GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

December 31, 2015

Is This ‘Sustainable’?

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

Our final post for 2015 is very apposite. It sums up:

The disaster that is the zones
The failure of council to undertake any measures to ameliorate the damage
The continued and unabated destruction of huge swathes of Glen Eira
The creation of a ‘second class citizenry’ that does not deserve open space, landscaping and on site parking
How out of date the current planning scheme is since it states that Glen Eira can meet its housing requirements with an average of 600 new dwellings PER YEAR!
The utter failure to provide quality strategic planning, and
Councillors who have failed in their duty to insist on open and transparent government

What we present below are the applications that have come in from October to the end of December 2015. That is two months worth! All have yet to be decided but we anticipate that 95% at least will eventually be granted a permit. Please remember that this is only the ‘snap shot’ of one suburb! Thus in two months one small suburb of 3.8 square km is to contain the entire new housing that was mapped out in the planning scheme for an entire municipality!

Here are the applications in no particular order –

PS: we have ignored the scores and scores of applications for 2 double storeys which would bring the total up far more.

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storey, 61 dwellings,

315-317 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 7 storey 26 dwellings

363R Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 4 dwellings

14-22 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 12 storey, 134 dwellings, amended plans put in

116-118 Grange Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 31 dwellings

1 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 5 three storey attached dwellings

10-12 Anzac Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 double storeys

1240-1248 Glen Huntly Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storeys, 117 dwellings

30-32 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey 28 dwellings

26 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 double storeys

8-12 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys 41 dwellings

1 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 15 dwellings

5 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 dwellings of three storeys each

22-28 Jersey Parade CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 39 dwellings

TOTAL – 515 DWELLINGS!

December 28, 2015

Maintaining The Status Quo!

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

The deadline for submissions to the Local Government Act Review has now passed. Glen Eira has placed its effort on its website – after the fact of course and in direct contrast to other councils who sought a formal council endorsement (via resolution) on their submissions.

Councils generally have tended to advocate for the status quo, thereby maintaining their ‘independence’ and powers to do as they like. But as per usual, very few of these other councils are as conservative and anti change as Glen Eira. Here are some quotes from Glen Eira’s submission –

On mandatory versus normative legislation – We feel that the legislation should as a general principle provide consequences for noncompliance. But in this case, where it’s a matter of more general principles, there needs to be a reliance on common sense elements – much as it currently is.

On elections and set questions for candidates – We don’t agree with the suggestion that all candidates should answer standard questions, this should be left to the discretion of each candidate. If they don’t adequately communicate with voters they will not be successful.

On banning developer donations – We don’t agree that donations should be banned, nor that certain categories of donors should be banned. Banning categories of donors could unduly favour certain types of candidates over others. Conflict of interest provisions, which would prevent councillors from voting on anything that benefits major donors, should be sufficient to cover this.

Roles of councillors and Mayor – Clarifying the role of the Mayor is a good idea but we don’t agree that this should mirror either the NSW or QLD model – AND

We don’t believe councillors should be full time. This would dilute the pool of those able to stand. Tiering for payments is unfair. Everyone should get the same pay – it’s the same amount of work regardless of the population of the Council.

The Mayor should have a casting vote to resolve deadlocks. It should be up to Councils to determine the extent of public participation in decision-making, not legislated, beyond what is currently contained in s223.

Local laws including meeting procedure should be left to each council to determine. Indexing fines is a good idea.

On reporting and ‘efficiency’ – We oppose the suggestion to require the publication of comparative data for all services – this would be a large impost on resources that should be directed to delivering services

On conflict of interest – Where councillors have a conflict, they should be entitled to be present for the debate, but not to vote. Often, as in the case of conflicting duties, the councillor excluded may have valuable insight into the subject at hand.

By way of contrast, here are some extracts from other councils –

BAYSIDE – The discussion paper raises the practice of councils appointment of special committees to undertake a number of non-statutory, operational roles for example managing sporting pavilion hire art gallery etc. It is suggested that this model should be explored further to enable community involvement in the management of local facilities.

STONNINGTON – There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for Councillors. There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for officers.

MELBOURNE – Regardless of role, it is essential that the governance requirements of the MAV are updated to reflect current public sector best practice and to tackle some current challenges. The MAV should be subject to the same openness and transparency requirements (including freedom of information) as other public bodies established under legislation. Areas that could be covered in a new Act include:

employment of senior officers
disclosure of senior officer remuneration in its annual reports
management and disclosure of conflicts of interest

BOROONDARA – to address the insufficiency of comparable information about candidates. The answers to these questions be made available to voters in the form of a candidate information template in the postal ballot packs provided by the VEC and this information be made available on the VEC website. While candidates would have the right to withhold answers to some or all of the prescribed questions, all their answers (including ‘no response’) would be made available to voters.

