GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

June 28, 2016

More ‘Do Nothing’ – Open Space Levy

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

The lack of open space in Glen Eira has been known for years. It is high on the list of resident priorities for some dramatic change in council’s approach – for instance, the purchase of new open space. The claim to counter this is that Glen Eira is highly ‘urbanised’ and purchasing land is very expensive. Yes, land is expensive and council did raise the developer levy to 5.7%, (only after years of collecting a pittance). Objectors in 2014 argued that even this new levy was insufficient to meet the needs of the existing and future population. Now there is an officer’s report on whether council should seek to raise the levy even further. The recommendations read:

That Council:

Σ notes the report

Σ requests that a report update be prepared following the release of the 2016 ABS Census data

The report claims that the Census data will be released in ‘early 2017’. Another porky by Council. We prefer to rely on what the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) tell us and not what features in officer reports. Here’s the ABS version:

Thus nothing will be done for at least a year, and then another year to go through the amendment process, consultation process, possible planning panel review, and then awaiting the Minister’s rubber stamping.

Further, we see absolutely no reason why council needs to wait. All of the relevant statistics should be available right now to council. They should know precisely:

The number of new dwellings built
The location of these new dwellings
The number of permits granted
What areas these permits are in
If council and the consultants relied on Profile.id prognostications in 2013/2014, then they can rely on the updated figures right now!

In 2014 it was obvious that council’s and the consultants’ prognostications were inadequate given the zones and the inundation of planning permits. It is our firm belief that if council had done its work properly back in 2013/2014, then the open space levy would not now be an issue. If a correct levy was sought, then residents would now have plenty of more open space, instead of a decline per individual as is happening. Contrary to what is currently claimed by the ‘consultants’, their report, based on the statistics provided by council was totally inadequate and inaccurate. At the time of the planning panel, objectors highlighted this again and again. For example:

The claim was that Caulfield Village would still only be 1100-1200 units, when the Development Plan for 2046 units had already been rubber stamped and would near completion by 2026
Virginia Estate was ignored
Countless amendment rezoning to Mixed Use were ignored
Council’s estimate of only 5.22 hectares being redeveloped in the space of 14 years in Carnegie had already seen this number exceeded in the space of a single year and the same was true for the other activity centres. How on earth council could claim that only 5 hectares is available from 3.8 square km and over a third zoned for ‘growth’ is beyond us!
Council’s ‘estimate’ of existing public open space was and is, literally a joke, since they had changed the ‘definition’ of open space and of course included car parks within this calculation.

There is absolutely no excuse waiting another year before an increase is even attempted. This of course fits right into the philosophy of this council – do nothing if you can help it!

June 27, 2016

Inconsistency & ‘Objectivity’?

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

Three planning applications for Tuesday night’s council meeting deserve some close attention and questions asked about:

The competency/objectivity of the planning department
What outside influences are at play here?

We are not arguing in favour of development here. We are simply questioning the basis of this council’s decision making.

One application involves Bentleigh, and the other Carnegie. Both are zoned RGZ, and both are within council’s lines drawn on a map that designate them both as being within the Urban Village structure. Yet, remarkably, the one in Bentleigh for 30 odd units receives the nod of approval and the one in Carnegie for ‘only’ 13 units is refused. Why? – when both are basically ‘compliant’ with the planning scheme? Secondly if the one in Bentleigh can be ‘fixed’ via the imposition of conditions, then why not the one in Carnegie?

Even more disturbing is the absolute rubbish that we find in the Rocky Camera reports – inaccuracies, and blatant bias as evidenced in the following. We’ve drawn up a table so that readers can compare like for like.

The Tranmere Avenue application also makes reference to Skyrail and the land’s proximity to the proposed rail line. The developer has submitted a noise impact statement for trains at ground level only. Given that no one knows much about Skyrail and its impacts, it is interesting to note that for Montgomery House application council granted a permit with the notation that should Heritage Victoria not rule in favour of retention, then a new application can be submitted. No such leeway was provided to Tranmere.

Application for 2 double storey in Barry Street, Bentleigh

Please note:

The site is zoned Neighbourhood residential Zone – ie suitable for 2 dwellings
No objections
Area of approximately 650 square metres – well and truly able to ‘cater’ for 2 double storeys

The officer’s report states:

An acceptable level of articulation has been provided for the development. The first floor is recessed behind the ground floor walls, with minor staggering of facades providing further articulation. Single garages are proposed ensuring that garages are not a dominant feature of the development.
The dwellings have both been provided with ground floor, east-facing private open space areas of 58m2 and 87m2 respectively, in accordance with the requirements of the zone and Rescode.
There are adequate landscaping opportunities at the front and rear of the site. Councils Landscape Officer has recommended that two canopy trees be planted in the front and rear yards of each dwelling (4 trees in total). Site coverage is less than 50%, which complies with Rescode requirements.
All proposed setbacks are in compliance with the State Government guidelines

COMMENT

Thus we get a page and a half report where practically every aspect of the planning scheme is met, plus NO OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION. Yet, it still is put on the agenda for a council resolution. Why? When countless other applications are decided at officer level, why is this one granted the privilege of a council resolution? What factors are at play here? Why is council’s time being wasted on such an application when the agenda is already overpacked (a mere 721 pages for Tuesday night). Is this a case of someone knowing someone else? Or knowing what might eventuate a year or two down the track? Who is responsible for getting this onto the agenda and what are the real motives?

June 24, 2016

Creative Accounting?

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

PS: The World According To Ho – https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/24/councillor-in-same-sex-marriage-controversy/

We are not accountants, but we do regard ourselves as reasonably intelligent people who should be able to make sense of most things in a budget. Not in Glen Eira it would seem! Readers will remember that the restructuring of the GESAC loan (and the payment of a $4.9 million penalty) has forced Council back to the drawing board and the requirement to publish a new Strategic Resource Statement and Budget. It is this latest version of the accounts that raises a multitude of questions. Are we in fact dealing with ‘creative accounting’? If not, then every single item should be beyond doubt and self-evident. They are not! There simply is no correlation between the figures presented on May 3^rd and the figures that now appear in the new budget. Why not? Have any councillors bothered to ask any decent questions? And why aren’t the changes highlighted and fully explained to residents?

Here are some of our concerns:

COMMENT

Thus in May, just 6 or 7 weeks ago, residents were lead to believe that all that was necessary for the completion of the Booran Road Reservoir was the expenditure of another $903K – as further evidenced by the screen dump below, where no further expenditure is forecast.. So now we suddenly learn that another $3 million plus is to go into this project? Why? Where’s the money coming from? And what is the total cost of this originally mooted $5m redevelopment?

GESAC

BUDGET ESTIMATES

One of the most bewildering announcements from the two budgets are the figures for the income derived from ‘general rates’. Both budgets claim that the numbers were compiled from the ‘financial statements as at the end of January 2016’. Thus they should be identical – especially since they are ‘forecasts for 2015/16’ and not for 2016/17. Yet the discrepancy is staggering – a $5 million difference for figures that are supposedly based on the identical financial statements. In short, ‘forecasts’ for the past year should not change – but in Glen Eira they do!

Finally, here are some other comparisons from the May and the June documents. The onus is firmly on this council to explain these ‘discrepancies’ in plain English and to account for every single dollar that is to be spent. We also remind readers that the new ‘negotiated’ interest rate for GESAC has not been revealed when the previous interest rate was NOT deemed top secret! Why the difference? And why aren’t residents privy to what is happening to their hard earned cash? We also note that the claim that GESAC is paying for itself is no longer included!

May 3^rd – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $16.61m which is a $124k increase from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. (The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $16.48m).”

June 28^th – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $17.22m which is an increase of $5.74m from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $11.47m. Included in the 2015-2016 forecast is the economic cost of $4.93m associated with Council restructuring its loan facility.

May 3^rd – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $6.23m during the year to $45.24m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $39.02m as at 30 June 2016).

June 28^th – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $1.72m during the year to $45.58m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $43.86m as at 30 June 2016).

3^rd May – Borrowing repayments of principal and interest costs of $2.88m will be made during the 2016-2017 financial year. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $18.71m. The repayment of all borrowings is fully funded by GESAC.

28^th June – On 17 May 2016, Council approved to restructure the existing loan facilities with a revised term of 7 years and a fixed interest rate. Loan repayments of approximately $4m per annum have been included in the SRP. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $21.46m.

May 3^rd – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $1.31m over the year.

June 28^th – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $3.24m over the 2016-2017 year.

If any readers can shed light on the above comparisons, we welcome their thoughts!

June 9, 2016

Hyams: Time For His Dose Of ‘Medicine’!

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

Not for the first time has Hyams had the gall to get up in chamber and tell bare faced porkies. Not once has he been cautioned by the chair and not once has council decided to take any disciplinary action against him. Not only is telling lies a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct, but it is a breach of the Local Government Act and yet Pilling and his cronies do nothing except attempt to gag any other councillor who may be ‘aggrieved’ by the falsehoods and inanities that emanate from Hyams’ mouth.

In May this year there was an important event taking place – a citizenship ceremony in front of 200 people at which Hyams called Lobo a ‘fuckwit’. Here is part of the Leader, May 27^th article (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/what-a-surprise-3/)

Hyams has confirmed he called Cr Lobo a “f**kwit” at the ceremony. He refused to go into details about the incident, but said the insult was levelled at Cr Lobo after he was “severely provoked”. It is believed Cr Lobo and Cr Hyams were almost involved in a physical altercation at the citizenship ceremony when the argument spilt into the town hall foyer. Cr Hyams apologised to his colleagues for the outburst in a late-night email following the incident.

At Tuesday night’s council meeting, many public questions were about this incident. One which Hyams did answer was –

“Dear Cr Hyams, This question relates to when you insulted Cr Lobo by calling him a “f**kwit” at a public ceremony. a) If Cr Lobo insulted you in public by calling you a “f**kwit, what action would you take? b) Considering Cr Lobo’s censure for inappropriate comments, and with regards to transparency, fairness & equity, would you agree you have left your fellow Councillors with no alternative but to censure you for inappropriate comments?”

Cr Hyams responded to your question. He said:

“(a) It would depend on all the circumstances including whether members of the public heard the comment. In the case you mentioned they did not.

(b) No.”

The sheer front of this response is unbelievable!

In the first place, whether or not anyone heard the insult is irrelevant! The Councillor Code of Conduct demands ‘respect’ between colleagues, officers, and members of the public. Calling another councillor a ‘fuckwit’ whether in public or privately breaches this code.
Secondly, how does Hyams know that those sitting close to the stage, or even up on the stage did not hear his insult? We have it on good authority that the insult occurred in the middle of the Southwick speech and that it was so loud and so pronounced that Southwick had trouble continuing with his talk. He was embarrassed by the episode. We also know that audience members heard the language and were equally shocked.
If this was a quiet little altercation, then why the need to apologise to fellow councillors that very same night?

Telling lies is not new to Hyams. There has been the ‘whining bitch’ episode and his denial – only to have this true behaviour disclosed by a recording.

Nor has Pilling covered himself in glory either. His continual gagging of Delahunty is reprehensible and another good reason why the Meeting Procedures of the Local Law needs to be redrafted completely. In our view, neither of these individuals deserve to serve as councillors and their actions only drag the reputation of Glen Eira City Council further into the sewer! Nor can the other councillors escape equal criticism- they sit there like dummies and thus are equally culpable since silence may be interpreted as consent to this kind of behaviour.

June 7, 2016

VCAT, Planning Department & Councillor Grandstanding!

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

A definite trend is coming to the fore where developers are seeking reimbursement of their costs from councils who fail to determine their applications within the 60 day time limit. Glen Eira has finally been caught with its pants down and ordered to pay Pitard Knowles $2086.20. In the great scheme of things, the sum is paltry – a mere drop in the ocean when we consider the multi-million dollar business which is council. Yet, this decision on Vickery Street, Bentleigh reveals much about the planning department and councillors’ stupidity and inadequacy.

This is another example where councillors probably sought to ingratiate themselves to residents (39 objections to a 4 storey, 47 apartment block). Their resolution to again lop off one storey and reduce the number of proposed apartments came after the developer went to VCAT. Yet again they imposed conditions which were ludicrous given the planning scheme and yet again the VCAT member proclaimed the inadequacies of the planning scheme. Councillors just do not seem to get the essential point. We repeat – on EVERY SINGLE DECISION WHERE COUNCILLORS reduced the number of storeys and/or apartments, and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won. This has been going on for years and years – but our lot simply don’t get it. The fault is NOT VCAT per se – but the planning scheme. Thus thousands upon thousands of ratepayers’ money was been washed down the drain defending the indefensible at VCAT instead of addressing the real problem – the planning scheme, its zoning, its schedules, its lack of preferred character statements, its lack of real policy!

This Vickery Street case however, introduced a new element. The shoddy performances of the planning department. We have to wonder why, if council can spend $4,500 per day to solve its own internal squabbles, why can’t it spend money on ensuring that the planning department is properly resourced. We’ve already pointed out in a previous post the number of staff involved in ‘public relations’ compared to the number of staff working in planning and traffic combined!

Here is part of what the VCAT member stated –

This is a review under s79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 because the responsible authority failed to grant a permit after considering the application for 104 days. Section 115CA of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides the opportunity for an applicant to request the Tribunal’s fee to be reimbursed in these circumstances. At the completion of the hearing the applicant requested the reimbursement of its fee, being $2086.20.

The responsible authority requests the application to reimburse fees be dismissed because the permit application is complex, there were unavoidable scheduling constraints caused by the Christmas holiday period and it facilitated discussions with the applicant and objectors by convening a planning forum in January 2016 before it was to be presented to a Council meeting in February 2016. These reasons are rejected by the applicant.
I agree with Mr Bromley that the proposed development is not particularly difficult or complex for the following reasons:
The Council has considered many three and four storey apartment buildings in Bentleigh and its other urban villages in contexts similar to Vickery Street.
The proposed development comprises a design, height and massing that is similar to many other developments designed by Steller. The proposed layout does not differ in any significant respects to other proposals previously considered by Council.
The planning policy, amenity and car parking issues are well known to Council.
The planning scheme has not changed for some time and provides a well-known and understood assessment framework. There are no recently approved planning zones, policies or overlays that add complexity to the assessment.
No external referrals were required that may have added complexity to, or delayed the assessment.
The Council has had the benefit of multiple Tribunal decisions on similar applications to guide its assessment.
With regard to the conduct of the applicant, the responsible authority accepts it has not contributed to undue delays by not providing information in a timely manner, delaying public notification, or in any way acting vexatiously or unprofessionally.
Mr Bromley says the Council took an unreasonable time from the completion of public notification in mid-November 2015 to intending to decide the application early February 2016. He says the time required to arrange and conduct a planning forum on 13 January 2016 resulted in unnecessary delays. He says the application could have been presented to a Council meeting in December.
Mr Bromley says the planning forum in January 2016 made no positive contribution to the resolution of issues or the merits of the proposal. It only enabled the objectors to express their concerns with the development. He says Council did not actively engage with the parties between November 2015 and late January to mediate an outcome.
The responsible authority says it processed the application with reasonable promptness, the time periods were not unusual for a larger development, and the planning forum is a necessary part of Council’s assessment process. The Council could not truncate the application process over the Christmas holiday period.
While I agree with Mr Bromley that a three week period to give directions for public notification following the submission of all information is frustrating, it is not unusual in a busy planning office, and would be generally acceptable. If that were the only delay, the claim for reimbursement of fees would have limited weight.
Hence I have to decide if a delay in the order of six weeks (between Council meetings in mid-December 2015 and early February 2016) to enable the application to be discussed at a community planning forum was justified, and whether Council proactively sought to resolve outstanding issues in this period.

AND HERE’S THE REAL STING IN THE TAIL –

By contrast effective mediation requires considerable time and meetings needs to be led by expert mediators. Time is needed to enable parties to express their concerns, for the real issues to be identified, and for solutions to emerge. Parties often have to be actively encouraged to collaborate to resolve their differences and to find acceptable solutions.
I understand that Council only arranged the planning forum between mid-December 2015 and February 2016, and I accept Mr Bromley’s assertion that Council made no efforts to conduct mediation outside the planning forum.
In my view, Council made the conscious decision to defer considering the application in December 2015 so it could convene the planning forum. It was aware there was limited prospect the planning forum would be likely to resolve the issues or add new information that was not already available on the file (provided with the application, referral advice and objections) and summarised in the officer’s report.
It did so knowing it would delay its consideration of the application for at least six weeks. It did so knowing that it could face a review at the Tribunal under s79 of the Act, and consequently it would be likely to have to respond to an application to reimburse fees. It took no other actions such as mediation to resolve the planning application in this period.
it is not acceptable that the arrangements for a planning forum commence after the technical assessment has been completed. I consider Council has to arrange these much earlier in the assessment process. The planning forum should not unduly delay the presentation of an application to a Council meeting for a decision. It is not acceptable the permit applicant has to wait some weeks for a decision that could be made earlier, particularly if the planning forum is highly unlikely to add new information or does not form part of a genuine mediation process.
I am satisfied the Council unduly delayed its decision on the application and the applicant’s fees should be reimbursed.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/920.html

COMMENT

Council’s Planning Conferences are not there to achieve real ‘compromise’ in our view. Their function is primarily a public relations exercise. It would be most informative if council were to provide the following data so that residents could assess for themselves council’s processes and their efficacy –

How many times has the developer not shown up at these conferences?
How many times have MAJOR changes occurred to the plans as a direct result of the conference?
How many times has the officer failed to include all residents’ views in his/her report to council?
How many times has the developer or the objectors walked away satisfied that a ‘consensus’ has been arrived at?

June 3, 2016

Agenda: What’s Not There

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is interesting not merely for what it contains, but more so, for what is not included. A few examples:

No mention in any of the records of assembly of council’s ‘discussion’ on the appointment of Ms Fiona O’Brien to investigate allegations of bullying. Pilling has been quoted as stating that council ‘engaged’ Ms O’Brien to undertake this work. Hence, we wonder when and where this decision was made. Even if ‘confidential’, our reading of the Local Government Act would still require a note that some item of a confidential matter was being discussed. No such notation exists.
On the 26^th April (that is two council meetings ago) there was a request for a report on the potential for an increased open space levy. The report has not yet materialised – meaning that if it does appear for the next council meeting, it will have taken 2 months for a document to be tabled. In our view, not good enough!
The records of assembly meeting of 24^th May include this item – (a) CFO – outcome of loan re-structuring negotiations. No item in the agenda to inform residents of what this will mean in terms of late payments, the new interest rate, or in fact any information whatsoever. We assume that ratepayers will be required to plough through the new Strategic Resource Plan (when it appears) and try and figure out what is really happening! Surely some media release or official statement would not go astray at this point in time?

May 22, 2016

An Almighty Gamble?

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

One item reported in the minutes from last council meeting is certain to have major financial repercussions in the years ahead. The timing, rationale, and the potential risks this decision embraces, says much about council’s decision making of the past, and the state of its current finances.

Council borrowed $25 million at the astronomical FIXED RATE of 8.04% for 15 years under Newton. There is still a decade to go on this loan. Comments made in chamber over the past year or so indicated that council could not afford to get out of this arrangement without paying some hefty penalties (we believe in the order of $4 million). According to the draft Strategic Resource Plan (page 11) it will cost council $2.88 million in principal and interest repayments for 2016/17 and council would still owe at the end of the next financial year $18.71 million.

Countless questions arise:

Is negotiating another fixed rate contract nothing more than a long term gamble?
What does this resolution say about council’s current financial situation?
Will council be attempting to borrow another $6+ million to bring it back up to the original $25 million?
Will council be paying interest on the interest?
What penalty rates will the bank impose?
If repaying the loan early is so vital, then why wasn’t this undertaken years ago? Could it in fact be related to the departure of Newton? Or is council so cash strapped that it has to do this now?
Why is the Chief Financial Officer ALONE ‘authorised’ to ‘negotiate’ and sign off on the massive deal? Where is the full council in any such decision making?

The history of council’s financial dealings are nothing to write home about. Readers should also remember that as a result of the $25 million loan for GESAC, council was unable to borrow (as other councils did at a much lower interest rate) to repay the $7.1 million Superannuation costs and thus were paying 7.5% instead of a far reduced interest rate if they could have borrowed this money.

Ratepayers deserve nothing less than a full and comprehensive account of what is happening and why.

May 18, 2016

Lipshutz & Hyams!!!!!

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

Residents need to consider carefully the following from last night’s council meeting. In our view it encapsulates fully the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and decision making that has already been determined, despite the ongoing planning scheme review.

Item 9.1 was an application for a 7 storey and 24 dwellings in Centre Road, Bentleigh. Officers recommended 6 storeys and 22 dwellings. True to form, councillors decided that they would lop off another storey and a handful of units so that the motion was for 5 storeys and 19 dwellings. This was moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that objectors did not attend the planning conference. Said that there is a ‘quandary’ here because ‘we have our beliefs’ about what is appropriate for Centre Road and ‘on the other hand’ there is the recent VCAT decision for 8 storeys up the road. If it wasn’t for this decision then ‘5 storeys would be pretty much a lay down misere’. So the questions is ‘do we change our opinion’ because of the VCAT decision and make a further decision based on this ‘which we think is wrong’ and ‘hope’ that VCAT ‘gets it right this time’. His motion is because he thinks that ‘five storeys is appropriate’ in Centre Road. ‘Currently’, the ‘tallest building in Centre Road is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think ‘that we should compound the mistakes made by VCAT’ which they ‘would be doing’ if a permit was granted for 7 storeys. Spoke about setbacks and car stackers and that ‘they are accepted by the government’. Thought that ‘5 storeys is reasonable’ since it ‘backs onto 4 storeys’.

LIPSHUTZ: Centre Road has got ‘3 and 4 storeys’ and even though this might look like a 3 storey from the ‘street, it is nevertheless a 7 storey building’. “I think that’s wrong’. ‘I think the appropriate level is 5 storeys’. Didn’t think that they should say that because VCAT ‘will approve it’ that they should change their minds. Thought that ‘we have to stand up for our principles and residents’ since ‘we know what we want’. ‘This council has policies and I think we have to maintain our position’ and if ‘vcat overrules us, well so be it’. ‘We have principles and we have to stand by them’ and that he thinks that ‘5 storeys is the appropriate level’.

LOBO: give the developer ‘an inch’ and he will ‘take large square metres’ to build ‘inappropriate’ buildings. Said that Mavho ‘has a uniformity of 4 storeys’ and giving this 5, then with VCAT, there is the possibility of ‘giving 9 or 10’ storeys. Residents ‘have said’ that Bentleigh is ‘completely destroyed’. Said that since the Minister ‘has asked us to review’ the planning scheme he thinks that the commercial zones shouldn’t change until the review is done. Said that ‘I have never accepted anything over 3 storeys’ and apart from the General Residential Zone, the ‘new zones don’t say that’. After ‘the destruction of Bent St and Mavho Street’, Loranne and Campbell street are now the ‘targets’ and developers have also ‘encroached East Bentleigh where there is no public transport’. This has ‘created chaos as far as traffic is concerned’. Gave examples of residents who could not get out of their driveways and ambulances could not get in. Said that councillors ‘have to look after the residents’ and that they are ‘elected not for any political party’. ‘If we are not doing this, then we had better stay home’.

PILLING: said that Hyams motion is for a main road, in a commercial zone and not residential. Thought that the ‘five storeys’ is ‘appropriate’.

HYAMS: said that Lobo implied that there weren’t 4 storey developments before the zones came in, but there were, especially in Carnegie and Murrumbeena. So he ‘hoped that people don’t draw that parallel because it wouldn’t be true’. Said that the ‘problem’ is that ‘we have policies in place’ to protect Centre Road, but VCAT ‘has suddenly started interpreting it as if we don’t’. thus ‘our policies haven’t changed but VCAT’s interpretation has changed’. Didn’t think that ‘under planning law’ council can put a ‘hold on developments’ waiting for the review. Repeated that he thought that 5 storeys ‘in commercial zones is appropriate’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST

COMMENTS

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of both Hyams and Lipshutz is simply mind-boggling. Truth, consistency, and above all, integrity, goes out the window when it comes to getting their motions up. Here are some quotes that these two individuals have said in the not too distant past. Please compare their above comments with what follows –

HYAMS

‘it’s not as if you will get a six storey building in a row of shops’. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/hyams-can-we-believe-him/).
HYAMS: Said that a problem was that if you set height limits then ‘people will build up to that height and you can’t stop them’ but if you don’t have height limits and let each application be ‘judged on its merits’ then you could get ‘better outcomes’. (6/2/2013 – ie on application for Glen Huntly Road – 6 storeys and 45 dwellings which got a permit from council.) Then post zones we get this diametrically opposed statement – Hyams – ‘The new zones are limiting development’ because of the height limits and that ‘anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about’ or ‘is deliberately seeking to mislead you’.(25/9/2014)

LIPSHUTZ

LIPSHUTZ: He also needs to be ‘practical’ in that he could ‘easily reject’ this but it will go to VCAT and they will say that ‘I haven’t turned my mind to it properly’ since he has to sit here in a ‘quasi judicial’ position and ‘working on planning laws’. These laws ‘allow this building to happen’. (on 7 storeys for Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick – 26/11/2014)

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’ (on double storey application for rear in Bolinda St., Bentleigh East – 15/11/2013)
LIPSHUTZ – Glen Eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’. (30/12/2014)

There are literally countless other statements we could have included in the above. Some simple questions will suffice –

How much longer will these councillors continue the sham of blaming VCAT for their inaction and lack of sound strategic planning?
How many more times will Lipshutz get up and try to warn off objectors from going to VCAT?
How many more times will half-truths be portrayed as gospel in the chamber?
And how much longer will residents put up with such self-serving incompetence, especially from these two councillors?

May 15, 2016

Another 12 Storeys!

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

PS: We now learn that Council is to receive the pittance of $575,000 as the open space levy for Precinct One of the Caulfield Village development (ie 463 units). In their wisdom only a 4% fee was exacted for this part of the development.

Item 9.2 – Riddell Parade, Elsternwick. Application for 12 storeys and 40 dwellings.

Whilst the officer’s report recommends a ‘refusal’ there are several fascinating aspects to this application.

Council in its wisdom decided last year to sell the owner of the site a 60 sqm splay from its council owned car park that is also the corner edge of a laneway. This was done in order to “allow them to build a first floor above and a basement below the splay but still allow sightlines along the adjacent laneway.” (Minutes of May 19^th, 2015). In return, council received the princely sum of $59,015 and the developer was to pay legal costs of $26,222.
The proposed development is deemed as Stage 2 since Stage 1 is for an 8 storey development (under construction) and both sites belong to the same owner.
Only 14 properties were notified and 3 objections received.

All the above is merely the ‘background’ to some extraordinary aspects of Rocky Camera’s report. The question is: does this report represent some ‘radical’ change in council’s approach or is it merely Camera once again scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to come up with any justification for a refusal?

For the first time, as far as we know, we have statements such as:

…..the development fails to adequately encourage economic development. A building of this height, scale and location should provide for more economic development opportunities than one ground floor office space.

No communal facilities are proposed within either the approved development (Stage 1- 28 Riddle (sic) Parade) or within the proposed development. This is considered to be a poor outcome for a development of this scale.

A total of 58 car spaces are provided on-site. A reduction in the residential visitor and office car spaces is sought. However, the allocation of car spaces is unclear due to the oversupply of residential car spaces. Further, no disabled car space has been provided.

The application proposes vehicle access through ‘Stage 1’ of the development at 28 Riddell Parade. However, there is no formal legal accessway provided between both properties currently.

These are literally extraordinary ‘reasons’ for refusal – especially when seen in light of previous decisions. For example:

In November 2012 the officer report for 1056 Dandenong Road recommended ‘approval’ for a 12 storey and 173 dwellings. Councillors knocked this back to 8 storeys and 97 dwellings. The developer got what he wanted at VCAT. However, there was not a single word in this report on ‘communal facilities’. Nor do we find any mention of this in the recent 9 storey application in Centre Road, Bentleigh – nor in countless others!
The current Camera report also just happens to conveniently ignore other sections of the Planning Scheme that were included in the 12 storey application. Omitted here are – To consolidate retail functions within existing strip shopping centres; To encourage increased densities within and around commercial/transport nodes which respect transition to the surrounding residential area; To ensure future development is appropriate to the constraints of infrastructure and vehicular traffic movement (including parking). We must also remember that the site is within the Elsternwick Urban Village, where everything in the planning scheme promotes higher density.
If there is an ‘oversupply of residential car spaces’, then why not simply turn these ‘residential’ spots into ‘visitor’ car parking spots as done in countless other application conditions?
If the developer owns both sites, then is ‘formal legal accessway’ nothing more than a furphy? It will be interesting to see how VCAT views the issue.
Surely the argument regarding ‘employment’ and ‘economic development’ is on very shakey ground considering that the rationale has always been that increased populations in urban villages via higher density dwelling, will ‘invigorate’ centres and help sustain them?

Thus we are again faced with the conundrum of a planning scheme that facilitates high rise development and planners engaged in major ‘damage control’ forced to come up with ‘reasons’ for refusal that anyone can drive a truck through – especially developers with stacks of money for ‘expert witnesses’ and reports! Residents are now paying the full price of a planning scheme that administrators and councillors have refused to touch since 2002. As we’ve stated previously, the only valid response is a total revamp of the zones and a major overhaul of the planning scheme.

May 13, 2016

God Help Us!

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

God help us if this is the quality of planning application reports by officers! We are referring to an application for 4 storeys and 49 units at 90-94 Mimosa Road, Carnegie. The area is zoned Residential Growth Zone, and a permit has already been granted by VCAT for 4 storeys and 50 units at 110-114 Mimosa Road – just a few doors down the same road. Of course, this is not even mentioned in the Camera report!

The recommendation is to refuse the permit. We wonder whether the correlation between refusals and the number of objections has again reared its ugly head (ie 56 objections). Please note, we are not disagreeing with the recommendation to refuse, but are merely pointing out how Rocky Camera is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with any valid reason to refuse the permit given council’s current planning scheme. In our opinion, the officer’s report is not only sub-standard, but hasn’t got a hope in hell of convincing VCAT.

Then of course, there is the argument that if council didn’t want ‘consolidation’ of lots, or 4 storey developments along Mimosa Road, then why did they zone this as a Residential Growth Zone? Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now, is far too late. If instead of simply drawing a circle on a map, council had done its work properly at the time of introducing the zones, we wouldn’t be having the farce that is now standard practice for council. Nor would we be having to cough up tens of thousands of dollars for officers and consultants to go to VCAT on wild goose chases and at ratepayers’ expense. This is literally money thrown down the drain.

Here’s why:

Camera writes – Policy encourages that the highest residential densities be located in Urban Villages, particularly for sites in closest proximity to a commercial activity Centre. The case is different here noting the subject site is located on the outer edge of the Residential Growth Zone with lower intensity zones located to the south and west.

COMMENT: decision after VCAT decision has already commented on the fact that proximity to the centre of an urban village is not an argument, and that if anything it is the GRZ2 zones which are to be taken as the ‘transition buffers’.

This illustrates that the subject site in a more sensitive ‘transitional’ location on the ‘fringe’ of the Residential Growth Zone, with lower density residential zones to the south and west.

COMMENT: When VCAT considers that a 2 storey differential is not enough to refuse a permit, then the difference between RGZ (4 storeys) and GRZ (3 storeys) will not carry any weight whatsoever. Readers should also remember how many developments that directly abutt Neighbourhood Residential zones (ie 2 storeys) have been granted permits by council alone.

Whilst policy also supports a degree of change in this area, the proposal is not site responsive nor is it contextually appropriate having regard to the disparity in scale and massing between the 4 storey building and prevailing single storey development pattern on the west side of Mimosa Road (and beyond).

COMMENT – Again a totally ludicrous argument when back yards in countless streets are the ‘buffer’ between RGZ and the other zones. Or, streets become the buffers between the various zones – ie one side of Garden Avenue Glen Huntly is zoned for 3 storeys (GRZ1) and the opposite side is 2 storeys (NRZ). One section of Balaclava Road is also zoned RGZ and across the road it is NRZ. The same applies for Kambrook Road and Newington Road; Blackwood St in Carnegie as well – or Rowan Street in Elsternwick. There are countless examples of this throughout the municipality. Does this mean that Camera’s argument applies to all? Or is it only that the decision has been made to refuse this application and something has to be coughed up in the attempt to justify the pre-determined decision?

The building will be highly prominent and further exacerbated when viewed at street level and from the wider area due to the site’s overall area (as a result of the consolidation of three lots). As such the development will unreasonably detract from the character and residential amenity of this transitional location (between zones).

COMMENT: All of a sudden ‘residential amenity’ is a concern, when the schedules to the zones do not provide any consideration of ‘amenity’ in the RGZ areas. And doesn’t the planning scheme after all actively ‘encourage’ the consolidation of lots?

Whilst redevelopment of the site at a higher density (than what currently exists) is not opposed, it is considered the proposal fails to adequately respect the neighbourhood character due to excessive mass, bulk and scale of the building (thereby resulting in unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the streetscape and adjoining properties).

COMMENT: how can one speak of ‘neighbourhood character’ when ‘change’ is the purpose and there is no ‘preferred character statement’ whatsoever in the planning scheme for housing diversity. As pointed out numerous times in VCAT decisions.

The development has a Planning Scheme car parking requirement of 62 car spaces (53 resident spaces and 9 visitor spaces). A total of 58 car spaces are proposed on-site (53 allocated to the residential dwellings and 5 to the visitors). This results in a shortfall of 4 visitor spaces. Council’s Transport Planning Department does not oppose the proposed shortfall of 4 visitor car spaces for the development

COMMENT: and the final insult to injury is that council itself does not insist on the requisite number of visitor car parking spaces.

The flood gates have now opened on Mimosa Road – as they have in every street that is zoned RGZ and GRZ. Council can continue to blame VCAT but in our view the fault basically lies with a planning scheme and a planning department that has failed dismally to undertake proper strategic planning. What residents are now faced with is council’s ‘damage control’ tactics. It is very, very easy to refuse application after application and continue to blame VCAT. As for the quality of the Camera report – in our view it is not only sub-standard, but not worth the paper it is written on. There is not one single ‘fact’ – ie what is the percentage of overshadowing? what is site coverage? Compared to the depth and comprehensiveness of other council’s reports on planning applications, Glen Eira should literally hang its head in shame!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates