GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

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?”

June 8, 2012

Cram ‘Em In!

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

The agenda papers for Tuesday night’s council meeting are choka block. It’s becoming something of a trend that all the really important items are quite often crammed into one meeting agenda. In contrast to last meeting, we now have:

Several contentious planning applications
Several amendments
Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why? (Another PS: We’ve been informed that the GERA submission via email did not arrive. It can still be inserted into the agenda for Tuesday).
A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is now well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Perhaps this latter item is the reason that the accountants can now claim that the “liquidity ratio” is still around 1?
An officer’s report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

Finally, in light of a recent VCAT member’s comments on the lack of Council notification to residents about applications, the same old game is going on. This includes: 11 properties and 12 notifications resulting in 33 objections; another one is 9 properties and 10 notifications resulting in 75 objections and 2 petitions. The patterns of inverse correlations are alive and well in Glen Eira!

Several contentious planning applications
Several amendments
Residents submissions on the Community/Council Plan & budget. However, the Glen Eira Residents’ Association submission which we’ve learnt was emailed to ALL COUNCILLORS as well as administration, does not appear. We wonder why?
A financial report which states that the lost revenue on GESAC is not well over $2 million and that the consulting suites are still down $76,000. Have they in fact been leased at all? Capital works is behind schedule by $3.5 million. Again, perhaps this is the reason that the accountants can now claim that Council’s Working Capital Ratio at the end of April is suddenly sitting at 2.24!!!
An officers report on completion of buildings statistics asked for at last meeting by Tang. Of course, council does not collect such statistics and doesn’t see the need for them. What a surprise!

We urge all residents to read the public submissions. They are not complimentary. Most highlight the fact that the Plans either do not address the real problems clearly enough and that it is again just more of the same! We will feature these more prominently in the days ahead.

PS: we’ve had a closer look at the Glen Huntly Rd application for 14 units. The Ron Torres report informs readers that this is in a Housing Diversity Area, along tram lines, but abutts a Minimal Change Area. So far, so good. What we do have an issue with is the (deliberately?) misleading language. Torres for example refers to the whizz bang proposed c90 Amendment (transition zone) and states: “Council’s proposed Amendement C90 (Transition Sites in Housing Diversity abutting a Minimal Change Area) sets prescriptive measures to achieve development respectful of the character of adjoining sites in Minimal Change Areas”. Yet, when one looks back to the minutes of August 30th 2011, we find that this Amendment is described as “Through this proposed amendment Council is seeking to reinforce and add clarity by introducing and adding prescription to the above policy requirement. However, if approved, it would still be (only) a policy and not a control”.

Subtle, but also misleading! Next the Torres report goes on to argue that the conditions imposed would make things all right. However, these conditions do NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES ON TRAM LINES AS STATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The Amendment specifically states “The threshold position does not apply to sites located along a tram route …”. Isn’t it time that the reports written by officers were 100% accurate and that the language used wasn’t designed to mislead and deceive?

May 16, 2012

Appeal Rights – Going, Going,….Gone?

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

State moves to reduce building appeal rights

Jason Dowling

May 16, 2012

AN OVERHAUL of Victoria’s planning laws will begin next week when Planning Minister Matthew Guy introduces legislation that could mean up to 11,000 building permits being assessed annually without the current notification to neighbours or appeal rights. The government said the changes would apply to ”small-scale, low-impact applications such as home extensions and small works such as fences”.

But a detailed ministerial advisory report released last Friday indicates the new system would also be used for new buildings and subdivisions.

Council and community groups say the public is being kept in the dark on the extent of the planning changes, known as ”code assess”, including what rights of appeal will remain and if residents will be notified if next door decides to add a second storey.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the changes were code for ”unchecked development in our suburbs”. ”It will strip away a person’s fundamental right to say no to inappropriate development,” he warned.

Mr Guy told a parliamentary committee yesterday the planning changes would be for ”small” building applications.

”Where we have those small-scale low-impact applications, that’s where I see in residential areas a code assessment model brought forward and that may be for a pergola [or] home extension,” he said. ”Home extensions constitute around 20 per cent of the 55,000 permits that go through the planning system every year,” he said.

Mr Guy said most people did not care if they had no say over their neighbour renovating.

”The vast majority of Victorians want to have a say on planning, not around someone’s pergola or home extension. It is whether an eight-storey building can be built next to them, for instance,” he said.

The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said the planning changes should include the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments. ”We would ask that the whole system looks at multiple storeys,” she said. ”If we are just going to play around at the sides then we are not going to improve the system.”

But Ian Wood from Save Our Suburbs said there had not been enough community consultation about the planning changes. He said giving the community notification and appeal rights on planning ”leads to better planning outcomes and more accountability”.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said the government should make clear the planning changes before they were introduced to Parliament.

RMIT planning expert Michael Buxton said the government’s planning review was a missed opportunity.

”For example, one way to reduce work loads [of councils] is to introduce mandatory height controls in various areas so developers know that here we can build a 30-storey tower, there we can build a seven and there it is only two, and that would reduce the workload for councils overnight, that kind of certainty,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said while councils welcomed planning changes to reduce red tape, they would not support the fast-tracking of multi-unit developments.

May 15, 2012

More Smoke & Mirrors: Booran Rd Reservoir

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

The so called ‘consultation’ announcement went up on council’s website today together with the usual indecipherable ‘design’. What’s remarkable about this announcement is:

The 2012/13 budget does not assign any funding to this project until years down the track – ie “$4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019”.
Why then is public consultation being held now – 5 years at least before anything will be done?

Here is our interpretation of these events. You have a mock consultation and get council to ratify one particular (predetermined?) plan. It is then set in concrete regardless of the fact that a new council will be coming in next year which may have a different vision. The argument of course will be –“oh we’ve already got a master plan and spent so much money on this that we can’t really change things now”. This is typical administration tactics that we observe time and time again. The identical thing happened with the Caulfield Park Pavilion and Princes Park. Master plans sit there for at least a decade before anything happens.

Please note: we do not object to master plans per se. But when funding is not available for another 5 years at least, and this council is facing a major cash crisis, why has at least $60,000 (according to last year’s budget) been spent on a design that simply might be ‘old hat’ in 5 years time? What, after all, is the rush for a decision now when the money is simply not available? Why can’t the new council make such an important decision? Or is this just another means of hog-tying any recalcitrant new councillor?

May 6, 2012

Council Plan: Planning & Development

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

Below is the section on Planning & Development from the Council Action Plan for 2012/3. We’ve numbered each ‘activity’ for ease of following.

Strategic Activity	Action	Measure
Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City.	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.	Report the number of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly
2. Enforce the provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and building control requirements across the City as well as compliance with any planning permits.	Conduct proactive site inspections for compliance with planning permit conditions and Local Law requirements, and investigate building enforcement matters. Enforce building control requirements.	300 proactive site inspections completed 200 building enforcement matters investigated
3. Ensure new multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas.	Make decisions in accordance with Council’s Minimal Change area policy with an emphasis on Neighbourhood Character.	Report the number of neighbourhood character assessments carried out on residential developments within Minimal Change areas quarterly.
4. Strengthen town planning protection of residential areas identified as having significant character.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which uses the Neighbourhood Character overlay to better protect areas displaying significant character.	Following a report of independent Panel, Neighbourhood Character Overlay actioned in accordance with Council resolution
5. Reduce the intensity of residential development within Housing Diversity areas which interface with minimal change areas.	Prepare a planning scheme amendment which moderates the intensity of residential development at the interface of the Housing diversity/ Minimal Change policy areas.	Once authorisation for the planning scheme amendment is obtained from State Government place the Transitions Policy on public exhibition
6. Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process.	Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes.	Publish a Glen Eira News article
7. Provide an opportunity for all residents to be informed and to participate in town planning applications where they (and others) object.	Maintain both the non-statutory planning Conference (Council decision by resolution) and Delegated Planning Committee as forums for resident involvement in the town planning process.	Report on a quarterly basis the number of planning conferences and Delegated Planning Committee meetings held
8. Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process.	Review the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) process and introduce process improvement which benefits all parties.	Trial a mediation process and report to Council on the results. Prove an information video which explains the DPC process for the benefit of residents involved
9. Ensure residents and ratepayers have access to simple and easy to use information about the Council town planning process, the responsibilities of developers and how to participate in the process.	Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) factsheet on town planning processes and controls	FAQ fact sheet developed and posted on the Council website.
10. Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers	Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process and identify areas for improvement	Report survey results back to Council
11. Encourage environmentally sustainable design (ESD) for new buildings.	Produce a standard information kit for planning applications to define ESD and Water Sensitive Urban Design in developments	Information kit distributed and placed on council website

QUESTION #1: Do the listed Measures really ‘measure’ what the ‘action’ proposes?

We are bemused by the notion that merely listing the ‘number’ of applications can in any shape or form influence the nature of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom unit developments in our neighbourhoods.
Measures 1 and 3 are practically identical, and further, simple ‘reporting’ on the ‘number’ of assessments does not influence the outcome of those assessments.
When there are over 1200 applications per year ,and consistently growing, do 200 and even 300 ‘proactive’ inspections ensure sufficient supervision? Also, what if any action follows such inspections? For example: does Council pursue developers for infringements? How many? How often?
Measures 1, 2 and 3 are identical to those listed in the 2011/12 Action Plan – despite the increase in applications. Hence nothing has changed. The budget and Council Plan promise the maintaining of existing services. Keeping the same target does not meet this objective. More importantly, Council has failed to act in accordance with its own promises. THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN BOTH MINIMAL CHANGE AND HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED. What has been provided in the Quarterly Reports are PERCENTAGES and even these do not provide any guidance on the NUMBERS for Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change.
Encouraging ‘community involvement’ in the planning process is admirable. However the Action relates to the Fast Track program and can hardly be said to apply to the vast majority of residents. The program is primarily geared to developers. Further an article in the Glen Eira News is hardly a convincing ‘measure’ of ‘support’.
Item 10 speaks of broad issues such as the MSS, and the Planning Scheme. The objective is to ensure that ‘it meets the needs’ of the community. But once again, the actions and measures employed to achieve this are meaningless – ie. a ‘survey’ of participants in the DPC and the ‘reporting’ of results. Readers may remember that this is really a blast from the past in that years ago, such surveys were conducted and were actually published in Council minutes.

QUESTION #2: Do any of these ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ solve the planning issues as repeatedly stated by residents?

Nothing new, or effective, has been done in relation to the Planning Scheme itself. The current situation remains. References to ‘transition policy’ refer to last year’s resolution where all ‘transition’ means is a greater setback for multiple storeys, rather than an actual ‘transition zone’ that takes in a specific area. Residents can therefore still find themselves living next to 3, 4 or even 5 stories if they happen to abut Housing Diversity Areas. The same may be said for the recent C87 decision to go to a Panel. The Amendment covers less than 3% of the municipality and both residents and councillors were never provided with the opportunity to submit their own recommendations or suggestions for inclusion in this overlay.
Information sheets are fine as far as they go. There already are plenty of ‘information sheets’ available on Council’s website. Will this just be more of the same?

CONCLUSIONS

There’s plenty more that we could say – but the post would be far too long. What’s particularly disappointing is that after all the hullaballoo about ‘consulting’ with the community and acknowledging the angst that inappropriate development is causing, this Action Plan does not deviate one iota in any meaningful sense from the set in concrete agenda of this council. The Planning scheme will only be tinkered with, and the essential questions as to the 80/20 divide, structure plans, height limits, public realm policies, etc. remain untouched. Perhaps in the end Council could have saved themselves mega-bucks rather than going through the charade of ‘intensive community consultation’ – especially when there was never any intention to actually do anything to remedy what residents see as intolerable.

April 26, 2012

‘Development’ Or More Waste?

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

From Council’s website –

Glen Eira City Council is currently finalising a proposed play space project at Murrumbeena Park on Kangaroo Road.

The proposal sees the removal of the existing playground adjacent to the main sports oval and the creation of a new play space in the eastern side of the park. The design incorporates a number of leading edge components and treatments which will make the playspace a model for future developments.

The design goes beyond any existing playground and merges traditional play equipment with interactive landscaping, family picnic areas, tree plantings and facilities. It provides areas from toddlers to more active adolescents and can be accessed by wheelchairs and prams.

In January, the Victorian Government announced a grant of $258,921 to assist in the construction of the Murrumbeena play space as part of Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program.

The project is listed as an item for consideration as part of Council’s 2012–13 Budget.

An opportunity to view the plans will be available at Murrumbeena Park Pavilion, Kangaroo Road on Thursday 24 May from 6.30pm to7.30pm. This will include a brief presentation by the play space designer and Council officers will be available to clarify any issues and answer any questions.

If you require further information, contact Council’s Service Centre on 9524 3333 or email recservices@gleneira.vic.gov.au

COMMENTS

What has happened to ‘community consultation’ re the design? One hour will definitely give residents ample opportunity to view and comment on the design, won’t it? Could it possibly be that after the fiasco of Packer Park the decision was NOT TO ENGAGE with the community and seek feedback?
No mention of the $700,000 that will come of ratepayers’ pockets!
Why are all designs produced by this council so ‘cartoonish’ and lacking in detail?
Risk management would certainly be an issue with this design given that the goal posts sit practically on the edge of the path/play areas. Will this mean that kiddies have to dodge footballs, soccer balls, etc? Or will council suddenly decide that they have to ‘relocate’ the sporting grounds at the cost of mega bucks? Or will we now have a 20 foot wire mesh fence to cordon off the sporting oval from the ‘development’?
Why are we spending $1,000,000 when this council has been classified as ‘high risk’ and we are facing a ‘cash crisis’ and a playground is already in existence at the park?

April 23, 2012

GESAC & Residents: The Last To Be Told!

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

After a barrage of questions on the GESAC FACEBOOK page from residents asking for an opening date for this mega complex there has finally appeared some response from Council after nearly a month of total silence.

The straw which may have finally broken the camel’s back was this comment: “Just got a email sayhing sport stadium season starts on may 14th Does that mean the whole centre is open then? Some communication would be helpful to those juggling memberships etc until you open.”

The answer? –“Planning for opening is well under way with GESAC staff almost complete on pre-opening activities. However, we are still waiting on the builder to provide the official date of handover so that an official opening can be communicated.”

Again we have to lament the lack of proper communication with residents by this Council. As of 5.15pm Monday the 23 April there is no word on council’s GESAC site, nor its website as to what is happening. We also deplore the fact that ostensibly it is only members have been informed via email of a ‘potential’ opening date instead of every single ratepayer in Glen Eira who is funding this centre.

Further criticism should be levelled at the content of this news and its ambiguity, if not downright contradiction. Residents have been told that there will NOT BE A STAGED OPENING because of contractual and safety issues. Now it looks like the story might have changed! But, we are still left in the dark as to whether:

1. Has ‘practical completion’ been done?

2. What is the definite date of opening for the entire centre?

3. If there is a partial opening, then why were residents informed to the contrary just weeks ago?

4. Why is Council still waiting on the ‘builder’? Surely at this late stage there should not be any uncertainty?

The entire GESAC project has been characterised by secrecy, the appalling lack of timely information, and the failure to be fully transparent and accountable to residents.

April 14, 2012

Another Clayton’s Consultation?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[6] Comments

Here are some observations on the upcoming Community Plan time frame.

Release of the draft community plan was promised for April. It is now scheduled for 8^th May
The Community Plan is set down for council resolution on the 26^th June
In 2011, the Budget was released on 10^th May; in 2010 the date was May 11^th and in 2009 it was May 12th. Each of these draft budgets were passed by resolution in June of the respective years.

Does all this mean that the budget will actually be passed BEFORE the Community Plan? To all intents and purposes, the budget will have already been drafted and for the most part, set in concrete. All that remains is official endorsement by councillors/council. Yet all along we’ve had the spin that the Community Plan should be the overarching document that plays a large part in determining council’s priorities and hence, strategic direction and spending. These timelines suggest a different story. One that again illustrates how this council’s commitment to genuine consultation and then actually listening and acting upon the views of residents is likely to amount to nothing more than another expensive exercise in spin and sham.

Many questions need answering:

Why wasn’t the Community Steering Committee created BEFORE the consultant’s report? Shouldn’t they have had input into this fundamental first step in the process?
Why is the feedback from the various Community forums via the officers’ reports again not published?
Are the community reps on this community basically sworn to secrecy?

The next 6 weeks should reveal a lot about this council and its councillors. Residents will have the opportunity to see exactly how much notice has been paid to their views and their priorities. Spin may be able to camouflage the process, but not the outcomes. That is what councillors will be judged on. Unless a huge emphases is placed on addressing issues such as planning, transport, flooding, and consultation in both the community plan and the budget, then the only feasible conclusion will be that this has been nothing more than another expensive public relations exercise where the community has been ignored.

March 28, 2012

Delegations & Failure To Insist On Councillor ‘Call-In’

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

We’ve received the following email from a reader –

In planning permit GE/PP-24534/2012, the Elsternwick Club, already a privileged operator in a residential zone with a 24 hour liqour licence, machine gambling, food and its expensive and non-green bowling green (massive use of chemicals and insecticides at present well beyond that expected in a “garden” region) had applied to Glen Eira Council to have a licence to run a restaurant and cafe business for the financial benefit of its members (who will retain non-exclusive use of the bar and gambling areas as well as the green and surrounds).

The current use is already a burden to particular residents (including the correspondent) in terms of loss of amenity. The officers have advised Council that the matter be considered by the Delegated PLanning Committee tomorrow 28/3/2012, on the basis that the matter is either insufficiently significant of there have not been enough respondents.

Council sent information to the immediate neighbours including… (a) neighbour in hospital recovering from hip surgery, the corner owner spending a large amount on a major renewal without advance warning of the potential reduction of amenity, notices to new residents unaware of the potential impact a fully commercialised business might have in a previously exclusively residential area.

I doubt that anyone else except me saw the second and smaller notice of application to the Justice Dept for a second licence for alcohol provision in addition to the 24 hour existent licence for gamblers and club members (and their “guests”) in time to protest this as well.

My wife is caring for her recently widowed mother who is in hospital after fracturing her hip, I am (phrase deleted to maintain anonymity) and don’t have the time or a great deal of energy to go door to door to arouse local interest in this matter, sufficient to draw actual councillors’ attention to what appears to be an underhand way of achieving what is in reality, a highly significant and fundamental alteration to the character and amenity of our block of Elsternwick.

This area is already well served by the RSL and local pubs and restaurants. What next? Private hotels, bars, home based restaurants and shops, even brothels in our streets?

I doubt that the local business folk know that the club, which has the unique advantage of the attraction of a summer bowling attrraction and open access machine gambling is intending to take customers from their doors. The only advantaged groups are the club and the council which may be able to charge better rates for a business than for a private club.

Is anybody out there aware of this or concerned about the subtle changes council officers are able to create without necessarily bringing matters to council attention?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates