GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

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?”

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates