GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

February 7, 2012

How Does Glen Eira Stack Up?

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

We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:

  • 20 storeys for C60 instead of mooted 23 storeys
  • 8 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 10 storeys (10 storeys in the end)
  • 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Rd instead of 14 storeys
  • Glen Eira has no interim or permanent height controls. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to gain such controls
  • Glen Eira has no structure plans for activity centres. Instead there is ongoing steadfast refusal to have structure plans
  • No consistent/adequate public consultation

When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.

126 Apartments Axed

Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7th February

Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.

More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.

Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”

Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”

Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.

Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.

Chaos over control

Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7th February

City needs minister to step in over plans

STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.

The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.

Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’

Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.

Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.

PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February –  Linh Ly

Club details sought

MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.

The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.

The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.

The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.

The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.

Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.

 

February 5, 2012

Consultation Via ‘Consultants’: The Biggest Con?

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

Consultants are generally hired on the recommendation of administrators. The public never gets to know how much these high priced ‘consultants’ cost and we doubt that councillors even know. We have also long suspected that in Glen Eira such consultancies simply deliver pre-arranged and pre-determined findings or outcomes. In other words, they are nothing but a huge and expensive public relations exercise that gives the pretence of actually listening to the community – but the outcomes are already fixed and set in yellow concrete. It’s the old story of ‘he who pays the piper plays the tune’ and more importantly, he who writes the brief and gives instructions, controls the so called ‘findings’ and outcomes.

Nothing illustrates this more than the processes involved in the current C87 proposed Amendment. Please note the following:

  • Both Bayside (in 2008) and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the research on Significant Character Overlays
  • Both Bayside and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the review of the original Neighbourhood Character Research

What we present below is a table comparing the comments by PLANISPHERE from the Bayside study (uploaded here) as opposed to the Glen Eira study.  The differences in tone, content, methodology, level of community engagement and depth of analysis is mind boggling. As we stated earlier – you get what you pay for and what the carefully scripted brief (plus private conversations?) tell PLANISPHERE to ‘research’. We conclude that the C87 report is nothing more than an administration directed document that totally fails to incorporate community views and values as mandated by the legislation.

BAYSIDE PLANISPHERE REPORT

GLEN EIRA PLANISPHERE REPORT
“Since the   completion of the Stage 1 Review, other streets were identified for   investigation by Council and   community groups, and these have been included in the study” (p.4)

 

“The Study   area included areas that were identified in Stage 1 of the Review by   Planisphere as well as those additional areas or streets that were   subsequently identified by Councillors,   planning staff or the community”.   (p.6)

 “These   were new areas of significant neighbourhood character or extensions to   previous areas and were either recommended   by Council officersor recognised by the study team…..” (p.23)

 

COMMENT:   Even councillors don’t get a look in in Glen Eira!

 
“At Council’s request consultation   with property owners and residents was conducted as the next stage of the   project. This included an information   package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open-house’   drop in information sessions.

Over 1,000 submissions were received   via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the   values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the   recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in   detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional   information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site work and in some instances   adjustments to precinct boundaries have been made”. (p. 4)

 

 “A   preliminary survey and assessment was also undertaken of the 15 SCAs listed   in the Minimal Change Area Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Clause   22.08) as well as potential areas of significant neighbourhood character recommended by Council”. (p. 5)

 

“Community   awareness of the importance of
neighbourhood character issues is an essential aspect of implementation.   This applies to a range of different groups in the community where a range of   approaches to communication are required. This includes:

  •   Education   of real estate agents and developers
  •   Working with residents’ groups and landowners   generally
  •   Education of design and building professionals

The final   report and Design Guidelines will form a large part of this communication. Additional techniques that could be   used include:

  •   Awards or encouragement schemes for ‘good   character’ developments
  •   Workshops with residents’ groups, Council   staff, developers, or design professionals
  •   Public displays
  •   Media articles/events”. (p.61)
“Exclude   Lawrence Street which has been recommended   for Heritage Overlay controls”. (p. 19)“Neighbourhood   Character Overlay to apply to the south western side of Loller St, and a   Heritage Overlay to apply to Lawrence Street”. (p. 19) “Whilst   this report identifies potential heritage significance it does not go so far as to make recommendations on future Council   actions in relation to heritage matters”.(p.13) 
“Consultation with the community has   provided an indication of the types of development pressures taking place in   each area, and the community views of this”. (p.30) “An understanding of the pressure for   development in each area has also been gained from discussions with Council’s   planning staff”. (p.37) AND“Field   trips around Glen Eira’s residential neighbourhoods revealed to the study team a range of scenarios where inappropriate design responses were felt to impact adversely upon neighbourhood character”. (p.27)

Nothing about the C87 Amendment has been transparent and accountable. It has been designed, and orchestrated ‘internally’. No officer’s report has been tabled at a council meeting recommending sending off to the Minister for permission to exhibit – as is the case with practically all proposed Amendments. Instead, the ‘legal’ excuse undoubtedly used here, harks back to Council’s resolution of 2010 which included as an Addendum to the sham of the Planning Scheme Review, the C87 proposed amendment. But even this resolution contained the words “with the approval of council”! Hence, a vague rider to a resolution taken 18 months ago is now the legal ‘excuse’ for no report, no consultation, and no explanation. Another minor little hiccup in legalities, if not democratic process, is the fact that council announced the exhibition of C87 on January 31st. It was not gazetted until February 2nd! Obviously the legal requirement of one month’s notice to the public occasioned this oversight. We must therefore conclude that there is an almighty rush to push this Amendment through! Why the hurry we ask? After 18 months surely a proper discussion paper, outlining the objectives and the rationale, together with the pitfalls, could have been produced and distributed to all those interested?

The community should be outraged at the money that is spent on such spurious ‘consultations’. Either we employ consultants who are given free reign to explore an issue fully and comprehensively or councillors should put a stop to such flagrant misuse of public funds. It’s definitely time that councillors took control and demanded answers to the following basic questions:

  • How much has each external consultancy cost ratepayers?
  • What was the precise brief given to each of these consultants? What private conversations ensued? Where are these documented as part of the public record?
  • Were draft reports ever ‘ordered’ to be altered? If so, did councillors know of these ‘alterations’?
  • Were councillors privy to the briefs? If not, why not?
  • How do councillors justify the spending of this money without any genuine involvement from the community?

We will in the weeks ahead, also be commenting on the other current consultant’s report on the Community Plan – which as council freely admits is really the Council Plan! At least this latter nomenclature is spot on!

 

January 18, 2012

Consultation: Transport Strategy

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

Once again we have to marvel at how other councils conduct their consultation in comparison to the pseudo consultation methods that characterise Glen Eira’s approach. Presented below is a diagram taken directly from the Bayside Council website depicting their timeline for community consultation on an Integrated Transport Strategy. Please note:

  • Two rounds of consultation
  • Dissemination of both background and discussion papers – both with provision for feedback
  • Draft follows consultation
  • That this can all be achieved within a 4 month timeframe

 

December 8, 2011

Compare & Contrast: Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[10] Comments 

Council playing favourites, racing club claims

5 Dec 11 @  02:33pm by James Twining

A RIFT has emerged between Moonee Valley’s racing club and council over the draft racecourse master plan, just weeks after the proposal was officially submitted.

The club says it was “excluded” from a public information session run by the council last Thursday night but that the rival Save Moonee Ponds residents’ group – campaigning against the club’s draft master plan and rezoning – was given a platform to slam the proposal at the meeting.

Club spokesman Brian O’Neil said the club was “perplexed” by SMP being given floor time at the information session, attended by more than 100 people.

“The (club) is extremely disappointed that council excluded it from (the) information meeting, yet gave a resident action group a 30-minute presentation and a seat at the head table from which to voice their opposition to our proposals,” Mr O’Neil said.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the council was approached by SMP for support.

“Save Moonee Ponds is a newly formed community group,” he said.

“They are not a large profitable organisation like the Moonee Valley Racecourse.

“Save Moonee Ponds approached council for some support to help them raise awareness of their group and issues. We thought the best place to do that was when we were getting the community together for our information evenings.”

Mr Smith said the community meetings – another was held on Sunday – were to share information about the planning process and not to go into detail about what was proposed.

He said the racing club would “definitely” be involved in the formal consultation process, to start in the first half of 2012.

By way of further contrasts we’ve uploaded 2 presentations – one by the Moonee Valley Council and the other by the Save Moonee Ponds Group. Please note:

  • The fact that this council features resident advocacy groups material on its official website
  • The council’s ‘consultation’ will include online surveys, facebook pages, etc. (see their presentation)

Even these two simple things are a standout in comparison to the Glen Eira methods employed for the C60 and the Centre of the Racecourse debacle.

// Comments

 Julie Vulin writes: Posted on 6 Dec 11 at  08:56am

Yes, SMP is not a large profitable organisation with deep pockets and endless resources such as MVRC. As YOU say, SMP is a community group.  MVRC’s let the cat out of the bag – they are not under threat of going out of business, they’re greedy business people with no regard for the community of Moonee Valley.  The community already know who MVRC is, now we need them to honestly and fully know what they propose to do to ruin it – that’s where grassroots SMP comes in to play.  Mr. Browell, Mr. O’Neil, please come to the next community meeting, allow us to ask questions that you’ll give direct answers to, such as why are you being so contentious and not considering a reasonable development appropriate for a residential location not on a category 1 road!

Annie Spilar writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  08:01pm

Oh please MVRC… are you really serious?  I mean, the MVRC ‘consulted’ the general public didn’t they?  Oh no, that’s right, they just set up a room to view the proposal and didn’t offer any consultative process with the community.  Hence, ‘Save Moonee Ponds’ was born.  The last form of communication I had from MVRC was a letter basically saying, this is happening and if we don’t get what we want, we will move elsewhere.  Again, I fail to see where the consultation is happening between MVRC and the residents. SMP is merely the name given to us, the residents, who are saddened and dismayed at what is happening to our community, rather than naming us all individually.  Work with ‘us’ MVRC… so far, I have only seen you work against us.

Sarah writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  06:31pm

I am “perplexed” that the Moonee Valley Racing Club suddenly wants to be involved in community information sessions. The MVRC held their own information sessions, at which they presented their submission. They then promised further consultation with the community prior to their submission, which was never delivered.  The MVRC had ample time and opportunity to consult with the community prior to making a submission, but they chose to ignore the concerns raised and plough ahead with their submission anyway. There is nothing wrong with getting the community debate going about the issues surrounding the masterplan.  Council was perfectly justified in allowing the residents to get up and talk about their views in an organised manner. The discussion held by Save Moonee Ponds did not “slam” the proposal and was in fact positive about the prospects for development at the Moonee Valley Racecourse, including the long term survival of the club. The MVRC are feeling “excluded” because their proposal is largely unwanted by the community and they simply don’t like what they are hearing.

John Westwood writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at  05:49pm

Making no satisfactory concessions to the community, apart from an extra exit, it’s outrageous that MVRC thinks that those who are trying to represent the community are being shown favours, unreasonably so, when Moonee Ponds will be affected by 20 years of dirt and noise in such a hostile development. New residents living in the MVRC development will have their open space reduced to 1/2 a meter, according to Sunday’s Forum at The Clocktower. So where are the children going to play? Go to school? Or, for that matter, get there? Thankyou Mr. Neville Smith for pointing out Save Moonee Ponds does not stand to make any profit in trying to spare homes, the neighbourhood, schools, infrastructure, amenity, heritage and the environment. Instead of complaining, why don’t they try negotiating a proposal the community can live with.

 

November 16, 2011

Letters To the Editor

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 
  • 16 Nov 2011
  • Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

Residents’ warnings go unheeded by council

 I write in support of a neighbour’s concerns (‘‘Spotlight on centre’’, November 2) about car parking being built as part of the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre project. Residents were assured there would be ample off-road parking.

After removing a number of beautiful trees, Gardeners Rd residents are to be faced with an ugly carpark with floodlighting, which apparently will be left on until 11pm.

Glen Eira Council has shown throughout the whole building process a complete disregard for the rights of residents surrounding the project. Surely it must now be admitted, as residents warned, that there was not enough space for three basketball courts without major traffic and parking problems in surrounding streets.

 

November 15, 2011

Petition: A Reminder

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

We wish to remind readers that residents are busily collecting a petition to go to Council next week (22nd November). According to the Council guidelines, this must be presented 2 working days prior to the meeting. So we ask all those interested to please download the petition , get it signed and return to POBOX 322 Elsternwick. 3185.

PS: we’ve been asked to inform people that if it is too difficult, or too late to mail the completed petition forms, then they can email this site (gedebates@gmail.com) and they will be picked up from residents’ homes.

 

 

November 11, 2011

A State First?

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

It looks like Glen Eira residents are taking the matter of the CEO appointment process into their own hands. A petition (to be tabled at the 22nd November meeting), calls upon councillors to advertise the position prior to any appointment. The relevant wording of the petition is:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the firm conviction that that in order to ensure that the best possible candidate is selected for the position of Chief Executive Officer of Glen Eira, councillors should “test the waters”  by advertising the position. Your petitioners therefore pray and demand that the position of CEO is advertised widely”.

In support of this action we’ve uploaded the petition form and ask those readers interested in either signing or helping out to:

  1. Print off the requisite form
  2. Get your friends, neighbours, and others who agree with the proposition to sign, and
  3. Forward completed forms to: PO.BOX 322, ELSTERNWICK.  3185.

Please note that signed sheets need to be completed by next Thursday in order to be collated and then submitted to Council for the 22nd November.

 

 

November 9, 2011

Thank God For The Cleaners!

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

History does repeat itself, but this is definitely becoming an all-time farce.  The front doors leading to council chambers were again locked last night. The side doors from the car park were also locked. Only the acute hearing of a cleaner prevented a total lock out.

As per usual, the meeting last approximately 3 minutes. A little stumble by Lipshutz over accepting the previous minutes, and then the big one – motion to move in camera. Moved Lipshutz and seconded (surprise? surprise?) by Lobo.

 

October 25, 2011

Annual Report: Fact Or Fiction?

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

From Officer’s Report for tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

Public open space

We increased public open space by purchasing two properties for $1.92 million to enlarge Packer Park, Carnegie. We also decided to return the former Packer Park bowls green to public open space and consulted the community on the landscaping to be provided. We reached agreement with the Melbourne Racing Club for greater public use of the centre of Caulfield Racecourse, including a playground and picnic area, dog off-leash area and junior soccer pitch.

Responsiveness

We achieved an approval rate of 86 per cent in the independent survey of community satisfaction, including first in the state for interaction and responsiveness in dealing with the public. We conducted a public review of the Planning Scheme and are implementing improvements including the transition between housing diversity areas and minimal change areas.

Our staff members

We continued to invest in development, leadership and wellbeing programs for our staff members. Fifty staff members were recognised for their performance against our values — Teamwork, Initiative, Leadership, Customer Service and Respect. Staff turnover remained low at 8.87 per cent.

 

October 18, 2011

Censorship In The Guise Of ‘Harassment’

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

Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:

“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?

2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”

That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang)  has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:

  • the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
  • the attempt to avoid scrutiny
  • the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
  • the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
  • the failure to be accountable and transparent

We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why

  • this question was deemed to be harassment
  • and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.

Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »