GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

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?

March 16, 2012

Age Editorial

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
Comments Off

Good planning must balance rights

March 16, 2012

STRIKING a balance between efficiency and fairness in urban planning is a vexing challenge for state governments of whatever political persuasion. It is precisely this tension – the need for a streamlined system of planning approvals as against the rights of residents to shape their communities – that informs the debate over a dramatic overhaul to Victoria’s planning system scheduled to be introduced in State Parliament by July.

In one of the biggest reforms of the state’s planning laws in a decade, councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density. Building applications that comply with the guidelines would then be fast-tracked through the planning system. Crucially, once the system is in place residents will no longer be notified of new development proposals and will not be able to object.

The government envisages this ”code assess” system applying to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days. While councils will initially use the system to develop guidelines for low-level applications – extensions and dual occupancy developments, for instance – the changes are also intended to govern more significant proposals, including high-rise towers in key suburbs targeted for urban growth, such as Box Hill, Frankston, Ringwood and Dandenong.

The case for a planning shake-up is a compelling one. Developers, councils and indeed the wider community pay a heavy price for the excessive red tape, uncertainty and litigiousness that characterise the current system. The problems consume council resources, and pose a threat to both the short-term imperative of economic growth and the longer-term goal of urban consolidation. But given the emphatic changes to residents’ rights, and we’re potentially talking about residents watching helplessly as a high-rise suddenly goes up next door, the onus is on the Planning Minister to ensure the laws do not strike at local democracy. Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, is correct in warning, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community” before basic rights be removed.

The legislation must enshrine the principle of genuine community consultation in the development of guidelines. And developers too must be denied wriggle-room, losing all right of appeal if planning applications fall foul of the guidelines. Certainty in planning must cut both ways.

March 15, 2012

Another Windsor Hotel Exercise?

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

Planning reform blocks appeals

Jason Dowling

March 15, 2012

A DRAMATIC overhaul to the state’s planning system will soon mean residents will not be notified of thousands of new development proposals or be able to object to them.

The government says the new planning system to be introduced in State Parliament by July will cut red tape, reduce waiting times and free up council resources for complex planning issues.

Under the changes – one of the biggest overhauls of the state’s planning laws in a decade – councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density, and then applications matching the definition will be fast-tracked through the planning system.
0pposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new system would reduce community consultation in planning decisions.

”Communities will be locked out and watch helplessly as historical buildings and tree-lined streets are attacked by [Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s] wrecking ball and replaced by high-rise skyscrapers,” he said.

The new planning system is expected to apply to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days with no notification or appeal rights for neighbours.

The system, called ”code assess”, will initially be used by local councils for processing low-level planning issues such as extensions and dual occupancy developments.

But the system is also intended for key development areas across Melbourne – Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston, and Ringwood – to process development applications that could include apartment towers of more than 20 storeys.

Mr Guy said the new system would add ”certainty and clarity” to planning.

He said guidelines for development set by councils and communities would be mandatory and developers would only be able to appeal a council’s decision if it was inconsistent with the area’s new planning code.

”It will determine what can be built and where,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said the planning system needed improvement but warned, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community before removing public notice and third party appeal rights”.

”Until this happens, councils will remain concerned about including some single dwellings, extensions and multi-units in a fast-track process,” he said.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said councils and the community should set the rules for development in their areas and developers should not be able to appeal the decisions under the new accelerated planning process. ”If it’s out – it’s out,” she said.

Victoria’s building and development industry has long advocated for an accelerated planning application system. The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said changes to planning laws would help economic growth.

Gil King, of the Housing Industry Association, said developments that met existing planning guidelines were chewing up council time and resources in a drawn-out approval process.

”This will actually make it clearer, if it meets the requirements it will be approved much more quickly, it will streamline the whole process.”

March 8, 2012

Hyams: Continuing The Do Nothing Tradition

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

We’ve previously posted on the total dissatisfaction of residents with a recent Planning Conference chaired in court room style by Lipshutz. The following emails are the follow up from this event. We draw readers’ attention to these salient points:

Not one single concern raised by this resident has been answered by Hyams
The spin is offensive, especially council’s reference to ‘resolution’ and ‘facilitation’
The entire process is offensive and slanted in the developer’s favour
Council does nothing to assist residents

Here are the three emails.

“Extract below is from the Glen Eira Council’s website.

What is the purpose of the planning conference?

To ensure all parties have a clear and accurate understanding of the proposal;
To provide an opportunity for all parties to express their views in respect to the proposal;
To allow the community to air their views and concerns about a development proposal;
To facilitate an understanding of the matters/issues which are in contention; and
Where possible, attempt to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute.

The planning conference on 22 Feb 2012, for development at (address deleted) did not follow the above as set by the Council. After 3 residents had spoken, the rest of the objectors were snubbed by the moderator and were not allowed to express their views in a fair manner. We are all civilised residents of Glen Eira and had a fair reason to be there. The moderator, (Lipshutz) conducted the forum like a courtroom proceeding. It should be clarified within the purpose of the planning conference that discussions are not permitted.

There was no attempt by the planning rep or the developer’s rep to answer any questions about issues. The council’s planning rep could not even define medium density. Is it an interpretation that works in favour of the developer?

Objectors were not permitted to ask a question of the developer’s rep. The meeting was concluded abruptly and residents have no way of knowing how the issues raised will be resolved. We came away from the meeting no more satisfied than before we went in.

The next step I believe is the voting on 20 March. In the interim, residents know nothing till it goes to vote. You call this system of listening to objections fair? In order to do that, you need a neutral moderator and some allowance for discussion. Otherwise, you are wasting the residents’ time.

If that was the only opportunity for the residents to get answers and clarifications, the entire process was less than satisfactory

Thank you

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mayor Hyams responded:

Dear (name deleted)

Prior to the matter going to a vote, residents will have the opportunity to see our planning officer’s recommendation. This will be part of the agenda for the Council meeting, which will be available online or from our libraries from around noon the previous Friday. Residents may also contact councillors at any time to express their views about the application, and, once the agenda becomes available, about the recommendation.

Regards,

Jamie

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is the resident’s answer to this missive:

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your response. I pleased to know that there will be an opportunity to see the recommendations made by the planning officer on Friday 16^th March. If the matter is being voted on the 20^th March, it leaves the objectors with a day to discuss further, if permitted! What is the procedure should the residents have objections to the recommendations?

There is a strong sense of disgruntlement amongst residents regarding transparency and clarity on part of planning officers. Particularly when they cannot define medium density. Most importantly, have any of the planning officers on the case of (address deleted) development actually visited the street? Are decisions made on the basis of drawings alone? If that is the case, the drawings for this project represent nothing of the street’s character. It is of utmost importance that planning officers get a look and feel of the streets that plans are being submitted for and get in touch with reality.

It was requested at the conference that a proper independent traffic survey be conducted by the Council for (name deleted) Street, as the one provided by Urbis was not a true representation. So far the residents have seen nothing. Conducting a traffic survey for a couple of hours for a development which will have high impact on the street infrastructure is not adequate. We have called up the company that conducted the survey for Urbis/Vujic, however, they declined to comment or offer general advice as they were working with the developer and it would be conflict of interest. Other companies that conduct such surveys also were unhelpful due to conflict of interest!

The Planning Process is less than satisfactory and something that the council must review. For a proposal of such nature, the planning officers should have tossed it out at the pre application planning meeting. It beggars belief about the planning departments transparency.

Thank you

February 13, 2012

Community Forum Report

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

Tonight’s community forum on the ‘Community Plan’ was in many respects a pleasant surprise. It was certainly much improved on what occurred several years ago. However, we will withhold judgement until the draft plan is published to see exactly the extent to which council has taken residents’ views to heart. The turnout of residents was excellent with approximately 60 attending.

The chronology of the evening was as follows:

Hyams gave a little speech emphasising how much Council had listened to the community on the last consultation. Examples of such ‘listening’ and action included – planting 600 trees every year; buying land at Packer Park; sporting fields re-turfing; graffiti removal. This lasted for approximately 10 minutes.
Mark Saunders introduced what the evening was about – ie ‘themes’ both in depth and that people can also listen to others and ‘valuing’ others’ views. Reminded audience that consultation doesn’t mean that people necessarily get what they want. (5 minutes)
Peter Jones went over the OCR consultant’s report and highlighted the methodology – ie. 500 telephone ’interviews’; focus groups, etc. Outlined when the draft plan would be released (April) and then sent out again for public consultation.

People were invited to sit around 6 tables and were provided with 3 different coloured note pads. They were asked to write down what they considered to be the three main issues or challenges facing the municipality or their neighbourhood. Each priority was to be written down on a separate sheet. These were then pinned up on a wall and collated. Each table assigned one speaker to report back on the priorities. (30 minutes).

The major issues identified were not surprising – Planning, overdevelopment, traffic management, parking, open space, trees, transparency/consultation in council; rubbish collection and street littering; racecourse; high rates.

The rest of the evening involved a ‘visionary’ exercise where people were asked to list things that they would like to see in Glen Eira in 20 years time and what they wanted to see go. Again, the lists were predictable: amenity protection; better uban design and development; open space; crime and safety issues; parking sorted out; better aged care and child care; more open space purchases.

As we’ve previously said, there can be no doubt as to the issues which are causing the greatest angst for residents – the lack of appropriate planning that covers traffic management and open space, as well as good governance. The ball is now firmly in Council’s court. They may have listened, but the question remains – will they act?

February 13, 2012

Community Plan – Wherefore Art Thou?

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

Tomorrow night will be the first ‘community forum’, ostensibly to seek residents’ input into the so called ‘Community Plan’. Problem is, that Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan. There are no two separate documents! What Glen Eira has is the Council Plan – although it is often conveniently labelled as a Community Plan. “Community” after all, is such a wonderful, heart warming word!

This isn’t a matter of neat semantics, or hair splitting over jargon. It goes to the very heart of what should distinguish a Community Plan from a Council Plan. Here are some definitions –

Banyule – “A Community Plan captures the community’s view of a vision, priorities and actions to enhance the physical, social and economic wellbeing of the local area. A key aspect of community planning is that the process and output is owned by the community”.

BAYSIDE – “The Bayside 2020 Community Plan expresses a vision for Bayside for the next ten years. Based on an extensive and ongoing community engagement process, it sits at the heart of Bayside’s planning framework, providing an essential reference for all of Council’s plans, policies and strategies and an orientation to community engagement, now and into the future”.

There are plenty more definitions but the following diagram from Bayside’s plan illustrates the relationship between the Community and Council Plan. Please note that the former feeds into the Council Plan which then leads on to the Action Plan.

So how does Glen Eira fit into this scenario? Do residents’ vision(s) ever sit at the heart of any policy, framework, or scheme devised and implemented by this council?

In both NSW and Queensland, a Community Plan is mandated by the respective Local Government Acts. In fact the Queensland guidelines state: “The corporate plan is drawn from the community plan…..the objectives, strategies and actions outlined in the corporate plan must be consistent with the vision of the community plan” (p.5) In Victoria, the legislation does not mention Community Plan. Section 125 simply talks about a Council Plan –“ A Council must prepare and approve a Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later”. This ‘plan’ must include ‘objectives’ and strategies for achieving the objectives as well as a means of monitoring and assessing the overall success of the implementation.

We bring all this to the attention of readers because it is vital that residents understand how Glen Eira is the odd man out when compared with some of our neighbouring councils. If this is really a genuine attempt to pinpoint what the community demands and expects, as well as to gauge their values, which subsequently inform the Council Plan, then many questions require answering:

Why was the Steering Committee not in force and operational PRIOR to the consultant’s report which has in the past formed the basis of the Council Plan? A report on setting up the Steering Group had been requested in March 2011 – nearly a year ago.
Why is there the need for another Council Plan review at this point in time rather than following the next election as required by the legislation and as Cr. Pilling has questioned on his blog? Why this ‘indecent haste’, especially since there has already been ‘consultation’ back in April, 2011?
Is this just more ‘smoke and mirrors’, designed to create the illusion of real consultation and the existence of a real ‘Community Plan’ when in fact the agendas have already been set via the inviolable Council Plan and its associated Strategic Resource Plan. A remarkable sentence appears in the minutes of the April 2011 item on the ‘consultation’ for the Council Plan: “Council proposes to retain the existing Council Plan”. More smoke and mirrors then, and perhaps now? Yes, let’s ‘consult’ but we won’t change a damn thing!

Obviously, this time around the proof will be in the eating. We sincerely hope that this is not just another expensive and orchestrated charade of ‘consultation’ – that the vision of the community will in the end become the foundation of the Council Plan.

February 8, 2012

C87: The “Dangers”

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

The Planisphere Report recommends that approx 1000 homes in 17 streets and areas are worthy of greater protection. Planisphere also sees as dangers to “neighbourhood character” some of the following:

Loss of original buildings, particularly if replaced with new buildings that do not respond to the key characteristics of the street.
Incongruous building style, materials, colour or form of building and roof.
Painting or rendering of exposed clinker brickwork.
Buildings over one storey.
Second storey additions that are highly visible from the street.
Development that breaks the general rhythm of built form along the street.
Boundary to boundary development or reduced frontage setbacks.
Buildings with an overall rectangular or box form or extensive surfaces of unarticulated brick or masonry.
Carports or large scale garaging, particularly if constructed forward of the building line, or dominating the width of the frontage.
Change to the location of driveways.
Change to front fencing style, such as removal of a fence, a high fence or a fence of different material other than brick.
Extensive areas of hard paving – greater than existing driveway widths.
Development that breaks the general rhythm of built form along the street.
Boundary to boundary development.
Double storey buildings or second storey additions that are not designed to be in keeping with the form, massing, window proportions and setbacks of other buildings in the street.
Buildings with an overall rectangular or box form or extensive surfaces of unarticulated brick or masonry.
High front fences, or fences constructed of an impermeable material.
Loss of canopy trees in private gardens or street trees.
Removal of bluestone kerbing.

If these are all “dangers” to neighbourhood character then we submit that the current building stock within most of Glen Eira is susceptible to these exact same “dangers”. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to wander down any street that hasn’t already experienced some of the above. We have instances galore, especially in Minimal Change Areas where: box like structures, some of multiple storeys are acceptable; where trees are not protected; where driveways proliferate at the expense of street trees; where bluestone curbing is ripped out and not replaced.

We urge residents to consider the above dangers and why the current planning scheme, together with the proposed amendment only deems 17 areas as suitable for greater statutary control. We would also welcome contributions about specific streets – ie. do you regard the street you live in as “intact’ and having “significant character”? Let us know which streets YOU WOULD NOMINATE – especially since council does not appear to be interested in allowing residents to name these areas!

It’s also noteworthy that the advertisement for the C87 Amendment appeared in last week’s Leader Newspapers. This week there is no repeat ad. Bad luck if you happened to miss it last week – especially when Council’s home page is also totally silent on the C87. We can only again point to the lengths that other councils go to keep their communities informed and up-to-date. For example the Stonnington home page features these planning issues: Chadstone Planning Scheme Amendment; 590 Orrong Road and Mandatory Planning Controls for Chapel Street. Once again we remind Council that ‘community engagement’ can only happen when the community knows that their views are sought!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates