GE Consultation/Communication


Please click on the link to view last night’s Channel 7 story. The image is an artist’s impression of Claire St when 12 houses are replaced with 100 dog boxes!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29882452/two-houses-holding-out-against-mckinnon-complex-plan/

Untitled

PS – following up from our previous post on responses to Minister Wynne’s request for council feedback, Kingston Council has also published its views in the current agenda. Again, the submission and its detailed analysis puts Glen Eira to shame – as does the simple fact that both Bayside and Kingston published their submission BEFORE sending off to the Minister and thereby having their work ratified by council decision. None of this happens in Glen Eira – it is all done behind closed doors and in secret.

Here is the Kingston officer’s report and the submission

Elliott Avenue, Carnegie has featured prominently in the news and on this site. (See what it looked like a little while back – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/). It is now utterly destroyed because of the new zones. Not only Elliott Avenue, but all surrounding areas. People are leaving in droves – not because they are after a profit in selling to developers, but because their dream home, their lifestyle, and everything they valued about this area has disappeared. Yet council has not had the guts to do a single thing about its slipshod and woeful planning. No amendments of any note have occurred in the past two years for housing diversity. No promises made ten years ago have been implemented. No concern whatsoever for the chaos caused by these developments that can take a year, so that residents can’t even get out of their driveways because of trucks in the street – many no doubt without work permits! All councillors can do is complain about not having the ‘tools’ in the planning scheme, or that they really need to look carefully at Neerim Road (Okotel). But they have not lifted a finger to get the ball rolling on anything. And what of the urban heat effect that all these dwellings will create? What of infrastructure? What of subterranean car parks that impact on the water table? What of parking? What of open space? Not a thing done!

In order to give residents an idea of what is happening we’ve colour coded the following street map which shows development since the zones were introduced. Council can blame everyone else until the cows come home – but there is no denying that the zones are without doubt the impetus for all this overdevelopment. With good strategic planning and community consultation some of the damage could have been avoided – but that of course means less rates and treating residents with respect!

carnegie

3-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 51 dwellings

6 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storeys (permit)

8-12 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey – no number of dwellings stated

14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 21 dwellings (permit granted by council and vcat)

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

33-35 Jersey Parade 4 storey, 28 dwellings (permit issued by council)

1 Tranmere – 4 storey, number of dwellings not named

5 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 4 dwellings

10 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 storey, 4 dwellings

16-18 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings (refused by council)

2 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 55 dwellings (council and vcat permit)

 

PS: From today’s (21/10) Moorabbin Leader front page –

centre

letters

12

trees

PS – MORE SPIN!!!! – MAGEE ON 3AW YESTERDAY

 

PPS: 4 houses left in Elliott Avenue, Carnegie. Thank you council!

IMG_3714

PLUS 7 STOREY APPLICATION FOR 317-319 NEERIM ROAD – BELOW!

IMG_3726

It is one thing for a council to disseminate its rose coloured glasses view of its performance. Spin comes with the political territory. It is another thing entirely for a council to use public funds to promulgate falsehoods with the intention of misleading and deceiving residents.

The latest outrage comes with council’s announcement on its website that it will print and distribute a letter/flyer to every single resident in the municipality. (UPLOADED HERE) The claim is that this will cost 11 cents per letter. Be that as it may, please remember that all monies collected by a council are meant to be spent for the benefit of the community and NOT to engage in damage control, or to evade responsibility for the woeful planning performances that we have witnessed in the past few years. Council can spend thousands of dollars blaming everyone else except itself, but it can’t spend this same amount of money in ‘consulting’ the community when it really matters – ie the introduction of the residential zones.

What is absolutely inexcusable is the fact that in its epistle council has committed the sin of omission – or to all intents and purposes – it has lied. Whoever wrote the letter should be hauled over the coals, and whoever authorised it, should be dismissed. In our view, the buck stops at Newton’s desk. Such behaviour and deviousness is literally beyond the pale. And this cannot be another of council’s famous ‘clerical errors’. It is without doubt deliberate, premeditated, and disgusting!

We are referring of course to the ‘conveniently’ edited table presented below – council version

Any resident reading this could be forgiven for thinking that Glen Eira’s total number of new apartments equals 1054. The sentence speaks of ‘apartment growth’ – full stop. What this table deliberately avoids mentioning is that the figures relate to the NUMBER OF APARTMENTS ERECTED IN BUILDINGS OF 4 OR MORE STOREYS. Nor is the table itself complete. Glen Eira is ranked THIRD in this list – which has again been conveniently cropped so that the full story is not told. Never mind the fact that many of those municipalities with greater dwelling numbers also happen to have commercial zones 2 and 3 times the size of Glen Eira’s and that is where most 4 storeys dwellings have gone. (ie Stonnington has over 6% of its area zoned as commercial. Glen Eira has 2.2%)

Yet what makes matters even worse, and which points to the fact that either we are dealing with total incompetents with no corporate memory, or that this is another example of council’s manipulation of the facts and the truth. Council minutes of June 30th, 2015 (a short 3 and a bit months ago) featured an officer’s report on the State Government’s ‘Better Apartments Discussion Paper’ – where in fact this bar chart was first published. On page 110 of these minutes we find the following –

june minutes

How convenient that residents:

  • Aren’t informed that the figures relate to dwellings in 4 or more storey buildings
  • How convenient that this vital information has been cropped and deleted, and
  • How convenient that now residents will be sold the myths that present council in the most positive light – ie. blame everyone else but not us!
  • How appalling that Glen Eira City Council can sink to this level of deception and just to rub salt into the wounds – use public monies for their own devious and unethical purposes! Surely it is time that the Code of Conduct for officers was published – as (needless to say) countless other councils see fit to do!
  • The biggest question is whether any councillor will insist that this farce be stopped in its tracks and a public apology listed in all media outlets. That should sort out the sheep from the goats!

