Glen Eira Debates

Democracy in Glen Eira is moribund. Decisions are made by this administration prior to any so called ‘community consultation’. Even councillors are denied access to all relevant data either in time for the thousands of pages to be digested properly, or with-held completely. Ultimately, all this means is that decision making and community consultation in Glen Eira is a joke!

Whether it is McKenzie or Torres, the decision to NOT PUBLISH all community responses in full on the Housing Strategy is the most recent case in point. This has now expanded to include contentious projects detailed in the current agenda. We will itemise our concerns with these two projects.

Alma Village Pop-up Park

We have to query the value of any consultation (ignoring of course the effect of the various sub-standard questions asked) when residents who decide to respond are not provided with enough information to come to some reasonable conclusions as to the proposed project. For example, in the above ‘consultation’, there are plenty of drawbacks, plus residents have never been informed as to:

• The final estimated cost of the project
• The number of residential/road car park spots to be lost
• Traffic analysis dates from 2018 and is therefore way out of date
• Not even a consultation ‘summary’ report included – it is incorporated into the officer’s report

Interestingly, this officer’s report does include the following:

Page 556 of the agenda states:All feedback received is attached.

Page 561 states: All feedback received is included as an attachment with names and identifiers removed.
One letter from a local business and property owner is included with all details.

None of these attachments are included in the agenda! Our commiserations to the officer since it is obvious that the decision to with-hold the full feedback was done following the writing of this report! Decisions on the run no doubt as a result of community criticism.

The report itself recommends that council proceed with the pop-up park, despite the fact that we are told that the feedback results were ‘split evenly’ between those who supported the idea and those opposed. When nearly half of respondents are opposed, then surely some re-thinking is necessary? But no! The project is still pushed onwards!

Circular Economy Feedback

For this ‘consultation’ we do get a ‘summary consultation’ report. Sadly, there has also been some late editing/censorship for this item. In the contents page we are told that the actual survey questions for both the ‘community members’ and for ‘businesses’ are included as Appendix A and Appendix B. THEY ARE NOT!

As per normal, what we do get is a ‘summary of themes’ rather than a full insight into what people said or wrote, plus some demographic info.

COMMENT(S)

Recent decisions to with-hold information and commentary from residents is deliberate and has nothing to do with ‘transparency’ and privacy’. If identifying information could be removed in countless previous consultations and all feedback published, then it should also apply to the most important consultations such as the Housing Strategy and the structure plans. Council has therefore entered the new realm of censorship in the hope that residents will accept the spin, and bullshit that typifies council’s reporting in these matters.

We have had of late survey after survey, where the questions fail to address the central issues and proposals of the item. Most are Dorothy Dixers, designed to elicit the response required. They do NOT seek to garner what the community really thinks or wants. They are prepared in order to substantiate the decision that this administration has already made. We do not even know if councillors have any say in the creation of these questions. The Community Engagement Committee certainly does not – when in fact they should be a vital component of the process.

But even more alarming is council’s failure to adhere to the IAPP2 scenarios of engagement and to inform residents of the ‘influence’ their input can and will have. All consultations in Glen Eira do not even come close to the ‘involve’ or ‘collaborate’ criteria. Most are simply ‘inform’ and with ‘consult’. It remains a top-down approach. Here are the selected options, now pick one! The money splurged on these bogus consultations is simply mind-boggling. But naturally, we will never be told how much!

By way of contrast, we ask readers to have a long, hard look at what Bayside is currently doing on one of its consultations, and which they have done for all of their important consultations. That is letting residents know well in advance the extent of ‘influence’ they can have. Various methodologies are then implemented to ensure these criterion are met. Not so in Glen Eira. All residents are told is that the feedback will be ‘considered’.

Here is the Bayside approach:

See: https://yoursay.bayside.vic.gov.au/MelroseStreet/community-engagement-overview

Finally a recommendation to readers:

• If you are providing any feedback to council directly, then we believe it is imperative that you also cc your comments to all councillors. This can be easily accomplished via this email: councillors@gleneira.vic.gov.au. Our suggestion is based on our real doubt that councillors are informed fully as to what residents say/want. Communicating directly with them will ensure that the ‘gate-keeping’ of this administration is reduced.
• Public questions should also be sent to councillors. We again doubt that councillors have much time to digest the public questions and certainly not too much time to provide responses in the record of assembly meetings held just prior to entering the chamber.  

Here are the closing remarks by Athanasopolous on the Caulfield Station Structure Plan which was voted through on the casting vote of Magee.

One must seriously doubt whether Athanasopolous has ever read the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, or for that matter, given close consideration to officer reports. In his closing remarks presented above, there was the statement that council does not ‘seriously consider’ whether something is ‘excellent’, ‘good’ or bad. That he says ‘is not a consideration for us’.  Nothing could be further from the truth! If the planning scheme had indeed been read then he would have found the following clauses –

To promote design excellence which supports the ongoing significance of heritage places.

The replacement building displays design excellence

Demonstrates architectural design excellence. – Carnegie/Elsternwick/Bentleigh DDOs

Planning should promote excellence in the built environment ….

Avoid visually intrusive design which confronts the established architecture of the centre and
dominates the surroundings

Ensure the highest possible standards of built form and architecture, through contextually
appropriate design that adheres to the policy statements contained in this policy and principles
of economic, cultural and environmental sustainability and universal design

Whether the design is innovative and of a high architectural standard

To top this all off, these statements from the officer’s report of 1^st September 2020 (pages 43 and 50) on the 7 Selwyn Street, Elsternwick application, unequivocally embrace the concept of ‘design excellence’. We quote:

Subject to the recommendations of Council’s Urban Designer regarding some of the materiality, it is considered that the proposal displays architectural design excellence and will be a significant architectural contribution to Elsternwick.

The design of the building achieves design excellence and will be a landmark building within the municipality

Whilst it is true that no clear ‘definition’ applies in Glen Eira, at least some other councils have taken major steps to ensure that ‘design excellence’ features prominently in their assessment of high rise dwellings. Here is what Moreland has done.

Other incredible statements relate to the simple black and white dichotomy that everyone should either accept or reject the notion of 1300 apartments. The problem with this is what is not stated. The Caulfield Station area will NOT simply include 1300 apartments. Combined with Caulfield Village the total could be in the realm of 4,400 as stated in the Charter, Kramer Keck analysis.

Even if we accept this 1300 number (remembering that heights will be discretionary and hence could be higher than proposed, thereby facilitating more apartments) his statements are far too simplistic. Allowing 1300 apartments might be fine IF –

• There was adequate open space provided
• Overshadowing was negligible and included the winter solstice
• Buildings were of the highest 7+ efficiency/sustainability
• Heritage was protected for individual sites and for surrounding precincts
• Car parking was adequate
• Landscaping did not include ‘potted’ trees
• Wind tunnels were avoided
• Housing diversity – ie 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. The Charter Kramer report states that the overwhelming majority will be 1 and 2 bedroom places.

There are plenty more points that could be added to the above. Not even mentioning some of these vital components is Athanasopolous’ way of ignoring all facets of decent planning and presenting an argument that is deliberately one sided.

Athanasopolous goes on to claim that no decision on third party objection rights has been made. That all council is saying at this point is that they will ‘consider’ the potential for this. Really? If third party objection rights are viewed as important, then surely it would already have been in the draft? Leaving everything in abeyance until the fine print of the amendment is revealed does not do residents any favours. All it does is skew the odds in council’s and the MRCs favour since going to a planning panel has repeatedly shown how these panels basically support council and developers.

Finally, if the objective is to ‘achieve the best possible outcome for our community’, then there is absolutely no reason why this can’t be achieved NOW in the draft plans and well before things are set in concrete via the amendment. We repeat what we have stated in the past –

Yes this is a ‘framework’ plan, but once it is agreed that 20 and 12 storeys (discretionary) set the parameters, then any ‘controls’ that are introduced later, will not be geared to 7 storeys, or even 9 storeys. They will ‘cement’ what is proposed in the draft. The game is already up at this stage .

We maintain that the role of a councillor is to ensure that his vote is based on sound ‘evidence’. That means looking objectively at all facets of proposals – the positive and the negative – and then coming to a decision. Athanasopolous fails to do this repeatedly. His approach is to reduce everything to the simplest black and white dichotomies, to ignore even mentioning most planning components if they are ‘inconvenient’ and to railroad through decision after decision that facilitates what most residents would see as definitely ‘inappropriate development’.   

It has become a council tradition that public questions are not ‘answered’. Instead we get ‘responses’ that basically ignore the question and substitute a myriad of weasel words, spin, and deliberate obfuscation. In short, we conclude that the outcome is deliberately evasive and potentially dishonest.

We say dishonest because at last council meeting several councillors who voted against the Caulfield Station Structure Plan basically contradicted the responses given in a public question – thereby revealing what was the true state of affairs.

Here is the question and the response. We have bolded the important sections.

Item 8.2 of the agenda is recommending councillor endorsement of the draft Caulfield Station Structure Plan. Given that this precinct will potentially house up to 8000+ individuals and contain the tallest building forms, the decision carries great import for the municipality. Asking councillors to therefore endorse a plan that will set the aspirational vision for the future, should be based on clear, hard ‘evidence’. At any stage throughout this long process, were councillors provided with hard copy research and documentation as to the following – overshadowing data; set back requirements; traffic analysis; the complete survey responses? If so, what is/are the precise date(s) that councillors were given access to each of these nominated items? If not, and if councillors have as yet not been provided with all of the above, then I respectfully submit that they are in no position to complete what should be ‘informed decision making’!

Response: The draft Caulfield Structure Plan, which was presented at the 22 February 2022 Ordinary Council Meeting, was accompanied by a Housing and Economic Analysis prepared by consultants Charter Keck Cramer.

In response to your specific questions:

•  Councillors were provided with overshadowing data prior to the 20 September 2022 Council Meeting.
•  Building heights and setback requirements and guidelines have formed a significant component of the structure plan. This work and other content of the structure plan were the subject of several Councillor briefings ahead of the draft structure plan being endorsed for consultation.
• • The draft and final Caulfield Structure Plan have been informed by traffic assessments prepared by consultants at the request of both the Victorian Planning Authority and Council. Further review has been conducted by Council’s strategic transport and traffic engineering officers. The data shows that the activity centre road network has capacity for the extent of growth envisaged. Traffic analysis and traffic management is an ongoing process and will continue to be reviewed as the structure plan is implemented.
• • Councillors have been provided with the summary of consultation responses. Copies of all survey responses and all written submissions received during consultation were issued on September 13.

COMMENT

The most important aspect of this response comes in the first paragraph. We are told that councillors were provided access to the shadow diagrams PRIOR to the council meeting. NO DATE IS PROVIDED!!!! Zyngier addressed this when he stated that councillors were given access ‘last weekend’. We interpret this to mean September 17^th – 3 days before the council meeting and over the weekend. We also believe that several Jewish councillors (and perhaps others) do not engage in council business over the Sabbath, or a weekend.

The question asked for SPECIFIC DATES to be provided. The only date mentioned in the response is September 13 for consultation feedback. It however refers to only ‘survey responses’ and ‘written submissions’ as being provided ‘in full’. It does not include emails sent to councillors, questions asked at the forums (and the responses provided at the time). One could also query whether September 13^th is even enough time for councillors to fully digest the feedback.

Secondly, ‘building heights and setback requirements’ were ‘subjects’ presented at councillor briefings BUT ONLY for the ‘structure plan being endorsed for consultation’. That occurred late last year before February council meeting with the recommendation to go out for consultation. This is completely distinct from the current situation which sought endorsement. We also do not know whether these councillor briefings included hard copy documentation or simply ‘summaries’ provided by officers! We remind readers that the original draft plan had 25 storeys and 12 storeys for the Kambrook Road area. So what is the ‘evidence’ for the changes and the evidence that supported the first iteration?

If council had been working on the structure plan for months and months as claimed, then there is absolutely no excuse for the failure to provide councillors with ALL documentation well before the 20^th September. The question and its conclusion that ‘informed decision making’ becomes impossible is reasonable and accurate. As we’ve stated several times, in Glen Eira residents and councillors are viewed as annoying impediments to the administration’s rule and power. But when it descends into evasiveness and deliberately misleading responses, then we are in deep trouble.

By way of contrast, the following screen dump, shows how far this council has come in implementing what is basically a ‘censorship’ program. Five years ago council could release far more data. Not so today.

Adding further insult to injury, Cr Zmood asked whether the shadow diagrams could be published on council’s website. Slavin responded that they would be made public. When pressed for when this would occur, the answer was ‘this week’. Two points on this:

• At the time of writing (Monday morning) we have not been able to locate the file on council’s website. Surely all it takes is the press of the computer button to upload the document? Or is this administration hoping that residents and councillors forget all about this ‘promise’?
• A recent public question queried why certain documents were not made public in regard to the Carnegie Structure Plan. The response was that they would be made public ONLY after they had received authorisation from the Minister to advertise the amendment. This of course raises the question as to why one set of background documents are to be with-held in the case of Carnegie, and why a similar document can be made public for the Caulfield Station plan. Both are structure plans; both require ministerial approval; both will eventuate in amendments. Council cannot pick and choose. And it should not take pressure from residents and councillors to ensure that everything this council does is completely transparent and accountable.

Finally, we urge all readers to carefully listen to what councillors had to say about the Caulfield structure plan. It reveals major dissatisfaction and concern as to what is being allowed. And more importantly, it raises fundamental questions as to how this administration operates and its timely and relevant release of information to its decision makers – ie councillors!

The Zyngier comments –

The Esakoff comments –

The Pennicuik comments –

The Zmood comments –

As for the Athanasopolous and Magee comments, we will comment on them in the next few days.

Last night’s council meeting made it abundantly clear how divided this council really is. The Caulfield Station Structure Plan was decided on the casting vote of Magee. Cade was on leave so the vote to adopt the structure plan was 4 to 4. Magee as chairperson/Mayor then used his second vote to pass the structure plan.

The voting was:

FOR – Magee, Athanasopolous, Parasol, Zhang

AGAINST – Esakoff, Zyngier, Szmood, Pennicuik.

What residents must realise is that the continued propaganda of ‘only the first step’ in the process and that the (much) later introduced ‘planning controls’ will ensure great outcomes, is pure bunkum! Once the parameters are set, as this structure plan does, then the eventual planning controls MUST relate to these parameters. For example: the plan sets the height of a discretionary 20 storeys for one site and a heap of 12 storeys discretionary elsewhere. The future planning controls will NOT then attempt to reduce such heights. They will simply tinker with the edges and probably provide only ‘guidelines’ for important things such as setbacks, etc. Nor does the plan provide any firm commitment as to objector rights, overshadowing just in case the discretionary heights are suddenly not 20 storeys but 25 storeys, etc.

This process has happened again and again in Glen Eira. It is a sham, that ties the hands of residents and councillors. Further, the end result will only be formal submissions to a draft amendment that means going to a panel. In our time of observing this council only once has a panel sided with residents in recommending against council.

Over the past few years we have seen this administration do everything literally arse-backwards. This cannot be anything but deliberate we believe in the attempt to set the groundwork that furthers and facilitates the council agenda of more and more growth – regardless of whether or not such growth is needed. We now have:

• Amendment C220 with its framework plan designating ‘incremental change areas’ BEFORE a housing strategy is completed.
• We have structure plans BEFORE the housing strategy
• We have the removal of residential areas from the latest DDO’s so that these have now reverted back to their original zoning of 4 storeys instead of the prescribed 3 storey mandatory that the previous Amendment C157 created.
• We have community consultation that is anything but and the refusal to publish all feedback
• We have the sidelining of councillors and the community consultation committee in overseeing the creation of survey questions
• We now have councillors asked to make major decisions prior to the full evidence being provided to them – or certainly provided in time so that careful assessment, discussion, and decision making can occur.
• We have consistent rubbish (and that is the only way to describe) the nonsense that flows from the mouths of Athanasopolous and Magee. The tragedy is that last night 2 councillors did not utter a word to explain why they voted as they did – Zhang and Parasol! Surely the community deserves to know the rationale behind their votes?

Our advice to councillors is simple. If you have major concerns with various planning proposals, then voting in favour of the proposal does not do the community a favour. All concerns need to be addressed and remedied prior to being voted in. If the plans are so full of holes, then they should be sent back to the drawing board and redone!

We will comment fully on some of the arguments presented in our next post(s).

 We would also like to commend Esakoff, Zyngier, Zmood and Pennicuik for their efforts last night. It is obvious that they have spent much time thinking about the issue. Whether the same can be said for the other councillors is questionable. They appear to be merely following whatever the State Government and other vested interests want! The victim is undoubtedly the community, and all notions of democratic and sound governance. The benefactors remain developers!

This is a very long post, so apologies. The length is due to the gravity of the issues – namely, the lack of transparency and consistency in anything council does or states. Even worse, is the fact that councillors seem incapable/unwilling to even comment, much less challenge the obvious spin and distortions that are emblematic of council’s approach to public questions on strategic planning.

At Tuesday night’s council meeting several public questions focused on the Housing Strategy consultation and the recently adopted Carnegie Structure Plan. Please consider the following carefully.

Carnegie Structure Plan

When the structure plan came up for decision at the 9^th August council meeting, both Zyngier and Penicuik in particular commented that they had been concerned about the overshadowing potential with the proposed increased heights in Koornang Road. However, they had seen the relevant documents and were satisfied that this would not be a ‘problem’. Pennicuik even stated that after talking with officers she was ‘assured’ that there would be ‘enough sun’ in winter for Koornang Road. As with Pennicuik, Zyngier also confirmed that he had ‘seen the simulation’ for the shadow diagrams. Zmood brought up the point about the Built Form Frameworks. Neither of these vital documents were available to the public. Hence the following public question –

Question:  Several comments at the last council meeting in relation to the Carnegie structure plan, were that the overshadowing and built form frameworks reports would be made available to the public. It is nearly three weeks later, and the documents are yet to appear on council’s website. Why and when will these important reports be published?

Response: They haven’t been put on the website because the amendment is yet to be authorised by the Minister for Planning. Once Ministerial authorisation is received, the full suite of reports and information will be made available as part of the formal amendment exhibition.

COMMENT

The implication of the above response is that background documentation can only be available once the amendment has been authorised for public advertising. There is nothing in any legislation that we can find which supports this interpretation.  Councils can decide what they wish to put into the public domain!

Even here, Glen Eira is staggeringly inconsistent. For example: the recently adopted Glen Huntly structure plan DID INCLUDE shadow diagrams – PRIOR TO MINISTERIAL APPROVAL! Like Carnegie, Glen Huntly is also a major activity centre. So, the question must be asked, why the far more fulsome publication of documents in one instance and the with-holding of important documents in another? Admittedly, what was published for Glen Huntly was not the entire report, and the diagrams were practically impossible to decipher (deliberate?) – but at least they were public and before any vote was taken! Here are some screen dumps illustrating this:

The result of all this (apart from lack of consistency and transparency) is that when Carnegie is finally advertised, residents will undoubtedly have to plough through hundreds upon hundreds of pages, analyse them, write their submissions, and then be prepared to front up again at a planning panel which invariably supports council in their recommendations.

When such vital issues are up for decision, then why isn’t the public privy to the full background documents which are fundamental to such decision making? Is it that council fears that if residents could see the ‘simulations’ prior to the decision, then some might actually proffer their views as to the accuracy and efficacy of the reports – and hence potentially place some doubt in councillors’ minds? Are we still in the universe of residents should be kept in the dark and only allowed a say once decisions are made?

Housing Strategy Consultation

Over the past 18 months or so, community consultation reports on various important issues have had one common characteristic – summaries instead of full disclosure of all comments, emails, questions asked and answered.  Even with the appalling and biased survey questions, residents have been denied access to the complete range of responses. The result is that when these feedback reports are presented to councillors they are forced to rely on the summaries alone, rather than having the opportunity to read the entire gamut of responses. In other words, their decision making is compromised since it is not based on complete and unedited information.

The Housing Strategy consultation and its feedback has been tainted by these processes – ie no mention of the feedback from the town hall forum; no mention of the questions residents asked and the responses they got in the face-to-face sessions with officers; no mention of how any of this fits in with the IAPP2 principles of ‘consult’ and ‘involve’. The following public question sought to address such issues –

Question:  At the last Council meeting, a resident stated that residents’ concerns at the Town Hall meeting on May 5th were verging on white-hot anger and that these concerns have not been clearly articulated or addressed in Council’s Draft Housing Strategy consultation report. This is a common theme around the inadequacy of the Draft Housing Strategy consultation and as examples, 1) Residents were on mute at the Webinar and could only ask written questions. 2) Despite over 100 attendees, the Town Hall meeting was used by Council as a question and answer session only. 3) Recent face to face meetings were conducted after the completion of consultation. Why didn’t Council use the Town Hall meeting, the webinar and the recent face to face meetings to genuinely listen to the community concern raised and document key findings as part of the Draft Housing Strategy consultation?

Response: Council is yet to decide on the final form of the Housing Strategy. Consultation on the strategy ran for over 11 weeks and there were a variety of methods used to both inform, and gather feedback and input from, the community.

All feedback received will be taken into consideration when a decision is made later this year.

COMMENT

Readers will note that the question asking for complete ‘documentation’ on the consultation was not answered. It was simply ignored with the perennial vague ‘promise’ of being ‘taken into consideration’.

The Housing Strategy itself is replete with vague promises and generalisations, especially about improving landscaping, and the importance of tree retention, the urban forest strategy, etc. Yet, there is nothing within the strategy, or the accompanying officer reports, that tell residents how this will be achieved. Numerous questions on the proposed removal of the mandatory garden requirement in areas zoned GRZ, and how this will achieve better landscaping outcomes remains unanswered. Council’s consistent response has been that all of this will be revealed down the track with future amendments! In the meantime councillors are faced with the dilemma of endorsing a housing strategy that lacks detail!

Thankfully, not all councils operate in the same manner that Glen Eira does. Bayside for example has recently completed its community consultation on the preferred character statements for areas zoned GRZ. The questions asked on this alone put Glen Eira to shame! But more significantly, they also produced the intended zone schedules that could be used to accompany the schedule changes. In other words, they did not have to wait for ministerial approval in order to advertise. They allowed residents to see their full proposals well before it got to that stage and to proffer their views on the proposals. In Glen Eira it’s all kept secret!

Here are some examples of the schedule changes as published by Bayside in its agenda.

CONCLUSION

The onus is clearly on councillors to put a halt on an administration that repeatedly fails to inform its residents; that repeatedly fails to answer (rather than respond) to public questions; that repeatedly seeks endorsement for major policies and strategic planning documents without providing the necessary information to residents or councillors that ensures informed decision making.

The onus is also on councillors to ensure that processes for every single operation is consistent – ie Glen Huntly events compared to what has happened with Carnegie! Finally, sitting there like stoned mullets in absolute silence does not get the job done. In fact, silence signifies ‘consent’.