YARRA – The current minimum standards for public exhibition and submissions to Council Planning and budgeting processes act as a barrier to the development of more meaningful consultation methodologies. By effectively reducing the time available for other forms of consultation and participatory decision-making, the exhibition process is an inhibitor rather than facilitator of community engagement

December 24, 2015

Merry Xmas & The Year In Review

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

2015 has definitely been a very mixed bag. Here is our summation –

The Positives

The resignation of Andrew Newton and another senior bureaucrat.
The fallout from the residential zones is now obvious to all and councillors are feeling the pressure
A far more enlightened and knowledgeable electorate on planning
2016 is an election year.
Rate capping imposed

The Negatives

Further evidence in recent days of a dysfunctional and divided council
Major travesties of justice and continued ignoring of community – Frogmore, the MRC and C60 developments, Caulfield Park conservatory, destruction of street after street as a result of the new zones
Ratepayer funds spent on disseminating lies and propaganda as damage control – ie the 11 cents flyer
Voting cliques
No tree register
No amendments to curb overdevelopment & no review of planning scheme
No consistency in councillors’ arguments
Deplorable governance continues
Sub standard officer reports
Pavilions that continue to come in well over budget – Duncan MacKinnon for one.

We have undoubtedly ignored plenty of other events/issues that could have been included in the above. Please feel free to add your own.

Finally, thank you to all our readers and contributors and thank you again to our council for it is they who provide the multitude of fodder for our analyses. We are pretty optimistic about the future and the potential for major change and improvement. As the following says – it has started but still a long way to go before we get a fully transparent and accountable council. That in the end will depend on voters and candidates who do give a damn about residents.

December 21, 2015

What A Rotten Culture!

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

Here are some questions to ponder –

Why is so much in Glen Eira ‘secret’? – when other councils see no need for such limitations?
Why do councillors continually allow such ‘perversions’ to continue unabated?
Why does Glen Eira continually resort to bluff, bluster and frankly intimidation when it is dealing with residents?
Why does this council’s culture display such arrogance and disdain for its residents?

Here are some prime examples of very recent times.

The online planning register has suddenly been updated to include this load of deliberate, intimidating hogwash.

Availability of planning documents
The planning applications and associated plans and documents available on this website are provided solely for the purpose of the planning process as set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The information must not be used for any other purpose. By entering this website you acknowledge and agree that you will only use information accessible here for the purpose of the planning process under that Act and any use or distribution of this information beyond that purpose is strictly prohibited.

Not only is there nothing in the Planning and Environment Act to substantiate these bogus ‘threats’, but the Government Spear program itself includes far more than the pathetic council register – ie name of applicant. Further, Planning Alerts is a free service that publishes applications for wider distribution.

Last Tuesday night’s council meeting included this public question –

“Will Council publish its submissions on Plan Melbourne Refresh and the Local Government Act Review? I also ask why council does not seek a formal resolution endorsing all submissions made to Government reviews or inquiries?” and the ‘answer’ was –

“When finalised, the submissions will be posted on Council’s website. Resolutions are sought as required.”

There is plenty amiss here. Firstly, residents will not have any idea of council’s position on these important issues until AFTER THE FACT. There is no open public discussion in chamber; no formal council resolution endorsing the submission written by officers, and hence another example of decision making behind closed doors – and we are of course assuming that councillors even get to read the draft submission! Yet, as always, such practices are allowed to continue unchallenged by councillors. No comments are required as to the ‘tone’ of the response and the arrogance implicit in it!

In stark contrast, we’ve done a very quick search of other councils who did seek formal resolutions and discussions on their submissions. Here is the list we’ve found after only a 5 minute search. All speak volumes of the culture of Glen Eira!

Plan Melbourne Refresh

Banyule

Boroondara

Brimbank

Darebin

Hobsons Bay

Maribyrnong

Melbourne

Moonee Valley

Moreland

Mornington Peninsula

Nillumbik

Stonnington

Whitehorse

Yarra

Yarra Ranges

Local Government Act Review

Bayside

Boroondara

Brimbank

Frankston

Monash

Moreland

Nillumbik

Northern Grampians

Port Phillip

Surf Coast

Yarra

December 13, 2015

Local Government Act Review

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

The Victorian Government is currently undertaking a review of the Local Government Act and it has appointed a Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee to assist with the task. It has invited public submissions which close next Friday 18 December. We strongly recommend that you make a submission to the review to register your concerns and to ask that the Local Government Act be amended to ensure that Glen Eira City Council is compelled to be a far more transparent and accountable institution.

With less than a week to go before submissions close, this Council is up to its old tricks. No formal resolution endorsing a submission; no submission made public and no discussion in chamber. Needless to say this is not how other councils are doing things – Bayside, Stonnington, etc. Whatever Glen Eira is submitting has been decided behind closed doors. This is one very good reason why the Act needs reforming.

Here are some suggestions to consider:

The Local Government Act should make it mandatory that:

All councils have Notice of Motion
All councils have ‘dissent from the chair’
All councils adhere to regular rotation of Audit Committee membership and council committee membership
All councils present live broadcasts of meetings
All councils publish agendas and full minutes for advisory committee meetings and that these meetings be open to the public
All CEO positions be advertised
No CEO be appointed for more than 2 consecutive contracts (ie a limit of ten years)
Staff Code of Conduct be published
Key Performance Indicators for CEO and senior staff be made public
Minutes to include how each councillor voted
The provision of open, timely and evidence based public consultation on major issues, including the public work shopping of significant issues
Community representation on all advisory committees
Public questions answered by individual councillors at start of meetings if question addressed to them
Ensure that budgets reflect community views

We are sure you will be aware of many other instances of systemic Council failure which can and should be remedied by appropriate reform of the Local Government Act. Please do so to assist to give the necessary weight to the changes we need in Glen Eira.

Your submission can be made through the Local Government Act review website at http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission or by post to Local Government Victoria, PO Box 500, Melbourne, VIC 3000, by no later than Friday 18 December 2015. Submitting through the website requires you to log in.

Alternatively (and you may find this easiest) simply send an email to hannah.wood@dewlp.vic.gov.au and clearly mark your submission for the attention of the Local Government Act Review Advisory Committee. Note: each submission is to be released publicly unless the submitter requests that it be withheld.

December 11, 2015

Agenda Items – #1

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

In this post we will concentrate on two important aspects of council’s operations as they are depicted in the Agenda Items – (1) continued selective editing and publishing timeline of Assembly Meetings and (2) community consultation committee as a mirror of this administration’s attitude to genuine community consultation and representation.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Local Government Act (Section 80A) stipulates that – The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable—

reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and
incorporated in the minutes of that Council

This is clearly not happening in Glen Eira. Minutes from the 27^th October and from the 10^th November are still to be tabled and made available. Yet, when we look at what has been published, the order is astounding and we believe quite deliberate. It is not therefore adhering to the Local Government Act but rather indulging in political machinations that attempt to keep certain items (like the guns in parks) under wraps for as long as possible. Why was the November the 4^th assembly included in the minutes of the 24^th November Council Meeting whilst the highly contentious 20^th October meeting was only published for this agenda (15^th December)? And what has happened to the missing Records of Assembly? Here are the respective council meetings and the Records of Assembly minutes published for each of these council meetings.

24/11/2015 Council Meeting

6 October

13 October

November 4^th

15^th December 2015 Council Meeting

20^th October

17^th November

24^th November

Some items from these latest records deserve highlighting –

Cr Delahunty – can an update on the recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust be given. Councillors who are Trustees gave an update to the extent they were permitted to by the Trust’s Code of Conduct.

Cr Delahunty – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse.

Cr Sounness – recent dance party at the Caulfield Racecourse. Role of the Private Building Surveyor.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

Quite frankly, we have to wonder why council even bothers in having this committee – apart from going through the motions and pretending that Glen Eira is so community conscious and ‘democratic’. Meeting after meeting achieves bugger all in our view. Here is the evidence to support this claim –

The committee minutes of 19^th February 2015 show that a presentation was made by Iain Walker of the New Democracy Foundation. The foundation is geared towards ‘the idea of citizen juries’ and to ‘place decision making in the hands of community members’. The minutes also state that ‘discussion on selection process, structure of juries, methods used, authority given to the jury and costs occurred’ took place. The ‘Action Item’ was for officers to send Mr Walker a ‘letter of thanks’!

Now 2 meetings later we get this morphed situation –

Report on how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and advise about any statutory obstacles which may impede implementation

A report was presented that provided an overview of how participatory budgeting is used here and overseas and the statutory issues in pursuing this approach. The report identified that the approach has been used in South America, North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, US and Canada. It has been adopted as a way of engaging citizens and ensuring that local government spending reflects the needs of local communities. Australia has developed their own particular take on participatory budgeting that seeks informed recommendations on budget decisions through the citizen jury or panel format.

Although there are no statutory limitations or requirements for the implementation of participatory budgeting process, there are some potential restrictions that need consideration in exploring application of such a model. The most pertinent include:

Council consists of democratically elected members who are afforded the responsibility to govern and make decisions on matters affecting their municipality and community.
There are substantial costs associated with implementing a quality participatory budgeting process.(New Democracy Foundation estimates $85-90,000)

Any recommendations made by a participatory budgeting process are still required to be approved by normal Council arrangements. According to the Local Government Act 1989, Councillors are the legal authority to make decisions whilst participating as a member of the Council in a formal council meeting.

Action: Further discussion participatory budgeting and options for Council to use this approach to be on agenda for the next meeting in February. Officers to contact the ‘New Democracy Foundation’ to discuss options for a participatory budget process including costs and timelines.

COMMENTS – There is nothing in any of the minutes to indicate that ‘participatory budgeting’ was now the focus instead of ‘citizen juries’ in general (based on the previous Iain Walker presentation. No doubt it will take another 3 or 4 meetings (ie at least a year) for anything to happen. And it would be so wonderful if instead of highlighting the presumed ‘negatives’ of an issue, the ‘positives’ were also included! But then, that is the Glen Eira way – pretend to listen, then do nothing. As we’ve previously stated – progress in this council occurs at glacial speed!

Some other examples of inexplicable tardiness follow –

Minutes of 27^th May feature this gem – Discussion occurred on what Council should consult on and whether new Council policies should be subject of community consultation. The discussion was adjourned to a future meeting so that John Fien could begin. Result? This fundamental issue has now disappeared into the dustbin of history!

Minutes of 19^th August 2015 include this – The committee considered that the use of social media could enhance community engagement and that an increased use of social media would be of benefit to Council. Action Item – Officers to prepare a paper setting out how other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced.

But this current set of minutes includes the following –

Report – How other Councils use social media for consultation and how Councils approach could be enhanced –This report is being prepared by Community Relations and will be presented at the next meeting of this committee in February 2016. Thus in Glen Eira it takes at least 6 months for anything to even be initiated much less implemented.

The best however comes with this from the current minutes –

Definition of consultation and informing the community

Susan McKenna (community representative) sought clarification on Council’s definition of consultation. In the Community Engagement Strategy; consultation is described as obtaining community feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. This definition reflects the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), Public Participation Spectrum.

Susan stated that the revised plans for the Booran Road Reservoir development are not currently on the Council website.

Action: Councillors present committed to raising these issues at a future Assembly of Councillors

Comments: SO WE’VE NOW HAD A COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE GOING FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS AND THE BASICS REMAIN UNCLEAR. We also know that officer reports are tabled at these meetings but never made public. We also know that past community reps have found the process completely unsatisfactory and resented the continual doctoring of minutes or very selective inclusions. We offer our commiserations to the current crop of community reps who no doubt are trying their utmost to ensure that improvements are made but are continually stymied by a culture that sees no place for community views, much less genuine participation and god forbid ’empowerment’ for the community!

December 9, 2015

Secrecy & More Secrecy!

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

The recent outcry against the secret vote for ‘guns in parks’ highlighted once again how Glen Eira continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy and abuse of the legislation. In 2011 we featured a post which itemised the number of decisions made in camera and the number of decisions which were subsequently reported in the minutes (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/

Not too much has changed since. Countless items that feature in the agenda papers for in camera decision making are not reported in the subsequent minutes and what is even worse, there is no explanation as to why only some items include the number of applicants for the tender, the criteria, and most importantly the estimated cost. Countless others simply describe the vague nature of the tender and that’s it!

But the most damning indictment of all is that an examination of the minutes proves once and for all how decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. On the 8^th April, 2014 the following tender appeared in the in camera agenda items –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of a contract for refurbishment of the Caulfield Park Conservatory Number of tenders received 8; Number of evaluation criteria tenders

assessed against 3

Estimated contract value $250,000

No outcome for this item was recorded. Yet at the very next Council Meeting (29^th April, 2014) there is the extraordinary report and subsequent vote to demolish the conservatory – despite 2 rounds of public consultation and 2 previous resolutions that demanded it be maintained and restored. So what happened on the 8^th April that caused this change of heart? What did it cost to produce and advertise the tender documents? Or is it the case that behind closed doors on the 8^th April it was decided to scuttle the debate and the subsequent meeting was merely to ‘ratify’ an already made decision? Even if we are wrong here, it does not say much for council and councillors when public money is wasted on tendering and within three weeks this all comes to nought!

Things get even worse with the following –

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works (21^st July 2015)

Nothing was forthcoming. Hence residents had no idea – (1) if a contract was awarded (2) what was the price and (3) exactly what does ‘associated works’ really mean.

There are other gems too which illustrate the nastiness and internal bickering that has been part of Glen Eira ever since Newton set foot in the place. Here are some examples – again not disclosed and we can only wonder how much more of ratepayer funds went into lawyers’ pockets without disclosing the amounts –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (9^th April, 2013)

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (6^th November 2013)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.3 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the contract for Community Energy Efficiency Program.

12.2 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.(11^th June 2013)

The results of the following items were not disclosed in the minutes –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for the provision of legal services.

Number of tenders received 5

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against 5

12.4 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (17^th December 2013)

which relates to the contract for internal audit services

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of prequalified supplier panel for the procurement of trucks

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for processing of organic waste

12.4 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to the appointment of Community representatives to the Citizen of the Year Awards Committee

But the one we love the best is the ubiquitous nonsense of – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter.

12.4 under s89 (2)(f) ‘legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct.

12.1 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee (4^th February 2014)

12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to insurance

12.3 under s89 (2) (f) “legal advice” which relates to “Code of Conduct – Possible Additions” (july 22^nd 2014)

12.2 under (f) “legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct. (18^th March 2014)

12.5 under s89(2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to additional open space.

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for Tender 2014.043 Provision of Wide Area Network (Wan) Infrastructure

12.5 Under section S89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” Open Space Strategy – gap areas. This report does not recommend any acquisition of any housing. (5^th September 2015)

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works 21^st july 2015

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates the appointment of a contractor for the supply of fuel for Council’s vehicle fleet.

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to disposal of general household waste

12.0 under s89(2)(a) “personnel”, minutes of Community Consultation Advisory Committee meeting of 19 February 2015 relating to nominations received for Community Representatives on the Committee

Thus it goes on an on. Why on earth residents can’t be told who is the contractor for disposal of general household waste’ or who will be the supplier for fuel and how much this will cost, is literally beyond us. Why the secrecy? Or is it all designed to make it that much more difficult to follow the money trail and to see who is getting what?

We should also be prepared for the fact that when the new Code of Conduct comes out post election that there will be the attempt no doubt to gag councillors even more. You don’t spend thousands upon thousands on lawyers and then maintain the status quo! And please remember that the legislation does not MANDATE in camera decision making. It merely suggests that councils ‘MAY’ decide to deem certain items confidential. In Glen Eira this has come to mean practically everything whilst other councils are prepared to publish their decision making on commercial tenders Glen Eira doesn’t. Whilst other councils are prepared to publish their ceo performance assessments, Glen Eira doesn’t. And whilst other councils are far more specific in their descriptions of confidential items Glen Eira is content to say again and again – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. That is double speak at its absolute best and indicative of a council who pays no credence to their obligations of transparency and accountability.

November 30, 2015

Deconstructing The Bullshit – #2

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

PS: It hasn’t taken the developer long to resubmit another application for Claire St., McKinnon. It is still 3 storey, and instead of 36 dwellings, the application is now for 33 dwellings. Yes, the VCAT decision certainly stymied the development, didn’t it? So much for Magee’s faith in council’s planning scheme and its non-existent neighbourhood character statements for housing diversity areas.

We are promoting additional transport options including more and better train, tram and bus services; car sharing, cycling and walking

Oh yes, Glen Eira is definitely transport conscious! That’s why the funding for bicycle paths has been cut despite budget promises. That’s why car sharing was put off and councillors never even told that a proposal had been submitted to officers years ago. When a report finally made it to council the decision was (typically) to delay for another year. The next year a tiny number of spots was set up. And how much credence do we give to council’s ‘promotion’ and ‘advocacy’ power, when they can’t even get a bus to run past East Boundary Road? Then there’s the fabulous Road Safety Strategy which lapsed in 2008 and hasn’t been updated, or newly ratified.

We fine builders if they breach safety requirements on building sites

We challenge any reader to find one single vcat decision where council has sought an order against any builder for ‘safety’ breaches. There aren’t any. As for fines – well we’ve featured countless photos of unsafe and illegal works (for pedestrians) alongside development sites. How many of these have been fined – despite the fact that the offences occur day after day!

We are advocating for all development costs to be paid for by developments and not fall on existing ratepayers.

Really? So is this the reason that Esakoff moved a motion at the last MAV state conference that basically asked for ‘all development costs’ – BUT ONLY FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS?!!!!!! Forget the fact that this was never endorsed by any formal vote much less discussed in council chamber with supporting reasoning. Commercial development almost pales into insignificance when compared to the developments occurring in GRZ and RGZ and now MUZ. Why these developments ARE NOT targeted is the $64 question?

The best of course is last –

We are providing additional public open space and have imposed the highest Open Space Levy on multi-unit developments of any suburban council (estimated $5 million per annum)

Some very neat phrasing here which is technically not only untrue, but deliberately misleading. Glen Eira has NOT imposed the ‘highest’ levy on multi-unit developments. Plenty of other councils have much higher levies directed towards their activity centres, and suburbs where development is likely to occur at an intense rate. The perfect example of this is Stonnington which has the second lowest amount of public open space. In their proposed amendment they sought an 8% levy across the board in contrast to Glen Eira which has the least amount of public open space and only sought 5.7%. Admittedly Stonnington were not successful in getting their 8% for the entire municipality. However, they did achieve an 8% levy from developers in 4 suburbs, including Prahran and South Yarra. Achieving 8% from these 4 suburbs (given the size of these areas)plus the 5% from the rest of the municipality means that Stonnington is well ahead of anything that Glen Eira can achieve. Their Annual Report cites an INCREASE of $4.65 million in open space levies and this amount does not take into account the full year’s impact of the 8% in the four suburbs.

Nor is Stonnington alone. Moreland for example has had in place for years now the following levies for developments in their various suburbs –

Brunswick – 6.3%

Coburg – 6.8%

Faulkner – 5.7%

Glenroy – 6.5%

Then there’s Dandenong with 20% for this stated area – – Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south.

Further, whereas countless other councils included in their amendments the clause that for certain ‘significant’ sites , the levy payable be higher than the levy for other areas, Glen Eira council was quite prepared to accept the obscene figures of 4 and 5% for the 2000+ development of Caulfield Village. They were even prepared to accept the ‘normal’ rate for the Virginia Estate with its proposed 4,600+ dwellings of 5.7%.

Readers should also remember that at the 11^th hour, council reneged on its two previous resolutions that all monies collected from open space levies would be used to PURCHASE ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. Instead, revenue is now basically ploughed into more of the same – mega palaces (ie pavilions) and car parks within parks that constitute ‘open space’. The only purchases of land in the past 12 years have been two properties in Packer Park and now one in Magnolia Road that could have been bought years ago for a much cheaper price given that there’s been the on-off-on farce with the public acquisition overlay. An appalling record for a council that has known for decades that open space is a priority for residents.

We estimate that with the population increase, open space in Glen Eira per resident will DECREASE if this current policy continues. This in fact has been admitted by the Open Space Strategy itself. So what is council doing about this? Bugger all in our view. Spending millions on ‘redevelopment’ is not the answer to the continued growing lack of public open space.

While the boom is being driven across Melbourne by external factors, Council is acting to limit heights and contain development to strip shopping centres and public transport routes

More deceptive phrasing we suggest. Most people would interpret ‘strip shopping centres’ as meaning the actual ‘strip’ itself and not residential land that is some 800 metres from the street. The use of present tense is also a concern. If council is ‘acting to limit heights’ then apart from 2 amendments for MUZ there is no evidence to suggest that council is doing anything to change the zoning. Council ‘acted’ in 2013. They are now totally ‘inactive’ except to refuse application after application and blame VCAT for everything.

Finally, the fact that such a piece of shonky, deceptive and deliberately misleading (mis)information could have gone out to residents without councilors’ knowledge says much about governance in Glen Eira and the kind of leadership that has been at the helm for far too long.

November 27, 2015

Deconstructing The Bullshit – #1

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

Page two of council’s damage control exercise (ie the Apartment Boom letter) purportedly sets out all of the fabulous things that council is doing for its residents. It is a pity that careful phrasing and half truths dominate instead of real facts. We ask readers to consider each point. The Council statements are in italics.

Council is managing the boom within the limited powers given to us by state authorities.

One might quibble as to the definition of ‘limited powers’. Whilst it is true that there is much in all planning schemes set by the government, it is also true that close to a third of all planning schemes are handed over to councils to determine – they simply must support their proposals with sound empirical evidence. Councils are free to introduce structure plans, heritage overlays, design and development overlays, infrastructure levies on developers, open space levies, parking overlays, preferred character statements, up to date housing strategies for each precinct, and of course, the schedules to all the zones, and to determine where the zones go. We note that Glen Eira (contrary to other councils) has never had anything approaching real structure planning; it has 6 piddling design and development overlays – 3 of which regulate fence heights in a handful of streets and another two facilitate higher development in 2 specific areas. The Municipal Strategic Statement dates from 1999 and now belongs in a museum! Promises made centuries ago have never materialised. For 8 years council was content to extract a pittance for open space levies, knowing full well that the municipality was highly lacking in open space. Council also never bothered to ‘renew’ its lapsed development contributions levy so that now residents are subsidising developers completely for drainage. There is thus plenty that is within the power of council to initiate and deliver. They have simply refused to do the basics that every other council has done and which the State Government expects – ie structure planning and decent strategic planning.

We obtained government approval for maximum height limits over all residentially zoned land where there were no limits before.

The veracity of this statement depends on how one defines ‘residentially zoned land’. According to the planning scheme the Mixed Use zone (MUZ) is also labelled as ‘residentially zoned land’. Hence Council has not imposed maximum height limits on all residentially zoned land as they would like residents to believe. One could go even further and argue that today Commercial zones are de facto residential zoned land – especially when developers can build one or two shops and then put 100 units on top of this! It is also worth noting that Boroondara has managed to achieve a three storey height limit for its Neighbourhood Centres including the commercially zoned shopping strips and other councils are following this lead. In Glen Eira, no such thing exists, and even worse, all Local Centres are now zoned Commercial and the vast majority directly abut Neighbourhood Residential Zones.

As to the ‘no limits before’ statement – again a misrepresentation. There were limits, albeit, ‘preferred’ height limits of 9 metres. So what does council do with the zones? Accept and impose the absolute maximum of 10.5 and 13.5 metres and no height limits whatsoever for the Mixed Use Zone. A ‘one size fits all’ approach across the board. Sloppy planning indeed when seen in light of other councils and the number of GRZ and RGZ zones each applied and the height variations within each of the schedules. This of course required some hard work and a close analysis of the municipality – something entirely alien to this council.

Height limits by themselves do not of course make for good planning and protection of residential amenity. Especially not when there are no urban design frameworks to accompany the height limits and no real provision for open space, permeability, no tree protection, and no preferred character statements for Housing Diversity areas. We remind readers that other councils for both their GRZ and RGZ zones have managed to achieve far greater protections in terms of open space and permeability than Glen Eira. Some councils (ie Yarra) have even managed to have the Residential Growth Zones removed entirely and Bayside is also awaiting approval for this to happen in their municipality.

At the time of introducing the zones, Council had the choice. Schedules were there to be fine tuned. There was no fine-tuning. Simply a total cave in. Our question always remains the same – if other councils could get a better deal for their residents then why couldn’t Glen Eira? How hard did Newton, Akehurst and Hyams really try? Or were they so caught up with the self promotion of being the first council that all thought of getting the best deal went out the window?

There is nothing under the new zones that could not be built before

A nice little slogan! The point is that PRIOR to the zones, developments were far more constrained and those applications which did get through (particularly in Carnegie) were also the result of a poor and ill-defined planning scheme. The loopholes that exist now, existed then. The difference however is that cometh the new zones, developers, investors, and real estate agents were given the clear signal that they could now build to their hearts content and instead of a 9 metre preferred limit, they could now literally go for 13.5 metres in RGZ and 10.5 metres in GRZ. That’s why we are now seeing amended application after application seeking the limit. One perfect example is 20 Wheeler St., Ormond. On the 21^st May 2013 an application went in for 2 double storeys. On the 12^th December 2013 an amended permit went in for changes to windows. Then on the 21^st February 2014, a new application came in for 8 double storey dwellings. Council refused this application so we now get another application (15/10/2015) for seven dwellings on land that is roughly 760 square metres and zoned GRZ1 and this includes a combination of three and two storey buildings. Needless to say there is no minimum lot size for subdivision in Glen Eira, whilst Bayside is aiming for a minimum of 800 square metres and other councils have a range from 350 square metres per lot – ie Manningham

There’s also this beauty for 249 Neerim Road, Carnegie. In September 2011 an application went in for three storeys and 11 dwellings. It got a permit. Then in June 2015 another permit was issued for 4 storeys and 48 dwellings! Of course Council would like us to believe that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the zones

Even VCAT prior to the zones would pay close attention to the ‘preferred’ height limits. From a decision in 2011 on George St., Caulfield North –

The Council and Mr Durrell asked for the building to be lowered to 9 metres to meet Standard B7 (and consequently Standard B17 with respect to the western elevation) and to provide a better transition from the larger and higher form on the north side of George Street. ….. I consider lowering the building is a necessary together with other modifications as referred to in these reasons. I appreciate the scale of development opposite the site but am also mindful that land differs from the review site. The review site is small, has different building relationships, and has different visibility in the streetscapes and from adjacent confined lots. Further, it is influential to my conclusion that the change will assist to bring the development into compliance with Standard B17 with respect to the impact on No. 3 George Street

Compare the above (and council’s attitude) to what we now have. A VCAT decision from September 2015 –

There is no Design and Development Overlay or other overlay, or indeed a policy, to indicate the preferred heights for new multi-dwelling developments in the residential area. What guidance is available is obtained from Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone, which specifies a maximum height of 10.5 metres for a building on this land. This height can comfortably accommodate three-storeys of residential development. Accordingly, the Council, through its Planning Scheme, has made a conscious decision to allow for three-storey development on this site. Indeed, the Council advised that it has no ‘in-principle’ objection to a three-storey building on the review site

Bent Street Bentleigh is another example of amended permits seeking an additional storey increase and more apartments to permits that had already been granted. Again, the VCAT member’s comments on what the zones really mean –

….there has been a change in planning circumstances, notably the zoning of the land has changed from Residential 1 Zone to the current General Residential Zone Schedule 1, which contemplates more intensive development where height of building can be 10.5 metres and up to 11.5 metres on a slope plus promotion of site consolidation, compared to the maximum height of 9 metres recommended in Clause 55 for the Residential 1 Zone.

The situation is even worse for some developments zoned Mixed Use and/or Commercial. Centre Road is the perfect example with applications going in for increased heights and increased numbers of dwellings. Because they can – they will! Which of course raises the question as to why Council did not at the time of introducing the zones include a height limit on MUZ? Thus, we return to the ad hoc planning that has characterised Glen Eira for well over a decade. Two recent amendments have imposed 3 storey height limit on MUZ sites. Why couldn’t this be applied to all such zoning back in 2013? Or is the truth finally dawning on council about the unmitigated disaster they have ushered in through their indecent, secretive haste and lousy planning?

We refuse to give on-street residential parking permits to new nulti-unit developments

Wonderful! Except that all these cars now go into surrounding residential streets that have no parking precinct plans attached to them and no real analysis of what these neighbouring streets can cope with. Nor does the absence of a residential parking permit mean that all those cars which are parked illegally will be fined. Laws are one thing – enforcement another!

Magee & The Zones & Bent Street

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

The following reports come from 2 agenda items – (1) comments on the VCAT decisions, and (2) the Bent St application. We have decided for this first item to highlight some of the comments made by Magee. The reasons should be obvious!

MAGEE: said he spent the day at VCAT with residents of Claire St., McKinnon and that the judgement shows that VCAT ‘does have the capacity’ to look at the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and listen to what the residents of Glen Eira ‘have said they want in the area’. The Planning Scheme has ‘been put together over many years with vast community consultation’ (sniggers and jeers from the gallery). Said he represents the 140,000 people and not the few who claim to do so. Continued that the planning scheme was voted on by all councillors. It then ‘went to the Minister’ who approved it. After doing ‘so much work, we know what our residents wanted’ and ‘that’s what our planning scheme actually says’. With the new zones, Claire Street has height limits and the developer got it wrong by wanting to ‘build almost fence to fence’. ‘He had scant disregard for our planning scheme’. The VCAT member ‘applied our planning scheme’ – he applied ‘what we as a council’ and what ‘we as residents have said is appropriate to Glen Eira’. Every council has a scheme but that sits on what councillors and ‘residents think is appropriate’ for that municipality. The member ‘applied our planning scheme’ and ‘when he did, this building did not fit’. And when he applied the rules that ‘residents put to us that they wanted, it did not fit’. Said that unfortunately not all VCAT members are as ‘educated’ as this member and not all of them ‘do their homework’ nor ‘appreciate the level of detail we have in our planning scheme’.

Said that 97% of the municipality has got height limits and 3% commercial with no height limits. Putting height limits on commercial areas has to be done through an overlay, and then community consultation, ‘permission from the minister’, and ‘through a long and detailed process’. ‘If council decides at some point in the future’ to do this, then he would ‘welcome that’ but to do ‘that we would need legal opinion, planning opinion’ and the Minister’s approval. There are some other things that might be done with the commercial zones but he is ‘very, very happy that’ the zones ‘cover 97% of our municipality’. This ‘in conjunction with our planning scheme’ is what ‘makes it work’. When VCAT doesn’t apply the planning scheme ‘that’s when it goes wrong’ but for Claire St., they did apply it.

COMMENT

97% of the municipality DOES NOT HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS!
Mixed Use Zones (apart from 2 specific sites) DO NOT HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS. No mention of course about this little fact
Once you remove parkland, VicRoad land, Special Utility zones, etc from the total acreage then the percentage of land zoned commercial and mixed use is far greater than the 3% this council would like residents to believe is the truth. Also given council’s penchant for transforming sites zoned C2 (ie no residential dwellings) into C1 (allowable residential dwellings such as Virginia Estate amendment) then the percentage skyrockets even further. Then add on all the amendments which have already and are still waiting to be rezoned from ‘industrial’ land into Mixed Use or Commercial and the figures literally go much higher.
Magee is obviously under the illusion that if you repeat something often enough people will believe you – ie ‘vast community consultation’. Perhaps he and the other councillors should ask residents whether they believe the planning scheme does in fact represent resident views?

BENT STREET APPLICATION

Before we report on the actual ‘debate’ readers need to take a look at what the zones have meant for this street and the surrounds. It is our estimate that since the zones were introduced the area has had 378 new dwellings permitted. This rivals Neerim Road’s 548 new dwellings. (click to enlarge the image)

Here is what councillors said. It took roughly 7 minutes!

Proposal 4 storey, 20 dwellings. Hyams moved motion to accept plus introducing some conditions for the street trees. Seconded by Sounness.

HYAMS: said he chaired the planning conference and that objectors’ ‘concerns’ have been ‘addressed by the officer recommendations’. This is the ‘right place for a 4 storey development’ ie next to supermarket and station and ‘sufficient’ parking. Went through some of the conditions such as increased setbacks for basement car parking to allow for landscaping. Basically read out the other conditions from the officer’s report. Thought that all of this meant a ‘reasonable compromise’.

SOUNNESS: said he is supporting the application in order to be ‘consistent with the planning scheme’ designed for the area. ‘Being part of the Bentleigh Urban Village it does have criteria’ and meets those criteria. There has also been a lot of 4 storeys surrounding this development and others higher in surrounding area given by VCAT.

LOBO: said that in 2011 ‘I predicted that Glen Eira will be like Calcutta’ and he ‘got told off’ for saying that. ‘Well the writing is on the wall’.

DELAHUNTY: said she remembers Lobo’s comments and is an ‘indication’ of what is happening in Bentleigh and ‘especially around this area’. Bent Street ‘have taken more than their fair share’. However she wanted to draw people’s attention to ‘housing affordability’ and the high cost of renting. A report came out showing that some families spend up to 50% of their income on rent. So they need more development and then the rental will drop because more development ‘will push the prices down’ for ‘people to be able to live around infrastructure’. Thought that Lobo’s values would also support the idea that people should be able to afford to live where there are good health services and ‘good infrastructure options’ and ‘Bentleigh certainly has’ those things. She ‘understands that it is a balancing act’ so will support the motion.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. Lobo only councillor to vote against.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates