GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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:

  1. That Council draft a policy to provide for individuals, corporations and unincorporated bodies to donate park furniture.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.

 

August 13, 2015

Our ‘Perfect’, Little ‘Cosy Club’

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

Item 9.COMMUNITY GRANTS

Magee moved to accept ‘as printed’. Hyams seconded.

MAGEE: said this was the ‘most gratifying part’ of being part of a council in handing out money to community groups who ‘provide services to our community’. Went through the report on numbers of applications and how many from non profit groups. Said that the committee included himself, Esakoff and Sounness. Community groups are largely volunteers and they work to ‘give a community benefit’. Some groups missed out because they didn’t fit in with the guidelines which council publishes and these are ‘extensive’.

HYAMS: called this a ‘good process’ and it helps the community and ‘everyone benefits’. There are still other applications to consider.

OKOTEL: is ‘happy and pleased’ that there is this program because it’s ‘important for our community’ in supporting groups. What she was unhappy about was the ‘final submissions’ on which clubs received the grants. Said that the process involves ‘assessment against community grants guidelines’ and this ‘is done in a very thorough way’ by the grants committee. This takes a day to go through them all and ‘I would certainly endorse the recommendations of the committee’. But she sees ‘a stretching of those guidelines to accommodate’ other applications and that ‘this goes one step too far’. Further, ‘if council were to act properly’ then they should amend the guidelines ‘to be more accommodating rather than stretching’ in her opinion, the guidelines to give grants to those groups that ‘weren’t recommended’ by the committee. She supports the recommendations of the committee but ‘what we see before us is a step too far’ beyond the guidelines.

PILLING: said that the ‘process’ had improved over the years and that the quality of applications had also improved. Said that ‘overwhelmingly’ the majority of the committee’s recommendations were ‘adopted’. Admitted that a ‘few’ had changed amounts but ‘that was a very small number’ and he was ‘confident that the process’ is good and that all applicants are aware of the guidelines. Purpose of the guidelines is to give residents the ‘confidence that we’re spending their money wisely’.

DELAHUNTY: thanked the committee for their work and appreciated that it was ‘very very difficult’ for decisions when there are so many ‘good causes’. Thought that ‘the process is robust’ and councillors have a big responsibility and also to ‘ensure’ that they follow the guidelines. Said she was ‘undecided’ on some and that they had to ‘get more information on’ like the one on making a ‘short video’ and the Jewish GLBT (IE gay, lesbian,bisexual, transgender) and ‘this will be a great project, one we haven’t seen before’. Sporting clubs ‘hang out for our decisions’.

LOBO: ‘any grant is always welcome’. Said that grants are ‘motivation’ for clubs and this is also apparent in the ‘community service awards’. One thing that ‘intrigued’ him was the clubs who said they were ‘running multi-cultural’ events and ‘I would like to have seen what kind of multi-cultural activities they perform’ plus whether ‘multi-cultural people can also join that club’.

MAGEE: endorsed all recommendations and everything is assessed against guidelines. Committee is important because they can delve and question and decide ‘what is the greatest community benefit’. and ‘sometimes the amounts can change slightly to what the officers recommend’. Thanked Jones and the officers for ‘putting this together’ and ‘it is an awesome amount of work’ that they put in and then bring it ‘to the assembly’. Also, there is often the need for ‘clarification’ from the applicants and this sometimes ‘comes from the committee and sometimes from Mr Jones’. Magee endorses ‘all of the’ grants and even when there is the wish to give a grant he can’t ‘because there is only so much money to give out’. Those groups that ‘miss out’ did so because their application wasn’t ‘worded properly’ or ‘explained’ things properly. Said there are some new things in the grants – Jewish Comedy Festival and he’s ‘looking forward to this’ and hopes it really ‘gets off the ground’.

MOTIONS PUT AND CARRIED. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST

++++++++

Item 9.12 – Strategic Resource Plan

Hyams moved to accept as printed. Pilling seconded.

HYAMS: said that this was simply to ‘adjust some of the figures’ but that they are still ‘good figures’. Main one was ‘liquidity’ and ‘at first glance is not the greatest’ but the ‘reason we adjusted’ is that once you look at the ‘seasonally adjusted for aged care’ it is ‘very sustainable’. Stated that the adjustment was because ‘without that’ there would be the assumption that the aged care bonds would have to be ‘repaid all at once – and that’s never going to happen’. So now the ‘assumption is that only a small percentage’ will be paid out at a time. Claimed that the adjustments therefore equal ‘the real world’ and the previous figures were more ‘accounting fiction’. Council had to change because the Local Government requirements has changed and council had already sent their plan off to the minister. So there was the need ‘to change and bring into line with those assumptions’. Admitted that ‘there were also some mistakes that were made’ but these ‘have been corrected now’.

DELAHUNTY: said that the officer’s report mentioned two reasons for the adjustments – ‘formulaic inconsistencies’ and ‘definitions’. Said these errors should have ‘been picked up’ and that the ‘biggest one’ is the ‘last line’. Said that council ‘always’ knew about the ‘new definitions’ for the aged care bonds. This was ‘adjusted in our minds’ only. Said that she’s got ‘issues’ with the performance indicators as a system and acknowledged the time of council officers to ‘work out the definitions’. The report is ‘obviously sound’ but ‘subject’ to the need to be a ‘bit more careful’.

OKOTEL: said that they’ve ‘identified areas’ where the indicators ‘could be improved’ so that ‘what we’re reporting against is meaningful’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2

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

ITEM 9.7 – MRC

(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)

Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.

DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.

OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.

HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.

DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

 

August 9, 2015

A Fair Dinkum Stuff Up?

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

How on earth does a council stuff up so badly on financial reporting when:

This is all about Item 9.12 of the current agenda where we find the following unbelievable admission –

On assessing the financial indicators as part of the end-of-year accounts review, officers identified a number of formulaic inconsistencies and errors in the indicators listed in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan compared with the calculations in the LGPRF template.

To ensure consistency with the Local Government Performance Reporting calculations, officers have recalculated the financial indicators and have reproduced these (refer attached). They will be updated in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.

So readers may judge for themselves the magnitude of these errors, we ask them to compare the ‘original’ SRP (passed and accepted without question by our wide awake councillors) and the current version. Simply click on each image to enlarge. We do apologise for the quality of the images – that of course is dependent on the formats that council chooses to publish its material. Otherwise readers should go directly to the minutes of these council meetings.

CIRCA MAY/JUNE 2015

Pages from June23-2015-SPECAIL-AgendaAUGUST VERSION

Pages from Agenda_11_August

 

August 5, 2015

McKinnon – Definitely Gone!

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

PS: We’ve received the following email from a resident and believe it needs highlighting. We have edited out the address.

Dear gedebates.
Our street, Elliott Ave Carnegie has now lost 8 houses, between Neerim Rd and Jersey Pde (railway end) not including the corner blocks on Neerim Rd to the rampant development.  We were rezoned 2 years ago to RGZ1 and there are only 7 out of 15 remaining. We live at XXXXX Elliott and have found out the three houses next to us, to the north have been sold. We will also be facing 5 houses opposite us, all of which will be 4 stories, in a street of single dwellings. The dramatic increase in traffic, people and loss of our community is devastating after a peaceful and lovely 35 years.
I know this is happening everywhere. We feel helpless and incredibly angry with the council.
where to from here?

We featured Elliott Avenue several months ago – a street that was full of beautiful well kept homes that has now been sacrificed like much of Carnegie. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/

Six McKinnon neighbours sell combined residential development site for $8.88 million

Untitled

Six home owners at McKinnon in Melbourne’s south-eastern bayside, have reaped a $8.88 million, off-market sale of their residential development site.

Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich brokered the sale of the 3 to 9 Claire Street offering.

Sold at what is believed to be a record $2913 a square metre for the area, six neighbours came together with the common aspiration to create a one-off opportunity by combining their properties to form an attractive development prospect.

“Six home owners have reaped a circa 40% price windfall,” Savills Australia’s Julian Heatherich said.

The property, comprising four residential sites totaling 3049 square metres and six individual properties (six owners), is zoned General Residential, has 60 metres frontage to Claire Street, minutes walk to McKinnon Road retail strip and railway station.

Source: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-investment/reits/44120-july-15-comm-prop-six-mckinnon-neighbours-sell-combined-residential-development-site-for-8-88-million.html

COMMENTS

  • How many dog boxes will the developers have to build in order to recoup their money and make a profit? 60? 80? 100? All feasible on 3000+ square metres zoned for 3 storeys!
  • How much longer will council continue with their bullshit that the zones have nothing to do with this rampant over-development?
  • What is ‘capacity’ for a dead end street that contained 10 lots (two of which each contained 2 single storey units) making a total of 14 dwellings in the street not so long ago.
  • Since the zones have come in, this has all changed and the population of this street is set to increase by at least 1000%. That’s right – 1000%! Here’s why –

1 Claire St (with land size of just under 800 sq metres has recently been sold). A permit has been granted for 3 double storeys

6-10 Claire St is now heading to VCAT for an adjudication on a three storey development consisting of 36 units and a reduction in visitor car parking. Council refused the permit.

Then there’s 11 Claire St, with a permit for a two storey dwelling and 9 units – achieved after three VCAT visits. The first two refused permits for (a) 4 two storey dwellings in June 2012; (b) 2 storeys with ten units (October 2012) and finally in August 2013 a permit for 2 storey and 9 units. When granting a permit for this last decision the member stated – I am similarly satisfied that the design and scale of the building generally represents an appropriate response to the existing and envisaged character of the area in that the two storey scale ensures the development does not dominate the streetscape. The building includes elements that sympathetically respond to the prevailing architectural typology. These elements include wide eaves, pitched roof forms, good fenestration, basement garaging, and (subject to conditions) reasonable front, side and rear setbacks in order to provide for appropriate landscaping.

So now we’ve gone from two storeys to the blank cheque handed to developers for 3 storeys – all with flat roofs, removal of every single tree and vegetation on site, and setbacks that are a joke! And the total number of dwellings in a street barely 50 metres long has gone from 14 to possibly 130-150 dwellings. Thus hundreds of cars and all having to enter and exit onto McKinnon Road!

This is planning madness for sure and the blame must be laid at the feet of this council. The inconsistencies, the contradictions and the lack of justifiable strategic planning is unforgiveable. And what must never be forgotten is the simple fact that residents were the last to know about the zones. Like mushrooms we were kept in the dark – not worthy of being ‘consulted’, and not worthy of anything except paying rates that have been going up year after year by 6.5% – all needed to pay for increased staff and huge pay rises to the CEO! That’s the culture, the ethos, and the ethics of this administration and its lackey councillors!

 

July 21, 2015

Amendment Abandoned

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

Hyams moved to abandon amendment plus ‘affirming’ Amendment C75 (which set up the C1 in the centre and 10 storey heights) and Plan Melbourne. Lobo seconded.

HYAMS: went basically went through the officer’s report outlining the history of the site and what occurred with C75 amendment in 2010. There was ‘maximum of 2000 square metres of retail’ with this amendment so that ‘it would service the people who work there’. Council sent 600 notifications and got 15 submissions – objectors didn’t turn up to the Panel hearing. In 2012 Minister changed zoning and now developer wants to put up to 1250 apartments and 12000 square metres of retail. Said that there are two options before council – to send to a panel or abandon amendment. On officer’s recommendation to go to panel said that this was ‘not an unreasonable recommendation’ because that would mean ‘we do some more investigation’ and the panel would ‘weigh up’ the evidence and make their own recommendations which council is then ‘free to accept or reject’ or modify. It then goes to the Minister. However, he thinks that sending it to a panel ‘would be a waste of everyone’s time and money and effort. ‘ Claimed that this view was only formed ‘late last week’ after he read the objections. In fact, ‘I can’t see myself ever supporting what the applicant is asking for’. Has ‘grave concerns’ about the ‘residential component’ and the impact on traders and ‘allowing this to proceed to the Development Plan Process’. Stated that Gillon ‘proposed’ that the amendment be changed to 1250 apartments but officers’ advice was that this may not have ‘statutary weight’. He thought that even 1250 and 3000 people is ‘still too many for this site by a long way’.

Unlike Caulfield Village this isn’t a ‘transport hub’ with only buses and would ‘increase population’ by 10% in East Bentleigh, plus the retail component could do ‘significant’ harm to local traders and shopping strips. Said council received a ‘peer review’ on the applicant’s retail impact statement and that ‘points out’ that shops ‘on the border of Glen Eira’ were ignored by the applicant’s consultants.

Said that ‘neither’ the residential or retail ‘fit our strategy for this site’ which is for Virginia Estate to ‘continue to be an employment hub’. His ‘concern’ with the Development Plan process was that if the amendment is passed and they make a ‘subsequent decision on the Development Plan’ that is ‘ultimately reviewable by VCAT’ and ‘I absolutely have no faith in VCAT’. He wants ‘something of this significance to remain under Council control’ and not the ‘whims of VCAT’.

On the survey it was ‘not from Council’ and people have two choices – either they believe it is a conspiracy or incompetence and he sees it as incompetence because he doesn’t believe that ‘the applicant actually intended to mislead’ people. But ‘the nature of the questions’ were ‘fairly distasteful’ and ‘designed to produce the desired outcome’. But ‘distasteful as is it’ they ‘don’t make planning decisions to punish’ people and so ‘this hasn’t influenced my decision’.

Wanted to address some comments made at the Planning Conference. Once was from Staikos who ‘said that it is the new planning zones that are causing development’. Said that ‘our new planning zones are not causing development’ since apart from ‘one small patch’ developers can’t build what they could before and there’s only been a ‘rush in development’ between the announcement and the gazetting because developers tried to get their applications in on the old system. Others question why council is ‘only getting 5.7%’ as an open space levy. Said that ‘experts’ determined how council ‘could get the most money’ and they said that a ‘flat rate’ for all areas was better because if they wanted more for sites such as Virginia Estate then ‘we couldn’t have got’ the 5.7% for the rest of Glen Eira. In fact the ‘person who raised that at the conference was responsible for holding up’ the amendment and costing council ‘one million dollars’. So ‘that’s what you call chutzpah’.

Now the applicant can ‘get on’ with developing the park according to Amendment C75 ‘which is in accordance with our strategy’ or they can put in a new amendment together with a planning application and ‘that way we know what we’re getting’.   This was one major cause for worry for residents and councillors because ‘beyond broad parameters’ no-one knows ‘what they’re getting’. So with an amendment and planning application ‘we know what we’re getting and we make the decision’ and ‘not VCAT’.

LOBO: ‘I rise to speak for the people of East Bentleigh’. ‘People elected me to represent them and I will’. Said he won’t support amendment because ‘people do not want’ it. ‘My loyalty is towards the people of East Bentleigh’.

PILLING: said he chaired the planning conference which was a ‘good meeting’. Wanted to thank the community for their input. Said he supports the motion for 2 ‘chief’ reasons – lack of public transport and it’s not like the Caulfield Village which has a major transport rail line. Other reasons was ‘concern’ from the traders’ associations. The amendment isn’t ‘suitable and doesn’t fit our strategy’. Agreed with Hyams on the new zones that ‘you can’t get something now that you couldn’t before’ and that ‘you could probably get less now’. Plus ‘drawing a long bow’ then all parties at federal level are responsible because they ‘encourage population growth’. ‘Our job is to manage that population growth and set standards’. There’s been a lot of ‘criticism’ of council. Most ‘constructive’ but some ‘over the top’ and that’s like ‘criticising an umpire before the decision is made’. ‘Overall’ he ‘welcomes the community’s input’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in ‘making my mind up’ she is concentrating on ‘three particular areas’ – strategic reasons, planning reasons and community input. If she lets this go to a planning panel then didn’t think that she would be ‘upholding’ the premises of ‘local government’ – ie ‘listen to the community’ and then apply the strategic and planning ideas. Said mainly to the ‘applicant’ that when ‘you seek community consultation’ this must be done with ‘integrity’ and is ‘about a two way conversation’ and not just about ‘telling the community what you are about to do’. So it’s listening, ‘taking on board’ what people say and then ‘making some changes along the way’. Conceded that there ‘had been some belated attempts to do so’ and she commended the applicant on that. SAid that the Municipal Strategic Statement from the planning scheme identifies this as moving from industrial to a ‘really important employment node’. Said that ‘I don’t see any strategic reason’ why this objective should ‘go’. On planning grounds, if there is to be the upholding of this site as an employment zone then ‘commercial 2 is the best way to do this’. So, ‘I don’t find that there are planning reasons to move this forward’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he suggested at one point that a panel would be the ‘best way to go’ so that residents could go and make submissions and it would come back and ‘we could look at it’. But he then ‘thought’ about it and decided that even if it went to a panel “I couldn’t support it, so why go to a panel in the first place?’ Repeated that ‘we intended this to be an employment hub’ and won’t be ‘under this proposal’. ‘I don’t think you can trust what the developer has said’. Hyams said incompetence, he suggests ‘conspiracy and they’ve been ‘deceptive’. Said there’s been ‘bandied around’ 4000 and 1250 units but ‘I don’t know what’s going to happen and I don’t trust them’. But ‘that’s not the reason’ why he is voting as he is. This ‘isn’t C60’ and isn’t CaulfieldStation and it will ‘kill business in this whole area’. Said he wanted to see the area ‘developed’ and for it ‘to go forward’. ‘Not something that is forced on the community’.

SOUNNESS: Said he was sure that the applicants don’t consider the issue as ‘dead’ and there will ‘have to be a discussion and the presentation of something new’. For people in the gallery there ‘will be more discussion in the future’ on ‘how is this going to be the best thing for Glen Eira’ and how ‘to meet the needs and expectations of residents’. He expects the applicant will now ‘have a chat’ with the community and officers. Suggested that ‘you maintain an eye out’ and ‘stay aware’ of any developments and ‘be part of the conversation’. It’s the ‘applicant’s land’ but ‘your city’ and the job of council is to ‘mediate’ between the two to achieve the best outcome. Said there are gaps in the planning scheme and that’s made him ‘uncomfortable’.

ESAKOFF: said that this has a ‘long history’ and she remembers her childhood when it was W.D & H. Wills. Glad that there has been such a great response from the community because it’s been a ‘terrific exercise in community consultation’. The amendment ‘doesn’t meet council’s strategic planning’ or council’s ‘sustainable transport’ strategy that seeks higher density in transport hubs. This isn’t one of those transport hubs. Admitted that council ‘tried hard’ to get the bus to go down East Boundary for GESAC but ‘to no avail’ and if council ‘can’t get it’ she didn’t know how the developer could.

OKOTEL: thanked both applicant and residents for the ‘amount’ of ‘information that was provided’ because ‘this was critical in our decision making’ and ‘helped us raise questions with the officers’ . Agreed with others and mainly about the impact of ‘density’ and what this means for residents in the area in terms of ‘traffic and infrastructure’. Even though she wasn’t a councillor when C75 came in, she thought this was a ‘better fit for the area’ than leaving it as ‘industrial’. However, ‘changing the zoning would lead to over-development’ and therefore can’t see ‘any reason why’ the amendment should go to a panel.

MAGEE: said that in his 7 years on council ‘nothing has scared me more’ than this. He lives in East Bentleigh and the weight of the decision meant many ‘sleepless nights’. Accepted that the ‘developer’ is trying to ‘maximise the return on his investment’ but the ‘cost is our community’. East Bentleigh was the most liveable city but not if this goes through. ‘Something will be built on this site’ but if it’s about ‘land’ then every inch is important in Glen Eira. Said that council has to ‘maximise’ open space ‘where we can’ but ‘more importantly we have to maximise the amenity’. We know that there will be ‘change’ because there are 1000 residents each year who ‘want to come and live with us’. SAid the developer has to think whether it’s all about ‘maximising’ profit or also giving residents ‘something that benefits them’. Amendment C75 is not ‘in place’ and thought that ‘we will be back here in 18 months time’. Ultimately ‘it’s about maximising the best use of the land’ and he doesn’t ‘want this change’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)

 

July 21, 2015

What Is ‘Capacity’?

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

Planning Permit Activity reports are now available for the entire financial year of 2014/15. The figures represent ‘net new dwellings’. From July 2014 to June 2015, another 2885 dwellings have received permits. This is on top of the 1713 from the previous year. Population projections for Glen Eira tell us that in order to meet housing needs the municipality will require 9000 new dwellings by 2031. Since the zones have come in the numbers have gone through the roof – 934, 1713, and now 2885 – for a grand total of 5532. Hence in the space of three years Glen Eira has achieved an average of roughly 1800 dwellings per year – triple what is stated in the fossilised Planning Scheme. At this rate, the 9000 new dwellings will be reached in 2018 and not 2031!

Given these figures, today’s Letter to the Editor, is very relevant.

Untitled

 

July 17, 2015

Agenda: Officers Recommend Panel Hearing

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

The officer’s report for the proposed Virginia Estate Amendment recommends that the Minister appoint an ‘independent’ Planning Panel. No surprises there! Nor is the ‘quality’ of the report itself a surprise. Once again it is short on justification, short on comprehensive analysis, and most importantly fails to adequately address and answer residents’ concerns.

By way of contrast, we feature below the officer’s report from 17th March 2010, which recommended sending the Caulfield Village Amendment C60 off to a planning panel. Whilst this Amendment itself is steeped in controversy and back room wheeling and dealing, we ask readers to carefully consider the far greater detail that went into this report – in contrast to what’s been dished up now with the Virginia Estate amendment. We also acknowledge that the C60 was based on what was called an ‘incorporated plan’ rather than a Development Overlay as with Virginia Estate. However, the end result is basically the same – ie setting height limits, etc and both needing a Development Plan in the future.

Please compare the two and note the details that are lacking for this current amendment. It highlights once again in our view:

  • The failure to present all the relevant information
  • Questions need to be asked regarding how ‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ the report actually is?
  • And the most vital question – why are residents once again ignored, spurned, and not listened to?
  • FYI – we’ve uploaded the officer report HERE

VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_1VIRGINIA ESTATE_Page_2

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »