Independent’!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[12] Comments

September 9, 2016

Gross Incompetence!

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

In January 2013 Amendment C87 was gazetted. This amendment introduced some revised Neighbourhood Character Overlays into the planning scheme with the objective of ‘protecting’ certain streets and areas of the city. Council’s stated objectives in the recently completed planning scheme review is to implement more of these overlays.

But there is a major problem with council’s planning as illustrated in a recent VCAT decision which calls into question whether council is totally incompetent, or simply so pro-development that nothing they do to foster more development should come as a surprise to residents. This latest VCAT decision involved an application to build a 2 storey building containing 4 townhouses. The site was in Murrumbeena and included in a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NOC6), plus a Design and Development Overlay, plus a Special Building Overlay (ie flooding). Yet, council in its wisdom also ZONED THIS AREA UNDER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1.

This raises a multitude of important issues –

Why has council included areas that have NCO’S in the GRZ and RGZ zones?
Discussion on the introduction of the new zones was already happening in 2013 and probably well before. Didn’t council planners know what they were potentially undermining? Or didn’t they and councillors care?
What happens now to the several hundred properties that find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena application?
Why can’t council write amendments that actually mean something, instead of the contradictory and useless waffle that they continually produce? And who ultimately is responsible for vetting their nonsense? Here is an example of two statements that come from this NCO6. We maintain that they contradict each other –.

To ensure that new dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings respect the dominant building height, form, façade articulation, materials and roof forms of the streetscape..

New buildings should interpret the detailed elements of older dwellings that contribute to the neighbourhood character significance of the area in an innovative and contemporary manner that complements, rather than replicates, period dwelling styles.

Thus we have an NCO that is seeking to protect existing neighbourhood characteristics on the one hand (ie ‘respect) and then there is the injunction NOT TO ‘replicate’ but merely ‘complement’ the area. No definition of course exists as to the meaning of these two terms. You could literally drive a truck through any of these statements, decision guidelines and objectives!

The VCAT decision went the developer’s way with the member making this important point –

The construction and application of the zones, overlay controls and policies to this locality creates a tension within the planning scheme with respect to the future built form character of the area. This is a locality identified as a diversity area in which the Council seeks to encourage redevelopment and increased residential densities. It is one of a confined number of diversity areas in this municipality in which redevelopment is directed and specifically encouraged. Simultaneously the Council has applied an NCO to this locality, the purpose of which encourages development to be in accordance with a preferred neighbourhood character that is largely based on the protection of existing neighbourhood character. Notwithstanding this site’s diversity area location the Council opposes the demolition of a modest and relatively non-descript (my description) dwelling because it is a dwelling originating from the interwar period. (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1494.html)

As for the other ‘protections’ afforded this site, they are useless. The Design and Development Overlay only applies to fence heights (like another 2 from council’s ‘generous’ 5 DDOs) and hence was irrelevant. The member also makes the point that council’s opposition to demolition should not be based on a Neighbourhood Character Overlay, but on a Heritage Overlay! Melbourne Water had no objections to the Special Building Overlay requirements following amended plans.

What does all this ultimately mean? We believe that:

No property should be zoned GRZ or RGZ if it is also covered by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay. This of course means changing the zoning – a definite ‘no-no’ for this council since they are ‘perfect’ and got everything right the first time around
At least another 200 properties now find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena site. What will council do to ensure that they are fully ‘protected’?
Until there is a complete and utter re-write of the planning scheme, and eschewing reliance on useless waffle, then no resident anywhere can expect that his neighbourhood or street is ‘safe’.

In the public interest, we provide some screen dumps of the other areas that are covered by an NCO, but also zoned for increased density. Residents in these areas – BEWARE!

September 7, 2016

The New Public Questions Format!

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

With the new Public Questions format introduced recently, the wider community literally has no idea as to what the public question was, nor the answer, if the questioner was not present in the gallery at the time the item comes up in the agenda. Given that public questions occur at the end of the meeting (and this can be hours and hours later) it is no wonder that some residents might simply give up and leave or simply cannot abide the thought of 2 to 2 and a half hours of woeful arguments and plenty of hot air and grandstanding. Nor do these new protocols take into consideration that someone might be ill and unable to attend.

Councillors Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling,and Ho have therefore successfully limited public access to resident views and queries since the questions and responses are not recorded in the minutes. We’ve however been able to subvert this anti-democratic practice by publishing one of these questions! Please note the answer and make up your own minds as to its veracity and faithful ‘reporting’ of events.