GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

March 4, 2013

When Will The Bullshit End? – #2

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

Only 2% of planning applications come to the full council for decision. Hence, 98% of all decisions are made by officers either through the Delegated Planning Committee or under ‘managers’. These committees are held during work hours, and officers have already made recommendations as to accepting or rejecting the proposal. Objectors are given the opportunity to attend, but we suggest that their chances of altering the recommendations at this late stage are basically buckleys and none!

The INDIVIDUAL decisions of the DPC are NOT MADE PUBLIC, except for those which result in an appeal to VCAT and are therefore listed in the regular VCAT Watch as an item on every Council Meeting Agenda. Official figures state that the number of VCAT appeals each year totals approximately 160 – that means that THE DETAILS of about 1000 decisions made by the DPC or ‘managers’ are not made public. Residents therefore have absolutely no idea why these 1000 applications were accepted, or rejected. No minutes are made public (or maybe even kept) and the criteria, decision making processes used to assess each application is also top secret. There is no tabulated, clear or regular reporting on any of these decisions. Other councils report fully every month so that residents know exactly what decisions have been made under the planning delegations. Below is just one example from Kingston which goes on for pages and pages. In Glen Eira this doesn’t happen. The ‘secret society’ of officers keeps everyone, and we believe even councillors, in the dark! If councillors do not even know what applications have come in, nor when DPC meetings will be held, nor are they invited to attend, then all pretense of these councillors actually representing their constituents is a myth!

At last week’s council meeting a public question on this exact issue was asked. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?”

Here is the council response to the question –

“Your statement is not correct.

Council’s Planning Application Register is publicly available on Council’s website. This Register contains details of all Glen Eira planning applications lodged and the decisions made. This is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker.

The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

COMMENTS:

The statement IS CORRECT! Council’s Online Planning Register DOES NOT tell us whether decisions were made by the DPC, COUNCIL, or a ‘manager’. It also does not ‘tabulate’ any results as noted in the Kingston and other councils’ versions. A user must first enter a street name, or suburb, and then hunt through all the resulting ‘hits’. Unless someone is willing to spend hours on scouring every single entry in the database they will not know which properties are, or were up for consideration and they certainly won’t know who made the final decision to accept or reject. The question asked for links between individual planning application decisions with those responsible for making the decision. To therefore say ‘there is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker’ is not answering the question but just affirming the current inadequacies of the situation.
Again, the Services Report is a useless document that is almost indecipherable and reveals nothing in terms of what the question is asking. We challenge any reader to make sense of the following which is taken directly from the last Services Report. Not only are they illegible, but neither link individual applications to decision makers.

A ‘new’ version will apparently materialise in March. We do not hold out much hope that this will be any more informative, nor decipherable. Will this link property address and decision makers? Will any information of value actually be forthcoming – or will it be another exercise in sham information provision?
Finally, the comment needs to be made that this is the direct result of councillors signing away their oversight roles via the delegations to officers. We reiterate – there is no councillor call in; there is no clear criteria as to when applications will go to full council; no councillor attends DPC meetings; councillors we expect don’t even get a full report on upcoming applications and most importantly THERE IS A TOTAL FAILURE FOR COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. This isn’t surprising. When councillors can’t even open their mouths and insist that public questions are answered appropriately then there is no reason why the ‘bullshit’ of reporting on planning applications should be any different!

March 1, 2013

When Will The Bullshit Stop? – #1

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

We have literally had a gut full of the way this council treats its residents in terms of their responses to public questions. Whilst falling legally short of outright lies, each response is deliberately vague, misleading, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally non-informative. Residents have to read between the lines in order to come within cooee of the truth.

