GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

February 21, 2014

Ho, Ho, Ho, – It’s Off To Court We Go!

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

Ratepayers had better prepare themselves for humungous legal costs, on top of what has already been forked out, if our assumptions are correct. Today’s agenda features the monthly ‘financial report’. Unlike previous versions, the notation about ‘mediation’ with Hansen Yuncken set down for 14^th February is no longer present. Add to this the in camera item about ‘legal advice’ and the GESAC construction contract, and we would bet our socks that mediation has failed and that we’re now all heading for a major court case. Lawyers are laughing their heads off at their windfall no doubt.

When this is seen in conjunction with the Duncan Mackinnon Maxstra contract and the mega bucks already spent on pursuing Penhalluriack, then real questions need to be asked about the way that this administration does business.

On wastage of public monies, it looks like there could be a repeat of the ‘try, try again’ farce that has occurred with the Caulfield Park conservatory. Readers will remember the three time attempt at public consultation over cafes in the park versus restoration. Now the Booran Road Reservoir is up for the same treatment judging by this little sentence buried in the Records of Assembly –

Former Glen Huntly Reservoir – Councillors asked that a second option involving passive and active use and not just passive use be prepared for public consultation

We simply ask: how much did the original ‘concept plans’ cost? How much did the ‘consultation cost’? And why can’t this council accept the over-riding public response that the vast majority of residents opted for PASSIVE space?

There’s also the tacit admission of a major planning stuff up due to the ungodly haste in ramming through as quickly as possible the Residential Zones. One application asks for a 4 storey development for a school – in other words coming under the ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’. The officer’s comments are illuminating –

A height of 13.9m is proposed with a 2.1m plant/lift overrun screening above. The school is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 where a 10.5m height limit is imposed to residential buildings and dwellings only. As the proposal is non-residential, this height limit does not apply. Council recently agreed to review the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy such that the height applicable to residential uses carries across to non-residential uses. This revised policy intention has no status at this time.

Last but not least, we have the full text of the Lipshutz Right of Reply. Such a pity that on other countless issues, the voices of residents remain muted, unacknowledged, and ignored!

Shortly prior to Christmas last year I saw a flyer from the Friends of Caulfield Park which described the Council contractors removing trees from Caulfield Park as “storm troopers”. I full well appreciate the passion some have in relation to Park and the issue of Council’s actions but the term “storm troopers” went beyond the pale.

Melbourne is the home to the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita outside Israel and the vast majority of Jews in Melbourne are either Holocaust survivors or children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Accordingly to equate Council’s actions with the actions of Storm troopers was highly offensive.

While the expression storm troopers has been used in the Star Wars movies I suggest that the FOCP were not using that analogy but clearly equating the actions of the Council with the actions of Nazi storm troopers.

I am former President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and former Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission I have perhaps by that reason a fairly prominent profile in the Jewish Community. As such I received over 40 phone calls from people who effectively said that they were offended by what had been written. Many others approached me at Synagogue and other places making similar comment. When I returned home from overseas in January there were also voice messages making similar comment. One elderly lady asked me if FOCP really knew what storm troopers were and how they acted. She was a Holocaust survivor a person who had first hand experience.

I do not say for an instance that the authors of the flyer are anti-Semitic and I do not make any accusation as to racism; indeed knowing some of the people at FOCP I believe that the words used were rather an expression of their passion. Nevertheless the words used were insensitive given the connotation of storm troopers with Nazi Germany. The expression used was clearly over the top and indeed I believe was counter-productive.

Councillors unanimously agreed to proceed with the upgrade of Caulfield Park. We listened to representatives of FOCP and we questioned and queried Officers before proceeding. Council did nothing by stealth.

Those that oppose Council’s actions have every right in our democratic and free society to make their views known, however to describe Council contractors as storm troopers was excessive in the extreme.

In my experience in public life, going beyond my years on Council I have seen that most people who are able to present a reasoned, intelligent and unemotional argument bereft of abuse will be listened to. To exaggerate however and suggest that Councillors are stupid or are in the pocket It (sic) of Council officers doing their bidding as if puppets is not likely to endear themselves or win any argument. Similarly to describe Council contractors as storm troopers full well knowing the connotation that expression raises is either obtuse or thoughtless.

While no doubt there are some Jews who would not find that comment offensive there are many that have and it is therefore appropriate for the authors to apologise and retract that offensive innuendo.

February 19, 2014

Please Don’t Spew!

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

Apart from the above over-the-top market hype, readers should take careful note of the so called ‘green spine’ that is to serve as public open space and a pedestrian ‘carriage way’ to public transport. No amount of pretty drawings and promises can hide the fact that:

No figures are given for overall AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE within the precinct
Width of entrance via Kambrook Road is barely enough to swing a couple of cats through – 9.6 metres which will in effect be reduced once ‘plantings’ go in.
No mention is made of the ‘canyon effect’ and resulting potential for wind tunnels
Glossy pictures of tall new vegetation leave us unimpressed given that much of this ‘green spine’ will be in shadow for much of the day – see diagram below.

February 13, 2014

How To Sell A Lemon?

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

The extracts featured below, all come (verbatim) from the officer’s report tabled in the minutes of 12^th August 2002 on Amendment C25 – ie. the brainchild for the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change carve up of the municipality. Admittedly, it can be argued that times are different and that things have changed. What CANNOT be argued is that this Amendment was sold to residents on the basis of promises that have never been kept. Now we are lumbered with the new Residential Zones that (without community consultation or even forewarning) were rushed through in secret on the basis of Amendment C25.

Please note: the 80/20 Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy is not only a dud but iniquitous. Housing diversity has grown and grown. Yet this was supposed to be ‘sufficient’ to cater for some nebulous population figures. What we now have is rapid creep into Minimal Change Areas where streets that were predominantly single storey and single dwelling are being transformed into 2 double storey dwellings on various lot sizes. Remember that Council, unlike others, has not limited the size for subdivision! Instead they are working on another amendment to allow more dwellings on larger lot sizes regardless of the fact that these are in Minimal Change.

The ‘proof’ that the 80/20 split is a myth and not working is provided by council itself. Buried in very small print in the Quarterly Report from September 2013, there is this staggering admission – ” 56% of dwellings approved were in Housing Diversity Areas”. So much for 80/20! And it’s getting worse! The rush is on for infill and that means Minimal Change. Yet, residents were told and dare we say ‘promised’, the following in relation to Amendment c25 which set this all up – (we’ve omitted comments regarding open space and that old chestnut – a Significant Tree Register!)

A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:

Exceed prevailing building heights
Dominate the street scape
Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
Result in the loss of landscaped front yards (all in accordance with the standards of ResCode)

The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.

Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reduction in open space, cr parking standards, etc.

Traffic and parking

While critically important to the viability and functioning of any commercial centre and character of residential areas, traffic and parking issues largely sit outside the jurisdiction of the planning scheme local policy. The proposed policy, therefore, does not attempt to comprehensively address existing or anticipated traffic and parking issues…..ResCode provides parking standards for residential development The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledges that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.

There’s much, much more in these papers, but readers will have got the overall gist by now. The take home message is absolutely clear:

Promises have never been kept much less delivered
The 80/20 carve up is failing and will only get worse – dwellings are NOT going into Housing Diversity, but increasingly into Minimal Change.
Traffic, parking, open space identified as major concerns over a decade ago has not been addressed.

February 7, 2014

Trees: The New ‘Endangered Species’

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

Another mature tree (if not more) is to go in order to make way for more concrete plinths and car park. This time at Princes Park. The cost to ratepayers (at this stage anyway) is $388,000+ according to the response to a public question at last council meeting.

We are not decrying the need for upgrades or improving areas that need it. What we are decrying is the potentially wanton waste of public money without justification. This section of Princes Park HAS been ‘redeveloped’ in recent times – a new pavilion, 3 new car parks, plenty of yellow brick roads, and ‘landscaping’.

More importantly, anecdotal evidence suggests that this Dover St car park is never full – even on weekends when sport is being played. Residents have not been provided with any data that would support the potential expansion of the car park or its surrounds. What surveys have been undertaken? What monitoring has been done in the past 5 years? Where is there any quantifiable ‘evidence’ that ripping out more trees, and putting in more paths is ‘essential’? And if a new yellow brick road is about to appear parallel to the existing roadway, then what does this say about that recent argument of ‘safety buffers’ that justified the ripping out of countless trees in Caulfield Park, since the proposed new pathway will be running close to current sporting grounds. The arguments put up in defence of the Caulfield Park carnage would appear to be cancelled by what we assume is about to happen at Princes Park. And the final clincher, – how much further open space will be lost to bitumen, concrete, and car parks?

Nor does any of this explain why the public cannot be privy to ‘consultation’ and access to the actual plans or designs. Have councillors ever clapped eyes on the plans? Have they really done their fiduciary duty and considered whether such ‘developments’ are worth the cost, much less needed? Or have they simply bowed their heads and said ‘yes sir, whatever you say sir! How high should we jump sir’?

Here are some photos taken in the past few days of the area.

January 28, 2014

Hoodwinked – Again & Again!

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

Buried in the fine print of several of these documents, some truths are finally revealed. Residents were repeatedly told by council and the MRC that the project envisaged 1200 dwellings, plus commercial and retail areas. It then burgeoned into 1500 units. Now we are looking at the possibility of 2040 of which the vast and overwhelming majority are SINGLE BEDROOM apartments! We can only wait with baited breath for stages 4 onwards, when height for the remaining buildings are revealed.

Below are the figures taken directly from the ‘Precinct Plan’ and the argument is that this is still in line with the Incorporated Plan!!!!! What bunkum and what collusion!

January 28, 2014

C60: The 1st ‘Secret’ Revealed?

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

PPS: All the documents are available from:

http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Planning_and_building/Planning/Caulfield_Village/Development_Plan_1

PS: From ‘The Age’ today!

Victoria’s racing industry pay rates run a distant last

Date: January 27, 2014 – 9:38PM

Clay Lucas

Illustration: Matt Golding

Strappers and stablehands in Victoria’s racing industry earn the lowest pay and have the worst conditions, according to the national workplace ombudsman.

An audit by the Fair Work Ombudsman of ?eastern seaboard racing tracks resulted in Victoria chalking up the worst performance in properly paying strappers and stablehands – the people who groom, feed and saddle racing horses and clean and maintain their stables.

Only a third were found to be paying their staff properly, far worse than in other states.

The audit followed the ombudsman receiving almost 100 complaints over pay and conditions from people in the industry, 35 from Victoria.

Of the horse-training businesses checked in Victoria, only 31 per cent complied with workplace laws. In NSW 86 per cent of businesses paid staff properly as did 76 per cent in Queensland.

In all, ombudsman inspectors checked the books of 86 horse trainers in metropolitan and regional NSW, Victoria and Queensland late last year.

A report to be released by the ombudsman on Tuesday cites the case of one horse trainer in Victoria whose business employed stablehands hired for periods of less than the legal minimum of three hours.

One Victorian trainer interviewed as part of the report said he was not aware there was a minimum amount for shift lengths and paid back $1985 to eight of his employees.

The correct rate of pay for strappers and stablehands is about $21 an hour depending on which state.

A trainer who was noted in the ombudsman’s report was found to be paying her casual staff a flat rate of $20 an hour, despite many working on Sundays when penalty rates applied.

The trainer back paid almost $16,000 to eight of her workers.

Of the 86 horse trainers audited, 34 were found to have underpaid a total of 61 employees almost $40,000.

December 30, 2013

Plan Melbourne: Top Secret In Glen Eira!

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

The latest example of Glen Eira secrecy and decision making behind closed doors comes with the December 6^th closing date for submissions on the State Government’s Plan Melbourne – arguably the most important document since Melbourne 2030.

Other councils:

Have published their submissions and had the drafts ratified at council meetings. Glen Eira has done neither of these things
Have involved the community in drafting their submissions. Glen Eira has been totally secretive.
Glen Eira has not made a ‘submission’ but written a ‘letter’.
Glen Eira stated on December 17^th that the ‘letter’ would be put on on its website. It is yet to appear.

We certainly do not expect this ‘letter’ to be anything other that a page or two of waffle, self congratulations, and total endorsement of Plan Melbourne. Other councils, in contrast, have taken the time and effort to analyse and (often) criticise what they perceive to be the major failings of this document. Below are some extracts taken from these submissions. We wait with bated breath for the Glen Eira version to appear so that residents can clearly see how Glen Eira is failing its ratepayers.

Port Phillip (41 page submission): Source – http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_7_-_Plan_attach_1.pdf

Council highlights its concern that the detailed initiatives and actions proposed in Plan Melbourne do not always align well with ‘issues’ identified in the Plan, nor adequately support implementation of the Plan’s strategic objectives and directions. Proposed initiatives are often lacking in detail and clarity of intent. There are also notable ‘gaps’ in potential actions which offer greatest opportunity to effectively deliver on the objectives of the Plan.

Plan Melbourne does not address how government will respond to the impacts of climate change – specifically climate adaptation to heat waves and flooding/sea level rise. This is considered a major gap in a long term strategy for the development of Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne proposes several initiatives to ‘streamline’ the planning system, including applying VicSmart to medium density housing and affordable housing projects. Proposals which limit community involvement in the planning process, or reduce Local Government’s decision-making responsibilities are not supported.

The new commercial zones reflects a ‘one size fits all’ approach and are contrary to the emphasis in Plan Melbourne on protecting the ‘distinctiveness’ of local areas and to the recognition given to Local Government’s role in planning for Activity Centres.

BOROONDARA – (59 page submission) Source: http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Building%20and%20planning/Strategic%20planning/Metro%20planning%20strategy%20discussion%20paper%20submission.pdf

Council wishes to express its disappointment at the short time frame given to local governments, the community and stakeholders for reviewing the Strategy and providing submissions. The initiatives and actions in the Strategy will have many local impacts and therefore consultation with communities is very important.

The Strategy does not state whether Local government will have an opportunity to comment on the revised SPPF. Considering that councils use the SPPF in their decision making, it is considered important that they are consulted before the SPPF is finalised.

Clarification is required as to how new locations for Activity Centres will be determined, and what measures will be used to determine the need for new centres. It is unclear if there are State-driven targets for retail or commercial floorspace that the State Government will be seeking to meet. The implications of rezoning land for commercial purposes would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

The publishing of annual housing development data to inform the development and monitoring of municipal housing strategies is supported, however the ability to gain such information on an annual basis is questioned. It is also unclear what the next step will be once this data is obtained, for example, are there going to be annual reviews and changes to the application of the new zones in response to the data received? Given that the new residential controls have been introduced prior to undertaking the strategic work of projecting housing needs, it is unclear how those projections will be accommodated in the controls.

Updating the design guidelines and introducing measurable standards for high density residential and mixed use development is supported, as is a review of the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartment development. Clarification as to how this will be implemented is required, beyond a consideration of current planning and building controls identified in the Strategy.

STONNINGTON (18 page submission)

Council notes the strategic importance of this Strategy in planning for the City over the next 40 years, and is disappointed that further time wasn’t allowed for Councils and the community to fully consider and respond to this consultation particularly in light of the timing around locally applying the residential planning zone reforms. In addition, Council notes that the State Government expects to release the final Plan Melbourne in January 2014, and is concerned that adequate time and consideration will not be given to the comprehensive comments provided by the City of Stonnington and other submitters

We are aware that the comment period for the Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy closes on 6 December 2013. To this end, Council has held two Drop-in Information Sessions for the community, launched a dedicated consultation web page on Council’s website, placed information regarding the Strategy in the Stonnington Leader, distributed an email alert and undertaken hard copy and electronic surveys to gauge local opinion on the proposed Strategy. These views have helped inform this submission

Plan Melbourne to delete the reference to within 400 metres of an Activity Centre and instead refer to identification of suitable areas in locally specific structure plans and planning controls.

The Caulfield Urban Renewal Area should not extend north of the major barrier of Dandenong Road / rail line.

Strategies requiring State Government lead, include Design Guidelines for higher and medium density development including internal amenity, ESD (Environmental Sustainable Design), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), licensed venues and liquor licensing policy, and developer contributions schemes.

The Metropolitan Planning Strategy lacks clarity with regard to ‘Activity Centres’ and ‘Neighbourhood Centres’. In some instances these terms are mutually exclusive and in others, Neighbourhood Centres are considered as a subset of Activity Centres.

There are numerous areas around the Stonnington rail lines that are important in terms of heritage and neighbourhood character. Areas suitable for additional residential and mixed-use development, including provision for new open space, should be identified through locally specific structure plans and planning controls

A key concern for Stonnington residents is inappropriate higher density development and the impact on neighbourhood character and internal and external amenity. Robust principles and performance-based guidelines are needed to inform good design outcomes that are responsive and respectful of the local context.

Another key concern is the increasing provision of one person homes to poor standards which can be seen to create ‘slum-like’ areas. Stonnington therefore advocates that greater emphasis needs to be placed in the Strategy on minimum design standards for residential apartments.

Council believes it is not appropriate for Plan Melbourne to specify that land within 400 metres of an Activity Centre are key areas to accommodate higher density housing. Concerns raised are mainly because of the confusion as to which takes statutory and regulatory precedence; Plan Melbourne (which identifies areas within 400 metres of an Activity Centre to be intensified) or the Local Planning Policy Framework, which could potentially have protected areas within this 400 metre radius.

At present there is no evidence-based link between public transport capacity to accommodate increased demand and development approvals. Council believes there needs to be greater emphasis on projected public transport capacity in the application of the new residential zones, whereby lack of public transport capacity is sufficient reason to reduce the intensity of development. For example in saturated road conditions, developments should not be approved on tram or rail corridors until it can be established the that demand created by the development growth can be accommodated.

Levels of parking provision in development proposals must also take into account transport impacts, and not solely market demand. This is of particular importance when the responsible authority considers there are alternative options to the private car available, where several public transport modes are within walking distance such as the Forrest Hill urban renewal area.

Council has noted that there does not appear to be any specific Directions or Initiatives in relation to ESD or WSUD. Stonnington Council wishes to reaffirm the importance of metropolitan-wide strategies requiring State Government lead in both these areas, and the importance of water sensitive urban design in better managing stormwater run-off.

Finally, we’ve uploaded the Save our Suburbs analysis which clearly outlines why Plan Melbourne has the potential to be a boon to developers and a blight on neighbourhoods. We urge all readers to please read, consider and then compare with what kind of effort eventually surfaces from Glen Eira administration and its bunch of ‘yes sir’ councillors!

December 24, 2013

2013: The Year In Review

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

In terms of transparency, accountability, and genuine community engagement, it is our view that this council has slipped even further into the mire. Nothing that we can see would indicate any change in the culture, objectives, and policies of the ruling clique. If anything, the situation has worsened with the continued defection of Pilling, and the gang’s ‘recruitment’ of Sounness and Okotel and at times, Delahunty.

2013 will stand as testimony to the failure of this council and its councillors to achieve anything approaching the principles of good governance and working for the community. We base our judgement on the following list of catastrophes –

The continued reappointment of Newton without advertising the position PLUS a 30 to 40 thousand dollar pay hike!
The introduction of the new Residential Zones in secrecy and as per norm, without any public consultation
The continued presence of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs on the most vital advisory committee – the Audit committee.
The riding roughshot over residents’ views – GESAC car park extensions; devious destruction of Caulfield Park trees; Koornang Rd and Centenary park proposed tree destruction.
The above demonstrate the failure to plan in a prudent and cost effective fashion. When literally millions are spent as an ‘afterthought’ on bitumen and concrete plinths, what does this say about prudence, business planning, and overall financial management?
The failure to introduce a Notice of Motion and other democratic reforms
The continual reappointments of Lipshutz, McLean and Gibbs to the Audit Committee
The formation of a ‘consultation committee’ that hasn’t played any role in any ‘consultations’ for the past 18 months and the failure to appoint the original submitters since they presumably did not meet the ‘pliable/ignorant’ requirements of the ruling clique
The failure to ensure that those who fork out the money (ie residents) are given priority in any sporting allocation especially the McKinnon Basketball Club at GESAC, and Ajax Seniors
The continual doctoring of minutes, and failure to produce answers, rather than ‘responses’ to public question
The continued approval of substandard dwellings of 8, 10, 12 storeys
The continued waiving of car parking requirements without justification
The failure to introduce proper reporting standards in planning
The failure to pursue developers for breaches of permits or the law
The continued cow-towing to the mrc
The continued ‘top down’ approach to consultation
The failure to include community representation on most committees

There is much, much more that could be mentioned. Much needs to happen in order for this council to be dragged screaming into the realm of good, open government. We remain committed to working towards this objective and continuing to highlight the shortcomings and duplicity of these councillors and their overlords.

December 20, 2013

Another Snow Job!

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

Below we feature the incredible ‘discussion’ on the Sporting Ground Allocation Policy. We urge readers to carefully note:

Delahunty’s turncoat performance
Okotel’s remarks
Lipshutz’s inanities and little games of semantics
Both Hyams and Lipshutz’s attempts to win favour with Ajax – quite frankly we do not believe a word of it!
Control vested 100% in the hands of Burke and his cohorts, especially in regards to Expressions of Interest since the policy gives these bureaucrats the authority to ‘invite’ submissions!
Not one councillor commented or provided any reasons as to why ‘indoor recreation facilities’ (ie GESAC BASKETBALL ALLOCATIONS) are EXEMPT from this policy! To our mind the reason is obvious – so that the Warriors can continue unimpeded and no one will ever know whether or not they are fulfilling to the cent the obligations of their allocations!

ITEM 9.12 – SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATION POLICY

Delahunty moved motion with some changes – ie. putting policy up on website; to help public understand role of local government in sport; the policy would apply to Expressions of Interest by ‘inviting applications from any party’ and ‘Eoi’s will only be called if there is a permanent vacancy’. Hyams seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said this was a ‘long time coming’ but it doesn’t mean that the ‘operational’ processes ‘haven’t been applied’. Said that she’s always believed that if ‘we are applying something operationally’ then there should be a policy that is clearly ‘understood’ and ‘available’ to the public. This ‘helps the public understand’ council’s ‘role and commitment’ to local sport which is the ‘fabric of our society’ and helps people participate. Council is the ‘guardian of the places’ where this happens but council shouldn’t be ‘managing that in a different way to other people in Victoria’. Said that her objectives with the amendments were to ‘make it clearer what sort of’ principles are involved, but not ‘to differ terribly much from our municipal neighbours’. Went on to say that if Glen Eira did ‘differ’ then it would cause ‘operational chaos’. Also stated that by putting in ‘subjective’ criteria this would help people understand how council sees its ‘role’ BUT there may be times when ‘we may not be able to apply those principles’. This is something that officers have always ‘grappled with’ and the policy won’t cause a major ‘upheaval’ in regards to this since it’s important to have a ‘transparent policy’. She ‘recommends’ the amendments since they don’t basically change the ‘operational’ nature of what has already been happening. The amendments just ‘make it clearer’. The changes to ‘purpose’ explain ‘why we have written the document’. Second amendment was to ‘better explain the scope and not to change it’. Said she found that the McKinnon Basketball Association and some of its members use the terms ‘allocation’ and ‘expression of interest’ as ‘interchangeable’ and this has been ‘widely misunderstood’. The third change was in regards to the table and this sought to ‘clarify how many points were available’. On the expressions of interest she wanted it better understood so ‘that’s why I put in some subjective points’ that extend parts of the community plan, health plan into this policy. Importance of community sport ‘can’t be underestimated’ but ‘operationally’ it’s important that council doesn’t ‘differ that much’ from other councils.

HYAMS: said the policy sets out in a ‘straight forward and transparent way’ how grounds are allocated. The policy isn’t ‘being done for a particular football club’ but that’s ‘not so’. Said that they ‘brought to their attention’ the ‘need for policy’ and that ‘one incident brings shortcomings to our attention’ and this is an example of that. Claimed that council even decided to have a policy before all the public questions started flooding in from Ajax. Said that the policy shows that ‘we don’t throw’ out existing clubs if they are meeting their ‘obligations’. Some people might be suggesting this but he plays for a club that isn’t in Glen Eira and wouldn’t want that to happen so he could play in Glen Eira. Some ‘suggestions’ have been that council should consider the ‘number of residents in each club’ but ‘doing that may be difficult if not impossible’ but ‘we do it for community grants in a slightly different way’. The EOI ‘supposes a community connection’ and that’s ‘important’. ‘Personally’ he would like to have junior and seniors of the same club ‘playing together’ but he ‘understands’ that ‘that was not the will of the group’. Thought that Delahunty’s changes ‘improve’ the policy ‘especially’ on the tables and explaining that these also apply to EOI’s. The real solution is more open space and the policy sets out the plan for the racecourse and will be reviewed then or other times deemed necesary.

OKOTEL: appreciated the ‘work of officers’ and councillors for the policy but ‘I have been highly disappointed with the process that council has undertaken’. Said that she had ‘asked for a process of consultation’ with sporting groups and community ‘before we put this policy to the vote’ because this is a ‘new policy’. Previously council had been merely operating ‘on tradition’ and there was ‘no written documents before us’. Because this is new and ‘none of us are experts’ it ‘would have been appropriate’ for council to ‘engage in some form of’ consultation. Therefore she ‘doesn’t feel comfortable voting on a motion’ that she’s ‘unfamiliar with’ and therefore making a decision on behalf of people was ‘inappropriate without some level of feedback from the community’. As a result she contacted some sports clubs herself and asked them if they had any comments. Said that the feedback ‘wasn’t that much’. When she raised the need previously she was told that inviting comments would only invite feedback that ‘might polarise the community, cause division’ therefore ‘it is best not to engage in consultation’. ‘I think that was entirely inappropriate and misconceived’ and that ‘we should never shy away from consultation with the community’. Quoted Delahunty saying that council is ‘guardian’ of sport. She thought that ‘partners’ is better so ‘it’s important that we do have feedback from our community’ on ‘such policies’. Said that the feedback from clubs was that there ‘was a lack of clarity in our policy’ as to clubs losing their allocations, and ‘what the deduction of penalty points would mean’ and she also ‘felt that there was uncertainty in that respect’. She’s ‘disappointed that such recommendations haven’t been taken into consideration’. She hoped that councillors vote against the policy but if not that any future review looks at these issues.

MAGEE: said he ‘disagreed with all speakers so far’. There is not ‘need to consult’ on sporting policy since ‘all that matters is longevity’. Said that clubs ‘don’t look at it as a seasonal allocation’. Said he can accept the policy ‘because it’s simple’. Said that they’re trying to do a ‘policy by committee’ and that’s not working. ‘This is a policy looking for a purpose’ and the purpose is that people who have a ground ‘are used to it’. Said that the argument that people who live around a ground have got a ‘greater connectivity’ to that ground and therefore ‘should score higher’ is not right. Didn’t think that any clubs would ever ‘fold up and move out from Glen Eira’ or that there would ever be enough grounds. Even if the racecourse is opened up he would bet that ‘Glen Eira would not be the committee of management’ and therefore allocations ‘would not be up to us’, so ‘this policy won’t matter’. He can’t see anything that would mean that ‘this policy is actually needed’. ‘The policy needs to be kept simply because the clubs don’t care’. All clubs worry about is ‘tenure’ and that’s ‘all this is about’. ‘You don’t need to go ask them that’. Said he was ‘disappointed’ that ‘we’re trying to make something that is relatively simple’ and ‘complicate’ it.

LIPSHUTZ: brought up a point about ‘incorporated’ bodies and ‘incorporated associations’. After some confusion, Delahunty didn’t accept. Lipshutz then said Magee is right in that ‘not much is going to change’. However, pavilions and grounds are important to council and clubs don’t have ‘adverse possession’ claims. So council does have an ‘obligation’ to act in accordance with policy. Said that if there is no policy then it’s ‘open slather and let the officers do as they wish’. A policy ‘gives a framework’ on how ‘things should be done’. Referred to Okotel saying that council should consult but ‘council does not consult on policies. Council consults on strategies’. Said that like Hyams he would like to see seniors and juniors together but that ‘the group’ didn’t agree on ‘this one’. Referred to sport and the ‘corruption’ that went on in Brimbank council where ‘clubs’ took ‘allocations for clubs or money or whatever’ but this ‘can’t happen here’ because there’s a ‘policy that doesn’t allow that’. In Glen Eira ‘council doesn’t get involved, council doesn’t have a say in who gets allocation’ because ‘the officers make that decision’. But ‘we set the framework’. Said that every corporate body has a ‘group’ that sets policy but then ‘officers implement that policy’. At this point LOBO VOTED AGAINST GIVING LIPSHUTZ A TIME EXTENSION. Lipshutz went on with ‘we have to have a franmework that is clear and unambiguous’. Said that the issue ‘didn’t come to council today out of the blue’ and that ‘every councillor’ has discussed it.

LOBO: said that if ‘I don’t know how minutes are taken at an assembly’ then Lipshutz should know the difference between operations and policy. Said that the latter is established on ‘legal matters’. Here ‘smooth functioning of sports club is all that is required’. If people don’t complain then this shouldn’t be ‘a big hassle’. He will ‘stick to the officers’ recommendation’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that it’s not like the officers ‘have been operating without guidelines’. They’ve had strategies and ‘conversations’. Said that there’s not this policy because of the ‘commitment to transparency’ so what’s been previously done under ‘operational’ they are now done under policy and this should be ‘open to the public’. Said this should be true for ‘all operational decisions’ but particularly for decisions that ‘affect so many people’. Council is ‘guardian’ of the facilities so they have to make sure to ensure the ‘longevity’ of these facilities. Said there are ‘principles written into the policy’ because Glen Eira doesn’t have a ‘strategy’ on community sport. Said again that her changes do not alter ‘operational’ matters but that ‘they do seek to make those decisions more transparent’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness. VOTING AGAINST – Lobo, Magee, Okotel

December 13, 2013

Agenda: Stuff Ups & Spin

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

Apologies for what is an exceedingly long post but which focuses on 2 vitally important Amendment proposals that basically admit council’s previous stuff ups, plus the public relations exercise on the C60 and Caulfield Village. Please refer to the actual agenda items on council’s website for other items including – walking strategy, sporting ground allocations policy, and some very interesting in camera items concerning the Audit Committee.

Caulfield Village Development

Rocky Camera’s report is in response to the following Request for a Report passed at last council meeting – “That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another method used by other councils.”

We note at the outset that the request for ‘methods’ is not really addressed by Mr Camera’s response and ‘structure’ planning is mentioned only twice in passing, in the entire 6 pages of script! Instead, the report is a follow up to the Akehurst comments from this council meeting and the admission that residents’ opportunities to ‘object’ to the Caulfield Village are dead and buried!

Once again there is plenty of misleading information. Even though Probuild has formally announced its intention to build 1500+ units, this report still maintains – “Caulfield Village will contain 1200 dwellings’ and ‘improvements to three main road intersections’. The report then continues with assurances that “details” are known and this followed (of course) ‘extensive community consultation’. Probuild could not have employed a better public relations firm that Glen Eira City Council in spruiking the development as evidenced by the following highly dubious claims.

This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village. This certainty even extends to the location of new roads, infrastructure upgrades, and the use of laneways. If any person is unaware or unsure of the future development of the Caulfield Village, they simply just need to turn to the Incorporated Plan. In this respect, the community’s involvement in “helping shape the future of the area” has occurred.

The degree of detail and certainty far exceeds what a structure plan could offer. At best, structure plans are policy documents, providing general guidance on future development. The framework for Caulfield Village, with precise controls, and a rigorous ‘recipe’, means there is already absolute certainty about what the extent of future development will be.

Thus, after a page and a half of unfounded assurances, the real truth emerges. All residents will be able to do regarding the Development Plan is submit ‘comments’. They will not have any objection rights to VCAT. The best residents can hope for is that someone with common sense realises that 1500+ units as opposed to 1200+ units, does in fact constitute a marked departure from the Incorporated Plan. The domino effect should then be applied to traffic, etc. But all we’re told is:

if the developer deviates from the Incorporated Plan (‘recipe’) and proposes, say, taller buildings than what is specified in the building envelope. In this case, a full town planning process, together with typical third-party rights must be undertaken. That is, if a proposal contains taller buildings than the agreed envelopes, or departs from the Incorporated Plan, the community needs to be further consulted.

What will be interesting is how ‘deviates’ is defined and by whom and what constitutes a ‘deviation’ from the sorely lacking detail of the Incorporated Plan!

There are several other admissions most notably that the open space levy extracted from the developers only amounts to $4m for the residential components. Given that the law at the time permitted up to 5% Council has again let the big boys off very cheap at 4%! Mention is made of the possibility of ‘back dating’ rates, but we assume that this will be calculated on the miniscule rates that have been part of the Planning Scheme since 2006/7 and not the uppermost limit currently available. Another present to developers!

We urge residents to read this report very, very carefully and to note the following:

The first development plan is already in the hands of council and will be made public early 2014
After so many assurances that ‘precise details’ are known about the future of this area, the recommendations confess that the C60 in effect only supplies ‘broad parameters’!

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND HERITAGE CONTROLS

If ever there was an admission of a total stuff up then Item 9.9 is the living proof. This harks back to Amendment c87 where the Neighborhood Character Overlays were introduced into the planning scheme. Readers will remember that councillors in their wisdom promised those residents who asked that their areas be included, or not excluded, that they could present their case to the Planning Panel, only to find that the ‘terms of reference’ could not be altered. Hence, all those individuals who believed council found out to their horror that their claims were not relevant to the deliberations of the Planning Panel. We also remind readers that both residents and councillors were not given the opportunity to put in any recommendations – it was all done ‘inhouse’ by officers and through the Planisphere report.

Well now (a year later) there is a massive public relations exercise about to happen, where a handful of residents from that time will get a look in. The proposals are minimalist in the extreme – a couple of more houses added to the heritage listing and basically one more street included. Of course, none of this will happen in the short term, given the length of time it takes for Amendments to get through. We simply ask why this couldn’t have happened right from the start? Why does it take this council attempt after attempt to get something close to ‘correct’?

LARGE SITES – NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

This is nothing but a confession that the zone reforms are another major stuff up and this is purely a limited attempt at ‘damage control’ given the outcry from developers. It does not excuse, nor solve the problem as we see it because:

The proposed amendment only addresses lots that are larger than 2000 sq. m. What if block of land is 1000sq.m for example?
With no minimum size prescribed in the planning scheme we can have subdivisions upon subdivisions so the myth of two dwellings per lot may stand – but the overall effect would mean 2 dwellings on each subdivision. There is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent this and we believe it is already happening.

There is much, more more of significance in these agenda papers. As per the norm, major issues are all presented at the one time so that real discussion, debate, and the prospect of intelligent and careful decision making is jeopardised. We even wonder whether councillors have taken the time to actually read all 377 pages!

PS: We’ve neglected to mention the Elsternwick Plaza item. At last council meeting the following resolution was passed – “That Council not accept VicTrack’s revised offer and continue to advocate for finalisation of the lease as per the original plan.”. This was after the Lipshutz/Hyams motion was defeated. However, being persistent little councillors, we now find that Newton has undertaken further negotiations and that there has been some ‘movement at the station’. This new recommendations DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE EXISTING RESOLUTION. We presume that the motto of the gang is that if you don’t succeed first time around, try, try, try again! It will be fascinating to see if councillors have got the gumption to stick to their original motion or whether they will cave in as per usual. This item just happens to be 9.20 – last cab off the rank when ‘determination’ and ‘stamina’ have been well and truly exhausted by everyone! Ah, the games that we play!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates