GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

July 1, 2013

‘Consultation’ Glen Eira Style!

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

Residents beware! Council is pretending to undergo a ‘community consultation’ process on the Caulfield Park Conservatory. Despite the fact that the ill-named Community Plan endorses and emphasises the need for multiple methods of consultation, all that is being done in this case is a ‘survey’ with preset and predetermined questions. Far from being a ‘neutral’ set of questions, here we have questions that are not placed in context and completely fail to provide residents with the information that is essential in order for them to ‘prioritise’ a single thing. Grandiose statements such as “Council is asking residents to express their views via a survey” (from website) ignores the simple fact that there simply is no avenue for residents to write a single word about their views. It is all ‘tick the box’ approach to a predetermined and slanted set of questions.

Following a few demographic questions such as what use do you make of the park and whether the respondent is a resident or trader, the heart of the issue is presented as a series of ‘options’ that residents are requested to grade from 1 (most preferred) to 10 (least preferred). How convenient that ‘cafe’ is first in the alphabet and ‘repair/restore’ comes last!

Here are the relevant questions in the order they are presented:

Please list your preferred options for the Conservatory from 1 to 10 (1=most preferred to 10=least preferred).

Cafe – indoor/outdoor – capacity 50
Cafe/tearooms – indoor/outdoor – capacity 80-100
Children’s garden/playspace
Community room/s
Native/sustainable garden/environmental education hub
Plant nursery
Recreational/exercise area
Remove Conservatory and return to open space
Repair, restore and replant gardens
Other

No real definition of anything is provided nor the implications. If the ‘capacity’ of 80 -100 is chosen as Number 1, then what does this mean in terms of ‘footprint’ of the ‘café’. How much open space will be lost to accommodate this number since it is certain that the current conservatory size will never be capable of seating this number within its walls. And exactly what is a ‘café’? Will full meals be served? Will the place remain open until late at night? Will there be a liquor license? And what of toilets/sewerage, kitchens, loading bays, parking and general access? Will we have roads built into the park to enable access for all service deliveries? How much more land will be lost? How many trees will be placed in jeopardy?

Asking residents to ‘prioritise’ when they have absolutely no idea of what it is they are prioritising is devious, deceptive, and deliberately misleading. Yet, council has no qualms in spending ratepayers’ money on glossy, meaningless ‘surveys’ if they know it will get the Lipshutz’s of this world the result that he and the other ‘conservatives’ want!

Another issue – apart from the question of using public open space for commercial purposes – : who will pay for this ‘redevelopment’? Will council outfit the place and then simply lease it to some commercial operator as it has done with the café at GESAC for the princely sum of over $300,000? Will Council and therefore ratepayers pay for sewerage connections? Will we pay for access roads or will the lessee have to cover ALL the costs?

We reiterate! None of the answers to these questions have been included in the bogus ‘survey’. It is akin to asking people to vote on something that they have no idea of what they’re voting for. Only when residents can evaluate the options based on a full understanding of what they actually mean can we call this ‘consultation’. Only when residents are offered the opportunity to actually express their individual views as they wish, can we have any faith in any of the ‘consultation process’ that this council introduces.

June 19, 2013

Hyams: Can We Believe Him?

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

The alleged comments by Hyams in this article raise major issues.

Why should residents believe him or his script writers?
Why is this council doing absolutely nothing in contrast to other councils, much less informing the public in a clear, direct and honest manner about its intentions and the real ramifications of what will happen from July 1^st and in the coming year?
Is this the most potent example of not merely fiddling whilst Rome is burning, but the clear intention of doing absolutely nothing to review, change or modify a strategic planning approach that is clearly incapable of protecting residents?
Could anything be clearer than the refusal to change a damn thing, since according to Hyams, ‘council was happy’ with the residential zones?

Below we feature some extracts from the agenda items for the next Kingston Council Ordinary Meeting. Not only is there a lengthy officer report on the implications of the commercial zone changes from July 1^st, but actions to try and ameliorate the potential damage (uploaded here). In Glen Eira all we get is silence, inaction, and misinformation!

With a Planning Permit previously prohibited locations can be used to create multiple Supermarket(s), shop(s) or Department Store(s).

The zoning translation, if not carefully managed at residential abuttals, also has the potential to create adverse amenity impacts with the ability of incompatible land uses to establish without a planning permit.

A Supermarket under 1800m2 or shop under 500m2 associated with or adjoining a Supermarket can be constructed without a Planning Permit. The definition of Shop also includes Bottle Shop. This would mean that beyond issues of policy matters such as loading times, hours of operation or other management issues associated with facilities that may impact on amenity of adjacent residential areas would not be able to be considered.

Businesses of all sizes have made investment decision in the City of Kingston based on the Local Planning Policy Frameowrk and the application of zones. These decisions for numerous business owners have the potential to be immediately and directly undermined through the application of the Commercial 2 Zone in location where certain activities where(sic) previously prohibited.

…it has also been necessary to consider that if the Commercial 2 zone were applied what levels of amenity protection would be provided for immediately adjacent or nearby residential areas when compared with the status quo.

The work of successive council’s (sic) in developing Structure Plans, Local Planning Policies, facilitating retail investment in planned locations and assisting diversifying its employment land will be undermined if the Commercial 2 Zone is introduced to replace the large areas in Kingston zoned Business 3 and 4.

Uses that are permissible under the Commercial 2 Zone such as Supermarket(s), Shop(s) and Department Store(s) that were previously prohibited will impact on small businesses that have invested in planned locations and on community service and infrastructure investment provided in Activity Centres.

The unintended consequence of the introduction of the commercial 2 Zone, is that land uses which Council’s Local Planning Policies clearly discourage in ‘out of centre locations’, become as of right or permissible.

June 16, 2013

Community Plan Versus Council Plan

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

No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.

LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.

DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.

HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

June 12, 2013

More Spin

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

PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!

LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE

LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.

The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law. For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.

On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.

COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.

OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.

LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’ and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.

HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.

MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.

COMMENT: Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.

Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.

June 11, 2013

What Residents Think

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

Here are some extracts from public submissions on the Budget & Community/Council Plan –

Centenary Park Car Park

#1 – The plan will have little effect on the number of cars which park on the roadside. The proposal to turn the northern car park into a garden area will to a degree isolate the childrens playground and the barbecue area. The removal of mature eucalypts which are an integral part of the park is an unattractive and environmentally unfriendly proposition. In conclusion I put it to you that the expense ($600,000) cannot be justified and it is in everyones interest to leave things as they are.

#2 – currently it is only during. the football season that there is insufficient parking space. This is on Sunday between 9am and 5pm when up to fifty or more cars are parked at any one time in brady road and leonie avenue. this amounts to about 25 days in the year. the cricket activity does not attract as many cars. the increased parking capacity in the proposed development of 63 to 75 (12 cars} will have little effect relative to the current situation,…. currently having two separate car parks – each with two exitientry points and separated by the wooded area, the traffic flow is better managed…..i agree that pedestrian safety is paramount however to date i am unaware 0 f any incident involving injury. with this background i put it to you that there is no perceived benefit in spending $600,000- to accomodate twelve more cars (which equates to $50,000 per car space.)

Caulfield Park

sports Ground Tolerant Grasses- by far the largest sum is allocated for this item which is purely to serve the purposes of active sport. An equivalent sum should be allocated to serve the needs of the many thousands of non-active sport users of the park. However. by our reckoning the sum of all the other budget items for Caulfield Park is at best $291.500.

Park Pathway lighting. We assume that this is to light the perimeter path. We also assume it includes the removal of the now redundant lights which used to light the central pedestrian pathway until it was relocated. These lights are still illumined every night and serve no useful purpose. The unsightly poles should be removed and the area planted with more trees to enhance vistas, provide more shade and increase habitat for birds across the centre of the park.

6. Playground Shade Sails Oval Number 2. This is another puzzling item as there is no playground near Oval No.2. so more explanation is required about this item. If money is to be spent on playgrounds it would be preferable to install some more play equipment at the main Park Crescent playground. on the large area recently created adjacent to Park Crescent and covered with unsightly wood chips. This area could be greatly improved by the addition of some play equipment to suit the 5-10 year age group. which is generally lacking in the park. This would be a better use of the $30.000 than installing shade sails at a non existent playground

A proper study to identify and secure an altemative location for the depot. Unless a specific study is carried out nothing is going to happen and the relocation of the depot is crucial step to providing more open space in this area of North Caulfield.

An in-depth study into the impact of climate change upon the trees in the west end of the park. Studies undertaken by the Melbourne Cify Council (Urban Forest strategy) indicate that within in the next decade 27 per cent of the current tree population in the cify’s parks are expected to die and 44 per cent in the next 20 years

Biodiversity/Sustainability

Biodiversity protection is an important part of Glen Eira’s Sustainable Living Plan, and it should be acknowledged with an accountable budget allocation. All decisions and measures taken by council should include an assessment of impacts on our local biodiversity and its sustainability.

Child Care

Year after year, we are presented with child care fee rises as a fait accompli. It would be respectful-and an act of good public relations- to present parents with the reasons for the increases. I would like to see a justification for not being be/ow average of the 38 centres in Glen Eira. As a community-based and notfor-profit service, I would not expect to see these fees on par with the plethora of privately run child care services in Glen Eira. Being average amongst profit-driven businesses is not a good thing.

Is the staff at Glen Eira’s centres any better qualified? Is more money put into their professional development? Do our children have better equipment or grounds? • How are these fees justified when other services provide meals and nappies and Glen Eira does not?

I believe that price increases and indeed, any fees at or above average, needs to be explained and justified: we are entitled to know where the fees are spent and to either rest assured that this service has an advantage over others- as perhaps an explanation might show- or to choose an alternate service that supplies nappies and meals for the same fee.

May 1, 2013

The Conservatory ‘Debate’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space
[14] Comments

Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:

For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!

LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.

DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.

MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.

LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’. Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.

SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.

OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey. Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.

ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.

HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’. Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’. ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.

LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.

Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.

April 19, 2013

The Community Voice Does Matter

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

We’ve been following with great interest the Orrong Rd challenge to the LendLease application. Stonnington Council appealed the planning panel’s decision to the Supreme Court which is now underway. Below are two items – the Mayor’s statement and the Orrong Group summary of the first day’s proceedings.

590 Orrong Road Update

18 Apr 2013The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents living near a controversial Armadale development site, Mayor Cr Matthew Koce says.

Council this week presented its case at the Supreme Court, arguing that an ‘error of law’ was made by VCAT in its decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for 590 Orrong Road. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.

Council received more than 600 objections to the development, which proposes 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.

“Our appeal was principally based on the tribunal’s statement that the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration,” Cr Koce said.

“There is a lot of community concern over VCAT’s handling of the case to date, including whether all statements of grounds were considered by the Tribunal.

“These residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.

“We are, of course, hoping for a positive outcome from this appeal, one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere.”

Cr Koce has called on the State Government to make a timely decision on a Planning Scheme Amendment, which will place stricter planning controls on the significant Armadale block.

“We have been working on planning controls for this site since 2010, before we received a planning permit application for it,” he said.

“Most recently, the Government said it would not make a decision on the Amendment until the Supreme Court made its judgment. This made no sense, as they are totally separate matters.”

The Amendment includes

mandatory maximum height controls of 17 metres (six storeys)
maximum density of 50 per cent of the 2.5 hectare site to allow for open space
a maximum site yield of 250 units
set-backs of six metres around the entire site.

For the latest information on Planning Scheme Amendment C153, including the Panel Report, please click here.

For the latest information on Planning Application 0725/11, please click here.

+++++++++

There was a great community turn-out to the Supreme Court hearing, with “standing room” only for the first morning. More than 85 people were present to hear Stonnington Council challenge VCAT’s ruling. Even the ‘jury box’ had to be made available to accommodate the crowd.

Justice Karin Emerton presided over the hearing. Stuart Morris QC acted for Stonnington Council and Chris Canavan QC for Lend Lease and Larkfield. Both held the same positions at last year’s VCAT appeal.

Stuart Morris led the Council’s case stating that more than three quarters of the 450 submissions to VCAT from residents were “simply ignored”.

Mr Morris suggested that VCAT had diverged from “established practice” and its decision could be in breach of the Planning Act and in “breach of its own charter”. He stated that this case was important as it went towards “the administration of planning law in Victoria”.

Council argued a second important “error of law”: VCAT’s interpretation of Stonnington Council‘s “‘Large Site Policy” and whether account had been given to the need for developments to reflect the surrounding neighbourhood character.

If the Court rules that the case be referred back to VCAT, Council called for it to be heard before a newly constituted VCAT panel.

The Judge reserved her decision. We will notify you as soon as we hear, which will probably be in the next 2 to 6 weeks.

Our impression of the Supreme Court hearing is far more positive than previous planning hearings. We share the Mayor’s hopes for a positive outcome and “one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere”. He said “the residents have a right to speak up and be heard”. There is more from the Mayor on the Council web site.

We believe that this will be a test case and perhaps a ‘watershed’ case for planning law in Victoria. Listening to all the arguments and issues raised over the last two days we have a picture of a planning scheme that could be described as a minefield for the community to navigate. It should not be like this and hopefully this case will give a strong message to Government.

Source: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com

March 26, 2013

Booran Road Reservoir

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space
[22] Comments

COMMENT: We can of course only speculate as to the trigger for Southwick’s suggestion and what it really means. For starters, this would not have come out of thin air. There would have been countless ‘negotiations’ already going on behind the scenes with VicRoads, Council, bureaucrats, etc. From Council’s point of view we would think this is a ‘win-win’ situation in that restoring the reservoir to plain old open space is years off given council’s financial straits at this time. Remember, there is nothing budgeted for years to come. Dumping 100,000 cubic metres would become the perfect excuse for continuing not to do anything, yet appearing as the ‘savior’ of local sporting grounds!

Many, many questions need answering:

Why are parklands the focus? Why can’t the earth be transported to quarries, etc?
Is any of this dirt contaminated?
What access is there at Booran Reservoir?
How long will this go on given that planning on the ‘rail works’ is still in its infancy we’re told. We don’t even know whether this will be an under or over pass – so how will this affect the amount of dirt to be removed?
And why, oh why, does the public have to learn about such things from a newspaper and/or Hansard, and not directly from the well paid public relations department at Council?

March 15, 2013

‘Rat Runs’: What Can Be Done!

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

Bayside has a very interesting item set down for decision at its March 19^th council meeting. A major development on Bay St. has been given the go-ahead by VCAT. Concerned about potential ‘rat-runs’ and other traffic problems for neighbouring streets as a consequence of this development, Bayside queried the developers’ Traffic Management Plan and did its own research and consultation. We’ve uploaded the full officers’ report, (minus photographs and diagrams) but wish to highlight here the extent that the community has been involved in shaping the outcomes for their neighbourhoods. Of course, nothing like this ever happens in Glen Eira!

Please note the extent of the following consultation –

March 7, 2013

Residents Are Expendable

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

We’ve featured the Gardener’s Rd conversion into a GESAC car park previously. A comment from a resident’s relative has prompted us to revisit the issue. What is clear is that when it comes to fixing up council’s howlers residents do not matter. They are expendable, irrelevant, and not even worthy of “consulting” with, despite the chaos that is about to descend on their doorsteps. There has been no traffic investigation before the decision was made; no real accounting for why the original design got it so horribly wrong and no problems in suddenly finding $600,000 that is not budgeted for from a council that is cash strapped!

Here’s the comment and some updated photos.

“My parents live on Gardeners Rd, and I grew up there. My grandfather had the house built in 1952, and my Mum has lived there since then, since she was 9 years old. She was given the house by her parents, after she and Dad got married. I and my 4 siblings lived there till we grew up and moved out. I now live in East Bentleigh not far away with my family. We had the best environment as kids. Beautiful Bailey reserve across the road, and “the pools” in summer. I used to take my kids to the pools and the park too, until recently. We were all devastated when we finally lost the 15 year fight to save the pools and GESAC was built. I hate it. I will never go there, and neither will my kids. We call it BALLSAC. We watched in horror as it was built, half the reserve was turned into a carpark, and the playground was removed and replaced with the junk that’s there now. It’s been devastating to see this happen. And now…NOW… they’re carving up the whole street and turning it into a carpark!!! Right in our street, right outside our house. Mum and Dad, and all of us, and all the neighbours, are devastated. Mum and Dad say they are going to sell up and move, out of sadness and disgust. They were never consulted, no-one in Gardeners Rd was. I’d like to ask the councillors, “How would you like this done to YOUR street? Outside YOUR house?”. What a bunch of (MODERATORS: word deleted). I’m so upset but feel powerless to do anything. Is there ANYTHING that can be done? Can we stop it, get an injunction? Does anybody know? We need legal help. I really can’t believe it and I’m so so sad. This is breaking the hearts of so many people and the Council doesn’t give a shit. What has the world come to? If anyone has any ideas or some legal skill please reply.”