What is even more offensive is that 9 councillors sit there in total silence and accept these carefully crafted works of fiction without anyone questioning the content of the responses. That is not what these people were elected to do. They have a legal and moral responsibility to provide sound oversight of council operations. That includes ensuring that everything that goes out in their name is accurate and bona fide. Moreover, it is their responsibility to ensure that what residents were promised over a year ago is delivered. They are also responsible for ensuring that council resolutions are in fact carried out! (more on this in a moment)

In this post we will examine several of the public questions asked at the last council meeting and illustrate why residents should be outraged at the duplicity of the responses and the failure of these councillors to ensure that open and transparent government occurs at Glen Eira.

QUESTION 1 & 2 ON GESAC BASKETBALL COURT ALLOCATIONS

There were 2 different questions demanding answers on what was promised in December 2011 – namely that the GESAC court allocations would be ‘reviewed’ in a year’s time. Pilling on his blogsite had this to say when the decision to award the WARRIORS the contract was made 15 months ago – “This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again”. (December 15^th, 2011) We’re now well past 12 months. Not a murmer from council about reviewing anything or undertaking a new season’s allocation!

Below are the questions and to save space we will only include one of the ‘answers’ SINCE THE SECOND RESPONSE WAS A VERBATIM REPEAT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION MINUS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH REGARDING FEMALE PARTICIPATION. We therefore have the totally farcical situation where two different questions are asked but they each receive an almost IDENTICAL ANSWER!

QUESTION 1 –

“With limited basketball courts available throughout Glen Eira can Council tell ratepayers when the seasonal allocation process, spoken of in the December13, 2011 minutes, will begin for the 3 court GESAC facility. If not why then are girls not given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC?”

QUESTION 2 –

“Can council please inform me of why the twelve month seasonal allocation for the use of GESAC basketball courts is no longer a process being adopted. In the minutes dated 13/12/2011 seasonal allocation is referred to as the on-going process for future allocation. Further to this question , who has made this decision and can an accurate audit be done on the finances of the basketball operation as per the contract originally agreed to with the occupying basketball association.”

THE ‘RESPONSE’

“As advised at the Council Meeting on 24 July 2012, the indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, development programs, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.

Girls are given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC. I have been advised that there are currently 120 girls of various ages in the Warriors Basketball Program. GESAC has more than 10,000 members. A majority of members are female.”

COMMENTS: Sifting through the meaningless verbage of this answer, we find the truth! It is contained in this single sentence –“ The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.” In other words, the promises made over a year ago will not be acted upon, much less fulfilled. The Warriors will have permanent allocations – unless they fold! Our questions then become:

Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is this not ratified by council?
Why is there still no definitive answer as to whether ratepayers are in fact subsidising the current court usage or, whether the current occupiers of the courts are fulfilling the complete terms of their contract?
It is entirely disingenuous to compare the GESAC basketball courts and other sporting ground allocations in the same breath. They are NOT IDENTICAL. GESAC allocations represents a formal contract involving the payment of monies on a regular and weekly/monthly basis. Other sporting allocations we believe simply require a ‘permit’ and money is handed over at the start.
Much of question 1 and 2 remains unanswered. Not a word about financial audits, and not even one single word about ‘when’ the new allocations for anything will start! And not a single word about who is responsible for deciding that GESAC and a game of ‘organised’ frisbee are identical and will be treated identically!
Under what precise piece of legislation are officers granted the right to make such unilateral decisions? Where in the delegations is this signing over of authority documented?
Why are councillors so incapable of simply moving a motion that states clearly that GESAC basketball court allocations will be decided by council resolution!
And why oh why do these 9 councillors allow such garbage to go out in their name without the semblance of public protest?

February 20, 2013

Residents: Always The Last To Know!

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

From Hansard (19th February,2012) –

Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park: opening
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—It is my great pleasure to rise to address the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in my adjournment matter tonight. The action I seek is that the minister attend my electorate on 12 April to open the new Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park. The Caulfield Racecourse is Crown land, granted in 1885 for use as a racecourse and public open space. There is no doubt that previous governments have delivered in creating a racecourse that is recognised as a premium racetrack on the world stage and is an international icon. However, previous governments at all levels have missed the opportunity to provide public access to this Crown land for the residents of Caulfield in the form of open space and a public park. The failure to deliver public space at the Caulfield racetrack has been evident for over a century.

One of my major priorities since coming to office has been negotiating a better deal for residents to access Caulfield Racecourse. I have been working closely with the City of Glen Eira and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to achieve this result. This has led to a $1.8 million investment by the Melbourne Racing Club to create a new park in the centre, which will feature five recreational precincts and great amenities, including a junior footy oval, a 1.6 kilometre running track, exercise stations, a dog-off-leash park, a boardwalk, a barbecue area and toilet facilities, to name a few.

I am pleased to report that on 21 April this new park will be open, providing a great new recreational facility for my electorate and for the wider community. To celebrate this I am working with the MRC, the Rotary Club of Glen Eira and the Caulfield Park Community Bank to host a community day and fun run as a fundraiser for local charities and organisations. This will be known as the Caulfield Racecourse Run and Community Day.

Charities struggle to raise funds to carry out important work in difficult economic times. I know this is a challenge, and I thought it would be good to bring all these community organisations together for one big fundraising push. The fun run will consist of a 3.5 kilometre walk and an 8.5 kilometre run around the Caulfield Racecourse. Charities, community groups, schools and clubs can register, create a team and fundraise for their own organisation. This will be a great community day which will celebrate the redevelopment of the park in the centre of the famous Caulfield icon, the racecourse. The day will see the community come together for a fun run, entertainment and festivities to celebrate what will be a memorable occasion.

We hope this facility will be the beginning of a conversation to bring local Caulfield residents to the public open space at the racecourse and create further interest in developing this great public asset for community benefit. Most importantly, many residents who I meet are still unaware that this public open space within the Caulfield Racecourse exists, and events like this are an ideal way to inform them. The City of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne. What we have done will hopefully make the best of this new park at the Caulfield Racecourse, and this event will help to deliver this.
I repeat my call on the minister to join me at this new park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse on 21 April and share in this historic moment.”

PS: Council does not appear to have any problem in doing the bidding of the MRC, via publishing the Agenda for the next trustee’s meeting on their website. This is set down for March 27th – five weeks off! Yet, they cannot inform the public of the above event. Residents have to learn about this by scouring Hansard!

January 15, 2013

Media Release

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

Bailey Reserve parking improvements

approximately 70 additional indented car spaces and a drop-off zone on the Bailey Reserve side of Gardeners Road, Bentleigh East to help alleviate the pressure on the very popular community facilities based Bailey Reserve. (sic, sic, sic)

These additional car parks will ease the pressure caused by the high demand for car parking in Bailey Reserve from residents using the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) and the extensive sports grounds.

GESAC now has more than 9,000 members and is on target to achieve more than one million visits in its first year of operation. This has made parking scarce for other users of the Reserve facilities and the volunteers who administer the clubs operating from Bailey Pavillion and the Softball Pavillion.

There are currently 355 car parks at Bailey Reserve so the new parking will increase capacity by more than 20 per cent which will assist in alleviating the pressures.

Final design of the new car parking area is underway and once this work is complete, Council will be able to resolve the final number of car parks able to be included on the site and the lead times before construction would be completed. It is expected that works will commence in early February.

Council considered a number of options for improving car parking for Reserve users. Council will be giving ongoing consideration to the possibility of introducing timed parking restrictions on the Bailey Reserve side of East Boundary Road and possible parking opportunities in the East Boundary Road median strip.

Source: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/Media_Releases/Bailey_Reserve_parking_improvements

COMMENTS

There are some extraordinary statements here. The bolded paragraph is nothing short of astonishing since it means that councillors voted for something that is not ‘final’; that could change overnight and of course will not come back to council for resolution.
Next there is the intimation that more car parking sites will “be included on the site’. Where did this come from? It was not part of any resolution.
Please note that what is missing from this Media Release is the $600,000 cost and whether the poor sods living on Gardener’s Rd were even informed, much less ‘consulted’ about this ‘development’.
Is it too much to ask that when this council publishes announcements on its website that such announcements are free of errors, typos, and in the end are intelligible – see paragraph one! After all, we imagine that the officer responsible for this website is well paid for his/her efforts unlike ourselves!

December 11, 2012

A Tree Conscious Council?

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

Tree’s Stay Of Execution Bid

Andrea Kellett

Elsternwick residents have banded together to save an 80-year-old street tree from the axe. Downshire Rd neighbours want Glen Eira Council to delay planned removal works of a massive liquidambar on a nature strip in the suburb.

The tree was to be removed by Christmas due to damage to a private property caused by its roots. But the affected owner has now sold the property.

News of the tree’s impending removal sparked a storm of upset in August, and the matter went to council, where it was found the affected property owner had a legal right to have the tree’s roots removed from their property.

Councillors voted to remove the entire tree and replace it with a young emerald queen, after arborists found cutting the roots at the front boundary would make it unstable.

But Downshire Rd residents Richard Noon has urged the council to give the tree another chance. “We don’t want to see this tree whipped out,” he said. He said a more creative solution needed to be found as the road was in a designated Significant Character Area. “We need a stay until the new owners move in, then they can negotiate an outcome with the council depending on their view of the tree,” he said.

Cr Mary Delahunty has asked officers to re-open the file. “This is one of Elsternwick’s most beautiful streets,” she said. Glen Eira Council did not respond to the Leader’s inquiry by deadline.

COMMENTS

We’ve taken a drive down this street and noted the following:

The fence/house in question has huge cypress hedges alongside the cracking fence. Nothing is stated about the cause of the cracking. It is merely assumed that the liquidambar is the culprit. What investigations have been undertaken to ensure that it is not the tree but the owner’s own hedges that are causing the damage?
There are many other trees of this ilk in the street – none with 10 foot thick hedges. How many other properties have been affected by their liquidambars?
We also note that the arborist’s report (and brief) has not been made public.
At least residents should be comforted by the fact that this time it is potentially only one tree to be removed rather than 178 in one fell swoop!

November 10, 2012

Consultation: The Truth Revealed!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[4] Comments

We must congratulate council for finally placing a document in the public domain which clearly reveals the shortcomings of its processes and performance on community consultation, plus highlighting the entire mess that is Advisory Committees. The ‘evidence’ we are referring to comes in the form of the Community Consultation Advisory Committee Meeting ‘minutes’ from the current agenda items.

The opening paragraph reads: “The Committee noted the final printed version of the Glen Eira Community Plan. Committee members agreed that the final printed version was a high quality document and that its layout and design appropriately highlighted Council services and community needs”.

COMMENT: We find it strange that the phrase “final printed version” is repeated twice and that “high quality” would seem to largely pertain to “layout and design”. This sounds very much like the “awards” that council wins for its Annual Report. That is, nothing about CONTENT, but all about the bells and whistles of presentation. The Community Plan itself is therefore not endorsed as ‘high quality’ – merely its format, and overall look. Not exactly providing us with the full ring of confidence! We also remind readers that one of the community reps on this very committee felt compelled to put in her own submission on the community plan. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of “high quality” if a committee member comes up with ‘recommendations’ for improvement!

Then comes the real nitty gritty – the admission that not everything is perfect. Note this sentence – “The Committee suggested that the following improvements could be incorporated into future Council community planning processes”. The suggested ‘improvements’ are:

“Council to adopt a longer community planning process to provide more time for the development of the community plan”. Does this mean that the plan was rushed? That time given to integrate community feedback was insufficient and deficient?
“Ensure future plans articulate links between consultation outcomes and actions contained within plans”. Implied criticism perhaps that what residents had to say was basically ignored? That the action plan had no logical connection with community aspirations – that it was set in concrete from the beginning?
“Improve induction processes for community representatives joining Council Committees, specifically, indicating that decisions are made by consensus in the Committee and that the Committee is advisory only to Council.” A really fascinating sentence in that we have to ask: does this apply only to the Consultation Committee or all Advisory Committees? If, on the one hand it applies to all committees, then we are in the territory of hypocrisy, lack of due process, inconsistency, and plain old humbug. What does consensus mean? And why is this possibly only applied to the consultation committee? In the same agenda there are the minutes for the Arts & Culture Advisory Committee. Motions, including names of movers and seconders, plus whether the motion is carried is included for this committee as well as the Community Grants Committee. The Environment Committee, which also happens to have community reps DOES NOT include formal motions but ‘Recommendations”. The names of mover and seconder are provided (and they are invariably councillors), but no outcome as to voting is recorded. Instead, we have an item curiously labelled ‘action’. Our conclusion can only be that where committees have community representatives on them there is NO FORMAL MOTION AND VOTE RECORDED. Only those committees which consist exclusively of councillors and officers are afforded this right. Of course such committees are a closed shop so the formalities of a motion and vote are permitted What this highlights for us is the failure of this council and its councillors to ensure two basic democratic rights – community reps on all committees and more importantly, that community reps have full voting rights. It also makes a sham of the minutes themselves when we see no consistency between the reporting formats for each committee. The minutes can and have been doctored at will. There is absolutely no logical and valid reason why formal votes should be taken at some committees and not at others. Furthermore, it is incumbent that specific terms of reference are set for each committee (we have been unable to find such terms for the consultation committee) and that definitive processes are set down for the tabling of minutes. These are all matters that must be included in the Local Law meeting procedures.
We must concede that our favourite recommendation for improvement is: “Committee minutes to be distributed to all members of the Committee prior to adoption by Council.” In other words, it is pretty obvious that committee members did not get to see (and therefore) comment on the minutes before they appeared in council agendas! Officers were the arbiters of what appeared in these minutes not, we presume councillors, and most certainly not, community reps!

It now remains for things to be set right via the total amendment of the Local Law.

We repeat what we have previously stated. If these councillors are really interested in transparency and accountability and proper community consultation, then the following must happen:

All advisory committees to come under the umbrella of the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law
All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit Committee) include community reps
All advisory committee minutes be consistent in reporting, format, and voting procedures
Community reps have voting rights on such committees

Without such changes community consultation will remain the sham it currently is and which has finally been conceded by these minutes. Over to you councillors!

September 9, 2012

Consultation Glen Eira Style!

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

One item on the agenda at last council meeting was the Centenary Park Pavilion and the vote for the go ahead in building the facility. Worthy of note is the ‘consultation’ which accompanied this decision and the manner in which it was conducted. The officers report tells us that ‘consultation’ consisted of:

“Following a joint meeting with pavilion tenants submissions were received from:

 St Peters Junior Football Club

 Bentleigh United Cricket Club”.

If officers had their way then this would be the end of the story. Their recommendation was: “That this project continues to the next stage – development of concept plans, costing, works schedule and further consultation with tenant clubs”. It took an amendment from Tang to get the words ‘and community’ added.

In stark contrast to this approach there’s a similar proposal for a pavilion redevelopment in Port Phillip. We simply highlight how they go about their ‘consultation’ –

“Consultation on the proposed redevelopment was undertaken from the 30 April for three weeks.

3.10 Consultation included a letter box drop to local residents, signage on site and opportunity to comment on the Have Your Say website. Key stakeholders including the sports clubs and schools were also directly consulted.

3.11 In addition a Project Page for the project has been maintained on the Port Phillip website”. (http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_Alma_Park_Pavilion.pdf)

Not hard if the inclination is there! But if the objective is to exclude community input, then Glen Eira wins hands down each time!

June 22, 2012

Budget & Community Plan: The Continuing ‘Consultation’ Con

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

We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:

These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.

What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!

These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.

PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’ “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.

Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.

Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.

The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!

Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah! Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.

Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!

Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors. All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.

June 14, 2012

Community Plan Presentations

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

Speaker #1: assumed that councillors had read the submission. Began with Open Space contributions and wondered how this was being used since it did not appear to be clearly stated, “so I can only assume that it’s being used for operation costs” and not to purchase land. Suggested that the Audit committee might want to have a look at this if it has been an ongoing practice. Next comment related to inappropriate development and the speaker reinforced the significance of structure plans which can lead to ‘best quality development’. Urged council not to dismiss this strategy. Congratulated council on GESAC but said that we’re now in the ‘post GESAC era’ and need to move on because there are other important projects to consider. Called for a ‘fresh look’ at the plan because it didn’t appear to be very different from earlier plans. It needed more ‘visionary concepts’, more ‘innovative concepts’. Stated that the Steering committee should have consulted with the people who took part in the forums ‘before rushing’ and felt this was the real problem – everything was rushed. Claimed that the council website ‘crashed regularly’. A new website was needed ‘that encompassed more than’ information about administration but that it include information on businesses, sports groups and culture. Said that there should be more stories ‘about community groups’ and more for the ‘disconnected and alone’.

Didn’t think the chamber was particularly welcoming and suggested that councillor’s motions could be put up on a screen, as could the amendments, so that the gallery knows what is being discussed or debated. A strong plea to establish ‘permanent community reference panels’ which would be regularly consulted and would cover everything from church groups to social and sporting groups. Finished by saying that ‘the negativity which runs consistently’ through the submissions should be listened to and not disregarded as a simple minority voice. Said that ‘these are community members who care enough to listen’, read the documents and they should be heard.

SPEAKER#2: started by stating that after all the consultations, surveys and consultants’ reports overdevelopment, traffic, governance are issues that have been highlighted. These issues aren’t new and have been numerous times over the years. Stated that residents have been continually told that ‘council listens’, but it’s now past this listening phase and that it should be the time for action instead of merely listening. Didn’t think that the current draft plan tackled residents’ concerns. What was lacking were structure plans, height limits, parking plans, levies. Many of council’s policies go back over a decade and are ‘archaic’ and out of date. Concluded with the comment that the community plan provides what it calls ‘strategies’ but these aren’t strategies and ‘measures’ aren’t ‘measures’. Funding for things like drains has been cut, but this is what the community expects council to be doing. Action is what’s needed much more than listening.

SPEAKER #3: Agreed with the points made by earlier speakers. Stated that when council continually puts up rates there should also be a criteria and reporting on ‘productivity improvement’ which should match inflation. These should be reported on quarterly and with clear measures on how this has been achieved.

TANG then asked any of the presenters about one of the points made by GERA about parking permits in residential streets. Asked for examples and said that the ‘solution’ was not something he had been asked about before. One of the presenters responded by saying that currently residents can receive parking permits for adjacent streets regardless of how well these adjacent streets can meet demand. Resident requests for traffic counts have increased dramatically so parking and rat runs are a problem. Stonnington has a policy where new medium developments don’t get parking permits forcing developers to provide on site parking.

TANG asked the second speaker about developer contributions levies and that when Council removed it, it was because it was costing more to operate than the monies received. Said that the majority of councils had ‘got rid of it’ or don’t ‘administer it’. The speaker responded that the Government is probably going to introduce a ‘standardised one’. Another presenter stated that it would be about 8%.

TANG thanked submitters. Said that councillors now needed to go away and reflect on the submissions. Said that he didn’t think that the plan was ‘doing justice to the broader community consultation process’…’timeframe doesn’t allow us to take advantage’ (of committee and responses and that council should take some of community views) ‘on board’. There were also ‘ideological points’ that council would ‘have to grapple with’. Stated that all the requested changes couldn’t all happen at once and they would have to be staggered over time. That priorities such as changing footpath expenditure to drains, or the pavilion strategy…’tough decisions there….we can’t do them all….some by re-prioritising’.

MAGEE: also thanked submitters and stated that putting things in writing is time consuming and ‘commendable’. Said that reading the submissions he thought that some of the suggestions council was already doing and that Glen Eira is a ‘very, very good council’. Admitted that it’s only over the past 18 months that he’s learnt ‘what it is to be a councillor’ and that the submissions ‘mean more’ to him now than when he first started as councillor. Believed that ‘I do genuinely listen when I’m told what’s wrong’…’we do have structure plans’…’it’s not policy on the run’ (advice they get is)’good advice’. Some of the suggestions put forward ‘make sense’….’there’s some good stuff in here’. Said that residents shouldn’t wait for formal submissions but contact councillors directly at all times.

HYAMS: also thanked submitters and those involved in consultation. Said that ‘there certainly are improvements that can be made to the plan’. The steering committee would meet on Thursday night. Further discussions would happen and ‘hope to adopt it’ on 26^th June.

TANG: Said that the website update would hopefully address ‘some of the issues’ raised. Said he had some ideas that would be discussed with the committee.

June 8, 2012

What Residents Think

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

Just some extracts from the first few submissions. We will put up others shortly.

“ One only example of the continuing entrenched systemic culture of intentional poor governance. Repeated unfair treatment of lies, misleading deception, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of openness, transparency, genuine accountability, responsibility, honesty, integrity, or good faith”…..”Any rate rise above CPI is excessive.”
“Everything that I’ve loved about living in this area has now gone and been destroyed. A lot of the blame I think is because of the way you councillors have allowed development to happen without really thinking about what it does to ordinary families like mine…..”I just want you to know that you as councillors will have to have it on your conscience about what you’re doing to people. There’s lots that you could do but you’re not doing anything worthwhile that I can see will help families. It’s all for the developers and nothing in the plan will stop this.”
“My husband and I would like Option 2 (Passive Recreational Space) we both feel that we are already adequately served with various sporting facilities and spaces within the City of Glen Eira.”
“The projected population/household increases need to be managed by Council and not driven by developers. It would be better to have more two or three single storey units per site which is more in line with why people chose to live in Caulfield/Glen Eira. The livability of the municipality can not accommodate any more inappropriate jerry-built future slums with their associated traffic and litter issues.”
“the area should be developed as a Australian Native Garden”
“The interviews/focus groups sample and factor analysis has given us some information. The on-line survey had Five relevant/pertinent questions, the forums as noted by me previously asked question re issues.concerns not priorities. We should be aiming for consistency of information sought across all groups.”
“”The apparent use of Pulbic Open Space levies by GE Council to maintain open space is entirely wrong. It disadvantages both developers and the public. Open space levies should be used exclusively to fund the acquisition of open space. Maintenance costs for parks should be funded from operational budgets…..Shortly after the period of consultation for the Community Plan began, I downloaded all of the documents, which included a Community Plan 2008-2013. I struggled to understand why we were asked to consider this document but continued to refer to it. Today (June 5^th) I discovered that the plan on-line has recently been replaced with a document titled the “Glen Eira Community Plan”. There is no date on the plan and therefore I do not know the years it intended to cover. I assume however that this is the document GE Council wants me to read…..My initial impression is that most of the plan is filled with motherhood statements – and fails to acknowledge and address the key concerns of the community being, inappropriate development and the impact of rates….When will GE Council introduce Structure Plans for its three significant activity centres?….When will GE Council introduce the Local Law that permits a Notice of Motion? When will GE Councillors be trained to use the microphone and to speak loudly enough to be heard by all sitting in the public gallery? Will GE Council consider establishing S86 committees as Community reference Panels to include those community members who wish to be involved in decision-making processes of GE Council?….Will GE Council introduce a policy whereby no trees will be removed without an opportunity for community feedback and without presenting the findings of the experts that advise removal?…Will GE council introduce a scheme whereby Victoria Seniors Cards are accepted for discount rates (albeit this may only be a off-peak) providing access for Card Holders to GE Faciliting including GESAC as at other aquatic centres around Victoria?”

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates