GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

May 26, 2016

Another ‘Clayton’s Consultation’?

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

For the second consecutive time, Theme 1 (Municipal Strategic Statement & Local Policies) contained in the ‘Discussion Paper’ for the review of the planning scheme has been neatly side-stepped and no discussion permitted. We therefore wonder how Council can ‘know’ what residents suggest, or want, if they haven’t even bothered to ask. What comments council officers have made in previous forums on this theme has been far from satisfactory. Torres simply admitted that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is well and truly outdated and will need to be ‘revised’. That’s it!

Given that the MSS and its associated Local Policies are perhaps the most important components of any planning scheme, it is unforgiveable that residents have not been provided with (a) enough information on these sections, and (b) that ‘discussion’ has been literally ‘censored’. That of course leads to the very obvious questions of:

Is this another Clayton’s consultation where ‘changes’ have already been predetermined but residents are kept in the dark like mushrooms?
Who decided to discard discussion on Theme 1? Was Ms Turner given her orders to do so or was it her decision alone?

Below is a screen dump from the Discussion Paper. Please note how bereft of detail this really is, yet how this Theme contains all the vital policies and which, of course, ultimately lead onto the zones and their schedules. From our perspective, it appears that council has done everything it can to avoid any discussion on the most contentious issue in Glen Eira – ie a review of the zones and their respective schedules.

PS: also worthy of note – the only councillor to front last night was Lobo. No sign of Lipshutz at any of these ‘forums’ and Magee’s 5 minute appearance at the first one! Delahunty has also been a noticeable absentee.

May 19, 2016

Community Forum: Planning Scheme Review

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

Last night’s community forum had a good turnout of residents. We estimate that 50+ people attended. Many new ideas were proffered as well as some old perennials – ie community gardens; tree register and protection, traffic, etc.

Whilst there are undoubtedly time limits and such meetings cannot go on all night, we were very surprised by the fact that Theme 1 of the Discussion Paper (ie the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)and all council’s Local Policies) did not get a guernsy. In fact, the ‘discussion’ went immediately to Theme 2. Given that the MSS is arguably Council’s most significant document since it sets the framework for all land use together with the Local Policies, and has not had a revamp for well over a decade, it is disappointing that residents were not provided with the opportunity to voice their views on this important component of the planning scheme. It should also be noted that only two councillors were in attendance – Sounness and Lobo.

Below is a ‘snapshot’ summarising the feedback on the Environmental Sustainable Design theme as it went up on the overhead projector. (apologies for the poor quality!)

A sample of the other feedback provided throughout the evening was:

Review Urban Design for Racecourse, Caulfield Station, Monash Uni
Rubbish bins on roads
More family sized apartments
Open space levy increase to purchase land
More permeable surfaces for footpaths
One way streets to reduce congestion
All new dwellings to have solar power and green roofs
Significant tree register
Increased permeability for developments via schedules
Population density has impact on resources
Bicycles for short distance travel

Opening comments from some residents were also informative –

Heritage Update 2002 is not part of the Planning Scheme and that’s why VCAT does not have to consider it.
What is the capacity of population growth for Glen Eira and what does this say about density and all that follows from this?
As one commentator has said in our previous post, residents appeared to favour a 4 storey height limit for commercial dwellings/zonings.

May 17, 2016

From A Resident

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

We’ve received the following email that was sent to all councillors. It is also worth pointing out that less than half of these ‘representatives’ responded to the email. To emphasise what is happening and the shambles that is the current planning scheme, VCAT has just granted a permit for 4 storeys and 39 units at the corner of Jersey Parade/Elliott Avenue, Carnegie.

Here is the email –

“It seems that the final death blow to Claire St is about to be dealt, with the application for a permit for a huge development covering 5 of the 6 blocks on the western side of Claire St. The scale of this proposed development is totally out of all proportion to the street, and is a perfect reflection of the total failure of Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme. We are sure that even the most diehard supporters of this scheme are now realising what a disaster it has become; a free-for-all where the developers are falling over themselves to get in and create the most cost effective yet least attractive, environmentally insensitive and unsustainable housing possible, with the inherent destruction of all existing vegetation. We would like to think that none of the councillors in their wildest dreams ever envisaged that this is what would become of the planning scheme – development so rapacious and insatiable that it is ripping the heart out of what was once an attractive, charming and very liveable suburb. It seems to us that in recent months the councillors have finally seen this for the total disaster that it is and are starting to reject some of the most inappropriate development proposals such as 6-10 Claire St. However, this gives us very little comfort, as we know that the developer will proceed straight to VCAT, which, operating within the parameters of Glen Eira’s own planning scheme, must still approve these developments as they comply with the requirements for this zone.

Our only hope now is that the upcoming review of the planning scheme will recognise how wrong Glen Eira got it and will make some serious changes to what can be allowed in a GRZ. This is the only way to allow both Council and VCAT to have some control over what is built in these areas. Can you please give us a commitment that you will agree to making major changes to the planning scheme to help protect our residential areas from this tsunami of inappropriate development. It is OK for councillors to admit they got it wrong and try to do something about it; we sense a huge groundswell of anger from local residents who are now seeing what is happening all around them, and know that any councillor still trying to cling to this disastrous policy will face electoral oblivion at the upcoming council elections.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXX”

May 11, 2016

Planning Scheme Review, The Zones, & Elliott Avenue!

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

A comment went up on our last post which we believe needs to be highlighted:

We live in the house next to the 51 units, 4 storeys, 3-9 Elliott Ave. It is on our north side! We will also be opposite 60 more units in Elliott Ave. Only 6 out of 20 houses left in our part of this small suburban street…… what can we say. We explored all avenues including going to VCAT, employing a Planner for quite a substantial fee. We achieved some minor concessions with shadowing and setbacks. It has been an exhausting process. I wonder if we are completely stupid to continue to stay here after 36 years, enjoying the peace and convenience of living in Carnegie. However, all has changed. The council has won. The peace and joy of living here is shattered. We will stay and see how things pan out. The world is changing at such a rapid pace around us and I’m afraid we’ve lost faith in the Council and it’s concern for the community. We will look back in a few years time at the implementation of these zones and wonder how it could happen. In a bizarre way it makes me empathise with the first people of our country and the bewilderment of colonisation! Rapid change can leave a community depleted.

The comment is not from a NIMBY, or someone simply bemoaning the pace of change. What this comment expresses is:

the utter devastation that the zones have caused to neighbourhoods and to individuals
the failure of council administration and councillors to provide planning outcomes that are justifiable
It illustrates completely how incompetent and negligent the imposition of the zones are when they fail to even meet Matthew Guy’s parameters

We have commented numerous times on Elliott Avenue, Carnegie and shown the once beautiful, well kept Edwardian cottages that are now gone. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/) Elliott Avenue is only one street. The same is happening to countless other streets and entire neighbourhoods. Why? Because the zones and the planning scheme encourage such destruction when there was no need for it. Even in their secret meetings, Newton and Hyams promised Matthew Guy that there would be 80+ years of available development sites! Glen Eira has now quadrupled the number of new dwellings it needs to meet population growth. Yet nothing has been done to ameliorate the damage and to amend the zones so that residential amenity is given greater protection. This failure must be sheeted home to all councillors and planners.

Here are the facts:

Guy proclaimed that Residential Growth Zones (which this section of Elliott Avenue is zoned as) should be ‘Medium Density Housing’ and that the zones should be in ‘appropriate locations near activity areas, train stations, and other areas suitable for increased housing activity’. The current papers accompanying the review of the residential zones (MRDAC –advisory committee) define ‘Medium Density Housing’ as LESS THAN 75 DWELLINGS PER HECTARE. The section of Elliott Avenue zoned RGZ, is now approaching 220 dwellings per hectare!!!!!!! This kind of density belongs in selected commercial areas and never in a quiet residential street!

Council’s definition of planning is to simply place a compass point at a train station (ie as in Bentleigh and Carnegie) and then draw a circle with a circumference of roughly 400 metres. This then becomes the ‘activity centre’ and determines the RGZ zoning. The map above shows how insane this is when walking distance to the train station from Elliott Avenue is well and truly greater than 800 metres. Plan Melbourne Refresh insists on activity centres concentrating on ‘walkability’. To therefore determine that just because a train station is (as the crow flies) about 400 metres away that this street should therefore be RGZ, is planning at its most incompetent and lazy. But that is what this council has done time and time again.

Residents, especially those residing in activity centres (including ‘neighbourhood centres’) must insist that the current planning scheme and its woeful local policies be consigned to the rubbish bin and that amendments are introduced asap which seek to halt the destruction of streets such as Elliott Avenue. Anything less is unacceptable.

We reiterate and urge all attendees at the ‘forums’ to proclaim loudly and clearly the need for:

structure plans
height limits for commercial and mixed use zoning everywhere
parking precinct plans
Urban design frameworks and Design & Development Overlays (DDO) that include more than simply regulating fence heights as is currently the case in 3 out of the 5 DDO’s in Glen Eira
Infrastructure levies on developers for drainage (removed in 2010)
For every car parking waiver a levy of at least $10,000 per waiver
Tree protection (on private land)
Heritage review of entire municipality and that this has some ‘bite’
And most importantly, amending the schedules to the zones, and the zones themselves!

May 10, 2016

Some More Councillor ‘Gifts’

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

Our thanks to Urban Melbourne for these pics!

May 6, 2016

The Truth!!!!!! Words Fail Us!!!!!

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

May 4, 2016

Public Questions & Notice Of Motion

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[20] Comments

We revisit this issue since the Leader article has omitted to mention the most important aspect of the hour long ‘debate’ that occurred – the refusal by Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Ho, to include Notice of Motion as part of the proposed changes to Council’s Meeting Procedures. We also note that 9 days after the resolution to seek an amendment was passed there is still no public notice up on council’s website, nor is there any advertisement in the local paper advising residents that their views will be sought via submissions. There is of course, a full page colour ad celebrating GESAC’s 4th birthday! How much did this cost we wonder?

To put the record straight, readers will be interested to know that the following list of councils ALL HAVE NOTICE OF MOTION. Hence in Glen Eira, 5 individuals are effectively gagging councillors and hence the community!

Alpine Shire

Ararat

Ballarat

Banyule

Bass Coast

Baw Baw

Bayside

Benalla

Boroondara

Brimbank

Buloke

Campaspe

Cardinia

Casey

Central Goldfields

Darebin

Colac-Otway

Corangamite

East Gippsland

Frankston

Glenelg

Golden Plains

Bendigo

Dandenong

Geelong

Greater Shepparton

Hepburn Shire

Hindmarsh

Hobson’s Bay

Horsham

Hume

Indigo Shire

Kingston

Knox

LaTrobe

Loddon

Macedon

Manningham

Mansfield

Maribyrnong

Maroondah

Melbourne

Melton

Mildura

Mitchell

Moira

Monash

Moonee Valley

Moorabool

Moreland

Mornington

Mount Alexander

Murrundindi

Nillumbik

Northern Grampians

Port Phillip

Pyrenees

Queenscliff

South Gippsland

Southern Grampians

Stonnington

Strathbogie

Surf coast

Swan Hill

Towong

Wangaratta

Warrnambool

Wellington

West Wimmera

Whitehorse

Whittlesea

Wodonga

Yarra City

Yarra Ranges

May 1, 2016

Open Space

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

In what can only be seen as a total admission of failure (and straight out incompetent planning) Hyams and Delahunty moved this Request for a Report at last Tuesday night’s council meeting –

Crs Hyams/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on whether Council should apply for a planning scheme amendment to raise the Public Open Space Contribution Levy above the current 5.7%.

Thus, just on one year since the amendment was gazetted, council is now acknowledging that 5.7% falls far short of what is required. The ‘excuses’ provided were that Council’s ‘assumptions’ and conditions have changed. Nothing could be further from the truth! The so called building boom owes much to the introduction of the new zones which date from August 2013 – 2 years before the open space amendment was gazetted and a year after the deficient open space strategy was made public. The writing was literally on the wall and council needed to introduce a far higher open space levy to ensure that funds were available – but more importantly that the amount of public open space per individual did not decline.

Nor does this sudden interest in open space account for 11 years of doing absolutely nothing to raise funds to purchase open space. The levy from 2004 to 20015 was not only miniscule, but a gift to developers. Exacerbating the situation was the failure of council to purchase additional space apart from 2 house blocks in Packer Park even though the lack of public open space in Glen Eira was known and stated in both the 1987 and 1998 open space strategies.

What is even more disgraceful is the repeated and continuing slurs (including last Tuesday night) cast on the 2 objectors to this open space amendment and the completely bogus claim that their objections cost council in the vicinity of $1 million. How much did council cost ratepayers from 2004 to 2015 with its laughable levy rate? And how dare the likes of Hyams and Lipshutz in particular cast slurs on residents who decided to exercise their legal rights and object to council’s inadequate proposals and shonky strategic planning?

It is now obvious that 2 residents were able to forecast what would happen a lot better than ‘consultants’ who cost $130,000 and councillors who were determined not to listen and bureaucrats who were only intent on limiting the damage for developers.

FYI, here is part of one of the submissions presented to the Planning Panel that argues strongly that a 5.7% levy is inadequate – especially since Stonnington with the second least amount of public open space opted for an 8% levy. In the end Stonnington achieved its 8% levy for 4 major suburbs – South Yarra, Windsor, Prahran and Armadale. The total area of these 4 suburbs at 8% will alone bring in more than Glen Eira’s 5.7% across the entire municipality. Further, Stonnington’s objective is to keep creating further open space with its $36 million in the kitty as opposed to Glen Eira’s splurging on mega palaces and concrete and disowning its twice passed resolution that the levy would go for the purchase of open space and not the ‘maintenance’ of existing open space!

“NEED FOR AN INCREASED LEVY

Contention: The proposed contribution levy of 5.7% is inadequate to meet the open space needs of the existing and future populations of Glen Eira.

Throughout this submission I have pointed out that:

The projected population figures are extremely conservative
The cited potential land development area is well and truly underestimated
The rate of development in Glen Eira has risen astronomically
The stated land values are well below the current market figures
Infill development figures and how they impact on potential revenue is ignored
Impact of strategic development sites is ignored

As a consequence of all the above, a 5.7% levy, and the overall recommendation to create (at a maximum) another 11 or so hectares of public open space will not meet the needs of the community. I acknowledge fully that there is no standardised methodology for determining what an appropriate contribution levy could be. I also acknowledge that the consultants were to a great extent dependent on figures provided to them by council. It is precisely these figures which I believe are suspect and need to be fully reviewed and updated.

Without access to current council data I can only hypothesize on what would be an appropriate levy given all the above factors. What I do find telling however is the comparison with the current Stonnington proposed contributions levy and the analysis done by their consultants. As pointed out in an earlier table, Stonnington is two-thirds the size of Glen Eira, has a smaller population, and has the second lowest amount of public open space in the state, behind Glen Eira’s record of having the least amount of public open space. Yet Stonnington’s consultants find that:

Based on current provision of open space throughout the City, the Strategy identifies that acquisition of 53 hectares is required to meet the benchmark. When factoring in population growth acquisition of 108 hectares would be required to meet the benchmark[1]

The Glen Eira OSS provides no quantifiable benchmark to work towards. If no targets are set, then I’d argue that it is extremely difficult to calculate what revenue is required in order to meet the most minimalist standards of open space per individual – especially if the data is highly suspect. At a maximum, the OSS recommends the acquisition of another 11 hectares of open space in the entire municipality. The least recommended would only equal another 2.2 hectares, and the ‘average’ is given as 6.51 hectares. None of these possibilities are adequate. If Stonnington is currently finding a deficit of 53 hectares then Glen Eira’s claims to need only an additional 11 hectares at best, does indeed appear well below the mark.

There’s also Stonnington’s request that their contribution levy be raised to 8%. Why a council with the second least amount of public open space should ask for an 8% levy, and the council with the least amount of public open space only demands 5.7% levy is quite frankly, beyond me.

Nor do the consultant’s reports provide any historical breakdown of levy contributions per precinct as does Stonnington. All that is cited are the cumulative figures for each financial year. Without such a breakdown it is incredibly difficult to gauge where the majority of subdivisions are occurring; the nature, scope, and size of these subdivisions and how these may indicate what occurs in the future – especially in the urban growth centres.

Stonnington has also created a list of proposed projects for its entire 20 year plan and its figures are based on the anticipated costs. Apart from disclosing 3 projects in the current budget, Glen Eira has not revealed whether in fact it even has such a long term plan and what the specific projects might entail and hence their probable costs. Again, a highly dubious basis upon which to calculate what needs to be done over the next 13 years.”

AND THE CONCLUSION

“Based on all the above I would strongly urge the Panel to recommend a higher contributions levy than what is currently proposed. I am not able to provide a definite figure since I have no access to the current data and I do not consider it my task to do so. That belongs to council and the consultants.

If the residents of Glen Eira are to be well served via the acquisition of the necessary public open space, then I urge the panel to recommend a total review of what has been proposed and that this is based on the most up-to-date and accurate data. Glen Eira residents cannot afford to undergo any further loss of open space which is inevitable I believe, if the current proposed amendment remains unchanged.”

[1] SGA Economics & Planning. (2013). Assessment of Mandatory Open Space Contributions – Page 16

April 28, 2016

Thank You Again Council!

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

Here are some more developments taking place in our municipality. Whilst councillors have sat on their hands doing bugger all about an inept planning scheme and blaming VCAT for all their ills, developers have been having a field day. This is the inevitable result – 5 developments alone providing what the planning scheme says is the ‘average’ number of new dwellings per year! Please also note that some of these are not even in what is euphemistically called our ‘Urban Villages’ (Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Carnegie) but in the now defunct Neighbourhood Centres, which are supposed to have only ‘medium density development’.

If this is not the Glen Eira you want, then make your views heard at the current Planning Scheme Review. Insist on real change and a real commitment to protecting residential amenity. Do not be satisfied with a mere tinkering of the current scheme that in the end achieves very little.

We have already outlined what residents at the first forum thought should be done. We repeat some of these:

structure plans
parking precinct plans
developer levies on car parking waivers and on drainage
stringent review of the zones and the schedules
tree protection and greater emphasis on environmental sustainability
full and comprehensive heritage review

April 28, 2016

Why Is It So? – Skyrail

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

Why is it that Glen Eira is so out of kilter with every other council, especially when it comes to providing information to residents on vital issues, or even providing decent, informative answers to public questions.

On Tuesday night, several questions were asked in relation to meetings with the Minister (Jacinta Allen) on Skyrail. Here is one question and the response –

“Jacinta Allan met with the Kingston City Council on Thursday 21 April to discuss level crossing removals through their area. Has Ms Allan or the LXRA met with GlenEira Council to discuss crossing removals through Glen Eira, and if so what was the outcome of those discussions?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“At the invitation of the Minister for Public Transport the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer met with her on 8 March 2016. Councillors and Council Officers have met with representatives of the LXRA on many occasions. Such meetings have involved the exchange of information and views. Council has, on each occasion, taken the opportunity to strongly advocate for community consultation on the grade separation projects.”

What is staggering about this reply is:

The failure to answer the most crucial part of the question (ie outcomes of discussion)
Why it should take a formal public question for council to even acknowledge that a meeting has taken place

Thankfully, not all councils are as secretive as Glen Eira. Kingston put out a Media Release within days of their meeting with the Minister. Here is what they had to say –

Kingston Council meets with Transport Minister to pass on community concerns

26 April 2016

Kingston Council met with Victorian Transport Minister Jacinta Allan last week to raise community concerns about the Level Crossing Removals project.

Minister Allan, Mordialloc MP Tim Richardson and LXRA representatives visited Council’s Cheltenham offices to hear directly from the Mayor and councillors and discuss upcoming community consultation on the project.

“The meeting was incredibly productive and we were able to pass on community concerns and advocate for a well-planned strategic approach that makes the most of this once-in-a-generation infrastructure project to deliver great long-lasting results for our community,” Mayor Tamsin Bearsley said.

“The Minister confirmed in principle that the next stage of community consultation, due to take around the middle of this year, would include detailed information on different options available at each individual site including environmental impacts, engineering analysis, acoustic reports and estimated costs so our community can make an informed decision and have their opinion clearly heard and taken into account,” Cr Bearsley said.

The Minister’s visit followed recent calls from Kingston Council for improved community consultation by the Level Crossing Removal Authority before any decisions are made about level crossing removals in the area.

“We presented a short video from the Chelsea and Bonbeach Train Station Group to show positive approaches and ideas being generated by our community that are alternatives to a skyrail,” Cr Bearsley said.

“Minister Allan had also been briefed by local MP Tim Richardson on the heritage issues surrounding the Mentone station and the unique sensitivities along the Frankston line due to the close proximity of Port Phillip Bay.”

Mayor Tamsin Bearsley said councillors had received strong community feedback opposing a skyrail option for the Frankston line and criticism of recent public consultation sessions held by the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA).

“Kingston Council will continue to work closely with our community, the LXRA, local MPs and the Minister to ensure our community is kept well-informed and actively involved in this project.”

The Victorian Government’s list of 50 level crossings for removal includes seven in the City of Kingston – Centre Road Clayton on the Dandenong line and six level crossings on the Frankston line.

Source: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Media/Media-Releases/Transport-Minister-visit

Another public question asked on Tuesday night was this –

“A group of around 20 residents met Jacinta Allan last Thursday 21/11/16 at 10.40
am outside Kingston City Council following a meeting regarding Skyrail for the
Frankston line. The Kingston city Council CEO John Nevins, Mayor Cr Tamsin
Bearsley, Mayor Cr John Ronke and MP Tim Richardson can also attest to
Jacinta’s promise to meet and finally meet and respond to unanswered
correspondence and questions with our community. She indicated she was happy
to meet and to organise a meeting through Tim Richardson (or presumably our local
member). Will the Gleneira Council please follow up on this invitation and cite this promise?”

And Council’s woeful response?

“If, as you say, the Minister for Public Transport has said that she is happy to
organise a meeting through the Member for Mordialloc then it would be best for
you to contact either the Minister or the Member for Mordialloc directly. You may also wish to direct your request through either the Member for Bentleigh or the Member for Oakleigh who are other members of the Government with grade separations happening in their electorates.”

PS: it is also worth pointing out that the 100 or so public questions which were taken on notice from the previous council meeting are not included in the minutes – as required by the Local Law!!!!!

PS: here’s a photo we received in conjuction with a comment. It shows a trailer parked (in a No Standing Zone) as part of the LXRA operations and presumably without a permit. Yet, council in its responses to public questions claimed that only 5 permits had been granted for ground works. The trailer has been there for well over a week! Thus, how much faith, credibility, can residents place in any response they receive from council?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates