GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

November 23, 2013

How ‘Green’ Is Pilling?

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

Here is Pilling’s response to the countless complaints that have come in regarding the Caulfield Park oval extension and the removal of 39 trees. We then feature the Friends of Caulfield Park’s answer to Pilling. In our view the writing is on the wall as to the kind of Mayor Pilling will be!

Thank you for your letter concerning the works to be undertaken to Caulfield Park ovals 3 and 4. I am responding on behalf of all of my colleagues.

I understand the genuine concerns that you have about the thirty-eight trees that are to be removed to allow these works to fully proceed. Whilst this is the case I feel it is important to emphasise twenty-five trees in the works area are to be retained as part of the proposed works and an additional forty trees will be planted in the area, including some indigenous trees that do not currently feature in the park.

Decisions like this aren’t taken lightly and all Councillors considered carefully the issues before coming to a similar view; that the long term benefits to all park users including reducing present risk issues significantly outweighed the short/medium term tree losses. Below is the background and reasons for this decision to proceed.

The Caulfield Park Master Plan adopted over a decade ago and after extensive community consultation, envisages that works in the north east of the park would separate the two ovals. Masterplans have provided Council with designs and management direction for specific parks and in some cases implemented as a whole or progressively as in the case of Caulfield Park depending on funding availabilties. They also offer suggested solutions to risk issues such as in this case and are reviewed regularly to ensure that the actions planned are still currently necessary. In this case Council concluded that the upgrading of Ovals 3 and 4 was still a much needed priority. In the 2013/14 budget $600k was allocated to install drought-tolerant grasses on these ovals and thus complete this successful program for Caulfield Park.

The two ovals currently do not make the best use of the available space. The ovals overlap which presents a risk to players of running into each other or a ball from one game coming into contact with someone playing in the other game. This identified risk puts a liability risk on Council. In previously implemented park redevelopments, Council has taken the opportunity to eliminate these situations (eg Lord Reserve, Murrumbeena Park and Caulfield Park). This same approach and process was taken when Caulfield Park ovals 5, 6, and 7 along Balaclava Road were redeveloped in 2008/9. During that phase of implementation of the Master Plan, Council planted 320 trees whilst removing 13 trees. As is the case now the number of trees removed in 2009 were kept to as minimum as possible.

There is also an expectation amongst the community sports clubs that Council will take this action to eliminate any potential risk to players.

In short these ovals are compromised and the situation needs to be improved. The prospect of reconfiguring or combining the ovals that would essentially mean a reduction in playing surfaces is not supported by Council. Currently there are difficulties accommodating all forms of community sports on the limited number of grounds in the municipality especially in junior sport. To reduce is not a realistic option nor is to proceed spending $600k on an inadequate situation.

In relation to Caulfield Park whilst the western end is totally dedicated to passive use only, the eastern end is dedicated to both passive and active use and these uses sit harmoniously side by side.

The works to ovals 3 and 4 at the eastern end of Caulfield Park will lead to these ovals becoming safer by reducing risks to participants by reconfiguring the ovals to appropriate standards.

The ovals will be more environmentally sustainable with far less water used while providing a superior surface for players and passive users alike, even in drought like conditions which are in line with future climatic predictions. As well an upgraded irrigation system and the installation of sub-surface drainage will form part of the works.

I hope that provides a more comprehensive explanation of this issue, as always I am available to meet up onsite to further discuss your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Cr Neil Pilling

Mayor

City of Glen Eira

FOCP’S REPLY

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your reply and your view of FoCP’s concerns.

I hope that you can see from the public response to this proposal that you have not made a fully thought through decision in this matter and that you will revise it to match the whole community’s expectations.

In your letter you make several points:

You mention that decisions like this “aren’t taken lightly”. This seems farcical when there was no external consultation. It flies in the face of Council’s purported consultation program. If you were serious, why were we, the Friends of Caulfield Park, not asked for an opinion? Were you trying to avoid finding out what it was?

How can you pretend that you all “considered carefully all the issues” when you did not find out what they were? Which ones did you consider? Please spell them out.

What are the “long term benefits to all park users”? Please spell them out.

Please identify which park users, other than cricketers, fall under your description “all”.

“reducing present risk issues seriously outweighed the short/medium term tree losses” What are the risk issues to which you refer? You state that “The two ovals do not make best use of available space”. You suggest that the overlap “presents a risk to players of running into each other or a ball from one game coming into contact with someone playing in the other game”. Frankly, this probability is less than someone tripping over the concrete plinth. There are seven ovals set aside for cricket at Caulfield Park. This whole weekend, at the height of the cricket season, three ovals were used for four half-day matches. People running after balls will be running towards each other, so how could they collide? Have you considered the risks to non-cricketers that Council is increasingly exposing itself to? Will you be banning walking around the oval perimeters while sports matches are in progress in order to reduce risk on Council? The bigger the oval, the bigger the games and the bigger the players and the greater the risk to non-participants (the majority of park users).

You state that “these ovals are compromised and the situation needs to be improved” Why not reserve these ovals for junior cricket, or have one large and one small one? Were these options considered? Did you consider what could be done if the tree loss was to be minimised? Tree loss seems to be at the bottom of the list you have considered.

You state that there is “an expectation amongst the community sports clubs . . .to eliminate any risk to players” . Do you know that the great majority of users of the park are not using it as part of a sports club? There is an expectation amongst the members of the community that you will not cut down trees and that you will not increase risk to passive users of the park by taking sports arenas out to the pathways they use.

You mention the Master Plan as a justification. The Master Plan is 15 years old. Communities change and it does not reflect today’s users. The imminent arrival of 1,000 new people from the C60 development was not on the horizon then. To reduce passive space is like lowering the wall in front of a tsunami. As you know, the adherence to that Master Plan has been skewed many times, generally in favour of the sports groups. Some instances are the far greater than planned Pavilion in the centre of the park, the relocation of the main path through the park (which now makes it possible for Council to seek to create larger ovals than are in the plan). You will see that the Master Plan shows an extensive region of trees along the north-south path between the ovals (check the map you sent me). Also, when is the amphitheatre to be removed if you are following the Master Plan so slavishly?

You go on to state that whilst the western end is totally dedicated to passive use only, the eastern end is to both passive and active and that these uses sit harmoniously side by side”. Actually the western quarter may be primarily passive, but the great majority of the park’s area is given over to organised sport (check the map you sent me).

You state that “there are currently difficulties accommodating all forms of community sports”. The existing ovals are seldom used simultaneously. If you want more sports areas, why doesn’t Council do something a bit more effective about using the centre of the Caulfield Race Track? This is ideal for sporting activities as trees cannot be planted there as they would obstruct the view of the racing.

Further you state that “To reduce is not a realistic option nor is to proceed spending $600,000 on an inadequate situation”. Firstly let me remind you that the contract is for $450,000 and that if you were not enlarging the ovals and taking down trees, you would not be spending so much, so it would not be unrealistic. In any case the budget provided $650,000 for grasses, not for enlarging ovals. This is clearly a new idea as you are also planning to pull out about a dozen trees planted by Council in the last couple of years.

Because of climate change the need for shade is becoming paramount to make the park safe for passive users. The replacement of 39 trees, many of which provide shade, will both reduce the available shade and increase the heat profile of the park. This exposes the park and the park users to increased stress.

We, the Friends of Caulfield Park, and the greater community who have been sending you emails hope that you will confer with your fellow Councillors and find out that there is a better outcome along the lines we have suggested.

The lack of consultation to date has been appalling. Why are you only now offering to meet us on the site. What happened to last month or the one before?

Yours sincerely,

David Wilde

President

November 22, 2013

Agenda: Recording Council Meetings

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

There are many agenda items of interest for Tuesday night’s meeting. This post will focus only on Paul Burke’s lamentable effort to maintain the status quo and not have audio recordings and/or webcasts of formal council meetings available to the public. The arguments trotted out are entirely predictable and far from convincing.

First off, readers are hit with the suggested cost – $44,000+. Next there is the ‘legal risk’ with statements such as this – Although the likelihood of a defamation action being brought against the Council, individual Councillors or council staff for comments made at a meeting may appear remote, the broadcasting/podcasting of Council Meetings increases the risk due to the larger audience created by the broadcast/podcast of the meeting.

Burke then goes on with this incredible statement – The increased risk is created due to the much wider audience created by the broadcasting/podcasting. Obviously if comments are made at a meeting with no public gallery and the meeting is not broadcast and the comments made receive no publicity it is unlikely that any action would be brought, but this could be different if the meeting is then podcast.

So, are we to assume that it is ‘permissable’ for councillors or administrators to ‘defame’ others when no-one is present in the public gallery, but unacceptable when visitors are present to witness or hear the potential defamation?

What then follows are some attempted distractors such as ‘file size’ and whether people will be able to find the ‘specific items’ that interest them in the recording. Below we feature how simple the solution is and how it does not present any problems whatsoever for Manningham. They simply splice the recordings into the specific agenda items. It shouldn’t take Einstein to figure this out.

Then comes the typical Glen Eira administration tactic of only presenting ‘selective’ rather than full and comprehensive information. Burke lists several councils and their policies and current practice. Not only is this list incomplete – but it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! For example Burke states that Frankston council only provides audio recording for ‘internal use’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s what the Frankston website has got to say on the issue –

Members of the public can request an audio recording of a Council Meeting on CD. This new initiative is to increase the accessibility of Council meetings for those unable to attend in person.

Recordings of Council meetings are available for meetings occurring on or after 6th April 2010. Recordings of Council meetings will be retained for three months only.

On completion of the required details in the form below, a CD will be mailed to the person at the nominated address. Please allow up to 10 working days for the CD to arrive.

Please note that the audio recordings do not constitute an official record of the meeting. The official record of a Council meeting is the Council meeting minutes, which can be accessed on Council’s website or upon request to Council’s Governance unit. (http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Meetings/Council_Meetings_Available_On_CD)

Burke of course does not reveal that there are numerous other councils that broadcast their council meetings. These include:

Melbourne City Council

Hobson’s Bay – Audio recordings of Ordinary and Special Council meetings will be made available for download on the internet via the Council’s website not later than the day following the meeting and will be retained and made publicly available for 12 months following the meeting date. Members of the public may purchase copies of recordings for a fee of $1.00.

Mornington Peninsula – http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Our_Shire/Our_Council/Minutes_Agendas/Council_Meeting_Audio_Recordings

Ballarat – moving towards this with a resolution passed on September 25^th 2013 – http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/1882408/25_september_public_minutes.pdf

There are probably many others that we have not bothered to chase down. Once again the failure of officers to provide accurate and comprehensive information for councillors is unforgiveable. No specific recommendations are part of the item – so it is once again over to councillors to make a stand and to earn their keep. Will transparency win out over secrecy? Will the rhetoric of increasing public interest and participation stand up or will councillors merely ‘note’ the report and consign this to the dustbin of history for another 3 or 4 years? Will Burke be told to rewrite and this time ensure that he earns his $200,000+ pa salary by providing accurate information or will it be passed off as another ‘clerical error?

Allowing residents to actually hear the continual shenanigans, the appalling level of debate, the inconsistencies, and the repeated failures of good governance is not something that this council and its administrators want to publicise. Transparency and accountability are anathema. That’s why we will continue to provide what we regard as a vital public service in reporting on each council meeting.

PS: HERE ARE A FEW MORE COUNCILS THAT DON’T HAVE THE ‘PRIVACY’ AND ‘RISK’ ISSUES THAT GLEN EIRA ALWAYS SEEMS TO HAVE. THEY HAVE INSTITUTED AUDIO AND LIVE BROADCASTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE IT WOULD APPEAR!

Greater Bendigo – Council meetings are broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7Mhz. http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/About_us/The_Council/Council_meeting_agendas_and_minutes

Moyne Shire Council – http://www.moyne.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=2562&h=0

Wellington Shire Council – http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Council-Meetings/Live-Council-Meetings

November 20, 2013

Open Space Strategy: Back To The Future?

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

The lack of open space in Glen Eira is well known. So well known in fact that the 1998 strategy made no bones about the need for council to increase and improve its open space planning and to ensure that it was funded appropriately. Now, 15 years down the track, there is a new hefty document that to a very great degree regurgitates what has been known for the last decade and a half. That, of course, leads onto questioning:

Why have so few of the 1998 recommendations been carried out, or alternatively, been completely ignored?
What guarantee do residents have that the ‘high priority’ items of the 2013 strategy won’t go the same way as the recommendations of the previous plan?
To what extent has this new draft policy been ‘reverse-engineered’ by administrators to basically present only what they want to present? In other words – how autonomous were the consultants?

On this last point we note that this company has done strategies for numerous other councils. In some of these the consultation methodology involved community forums and/or focus groups BEFORE the release of any draft. Not in Glen Eira. Here the familiar top down approach is sacrosanct.

Perusing the draft document there are countless caveats and disclaimers that somehow manage to appear in the Glen Eira version, but which are significantly absent from other work produced by this company. For example: the phrase ‘where feasible’ appears nearly 50 times in the Glen Eira document. The term is totally absent in the Whitehorse strategy and in the Moonee Valley document it appears only 6 times and in Boroondara 7 times. The phrase ‘where feasible’ is thus a wonderful escape clause from doing anything. Who decides what is, or isn’t ‘feasible’ is another issue completely and we know, don’t we, what the answer to that is!

The 1998 strategy listed 14 specific and overarching criteria against which recommendations were to be assessed. The 2013 version has reduced this to a mere 6. Significantly, what is missing from the 2013 effort are such fundamental aspects as ‘management plan’, ‘community involvement’ and the emphases on structured and unstructured open space. In 1998 we were told how much open space was devoted to sport (53%). No such figures appear now.

We raise all these issues not to decry the 2013 effort as ‘useless’ but for residents to be aware of the pitfalls and the need for them to insist that councillors do their homework and commit to firm priorities. When a document lists 30 or 40 desirable actions, then prioritising is essential, a strict management plan is essential, and a financial plan together with a solid time line absolutely crucial. Mere waffle about a possible 4 to 5% open space levy contribution from developers does not address these questions. Given the lack of open space, will council impose a higher levy on businesses? On specific areas? And why wasn’t this option included together with the C110 Amendment as other councils are now doing? Instead Glen Eira will now have to go through an amendment process which, as Hyams always likes to tell us, could take years! That is not ‘strategic’ and timely planning in our view.

More on the open space strategy in the weeks ahead!

November 4, 2013

At Your Service…….Maybe, Perhaps…..Sometime!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication
[9] Comments

From: COkotel@gleneira.vic.gov.au
To:

Subject: Automatic reply:

Date:
Thank you for your correspondence.

If your email is addressed to multiple councillors, it will be responded to by the first-named councillor on behalf of those who have been emailed. If you are unhappy with council’s response, please let me know.

If I am the first-named councillor that you have emailed, I will endeavour to get back to you as soon as possible.

Warm regards

Cr Karina Okotel

October 22, 2013

Lobo & Community Consultation Committee

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

Several crucial facts have not been included in this Leader article.

Lobo’s outburst had nothing to do with the Open Space Strategy but everything to do with the Community Consultation Committee and its nomination of 4 community reps. Readers should note that Delahunty is chair of this committee and it includes Hyams, Lobo and Esakoff as the other councillors.
Lobo was the only councillor to vote against the recommendation to accept the nominees. He questioned the process and the decision saying that councillors should be exercising their ‘conscience’ and ‘loyalty to residents’.
Lobo claimed that since the committee’s formation in 2009 there was no process involved which ‘showed transparency and democracy’ since ‘there’s nothing in writing’.
Lobo wanted the report to go ‘back to the drawing board’.
Council re-advertised its call for community reps following the applications by 4 residents. The spin was that council wanted a ‘broader’ representation. Esakoff moved the motion to accept, claiming that these 4 new people were ‘most appropriate’ and represented a ‘broad spectrum’.
Lobo also revealed that one of the arguments for not appointing an individual from the first round of applications was that he would be using the committee for ‘election purposes’ in 2016!!!!!! We assume this was a reference to Newton Gatoff.
Without pre-judging the performance of these 4 new community reps we have to ask: were they ‘requested’ to apply and if so, by whom? Were the original group of applicants rejected because they were perceived to be knowledgeable on council affairs and would question too much?

October 9, 2013

How It Can & Should Be Done!

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

PS: More grist to the mill comes from Whitehorse City Council on the residential zones. In the extract below this council makes it absolutely clear why CURRENT ANALYSIS is required in order to obtain maximum benefit from the new zones. They are currently undertaking full community consultation on: Housing and Neighborhood Review; Drafting new Urban Design Guidelines and reviewing the Whitehorse Housing Study. Only then, will they embark on shaping the residential zones. We repeat – when is the last time that Glen Eira undertook any analysis, any genuine consultation? Here’s what Whitehorse has to say. The full explanation is available at: http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html

Why do we need the Whitehorse Housing and Neighbourhood Character Review 2013?

Council currently has two main studies that guide decisions on housing development:

The Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study 2003
The Whitehorse Housing Study 2003

Both documents were prepared some time ago, and there have been changes both in terms of the housing development which taken place since the studies were prepared, and the needs of the residential community into the future.

Council faces changes in its future housing demand, with a trend towards smaller household sizes, a more diverse mix of household compositions and backgrounds, and an ageing population. The number of households to be accommodated is expected to grow.

The review seeks to ensure that Whitehorse can cater for these changing needs, while still ensuring the City’s preferred future neighbourhood character can be maintained and enhanced. It is also important that the new strategies and corresponding controls (including designating substantial, incremental and minimal change areas) reflect changes that have occurred over the past 10 years and provide opportunities to meet the future needs of Whitehorse residents.

There have also been a number of developments within some of Whitehorse’s smaller shopping centres, referred to as Neighbourhood Activity Centres. To provide greater direction in determining the form of development which may be suitable for these locations, draft Urban Design Guidelines have been prepared for most centres

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

The contrast between Glen Eira Council’s secrecy, lack of up-to-date planning, and total disregard for residents is becoming more and more evident when compared to what lengths other councils are going to in order to both INFORM and CONSULT with their residents on the residential zones. Below we feature two screen dumps from the Boroondara Council’s website on the issue. Please note that their draft document is:

Going out to full consultation
Is based on years of local analysis (Neighbourhood Character Study) and research where their municipality was divided up into 75 individual precincts. The document was only finalised as recently as this month. When did Glen Eira last perform such a study that covered the entire municipality?
The expense and technological wizardry that Boroondara has gone to should be applauded. Residents are able to use the ‘interactive’ maps to locate their homes and immediately see the proposed zoning, and the statements on ‘preferred character’ for that area, as well as the related schedules. Glen Eira in all its documents has no ‘preferred character’ statements for ANY of their zones – that would only handicap future development if actually expressed in black and white.
We’ve already noted the schedules and how vastly different they are to the Glen Eira ones in an earlier post.

The Boroondara effort can be viewed in detail at: http://www.boroondara.characterstudy.com.au/

October 4, 2013

Collusion & Deceit?

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

It is our firm belief that further consultation (on residential zones) could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community. (13^th August, 2013)

Thus spoke Council as part of the answer to a public question! The villainy is further compounded by the Minister’s mandatory release of his ‘reasons’ for approving Amendment C110 under Section 20(4) – that is, without public consultation. We’ve uploaded the complete Ministerial statement here and highlighted some choice sections below. What is absolutely clear is:

Council’s continued responses to public questions were at worst entirely dishonest and, at best, deliberately evasive and disingenuous
‘Negotiations’ between the department, minister, and Council had been ongoing well before the announcement of August 5^th 2013
The Minister’s statement reads exactly like something that would have been composed by the public relations arm of Council and he merely signed off on it.

Here are some extracts and residents should question the failure of governance that has spawned this amendment –

The Glen Eira City Council has requested that I prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C110 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, with exemption from the notice requirements under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

The Glen Eira City Council gave effect to its Housing and Residential Development Strategy (Strategy) with the introduction in 2004 of Amendment C25. Work on the Strategy commenced in October 2000, and included a community notification and consultation process. Nine community workshops attended by approximately 50 people also contributed to the development and refinement of the Strategy. The Strategy was adopted by the Council in 2002.

Exemption of the amendment under section 20(4) will enable a prompt decision on the adoption and approval of the amendment and will allow for the orderly application of residential zoning controls for this planning scheme, based on previous strategic work. It will avoid the need for a further notification, exhibition and consultation process, which is considered unnecessary given the strategic basis for applying the new zones can be found within the existing planning scheme.

As the Glen Eira City Council has requested the amendment, the support of the Council for the amendment is evident.

I consider that further notification through the formal statutory process is unnecessary. Consultation has been conducted during the development of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy and in relation to Amendment C25, which introduced the local policies upon which the application of the new residential zones is based.

October 1, 2013

Consultation Stonnington Style In The Leader

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

September 21, 2013

Dead As A Dodo!

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

The Phoenix Precinct has been moribund for years. Now it is officially dead with council’s proposed Amendment C109 in Tuesday night’s agenda. What was envisaged as a ‘grand plan’ that would look at an entire area (Caulfield Racecourse & Monash, plus surrounding areas and plan appropriately) has been hacked to pieces. The C60 was just the beginning of the dismantling. Now there is the Monash proposal (nothing definite of course!) and Council once again rolling over and complying with all developer requests – this time our old friend Urbis rather than Equiset.

The Amendment proposes to remove the Priority Development Zone and vest control in Council – which would have happened anyway with the demise of Priority Development Zones under the new planning laws. However, there will not be the NEED FOR ANY PLANNING PERMIT and that probably means no public input into the eventual plans. Worse is that the officer’s report only tells half the story. Reading this document we could be forgiven for thinking it is only about Derby Rd and a few shops. Hardly! The Monash Plan is now reinvigorated and will include – 800 student residences; retail, cafes, etc. (See: http://monash.edu/about/who/ambition/masterplan/). Yet all of this barely rates a mention. Why?

Just for a taste of what is to come, here is the award winning entry for a new building on Dandenong Rd – Source: http://www.australiandesignreview.com/news/26244-mcbride-charles-ryan-to-design-monash-uni-complex

Other Monash sites providing information on the development may be accessed at:

Your Rates At Work!

Our questions are straight forward –

What are residents not being told?
Will this be another C60 that excludes community input?
Has everything already been decided in those ivory towers?

September 15, 2013

L.A.R.G.E. Community Forum

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

This afternoon’s LARGE Community Forum had a terrific turnout and very informative speakers. Apparently all Glen Eira councillors and some senior planning staff were invited. To their credit the only councillors to show up were Lobo, Delahunty and Magee. No officer turned up and no other councillors.

Since the afternoon was videotaped we’re assuming that LARGE will upload a full record of the formal presentation on their website (http://www.largeinc.com.au) so we won’t comment on this aspect of the event. Instead we will focus on some of the questions or comments that members of the audience made and the remarks made by the above councillors in response.

One resident asked that the map of the new zones be put up on the screen. He was from Wheeler St., Ormond which is a ‘purple area’ (4 storeys). He expressed ‘sorrow’ for anyone who lived in such areas because they were ‘high density zones’. His problem was that it was also a ‘flooding zone’ and there had been some progress with melbourne Water and council about upgrading drains but ‘without upgrades of infrastructure’ council is ‘still approving development’. They went to VCAT opposing a 3 storey development and they won. But that was several months ago, before the introduction of the zones, so the resident wanted to know what this means for the new development now – ie could there be another application and a permit granted because this is now a higher density zone. The resident asked if ‘council is stronger than VCAT?’

Professor Buxton explained that there are other forms of control via layers of overlays and if there is one he felt that VCAT would uphold it – although he didn’t know the extent of Glen Eira’s overlays. Delahunty then said that council is continuing to ‘look for new areas to apply neighbourhood character overlays’ and these are ‘primarily in the green section of the map’ (minimal change). Said that with permeability controls, height controls and other things that ‘we are quite proud of’ and that ‘VCAT cannot overturn’. She didn’t forsee any change to the current flooding zone.

Another member of the audience then began her question by saying that the data that the residential zones are based on comes from figures of the nineties. Things have changed a lot since then and the floods of 2011 impacted on a huge area near her. Yet council still grants permits and hasn’t taken into account ‘greater surface’ for buildings which means ‘greater flooding’ and all this whilst there’s been ‘limited infrastructure upgrades’. Said that she lived in the ‘purple zone’ and that council has been ‘quite remiss’ in blocking themselves off from the community. (applause). ‘there is definitely no regard for us living in this area’. Claimed that she had spoken with planners at council and asked what consideration was given to ‘infrastructure’ and their response was ‘oh, we looked at it in 2000’ and that she should take it to council. Mentioned ‘schools bursting at the seams’ and whilst a state responsibility, council still has to advocate but it ‘seems that our rights in Glen Eira have been overlooked’. Schools and kindergartens are ‘bursting at the seams’ and whilst there is a train station there is no bus service’. Talked about traffic and that ‘yes’ 3 storey limit is great’ but it’s not enough.

Another speaker then said that she finds the ‘of right uses’ (ie no permit required) ‘abhorrent’ since it removes her rights as a resident to object, ‘voice my concern, to be heard’. Asked if this is in fact an abuse of administrative and legal power as well as a ‘denial of natural justice’ (applause). Buxton answered that the government has justified this by granting ‘certainty’ and removing delays therefore saving money for everyone. Said irony of all this is that there are heaps of Section 2 uses (service stations etc.) that can then get permits. Government hasn’t prohibited anything and there are no height controls for commercial areas and will be a huge problem because these of right uses don’t have height limits applied to them.

Buxton also stated that the criteria to assess these uses in residential areas are ‘very vague’ so anything could go into a residential street. Said that these ‘criteria’ are supposed to be ‘performance measures’ but they are anything but performance measures – ie will they cause ‘detriment’ to someone. These are vague and all subjective. Buxton then went on to say that a planning scheme is a legal document and people’s rights are either ‘given’ or ‘taken away’ via the planning scheme.

Several residents then gave examples of battles they had won elsewhere and the call was for ‘people power’.

Another residents asked whether VCAT could still ignore ResCode standards if councils simply defaulted to these in its schedules since VCAT often ignored ResCode in the past. Buxton responded that if specified in the schedules such as height then this was mandatory but it was vital that councils apply ‘the maximum powers they have under the schedules’. Gave the example that council could have stipulated one dwelling per lot but Glen Eira didn’t – they’ve allowed 2 dwellings per lot. Where there is medium or high density and there is no specifications by council then they will be assessed under ResCode. Problem is that ResCode only applies to 3 storeys so applications for 4 or more storeys in Residential Growth Zones won’t even have these ‘standards’. ‘No developer in his or her right mind is going to apply for a 3 storey development in a commercial zone when there’s no height control’. Also the guide that assesses higher density is ‘even less strict than ResCode’. So ‘not only do you get an incentive to go over 3 storeys but you’re being assessed against a weaker code’…’you’d have to be nuts not to do it’.

One ‘brown zone’ resident said she was ‘shocked’ by what has been said. Asked if it’s true that those living in these areas have no rights and no protection and that the lovely heritage places around her have no value whatwoever except for developers. Buxton said that ‘you lose rights if application relates to Section 1 uses’ otherwise people can still go to VCAT. (SECTION 1 INCLUDES ‘food and drink premises’ within 100 metres of commercial zones; shops, medical centres, places of worship etc.) Many of these are ‘high impact’ that people won’t be able to do anything about. The other problem here is that there are no height limits on such uses so a hypothetical could be a 9 storey application with no rights to objection next door to a single storey.

Comments from Backlash about population growth and no planning for infrastructure – transport. Buxton claimed that no government is confronting the planning for a city of 6.5 million people by 2050 because it will cost 25 to 50 billion just in transport.

LOBO then spoke saying that ‘it’s a pity the other 6 councillors did not turn up’. Said that Labor lost ‘because of Justin Madden’ at the last election and now we’ve got Matthew Guy ‘who became mad’ and is ‘on his way out’. Told residents that they should ‘go to the State Member of Parliament’ and that when councillors promise to stop development so that the ‘next time’ they come to ‘your house’ asking for your vote ‘throw a bucket of water on their face’. He then said that ‘personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree’ and that ‘I made that very clear’ and as he’s already said that ‘Melbourne is going to be like Calcutta’.

After a few more questions and comments on community activism and networking Magee spoke.

MAGEE: said he wanted to bring the discussion back to ‘some basic’ facts. Said that previously they only had ‘policies’ and not ‘zones’ and the former weren’t ‘enforceable’. This meant that ‘quite often’ at VCAT the ‘developer would win’. Claimed that ‘now’ the green areas were about ‘78% of Glen Eira’ and that developers therefore know that 2 dwellings is the maximum and that 2 storeys is the maximum. ‘that is not arguable through VCAT’. The blue zones are ‘a maximum of 3 storeys’ and the light blue is also 3 storeys and has ‘the greatest setback between the light blue and the green’. Brown is another zone with 4 storey maximum. Said that even with permitted uses in Glen Eira ‘not a lot has changed’. Said that in 2010 there was ‘quite significant’ consultation althought people might disagree with this. So all that’s happened is that the policies have ‘been changed over to zones’.

Another resident then stated that the spin doctors were outin force because the zones were rushed through and therefore they didn’t have time to consult with residents. Said that previously there were transition areas between the brown and blue zones and now there isn’t any. Asked if you own a house in a green zone and next door in the brown zone someone builds a 4 storey and blocks your solar panels what rights do residents have?

MAGEE: conceded that buildings could be 4 storeys but that ‘have to set back from 4 to 3 to 2’ and said this was a ‘natural setback’ and even in the growth zones (brown) these are ‘bordered by general residential zone’ (light blue)

DELAHUNTY: said that council had tried to have ‘transition zones in the past. Now we actually have transition zones’ and that ResCode could be applied to 4 storey buildings and council was trying to make transition zones enforceable whereas before they weren’t and now they are.

One resident got up and asked that those councillors who are present take back to their groups the community feeling that community consultation is what is needed and that rather than having the plans ‘left at the library where someone has to go with a magnifying glass’ to make head or tails out of it.

MAGEE: said that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space and that ‘there is no way that we are looking to encroach on open space’. The white areas on the maps are open space but ‘predominantly commercial zones’. Said that the first test is ‘about to come up’ in regards to the Virginia Park industrial site. Claimed that the Minister was approached by the developer to rezone without public consultation. Said that MP Miller had written to council and ‘endorsed’ the Minister’s position ‘not to go to public consultation’. Said that ‘council has actually fought that’ and will be putting it out under normal amendment processes which means public consultation. ‘These things are not debatable in council’. Said that council and ‘i’m one of them, I’m very proud of these zones’. Said that nothing has changed except that they have ‘guaranteed’ ‘maximum height limits’ in 98%’ of the municipality.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates