GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

February 26, 2016

More Lipshutz & Magee Bullshit!

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

VCAT WATCH

There was only one decision in this item – 21-25 Nicholson St., Bentleigh. Council refused a permit and VCAT granted the permit. Here’s what our luminaries had to say on this –

LIPSHUTZ: ‘true to form VCAT knocked it back’. Called this ‘infrastructure stupid’ because both the government and VCAT are ‘allowing infrastructure to grow when there is no infrastructure’. It’s okay that ‘Bentleigh Station is there’ and there is a car park, but when people visit there is ‘insufficient car parking’ and even on a Sunday along Glen Eira road there are ‘traffic jams’ and the government and VCAT ‘allows for high rise development’. Here there is one high rise but ‘what happens’ is that ‘the next one comes along’ and ‘VCAT says because you’ve got one’ the rest are okay and ‘suddenly the whole character of the street changes’. Said that Bent Street is the perfect example of this and ‘this is happening in this street as well’. So there are large developments without infrastructure and ‘not complying with our own policies’. Asks why bother having policy when ‘VCAT simply over-rules us’? Councillors are at ‘the coal face’ and ‘we are the ones who know what is going on’ and VCAT doesn’t.

MAGEE: said this was ‘an important decision by VCAT’. Permit was refused by Manager meaning that it didn’t get to first base of a Delegated Planning Committee or even a Planning Conference but was knocked out straight away. ‘It failed the very first time’ it was looked at. ‘It was fundamentally flawed’ and did not meet planning scheme requirements. ‘Our planning scheme is your planning scheme’ and the ‘Minister actually approved it’ but ‘when it goes to VCAT, VCAT ignore it’. When manager’s refuse it, it is ‘so flawed there is not point’ in going on to a council meeting. So VCAT ‘can come in over the top of 144,000 residents’ and ‘that’s a bloody disgrace’.

COMMENT

Once again the Lipshutz and Magee comments should be revealed for what they are – playing the blame game and utter, unadorned bullshit! Add this to council incompetence, the zoning and the lack of any decent and clear preferred character statements in the planning scheme and it’s no wonder that VCAT overturns so many Council refusals.

For starters, one of councils grounds for refusal was that this site is in the General Residential Zone and therefore doesn’t respect the ‘neighbourhood character’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is NOT in the General Residential Zone as the refusal stated, but in the RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE. Obviously council planners don’t even know their own planning scheme! Here is what the member said on this monumental blooper –

Mr O’Leary advised as a preliminary matter that Council would not pursue its first ground of refusal as clause 32.08 refers to the General Residential Zone that is not applicable and the purposes of the Residential Growth Zone do not refer to existing neighbourhood character.

Then there’s this statement which becomes even more significant when the planning scheme has no preferred character statements for housing diversity, except to say that there will be change expected. Whooppeeee!

The site and adjoining and nearby land are included in the Residential Growth Zone. The purposes of the zone and planning policy encourage the area to be redeveloped more intensively than the prevailing built form, hence the prevailing character of the area is not a constraint.

AND AGAIN –

Neither the purposes of the RGZ or clause 22.05 refer to the character of the neighbourhood as a benchmark for the way a development might fit into the area. The Tribunal has consistently found that land within the Urban Villages is encouraged to be developed more intensively than the prevailing housing that is in garden settings. New development is to be measured by reference to a preferred or emerging character rather than the existing neighbourhood character. The extent of change between the existing and the new built form can be substantial rather than a gently nuanced transition.

Turning to the development before me, the responsible authority accepts the site is unconstrained, is an opportunity site and is close to the core of the urban village. It accepts it is suitable for higher density housing and it has no criticism of the height of the building.

As for arguing for greater setbacks the member simply has to state – No guidance is provided in the schedule to the zone or local policy to support greater setbacks.

Further, since this is such a tree loving council and they want the street tree retained, then why oh why does their Landscape ‘expert’ differ in his opinion – An existing mature street tree has to be removed for the access to the basement. Council opposes its removal. I am not persuaded by Council’s view because its own Park Services department commented that the tree is inconsistent with Council’s street tree strategy and says it is recommended for removal and replacement…..Furthermore, retaining the tree would require the basement, the access ramp and the ground floor to be redesigned, with uncertain results in terms of dwelling yield, appearance and internal amenity. Requiring this to be done to retain a tree of no particular value, in an area and streetscape where substantial change is encouraged by policy, would be an example of the landscape tail wagging the policy dog. I consider retaining the tree to be an unnecessary constraint on a development that implements many planning objectives.

Maybe if council had some tree protection ‘policy’ in its planning scheme this poor old tree might have survived. But of course, Lipshutz has argued against every move to protect trees in Glen Eira, hasn’t he?

There’s even more on landscaping, that makes one wonder exactly how much preparation and the collection of ‘evidence’ this council is prepared to undertake to have any chance of getting their refusal accepted. Again the member points out –

The basement would be set back 2 metres on the south boundary and 2.55 metres from the other boundaries. The responsible authority thought these setbacks would not be satisfactory because the inground areas could not support taller trees. The landscape officer prefers a 3 metre setback, but his referral advice does not specify the basis for a larger setback.The landscape plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd proposes Ornamental Pears, Chinese Elms and Crepe Myrtles, all to heights of 5 metres and that more be planted in these setback areas. No evidence was introduced by any party regarding the likelihood that such plantings could not be successful in the setbacks provided……In the absence of any specific directions such as an urban design framework or the like, I consider it is reasonable to accept that buildings in an Urban Village are likely to have less landscaping around building compared to buildings in areas of less intensive development.

On traffic – Clause 22.05 says that development is to take account of established traffic characteristics and not add to identified traffic conflicts. No parties had concerns with traffic generation or congestion and I concur with their views.

On ResCode overshadowing – The responsible authority says the development complies with the standards in clause 55 regarding amenity impacts on neighbours. No walls are proposed on boundaries. It meets the standards regarding daylight to existing windows and solar access for north facing windows. Overshadowing complies with Standard B21 and overlooking of ground level habitable rooms and secluded open space comply with Standard B22. The responsible authority advises the proposed development has a high level of compliance with Standard B17.

On internal amenity – The responsible authority and the Applicant agree the development would provide acceptable amenity for its residents, except for some matters of design detail. All habitable rooms would have access to natural light. All dwellings would be provided with acceptable areas of secluded open space located adjacent to living rooms. Only a small number of dwellings would be located on the south side of the building and so have less solar access than other dwellings. This is acceptable in a larger development.

COMMENT

Lipshutz and Magee really need to find another scapegoat. They also need to ensure that the planning department does not continue to stuff up and should read its own planning scheme before it writes up its grounds for refusal. It should also consider carefully WHY something that meets almost every single ResCode ‘standard’ gets a refusal. Isn’t this simply a waste of ratepayers’ money in order to create the illusion that all council’s problems can be laid at the feet of VCAT?

Most importantly, Lipshutz and Magee need to explain to residents why Glen Eira does not have:

  • Any preferred character statements for housing diversity areas
  • Any design overlays for these sites
  • Any urban design frameworks for its urban villages
  • Exactly what specific ‘policies’ does Glen Eira have about anything to do with housing diversity areas
  • Why Glen Eira does not have a Development Contributions Levy
  • Why Glen Eira does not have a levy imposed on every car parking waiver granted
  • And why oh why the zones are such a complete disaster!

That is the issue and NOT VCAT – especially in this judgement.

 

February 25, 2016

Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dee & The Demise Of Ethics

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

The prize for the greatest garbage to come out of any councillor’s mouth is a dead tie between Hyams and Lipshutz. In fact, the statements we are reproducing below are not only a damning indictment of these two individuals who will say anything to further their cause, protect their arses, or those of their mates, or simply designed to make some political capital and cement their power base. Logic, consistency, ethics, and concern for residents do not matter one iota in our view.

Prior to the secret and devious introduction of the new zones, which is repeatedly heralded as Glen Eira’s crowning achievement strictly because of its height limits, Hyams proclaimed the following (dates are from our postings)

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)

Then there’s Lipshutz! On Tuesday night there was a ‘passionate’ defence of ‘consultation’ and how vital it is that people get a say. Yet here is what this same advocate on ‘consultation’ had to say not that long ago –

LIPSHUTZ – ….asking the community but that’s a ‘very cute argument because we all know that when you’ consult with people that ‘the vast majority’ ‘don’t give their view’ and it’s only those people ‘who have a strong view about the issue’. Those who give their view are the voters and it’s those people who ‘will in fact say yes or no’. Going to community consultation means that ‘you will get’ the views of ‘activists and who have strong views’ and the ‘vast silent majority don’t care’. And ‘they don’t care’ because they are ‘satisfied’ about the ‘way council operates’. (on tree register – 24/3/2015)

The hypocrisy, is simply mind boggling. Remember this when you next vote!

 

February 24, 2016

Skyrail, Politics & A Dysfunctional Council

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

PS: We’ve put up a comment, but on reflection believe that it should be more prominent and accessible to readers. Here is what we wrote:

The extent to which this entire issue has become a political football where the Liberals bash Labor and Labor bashes the Liberals and the Greens are content to sit back and see the fur fly is reprehensible all round. We have gone back over the Records of Assembly and what is literally quite staggering is that the LXRA October presentation that Delahunty refers to included two prominent ‘apologies’ (ie neither of these councillors attended). They were DELAHUNTY AND OKOTEL.

Admittedly there were subsequent meetings and another ‘presentation’ but the impression (deliberately?) created from both Okotel’s and Delahunty’s comments at council meeting was that both were in attendance. Perhaps quite fitting that it should be one from each side of politics that with their sins of omission and spin seek to further obfuscate and turn this into a political football. As we have repeatedly stated – SHAME UPON THEM ALL

This is a very, very long post – but an important one. We ask all readers to carefully consider the diverse and contradictory statements made here and the underlying politics that colours everything!

The Skyrail petition included: no options provided to residents and ‘sky rail was never presented’ for consultation. Petition asked that consultation be undertaken to ‘determine whether this is the community’s preferred option’ plus including studies on noise and other environmental impacts.

Esakoff moved that the petition be noted and that council supports level crossing removal. Council writes to all MPs and newspapers advocating for no ‘elevated skyrail through our city’ until after there has been ‘full’ consultation and that LXRA reps plus government holds a ‘public forum’ on the issue. Pilling seconded.

ESAKOFF: (reading from a prepared ‘speech’). Said that she would ‘advocate strongly’ for residents about ‘their concern’ for skyrail being ‘the preferred option’ when they ‘and indeed councillors were not aware’ of the option. The concerns were ‘lack of consultation, visual amenity’ and ‘in some cases year round overshadowing’. Said that everyone wanted separation and that council ‘had advocated for a decade or more’ for separation. Stated that skyrail may be cheaper but ‘cheaper is rarely better’. Residents ‘want to be consulted in a meaningful way’ and decisions to come after consultation and not by ‘one on ones’. This is a ‘disaster that has befallen them’. Said she ‘doubts’ the usefulness of the 11 MCGs of open space and ‘linear parks’ which will be ‘narrow strips’ and only suitable for a bike track. Council ‘could’ buy land to ‘incorporate into this’ area but with ratecapping that becomes impossible. There’s also the question of maintenance and what they don’t know is the ‘financial implications’ of this. So if no benefit is provided to residents then the money of ratepayers is ‘better spent’ on ‘meaningful open space’. (applause)

PILLING: said he lives in Murrumbeena and is ‘quite close’ to the proposed skyrail and is ‘well aware of the issue’. He has received over 100 emails from residents and will advocate strongly for residents. ‘We are certainly concerned about the lack of consultation’. Agrees that no decision be made until after consultation and that there has been ‘misinformation’ put out because of the lack of information from the government. People need to be ‘better informed’.

LIPSHUTZ: skyrail could be the best thing ‘since sliced bread’ but he doesn’t know because he hasn’t been given the ‘opportunity’ to find out ‘what the alternatives are’. On the East-West link the government consulted with the community ‘but now they’ve ignored that’. Sky rail ‘might be wonderful but how about telling the community why it’s wonderful?’ and let people tell ‘the government what they actually want’. What we now have is a ‘monstrosity’ where there will be ‘graffiti’, ‘crime’ and 11 MCGs that are ‘useless’ and ‘we’re told as a council’ that it’s ‘wonderful’. Said he read one newspaper article where Andrews didn’t take this to cabinet and decided ‘himself’. Claimed that if he was ‘cynical’ he would wonder why skyrail isn’t in the marginal seats of Bentleigh and instead going into a ‘safe Labor seat’. Consultation ‘is very important’ and that when dealing with big issues like this and ‘people’s lives, people’s property, people’s values’ then ‘it is so important to consult the community’. Said that when council did GESAC they consulted extensively via forums and ‘hearing what the community had to say’. Booran reservoir is the same where ‘we went to the community’ and asked ‘what do you want’. The government didn’t do this and ‘they didn’t even look at any other alternative’. (applause)

MAGEE: the government ‘will decide’ whether to ‘go ahead’ with skyrail. Said there is currently a ‘four week consultation period’ and they will ‘get to see what the results’ from this are. He is ‘more interested in the process’ and whether this is ‘appropriate’ and ‘just’. Council would be in a ‘much stronger position’ if they had plans about what is happening in the ‘corridor’ proposed. Said that Guy wrote to all councils and took away their powers over the land in the corridor so that ‘no control’ over parking. If this hadn’t happened then council and the planning scheme still had these powers then council would have ‘grounds to argue’ and to ‘refuse’ but ‘unfortunately’ all that council can now do is ‘listen to the community and speak on their behalf’. Unfortunately Guy and David Davis who are the ‘champions of this railroad, this skyrail’ are the ones who ‘set it up’. (applause)

OKOTEL: said that previously when there was consultation about grade separation ‘consultation was narrow’ and ‘wasn’t genuine’ and that council were told they could have ‘input’ into what ‘would occur around development’ around the area. Said that was her ‘understanding that we would have the ability’ to have a say. And ‘my understanding this year is that this is no longer the case’. Now they’ve told council that there would be skyrail and that the land would be controlled by the government and that they ‘would hand over maintenance to council’. Given ratecapping it ‘will be more and more difficult’ to maintain these areas. Said that in her time on council has ‘never seen the community so outraged’ about an issue. Thanked residents for their ‘passionate advocacy’ and that without their ‘passionate advocacy we would not be in the position we are to take a strong stance’ to government. Council is ‘your voice’ and they will advocate that ‘things don’t happen without your input’. Said that council put to the rail authority that the ‘rail should go underground’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘point of order’ on accuracy.

PILLING: told Okotel that he didn’t think ‘that was correct’.

DELAHUNTY: said her point of order was about the ‘truthfulness’ of Okotel’s statement in suggesting ‘that council had a position that rail should go under road’. Said that council ‘never had a position’.

OKOTEL: said that her ‘understanding’ was that the majority of councillors thought it should go underground. Went on and asked residents to ‘put your trust in your council that we will do the right thing by you’. (applause)

PILLING: said he was ‘very conscious that what we say to our community is correct’.

SOUNNESS: went through his background on planning and being on the Transport committee rep with other councils and so is very interested in the issue. Concerned that in ’40 to 60 years time’ Melbourne will be double in population but without the necessary infrastructure. Need to ensure that more people ‘move about more efficiently with less impact’. ‘Grade separation’ can make the system ‘more efficient’ but there will be ‘trade offs’. Knows that designers are ‘doing their best’ and so do ‘technicians’ who are ‘passionate about urban design’. Said he did see proposals for ‘rail above’ and other options but ‘why this is the best option, I’m not too sure’. Wants to know why it’s the best option so ‘I can explain to you’. Stated that he ‘appreciates’ the petition and wants to see ‘consultation’ go further but as a council it is not their domain but a ‘state infrastructure matter’. Hoped that information would come out so people would understand why we’re ‘going this way’ so council can ‘adjust’. (applause)

HYAMS: claimed there was ‘no reason’ for council not to accept the motion. Said it was important that ‘we are united’ as a council behind the ‘principles of decent community consultation’. Went on to say that there’s ‘nothing in the motion’ that is not in line with council’s ‘position’. The flood of emails and questions is ‘proof of how poor this consultation process has been’. Stated it should ‘have been done’ like the Liberals did with Ormond where they presented 4 options and then ‘chose the one the people were behind’. On Magee’s earlier point about Guy removing council power ‘that happens with all major’ projects and governments. Here a decision was made ‘and then consulting on it’. On claims that ‘this is a party political campaign’ admitted that ‘the opposition has got behind this’ but that ‘doesn’t mean that the opposition is running the campaign’. Quoted from some recent articles in The Age – Farah Tomazzin, Clay Lucas, and others. Went on to say that as a result of some of the emails he had received he learnt about impacts that he hadn’t thought of before such as the skyrail ‘going through Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ and ‘neighbourhood residential zones’. Asked then that if the project goes through ‘will we be able’ to continue to keep ‘those protections’ on the neighbourhoods since the government is ‘seeking’ to change Plan Melbourne so that there is ‘more development in existing suburbs’. Other impacts are overshadowing and since the tracks will be narrow whether these would comply with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. Thought that residents ‘have a right’ to the forum and that ‘all questions are answered in public’. When something that is ‘so unexpected and so life changing’ is put before people ‘they have the right to a proper consultation’. (applause)

DELAHUNTY: supported the motion and thanked Esakoff and residents and thought it was right that ‘there be a public forum’. ‘Concerned’ that the ‘one on one sessions’ aren’t ‘doing what it is that you want them to do’. Right that the petition be accepted, but her ‘concern’ is that it is ‘constituted on an incorrect premise’ but ‘that we are responsible for that incorrect premise’ – ‘that we didn’t know’. ‘We did know’. Said that council had participated with ‘1500 others’ on ‘what this separation project might look like’ and that was ‘some time last year’. Said that council asked for ‘open space, bike tracks’ like others and in ‘early October’ claimed that council were ‘presented’ with ‘some options and one of those was elevated rail’. ‘I am genuinely sorry for the misinformation that comes out of this council’. Said this wasn’t a ‘surprise’ to her because it was ‘pictured’ quite clearly

OKOTEL: point of order on ‘incorrect information’ in that the ‘option of elevated rail was never presented’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – IE ‘WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH?’

PILLING: ‘there was a range of options’

DELAHUNTY: said that this presentation was in ‘early October’ and ‘it didn’t quite lay out what we’ve now seen’. Agreed that the process was inadequate and ‘not taken to residents’. Said that ‘they haven’t done a great job at consultation and they need to do better’. Didn’t think that ‘one on one’ was good enough and she supports ‘you being able to turn up here tonight and ask public questions’. But ‘unfortunately most of my councillor colleagues don’t support that’.

HYAMS : point of order and ‘that is false and defamatory’ and asked that Delahunty withdraw.

DELAHUNTY: said that she had in the past moved a motion asking that meeting procedures be changed so that ‘members of the public’ could ‘speak and that was voted down by a majority’ of councillors. ‘So I stand by’ the comment.

Multiple calls for point of order

PILLING: said that this was ‘out of context’

DELAHUNTY: back to LXRA and repeated that she didn’t think ‘their consultation’ processes have been adequate. Also ‘wanted to give an apology for some of the misinformation that has come from council that hasn’t helped your genuine concerns’. ‘Some of that is that we did not know’. Said that in the agenda papers there is a letter from the Minister ‘which again reiterates elevated rail proposals’. ‘Council did not tell you properly, we did not take you with us’ and LXRA ‘didn’t take you with us’. ‘It wasn’t done properly so I support the motion’.

OKOTEL: question to Delahunty. Said she didn’t know about the proposal for skyrail and is ‘surprised that you state you knew’. Question was ‘if you knew why didn’t you say anything earlier?’

DELAHUNTY: ‘We all knew. There was an authority presentation to council’. Said she’s got the ‘presentation package’ and ‘there are pictures of elevated rail’ including ‘some of the ones that are being used now’. Agreed that it ‘might be for a lack of understanding’ why this ‘wasn’t given to the community’.

UPROAR FROM GALLERY

PILLING: admitted that the presentation referred to by Delahunty ‘certainly had pictures and some concepts’ but that they were in the ‘similar position then of not knowing’ what would come out of this. ‘Council genuinely did not know’ of the skyrail option would be the option. ‘We found out on February 7th the same day as you’. Said that in the presentation there were ‘a lot of things floated’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘we didn’t know it was the final option’ but they knew ‘it was on the table’. Thus the ‘premise of the petition’ is that ‘we were not aware’, ‘we didn’t know that it was an option’. Thought that it was ‘important’ that people realise that ‘we did know that it was an option’. (uproar from gallery)

PILLING: repeated that council knew but ‘did not know that it was going to be the preferred option’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY – ‘WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU KNEW. WE DIDN’T KNOW’ AND OTHER COMMENTS LIKE ‘WHAT ABOUT INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY’. ‘YOU’RE TERRIBLE ALL OF YOU’.

PILLING: was ‘sure’ that ‘everyone wanted to get to the vote’ on this.

OKOTEL: another question to chair. Referred to the presentation and Pilling’s understanding that council were given 4 options and that ‘you were referring to small pictures’

PILLING: said that ‘the bottom line’ was that like residents ‘council did not know that the skyrail would be the preferred option’.

OKOTEL: asked about the ‘pictures from around the globe’ and whether this was ‘being consulted on rather than the 4 options presented?’

PILLING; ‘as I recall’ they got the same information as the ‘general public’ . ‘We didn’t have any more knowledge’.

SOUNNESS: wanted to answer Okotel. Said that at the presentation the reps were speaking mainly about ‘rail under but they did not rule out rail over’. ‘they showed pictures indicating the potential’ of this. They said ‘it was in the mix’. So from ‘my point of view, we knew’ but most of the attention was on rail under. ‘From my point of view it was an option’.

COMMENTS FROM GALLERY – WHY HAVEN’T YOU ‘SHARED WITH US’? ‘YOU HAVE BEEN DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY’

OKOTEL: another question. About the presentation whether the presentation was showing the ‘elevation of the’ entire train line? (applause)

SOUNNESS: said ‘they didn’t say much about it’ because they were still getting information. ‘My impression’ was that it could have been under, over.

PILLING: they could ‘argue’ about ‘detail and who recollects what’ but the important thing is the petition and councillor support for residents.

ESAKOFF: ‘from my perspective we did not know about skyrail’. They ‘saw a picture of skyrail’ from maybe America, and this ‘was amongst a lot of other pictures’ of grade separation in other places. Skyrail ‘was not put down as an option here’. ‘My recollection is the same as Cr Okotel’s’ and their picture was ‘a bridge and not a 6km skyrail’. (applause) Also if other councillors knew ‘because they had close connections then it should have been more forthcoming’ so they could ‘inform the rest of us’.

DELAHUNTY: asked for withdrawel of comment

ESAKOFF: if it was ‘offensive I’m very happy to withdraw it’. Went on to quote the Government Architect statement of recent times and ‘pre-election policies’. (applause). Said she went to the meetings of LXRA and that it was too small and ‘very little information provided’ just ‘pretty pictures’. Also went to the ‘rally on the weekend’ where ‘residents told their stories’. These residents felt ‘that an actual disaster’ had happened ‘in our community’ ‘similar to’ and earthquake and’ this is how these people are feeling’. At these meetings people weren’t allowed to ‘take photographs’, ‘have representation’. ‘they sit there absolutely stunned’. They feel they have nowhere to go but to put their houses on the market. ‘It is a concern’ for families who have ‘built up a nest egg’ in their homes ‘to have this taken from beneath them’. ‘To hear stories on the weekend – it brought tears to anyone’s eyes’. (applause) So if there is a forum ‘they would have to be moved by these stories’. Said they ‘expected the same process’ as for North Road and McKinnon Road ‘where the community was listened to’. Hoped that the motion would ‘provide the avenue for a real consultation’. Thought that there was ‘still’ some room ‘for movement’ and didn’t think ‘this was signed off as yet’. (applause)

MOTION PUT: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE)

 

 

 

 

February 23, 2016

‘A Failure To Communicate – Or Understand?’

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

Tonight’s council meeting was packed to the rafters with residents – most were concerned with Skyrail. A petition was submitted and this engendered an hour’s discussion where councillors voted unanimously to accept the petition, and seek a public forum. Full details will follow tomorrow. However, the following need highlighting:

  • Disagreement amongst councillors as to whether or not they were briefed by LXRA on the possibility of skyrail well before the official announcement. Acrimonious exchanges between Okotel and Delahunty and overall lapses of memory from Pilling and others.
  • Political grandstanding all round – ie quite stunning how ‘consultation’ is so important to these councillors now, but not when it comes to most things in Glen Eira like the introduction of the zones!
  • Lobo officially ‘censured’ with motion moved by Pilling and Okotel to feature on website and all major dailies and the Leader. Labelled a ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, and much more. Lobo was absent from the meeting.
  • Delahunty motion for public forum on security defeated. Voting against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Okotel.
  • 161 public questions submitted. Only 15 ‘representative’ questions read out and answered.
  • New CEO in attendance. Introduced but made no comments.

 

 

February 20, 2016

Does 1 & 1 Equal 2 Here?

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

gunsQUESTIONS

  • Does this letter from the Minister’s Office contradict what Burke writes in the agenda papers?
  • What is council’s permit conditions?
  • What is their policy? Does such a document even exist?
  • If it does exist, was this ‘policy’ changed (OR IGNORED) to accommodate the events in question?
  • Would private armed security guards come under Burke’s category of ‘government bodies’?
  • Will Council publish the permit it granted so that residents can finally know the truth?

PS: Off topic – Caulfield Racecourse. See Sunday Age – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-public-space-that-people-didnt-know-existed-20160220-gmz66o.html

 

February 19, 2016

Lobo & Guns In Parks

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

There are two extraordinary items in the agenda papers for Tuesday night. One concerns the ‘guns in the parks’ episode and the other the anti-semitism claims against Lobo. That both of these issues should occupy so much of council time, and expense, is in our view, a clear indication of how dysfunctional and politically driven Glen Eira Council is.

Both of these items feature some ‘unusual’ new tactics:

  • For the first time in living memory, Council has published the ‘privileged and confidential’ legal advice that it sought externally. Why?
  • For the first time in living memory Council is seeking that Police ‘answer’ for the guns in parks issue via a ‘community forum’. Why?

THE LOBO AFFAIR

Several things stand out immediately in this item:

  • The brevity of the Burke report and lack of ‘direction’ from administration – ie washing their hands of the matter and hence not endorsing the Lipshutz, Hyams ‘instigated’ motion?
  • The undoubtedly costly ‘legal advice’ says ‘bugger all’. It merely outlines the current legislation. More significantly it questions why Council has not undertaken ‘internal resolution’ processes which are part of its Code of Conduct. Another ‘slap in the face’ to councillors?
  • How on earth can this councillor group expect decent legal advice when it has not supplied the lawyers with any ‘evidence’ of the alleged offences? This makes a mockery of the allegations in the first place and secondly shows how incompetent these councillors have been to begin with.
  • Not only was the original Request for a Report vague and ‘general’ but so badly worded that all the lawyers could do was respond in ‘general terms’. What a waste of public money!

What remains to be seen is whether these 8 paragons of virtue will take this matter further and whether ratepayers can expect to fork out thousands more to satisfy what we believe to be the political machinations of several councillors.

GUNS IN PARKS

  • Another example of ‘damage control’?
  • Another example of ‘passing the buck’ – this time to the Police?
  • Is this another example of a very neat sleight of hand at best or straight out contradiction at worst? – ‘Council’s conditions of use do not allow events to involve firearms’ AND ‘Council’s relationship is with the event organiser, not with those who supply services to the event (whether security, seating, tents, audio equipment, etc’)
  • Who exactly are these ‘public’ anyway?
  • How arrogant! Does Council really expect the Police to admit that their forces are not adequately ‘trained’ or ‘capable of protecting all members of the community’!!!!!!!!!
  • We wonder what the Police reaction will be to this nonsense?

We have uploaded both items HERE

PS: Today’s Age

ad

 

February 9, 2016

Pinpointing The Rot In Glen Eira!

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

The first round of submissions on reforming the Local Government Act has now closed. There were several from Glen Eira residents. Of major significance is the submission from the Ombudsman. Every one of the selected extracts below has direct relevance to what occurs in Glen Eira. Some of these recommendations also fly in the face of what Council submitted. It is now up to the new CEO to change the culture and ensure that Glen Eira is dragged screaming into a new era of greater transparency and accountability to its ratepayers.

Here are some extracts. All submissions may be accessed from – http://www.yourcouncilyourcommunity.vic.gov.au/submission?preview=true

Secrecy in government creates conditions in which improper conduct and poor administration can flourish. It also fuels suspicions of wrongdoing and erodes community trust. Members of the public who complain to my office about council decisions occasionally mention the fact that decisions were made ‘behind closed doors’ or ‘in secret’ as evidence to support their concerns.

While the Local Government Act requires councils to record the reasons for closing a meeting in the minutes, recent experience of my office is that councils on occasion simply repeat the wording of the Act without providing specific reasons as required by the Act.

I also note that Victoria’s Act does not provide for separate confidentiality orders for documents. While a meeting may be closed to the public for valid reasons, the documents considered at that meeting may not contain the same level of confidential information. I favour strengthening these provisions in the Local Government Act to promote transparency, encourage councils to minimise the use of closed meetings, and to provide more information to the community about the reasons for closed meetings.

In its current form, the Act only deals with complaint handling in the context of complaints about the Chief Executive Officer of a council. This is not sufficient. The main subject matter of complaints about councils to my office continues to be the manner in which councils handle complaints. Of the roughly 3,400 complaints received by my office last financial year, almost 1,000 complaints raised issues about the way the council had handled the complaint. Key problems included delays, inadequate processes and inadequate remedies.

I recommended that the government consider whether there should be restrictions on donations to candidates and political parties by property developers; and whether the details of all donations should be published on a publically available register within 30 days of the relevant election.

Earlier investigations by my predecessor identified issues that affect good governance when prior political affiliations – both within and across political parties – lead to ‘block voting’ by councillors. Previous investigations by my office have noted that this hampers the proper functioning of a council as a decision-making body, with councillors engaging in decision making which in effect:

takes place behind closed doors

 causes detriment to the council

sees votes made for personal gain or political motivations

sees voting in a ‘block’ to support a faction when those decisions may not be necessarily in the best interests of the community

lacks impartiality when councillors meet in a ‘block’ prior to council meetings to determine their votes without considering the merits of a matter while in council chambers

….allegations of conflict of interest continue to be made about councillors and council officers. My office received over 40 complaints about conflict of interest in the last financial year. Eleven of those complaints were considered serious enough to be notified to IBAC by my office.

I also support the creation of a uniform code of conduct for all councils. While the Local Government Act requires councils to establish a Councillor Code of Conduct, there is no requirement for a uniform code across the state. Having a prescribed code of conduct would provide consistency in the application of key principles of behaviour.

+++++++

COMMENT

A few recent examples from the last council meeting alone:

  • An in camera item about ‘personnel’ and the Audit Committee. No outcome for this item was reported in the minutes. Hence for the nth time we have to ask: why is this in camera? Council ‘tradition’ has largely been to reappoint either Gibbs or McLean in secret. Is this another instance of this practise? One of these members is now gone? Is the other one going as well? Why, when other councils can table their intentions about appointments to the Audit Committe, does Glen Eira continue to operate in total secrecy?
  • Why is there no ‘estimated value’ provided for another tender in the in camera items and no announcement of any result? Jobs for the boys perhaps?
  • Voting in blocks? Another ‘tradition’ in Glen Eira!
  • Resolving ‘complaints’ – councillor responses are always ‘I have been advised’ with no further evidence to support the decision.
  • Conflict of interest? Perceptions of this abound in Glen Eira – Esakoff Seaview property; Frogmore and Jewish Care; How to vote card fiasco; countless Melbourne Racing Club applications; councillors voting on petitions when they are named in order to reject a petition (ie on appointment of Councillor Trustees) and the very ‘convenient’ declaration of conflict of interest by Esakoff on Frogmore!
  • A Code of Conduct that includes ‘no surprises’ so that councillors are gagged.
  • No penalties included in the Code of Conduct since it is, according to council, only a ‘code’ and therefore not ‘enforceable’.

The litany of poor governance practices is shocking. Residents need to make sure that there is dramatic change in October 2016.

 

February 5, 2016

We’ve Sunk To This Level!

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

Crs Pilling/Okotel
That a report be provided that provides options for a response from Council whereas;
A/ a Councillor has made remarks against a section of the community in the Council chamber that are widely viewed as racist,
B/ a Councillor has made statements to the media that are widely viewed as false and damaging to the reputation of Council,
C/ this report to be presented at the February 23rd meeting.
DIVISION
Cr Lipshutz called for a DIVISION on the voting of the MOTION.

FOR
Cr Lipshutz
Cr Hyams
Cr Esakoff
Cr Delahunty
Cr Pilling
Cr Sounness
Cr Okotel
Cr Magee

AGAINST – Cr Lobo
On the basis of the DIVISION the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED

 

February 4, 2016

The Camera Report ‘Debate’!

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

Hyams moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS: started by saying that there is ‘frustration’ that VCAT gets away with ‘pretty much ignoring our policies’. The act ‘requires VCAT to consider’ policies ‘rather than apply them’. Said that council went to the Supreme Court ‘many years ago’ about this and was ‘declined’. ‘Residents are continually let down by VCAT’. Admitted that it is ‘hard’ to compare applications that are exactly the same but claimed that ‘when VCAT is not bound by our policies’ it creates ‘uncertainty’ and that doesn’t ‘benefit’ anyone including ‘applicants because they don’t know what they can apply for reasonably’. Council will continue advocating like they have to ‘several governments’ for change.

COMMENT – When the new zones were introduced in secret, without community consultation, the argument went –

The new arrangements make clear the intensity of development that is allowable on any block. That provides certainty and “…as VCAT’s areas of discretion are reduced, Councillors’ views and decisions carry more weight. (Source: council ‘Guide to the Community’ from 2013). Now we have the reverse argument it seems – the zones have not brought ‘certainty’! Our view is that applicants know exactly where and what they can build because the zones tell them that this site can have 4 storeys, and that’s what council is encouraging you to build!

MAGEE: societies ‘live by what is reasonable’ and when the ‘majority’ want to go ‘left, we go left’ and when right, ‘we go right’. The Government requires a planning scheme and council ‘over a two year period talked to our residents’, ‘we consulted widely’. They produced a ‘booklet of what our residents wanted’ which ‘looked street by street’ and they ‘identified where high density should be’ near stations and the areas further away was ‘that’s where you want your minimal change’. So over time and ‘many many consultations’ the document ‘called the Glen Eira planning scheme’ was produced. This was approved at all levels. This was what council and ‘what our residents wanted’. But VCAT ‘has the right to ignore’ so there is a ‘statutary body ignoring what your residents have said’ like height limits and ‘increased setbacks’ and residents wanted to know where high density would go and ‘that is what you got’ with the planning scheme. ‘I believe we have a very, very good planning scheme’. Last year ‘VCAT approved 582 apartments’ that had been refused by council and that was because ‘it wasn’t consistent with our planning scheme’. ‘Our planning scheme is what our residents said they wanted’. Council ‘went to the community’ and asked ‘Do you approve?’ and residents said ‘yes’. The minister then approved but VCAT ‘only have to consider it’. So when council consider buildings of 9 or 2 storeys ‘we look at residential building codes’, and the planning scheme. Councillors ‘sometimes’ give a permit to ‘buildings we don’t like’ mainly because ‘there are no grounds for refusal’. ‘It is wrong to say we want this and then to vote for something different’. Council and community has ‘asked’ for this planning scheme and that is ‘what is so disappointing about VCAT’. VCAT is ‘like a box of chocolates’ in terms of its members that ‘you don’t know which one you are going to get’. You can ‘have a good member or a member that just goes to the letter of the law’. This isn’t ‘how society works’. Society ‘works in an environment where we want to make it better’. Said that no councillor wants a resident to ‘live near a 4 or 5 or 6 storey’ building. Reiterated about the current zones – ie two storey height limit in Neighbourhood Residential Zone and ‘98% of Glen Eira has a height limit’. ‘We have done what our residents have asked us’. It is ‘disappointing’ when VCAT ‘come back time and time again quoting ResCode’ and ‘totally ignoring the Glen Eira planning scheme’.

COMMENT: we need not comment on the above because the hypocrisy is simply mind boggling and frankly insulting. When Council can publish documents which state that they didn’t seek community input because they knew that residents would be worse off, and Magee can resort to using such terms as ‘consultation’ and imply democratic process, then this speaks loudly and clearly enough.

DELAHUNTY: they wanted the report to ‘show inconsistencies’ but what it ‘more outlines’ is the ‘frustrating nature of those inconsistencies’. Claimed that some members provide reasons for upholding council decisions and others use these very same reasons to ‘overturn’ council decisions. Council was trying to help those who have power to ‘understand the frustrations’ of council. Admitted that ‘it is very hard to find an apple and apple comparison’ but reading through decisions ‘you find yourself agreeing with the member’ one day and then the next there is a different decision. Said that ‘subjective decisions’ are relied up by both VCAT and councillors. That is ‘right’ because ‘we are closest to the community, we live in the community’ so that ‘sometimes we need that ambiguity’ in the planning scheme. This sometimes means that ‘we will apply some differences’ to the policies. (gave example of a previous decision for synagogue extension in Inkerman Road). ‘We do it ourselves’ we ‘change and we interpret our policies’ differently according to circumstances. When VCAT does this is it ‘frustrating’ because they are not ‘the closest to the community’. Hoped that government and VCAT would be ‘able to learn’ from the report as well as ‘council’ learning from ‘the way we have formulated the scheme’ and since they have ‘always stayed away from structure plans’ but maybe if they looked at ‘other councils’ that ‘have structure plans’ and how they go at VCAT but officers have said that they don’t fare any better – ‘it is not the case’. Hoped that ‘community voices’ and the ‘petitions’ will make government ‘take it into account’ in bringing the VCAT ‘member’ and the ‘decisions’ ‘closer to the people’. Thought that the report provided ‘enough’ for council to ‘advocate very strongly’.

COMMENT: how many times has Delahunty got on her high horse and demanded that ‘policy’ be adhered to by council? Examples – McKinnon Bowls club for one? Radio antennaes on council towers? If we are talking ‘inconsistencies’ then perhaps Delahunty needs to look at her ‘consistency’ levels when it comes to advocating on adherence to ‘policy’ or even the need to ’ ‘create’ policy to guide council decisions

SOUNNESS: thought planning was like the Japanese ‘chinko’ game where balls ‘go up’ and ‘down’. Going through all the processes ‘the community is bemused’ and the ‘planning officers do their very, very best’. Supported the ‘intent’ of the report but advised that people should read the ‘dense, turgid’ member decisions which are ‘quite entertaining’. This is the current state of the planning system and VCAT members have got ‘enormous discretion to go any way they want’. Didn’t think that council and planners have ‘got good tools to work with’. Has seen other places where the system works ‘with much more clarity’.

OKOTEL: shared the ‘frustration’ of all and ‘it is clear there is inconsistency in VCAT’s decision making’ especially on ‘neighbourhood character’. VCAT ‘interprets that very, very differently’. When council determines something they are a ‘quasi-judicial body’. It goes through the planning department and they consider ‘planning policy’ and put in their recommendations and ‘we apply’ the planning laws again. At VCAT there is an ‘unelected representative’ making a decision ‘as one person’. They ‘don’t have the same level of understanding’ as to ‘what is important’ to residents. The inconsistencies ‘are troubling’ because they ‘create uncertainty’ even for councillors because they have to think how VCAT will respond if an appeal goes in. Said this was ‘hard because we have consistently seen inconsistent decisions’.

COMMENT: and when council delegates practically all of its planning decision making to officers, who are also ‘unelected’ and probably don’t live in the municipality – then how different is this? As for the old chestnut, or thinking will need to consider what VCAT might do – could any councillor, please point to the exact clause, or section, of the Act which says this is part of any planning decision making process?

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with everyone and said ‘what a difference’ between democracies and ‘tin pot’ countries. In democracies, legislation and the courts ‘are separate’. In Australia, at all court levels judges are ‘appointed’ until they are 70, but not at VCAT where ‘members are appointed for a term’. ‘If they don’t follow the guidelines of government’ they won’t be reappointed. Said ‘there is no independent judiciary’. Also decisions by magistrates or supreme courts create ‘precedents’ and they are ‘independent’ and ‘make decisions irrespective of what the government said’. ‘The members of VCAT are not independent’. All members whether Labor, Liberal are ‘beholden’ to make decisions which are ‘in accord with government policy’ or ‘they do not get reappointed’. If this was ‘addressed’ then ‘some of the problems we are talking about today would disappear’.

COMMENT – we suggest that Lipshutz should start reading some VCAT judgements in order to discover how often members refer to previous decisions (in effect as ‘precedents’). As for high court judges, and state judges, Australian history is full of contentious ‘political’ court appointments!

HYAMS: endorsed Lipshutz and said the report ‘gave some hope’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

February 2, 2016

Aren’t We Wonderful?

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

It is becoming a regular occurrence that council cannot get its act together and determine an application within the required 60 day period. Thus, the developer side-steps council and goes directly to VCAT. This occurred on the first item of the agenda – ie. the application for 4 storeys and 47 dwellings in Vickery St., Bentleigh. Council received the application on the 7th October 2015 and despite the excuses of Christmas that Hyams throws up, the 60 days would have expired well and truly before the holiday period and still leaves most of January for a decision.

Hyams moved motion to advise VCAT that if Council had the power to make a decision they would have issued a permit for 3 storeys and ‘up to 39 dwellings’. He also included several other conditions involving site coverage, increased setbacks and visitor car parking spots. Seconded by Magee.

HYAMS: explained that they were informed at ‘seven minutes past four this afternoon’ that the developer had gone straight to VCAT because of failure to determine within 60 days. Said that ‘given Christmas holidays’ it is ‘very difficult if not impossible’ to get a decision for ‘to be sorted out within 60 days’. Claimed that the developer ‘chose to appeal’ because it ‘suggests they weren’t prepared to accept anything’ that council would put up as conditions. Said the ‘effect’ of this was ‘neglible’ because now council goes to vcat and says ‘this is what we would allow them’. Objectors can still be ‘a party’ to the case. Said that ‘it gives them no advantage at all’ and maybe the ‘outside chance’ that the developer would ask for costs against council. But since it is on the ‘agenda and just over 60 days’ then unlikely. ‘Their tactics are up to them’. Admitted that the site is ‘near station’ and ‘not near the edge’ of the Residential Growth Zone, but it is ‘still fair to say’ that 4 storeys is too much in that it would ‘impact unduly on residential amenity’ and the ‘slope of the street would make it appear higher’. Therefore ‘three storeys in this case is more appropriate’. Said that there were increased street setbacks to ‘reflect other properties’. And so it would be ‘less impactful’. Council accepts the argument of objectors who ‘passionately’ made the point about car parking in the street so they are asking for full visitor car parking spots. Outlined the conditions related to site coverage and ‘safety’ with sight lines into the basement garages.

MAGEE: said objectors talked about ‘height and scale and massing’ and now ‘council has listened to that’. On landscaping, council has also taken note by ‘increasing setbacks’. Said that there is an ‘impact on infrastructure as we know in that area’ and with grade separation they are looking at ‘storm water’ and that ‘will help’. Said that objectors concerns had ‘been addressed’ by the conditions. It was ‘unfortunate’ that the developer went to VCAT but that was because he wasn’t prepared to ‘accept’ what council conditions were after he saw the officer report on Friday and he probably wouldn’t accept what Hyams moved either.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because the application was ‘certainly out of keeping with neighbourhood character’ and because there’s already so much ‘congestion on the street’ the conditions about car parking is important. Asked Torres a question – since there were 39 objectors, will they be informed about the VCAT hearing?

TORRES: replied that VCAT ‘will now’ go through its processes and inform all objectors.

DELAHUNTY: thanked objectors for their ‘informed’ participation in the planning conference and that this ‘helped set the conditions’ for the application. Said that ‘something will go on this site’ and it ‘will probably be a larger building’ than what people ‘at the moment want to see’. But ‘it’s a great place to live’ and whatever happens at VCAT she hopes that it ‘strikes the right balance’ between protecting amenity and catering for population growth.

HYAMS: reiterated that ‘all objectors are part of the process and will be notified by VCAT’. Objectors have ‘the right to be involved’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

  • How many more times will council fail to determine an application in the statutary time limit? Please note that in recent cases VCAT has awarded costs against various councils on this very ground.
  • How many more VCAT decisions have to point out to this council that its zoning is the determining factor in its decision making and that lopping off a storey in a growth zone is doomed to failure?
  • How many more times will these councillors continue to blame VCAT rather than the current planning scheme?
  • How much longer will council continue to pretend that its planning scheme is god’s gift to Glen Eira residents, rather than the inept, and archaic document it really is?

And as a final nail in the coffin to the arguments that are presented above, we quote from the latest VCAT decision on another site in the Residential Growth Zone.. Either these councillors are deaf, dumb, and stupid, or derelict in their duty to analyse each and every VCAT decision and then to ensure that they amend the planning scheme to close off the gaping loopholes that now exist. Please consider how each of the following statements totally contradict all of Hyams’, Okotel’s and Magee’s assertions

The source for the following is: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/66.html#fn7

Neither the purposes of the RGZ or clause 22.05 refer to the character of the neighbourhood as a benchmark for the way a development might fit into the area. The Tribunal has consistently found that land within the Urban Villages is encouraged to be developed more intensively than the prevailing housing that is in garden settings. New development is to be measured by reference to a preferred or emerging character rather than the existing neighbourhood character. The extent of change between the existing and the new built form can be substantial rather than a gently nuanced transition.

Consequently I consider that policy contemplates that the height, massing and setbacks of development within the RGZ should not be defined by adjoining one or two storey dwellings in a suburban setting.

No guidance is provided in the schedule to the zone or local policy to support greater setbacks.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »