GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

February 13, 2016

Virginia Estate & ‘Sky Rail’

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

Phase 2 of the ‘consultation’ for the Virginia Estate development has been announced.

Feb – 11 – 2016 9:26 am Community drop in events announced

The owners of the East Village precinct have announced the first round of community drop-in events as part of consultation on the development of a 20 year masterplan for the Bentleigh East industrial area.

Three sessions are open to all residents and interested parties:

Tuesday 23rd February from 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Wednesday 24th February from 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Saturday 27th February 2pm to 4pm

All sessions will be held at 18 North Drive, 236-262 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East.

Read our media release for more information.

+++++++

The Level Crossings authority dates are as follows –

Hughesdale Saturday 13 February, 1:30pm – 4:30pm Hughesdale Community Centre, 160 Poath Road Hughesdale

Murrumbeena Tuesday 16 February, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Murrumbeena Pavilion, 28 Gerald Street Murrumbeena

Carnegie Tuesday 23 February, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Boyd Room, Carnegie Community Centre, 7 Shepparson Avenue Carnegie

Hughesdale Thursday 25 February, 9:00am – 12:00pm Hughesdale Community Centre, 160 Poath Road, Hughesdale

Clayton Saturday 27 February, 9:00am – 12:00pm Clayton Community Centre, 9-1 5 Cooke Street, Clayton

Murrumbeena Thursday 3 March, 5:00pm – 8:00pm Murrumbeena Pavilion, 28 Gerald Street Murrumbeena

Carnegie Saturday 5 March, 9:00am – 12:00pm, Boyd Room, Carnegie Community Centre, 7 Shepparson Avenue Carnegie

++++++++++++++++

A great shame that Council with its multitude of staff devoted to ‘community liaison’ and ‘public relations’ cannot have anything up on its website that informs residents of these important events – unlike other councils of course. All you will find is this, dating from August 2015 – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Level-crossing-removals-in-Glen-Eira

February 12, 2016

Okotel & Hansard

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

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh)—The matter I raise is for the Minister for Public Transport, and the action I seek from the minister is that she produce any documentation she may have that will clarify the position of Glen Eira Council in relation to consultation on the Andrews Labor government’s proposed design to remove all nine level crossings between Caulfield and Dandenong. There have been recent pieces of misinformation being spread by one particular Liberal Party member of the Glen Eira Council. As I said in this place yesterday removing level crossings is the no. 1 priority for the residents in my community. It took the Andrews government and a very active Minister for Public Transport to get on and do this—and the government will be doing it all by 2018.

I take this time to refer the minister to comments that I have been reported and that have been provided to me from media outlets in my community about a meeting held at the City of Glen Eira between councillors and the Level Crossing Removal Authority. They are sourced from a councillor at the City of Glen Eira, who has suggested amongst other things that rail lines on the ground will stay there for years, councils will have to pay to develop the new parkland and—here is a cracker—councils will get into the business of shopping centre development and the government will be gifting them a whole lot of land to do it. What absolute scaremongering nonsense. Yet more nonsense being peddled and organised directly by those opposite.

I have it on good authority that these comments are from the Liberal Party member of the Glen Eira City Council, Karina Okotel. We may remember Cr Okotel from when she campaigned for my opponent at the last election. We may also remember her as a prospective Liberal Senate candidate for the next federal election, which was mentioned in the media recently. If this is conduct that she thinks is appropriate, God forbid that she gets elected to the national Parliament. You might also know her from the protests in my community recently, despite the fact that we keep hearing that these protests are not political. Not political? The last protest had no less than five Liberal members of Parliament, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I recognise that there are people in my community who have genuine concerns and from day one the Premier made it clear that each affected resident would have their own dedicated case manager. I understand there will be a range of things provided for each resident, but this will be done in a calm and considered way by a caring government, one by one with all residents. What I do not recognise is the scaremongering, misinformation and out-and-out lies spread by those opposite. I have even heard that staff members of those opposite have been out doorknocking my community and staff members of the Leader of the Opposition have been canvassing shoppers in Koornang Road, Carnegie, about their views on sky rail without identifying who they are. I have also heard that members of the Leader of the Opposition’s staff have been doing other activities to coordinate this anti-campaign. I look forward to welcoming the minister to my community again through the duration of this project and I look forward to her clarification on these matters.

RESPONSE

MS ALLEN (Minister)…..Finally, the member for Oakleigh has raised a matter with me. It is quite a concerning matter because it does go to some misinformation that has been produced in his local community for purely political purposes. I know the member for Brighton is shocked. She is shocked at what is going on in the Oakleigh community. The member asked for me to produce documentation that would clarify the position of Glen Eira council.

I am looking to read into the record comments that I have in a letter. I am prepared to make the letter available to the house this evening. I received this morning a letter from the office of the mayor, Cr Neil Pilling, in response to an issue that was raised in the Herald Sun today about some claims about a meeting that was held with the Glen Eira council and the level crossing removal project team on Tuesday evening. Sorry, it was not to me. I should be clear. It was to Kevin Devlin, the CEO of the Level Crossing Removal Authority. I would just like to make that correction: it was to Kevin Devlin. He indicated that the discussion was, and I quote:

robust but productive, and it was helpful to gain a greater insight into not only your plans for further consultation with the community …

He goes on to say, and I quote:

It has come to our attention that one of our councillors has distributed her personal interpretation of matters discussed at the meeting to a wider audience … I would like to emphasise that this communication is neither an official record nor an accurate record of the discussion, nor does it represent the views of the collective council group.

I apologise that this has occurred as it is inconsistent with both the intent of the briefing and the courtesy that council seeks to afford to guest presenters.

As I have said, I appreciate the mayor taking immediate steps to correct the record from his council’s perspective following the reports in the media today. Is it not such a shame that the mayor has had to write a letter apologising on behalf of his council for the actions of a renegade councillor who is choosing to put her own party political interests above the good of the council and the good of the local community? It is incredibly disappointing. I hope for the member that that clarifies the position of the Glen Eira council. I appreciated the opportunity to briefly meet with the CEO and the mayor this afternoon as they were meeting with members in Parliament.

I also just want to mention too that we really look forward to working with the Glen Eira council on both the project and the opportunities that come from removing nine level crossings in the way that it is going to be done, creating those 11 MCGs worth of open space. The Glen Eira council has the least open space of any municipality in Melbourne, so this presents a unique, one-off opportunity not only to get rid of level crossings but to run more train services, to reduce road local community. It is going to be an opportunity. The Andrews Labor government has already said that we look forward to funding new facilities—they will be municipal facilities but new facilities along this corridor—and then providing funding to the councils in the longer term for them to maintain the upkeep of these facilities. That is why we want to work constructively and proactively with councils like Glen Eira and others along this rail corridor as we deliver an incredibly exciting infrastructure project for this community.

February 10, 2016

No compensation for residents with proposed sky rail tracks above their houses, councillors told

Tom Minear and Matt Johnston Herald Sun

Councillors in a secret meeting have been told the sky rail proposal will go ahead despite fierce protest.

HOUSES along the planned sky rail in Melbourne’s southeast won’t get compensation once trains run above their houses, councillors have been told.

Level Crossing Removal Authority representatives acknowledged to councillors in Glen Eira that elevating rail lines along sections of the Cranbourne-Pakenham was “unexpected”, but the $1.6 billion project was unlikely to be dumped no matter how fierce community protests became.

A closed meeting was held between councillors and the Authority on Tuesday night, after the Andrews Government revealed details of the sky rail plan on Sunday.

The project will see nine level crossings removed along Melbourne’s busiest train line, with three sections of the track to be elevated to nine metres above the ground.

Residents along the line are outraged, and have expressed alarm about safety, noise, and property values.

But the council meeting was told that families along the train line would not get compensation, and that home values may even increase.

Residents say they were not told of the sky rail plan during consultation sessions last year.

They said that potential bidders had been given a “blank canvas” to design the project, but that community input did influence final design.

But representatives from the Authority said consultation participants had been shown four possible options for removing level crossings, including putting train tracks over roads.

tom.minear@news.com.au

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/no-compensation-for-residents-with-proposed-sky-rail-tracks-above-their-houses-councillors-told/news-story/a908e905a000e3f0435efd01c9774678

February 9, 2016

Pinpointing The Rot In Glen Eira!

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

The first round of submissions on reforming the Local Government Act has now closed. There were several from Glen Eira residents. Of major significance is the submission from the Ombudsman. Every one of the selected extracts below has direct relevance to what occurs in Glen Eira. Some of these recommendations also fly in the face of what Council submitted. It is now up to the new CEO to change the culture and ensure that Glen Eira is dragged screaming into a new era of greater transparency and accountability to its ratepayers.

Here are some extracts. All submissions may be accessed from – http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission?preview=true

Secrecy in government creates conditions in which improper conduct and poor administration can flourish. It also fuels suspicions of wrongdoing and erodes community trust. Members of the public who complain to my office about council decisions occasionally mention the fact that decisions were made ‘behind closed doors’ or ‘in secret’ as evidence to support their concerns.

While the Local Government Act requires councils to record the reasons for closing a meeting in the minutes, recent experience of my office is that councils on occasion simply repeat the wording of the Act without providing specific reasons as required by the Act.

I also note that Victoria’s Act does not provide for separate confidentiality orders for documents. While a meeting may be closed to the public for valid reasons, the documents considered at that meeting may not contain the same level of confidential information. I favour strengthening these provisions in the Local Government Act to promote transparency, encourage councils to minimise the use of closed meetings, and to provide more information to the community about the reasons for closed meetings.

In its current form, the Act only deals with complaint handling in the context of complaints about the Chief Executive Officer of a council. This is not sufficient. The main subject matter of complaints about councils to my office continues to be the manner in which councils handle complaints. Of the roughly 3,400 complaints received by my office last financial year, almost 1,000 complaints raised issues about the way the council had handled the complaint. Key problems included delays, inadequate processes and inadequate remedies.

I recommended that the government consider whether there should be restrictions on donations to candidates and political parties by property developers; and whether the details of all donations should be published on a publically available register within 30 days of the relevant election.

Earlier investigations by my predecessor identified issues that affect good governance when prior political affiliations – both within and across political parties – lead to ‘block voting’ by councillors. Previous investigations by my office have noted that this hampers the proper functioning of a council as a decision-making body, with councillors engaging in decision making which in effect:

 takes place behind closed doors

 causes detriment to the council

 sees votes made for personal gain or political motivations

 sees voting in a ‘block’ to support a faction when those decisions may not be necessarily in the best interests of the community

 lacks impartiality when councillors meet in a ‘block’ prior to council meetings to determine their votes without considering the merits of a matter while in council chambers

….allegations of conflict of interest continue to be made about councillors and council officers. My office received over 40 complaints about conflict of interest in the last financial year. Eleven of those complaints were considered serious enough to be notified to IBAC by my office.

I also support the creation of a uniform code of conduct for all councils. While the Local Government Act requires councils to establish a Councillor Code of Conduct, there is no requirement for a uniform code across the state. Having a prescribed code of conduct would provide consistency in the application of key principles of behaviour.

+++++++

COMMENT

A few recent examples from the last council meeting alone:

An in camera item about ‘personnel’ and the Audit Committee. No outcome for this item was reported in the minutes. Hence for the nth time we have to ask: why is this in camera? Council ‘tradition’ has largely been to reappoint either Gibbs or McLean in secret. Is this another instance of this practise? One of these members is now gone? Is the other one going as well? Why, when other councils can table their intentions about appointments to the Audit Committe, does Glen Eira continue to operate in total secrecy?
Why is there no ‘estimated value’ provided for another tender in the in camera items and no announcement of any result? Jobs for the boys perhaps?
Voting in blocks? Another ‘tradition’ in Glen Eira!
Resolving ‘complaints’ – councillor responses are always ‘I have been advised’ with no further evidence to support the decision.
Conflict of interest? Perceptions of this abound in Glen Eira – Esakoff Seaview property; Frogmore and Jewish Care; How to vote card fiasco; countless Melbourne Racing Club applications; councillors voting on petitions when they are named in order to reject a petition (ie on appointment of Councillor Trustees) and the very ‘convenient’ declaration of conflict of interest by Esakoff on Frogmore!
A Code of Conduct that includes ‘no surprises’ so that councillors are gagged.
No penalties included in the Code of Conduct since it is, according to council, only a ‘code’ and therefore not ‘enforceable’.

The litany of poor governance practices is shocking. Residents need to make sure that there is dramatic change in October 2016.

February 8, 2016

Liberals, Labor & Council: Shame On Them All

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

The issue of ‘Skyrail’ has become major news in the past 36 hours culminating in protest meetings and petitions to parliament. All accompanied by major TV, newspaper and radio focus. Many comments are also going up on our website. Hence, this post is basically a few reflections on the processes involved by all players to this stage – Liberal, Labor and Council. Please note that we are not advocating for any specific pro or con position on ‘skyrail’ – there is so much that is unknown that at this stage at least, it is impossible to form a cogent and valid viewpoint – unless one is gullible enough to swallow hook line and sinker the multi-million dollar public relations videos and flyers. What is undeniably clear is:

The failure to inform the community
The failure to consult with the community prior to such major decisions being made
The reprehensible game of politics where the Liberal Party is so very quick to seize the opportunity to oppose the project whilst when in government they also had ‘secret’ plans to sell off land to developers and produce ten storey apartment blocks in the south-east. Why weren’t residents consulted here? – See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-plan-for-railway-hubs-20140503-37p6f.html
Next there’s Council with Hyams and Okotel (Liberals) taking full advantage of yesterday’s public protest meeting. Where was Delahunty, Magee, Lobo (nominally Labor) – especially since the mantra is that councillors are not representing political parties but the local community? Where were the Labor pollies?
Where is Council right now with its pathetic Draft Action Plan on Transport – that is already behind schedule and most of the ‘actions’ not due to happen for at least another 2 years? Council has not raised a finger to allay resident concerns about high rise developments alongside stations, or the further loss of public open space, or sought in any shape or form to protect native vegetation or 600 year old trees. No public statements, no media releases on council position on these things. Now rumour has it that Kitmont St and the Riley Park area could be devastated by construction yet there is only one Vegetation Overlay in the entire planning scheme and no Significant Tree Register.

Each and every one of these players deserves to be condemned for their secrecy, their short sightedness, their indifference to community concerns, and the awful political games they all play at the expense of local residents and proper governance. In the end the only possible conclusion is how poorly we are governed overall and how powerful certain vested interests are.

PS: If anyone has any doubts as to our councillors being “community representatives” or political party disciples, then the minutes from 8th April 2015 should resolve all doubt. Item 9.10 of that meeting included ‘debate’ on the timing of grade separation. A motion was put and then Sounness and Delahunty moved the following amendment –

Amend section (a) to read; (a) Thanking her for her letter and commending
her and the Andrews Government on the recent announcement regarding the
Cranbourne Packenham line upgrade which will mean a great deal to our
residents.

The vote on the above was:

FOR : Sounness, Delahunty, Lobo, Magee, Pilling

AGAINST: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel

Need we say any more?

February 2, 2016

Rates & You!

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

PS: no surprise that ratepayers have to find out from the media rather than council that Glen Eira is seeking to increase rates more than the government’s imposed rate-capping. Another example we maintain of ignoring and disregarding residents.

See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-21-victorian-councils-trying-to-dodge-rate-caps-20160202-gmjjuh.html

The list of councils (taken from above article) is:

The councils which have applied for a higher rate cap are:

Bass Coast Shire Council
Buloke Shire Council
City of Ballarat
City of Casey
City of Darebin
City of Greater Geelong
City of Melbourne
Glen Eira City Council
Hepburn Shire Council
Hindmarsh Shire Council
Horsham Rural City Council
Latrobe City Council
Maribyrnong City Council
Mitchell Shire Council
Moorabool Shire Council
Murrindindi Shire Council
Pyrenees Shire Council
Yarra City Council
Yarriambiack Shire Council
Wyndham City Council

PPS: we’ve uploaded the ESC Media Release (here). Glen Eira’s submission should make for fascinating reading – especially the response to the criterion regarding the “views of ratepayers”!!!!!

The Labor Government has introduced legislation to impose ‘rate capping’ on Councils. If Councils seek to impose a rate increase above what is specified they have to submit their case to the Essential Services Commission (ESC). Any such appeals had to be in to the ESC by January 31st, 2016.

In Glen Eira there have been rate increases of 6.5% (except for one year of 6%) for at least the past 8 years – well above CPI. Plus of course countless increased charges for kindergartens, rubbish collections, etc. We anticipate that given Glen Eira still has a huge loan repayment outstanding, plus further payments on Superannuation of several million, they will have applied, or will be applying, to the ESC for permission to keep increasing our rates. Of course, council has kept mum and not a word has been published regarding their intention on this issue. This contrasts with the Stonnington council’s statement that it will not seek such permission – see article presented below. It would be nice for once, if Council was upfront with its residents, instead of its usual practice of silence so that residents are always the last to know!

January 28, 2016

12 Years Of Doing Bugger All!

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

Whilst countless other councils have gone about their task in preparing or reviewing their housing strategies, Glen Eira has sat on its backside and basically done nothing. Glen Eira’s Housing Strategy was adopted by Council in October 2003. It is based on data going back to 1999. Yet, council’s rationale for doing nothing in 12 years is that in 2003/4 they got is so right that they are streaks ahead of every other council!

Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. Other councils have also had housing strategy policies for eons. They have also reviewed and updated it repeatedly with the latest statistics and with community consultation. For example Moonee Valley’s 2010 version was updated in 2015; Bayside within 2 years. And Glen Eira? Nothing since 2003! Given what is happening with the zones, then reviews are essential – unless of course, incompetence, or inability, or the pro-development agenda, forbids change.

Here is a list of what some other councils have been able to achieve – most post zones. The year of introduction is in parenthesis. Please note that these councils have also introduced numerous amendments (not listed here) in support of their housing strategies and to ameliorate the impact of the zones for their residents.

Banyule (2010)

Bayside – 2012 (reviewed 2014)

Boroondara (2015)

Brimbank (2014)

Cardinia (2013)

Casey (2015)

Darebin (2013)

Frankston (2013)

Greater Dandenong (2014)

Hobson’s Bay (2014)

Knox (2015)

Manningham (2012)

Maribyrnong (2011)

Maroondah (2015 and ongoing)

Melbourne (2014)

Monash (2014)

Moonee Valley (2015)

Shepparton (2011)

Wangaratta (2013)

Warnambool (2013)

Whitehorse (2014)

Yarra (2010)

January 24, 2016

Not In Glen Eira

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

Source: http://www.mvcc.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/council-meetings/current-meetings.aspx

January 18, 2016

Virginia Estate: Round #2

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

PS: RESIDENTS BEWARE! THE PROPOSED VIRGINIA ESTATE LAND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXPANDED WITH THE ‘PARTNERSHIP’ OF THE MAKE PROPERTY GROUP. NOWHERE IS THIS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED – EXCEPT ON THE MAP BELOW.

Please note that the land under question now extends to Griffith Avenue. The original draft amendment did not include this land – ie from the minutes of 21st July 2015

The land abutting Griffith Avenue is currently zoned Industrial Zone1 (ie no residential). Thus, the site under discussion would appear to have increased dramatically – without residents being informed in an open and transparent fashion! Not a great start for ‘consultation’!!!!!!!! Secondly, if the land mass is increased significantly, does this mean more dwellings? Another amendment that wants the entire area rezoned to Commercial 1? Or is it simply a case of a leopard does not change its spots?

Here is the planning map of the site as it currently stands –

We have received the following media release –

January 14, 2016

Magee

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

Contradictions, inconsistencies, blatant mistruths, and grandstanding are the hallmark of this crop of councillors. In other words, they will say and do anything that is politically and personally expedient at the time – regardless of its basis in fact.

Here is Magee’s glowing endorsement of the zones soon after they were announced by the Minister. Residents need to ask themselves how much of this comes within cooee of reality.

MAGEE – Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’. Said he bought his house in minimal change and away from main roads but his back door neighbour built 3 units and he can touch them ‘with a broom’ and that ‘this won’t happen again’ with these zones. Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’ (13/8/2013)

Compare this with the VCAT judgement on 40 Mavho st – (21^st December 2015) – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1978.html

I fail to see how its density is unacceptable. It is in the Bentleigh Urban Village. Local planning policy identifies Glen Eira’s urban villages as the preferred location for the municipality’s highest densities of residential development. As such, one would expect a high density development in this location.
I acknowledge that its mass and scale is challenging, as it is a four-storey building on a ‘standard’ 15.24 metre wide residential lot. I consider the key variable is the lot’s width. I say this a four-storey building is acceptable in principle because the zone controls encourage buildings up to 13.5 metres in height. This is the equivalent of four-storeys.

PS – ON ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY, BUT ONE THAT MAY INTEREST RESIDENTS. A new application has just gone in for a 12 (twelve) storey building with 3 levels of car parking and 40 apartments and offices at 22-26 Riddell Parade, Elsternwick.

What makes this application ‘interesting’ is the following taken directly from Council minutes of 19th May 2015.

The owners of 22-24 Riddell Parade would like to acquire land that abuts their property and Council’s car park. In this respect, the owners propose that Council:

Σ Formally close a section of road they occupy and then sell them the land in accordance with Council’s Rights of Way and Reserves Discontinuance Policy.

Σ Sell them the thin sliver of Council land they occupy between the section of road and the adjacent Council carpark.

Σ Sell them the airspace 4m from above the surface and the airspace below the surface, which is a corner splay that abuts both the sliver of land and the part of the road. This would allow them to build a first floor above and a basement below the splay but still allow sightlines along the adjacent laneway (minutes 19^th May 2015)

The owner has agreed to pay $59,015, inclusive of GST…..The owner has also agreed to meet all of Council’s reasonable costs associated with pursuing this proposal, estimated at $26,222.00. This is also consistent with Council policy.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates