GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 22, 2015

Wynne – Telling Council To Pull Its Finger Out?

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

We beg your indulgence for this extremely long post, but we believe it is important that residents get the full and true picture of what has happened in Glen Eira, and what is still occurring as a result of Council’s inept and atrocious planning.

Item 9.8 of the current agenda features Minister Wynne’s response to Council’s letter requesting that the Planning & Environment Act, 1987 be amended to ensure that VCAT implements, rather than ‘considers’ local planning policies. Sounds good and fits in nicely with Council’s current campaign of scapegoating VCAT for all the ills faced by residents through rampant overdevelopment of the municipality. Sadly, this Rocky Camera report is another illustration of the ‘sins of omissions’ and therefore should be seen as entirely and deliberately misleading.

The Minister’s Response

It is no accident that the Camera report does NOT cite two paragraphs of the Minister’s letter. Why? Because if we were to read between the lines, Wynne is basically giving this council a glorious kick up the backside for its failures to do what it was meant to do! Here is what Wynne wrote:

A local planning policy is a guide to decision making in relation to a specific discretion in a zone or an overlay. It helps the responsible authority and VCAT to understand how a particular discretion is likely to be exercised. It is not seen as a mandatory requirement, nor do I consider that it should be mandatory as each proposal should be assessed on its merit against relevant State and local policy objectives. Nevertheless, a local planning policy that is well written, clear and unambiguous can reduce challenges at VCAT and make the whole decision process more transparent.

I appreciate the Council’s concern but I am not satisfied that legislative change is appropriate in this instance as other mechanisms such as zone and overlay provision can be used to achieve Council’s objective if strategically justified.

It is our view that what the Minister is in effect saying to Council is– get your act together through the existing mechanisms of zones and overlays and ‘well written, clear’ statements. All of which of course must be based on CURRENT, fully documented and reasoned ‘strategic justification’. Something that Council has never done. Its planning scheme is a mish-mash of contradictions, archaic data, and woefully expressed concepts. Nothing can be ‘strategically justified’ if the data that council relies upon, even if it wanted to do something, dates back to 1996, and is based on an Amendment (C25) that was seen by the Planning Panel to be “interim”. The easy option taken by council has been to do nothing and cosy up to Matthew Guy to rubber stamp more inept planning.

VCAT and Council Policy

We have reported numerous times on VCAT decisions and WHY council’s decision making is often overturned. In 99% of cases it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether policy is mandatory or not, and everything to do with what is missing from the planning scheme – ie Urban Design Frameworks, Structure Planning, Design and Development Overlays, Parking Precinct Plans, Tree Protection, Water Sensitive/Environmental Sustainability policies and most importantly – Preferred Character Statements for housing diversity. For an expose of Council’s inadequacies we refer readers to a recent post where we cited member statements that reveal fully how hopeless Glen Eira is – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/statistics-glen-eira-style/

Statement after statement by VCAT members tells council that:

Either its imposed conditions aren’t supported by the planning scheme
Either there is no urban design framework to guide decision makers in what is ‘acceptable’
Either the imposed conditions are contradictory and so forth.

The errors, the poor performances, and the failure to have a decent planning scheme means that most developments (especially in housing diversity) get through. Again, this has nothing to do with whether policy is ‘mandatory’. Councils MUST HAVE POLICIES TO BEGIN WITH. What has Glen Eira got apart from the zones that arbitrarily carved up the municipality over a decade ago.

Mandatory Policies

Plenty of other councils have taken Wynne’s message to heart and introduced Design & Development Overlays that legally ARE MANDATORY. Manningham, Mornington Peninsula, and plenty of others have succeeded in having their various overlays gazetted as mandatory. Boroondara for example has ensured that NO development zoned Commercial in its Neighbourhood Centres can exceed 3 storeys. Unlike the countless instances of sheer waffle found throughout the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (ie “encourage”, “advocate”, “discourage”, “ensure”) these other councils use the explicit and legally binding language of “MUST”. Here’s part of the various Manningham Design and Development Overlays –

For Doncaster Road area – Planting within the building setback area must include a row of avenue trees.

For Activity Centres – – Development must: Include only one vehicular crossover, wherever possible, to maximise availability of on street parking and to minimise disruption to pedestrian movement. Where possible, retain existing crossovers to avoid the removal of street tree(s). Driveways must be setback a minimum of 1.5m from any street tree, except in cases where a larger tree requires an increased setback.

For Warrandyte & Tempelstowe areas – – Each lot must not be developed with more than one dwelling. A permit cannot be granted to vary this requirement.

BOROONDARA

For its Willesmere area – Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:

􀂃 The density for a multi-dwelling development must not exceed 25 dwellings per hectare.

􀂃 A minimum of 60 percent of all dwellings within Areas B and C shown on Map 1 to this Schedule must be detached houses or dual occupancy.

􀂃 All low voltage electricity supply mains and all telephone lines must be located underground unless otherwise agreed by the responsible authority.

􀂃 On detached house lots, at least 50 percent of the area between the dwelling and road boundary must be free of paving to allow for lawns and other planting. On the balance of the site, there must be sufficient area free of buildings, paving, pools and tennis courts to enable a garden environment to be created.

We could of course go on and on, citing all the MANDATORY PROVISIONS that other councils have been able to achieve (some, years ago – ie the above Boroondara overlay dates back to 2006) and which Glen Eira Council has nothing to compare except for about 1500 dwellings included in Neighbourhood Character overlays. This alone, should be indictment enough for residents to start asking why this council has been so negligent?

Now to the zones themselves. Even here, Glen Eira has done nothing except change the dates from 2004 (ie C25 gazetted) to 2013 (C110). Again, other councils put Glen Eira to shame in terms of the number of schedules to their various zones, and the increasing numbers of amendments they have put through post the introduction of the zones to provide further protections. We’ve tabulated the evidence below –

Please note that GRZ3 is a ‘belated’ addition to accommodate the rezoning of several sites – the Alma Club in particular. Basically, there are a paltry 2 General Residential Zones in Glen Eira. Also Yarra Council has had its RGZ removed entirely, and Bayside is awaiting the approval of its removal.

The Rocky Report

The Rocky Camera report continues the Glen Eira tradition of publishing misleading and deceptive information. We are supposedly given 4 cases where ‘VCAT has ruled contrary to Council’s planning policies’. Not true! We will examine a few of these in turn.

495 Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick – In the first place, this application was for a 7 storey building, shops, and 44 dwellings. The officer’s report of 25^th November, 2014 recommended a five storey building and 32 dwellings. The site is zoned MUZ (no height limit). Councillors accepted this recommendation and the vote was 7 to 2 with only Esakoff and Lobo opposing the motion. Thus it was NOT VCAT, but council itself which approved this application – minus the reduction in dwellings and 2 storeys. Further, given that there is no record of this on the VCAT website, we must assume that at the hearing, Council again caved in to the developer and either accepted his amended plan entirely so that no full hearing proceeded!

Numerous ludicrous statements are contained in the officer’s recommendations for this development. For example: It is recommended that changes to the building form in terms of height are required to respond to the preferred character for this location. How on earth can there be reference to ‘preferred character’, when there is no preferred character statement in existence?!!!!! And no urban design framework which includes height limits for such sites!!!! Readers may also wish to revisit the so called ‘debate’ that took place in chamber for this application – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/are-councillors-really-representing-you/

322-326 Neerim Road, Carnegie – application was for 4 storeys, 38 dwellings. Here is part of what the member says. Ultimately, the application is supported to the hilt by council’s policies!!

In submissions, the Council says it took account of the site’s location in the Carnegie Urban Village where planning policies encourage substantial change. It acknowledged that the character of the north side of Neerim Road is rapidly changing as three and four-storey apartment buildings replace single attached and brick pair housing. In this context, it says that only some aspects of the development were unacceptable. These aspects are:

the inadequate space for landscaping; and
its setbacks from the frontages and the side and rear boundary;
a reasonable transition to the lower scale residential development to the north.
This implies that a four-storey building is an acceptable response to the site’s context if its scale and mass is proportionate to the site and its surrounds. Conversely, it implies the existing single-storey development to the north and west does not reflect the built form directions sought by planning policy for this area.
I find this is the case. I accept the Applicant’s submission that local policy at clause 22.05 specifically targets the delivery of higher density residential development within the municipality’s Urban Villages. Policy at clause 22.05 identifies the site as part of Precinct 8, which encourages ‘a mix of density and housing types’ to ‘accommodate different household types, especially the elderly’.
This policy direction justifies the application of the Residential Growth Zone to the site and surrounds. This Zone’s purpose is consistent with policy for Precinct 8 and its provisions envisage buildings up to 13.5 metres in height. Its decision guidelines anticipate site consolidation and larger buildings. .
The proposed building responds to the policy direction and the zone controls. It adopts a four-storey form and provides a form of housing that differs from the detached housing that dominates the municipality. The building contains one and two- bedroom dwellings serviced by a lift. These dwellings would suit elderly people seeking to downsize while remaining in the area in which they live. The building also takes advantage of the opportunities created through site consolidation and proposes a larger building.
It is substantially larger than the dwellings along Elliot Avenue. Yet the same policy direction and zone controls apply to these properties. I find this gives more weight to these properties’s development potential than it does to their existing low-scale form.
As such, I find the building responds to the site’s context.

And here are the real killer comments – .there is little in local policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme that directs any specific built form outcome for this site, or any of precinct 8 in the Urban Villages Policy at Clause 22.05. This leaves Clause 55 of the planning scheme to form the basis of decision making about built form, along with the provisions of the Residential Growth Zone and State policy at clause 15.01 and 16.

[6] There was also no dispute from Council that the Carnegie Urban Village policy (at clause 22.05 of the planning scheme) advocates for a substantial increase in housing density and a new built form that is different in character to much of the existing housing stock of the area. (my emphasis)

I agree with these comments. The policies at clause 22.05 anticipate a change in character without setting direction on what that character should be.

COUNCIL CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! IT CANNOT ARGUE THAT VCAT IGNORES COUNCIL POLICY, WHEN POLICY IS NON-EXISTENT, ARBITRARY, OR CONTRADICTORY! Thus the statement that (e)ach (of these cases) are examples of VCAT not applying local policy is total bunkum.

Several other Camera statements need to be challenged. We’re told –

In 2000 Council refused a planning permit application for a residential development in Norwood Road, Caulfield North. Council refused the application primarily on noncompliance with its housing policies. VCAT overturned Council’s refusal. Council subsequently challenged VCAT’s decision at the Supreme Court on grounds that VCAT had not considered Council policy. The Supreme Court found that “to consider is not necessary to adopt or follow”.

Yes, it is true that Council (stupidly!) went to the Supreme Court, and probably spent a fortune on lawyers defending a case that should never have gone to court. Appeals to the Supreme Court against VCAT decisions can only be made on points of law – ie did VCAT err? The Justice of the Supreme Court found that there was no error in interpreting the law. In fact, Council simply had a planning scheme which did not make sense. We’ve gone back to the records of the time and here is what happened.

The VCAT decision was Gory v Glen Eira and council’s refusal to grant a permit was made under delegation by the Manager of the time. At the time, and it took over 4 years to change, Council had a policy which it labelled ‘incremental change’. This terminology and the policy itself was severely criticised by VCAT members on numerous occasions. Here are parts of the Gory decision and also another case – Anderson v Glen Eira (30^th April 2000). We cite verbatim from the VCAT records –

This involves converting the rear split level apartment into two separate self contained dwellings. Each apartment is to have living, service areas and two bedrooms. All the additions and alterations are to be contained within the existing building envelope. The proposal involves a building in a courtyard at the lower level to increase the floor area of the ground level apartment. This is slightly compensated by the removal of the north-west corner of the building in order to provide ground level private open space. The upper floor is to have private open space consisting of two balconies totalling 11 sq. metres of inside area but both are narrower than the 1.6m depth parameter of the Good Design Guide. The ground floor open space is approximately 25 sq. metres. A new single driveway is proposed at the south-west corner of the frontage to an open car space within the frontage area now containing some dense vegetation.

The City of Glen Eira has a particular policy in relation to incremental change and this area is of one of those specified as an incremental change area. A number of tribunals including this one have commented on this incremental change policy in recent times and those comments have generally been negative ones. However, the City of Glen Eira keeps rolling the same policy out at any application for review of residential development. It insists that incremental change does not only mean an increase but a decrease in the number of dwellings per site for locations where higher densities already exist. Incremental change does not mean no change.

The Council’s grounds of refusal included reference to its Municipal Strategic Statement’s objectives. This proposes that, apart from key areas which are set aside for increased densities around shopping centres, transport nodes and the like, its residential areas should remain unchanged although some incremental growth will be provided for medium density housing. In the context of this policy one wonders what incremental growth is. The Oxford Dictionary defines incremental as “where something variable increases by a small amount”. This I believe could only be considered to be normal growth. The MSS also indicates that incremental does not mean no change and I agree with this. The problem here is that the responsible authority seems to consider it does mean no change. That is the perception I have gained from a number of recent submissions made to me. Incremental means normal. Normal growth should include some medium density housing and one would hardly consider the occasional house behind an existing house or a dual occupancy to meet the true meaning of multi unit development, which is why they were separately defined as “Dual Occupancy”. (Anderson versus Glen Eira) (30^th April 2000)

The Municipal Strategic Statement of the time had this doozy in it –

“ Incremental change could vary from location to location within the municipality. It could mean, for example, a dual occupancy on a conventional site in a location predominantly characterised by detached housing. It could also mean several dwellings on a site where the site is significantly larger than conventional sized lots in a given location. The level of development would be limited to the extent that change could be said to be incremental . Conversely, incremental change could mean no increase or in fact a decrease in the number of dwellings per site for locations in which higher densities of development are not encouraged but already exist.

It’s no wonder then that in another judgement (Bedrega v Glen Eira CC [2001] VCAT 2400 (3 September 2001) – the member said –

Council’s view is that a dual occupancy development on the subject land would be incremental change, but 3 dwellings as proposed would not be. In fact the Council issued in September 2000 a planning permit for a dual occupancy development on the land. But what is ” incremental change”? This Tribunal has previously expressed its difficulties in interpreting the term and the policy as it is expressed in Clause 21.04, most notably in Brichon Developments Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council (2000/086932; 8 VPR 10), a case dealing with a situation similar to the one before me in that the proposed development was for three dwellings, but the Council refused to grant a permit on grounds including that the degree of change represented by the proposal would not accord with the incremental change policy. In the Brichon case Mr Read analysed in detail the incremental change policy and made a number of trenchant criticisms of it, perhaps best illustrated by the following statement:

“Another difficulty that I have had interpreting the “ incremental “change policy is that it is almost impossible to convert it into any meaningful or objective measures (e.g. an incremental change in what: the height of the dwellings, the amount of open space, building bulk, driveway crossings, neighbourhood character?). The question of what degree of change is incremental is almost impossible to explain and the possibility of getting two independent people to agree on what or what is not an acceptable increment seems remote.”

Thus when judgement after judgement goes against council because of its nonsense and poorly worded policy of “incremental change”, council decides to spend a fortune and go to the Supreme Court. How much did this cost ratepayers, and for what?

The final Camera transgression comes with this –

Council’s local planning policies are “well written, clear and unambiguous”. If implemented, they can “reduce the challenges at VCAT and make the whole decision process more transparent”.

Perhaps Camera did not notice that Wynne is NOT TALKING ABOUT GLEN EIRA. He is stating the principle that all policies should be ‘clear and unambiguous’ – then they might have some hope of getting up. In Glen Eira a miracle needs to happen. It may have started with the departure of Newton and Akehurst, and hopefully all of these 9 councillors!

November 20, 2015

Agenda – Frogmore, Bent St!

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

Poor Rocky Camera! Forced to follow to his masters’ political agenda and in the process produce one of the most farcical officer reports in living memory. For this Frogmore application, Rocky has literally had to perform planning hari-kari in order to come within cooee of justifying why he recommends a refusal for the Jewish Care Aged Care Facility in Carnegie. The devious shenanigans that obviously go on behind closed doors are highly visible when this report is compared to others in the agenda. But more of that later.

First some questions:

Will Esakoff and Delahunty declare a conflict of interest – or have Eskaff’s ‘close relatives’ found a suitable place in the meantime? Will Magee grace us with his appearance this time?
Will Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling be consistent and vote for a permit, given their arguments for abandoning the option of going to a Planning Panel and thereby allowing the destruction of what should have been a Heritage Building? Or as astute political beasts will they vote for refusal knowing that this will end up at VCAT, and a permit will be granted – giving council more ammunition in its spurious argument that VCAT is the sole villain for everything!
Why the ‘refusal’ anyway? – especially when there are no solid grounds for refusal in our view? Frogmore evoked plenty of community opposition, and plenty of negative publicity. Adding salt to the wounds, 88 trees were chainsawed prior to a permit decision. Is Council trying to curry favour with disenchanted residents? Adding to its pathetic arguments about VCAT?
When other applications on this agenda receive permits with countless conditions attached, then why couldn’t this Frogmore site also have conditions applied rather than straight out refusal? Mind, we are not arguing for the travesty that has occurred here. We are simply comparing officer reports across a range of applications and noting how biased, inconsistent, and inept they are. What appears to happen is that decisions to grant or not grant permits are made first, and then officer reports cobbled together in the attempt to justify these predetermined decisions. Frogmore is the perfect example!

As for the actual Camera report, please read the following carefully and compare what this application states against others prepared by the same individual and which were granted permits – ie a North Road complex wanted 7 storeys and 67 dwellings. Recommendation was 5 storeys and 45 dwellings. Another was for Truganini Road – 4 storeys and 20 dwellings. Permit recommended. The last one is quite remarkable – another in Bent Street, Bentleigh for 4 storeys and 35 dwellings and heaps of tenuous and suspect conditions. But no such luck for Frogmore! Italicised comments come directly from the reports.

It is considered that the site does not satisfy the policy location objectives. The surrounding streets are not considered particularly busy roads which could potentially justify the location. (Frogmore)

COMMENT: The Planning Scheme states – on some pre-existing large sites, aged persons housing may be appropriate in Minimal Change Areas. The site is huge – roughly 8000 square metres.

Furthermore, the Minimal Change Area Policy seeks to discourage the siting of two storey dwellings or buildings at the rear of sites and adjoining neighbouring secluded private open spaces. This policy objective acknowledges that a significant characteristic of Glen Eira’s Minimal Change areas is of open rear yards free from the visual bulk impacts of double storey buildings. (Frogmore)

COMMENT: The planning scheme again disregards the 2 dwelling limit in neighbourhood residential zone for large allotments! Further, if council was so concerned about double storeys in rear yards, then it would have had to reject countless applications. It has not!

The upper-floor faces several neighbouring back yards (along the north, south and west sides) with setbacks ranging from 4 to 6 metres. This is not considered appropriate given the significant length of the building and its potential visual bulk impact on adjoining properties (Frogmore)

COMMENT: Again, the schedule to the neighbourhood residential zone only requires 4 metres for side and rear setbacks! Not a word about ‘length’ of building or setbacks for upper storeys.

The southern portion of the site that fronts Wahgoo Road is proposed to be utilised for services with a substation, waste rooms and meter boxes. This area would be accessed by a separate crossover. This is considered a poor neighbourhood character outcome that detracts from the streetscape appearance of the development and unreasonably compromises the health of the retained trees on-site and adjacent street trees. (Frogmore)

COMMENT: according to the plans, the building will be 9 and 10 metres from the street!

The development will cast a shadow over adjoining properties. However, overshadowing complies with the guidelines. (Frogmore)

COMMENT: Compare this with the less pejorative language used for the North Road permit application – Overshadowing of adjoining properties is considered acceptable and in accordance with accepted ResCode overshadowing Standards.

Four Flax Leaf Paperbark street trees are located across the Wahgoo Road property frontage. The application seeks to remove all four street trees. Council’s Parks Services Department does not support the removal of these street trees as they all display good health, form and structure. All street trees are also consistent with the streetscape. (Frogmore)

COMMENT: Then we get this comment regarding trees in North Road – Due to the development impacts on the street trees, the 4x Desert Ash street trees located on Carlyon Street are recommended for removal

The application proposed the removal of 88 trees from within the subject site. Some of these trees include native vegetation. It is noted that these trees have already been removed from the land. At the time of writing, an investigation is being conducted on whether this breached the planning scheme. Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has advised that the health of the 4 trees to be retained on-site will be compromised by the siting and design of the proposed development. This is considered a poor outcome that cannot be supported.

AND THEN THERE’S RESCODE

The Frogmore application is said to fail on two Rescode guidelines – its site coverage and permeability. 52% for site coverage instead of 50% and permeability of 23% instead of 25%. How many ResCode provisions are not met in the following – YET THEY STILL GET A PERMIT! We quote:

Truganini Road – The third floor side setbacks of 7.0m do not fully accord with ResCode and are approximately 0.3m less than the prescribed setback but are considered to be satisfactory because the amenity of the existing dwellings at 7 and 11 Truganini Road would not be significantly reduced.

Bent St does not meet ResCode requirements in terms of:

Street setbacks plus east, south and western setbacks
Landscaping – condition to reduce size of basement car parking
Site coverage
Storage space size in basement
Lack of sunlight in bathrooms

Permeability –The site coverage exceeds the 60% State Government requirement. The development also fails to achieve the 20% permeability requirement. It is considered that the recommended setbacks will successfully address these areas of noncompliance. (Bent St)

Conclusion? Council is hedging its bets again, relying on VCAT to do its dirty work. It should also be noted that there is not one word in this officer report about ‘community benefit’ of an aged care person’s facility, when this was the main thrust of the argument to allow the destruction of Frogmore House! Tuesday night should make for fascinating viewing!

November 10, 2015

Pilling Elected Mayor!

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

Lobo was an apology for tonight’s special council meeting.

Hyams nominated Pilling. There was no other nomination.

Esakoff nominated Okotel as deputy mayor. Delahunty nominated Sounness.

Vote was 6 to 2 in favour of Okotel.

Voting in favour of Okotel – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Okotel

Voting in favour of Sounness – Delahunty, Sounness

November 6, 2015

Talk Is Cheap – What About Action?

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

For months now, some councillors have been voicing concerns about Glen Eira’s planning scheme, the zones, the way they were introduced, plus the lack of necessary ‘tools’ that council could use in determining applications. Residents themselves have taken to social media, with petitions, comments, and demands. We have consistently reported on VCAT decisions that make it abundantly clear how inept and lacking Council’s planning scheme is. People are angry and getting angrier at what they see as the destruction of their neighbourhoods and their lives.

So how do our councillors respond to this ground swell? More empty talk, more ‘we should do this’, but absolutely, no firm action from any of them! Words are cheap and ultimately useless. What is required is a simple council resolution which orders the pen pushers to get off their backsides and to immediately put the planning scheme on the table for intense and full, honest consultation with residents. Or will we continue to have more hand wringing, more crocodile tears, more blaming of VCAT, more ratepayers’ money being thrown down the drain with public relations disasters intended to excuse 13 years of negiligent planning under Newton?

Tuesday night provided some further examples of ‘we should’. As we’ve already said – talk is cheap. It is now, with the election year looming, time for action! Here’s a report on some of the comments that were made on several items.

LOBO – thought that it was time to ‘review policies’ following Plan Melbourne’s release and how the government is expecting over 7 million people in Victoria. Said it was also important to ‘review our Municipal Strategic Statement’ that ‘was adopted by council on 17^th May 1999’, and accepted by the government on 5^th August 1999, 16 years ago’ and in ‘light of the boom and new residents’.

SOUNNESS: said he was ‘concerned’ that even though the VCAT member rejected the 16 storey application in Egan St., Carnegie, he still stated that the height was acceptable. This then leads onto the question of an urban design framework that looks at traffic, “what’s the shape of a city’ and where density should go and ’16 storeys doesn’t meet that criteria’. And there is also a paragraph in the VCAT member’s judgement that notes ‘the absence in the scheme that provides guidance about these areas’. The decision then talks about ‘first principles’ and the design guidelines for high density developments. There is also discussion about how the Carnegie area is ‘undergoing substantial change’. He is pleased that the application was refused, but strictly on amenity design and ‘not the other features’. For him ‘a village is not 16 storeys’. ‘I have some concerns about how council’s policy framework is directed’ and that there is a ‘due process to go through in reviewing planning schemes’ and for those sections in the planning scheme that involve ‘urban villages’. He ‘hopes’ that there can be a ‘conversation about that earlier rather than later’ because if these sorts of applications for 16 storeys comes in then they are not appropriate.

HYAMS: also didn’t think that 16 storeys was appropriate and that ‘Mr Torres has assured us’ that this is against the ‘policy for the area’. Also if VCAT is ‘incapable of interpreting our policy’ then maybe there needs to be ‘policy that VCAT can understand’ so there is some ‘work that we need to do’.

We remind readers of the following facts:

The Planning Scheme was allegedly ‘reviewed’ in 2010. This was, in our view, not a real ‘review’, but a predetermined decision to do very little except tinker with the edges.
Council (or some anonymous officer with no delegated authority) applied for an extension so that more years could pass before the scheme was touched again. There was no council resolution on this and no rationale for why another two years of delay was sought. The Minister granted council an extra year.
That would take any review well into 2017 – plenty of time for suburbs, streets, and amenity to be ruined.

November 4, 2015

What A Council We’ve Got!

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

ITEM 9.4 – APARTMENT BOOM

Hyams moved motion to accept. Seconded by Pilling

HYAMS: started off by saying that there had been a lot of ‘misinformation’ about council’s planning zones and this was due to real estate agents doing it for ‘profit’ or others for ‘political reasons’ or still others just ‘to make mischief’. Thought it ‘was important’ that residents ‘understand the causes of what is happening in neighbourhoods’ and the circular makes this ‘very clear’. What’s happening is not just in Glen Eira but everywhere and it’s happening even more in other municipalities. The circular also points out ‘what we’re trying to do to manage the growth’. Said that if people are ‘concerned’ about the growth then they should look carefully at the revised Plan Melbourne discussion paper especially the ‘ways of allowing more housing’ in the middle suburbs and the possibility of ‘code access’ for 3 storey apartments. This means that there will be no notification and residents won’t even know that an application has gone in.

PILLING: agreed with Hyams and that this ‘has been discussed’ many times. It was good for council to ‘circulate this letter to residents’ and it was 11 cents and ‘wasn’t paid out of rates’ but fines. This is all about ‘population growth’ and council’s ‘role is to set boundaries’ and they have done this ‘with the zones’ where population growth is concentrated around public transport hubs, shops, whilst ‘keeping the majority of the municipality’ protected. There has been a ‘lot of misinformation’ but the ‘leaflet sets it out clearly what council’s role is’. Growth is happening everywhere and Glen Eira is ‘relatively low down the list of 4 storey apartments’. Carnegie isn’t ‘surprising’ but other municipalities have far more. Thought that ‘we’ve got the mix right’.

LIPSHUTZ: the circular is ‘very timely’ given the discussion paper about Melbourne growing ‘up rather than out’. Council’s job ‘is to inform’ people and this explains ‘development in our city’. It’s ‘not because of the zones’ because it is ‘throughout Melbourne’. Said that people ask ‘why are you doing this’ and how much time is spent and ‘I would answer’ that less time is spent doing this than ‘answering public questions’ that are ‘designed to embarrass council’. Said that people have come to him, who previously ‘criticised this’ and now said ‘sorry, we’re wrong’ we can ‘now see what you’ve done’ and see what ‘we’re facing in Melbourne’. ‘Our role is’ giving ‘information as well as communication’ and this is what the circular does.

OKOTEL: said that this goes ‘a long way’ in meeting the areas where council is ‘falling short’ – ie communication. The Community Satisfaction Survey cites planning, transport and communication as the areas needed to improve. Residents have ‘voiced appreciation’ for council publishing this. There ‘will be mixed views in the community’ but ‘as a council we do try to improve our practices’ and ‘learn from the feedback of residents’. This circular does ‘attempt to meet those areas identified’ in the community satisfaction survey by ‘communicating about planning’.

DELAHUNTY: thought that Okotel’s point was ‘well made’ about communication. For her, when people talk about zones, what’s missing is the people. ‘These are homes’ and for those saying ‘lock the doors’ then she doesn’t ‘understand’ where people think everyone’s ‘going to live’. ‘We’re not targeting a population growth – we’re accommodating’ the growth. Said ‘we’ve got a responsibility to provide housing’. ‘We can’t lock the doors in Glen Eira – it’s not fair’. Said that we ‘need a good mix of housing’. Council isn’t taking on as many as others and that ‘might be to our detriment or not’. ‘We need to remember that these are homes for people’ and council needs to ‘ensure that they are affordable’ and that this doesn’t ‘unreasonably impact on current situation’. When councillors get emails that ‘high rise’ is going to be next ‘student’ homes then you ‘need to look at the causes’ and this means more social housing is needed. Thought that the ‘information’ sent out was ‘factually correct’ and was ‘worthy of having a conversation about’.

LOBO: said that ‘this report should have come before’ the letter was ‘circulated’ and that would ‘have been much more professional’.

SOUNNESS: said that there is a ‘growth scenario’ and that there are also ‘macro’ issues. Said there’s no view of what the final picture of the growth is ‘going to be’. Acknowledged that people are uncomfortable with certain heights but in Victoria it seems that the view is ‘we can spread out, we can spread up’. The urban growth boundary was supposed to be fixed and not changed and it’s changed continually. The development industry ‘appreciates’ not having ‘firm boundaries’. In Glen Eira there are ‘tools’ that they can deal with things but there are other tools that ‘are not available’. Agreed that ‘we’ve got the factual information out there’ and thought that ‘we’ve doing as best as we can’. ‘We’ve got controls over the majority of residential areas’ and areas where ‘large’ growth ‘can take place’ and council has to limit the bad effects of this and ‘maximise the good’.

MAGEE: said that this has come to a council meeting because of ‘response from the community’. The response has been ‘quite large’ and he got many phone calls and people are ‘really appreciative of some facts’. Said that he’s met with the mayors of Shepparton, Boroondara, etc. and they all say that ‘development’ is their main issue, ‘so it’s no different to what is happening in Glen Eira’. Glen Eira, unlike other councils has ‘actually identified areas’ ‘many years ago’ so the areas for growth were ‘already in place’ long ago. Councils like Boroondara ‘had nothing like that’ – ‘it was all one zone and anything went’. Glen Eira ‘identified many years ago opportunities to protect’ and to ‘direct where development should go’. Agreed with Lobo that it might have been better to have this item discussed before the ‘information’ went out but ‘this is here because the information went out and to respond to the many, many’ residents and to ‘formally acknowledge their responses’.

HYAMS: reinforced the mantra and said ‘all together now’ (sing song by all councillors) ie nothing can be built now that couldn’t be built before etc. Said that there are ‘people who have their mind set’ that everything bad about planning is ‘council’s fault’ and that ‘you’re not going to change people’s minds’ on that. But the ‘fact’ is that most people have a ‘fairly open mind’ and they ‘want information’ so the circular ‘serves a very important purpose’ in ‘letting people know what’s going on’. It is a ‘hot issue’ and ‘people are crying out for information’ and ‘this supplies it.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

In response to a public question Council responded that the cost of printing and distributing the ‘circular’ was $14,355!

October 30, 2015

Just About At The Bottom!

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

There has never been such a set of agenda papers as released today, which reveal in full glorious detail everything that is awry in Glen Eira. We will go through each item and pinpoint the atrocities –

Item 9.1 – 68 Kangaroo Rd Murrumbeena.

Application to extend physiotherapy centre from 2 to 5 staff; extend hours, extend car parking. Recommendation – permit be granted with reduced hours.

There were plenty of local objectors to this application and one pro-forma letter supporting application. All well and good. What is not acceptable though is the following –

Under the ‘applicant category’ we get – Susan Ross (formerly) Foresite Planning & Bushfire Consultants (currently). Exactly what does ‘formerly’ mean, or even allude to? Or is this simply council trying to camouflage the fact that Susan Ross was once upon a time employed as a council planner and that the property just happens to be owned by Jacquie Brasher’s (a current employee and strategic planner) husband? We might also query how ‘ethical’ it is for Ms Brasher, whilst still employed by council, to write to objectors?

Item 9.4 – ‘apartment boom’.

This is the ENTIRE REPORT – ‘ANONYMOUS’ reigns supreme again!

Purpose

Council has distributed the attached Circular to all properties in the municipality.

It is self-explanatory.

Recommendation

That the report be noted.

Now wouldn’t an apology for all the bullshit and lies be appropriate here? Wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly how much of ratepayer money was wasted on this fiasco?

Item 9.6 – Transport strategy – draft action plan 2015-1017.

This is the most amazing document of all time. Before we highlight the inanities, it needs to be pointed out that –

all references to council’s ‘Road Safety Strategy’ are a misnomer. There is NO CURRENT STRATEGY – IT EXPIRED IN 2012 AND HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED!
The action plan is supposed to be from 2015-2017. Yet, some of the proposed actions extend into 2018!!!!!! and even then nothing will happen because only the ‘report’ is supposed to be available.

Here are some of the ‘actions’ listed. Please note that the vast majority (which we didn’t include) involve ‘advocacy’ and even this is proposed to take years to figure out what to do! Utterly amazing! It is also stunning that it will take years to do a traffic analysis! In short, great on empty, meaningless promises and very, very short on real action!

And by sheer coincidence we received the following photographs this morning from two alert residents in Carnegie. Doesn’t this say it all about council’s ‘road safety’ enforcement and how it clamps down on developers?

October 14, 2015

The MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

Item 9.1 – MRC application for 30+ radio towers

Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz all declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Magee moved to accept the motion to refuse, plus that council write to the Minister & Department, plus all relevant MPs seeking permission to create 6 sporting ovals in the centre of the racecourse. Seconded by Delahunty.

MAGEE: stated that the application ‘in itself’ was fairly ‘innocuous’ but ‘far reaching’ since it ‘encroaches further and further’ onto crown land. For years there has been this encroachment by the MRC – ie ‘training track after training track being developed’, ‘large screens being built’ and application to ‘increase the size of the Tabaret’. There are 3 purposes for the racecourse (park, racing, etc) and that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’. Said that this application is to set up a ‘permanent structure on usable crown land’. Went over the lack of open space, the number of kids unable to play sport because of lack of grounds, and that ‘teams are capped’ turning away stacks of kids. There is a master plan being done and all the sporting clubs are saying this is a ‘great opportunity’ to have this open space for sport in the centre. Now council has the ‘opportunity’ to apply for use of the land. The MRC writes to the ‘authority’ and council is now wanting to do the same. Claimed that it ‘would be very hard’ for the Minister and Department to ‘actually refuse us’ given that they have approved the screens, etc. ‘We have waited far too long’ and ‘this open space belongs to you’. Said with this motion council will see who opposes them so they will have ‘someone to talk to’.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s a ‘hard act’ to follow Magee since he is so ‘passionate’ and speaks so ‘eloquently’. Racing is already ‘well catered for’ so ‘this doesn’t meet the objectives of’ the Crown Land Grant. Council takes the Open Space Strategy ‘very seriously’ and the application ‘flies in the face of those strategic objectives’ so it behoves council to refuse the application. The motion is moving forward towards achieving sporting fields and open space.

SOUNNESS: said he wasn’t speaking against the spirit of the refusal but thought that the bit about the ‘tipping point is weak’. If this went to VCAT it would ‘prove to be a less than successful’ outcome. Endorsed the other part of the motion and there should be the opportunity for the ‘public to enjoy’ the course. Repeated that he has got ‘reservations’ about the ‘tipping point’ since there have been ‘other applications’ that were equally the ‘tipping point’.

PILLING: endorsed part 2 of the motion but on the refusal said that while he understands Sounness’ points he doesn’t agree since there will be visual impact to Queen’s Avenue since the land is already raised and did think that council ‘can justify’ the motion.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because this would create a ‘visual impact’ and park users ‘aren’t being adequately catered for at the moment’. Said that ‘at the moment’ access is ‘restricted’ and ‘what’s pleasing’ is that ‘now action is taken’ in the attempt to ‘move forward’ and ‘discover who might be responsible for that blockage’ to permission. The motion ‘will weed out’ those responsible ‘for the blockage’.

LOBO: all applications are about ‘horse racing, horse racing’ and they ‘don’t regard’ the community. They have ‘denied the rights of the community’. There is a lack of sports grounds and council even had to hire ‘independent consultants’ to work out what sporting grounds are needed. The MRC has ‘done nothing but given grief to the community’. The lease ‘has expired’ and hasn’t been ‘renewed for years’; the Auditor General delivered his report and ‘caulfield racecourse does not seem to care’. Council ‘doesn’t get a cent from huge earnings of Caulfield racecourse’ in fact they pay reduced rates.

MAGEE: said that the 2008 report from the parliamentary committee was ‘scathing’ and so was the VEAC report and then the Auditor General’s report. A year down the track and none of his recommendations ‘are yet to be implemented’. Stated that ‘in his heart’ he thought there would be ‘changes’ and that the new Minister would do her best to make things change. Said that the motion means that council is ‘moving forward’ and they can see if there is anyone who is trying to ‘stop us’. The MRC do ‘look after the racecourse very well’ and is one of the best courses in the world and council wants racing to stay but they also want to ‘share the ground’.

MOTION PUT. ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST – SOUNNESS

COMMENTS

We commend Cr Sounness for being the only councillor to take the officer’s report to task – however mildly and for his attempt to refer to ‘planning law’ rather than grandstanding.
This is a planning application, yet the only comment made in relation to planning was the dubious claim about ‘visual amenity’. For a council that continually rams down residents’ throats the idea that ‘planning law’ must apply – this so called ‘debate’ illustrates how little ‘planning law’ has been dredged up to support the officer’s recommendation and the subsequent motion. In our view, councillors, for whatever reason are going through the motions, doing as they are told, and literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything of substance to say.
Question – why has council waited for nearly a decade before moving the motion to seek permission for sporting fields? Surely this could have been done eons ago?
Musical chairs on Esakoff, Hyams, and Lipshutz’s ‘conflict of interest’ continues. When it suits, there is a conflict of interest. When it doesn’t suit, this goes out the window! Consistency is definitely not a strong point within council!
If the Open Space Strategy is so important, then where was council when it either granted permits, or caved in, over the removal of fences, access, leases, financial payments, etc – not to mention the C60, outdoor screen, cinema, etc. etc.
In typical contradictory manner, council now seeks permission and then a permit to create six sporting fields – without knowing the cost. Funnily enough other items on the agenda included the arguments that council can’t do something because they either haven’t got the money and don’t know the cost so the accepted recommendation was the usual – ‘let’s do nothing’ (ie pavilions, rose gardens, depot removal from Caulfield Park).

October 9, 2015

Agenda: Better Than Fawlty Towers!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

We congratulate council for producing an agenda that will set a new benchmark for incompetence, plain old bullshit, waffling generalisations, as well as fulfilling the ‘damage control’ agenda given the looming election. We literally could not stop laughing at some of the arrant nonsense produced by so called ‘professionals’.

A caveat! We are not suggesting that the following are worthy of permits. What we are focusing on is the quality, or rather the lack of quality so evident in the officers’ reports.

Item 9.1 – MRC application for the radio (timing) towers –ie the erection of 30+ antennaes and bases on the reserve – with some on crown land. Council officer recommendation is a ‘refusal’. We draw readers’ attention to the following quotes from the Ron Torres report –

It is acknowledged that other buildings and works including construction of a permanent infield electronic screen have been approved in the past. However, these are mostly at the northern end of the Crown Land where the bulk of the Race Course infrastructure is located. It is considered that the number, location and height of the purpose built poles are contrary to the purpose of the Public Park and Recreation Zone which seeks to ‘recognise areas for public recreation and open space’. It is considered the current application represents a ‘tipping point’ where the proposed works represent on over-emphasis of the use of the land as a racecourse. It is considered that the application does not adequately respect the balance of the use of the land as a public park area or the adjoining residential interface.

COMMENT: a 4 storey screen and now an outdoor ‘gourmet cinema’ with booze is NOT the ‘tipping point’, but this application is! And, a 4 storey screen plus a cinema also meets the criteria of a ‘public park’! And naturally a falling down fence along Queen’s Avenue that was supposed to be removed eons ago does wonders for the ‘residential interface’!

The proposed works do not contribute positively to local urban character and sense of place

COMMENT: urban? Really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel on this one! That’s why Telstra towers and others are given permits everywhere – even on top of the town hall! These surely fit in with the ‘urban character’ and ‘open space’ of the municipality!

The works do not ensure the highest possible standards of built form and architecture

COMMENT: please explain! What are the ‘highest’ architectural standards for a radio tower?!!!!!!!!

Seven (7) of the purpose built poles are proposed to be installed along the eastern boundary, having direct views to the residential properties along Queens Avenue.

COMMENT: A road separates the poles and houses plus the poles are not directly on the fence. Hence, if this were an application for a three storey building and 40 units, we guarantee that we wouldn’t have such concerns when a road intervenes between properties. Please note that the poles will have ‘direct views’ – a euphemism perhaps for ‘overlooking’ for the possums/birds?

The proposed works do not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community (in particular; to retain public open space that is free from visual clutter)

COMMENT: what were the ‘aspirations and cultural identity of the community’ when C60 was rubber stamped? When a permit was given for a 4 storey screen on crown land? When an outdoor cinema got the green light? We also assume that council’s penchant for felling countless trees is really to reduce the ‘visual clutter’ within our parklands.

CONCLUSION: It is going to be absolutely fascinating to listen to the inevitable squirming that comes out of the mouths of most councillors on this one, especially when there is such limited ‘planning law’ to rely upon. Will Sounness vote ‘for’ on the basis of his usual stance – ie there are not sufficient ‘tools’ in the planning scheme to reject and it will go to VCAT anyway? Will Hyams and Lipshutz be consistent and vote ‘for’ since they keep claiming they have to apply ‘quasi-judicial’ planning law? Will any of these councillors have the guts to vote for a permit when the officer’s report says ‘no’?

And what of the Torres recommendation in itself? What to make of this refusal? In our view it does not stand a hope in hell of getting tossed out at VCAT – not because of VCAT’s generosity, nor even because of the power of the MRC and its political allies. The bottom line is that the officer’s report is simply woeful and sub-standard (as shown by the above airy-fairy quotes, lack of detailed reference to the planning scheme, etc’). This is not a planning application rejection. It is passing the buck to VCAT as has now become customary for Glen Eira.

++++++++

ITEM 9.2 – planning application for 3 storey, 14 units at 86 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Torres continues the political agenda with a recommendation for refusal. The site is zoned GRZ2. We again urge readers to consider the following:

However, the policy (housing diversity) also seeks that the growth encouraged by the policy is sensitive of the interfaces with existing residential development on adjoining sites and respects the scale of existing residential development on adjoining sites.

The proposal fails to comply with several ResCode standards relating to neighbourhood character, street setbacks, site coverage, side and rear setbacks, north facing windows, design detail and front fences. The non-compliance with these standards is indicative of a design that is not site responsive and is an overdevelopment of the site.

Σ Maximum overall building height of 9.45 metres

Σ Site coverage of 60.9% per cent

Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.

14 Apartments in total (12 x 2 bedroom apartments & 2 x 3 bedroom apartments)

Σ Basement car parking comprising of 28 car spaces in 14 stackers

Σ Reduction of 1 visitor car space

If the proposal is to proceed the street tree would need to be removed and replaced at cost to the permit holder. This is due to the location of the proposed crossover.

Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.

We’ve refrained from commenting on each of the above, except to remind readers that:

There is no ‘preferred character’ statement for housing diversity in Glen Eira as we’ve shown from countless VCAT decisions. All there is the statement of ‘emerging character’ and in Trugannini Road, the ‘existing streetscape’ is already dominated by 3 storey developments.
How many applications have exceeded site coverage, front setbacks and other ResCode guidelines, yet still managed to get their permits? Remember Lipshutz and the ‘unimportant’ encroachment of Hawthorn Road setbacks for his ‘how to vote card’ mate?
Clearly a typo – ie 28 car spaces provided when all that is required is 18! Does anybody bother to proof read such material before it enters the public domain?
What makes this report the most laughable can be found in the list provided below. It illustrates what has been happening in Truganini in recent years. Yet, in the same breath we get the nonsense about ‘visual dominance’ and ‘existing streetscape’. Most of the following were granted car parking waivers! Those applications without any date assigned as still to be decided.

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car park comprising of up to fourteen (14) dwellings and a reduction of visitor car parking requirements on land affected by the Special Building Overlay

90 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of thirteen (13) dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (Notice of refusal issued – 17/4/2015)

93-97 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings with a basement car park and reduction of the dwelling (visitor) car parking requirement on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amending the endorsed plans to include changes to dwelling layouts, changes to windows and building setbacks and the addition of a front terrace on the second floor level. (amended permit issued – 22/12/2014)

98-100 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a 3-4 storey building comprising 28 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (amended permit issued – 25/11/2014)

115 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising six (6) dwellings (amended permit issued – 16/9/2015)

9 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 20 dwellings above basement car park

44 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (planning permit issued – 30/4/2015)

21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-one (41) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (amended permit issued – 23/2/2015)

124 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double-storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amended (planning permit issued – 12/8/2014)

21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-two (42) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (first council refusal – vcat decision to grant permit on 6/6/2014)

September 26, 2015

Public Questions & Caulfield Racecourse Trustees

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

At last council meeting one public question was declared ‘inappropriate’ and not read out. It related to the role of councillor representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. Before we publish the question and the answer, some history.

Esakoff, Lipshutz & Hyams were appointed by the Liberal Government as councillor reps on the trustees. There were 8 councillor nominees but magically these three got the nod.
All three had formed part of the Special Committee deciding on the Caulfield Village proposal.
A petition containing 64 signatures was tabled at council in February 2013, asking that the Minister review the appointments.
The petition was rejected (a first in Glen Eira). Those voting against acceptance of the petition were Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Sounness & Okotel
Lobo raised the issue of conflict of interest since Lipshutz, Hyams, & Esakoff were directly involved in the petition. None declared a conflict of interest.

In the discussion that took place, both Hyams and Lipshutz declared their role as trustees to be one of working, representing, and advancing the cause of their constituents. Here is what they said –

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

So to the inadmissible public question –

If councillors on the Board of trustees for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust do not represent the council, or the citizens of Glen Eira, who do they represent?

Response: On the basis of your own statement in part 3 of your Public Question Part 3 is deemed inappropriate pursuant to Clause 12 (b) of Council’s ‘Guidelines for Public Question Time’ and clause 232(2)(j)(ii) of the Local Law which states: “does not relate to the business of Council or otherwise relates to a Councillor or staff member other than in their Council capacity;”

CONCLUSION

Either councillor trustees do not know what their role is, or they will say anything that will further their spurious arguments – even if this contradicts the ‘advice’ provided by Newton in both 2003 and in 2006 – ie Council is not “represented” on the Trust. The duty of a trustee is to the Trust. A trustee, who is also a Councillor, is under a legal obligation to make Trust decisions
in the best interests of the Trust.
How valid such Newton advice is, needs to be challenged, as it has been by the Auditor General –

The make-up of the trust enables MRC, Glen Eira City Council and state government views to be considered as part of its decision-making processes. Until recently, however, members of the local community had no direct means of engaging with trustees on matters of importance to them. They had to rely on council representatives to present their views.

Within the trust, there have been differing views about how these competing uses can be reconciled. More recently, this has created tensions between trustees representing the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and those representing the government and Glen Eira City Council.

How many more times will this council denigrate and refuse to answer genuine public questions? Please note that the role of the trustees is to serve the public interest. That means the residents of Glen Eira. If the local community cannot have any faith that Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are in fact truly representing their best interests, then they should not be trustees.

August 28, 2015

The Battle For Total Control?

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

Why is everything made so impossibly difficult to achieve in Glen Eira? Why is this administration so obstructionist and so determined to scuttle any councillor or resident suggestion? Why does no councillor take this administration to task and refuse to accept skewed, inaccurate and/or substandard officer reports?

The latest agenda is typical. In response to a Request for A Report on ‘Public parks & private memorials’ we have a total of two pages plus a draft ‘policy’. The wording of the Request for a Report as presented in this latest version is:

That Council draft a policy to provide for individuals, corporations and unincorporated bodies to donate park furniture.
The Policy must address and provide for the following:

2.1 That any park furniture be supplied by the Council;

2.2 Whether the Donor can nominate the park and where in the park the furniture is to be situated;

2.3 That notwithstanding 2.2 above, the Council be the final arbiter of where in the park the furniture is to be situate;

2.4 The size and type of plaque to be affixed to the donated park furniture;

2.5 Whether Council may re-site donated park furniture

2.6 What is to occur in relation to the plaque in the event that the donated park furniture is damaged, destroyed or permanently removed;

2.7 The period of time that the plaque shall remain;

2.8 The right of the Council to reject donations

2.9 Any Administration fee;

2.10 Any other matter Officers consider appropriate.

The Policy must be presented by the last Council Meeting in June.

First off, it is now the end of August and not June! The ‘escape clause’ for not meeting the time line set by the resolution is this gem: A paper was considered at the Assembly of Councillors on 7 July 2015. We note that discussion on this issue was only recorded in that Records of Assembly meeting. Hence, not only was the resolution ignored, delayed, but it specifically noted the requirement for tabling at an open council meeting – not the behind the scenes secrecy of an assembly meeting! Further, in March 2015 another resolution had been passed asking that a policy be drawn up. Thus, an issue which is so minor has taken up countless hours of ‘discussion’, officer time, and verbal diarrhea in council meetings.

Readers should also note that ‘park furniture’ has now been reduced to simply ‘park benches’ and nothing else. Not what the councillors’ request for a report stated. ‘Park furniture’ is surely more than a mere ‘bench’.

The barely two page ANONYMOUS report is as always, short on facts and figures, short on substantiated argument, and big on scare mongering. There has not even been the attempt to cut and paste from the equally skewed report of March 2015. Here is an example: –

If the Draft is implemented, it is foreseeable that it may be the basis for disputation including over, cost, placement, wording etc. It may detract from the implementation of the Open Space Strategy.

How amazing that countless other councils throughout the state do not adhere to this fear. Some examples:

Port Phillip –

This Policy applies to structures, public open space, memorials, urban art, plaques, named civic buildings or rooms and other entities, where the naming is intended to commemorate a person, organisation or event.

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/o29962.pdf

Moorabool

Memorial – Park furniture (i.e. park bench, seat or picnic setting), garden, art works, artefacts, tree, stone/rock or etched paving designed to preserve the memory of a person or group. This may also include memorials in the interior of buildings i.e. Halls. Memorials may also include donations to build facilities (i.e. clubrooms) as a memorial to a community member. (http://www.moorabool.vic.gov.au/CA257489001FD37D/Lookup/policies2015/$file/Memorials%20Policy%20jan15.pdf

Melbourne City council – https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ParksandActivities/Parks/Documents/policies_plaques_memorials.pdf

Darebin – https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/~/media/cityofdarebin/Files/YourCouncil/HowCouncilWorks/MeetingAgendasMinutes/CouncilMeetings/2011/18Apr/Item-86-Appendix-A–Civic-Recognition-Monuments-and-Memorials-Policy-March-2011.ashx?la=en

There are many more that we could have cited such as Bayside, Greater Dandenong and Hobson’s Bay. What is undeniable, is that the siege mentality of this administration means that any perceived threat to its unilateral control and power must be opposed – despite formal council resolutions. Note – that by demanding the drafting of a policy (not once, but twice), it is implicit, that Council should accept donations for ‘park furniture’ and ‘memorials’. The anonymous author’s recommendation to reject the policy as an option is thus entirely inappropriate.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates