|
We’ve received the following comment from a reader and believe it deserves to be highlighted as a separate post. The issues that are raised are significant –
The Redan Road bicycle lane installation smacks of collusion – everywhere else in the municipality installing bicycle lanes only involves painting a white line on either side of the road and adding some cycling symbols. Not so Redan Road – it involved Oh did I forget to mention No doubt the Redan Road residents are greatly consoled by the fact that their already Caulfield Village impacted amenity will be further reduced by unwanted traffic treatments, that will prevent them from parking near their residences and that are being partly funded from their rates. |
GE Consultation/Communication
February 25, 2014
Subsidising the MRC?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
February 23, 2014
Trickey Dickies & Governance!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[13] Comments
Presented below are a series of pages from the various versions of the Incorporated Plans for the (euphemistically labelled) ‘Caulfield Village’. They raise innumerable questions as to process and overall governance by this Council. The first set of plans clearly illustrate:
- The April 2011 version which became the official C60 and which was never given to residents prior to the formal consultation process, and
- The latest 2013 version which is again different to one that was extant several months previously (ie also in 2013)
- Readers need to take careful note of the differences in ‘preferred heights’ from both documents.
Here’s an even earlier version that again shows the not so gradual creep of these plans and Council’s acceptance of these. In July 2008 we were told 15 storeys –
What is even more farcical is that when we compare council’s own comments on the first MRC proposal for a Priority Development Zone/Amendment C60 (minutes of 4th September 2007) we find that nothing much has changed and that council’s comments then are still valid for the latest version of the Development Plan. We quote –
(k) The MRC envisages the amendment facilitating office development of 20,000 sq.m, retailing of 10,000 sq. m (including 4,500sqm supermarket) and cafes of 5,000 sq.m for a total of 35,000sq.m. This makes it three times the size of the Glen Huntly shopping centre, with less planning control than for a simple dual occupancy.
(l) It is also important to note, however, that the actual floor areas proposed are not articulated anywhere in the amendment documentation and have only been referred to obliquely in various technical reports supporting the draft masterplan lodged in November 2006. These floor areas have also been subject to change. For example, up to 10th August 2007 the office component of the development was quantified at 10,000sqm. On 10 August, Council was advised that it had increased to 20,000sqm.
Such (road) closures, however, will also be the subject of commercial negotiations with Council to ensure fair
return to ratepayers for Council-owned land.
(o) The amendment also proposes the downgrading of Station Street in order to provide on-street carparking, taxi ranks and access to the racecourse. In effect, this results in a discontinuance of this road in its current form. No
Road Closure Overlay, however, is being proposed to address this issue.
The most damning comment is –
This then becomes a problem of a flawed process. If the path of a priority Development Zone were to be followed, when the public has the opportunity to comment, there would be little to comment on; when details were available, there would be no opportunity to comment.
Readers should also keep in mind that the subsequent C60 Amendment is literally full of loop holes allowing the MRC in concert with Council to do whatever they like. It reads:
A development plan may be approved by the responsible authority:
with or without conditions relating to the use and/or development of the land;
which exceeds the preferred maximum heights or reduces the setbacks in the Preferred Maximum Height and Setback Diagrams in the Incorporated Plan; or which alters the Precinct Boundaries or the Staged Development Areas shown in the Precinct Plan of the Incorporated Plan and in this Schedule.
Given the history of this council’s acquiescence to the wishes of the MRC, and their failures to adequately consult and act in accordance with community wishes, the above clauses should be enough to set off many alarm bells for residents.
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 14th 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 12th 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:
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 6th 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 17th 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.
