Glen Eira Debates

Once again a whopping agenda that lumps together some of the most important planning issues that confront the community. These are:

• Bentleigh Structure Plan community feedback
• Bentleigh East  Neighbourhood Centre amendment
• Elsternwick Structure Plan amendment
• Carnegie Structure Plan amendment

Very little has changed in regard to the Major Activity Centres, especially in relation to heights, and overshadowing. All this despite the fact that the majority of responses were opposed to various recommendations in the structure plans and the mooted DDO’s. Carnegie did not even have community consultation following the abandonment of version one (ie Amendment C184)!!!!!!!

We will deal with each of the above as separate posts beginning with the Bentleigh consultation summary.

Bentleigh Community Feedback ‘summary’

• There were 106 survey responses, 17 emails and a petition of 221 signatories. Council states that it sent out 4,101 letters to surrounding households. The feedback equates to a pathetic 2.56% response rate for the survey. Why? Are Bentleigh residents so apathetic that they don’t care? Have residents given up on believing that their voices can affect outcomes in Glen Eira? Or is there something drastically wrong with the way in which council communicates its intentions? We have yet to see any analyses EVER of why feedback is so low and what can be done to improve this. It serves council well to simply go through the motions of ‘consultation’ despite the fact that survey after survey has been anything but a genuine attempt to elicit relevant and valid responses.
• Again, we are not privy to the raw data. No publication of the responses as has happened in the past. Instead we have a ‘doctored’ summary that falls far short of reporting on what was actually said/written.
• Language used remains a problem. The officer’s report is vague and imprecise with terminology such as ‘mixed responses’, ‘about half’, ‘support for accommodating growth’, ‘some support’, etc. Very little is quantified.
• The summary report itself is nothing more than a public relations exercise. For example: On ‘retaining character’ we find this conclusion in the report – 55 percent of participants indicated that accommodating growth above the commercial strip was better than doing it in other parts of Bentleigh. Ostensibly this sounds like a majority are in favour, but one must query the value of the question itself. There could very well be support for greater density in the commercial core, but THIS DOES NOT MEAN that respondents are in favour of 8 storeys (discretionary) adjacent to heritage homes. The value of any response and what conclusions might be drawn are 100% dependent on the quality of the questions asked. The online survey as we’ve commented on before was carefully engineered to avoid as much as possible any responses that could be interpreted as ‘negative’ or opposed to the recommendations of the structure plan.  
• The above criticisms can also be directed to this conclusion – 51% of participants indicated they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that measures such as height limits and upper-level setbacks for new development would help to retain the character of Centre Road. Of course people want height limits. But we were never asked what those height limits should be!!!!!!!
• On page 4 of the summary report we are told that 20 percent of participants indicated they would like a building height limit reduction in the centre when asked about retaining character in a growing centre. This sounds like a clear minority in favour of reduced height limits. But this  alleged 20% is only from those individuals who took the option to write something in the text boxes. And again, no question asked what is an appropriate height limit?
• More concerning is that the above cited 20% does not correlate with what is then presented in the following table:

 We’ve highlighted all those responses which could be seen as pertaining to the issue of height. The totals are far in excess of the previously stated 20%!!!!!! However, without full publication of all the responses then it is not possible to determine whether the 20% is anywhere near accurate or council’s fudging of the responses. Transparency is again the victim in this reporting.

CONCLUSION(S)

Until this council is prepared to undertake genuine consultation that includes full oversight by councillors and the community engagement committee in the drafting of survey questions then residents cannot hope to be participants in anything but a carefully orchestrated farce that fulfils legal requirements and nothing else. Nor can residents have any confidence in the resulting feedback summaries when the raw data is with-held. When council fights so hard to avoid full disclosure one must surely doubt the results.

As stated earlier, there must be a full analyses of why consultation in Glen Eira is such a failure in terms of community feedback. This should start at the first stage of notification to residents – are they provided with enough detail to engage their interest/concern? Are they expected to undertake hours of reading that involves hundreds of pages instead of succinct summaries? And how many residents have simply given up because they don’t believe that anything they put forward will eventuate? This isn’t apathy we believe. It is simply distrust of council and the predetermined nature of all decision making. If residents truly believed that council was ready to listen and act, then we are confident that feedback would quadruple and that residents could actually believe that council was acting on their behalf. Sadly this is not the modus operandi of Glen Eira City Council!

On Tuesday night there was a Special Council Meeting to (re)consider submissions on the closing off of Orrong Crescent/Alma Road in order to facilitate the proposed pop-up park at this corner. What is staggering about the processes involved is that council never seems to get it right – despite all their planning and traffic departments and legal advisors. It is clear that what motivates this administration is to implement something that has already been determined regardless of what the legislation requires! Council wants the pop-up park in spite of previous consultations that were strongly opposed. The first step to achieving this is the closure of the intersection. Thus the two are intricately linked. Trouble is, the law has been ignored!!!!!!

Please listen carefully to the following submission made on the night. It highlights the legal flaws in what council has done as well as the lack of required evidence to support the proposal of closing off the intersection. This new attempt comes on top of the failure to properly advertise and seek submissions on the first attempt.

There can be no excuse for what is happening here. Due legal process has not been followed; pivotal research such as traffic reports have either not been done, or not provided to councillors. Not the first time that councillors are expected to vote on an issue without all the relevant information before them! Even the officer’s report distorts what the submissions say in the claim that 4 were in support and 7 opposed. Of the four allegedly in ‘support’, the focus is exclusively on the pop-up park and NOT the closure of Orrong Crescent which is what this item is about! Council’s approach is akin to a bull in a china shop where the objective is to ram through whatever has already been decided.Hardly transparent and good governance!

Last night’s council meeting included a Glen Eira first – a Notice of Motion presented by Cr Zyngier. This was permitted since council’s governance rules were once again shown to include a monumental stuff up and hence the denial of a real Notice of Motion was not possible. Admittedly we had not picked this up previously but can now conclude that the following was the reason why the governance rules (as intended) would not hold up to legal scrutiny. The crucial section is contained in this dialogue box taken directly from the governance rules –

We then get this caveat which basically undermines and rules useless the attempted Clayton’s Notice of Motion.

Thus we get a first in Glen Eira – a genuine Notice of Motion!

Please listen very carefully to the following audio of this motion. It failed once again on the casting vote of Magee after Penniciuk declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber.

What however is quite staggering in this item, needs to be highlighted and seriously questioned!

• Why are councillors denied access to essential consultant/officer reports that would substantiate the ensuing recommendations and claims made?
• How does this equate with informed decision making, when councillors are not privy to the evidence?
• Why are potential inaccuracies in officer/consultant reports not open to scrutiny or review?
• How many more times are councillors forced to vote on something of major significance without the benefit of the full data?

Transparency, and accountability, plus informed decision making by this council is clearly non-existent!

Last night’s debate on the Elsternwick structure plan would have made Machiavelli proud in terms of the chicanery that was enacted. This council has reached the nadir of good governance and accountability and obviously has no compunction in employing every dirty trick it can to further its agenda.  Here are some of the lowlights of what happened.

• Out of the blue a note suddenly materialised and was presented to Magee stating that Pennicuik had a ‘conflict of interest’. Who wrote the note, and when it was written remains undisclosed.  Interesting, because when Magee asked for any conflicts of interests at the start of the meeting, there were none. Suddenly we get the Pennicuik one. The consequence of this was that only 8 councillors were permitted to vote and Magee therefore had a second, casting vote. A number of questions arise as a result. If this was a genuine conflict of interest (which we doubt) then why was Pennicuik permitted to vote previously on anything to do with this structure plan? And if it is a genuine conflict of interest, then why don’t the same principles and standards apply to Athanasopolous’ voting when it comes to Carnegie and the business he runs there? Does this mean that any councillor who owns a property in an area cannot be involved in decision making for that area and thus can’t represent his constituents? It is ludicrous that this is the standard that Glen Eira chooses to implement – but only when it suits of course!!!!!
• Every effort was made by Magee to silence Cr Zyngier on numerous occasions, especially when he queried the accuracy of the data that the officers had provided to consultants and which all had a significant impact on the consultants’ ensuing recommendations.
• Torres continues to mislead this council and it can only be deliberate. For example: when discussing the difficulty of enshrining winter solstice standards into the planning scheme, Torres also referred to council’s reliance on ResCode. What he does not say cannot be seen as an oversight since he knows full well that ResCode DOES NOT APPLY to buildings that are above 5 storeys. The issue here is 6 storey and higher buildings on Glen Huntly Road. ResCode is entirely irrelevant!!!!!
• The gallery was told several times that there were several alternate amendment motions. Why it was the Cade amendment that was heard first (and thus was voted in on Magee’s casting vote, instead of the Zyngier proposal) raises further questions of manipulation to achieve the desired outcome. There was literally not even a nano-second,  or pause for breath, between Magee asking for a motion and then immediately calling on Cade! Pre-arranged? You bet!!!!!There is no way that this could be seen as anything other than backroom orchestration designed to prevent the Zyngier proposed amendment!
• At one point Zyngier attempted to prevent the removal of Pennicuik, by proposing a ‘friendly amendment’. He suggested that 509 Glen Huntly Road be removed from the Cade amendment, which was the property causing the alleged conflict of interest. We note that 509 is: (1) a block of apartments; (2) it is not listed as a ‘significant’ heritage building and is very unlikely to be demolished and have a six storey dwelling erected in its place because of the sheer number of apartments and presumably individual owners.

Here is what it looks like:

Magee ruled that this was NOT a ‘friendly amendment’ since it is an ‘alternate’ recommendation! Further, he ruled that both the mover and seconder did not accept this – YET THEY WERE NEVER DIRECTLY ASKED WHETHER THEY WOULD ACCEPT THIS as is the normal custom. He simply made the decision to discount Zyngier’s attempt with the lamest of excuses! Furthermore council’s own governance rules state the following in regard to ‘friendly motions’ –

Clause 38(2): A friendly revision of a Motion may propose to alter a Motion by leaving out, inserting or adding words which complement the Motion.  

The aim of last night’s meeting was to achieve by hook or by crook the ratification of the Cade amendment. It was designed to prevent council taking a position on protecting sunlight to the southern side of Glen Huntly Road because this would further limit the heights of development on the northern side. For all the rhetoric of giving a damn about heritage, and the ‘village feel’ of Elsternwick, the Cade amendment revealed how little council cares about these issues. 12 storeys still remains, and that’s supposed to be in line with the ‘village’ atmosphere. And we are supposed to take comfort in the fact that a 6 metre setback will now be sufficient to avoid additional overshadowing when no documentation/evidence has been supplied to justify this claim.

Residents need to hold such manoeuvring and councillors to account. We have a mayor whose only function appears to be to steam roll through anything that the planning department puts in front of him. It is indeed a very sad day for Glen Eira residents because this sets the precedent for Bentleigh, for Carnegie, and for every activity centre in the municipality.

Please listen very, very carefully to the following audio of the ‘debate’ and note Magee’s actions and words throughout this item.

Council has released its revised structure plan for Elsternwick.

Here is what is now envisaged. Please note carefully the proposed heights (remembering that many are discretionary) and ask yourselves why the height in metres has increased dramatically from the current interim Design & Development overlay.

 As expected, what we now have is nothing more than some minor tinkering from what was initially proposed. Despite the majority of community feedback opposed to the suggested (discretionary) heights, the need for sunlight on southern footpaths at the winter solstice, and the lack of sufficient open space, Council has seen fit to ignore all of these concerns. We still have:

• No change to suggested building heights along Glen Huntly Road
• No protection of southern footpaths at the winter solstice

Instead, council has simply changed some of the upper level setbacks for (some) heritage sites from 5 metres to 6 metres. Of course, we are not provided with any specifics or ‘evidence’ as to how this change will impact on overshadowing – especially to the southern side of Glen Huntly Road. We are supposed to take council at its word!

Yes, some originally proposed heights have been reduced – ie Horne Street from 12 storeys down to 8 storeys (discretionary). But they back onto Ross Street which is a tiny, narrow street consisting primarily of single storey homes.  As with Bentleigh, council sees nothing wrong with having towers abutting single storey properties. This isn’t planning. It is literally a ‘f-ck you’ to residents!

The officer’s report makes the above sentiment absolutely clear when we are told the following:

The report outlines the revisions to the final structure plan in response to community comments, however there are components of the draft plan which remain unchanged. The consultation outcomes identified that proposed building heights were of concern for some but whilst making wholesale changes to building heights may seem popular, these cannot be justified or pursued based on community preference.

COMMENT:  The question isn’t  solely about ‘community preference’ but sound and valid strategic planning. Why and how can a 12 storey building be justified when the projected population growth is only 1400 residents by 2036. We’re told that population per dwelling will drop to 2.3 individuals in 2036. Even if we’re looking at 3 individuals per dwelling, or for that matter only 1 individual per dwelling, that means that we have a range of 460 to 1400 net new dwellings that are required over a period of 15 years. Council of course claims that they have to look beyond the 2036 date – the inference being that once adopted this structure plan will not be touched again for at least 20 years. That is council’s history and modus operandi! Whilst we’re promised a ‘review’ every four years, the results of this ‘review’ will only be to communicate what was been done in the intervening period we strongly suspect. We also have to laugh at council’s ‘implementation’ timelines. We find that ‘immediate’ means 1 to 5 years; ‘medium’ means 5 to 10 years and ‘long term’ blows out to over 10 years! Thus a Development Contributions Levy on developers could be 5 years down the track after it was ‘promised’ in 2016. Or, affordable housing, open space, and community uses might not happen for 10 years. But in the meantime of course, development will steam roll ahead!!!!!

The other amazing comment from the officer’s report is:

We are pursuing winter shadow protection for existing and potential future public open spaces including Elsternwick Plaza. However, winter shadow controls cannot be pursued for the southern footpath as many forms of redevelopment would be severely limited. This is contrary to the role of a MAC to accommodate future growth. For these areas, the equinox shadow is the standard to apply.

COMMENT: What the above makes absolutely clear is that anything that is likely to put a constraint upon development will not be pursued. Thus heritage and sunlight is expendable when it comes to the potential of facilitating more development. What is not stated is that ‘future growth’ can be accommodated according to what is required as shown above, and not what will benefit developers. Interestingly the Bentleigh traffic report provided figures on the net number of new dwellings anticipated by their draft structure plan which showed that over 2000 net new dwellings could be squeezed into Bentleigh. We do not remember seeing any such figure for Elsternwick. So if Elsternwick is proposing 12 storeys and Bentleigh 8, then we can only assume that Elsternwick is trying to ensure more than 2000 net new dwellings – regardless of whether we actually need this number in the ensuing 15 years!

CONCLUSION

Planning in Glen Eira continues to be driven by the development industry and by an administration that does not care one iota for its community and residential amenity. We have had consultations after consultations that are meaningless, ignored, and consultant reports that do nothing more than attempt to confirm decisions already made. Plus we have certain councillors who simply do not appear to care, or have the integrity to challenge such poor planning. Which leaves us with the question that if council is now claiming to have made changes in response to community input, and gone out again to so called ‘experts’, then why couldn’t these revised views and expensive ‘expert’ reviews been done initially? Or is it more of the same? – the pretending that we have listened to the community but in the end, done very little to ameliorate our concerns?

Presented below are the comments made by Esakoff and Zyngier on the draft Bentleigh Structure Plan at the last council meeting. Unlike the majority of those who spoke in favour of the draft, at least in these comments the ‘problems’ are clearly identified instead of resorting to generalities and spin.