We doubt that many residents bother to read council minutes. Thus they will be assailed with ‘information’ that is skewed, inaccurate, and intended, we believe, to deceive and mislead. Finally, when residents cannot trust the information that is disseminated by its council, then we are really in trouble.

WATCH THE VIDEO FROM ‘THE AGE – DOMAIN’. IT SAYS IT ALL!

http://www.domain.com.au/news/elderly-couple-refuse-to-sell-as-developers-lay-claim-on-mckinnon-culdesac-20151013-gk7kw5/

CLICK TO ENLARGE

claire

The skullduggery that has gone on over Frogmore and the Jewish Care aged care facility is literally scandalous. A permit application is currently waiting to be decided. It proposes to remove 88 of the 92 trees on site. Well, those trees no longer exist!

This says plenty about this council and its attitude to the environment. With no tree register and no will to stop moonscaping of sites, this is the result. We are also confident that council will not seek to impose any fine on Jewish Care for removing trees under the 12 months period stated in the planning scheme. We remind readers that the heritage report nominated 4 trees as having ‘significant’ status and to be given heritage status themselves.

It is quite appalling that this can happen. But since it is Glen Eira council, where profit and vested interests are far more important than environment, no-one should be surprised – merely outraged!

This Nearmap shot is dated 13 September 2015 – three weeks ago. They sure move fast!

wahgoo spetember 2015

The old saying of Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics depicts perfectly the spin department of Glen Eira. Definitions are non-existent and methodologies as to how various figures are derived remains unexplained. The spin doctors simply publish a figure with some neat ambiguous statement and these are purported to represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Far from it.

Several recent examples come from a Media Release and a sentence from last week’s Caulfield Leader (and repeated in a story this week)– “the tribunal (ie VCAT) approved 489 dwellings the council initially refused”(Caulfield Leader – page 9). The Media Release stated – “During the 2014-15 financial year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) approved 489 dwellings that Glen Eira City Council had refused” (July 2015). What these quotes and figures don’t reveal is:

  • How many of these purported 489 dwellings were the result of council no longer opposing a permit due to the developer submitting an amended application?
  • How many of these cases didn’t make it to a full hearing but were ‘mediated’ or were part of a ‘directions hearing’ at which council caved in?
  • Thus, is the figure of 489 based simply on ‘initial’ rejection or rejections that stood firm and were taken to VCAT for a full hearing and subsequent decision?

Much more significant, is the question of WHY VCAT granted permits for any of these supposedly refused applications? Over the past few months we have featured several VCAT decisions where the members have highlighted a litany of council stuff-ups and lack of adequate representation at the hearings. Time and again the public record of the decision shows that Council reps show up and are either ill-prepared, often provide spurious arguments, or are basically hamstrung by the Planning Scheme itself. We are in no way suggesting that VCAT is without fault and that the legislation governing this body is adequate. What we are alleging is that Council should start fixing its own house of horrors instead of continually and persistently resorting to the blame game where VCAT is portrayed as the sole villain.

To justify our claims, we’ve taken the time to go through every single published VCAT decision for the past financial year. Council claims 489 dwellings were approved. Our total is 288! (see below). Of these decisions however, we urge residents to carefully consider the comments made by the members and to note:

  • Conditions set by council that are contradictory or simply nonsensical
  • The lack of protection afforded by the planning scheme itself
  • Policies that expired in 2007 and have never been updated
  • And far too often, the lack of competence by council itself

All of this however begs the essential question. If council is finding that its claims are repeatedly knocked back by VCAT, then why, oh why, has there not been any attempt to ‘fix up’ the gaping holes in the planning scheme? Why, oh why, will there not be a planning scheme review for 6 or 7 years? And why oh why do our councillors continue to stand idly by and accept this situation?

Here’s the evidence. Hearing dates are provided together with address, proposal, and members’ comments. For ease of reading, we’ve uploaded a pdf version HERE  as well as the png images below –

35 Murray Road_Page_135 Murray Road_Page_235 Murray Road_Page_3

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

carnegie1

c2

About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –

  • The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
  • After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
  • Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
  • Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!

Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –

sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities

The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees

Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.

Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-

Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira.  It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.

Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.

A resident wrote to all councillors complaining about the lack of adequate parking in the Carnegie shopping centre. Issues highlighted were:

  • Use of car parking spots by tradies and developers thereby reducing those areas available for shoppers
  • Increase in restaurants thus bringing in more people and more cars
  • Traders’ concerns about lack of sufficient clientele parking which is therefore impacting on their businesses.

Council, via Mayor Magee, provided the following response. Please note carefully:

  • The ‘solution’ that shoppers should resort to walking, cycling, and car sharing! Too bad about all the elderly who are unable to walk, cycle, or car share!
  • The woeful self promotion instead of responding directly to the resident’s claims
  • The failure of councillors to initiate any positive action and their abysmal willingness to sign any crap that is put under their noses!

Some other considerations:

  • How many parking fines have been issued to developers in this area?
  • When was the last time a ‘traffic survey’ was undertaken and why, oh why, is it ‘traders’ responsibility to work out ‘solutions’?
  • When was the last time any decent statistics were published by council on parking in general?
  • Why, when the planning scheme states that property will be bought and turned into car parks council has failed to purchase one single property. Rather they have granted council car parking land to developers in exchange for a toilet which is still not there (ie Centre Road, East Bentleigh)!
  • Readers should also note how this response typifies the modus operandi of this Council – how to fob off residents with what can only be described as total and insulting nonsense.

Council Response0001_Page_1Council Response0001_Page_2

« Previous PageNext Page »