GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

December 16, 2016

Beware The Fine Print!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

There is much in the current agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting that residents need to be aware of and to actively lobby the new council on. Whilst there are clearly some major improvements in terms of community consultation, and a more ‘up front’ approach to letting residents know what is on the drawing board, vigilance by residents is still required. Plus of course the demand that council is explicit and precise in all its communications with residents.

This last point is crucial, especially as it applies to Item 9.7 of the agenda – ie ‘city strategy’ and the work council is proposing to undertake in the next 18 months on planning. The item basically promises 3 things:

To update the 2005 Activity Centres Strategy
To complete structure plans for Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick, and
To continue and expand the ‘engagement’ practices currently initiated for the shopping strips

Whilst this all sounds wonderful, there are some real concerns as exemplified by this sentence – The revised Activity Centre Strategy will inform Building and Development (or Urban Design) Guidelines which will guide the design of future developments within all commercial areas.

And

Community feedback will be sought on built form controls across all commercial areas with a more detailed focus on Urban Villages.

We remind readers that an ‘activity centre’ is much, much more than the ‘commercial’ areas. It also incorporates the surrounding residential areas that are currently zoned either Residential Growth Zone, and/or General Residential Zone (ie 4 and 3 storeys respectively).

Then there is also this nebulous sentence – This work will manage development in key sensitive areas whilst also aiming to strategically unlock some key sites close to train stations for redevelopment. Exactly what does this mean? Which sites are in the firing line?

Until council is prepared to commit to a full and comprehensive review of its residential zones, then no amount of structure planning, or urban design frameworks alone will ameliorate the damage that is currently continuing to occur in our local residential streets. The real questions that residents should be demanding answers to are:

If the major shopping strips can provide enough housing to cater for the population growth, then does Glen Eira really need 40+% of Ormond, for example, zoned as General Residential Zone?
Why do so many streets have 3 distinct zonings when the recommendations from the Minister’s Standing Committee on the new zones recommended against this practice?
Why have so many heritage areas been included as part of growth zones and others haven’t? What is the logic and the consistency behind the new zones and does this stand up to scrutiny?

The following screen dump from the current planning scheme will show why we are concerned about the potential direction of planning in Glen Eira if the intention is to only concentrate on the commercial areas and totally ignore the surrounding residential streets that are part of all activity centres. The shaded areas largely represent the commercial and mixed use zonings in Bentleigh. The darker single lines represent the ‘circumferance’ of the Bentleigh activity centre. Most of the activity centre is comprised of nearby streets and therefore housing. To ignore these countless streets which are zoned GRZ and RGZ and to only concentrate on the commercial zoning as the draft Amendments C147/8 do is to wash one’s hands of protecting neighbourhoods and undertaking planning of the highest order. In the meantime of course, officer recommendations are to grant permits for another 61 units over 3 locations of 3 and 4 storey heights!

December 5, 2016

Ormond Tower & Politics Galore!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

A long post, but an extremely important one. We urge readers to note:

The new (ill applied) language of ‘evidence based’.
The political grandstanding
The possible influence that Wynne’s ‘rejection’ of amendments C147/8 has had where no strategic justification was submitted!
The implicit admission that council’s planning for the past decade is abysmal and actually non-existent
And much, much more!

Item 9.3 – Council submission on Ormond Tower proposal

Motion to accept submission moved by Athanasopoulos and seconded by Davey.

ATHANASOPOULOS: said that council needs to ‘hold’ a ‘very strong position’ and the submission does that.

DAVEY: thanks officers for their submission on something as ‘vast’ as the proposal. Said this was an opportunity for council to represent what ‘the community wants’ on this site. Officers had ‘raised’ what they saw as issues – ie ‘height and scale’ and 13 storeys is ‘huge’ and ‘we need to consider something smaller’. The suggestion of a supermarket is ‘also quite significant for that area’ because of its impact on the shopping centre and also ‘traffic’. Impact on Katandra which is used by commuters and school is also significant. Said she was pleased that the officers recommended that the State Government also consider some form of ‘social housing’.

ESAKOFF: moved an amendment that a five storey mandatory height limit be proposed and then scaling back to no more than 2-3 storeys at the back. Said that council would provide justification for this when they appear at the hearings of the advisory committee in February. Seconded by Hyams. Said that there was much ‘concern’ in Ormond and surrounding areas about ‘this proposal’. She was asking for councillors’ support and said ‘I am taking a firm stand on what is appropriate in Ormond’ and she didn’t want to be ‘wishy-washy in our response’. Said the proposal was ‘completely out of sync’ with the planning scheme and ‘community expectations’. Quoted from the actual submission on height and ‘scale’ that is ‘beyond that of urban villages’. This is not in accord with council’s housing diversity policy that designates neighbourhood centres to be of less density than the urban villages. Since Ormond is a neighbourhood centre, she couldn’t see how council can accept anything above 5 storeys.

HYAMS: explained to the gallery the formalities of motions and amendments. Supported Esakoff’s amendment because council has to give the community some idea of where they stand and the submission is ‘very good’. His opinion is ‘that we need to be consistent across Glen Eira’ and council has asked for interim height restrictions and in Bentleigh which is an urban village they’ve asked for 5 storeys. Thought that if council is to be taken ‘seriously’ then 5 storeys ‘also applies to Ormond’. Stated that people might be asking why 5 storeys in Bentleigh and then being ‘less’ concerned when ‘it comes to Ormond’.

MAGEE: said that there already are 5 storeys in the area and that ‘one could argue’ that ‘this is the appropriate height’ but that means that the developer is saying 13 storeys and council is saying 5 storeys. The result would be that council would ‘lose a lot of credibility’. Council would be better of by saying ‘let’s look at parking, let’s look at traffic’ and ‘amenity’. ‘How many floors are going to be parking’ and how many accommodation and ‘start building the profile of how that affects’ the area. If council simply says 5 storeys then this makes it ‘hard for officers’ when they ‘go and do their presentation’. Once they’ve done the traffic and parking it immediately starts ‘putting the negative tone’ and through consensus ‘you reach a common ground’. This ‘could be 5 storeys’ and ‘it might even be 6’. To now say ‘we don’t want anything’ but 5, is a ‘very negative path’ and is ‘very hard to argue that ongoing’. Said this was only the ‘beginning’ of the process and they’ve got the opportunity to ‘sit down and present our submission’ and ‘we have to back that up with figures’. It’s very ‘hard’ to simply ‘go in’ with 5 storeys. It ‘has to be backed up’ with data. Didn’t want ‘them on the back foot’ and ‘saying they just want 5’ and there’s ‘no justification for it’. Magee would prefer that ‘they listen’. Said that council isn’t accepting 13 storeys. Council is merely saying here’s what ‘we think’ and this is based on ‘very sound logic’ and ‘every department’ involved with planning at council ‘will have input into this submission’. ‘It is dangerous to simply say 5 storeys maximum’. He can’t ‘support the motion’ because ‘it doesn’t give us the strongest argument’.

DELAHUNTY: said she thought that council had a better chance of a good outcome if ‘we used an evidence based’ approach. Said councillors know the area and ‘we kind of know what would be appropriate there’ but that ‘we would make a better argument when we do the strategic work’. Therefore ‘I would like not to have a height named in the submission’ because ‘it doesn’t use an evidence based method’. The proposed submission makes a ‘good argument about the height and the scale’ and its ‘relationship to what is currently in Ormond’. Said that council has made some suggestions for planning in Glen Eira over the past 6 months and this ‘suggests that we need time and space’ to do ‘strategic evidence based work’ to justify their recommendations so ‘I am worried about the inconsistency of now putting a height on it and what political mileage’ could be ‘gained out of that’. When they go to the panel in February, ‘we will have some evidence collected by then’ which they can present to the panel about ‘what our preferred height will be’. Said that it’s now council’s preferred height but ‘your preferred height because it is evidence based’. Thought that the ‘stronger position’ as a council is to ‘do the work first’. The community asked for feedback so if council is a ‘strong’ community voice they have to do better than propose something that is ‘not evidence based’. Thought they will get to a ‘height argument’ but only after they’ve done the ‘strategic work’. That will be done by February and because of that she thought ‘it will be stronger’.

TAYLOR: said that ‘we all want to take a position of strong advocacy’ and agreed with Esakoff that none of them ‘want to be equivocal’ and that through their campaigning they are aware of residents’ concerns about height. Agreed with those opposing the amendment that if they could ‘pack’ more ‘evidence’ behind their position they would be better off.

SILVER: thought that listening to the community and then ‘going bang’ in February is ‘the strongest way possible’ of achieving something.

AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – Hyams and Esakoff.

Voting against – Magee, Taylor, Delahunty, Davey, Athanasopoulos

ABSTAINED – Silver

ESAKOFF: said she was ‘disappointed’ about the amendment being lost and that she was a ‘little confused about the arguments’ and that the ‘authority’ will decide ‘regardless of our submission’. Thought that on ‘behalf of the community’ that ‘we’ve made a stand’. As for ‘evidence’, she thought that council’s ‘heirarchy’ of urban villages and neighbourhood centres is ‘evidence’. Summed up by going through submission again – ie traffic, impact on local schools, shopping centre, etc. Wanted a more ‘transparent process’ that allowed for meaningful ‘community input’. Said she would ‘get over’ losing out on the amendment but ‘the community mighn’t’. If council suggested 5 or 6 storeys then ‘we wouldn’t have the multiple levels of car parking’ since ‘it would reduce the need for it’ so Magee’s earlier arguments would now be ‘all irrelevant’. ‘This is our submission. This is our chance’. Even though they will have a hearing ‘this is our submission’ in what ‘our community is going to see us standing up for them’.

SILVER: thought this was an ‘unfortunate situation’ in that before the level crossing works they had land ‘subject’ to the same conditions as elsewhere but the Minister changed the legislation and the government is now using this ‘opportunity’ to ‘make a bit more dough’. The ministerial amendment ‘wiped the slate, carte blanche and the government could do whatever it wants’. Ideally council should be the decision maker, but that’s not happening since all they are doing now is telling the government what they think ‘should be the standards’. Didn’t know ‘whether this is a genuine form of consultation’ but seemed like ‘just another way for the government to make more money’. Council ‘has a standard’ and it’s up to the government to adhere to this standard ‘or ignore it’. That’s why he didn’t support the amendment because he is ‘uncomfortable with the entire sky tower’.

MAGEE: even though he agrees with ‘everything’ Esakoff said thought that they are ‘trying to get to the same position in a different way’. They don’t want 13 storeys but ‘there isn’t even an opportunity for an appeal to VCAT’. The Minister ‘will decide’ on the basis of the reports submitted to him. Council’s just is to put ‘forward a submission based on evidence’. ‘It can’t be an emotional response’. Said that local MPs are ‘on our side’ and they are saying ‘give us the tools, give us the reasoning’ so it’s not 13 storeys. So even though the ‘community may be disappointed that we didn’t put in a blanket 5 storey maximum’ the important ‘part’ is ‘where this will end up’. Didn’t want the ‘negative feel right from the start’. Thought that it had to be ‘evidence based’ and not emotion based.

HYAMS: even though he would have preferred the amendment to be passed, this is still a ‘very good submission’. Thought that it was ‘fair enough that the government does go for some value capture, but it has to be reasonable’. This will be a ‘stand alone building’ and so won’t ‘integrate with the shopping centre’.

DELAHUNTY: thought that what is likely to be ignored is ‘our role’. Planning isn’t simply about height or overshadowing, it is ‘more nuanced’ and how a ‘building might add to a place’ and council is ‘best placed to make those decisions’. Was ‘disappointed’ that council wasn’t the ‘decision maker’. Didn’t ‘want to see lazy planning from the state government’. Council needs to ‘keep up our efforts’ in terms of ‘more than just heights and more than just shadows’ and ‘talk more about Ormond’ and the people and ‘the way the village and the people interact’. Supported the ‘strong submission’ and didn’t think ‘it’s our only chance’ because they will ‘front up again’ in February.

ATHANOSOPOULOS: thought the submission was ‘very strong’ and important to have such debates. Thought that a comment from the gallery earlier about going to VCAT and ‘not having the right evidence’ was important. So this is setting the ‘bar’ and saying ‘we are no longer unprepared’.

ORIGINAL MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

November 30, 2016

VCAT & Questions From Gallery

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Resident #2 – began by asking whether the ‘new council is doing all it can to ensure it has all the information’ to ‘bolster its position at VCAT?’. Said he had been an objector to VCAT several times and ‘last week’ attended the hearing for a development on Neerim Road, Carnegie. Went on to say that it ‘breaks his heart’ to see council representatives trying to ‘argue a case’ when they don’t have ‘much to stand on’. Gave the example of internal amenity where the developers argued that it is ‘not mentioned in the planning scheme’. On car parking there were many permits granted where waivers were granted but ‘there is no evidence of how many car parking waivers have been granted’. Went on to say that ‘unless there is other evidence provided’, then the ‘evidence of the applicant stands’. Stated that the member asked about the draft Amendment on height limits, but the council rep ‘wasn’t able to provide an update on that’. The speaker claimed that this ‘would have had a big impact on the outcome of the case’. The question then is whether they can ‘invite’ these people who ‘act for council’ to present to council a report on ‘what are the gaps’ ‘whilst the whole process’ of implementing the work plan for the planning scheme review is going on. Also asked how council can ‘accelerate’ the Minister’s approval of the draft amendments.

DELAHUNTY: said that council were doing the ‘strategic work’ that she thought would ‘bolster’ council’s position at VCAT. Also stated that ‘arguably’ this strategic work should have ‘been done some time ago’ but they’ve ‘made the decision to do it now’. Thought that the questioner’s point about council reps reporting back to councillors ‘might have some merit’.

TORRES: said it wasn’t an ‘easy’ situation and that council gets a ‘high number of VCAT appeals’ and ‘many’ that council ‘defends’ are changed or ‘overturned by VCAT’. Claimed that ‘council is running’ on an average with ‘other similar councils’. Stated that the VCAT reps include ‘senior staff’ and consultants who were chosen because of their ‘experience and expertise’ including one who was previously a VCAT member himself.

DELAHUNTY: repeated the question that they use the reps to ‘figure out what are the hot issues at the time’ and that this ‘suggestion’ has ‘merit’. Informed the gallery that the VCAT Annual Report has been published and that there was ‘some discussion’ about the number of Glen Eira appeals. Admitted that it was a ‘high number’ and the cost for ratepayers. Again thought questioner was right in that they had to listen to reps ‘in order to figure things out’.

QUESTIONER #2: said there was ‘urgency’ because there’s a ‘gap’ between ‘what the representatives have to argue’ and they could be the ‘best representatives’ but ‘if there’s no basis for their arguments’ and therefore ‘no results’.

SILVER: said he was ‘satisfied’ that officers are ‘taking the appropriate steps to incorporate our policies’ into the planning scheme and that there’s a difference between ‘policies’ and the current legislation. Said he would like to see more lawyers on the panels.

COMMENT

Readers should find the following statistics from the VCAT Annual Report very interesting. Not only do they reveal that Glen Eira has had the highest number of appeals to VCAT in the last year, but that East Bentleigh appeals have gone through the roof (a 90% increase). These statistics put pay to the myth that under the new zones, VCAT appeals would be reduced. It also reveals the impact the zones have had in East Bentleigh where the overwhelming majority of cases are developer initiated precisely because of the zoning!

November 29, 2016

Wynne, Politics, & Inconsistency!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment

This is just a very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. A detailed summary of some of the items will follow in the next couple of days.

Delahunty again moved the motion to suspend standing orders and to take questions from the gallery. This time around Esakoff voted in favour of the suspension of standing orders, whilst Hyams voted against. There were three questions – one on an empty fish and chip shop in Bentleigh and how it is now representing a health hazard. Promises were made to investigate. Another question involved planning and whether council’s consultants at vcat could present reports to councillors on the ‘gaps’ in the planning scheme that prove problematic at vcat. (full detail to come on this one).
Item 9.2 on council’s ‘advocacy’ to change VCAT was passed as written – ie the council ‘acceptance’ of do nothing until 2018! (again details to come)
Council’s submission on the Ormond rail development was the most interesting item all night. What we witnessed here was politicking on a grand scale in our view, plus Wynne’s reputed demands for some decent ‘strategic planning’ having a major impact. Consistency from Hyams and Magee was non-existent – as per usual!
Three public questions – but since the questioners were not in the gallery, the questions and answers were not read out and neither will they be minuted!

November 25, 2016

Agenda: VCAT ‘Advocacy’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments

Item 9.2 of the current agenda features an officer response to a Request for a Report on ‘advocacy’ actions available to Council in relation to VCAT. Given that meeting after meeting VCAT is portrayed as the total villain in that it repeatedly ignores council policy, is undemocratic, and that its decisions are arbitrary, depending on the whim of appointed individuals, it is astounding that the recommendations include:

(that Council) considers its VCAT advocacy position in June 2018. This will allow time to monitor the effect of Council’s Planning Scheme Review program on Glen Eira’s number of appeals or success rate at VCAT.

Once again it seems as if council is urged to do absolutely nothing but wait and wait and wait. We point out the bleeding obvious –

‘advocacy’ and the work plan resulting from the Planning Scheme Review are not mutually exclusive. Surely strategic work on the planning scheme review work plan can continue alongside some decent advocacy? Besides, council has stated that it will take 4 years to produce two structure plans. What ‘damage’ can VCAT do in the intervening period, unless there is some strong advocacy to change legislation? What advantage do residents gain by waiting, and what happens if the resulting data shows that the ‘number of appeals or success rate at VCAT’ have not been reduced in this period? We remind readers that both council and Matthew Guy promised that VCAT appeals would decrease as a result of the new zones. That furphy has well and truly been put to bed in recent years!
Part of the Camera report includes some advocacy ‘options’ which somehow do not feature in the ultimate recommendations. He summarises possible council involvement as:

Through peak bodies for local government in Victoria such as the Municipal Association of Victoria
In partnership with neighbouring Councils, such as through the Inner South Metro Mayors’ Forum
Directly to the Attorney- General who is responsible for VCAT.
Directly to the Minister for Planning

All of the above is possible right now. We can see no salient reason for delay and doing nothing! Councillors need to ensure that proactivity and not reactivity is the agenda of this new council!

November 15, 2016

At Last – The Winds Of Change!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[18] Comments

The following was provided for the gallery at tonight’s council meeting –

Delahunty began the meeting with some explanatory comments regarding the above sheet outlining ‘Request to Address the Council’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that at the appropriate time in the meeting she would call for the suspension of standing orders, so that people in the gallery who had filled out the sheet could address council either with a question or a statement. Said that either she would answer the question or direct the question to the ‘most appropriate person’. There will be a 15 minute time limit. This is ‘trialing one method’ and could change depending on ‘how this goes’ but the aim is ‘greater public consultation’.

Delahunty then proceeded with the traditional oath, accepting previous minutes, reading of petition, etc.

When reporting on the Community Consultation Committee minutes, Hyams made the comment that what Delahunty is proposing is that her motion is ‘fine but that local law is sacrosanct’ and that her proposal goes ‘outside’ the law so he won’t be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders.

Delahunty then explained that if her motion to suspend standing orders is successful, that the questions asked by the gallery is different to the public questions process in that the question and answers won’t be minuted. Public questions will continue at the assigned agenda item (ie at the end of the public meeting). Delahunty then moved the motion to suspend standing orders. Seconded by Magee.

MOTION PUT – VOTING IN FAVOUR – TAYLOR, STRAJT, SILVER, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, ATHANOSOPOULOS, DAVEY

VOTING AGAINST: HYAMS, ESAKOFF.

MOTION CARRIED.

1st question – asked about the Ormond development proposal and the construction of the platform for the development whether this ‘breached’ any council planning laws. If it didn’t breach any planning laws then under what authority was this done?

ANSWER: Delahunty referred this on to Torres who reported that the Minister for Planning ‘changed the town planning controls’ to ‘facilitate the removal’ of the crossing and to ‘facilitate the development of the railway station’. This meant that ‘no planning permission was required’ from council for these two things. ‘We understand that the deck is an intrinsic part of the redevelopment’ and therefore council has no authority over this since ‘it is a structural requirement’ for the trench and ‘didn’t need planning permission’.

2nd question – asked how council is going to stop this development.

ANSWER: Delahunty said that ‘vision’ that council and the community has for the streets will involve strong lobbying. Council does want to see the area ‘enlivened’ but acknowledged there would be concern over ‘what precedent is set’. Residents should be ‘assured’ that ‘we are determined to do some strategic work’ that residents can ‘tell us’ what your vision is for the area. The CEO then spoke about council’s ‘shopping strip initiative’ which would ‘help form our activity’ as a result of the planning scheme review. Torres also said that they’ve started the process to ‘help inform’ our ‘future activity strategy’ such as questions like ‘what do you like about your shopping centre’. This might seen a ‘simple question’ but is important for ‘creating a vision for the centre’.

3rd Question – whether council would consider working together with other councils to ‘enable a more cost effective delivery of services’.

ANSWER: Delahunty said this was a good point about the need for ‘developing partnerships’ and she’s in favour of it as is the CEO. Because of ratecapping this becomes inevitable and they will have to think ‘more collaboratively with our neighbours’. Hyams also said it’s a ‘good idea’.

4th question – will council provide a date for live streaming of meetings?

ANSWER: Delahunty said that she couldn’t provide a date but that it is definitely on the agenda. They are waiting on a report to come back to council. Magee spoke that he’s in favour but the heritage of the building was a consideration but he didn’t like just one camera focused on the mayor. Privacy issues also needed to be addressed.

Question 5 – whether council would change the order of business so that public questions aren’t at the end of meetings and that the time for questions be extended to 30 minutes?

ANSWER: Delahunty said they would look at this but it’s ‘set out in the local law’ which council can change.

Other questioners were invited to speak to councillors at end of meeting since the 15 minutes was up.

November 12, 2016

Open Space Decision Making!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –

What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?

We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.

November 8, 2016

Delahunty Elected Mayor

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

Congratulations to Mary Delahunty on being elected unopposed as the new Glen Eira mayor this evening. Jim Magee was elected deputy mayor for a period of two years.

Delahunty’s acceptance speech set a new tone for this council, and again we congratulate her on this.

The highlights of her acceptance speech were:

that the 5 new councillors were being given a unique opportunity to work for the community. The job comes with opportunity but also challenges.
dedicated to leading a ‘cohesive council and achieving the goals of our community’
wanted council to be ‘strategic’ and ‘showing the rest of the state what local government can be’ in terms of being a good employer, and having services that ‘are meaningful to the community’m ‘environmentally’ responsible and a council that ‘deals with fiscal responsibilities’ but with a ‘social benefit’. Plus, ‘we can be an absolute force when it comes to community advocacy’.
Had ‘faith’ that the ‘diversity around this table will lead to good community outcomes’ and that councillors will ‘respect each other’, the process, ‘this chamber’ and ‘the people who put us here’.
There’s the need to make sure that all people ‘feel welcomed and have a voice on council’.
There will be opportunities and challenges such as the level crossing removal and making sure that ‘in a constructive way we are putting the best interests of the community forward’. Noted the 2016 Community Satisifaction Survey where there were a ‘few areas’ where ‘people were happy’ but other areas where they weren’t. Of ‘great concern to our community is the intensity of development’ and ‘we have to be more forceful’ and ‘proactive’. Council has to now concentrate on the necessary strategic work and on consulting and protecting heritage and trees. ‘We have to bring the voices of the people into the process’.
‘Good financial management’ whilst important is not an ‘end goal’. They are ‘enablers’ for ‘progress’
The racecourse is still an issue and thanked Magee for his work on this. But ‘we will finally put this right’.
The ‘community has voted for some change and I’m sure we can deliver that’. ‘We need to be the community representatives but with a strategic mandate’ and ‘we need to make as many opportunities as possible to hear from the residents’ and to ‘adopt a learning posture at all times’. The Local Law doesn’t allow this but does allow the mayor to have ‘discretion’ in deciding what can be asked. ‘I intend to exercise this discretion for 15 minutes’ from the next public meeting (applause).
On councillor allowances she will be ‘directing’ that a ‘portion’ of the mayoral allowance be used to fund family violence strategies. Said that as the level of government closest to ‘the people’ that Council needs to ‘play a leading role’ in the safety of the community.

Ended up by thanking family and friends.

September 20, 2016

What A Sad, Sad, Night!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[11] Comments

Lobo arrived approximately 15 minutes late and apologised for his lateness. We also assume that he had not been present at the pre-meeting Councillor Assembly since he asked for the relevant papers. Whether this was his choice, or he was told not to attend, we do not know.

The first sign of trouble started with Item 9.16 (Caulfield Racecourse) when this was moved up earlier on the agenda. Following Delahunty, Lipshutz and Hyams speaking on this item, Pilling called on Magee. Lobo claimed that he had put his hand up first. Pilling said he only saw Magee and Lobo said ‘okay’ and that Magee could speak first. Magee expressed his concern about Mike Symons and the Minister’s letter to Trustees, requiring them to resign as well as tenants resigning as well. (The letter will be in the minutes). Lobo acknowledged Penhalluriack’s work on the racecourse and ‘many others’. Said that he knows how ‘frustrated’ councillors were when the councillor trustees ‘were not reporting to us’ what has happening. Said he didn’t know what ‘criteria was used’ for the appointment of trustees. Said ‘I appreciate Cr Magee’s stand’ of setting up his tent and ‘going home to sleep in the night’ because ‘he was scared of foxes’.

MAGEE: rose with a point of order not ‘just on relevance but also fact’. Went on to say that ‘Cr Lobo has told a blatant untruth’.

LOBO: ‘I was there in a parked car at 11 o’clock’ and it was his word against Magee’s.

Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw’ his comment. Lobo insisted that Magee ‘has told a fairytale’. Lobo then responded to Pilling that ‘for your satisfaction I will’ withdraw the comment. Finished up by saying it was ‘disappointing’ that Pilling approves of horseracing.

Next bout of altercation occurred over Item 9.3 – the Claire St potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Magee moved motion and spoke about his ‘liking’ for the Planning Scheme. Said in part that ‘while this is our planning scheme it is incumbent on anyone who sits in this room to accept that this is what our residents want’. Went on to say that ‘it is disappointing that new councillors’ come in and ‘say I want to change it’. ‘I think that’s wrong’ because ‘you have to have consideration for what’s put in front of you’ and ‘what your community has said what they wanted’. ‘It’s not all about you. It’s not all about what you want’. It’s ‘what our community wants’ and they are ‘very clear’ following the reviews and consultation. In the past the community ‘told us they were happy with this’ but ‘wanted a few extra things’ like mandatory height limits and ‘greater setbacks’ and ‘that’s exactly what we put in’. Said that with the zones ‘we got exactly what our residents were telling us they want’. Said that with the building boom and the fact that VCAT now doesn’t apply council policy like it used to, that is ‘what brought on the’ planning scheme review. (We will report in full on this item in the days ahead).

Hyams, Lipshutz and Sounness then spoke. (again we will report on this later).

LOBO: said that when Akehurst ‘did the drawing’ for the new zones, and ‘I was told off’ by Lipshutz, that Akehurst is an architect and ‘we have another now’ in Ron Torres. Said that Claire St was ‘designated for development because of the McKinnon zone’ and the railway station. Height was ‘not the point. The sky was the limit’ and he was told this by Magee. Went on to say that in the assemblies they ‘agreed’ that the zones ‘would not change’ and that VCAT ‘will approve’. ‘Now the wheel of fortune seems to be going the other way around’.

LIPSHUTZ: got up with a point of order that Lobo should stick to the ‘facts’ and he claimed that it is ‘not true’ that they were told that ”VCAT would approve’ the new zones’.

PILLING: said that ‘I understand that is the case’ and asked Lobo to withdraw his comment.

LOBO: ‘withdraw because the way you are playing partial’!

HYAMS: Lobo should ‘withdraw that comment because it is defamatory’.

LOBO: ‘shusshh’

PILLING: again asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to ‘comment on the issue at hand’.

LOBO: withdrew his comment and told Pilling to ‘make your decisions properly’. Pilling responded ‘I will’. Went on to say that ‘Claire St was supposed to be the sky’s the limit’

HYAMS: said it was never the ‘sky’s the limit’ and there’s a height limit of 10.5 metres in Claire St. Pilling reiterated the 3 storey height limit.

LOBO: said that to challenge Claire St is a ‘waste of time, money’ as is the money spent on the open space for Nina Court. If Council was ‘really serious’ then they ‘should never’ have bought that ‘Caulfield house’. ‘a waste of money’. Said he wanted to ask the CEO a question – ‘How much does it cost for reports’?

CEO replied that that ‘it would depend’ on the ‘nature of the report’ and how much time had to be spent on it. Lobo then asked if ‘for the next meeting could we have a break down?’

PILLING: ‘as the ceo has said, it is virtually impossible to identify every report’ and that ‘I think the request is not practical’.

HYAMS: on another point of order saying that if Lobo wants officers to do this work then he ‘needs’ to do a Request for a Report and then councillors would decide if they wanted that report. Lobo said he doesn’t want the report because ‘it is costing money’ and in this council ‘going to the toilet’ elicits ‘a report’.

LIPSHUTZ: point of order saying that Lobo’s comment is ‘totally inappropriate’ and that he ‘should be asked to sit down now’ and his reference to toilets is ‘absolutely disgusting’ and ‘outrageous and he should be told to sit down’.

PILLING: cited section 236 from the Local Law saying that when a councillor speaks it should be relevant to the motion and that this is about Claire St. Said ‘I will be giving you one more opportunity to talk to this motion’ or “I will be asking you to sit down’. ‘Last chance’.

LOBO: said he needed to ‘ask a question from Ron Torres’. Said he has forgotten the answer that Torres gave him ‘about 5 months ago’ why when residents object ‘do you send those objections first to the builders?’ ‘Who is paying you money? The residents’.

PILLING: another point of order under Section 236 of the Local Law. Under the section ‘defamatory’. Asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to sit down.

Lobo refused to withdraw his comment. Hyams then made another point of order saying that he ‘hoped’ that Lobo wasn’t saying that Torres ‘was being paid by developers’ and that what he meant was that since residents paid Torres then ‘he should have care for residents’.

PILLING: said it ‘was unclear’ about the ‘accusation’ and asked Lobo to ‘clarify the comment you have made’.

LOBO: repeated that ‘I am sitting down’. So ‘take me to a Code of Conduct and spend another $50,000’

Pilling then asked for other speakers.

All quiet on the Western Front until the next item on the Better Apartments. Lobo put his hand up to speak next and Pilling ‘cautioned’ him saying that he has powers under the Local Law to remove him from the chamber if he ‘disrupts’ the meeting. Pilling wants him to ‘participate’ but to ‘stay relevant’ to the item. Said he is ‘loathe to use it’ (ie removal). Lobo didn’t speak in the end.

Again quiet until Item on the Open space implementation. Delahunty moved motion and spoke first and refuted Lobo’s earlier claims that open space is a ‘waste of money’. (full report to come). Lobo then asked Pilling if he could ask a question ‘in defence’? Pilling said he would give him the ‘opportunity’ Hyams spoke next.

LOBO: said that he will ‘respect’ Delahunty ‘not as a member of any party’ but for her intelligence, ‘and passion’. Delahunty walked out at this point. Lobo continued with ‘Just do it’ (quoting Delahunty earlier) and saying that ‘you can’t just do it’ because ‘you will have problems’ later. Esakoff and Sounness then ‘filled in a minute’ until Delahunty returned to ‘sum up’.

Pilling then asked Lobo to leave the chamber under Local Law 244 saying that he will ‘not tolerate any more destructive behaviour’. Lobo responded with ‘You can’t ask me to leave’ and Pilling replied “i am asking you to leave’. Lobo stated ‘I will not go’. Pilling then asked Jones to ‘escort’ Lobo from the chamber. Lobo remained seated in his chair and said ‘You should announce to people what you have done to me’. Pilling then in a much louder voice said that ‘I have made a decision. I have the power and I’m using it’. A shouting match between Pilling and Lobo ensued with such comments as ‘you are not a fair man’; ‘get the police’, ‘this is not your council’. Pilling then said ‘I’m adjourning the meeting until the police come to escort you out’. Lobo kept calling out and Pilling told him to ‘please be quiet’. Lobo said he was speaking for the ‘residents’. Jones approached Lobo and the latter told him not to speak to him. Lobo repeated several times ‘get the police’ and ‘show me democracy’; ‘very mean and cruel’; ‘spoil my family life’ and ‘because of all of you I’m getting a divorce’. To Pilling – ‘you are a puppet’. ‘Bring handcuffs’. Councillors in the meantime had got up and left the chamber. Lobo walked out and the meeting resumed after a few minutes.

September 19, 2016

Hitting Rock Bottom!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments

A very brief report on tonight’s marathon council meeting. It will go down in history as the lowest point ever reached by this council. What occurred was embarrassing for all concerned as well as uncalled for in our view. Following numerous cautions from Pilling and points of order from Lipshutz and Hyams concerning comments made by Lobo, Pilling resorted to Section 244 of the Local Law and asked Lobo to remove himself from the chamber. The clause states –

The Chairperson may ask any Authorised Officer or police officer to remove any person from a room in which a meeting of Council or a Special Committee is being held, if the Chairperson determines that the person is behaving in an improper or disorderly manner and so interrupting the orderly and lawful process of the meeting

Lobo refused and insisted that the police be called. The meeting dissolved into a shambles and was adjourned. Whether police were actually called we do not know since after 5 minutes of mayhem, allegations, and general confusion, Lobo left the chamber. The meeting then resumed.

We will report on this in full so that readers can judge for themselves what kind of governance and bullying exists in Glen Eira and how dysfunctional this council really is!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates