GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

July 8, 2016

Open Space & Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

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

No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.

Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:

The impact on traffic
The size of this new ‘park’
The cost of creating this ‘park’
The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?

Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park. Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?

Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –

That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted

This clearly leads to a series of important questions:

Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?

Conclusions? If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.

July 3, 2016

Our Money – #1

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

We urge all readers to consider the following:

Burke’s parting shot at Lipshutz & Hyams?
The animosity between councillors?
How our money is spent and the rationale for any cogent decision making?
The overall governance within Glen Eira

+++++++++

Item 9.16 – The Budget

Pilling moved to accept as printed. Lipshutz seconded.

PILLING: claimed that council had ‘taken note’ of the submissions to the budget. Summarised some of the other ‘capital works expenditure’. Said the budget was ‘challenging’ given ratecapping and for council to ‘continue our environmental initiatives’ and other projects. Thought that the budget was ‘steady as usual’ in this ‘environment’ but council would ‘continue to build our community facilities’. Stated that some changes had been made as a result of submissions.

LIPSHUTZ: said that many residents might think that all council does is about roads, rates and rubbish. Went on to outline the things that ‘I have noted’ like day care. The Federal government cut funding and council is now ‘making up that shortfall’. Council’s parks and gardens are rated highest and that’s because ‘we spend money on that’. Since 2005 environmental issues have improved even thought ‘some of us have been dragged kicking and screaming’ to this position. Said it was a great ‘credit to this administration that we have such great parks and gardens’. Unlike other councils they don’t spend money on ‘weird and wonderful things’. Glen Eira doesn’t do this and the Auditor General tells them that the Chief Financial Officer is ‘one of the best’ in local government. Council got submissions and they could have ignored these but they didn’t like the dancing group who only wanted air conditioning. So ‘we listened to them and we thought it was appropriate’.

MAGEE: budget time is difficult because they have expenses and x amount of funds. Said that there are ‘smaller things in the budget’ that make the difference – like run ups for a cricket club so kids won’t fall over when they run up to bowl. For him the most pleasing was about the skatepark which will replace a ‘dilapidated’ facility and ‘how many of our youth’ use this. Council is now ‘putting in $550,000 for a new facility’. This will ‘transform’ the park, ‘as GESAC has done’ into a ‘large activity centre’. Stated that the perception of these kids is that they are ‘second class society’ but that’s not true. These kids are ‘very polite’ and ‘take care of other kids’. This has been ‘something that has been very, very dear to me for many years’ so he is very pleased with the budget allocation. Admitted that ‘at one stage we were looking at moving it’ but with the $550,000 the skateboarders will be delighted.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s a lot to like’ but a ‘couple of things’ she’s not too ‘pleased about’. Thought that ‘some projects’ need ‘clarification on’ like the Booran Reserve costs. Asked Swabey to ‘address’ the total costs and how they are ‘going to spend the money’.

SWABEY: said that the reservoir is $600,000 over budget and that the ‘timing between 2015/16 and 2016/17 has changed’. They ‘anticipated spending a lot more money in 2015/16’ but this ‘didn’t eventuate’ so the budget of May 2015/16 was readjusted to become ‘$4m in 2016/17 rather than $930’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she thought the over budget was ‘marginal’ and that in ‘5 years time’ we ‘won’t remember the hurt on our hip-pocket’ and it will be a ‘boost’ to open space. Strongly endorsed this aspect and ‘sustainability’ of the budget. Not happy though with increasing child care fees and shouldn’t ‘be looked at from the premise of how much do we want to subsidise’. Thought that the role of local government is to provide the best staff and facilities and should be ‘affordable’ to people. They don’t ‘hear about subsidisation in libraries’ or roads, so it shouldn’t apply here. Thought the increase was based on an incorrect ‘premise’. Went on to say that what really ‘sticks under my fingernails, excuse the pun’ is the funding for the Wellness Centre at GESAC. This was ‘part of the original concept’ and was ‘to provide nail services’ and seen as ‘ancillary services’. Nothing ‘wrong with that as a concept’ but the budget proposes to spend ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to ‘finish off a Wellness Centre’ that ‘basically operates as a commercial entity’ and with ‘no social benefit’. ‘I’m quite angry about it’. ‘It’s so far beyond what we should be doing here’. Said it would be more acceptable if it ‘had some sort of social purpose to it’ like ‘apprenticeships’ or ‘giving out low rent schemes to people’. Said that ‘what we are doing is setting up competition to traders’ in the area and ‘using ratepayers’ money’.

Delahunty then proposed the following amendment – that the funding for the Wellness Centre be removed. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said she ‘understands that it was part of the original concept’ but it’s not fair on local traders and doesn’t think that this is ‘in any way necessary’. There’s no ‘community space’, ‘social’ benefit and ‘is completely at odds with our role’ as a local government. ‘At the very least’ if this goes ahead then it ‘should have a social purpose’. Claimed that the money ‘could be better spent’ such as on the ‘pensioner rebate’ plus a ‘myriad of things we could do’ with the money.

SOUNNESS: asked Swabey if this is voted in whether the budget has to be changed?

SWABEY: the budget has to go to the Minister by 30^th June and they would have to ‘reconfigure the whole budget’.

SOUNNESS: ‘assumed’ that this wouldn’t have a ‘major impact’ on the budget in that it was a ‘minor item’.

SWABEY: ‘$250,000’ is a ‘relatively small amount’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether ‘this would have any impact on the operation of GESAC?’

BURKE: stated that it would ‘make it more economically sound’.

LIPSHUTZ: as chairman of the Pools Committee they ‘looked’ at a ‘whole host of things’ like having a gym. There are other gyms in the area but they thought that ‘having a gym would make it viable’. ‘It was not simply the swimming pool’. People ‘need to change’. The Wellness Centre will provide ‘pampering’ like ‘massages’ and ‘those things are important’. They were told that putting in a gym will mean that ‘they will grow’ and ‘people’s thinking has changed’ and they want other things too like the Wellness Centre. ‘We want’ GESAC to be ‘a movable thing’, ‘we want it to be dynamic’. Shouldn’t think that officers and councillors said ‘hey bingo. Let’s have a Wellness Centre’ – ‘we had meetings on that’. Down the track ‘we will change again’. Said it’s ‘a bit late to come along now and say let’s change it’ after the ‘whole budget has been discussed for many months’.

DELAHUNTY – interrupted with her objection to Pilling that Lipshutz is ‘misrepresenting’ her in that ‘I’ve kept this consistent line of argument the entire time’.

PILLING: ‘I think there’s reason to slightly correct that’.

LIPSHUTZ: Delahunty has been consistent but at this ‘late hour’ when ‘we’ve gone uphill and downdale’ it is ‘important that GESAC is successful’.

HYAMS: said that one of Delahunty’s points was that the money from removing this from the budget could be spent on other things but ‘the point of this, is to ultimately make money’. So they should be ‘talking about the money we will be getting in years to come’. So the ‘financial argument’ is in ‘favour of doing this’. Said that in providing this facility they are providing ‘what the users of GESAC want us to provide there’ and it ‘adds to the whole GESAC experience’. Said that he would be ‘disappointed’ after ‘having this as a plan for so long’ it was rejected.

MAGEE: has ‘sympathy and support’ for Delahunty but ‘she lost me’ when she spoke about ‘having to be consistent’. At the time of planning GESAC there was ‘a company called AquaSwim’ and council put ‘in a pool which directly affected’ this company. The gym that went into GESAC was also ‘directly opposite the biggest gymnasium in East Bentleigh’. They did this because they were putting together a plan that ‘would not be draining money from council’ with the old pools. They had the philosophy of ‘what do we do to make it profitable?’ They’ve also got a café there which is in competition with other cafes. ‘For GESAC to continue to be the success it is, it is well worth’ this project because if ‘that’s what the GESAC community want and we need to fund that’ and ‘it’s not costing the ratepayers any money’ since ‘GESAC is paying its own way’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted clarification on Magee’s point that ‘GESAC is paying its own way’ and it’s ‘got a project cost of $450,000’ and for the next budget an ‘estimated income of $155,000’ so ‘in your opinion (to Burke) is this paying its own way?’

BURKE: replied that the figures show a ‘payback’.

DELAHUNTY: Lipshutz is saying that ‘this is a long conceived’ program under ‘the advice of the officers’ and wanted to know whether ‘that advice has changed’.

BURKE: admitted that council is under ‘financial pressure’ and ‘as officers’ they looked at the budget and ‘the pressures we were facing’ and officers were of the mind to ‘defer expenditure’ and ‘the councillor group took a different view – they asked us to actually proceed’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to make the point and that ‘Lipshutz understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contrary to the advice of officers and not in concert with that’.

PILLING – asked who the question was directed at and Delahunty said Lipshutz.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘Council officers don’t make decisions. Councillors make decisons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order as to whether Lipshutz ‘understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contradiction..

PILLING: started saying that ‘to be fair’. Delahunty responded that she wanted Lipshutz ‘to be relevant to the question’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘councillors seek advice but ultimately decision making is ours’. So even though officers have ‘given advice’ it is ‘we who make the decision’. ‘Sometimes we even make decisions that are opposed to officer’ advice. ‘That is appropriate’. Said that ‘our role is to make decisions and to seek advice and to determine whether that advice is appropriate’.

AMENDMENT PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR OF AMENDMENT –DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS, MAGEE, HO

AMENDMENT LOST

June 24, 2016

Creative Accounting?

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

PS: The World According To Ho – https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/24/councillor-in-same-sex-marriage-controversy/

We are not accountants, but we do regard ourselves as reasonably intelligent people who should be able to make sense of most things in a budget. Not in Glen Eira it would seem! Readers will remember that the restructuring of the GESAC loan (and the payment of a $4.9 million penalty) has forced Council back to the drawing board and the requirement to publish a new Strategic Resource Statement and Budget. It is this latest version of the accounts that raises a multitude of questions. Are we in fact dealing with ‘creative accounting’? If not, then every single item should be beyond doubt and self-evident. They are not! There simply is no correlation between the figures presented on May 3^rd and the figures that now appear in the new budget. Why not? Have any councillors bothered to ask any decent questions? And why aren’t the changes highlighted and fully explained to residents?

Here are some of our concerns:

COMMENT

Thus in May, just 6 or 7 weeks ago, residents were lead to believe that all that was necessary for the completion of the Booran Road Reservoir was the expenditure of another $903K – as further evidenced by the screen dump below, where no further expenditure is forecast.. So now we suddenly learn that another $3 million plus is to go into this project? Why? Where’s the money coming from? And what is the total cost of this originally mooted $5m redevelopment?

GESAC

BUDGET ESTIMATES

One of the most bewildering announcements from the two budgets are the figures for the income derived from ‘general rates’. Both budgets claim that the numbers were compiled from the ‘financial statements as at the end of January 2016’. Thus they should be identical – especially since they are ‘forecasts for 2015/16’ and not for 2016/17. Yet the discrepancy is staggering – a $5 million difference for figures that are supposedly based on the identical financial statements. In short, ‘forecasts’ for the past year should not change – but in Glen Eira they do!

Finally, here are some other comparisons from the May and the June documents. The onus is firmly on this council to explain these ‘discrepancies’ in plain English and to account for every single dollar that is to be spent. We also remind readers that the new ‘negotiated’ interest rate for GESAC has not been revealed when the previous interest rate was NOT deemed top secret! Why the difference? And why aren’t residents privy to what is happening to their hard earned cash? We also note that the claim that GESAC is paying for itself is no longer included!

May 3^rd – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $16.61m which is a $124k increase from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. (The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $16.48m).”

June 28^th – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $17.22m which is an increase of $5.74m from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $11.47m. Included in the 2015-2016 forecast is the economic cost of $4.93m associated with Council restructuring its loan facility.

May 3^rd – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $6.23m during the year to $45.24m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $39.02m as at 30 June 2016).

June 28^th – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $1.72m during the year to $45.58m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $43.86m as at 30 June 2016).

3^rd May – Borrowing repayments of principal and interest costs of $2.88m will be made during the 2016-2017 financial year. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $18.71m. The repayment of all borrowings is fully funded by GESAC.

28^th June – On 17 May 2016, Council approved to restructure the existing loan facilities with a revised term of 7 years and a fixed interest rate. Loan repayments of approximately $4m per annum have been included in the SRP. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $21.46m.

May 3^rd – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $1.31m over the year.

June 28^th – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $3.24m over the 2016-2017 year.

If any readers can shed light on the above comparisons, we welcome their thoughts!

June 21, 2016

Are We About To Be Screwed Again?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments

The latest Development Plan for the Mixed Use Precinct of the Caulfield Village reveals once again the failure of this council to keep its residents informed as to what is really going on. Worse still, the proposed plans are another example of MRC profit making and to hell with the local community.

Council Secrecy

The plans reveal the following (and we quote) –

On 27 May 2014 Glen Eira City Council (GECC) approved the initial Development Plan for Caulfield Village (DP 16060/2013) relating to that part of the Residential Precinct west of Bond Street. That Development Plan approval was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, most recently on 05 May 2015 (page 6 –Town Planning Assessment Report)

Condition 24 of Development Plan approval DP 16060/2013 required that the proposed design of the Normanby Road / Boulevard / PHE / Sir John Monash Drive intersection be resolved and approved by SJB Planning Council before further work on the future stages of Caulfield Village can advance. Following extensive engagement with State and local government stakeholders, an updated Integrated Transport Plan was submitted to Council for endorsement on 01 October 2015. (Page 13/14)

Thus, the MRC keeps putting in amended plans and residents know nothing about the amendments and what concessions have undoubtedly been granted to the MRC and by whom! There has not been any formal council resolution on the 5^th May 2015, nor any notice that amendments were sought. Why not? And who made the decisions and under whose authority? And as we stated in our previous post, who made the current decision to ‘refuse’ the new Development Plan and what were the grounds of refusal? Why aren’t residents informed as to what is going on until after the fact?

The Development Plan

There is much that could be said about this current proposal. We will only highlight the most obvious things –

Another 397 apartments proposed in 4 buildings
Building A – 9 storeys of 56 one bedroom and 56 two bedroom
Building B – 9 storeys of 44 one bedroom, 56 two bedroom and 9 three bedrooms
Building C – 5 storeys of 36 one bedroom and 12 two bedroom
Building D – 7 storeys of 92 one bedroom and 36 two bedroom

Thus the percentage of family oriented three bedroom apartments is the wonderful number of 2.26% – whereas the documents claim 5%!

The proposed configurations of these apartments are also nothing to write home about. For example:

No of apartments under 50 square metres – 51

No of units between 50 and 60 square metres – 60

No of balconies under 8 square metres – 71

We remind readers that council caved in on the requirement for 8 square metres of balcony on a previous amendment. Also the State Government’s Better Apartments is looking at legislating for a minimum size and 50 square metres is one suggestion.

Traffic Management & Parking

Thanks to the incompetence of the Incorporated Plan, there is NO VISITOR CAR PARKING
397 units plus retail only warrants 441 spots
The ‘statistics’ used date from 2010 and ‘updated’ in 2013! No mention of course of impacts on Eskdale Road, Newington, and other local streets all round the precinct!

Affordable Housing

We are so dumbfounded by this proposal that we cite it in full. Please remember that some councillors wrung their hands in dismay when there was no provision for ‘affordable housing’ in Precinct One. The argument put forward by the Lipshutzs and Hyams and Pillings of this world, was that the other precincts would fulfill this requirement. Well here is the ‘master plan’ for affordable housing, courtesy of the MRC. We are sure that readers will get a good laugh out of the following:

Aspirations for the provision of affordable housing within the Caulfield Village development are expressed in the Incorporated Plan. In the current absence of a Federal or State Government scheme to support the development of affordable rental housing, BPG has given detailed consideration to how it might self implement an opportunity for affordable housing within its development that is suitable to Caulfield Village and the broader Caulfield context.

The Caulfield Village & Affordable Housing Report at Appendix Q explores a variety of models that might be adopted to facilitate affordable housing opportunities within the development. It identifies the “Pathway to Ownership” model as the most appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of the proposal and its context. Broadly, the model would offer assistance to low-to-moderate income renter households to purchase an affordable home in the Caulfield Village development by providing people in affordable or private rental with a savings record an opportunity for assistance to meet the necessary start up funds to facilitate ownership. Deposit subsidies from BPG to eligible participants also form part of the assistance package. The scheme would be administered by a community housing provider. It is anticipated that eligible purchasers would currently be living in community housing or private rental accommodation, with limited opportunities to otherwise enter the housing market.

The added benefits of the scheme include the direct expertise of a community housing provider to assist appropriate and eligible candidates on the pathway to ownership, and the freeing up of low rental accommodation previously occupied by participants in the Pathway to Ownership scheme.

The preferred affordable housing model, which will be known as Caulfield Apartment Start Program (CASP) could potentially be applied to any of the proposed accommodation within the development, rather than limited to certain apartments or apartment types. Likewise there would be no limit to the number of apartments able to be purchased under the affordability scheme. The model applies a subsidy to eligible purchasers, rather than dwellings. It is uncertain, until the scheme is up and running, what the uptake of accommodation through the Pathway to Ownership model will look like, but BPG is committed to implementing the program for accommodation within the Mixed Use Precinct, and potentially future development stages

Our final word of caution

Whilst the variously dated Incorporated Plan (ie some of the documents refer to the Incorporated Plan as being 2011 and other documents cite 2014!) stated that the maximum preferred heights for Precinct 1 was 5 storeys, we now have 6 storeys looming over Station St. This is because of the neat little trick perpetrated by the MRC and permitted by council of using the formula of AHD. This refers to sea level heights. Thus if the land is sloping, then instead of the preferred height of say 5 storeys, the MRC can build 6 storeys. Council of course, and all their expert planners, did not pick this up – or if they did, did not care! Thus we warn residents that the mooted heights of these building are just that – mooted and nothing is set in concrete!

PS: stuck between the four building of 9/10 storeys, and 5/6 and 7/8 storeys, the MRC proposes to create a ‘pocket park’. The accompanying visuals are astounding: vast expanses of ‘open space’ that make the area look like a major park and not a ‘pocket park’. No real high rise to dominate the site; no overshadowing whatsoever, and nowhere in the landscape plan could we find any data which states the size and dimensions of this proposed ‘park’. What we do know at this stage is that 25 onsite trees will be removed and 14 street trees at least!

June 21, 2016

Caulfield Village: Stage 2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

CLICK TO ENLARGE

COMMENT

Residents should be outraged at the processes involved with the development of this project. At last council meeting a public question was asked in relation to a Practice Day hearing held at VCAT on this application. The response was far from satisfactory. Be that as it may, plenty of questions need answering, and all have to do with due process and sound governance.

When did council first receive this second stage Development Plan?
Who made the decision to ‘refuse’ and why wasn’t this done via a formal council resolution given the magnitude of the plans and the contentious nature of the entire project?
What was the purpose of the Practice Day hearing and what were the grounds for someone’s (not Council’s) refusal? What is the outcome of this hearing?
If decisions by VCAT are already pending as potentially indicated by the response to the public question, what is the use of calling for submissions after the fact?
Time for submissions is 16 days. Whilst this does meet the conditions set by the relevant Schedule it is far from satisfactory, given that council also had the option of 28 days – ie “Display the development plan for public comment for at least 14 days, but no longer than 28 days”
And how does the VCAT involvement meet this stated requirement from the Schedule – “The responsible authority must decide whether to approve a development plan or amendment to a development plan within 60 days after the display of the development plan is completed.”

In short, we maintain that every single aspect of planning for this site, has been abysmal with council and especially Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling, falling over backwards to accommodate the MRC!

PS: the link to view the plans is – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Planning/Large-scale-developments/Caulfield-Village-Development-Plans/Development-Plan-2

June 20, 2016

Q & A: #2

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

Not on this topic, but worth a read – http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/06/20/use-other-footpath/

RESIDENT #5 – stated that he ‘lived directly behind the town hall’ and that council talks about ‘community planning’ but they got a letter ‘yesterday’ telling them that their 2 hour parking on their street would now become all day parking. Believed that this change was to ‘facilitate council employee’ parking and not residents. Facilitator again interrupted and said that the resident is basically asking about the amount of information and ‘why’ this is happening. Resident answered that he is talking about ‘prior consultation’. Facilitator then rephrased again to include ‘consultation’.

TORRES: started saying about a ‘review’ of parking in the municipality, but was interrupted by the resident saying that he isn’t concerned with the entire municipality just why this happened to his street. Torres then continued and said that some ‘underutilised parking areas’ had been identified and having one side of the street as two hours and the opposite as unrestricted is ‘consistent’ with other streets in Glen Eira. Also said that parking is ‘dynamic’ and changes happen ‘over time’ so ‘it’s not a permanent situation’. The letter also said that the new conditions would be ‘reviewed early next year’.

Resident then explained how he already can’t get out of his drive. Facilitator again suggested that the resident speak with Torres and to provide him with details about the ‘process that took place’ and how the resident might ‘make an objection’. Resident claimed that this situation is exactly the same as happened to the other speaker’s question on Phillip’s Street changes. Facilitator summed up by saying ‘parking is a huge issue’ and therefore there needs to be the opportunity for this to be ‘examined’. Resident then went on with issue about trees and breaking branches and that ‘nothing’ ever happens about their concerns.

COMMENT

The resident’s question of ‘consultation’ has again been neatly sidestepped as has justification for the changes. In light of these actions, readers need to consider council’s ‘policy’ on traffic management changes. To the best of our knowledge this policy is still extant and is available online. Only 2002 this time! AND

June 18, 2016

Planning: Residents’ Q & A!

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

Residents at Wednesday night’s ‘feedback’ forum were provided with the opportunity to ask questions. Here is a summary of the first few –

Resident #1 – asked what part of structure planning will ensure, for example that heights are mandatory?

THE TORRES RESPONSE: said that there can be a mixture of controls – some are discretionary and also mandatory. ‘Ideally’ they want mandatory which VCAT cannot overturn. Glen Eira has got mandatory height controls over residential zoned land and VCAT can’t change this, but they can over-ride the ResCode guidelines such as setbacks, car parking requirements, etc.

Resident 1 then asked whether ‘we can assume’ that mandatory height limits will be put on commercial zoned sites like in Centre Road? Torres responded by saying that there would be a ‘thorough review’ of what people want to see develop in the future and that ‘there are tools available to produce greater clarity’ and height limits is one of these and there is ‘potential for mandatory height limits’ but this will involve a planning scheme amendment, then ‘ultimately the Minister for Planning has to approve that’. We will ‘ensure that we produce the best strategic justification’ for this.

RESIDENT #2 – spoke about heritage and that ‘our heritage areas are being attacked and we are losing them’. Said he couldn’t understand why council hasn’t done anything about its 2002 draft heritage guidelines which VCAT continually ignores because it is only a ‘reference document’ in the planning scheme and not a major policy. Said that he ‘understands’ that all that needs to happen is for this draft to be ‘ratified’ in some way. So instead of having ‘five or ten years of destruction happen’ he can’t understand why this draft document isn’t ‘ratified’ since a lot of the work has already been done and ‘is far better than the 1996 plan’. ‘We need to do something about it now’. (applause).

TORRES: said that what was called the ‘draft’ is part of the plan for the review and they’re ‘not talking 5 or 10 years’ time . The review will also probably recommend an ‘updated status’ of heritage within the planning scheme. They still need to go through the planning scheme review process though. Resident then asked that the draft plan stems from 2002 and that’s 14 years, so ‘why wasn’t this certified or ratified’? Also stated that he doesn’t understand Torres’ response and asked if he’s saying that it ‘can’t be certified or ratified now or do we have to wait for this other grand plan?’

Torres replied that there has to be a planning scheme amendment process in order for this to be ‘elevated’ in status in ‘our planning scheme’. They are reference documents currently and VCAT is ‘not giving them the weight’ that they should have. Resident again asked why this draft ‘can’t be certified now. Why wait’. The facilitator then interrupted asking officers to explain the amendment process to the audience because ‘there is a process involved here’. Torres then went through the process – ie asking the minister for authorisation to exhibit the amendment, public consultation, and if there are concerns then an independent planning panel is convened and this ‘applies to all of Victoria’. ‘There are many legal stages and they have to be honoured’. The comment was that all this could take 18 months.

Again the resident stated that he didn’t understand why nothing has been done in 16 years on something that is a lot better than the work produced in 1996. Then resident asked ‘why can’t this be taken as interim’ for the time being? Facilitator then intervened suggesting that the resident sit down with Torres privately so he could explain the State Government ‘process and the local council process’. Resident again stated that if it is taken directly to the Minister that the minister ‘can come up with some interim’ orders. Smith responded that it is part of the ‘work plan’ and that they can’t do anything that hasn’t been ‘reviewed’.

COMMENT

The responses to both of these questions are informative not for what they state, but for what is left UNSTATED! On the heritage questions, Torres kept insisting on the legal processes of a formal advertised amendment, possibly a planning panel and then the Minister’s approval. What is NOT STATED and could be a viable option is an application to the Minister under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, asking the minister to intervene and approve the amendment, or impose interim controls – without the need for public consultation or a panel. This we remind readers is what council did when they introduced the residential zones by stealth and in secret! Of course, the major obstacle to such an approach is that since council has done bugger all for the past 14 years on Heritage, the minister may well be loath to rubber stamp a document that is so out of date. Another scathing indictment of the failure of this council to act and to fulfil anything that it has promised in the planning scheme.

On the first question of height limits for Centre Road, we again have to query the comprehensiveness of the Torres response. When both Lipshutz and Hyams have declared that they think that 6 storeys is appropriate in Centre Road, then how much credence should residents have that their preferred heights (which some have already stated to be 4 storeys) will get a look in from this council. Once again council has the option of applying for interim height controls whilst working on their structure plans and thus ten years need not go by before anything is done. This option is not stated!

Nor is it clear what position LOCAL CENTRES have in all this discussion of ‘activity centre’ commercial zoning. Glen Eira has heaps of LOCAL CENTRES and in each we have commercially zoned sites, many directly abutting Neighbourhood Residential zones. Not once has the discussion paper referred to these areas. Not once has any councillor or planner referred to these areas. Nor is it even clear whether Local Centres are classified as ‘activity centres’!

June 16, 2016

Planning Scheme Review: #2

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

As part of his ‘feedback’, Ron Torres told last night’s audience the following –

TORRES: Said that the ‘work plan’ will ‘recommend’ structure plans. Stated that structure plans ‘contain a shared vision’ of’ how our activity centres should develop and evolve’. Said that council has in the past discussed structure plans but ‘things have changed today’. Now they ‘believe there is a strong need to further develop structure plans in our activity centres’. Claimed that this was because ‘the planning landscape is very different to what it was in the past’. Said ‘in the past our policies were defensible’ at VCAT. But ‘today it is a very different storey’. ‘VCAT is brazenly over-riding or ignoring our policies’ and ‘VCAT is expressing to us where they believe our policies fall short’. This makes things very difficult when council’s policies ‘can be challenged and over-ridden’.

The other thing that is different from the past is population growth and ‘Melbourne’s development boom’. Also Plan Melbourne Refresh has ‘clearly suggested’ that municipalities like Glen Eira will have to accommodate ‘the majority of Melbourne’s increasing population’. So all of this combined has lead for a clear ‘call to better manage’ growth in ‘our activity centres’. There’s a ‘call for greater clarity, greater certainty’. The tools used could ‘take the form of height controls’; ‘development contributions’; ‘perhaps car parking precinct plans’ and ‘perhaps a mix of different zones’. In order to ‘achieve’ all of this they need the ‘foundation’ of structure plans in order to deliver all of these tools. It’s not a case of one size fits all because ‘not every shopping centre is the same’. Bentleigh residents were strongly represented in the feedback and they put in a ‘strong call’ for lower height limits in ‘that shopping centre’. Said other shopping centres also called for height limits but these were of a ‘different flavour coming from those shopping centres’. Thus ‘we believe that structure plans can deliver that shared vision’ and the necessary ‘controls’.

COMMENT

We challenge the repeated propaganda that is now par for the course that VCAT is the major villain in all our woes. We challenge even more vigorously the total untruth that ‘in the past our policies were defensible at VCAT’. Council’s ‘policies’ have never been ‘defensible’ at VCAT! The following table provides clear evidence of this. We have gone through every published VCAT DECISION from 2003 until the present day. We have tabulated all those decisions which either overturned council’s decision, varied them, or confirmed them. These figures do NOT INCLUDE permits granted as a result of Practice Day hearings or Mediation, since VCAT does not publish these. Thus we have no record of how many times council may have caved in to developer demands at such meetings and the application never went to a full hearing. Further, on variations, this overwhelmingly involved the developer objecting to conditions that council had imposed. In well over 90% of cases, the conditions were thrown out or greatly modified. Another ‘victory’ for the developer! And as further ‘proof’ to our claims we present extracts from VCAT member decisions dating as far back as 2001 and 2006. The arguments that the developers used then are still being used today and the gaps in the planning scheme have remained since these earlier cases. That is inexcusable. Council’s task should be to analyse every single VCAT decision and to attempt to plug the holes. The holes have been there for eons and nothing has been done. It is high time that this council admitted the truth – their total unwillingness and/or ineptitude in dealing with planning issues! Unless this Planning Scheme Review includes a full and comprehensive analysis of all VCAT decisions and makes definitive recommendations on how to address the policy failings, then nothing will change in Glen Eira.

Here is the said table and the percentages refer to council’s success rate in having VCAT confirm their decisions. This is followed by the extracts from earlier VCAT decisions. Thus for a council which can’t even come close to having at least half of their determinations ratified by VCAT, then something is drastically wrong – either with the planning scheme itself, or with those who are duty bound to enforce it.

While it formed no basis for discussion in the officer report and while the grounds of refusal are silent on the issue, Council now claim that the proposal offends the “character” of this area. Council submitted that “..the combined mass, height and scale of the building do not provide an acceptable degree of change in the neighbourhood context.” Council believe that the proposal is not of a high standard design although I note that at no stage in the planning scheme has Council indicated what it wants McKinnon to look like.
(Domus Design Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council) 2001/50797:

The Tribunal therefore thinks it is misleading to “piggyback” the residential urban character ambitions of Council on to this commercial centre. Reliance on “character” as a basis for a decision must have its limits. It simply cannot be used as a reason for every modification or rejection especially when the MSS is silent on its relevance in specific areas.

Secondly, there is no suggestion anywhere from Council as to what the character of the McKinnon shopping centre is anyway. There is no relevant study; as noted already, there is no MSS position; there is no Design and Development Overlay to refer to, and there was no attempt in either the Council report or the Council submission to define what makes up the character of this area. On the Tribunal’s observations, the centre appears as an attractive local neighbourhood centre which hosts a variety of uses and building styles with interwar double storey shops being the dominant built form. There is already evidence of change taking place with newer buildings being constructed or permitted.

But the third and more important reason is that in many cases, it will be a futile exercise to demand respect of a “character” in an area that you are hoping will change. If, as is the case here, Council is contemplating the rejuvenation of a small activity centre with shop top housing and higher density development, then of course the “character” that is there today will be different to the character that will be there if Council’s strategy comes to fruition. (Decision: 27^th March, 2006 – 156 McKinnon Road)

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2006/452.html

Notwithstanding that increased housing diversity in the Housing Diversity Areas will be associated with increased development intensity, Council has not adopted any statements of preferred neighbourhood character for these areas that recognise such likely change. The only direction that is provided is from one objective and related policy of Clause 22.07 that have been highlighted above, that is:

n	To ensure that the density, mass and scale of residential development is [sic] appropriate to the location, role and neighbourhood character of the specific housing diversity area

36 However, and in contradiction to its clear purpose of facilitating change, this objective appears to refer to “existing” neighbourhood character as a criterion, as that is the only neighbourhood character that can be referred to. This seems to me to involve an inherent contradiction: how is one to assess the degree of change that is appropriate in the context of existing neighbourhood character which is historic and is expected to change as a result of the new development that is being assessed? (3^rd May, 2006 – 225-9 Koornang Road, Carnegie)

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2006/778.html

June 15, 2016

Planning Scheme Review: #1

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

Tonight’s meeting drew a big crowd. Over 100 people in attendance. Missing in action were – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Ho, Delahunty. Ms McKenzie (CEO) was present as were Lobo, Hyams, Magee, Pilling and Sounness.

The evening started with the facilitator introducing the format and then Ms McKenzie providing the ‘context’. Acknowledgement was given as to the criticism levelled at council and the amount of work that was required. This was followed by Torres providing feedback on the results of the community consultation and then Russell Smith (acting manager Strategic Planning) providing a synopsis of the planning tools available which could address the issues raised by residents. Residents were then invited to ask questions of planners.

The Positives

Despite years and years of refusing to undertake various initiatives, tonight possibly, maybe, perhaps, signalled a change in direction. Here is a brief list of what council proposes to do according to their stated ‘draft work plan’.

Structure planning
Water Sensitive Urban Design
Vegetation Protection
Environmental Sustainable Design
Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements
Heritage Review
Development Contributions Levy for drainage
SBO – overlays to mitigate flooding
Update the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policies

Without unduly blowing our own trumpet, we wish to point out that these initiatives are what we, and countless residents, have been demanding for years and years and which council has steadfastly refused to implement! Whether this represents a real change in culture, attitude, and listening to residents remains to be seen.

The Negatives

Council’s ‘draft work plan’ was stated as:

3 structure plans to be carried out over first 5 years with a view to continue developing structure plans or Urban Design Frameworks over all activity centres after this period of 10 years……

Residents were also asked to ‘prioritise’ the list provided at the start of this post. Torres explained in response to a question that the 3 structure plans does not automatically mean that this will be the 3 major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie. People were free to suggest that the initial structure plans should involve such neighbourhood centres as Glen Huntly for example.

We do not deny the amount of work involved in preparing sound and competent structure plans. Nor do we deny the costs involved. Our concerns are as follows:

If only 3 are to be completed within 5 years and the rest subject to council’s budgets/finances and a time span of ten or more years, then the reality is that of the 10 neighbourhood centres, most will remain untouched for the next decade.
No ‘official’ reference was made to reviewing the zones, or the associated schedules. What this means is that if structure plans are developed for the major activity centres, then the neighbourhood centres and their surrounding residential areas, will continue to allow three and four storey overdevelopments for the next decade. Only at question time from the audience was the completely lame response given that the neighbourhood character policy review would safeguard these centres. We beg to differ! If the mandatory height limit remains at 3 and 4 storeys for large swathes of McKinnon, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Murrumbeena, Bentleigh East, Caulfield North, then no local policy will prevent this overdevelopment of local residential streets. Without reviewing the extent of the zones, then structure plans alone will not safeguard residents from overdevelopment!

Our next post will focus on the questions asked by residents and the often unsatisfactory responses received. Overall, whilst this planning scheme review has seen changes that are positive, and explicitly acknowledged by the new CEO of council’s failure to address planning issues over the past decade, there is still room for major scepticism as the answers to the questions revealed. More on this in the days ahead.

June 8, 2016

Council’s ‘Parking Management’!!!!!

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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

We remind readers of the following:

Changes to parking arrangements according to council ‘policy’ is to undertake a survey of all residents and requires a vast majority of responses in support. Was a survey undertaken?
What has happened to council ‘policy’ that new developments will not be eligible for residential parking permits?
What rationale could support the removal of 2 hour parking? Were residents informed, warned? Where is the data to support this?
Is council monitoring this street and fining drivers if they break the law?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates