GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

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 

booran

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 19th 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 –

traffic

 

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.”

P1000052

P1000061P1000060

P1000057

 

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!

Pages from Ordinary_Council_Agenda_25022013

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.

Pages from February05-2013-MINUTESPages from February05-2013-MINUTES-2

  • 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 15th, 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!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »