GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

September 4, 2014

Coming To A Street Near You!

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

If you happen to live in a street that is now zoned as Residential Growth Zone or General Residential Zone, then you might consider doing what countless Glen Eira residents have already started doing – getting the hell out of the municipality before the area really goes to the dogs and making some money in the process. We now know of 6 instances where owners are getting together and selling their properties as one lot. This trend will no doubt continue – especially when people start realising that their streets and their neighbourhoods are about to be over-run with inappropriate development thanks to Council’s welcome arms approach to development and their unwillingness to undertake current and proper strategic planning.

A perfect example of the insanity of this planning scheme can be seen by what is happening in Penang St. McKinnon which has now inconceivably been given the green light for 3 storey developments. Two properties at 2 and 4 Penang St were bought by the same developer and there is now an application for a 3 storey, 24 apartment, and of course, a reduction in visitor car parking. The combined land equals roughly 1360 square metres. However, that’s not the end of the stor(e)y.

Penang is a quiet residential street consisting of only 9 dwellings and several which front Jasper Road. Many of these nine dwellings are single storeys and the double storeys add their own character to the street as the photos below will show. We cannot see any rhyme or reason why such as street has been placed in this zone, in contrast to say Wattle Avenue which has been left as minimal change, yet consists of several scruffy looking blocks of flats and units. As one commentator on this site has asked – no one from council could possibly be living in Wattle Avenue could they? In terms of another 24 apartments and growth in the surrounding streets, then Penang is the perfect setting for the latest rat run as drivers try to avoid the lights at the corner of Jasper and Mckinnon. Needless to say, there is no parking plan overlay for this Neighbourhood Centre!

To make matters worse, the houses at 2 and 4 Penang St. are ‘classical’ and with their demolition this will now create the precedent for more triple storeys in the street and surrounding areas. Here’s what will be lost and replaced with box like dwellings no doubt – the slums of the future!

Some of the other houses in the street look like this!

We remind readers that Council has:

Introduced these zones in secret & without consultation
Council has never stated what is the optimum population for Glen Eira
No Housing Strategy review has been done since the late 1990’s
A one size fits all approach based on antiquated data is unacceptable.

We urge all readers to inform themselves of what zoning they fall under and to protest and protest at whatever application comes in that they believe will threaten their amenity, lifestyle and environment. Remember, amendments may be made, but they can also be tossed out – especially with a new set of councillors who actually give a damn about what’s happening to neighbourhoods all through the municipality!

September 3, 2014

‘Building Envelopes’ – Aka Incorporated Plan!

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

Item 9.2 – 487 Neerim Road – 7 lot subdivision (Esakoff on leave and Magee late to meeting)

Hyams moved motion with amendments requiring 4 metre setbacks to some of the units to the east and that there must be council approval to ‘vary envelopes’ (ie building envelopes) like ‘variations to a restrictive covenant’. Also included that there could be variations to garage placements and this would need a planning permit amendment. Lipshutz seconded.

HYAMS: went through the past history and the VCAT approval for a 3 storey development. Permit has now ‘expired’ and the site is in minimal change (NRZ1) so there can’t be a new application because the new zones only allow ‘two buildings on site’. Hence ‘the sensible response to that’ for large sites is to ‘apply for subdivision’. Hyams then said that the developer would currently be paying a 4.25% open space levy instead of 5.7% ‘which is due of course to our amendment being held up’ by people who are ‘being good friends to the developers’. He hoped that ‘those people know what they are doing’. Went on to say that planning permits are required for ‘the actual buildings’ because of the Special Building and Design Overlays. Objectors thought this was all a ‘bit vague’ but that the ‘clarity will come later’. But the ‘application does come with building envelopes’ and once that is approved then things are set and that’s why he moved the amendment about setbacks. Objectors were worried about the trees but they will be ‘protected’ via a Section 173 agreement which ‘will require a tree management plan’. ‘That will ensure’ that the trees ‘are looked after’. Neighbouring units will be ‘protected’ because of the 4 metre setback. Said that other standards like permeability and site coverage have been met and that there will be 3 visitor car parking spaces and 2 resident spots for each unit. Overlooking ‘will be addressed at the planning permit stage’ and he’s confident that this can be resolved by ‘treating’ the windows. Thought that this was ‘good use of the land to subdivide’ and that it also ‘protected the amenity’ of neighbours.

LIPSHUTZ: said that the developers had ‘extensive discussions’ with officers before the application went in and that’s ‘a good thing because it allows things to progress pretty easily’. Said that setbacks weren’t discussed with officers but now that it’s realised the developer can ‘deal with the setback quite readily’. Said the ‘building envelope is quite important’ because buildings are ‘planned a particular way’ and ultimately ‘council has control over it’ with the next planning application.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams’ comments and his amendment because they do ‘strike a balance’ between protecting the neighbourhood and getting the ‘best outcome for that parcel of land’. Said she ‘completely supports’ this motion.

SOUNNESS: thought this was the most ‘comprehensive’ subdivision he’d seen and was very pleased about the emphases on protecting the trees. Recognised that this does ‘constrain’ how many units can go on but that there are also ‘trade offs’. Hoped that the developer will support the conditions and ensure that the trees are maintained even though it will come at a financial cost.

LOBO: said that ‘initially’ he wasn’t ‘happy’ with the application because 7 units means that it will be ‘too congested’. But with Hyams’ amendment ‘I feel more comfortable’ but ‘yet not sure that I will vote for it’.

PILLING: thought that the amendment goes ‘a fair way’ to addressing resident concerns and does ‘strike the right balance’.

HYAMS: said that Magee also ‘expressed’ support for increased setbacks.

MOTION PUT AND VOTED FOR UNANIMOUSLY

September 3, 2014

Getting Our Priorities Right!

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

When one considers that planning applications have the power to impact dramatically on people’s lives, the least that councillors could do is to actually consider and debate the merits of the case. Instead, what invariably happens in chamber is that councillors merely regurgitate the officer’s reports (verbatim at times), possibly make some minor amendments and the whole matter, from start to finish, takes approximately 5 minutes – if even that long! People’s lives, their amenity, surely deserve more than 5 minutes of weasel words?

By way of contrast, slapping themselves on the back about the moving of the Toy Library to a council owned building takes around 12 minutes and ten years of community pleading! Requests for reports, turn into marathons of political grandstanding, constant contradictions, and a focus on ‘feel good’ issues that many would argue are beyond council’s control. These requests take close to half an hour of argey bargey and political point-scoring.

Of course no information is provided to residents on:

What happened at the VCAT ‘mediation’ over the Caulfield Village Development
No explanation as to why the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion will not be completed until half way through next year
No insight into whether the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion is over budget

In short, all the important issues, are downplayed, given short shrift, or the code of silence descends. That is the incontrovertible message that these councillors send to residents. The priority for this Council and its councillors is to continually slap themselves on the back and state again and again how wonderful they are.

PS: The triple block of land in McKinnon Road (1112 square metres and zoned GRZ) was sold today for $3.61 million! At that price, residents can look forward to plenty more chicken coops so that the developer can recoup his outlay!

August 30, 2014

Our Hard Earned Money At Work!

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

Item 9.2 of the current agenda features an application for a 7 lot subdivision on land that is over 3,000 square metres. This property was up for sale just on a year ago and provided council with the perfect opportunity to add to the open space next to Riley Reserve. Of course, this was not even considered. Now there is this application to subdivide the land into seven lots on proposed lot sizes of – Lot 1 is 304 square metres in size, whilst, proposed Lots 2-7 (inclusive) range in size from 199 square metres to 238 square metres in size. The area is in Minimal Change/Residential 1 Zone. Readers should remember that Council’s proposed C115 Amendment for larger size blocks has not been given the green light for exhibition 9 months down the track. Even this application for subdivision dates back to March!

In a wonderful sleight of hand exercise, the officer’s report would have residents believe that The policy (ie the planning scheme) also recognised ‘larger sites’ being those lots greater than 2,000 square metres.

No it doesn’t! ‘larger sites’ are NOT DEFINED in the planning scheme. They never were. In fact, any size block that is ‘larger’ than its neighbours or the ‘conventional’ size can have more than 2 dwellings built on the land in minimal change. If we take ‘conventional’ to mean 500 square metres, then hundreds upon hundreds of properties fit into this category. Here’s what the planning scheme actually states:

Consider developments of more than two dwellings provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone have been met. Circumstances where more than two dwellings may be achieved could include any of the following:

 Where the site is in an area characterised by larger than conventional lots.

 Where the site is significantly larger than the majority of properties immediately abutting the title boundary and the properties directly opposite.

 Where the prevailing development in the street and neighbouring streets is predominantly characterised by multi-unit development.

 Ensure that the existing neighbourhood character and subdivision pattern are maintained by discouraging the consolidation of sites.

 Recognise that key pre-existing development sites over 2000m2, including transitional sites (eg sites once used for industry or other redundant uses) and existing residential sites, may be rezoned and developed in minimal change areas:

 With a higher development yield than would normally apply in minimal change areas.

 Incorporating a range of multi-unit developments.

 Ensuring that any multi-unit residential development is consistent with the prevailing streetscape scale, especially along the perimeter of sites.

What makes the above even more ludicrous and unforgiveable is that the PLANNING SCHEME CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Another example of the complete ineptitude and incompetence of both the planning at local level as well as the the department. Why? Because at Section 22.08 -3.1 it states:

Hence what we have here is a total schemozzle and as we’ve indicated in a previous post, developers are quite legally entitled to argue that if they own a large lot in a minimal change area that the GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE standards apply rather than the MINIMAL CHANGE AREA standards. Whose heads should roll for this gross incompetence? How on earth can something as significant as this get through unchecked? How many staff are in planning? Why are we paying exorbitant costs for what must be seen as sheer incompetence?

PS: we are in error with the above by inadvertently looking at an older version of the Planning Scheme dating from 2013. However, this still does not invalidate our view that by designating the standards for larger lot sizes as General Residential Zone, instead of those that applied to Minimal Change, the community is far worse off and the ‘translation’ has been far from ‘neutral’. It also does Council no credit when this change was picked up weeks after the new zones were gazetted!

There’s also another item that was decided last council meeting and features in the Records of Assembly. The ‘reconstruction’ of Fosberry and St Aubins Avenue at at cost of $908,000. We have to wonder whether all of this ‘reconstruction’ (ie drainage) is merely another subsidy going to developers. Recently a large development received VCAT approval under the ‘transitional provisions” for two buildings of double storeys and 22 dwellings. The land is 3934 square metres.

Another opportunity for council to purchase land in an area bereft of open space. Once again, no purchase. And once again major ‘reconstruction’ of areas surrounding large development sites. The hive of such activity around Caulfield Village, and now St Aubins may be coincidental. We leave that up to readers to decide – but there appears to be a definite pattern. Considering that Glen Eira has dumped its development contributions levy, what a wonderful present this is for developers when ratepayers are forking out the money for their drainage!

August 13, 2014

VCAT

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

We’re highlighting one particular decision from last night’s council meeting because we believe it exemplifies practically everything that is amiss in planning decisions by this council and especially the role that councillors should play.

To state the obvious, applications are meant to be judged according to the standards prescribed by the Planning Scheme. It is Council’s responsibility to enforce those standards. Full stop! The granting of a permit should never be decided on the basis of what councillors think might happen at VCAT if objections crop up and the case is taken to this body. Time and time again the arguments that issue from certain councillors is that VCAT is ‘arbitrary’, ‘inconsistent’ and that it all boils down to the individual member. So, if this is indeed the case, then how can Lipshutz state, as he did last night, that ‘I know VCAT will approve’ and hence the permit was granted. It is even worse when Sounness, who moved the motion to grant the permit, also argued on these same lines – ie. that he couldn’t see how Council could mount a ‘defence’ in VCAT and the best option is to ‘apply conditions’. Hence, a permit was granted. Whether or not some of the ‘fault’ lies with the Planning Scheme itself, has never of course been broached by any councillor. Nor has the question of how well Council actually defends its decisions at VCAT.

As for the regular VCAT Decisions report, Hyams together with Lipshutz again implied that resident objectors would be better off if they refrained from objecting. According to Hyams, one decision handed down was a ‘salutary lesson’ for objectors since they were now ‘worse off’ in going to VCAT because the developer got more than Council had granted in their original permit. In other words, DON’T OBJECT and leave everything to us, the ‘experts’.

We’ve know of no other Council, where such disdain for the rights of citizens is so frequently featured. Nor do we know of any other Council where arrogance is so prevalent. If Council’s record at VCAT is so wonderful due to this ‘expertise’ then they need to explain why the vast majority of their decisions in the past year have either been overturned completely or the conditions varied considerably. And scattered throughout the hearings there are occasions when resident objectors (that ignorant lot) were successful in completely overturning Council’s decision to grant a permit.

August 12, 2014

Council Meeting

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

A very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. Delahunty was absent and Esakoff left the meeting around 9.30pm. The latter had requested leave of absence until early October.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

No surprises here. Councillors followed their usual pattern of lopping of one floor from the 6/7 application, thereby making the height 5/6 storeys and reducing the number of apartments. Lobo was the only councillor to vote against the motion. For the first application of 4 storeys Esakoff moved that another condition be added – setback on top floor to be increased to 11.83 metres. However balconies could still intrude into the set back of up to 2.4 metres. Passed unanimously.

Childcare centre featured Lobo and Magee as the only councillors to vote against. Lipshutz trotted out the same old refrain of how this applicant had not been a very good neighbour in the past, but if he didn’t behave himself from now on and abide by all the conditions set down, then council would come down on him ‘like a ton of bricks’. Funny how often this same old argument crops up from Lipshutz AND HOW LITTLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION THIS COUNCIL EVER TAKES!

RACECOURSE & LETTERS

Neither Lipshutz nor Hyams declared a conflict of interest. Labor’s Lisa Neville copped a hiding for her equivocal response and council determined to keep ‘agitating’ so that the centre could be turned into a ‘sporting ground’!

VIRGINIA ESTATE

Only two speakers and Magee’s concern was with the involvement of Elizabeth Miller writing to council and the Minister’s alleged attempt to bypass consultation. He did not ‘care’ whether the entire precinct became commercial via an amendment as long as there was community input. More on this in the days ahead.

GISBORNE STREET/RIDDELL PARADE CONSULATION

Pilling showed his true Mayoral qualities here by not halting Lipshutz and then Hyams when, instead of speaking to the topic, both used the occasion to launch into personal attacks on the two objectors to the Open Space Levy Amendment. According to these councillors both objectors (who were named – a first for council) were ‘holding the community to ransom’. Pilling then had his own go by parroting what Hyams had said several council meetings ago – ie that the objections were motivated by ‘mistrust of council’. Much, much more on this in the coming days!

August 12, 2014

Planning & Officer Reports

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

There are 3 significant planning applications in for decision tonight. Each is for multi-unit development and each has been recommended for approval. The details in brief are –

Four storey, 33 dwellings, 2 retail, 2 offices and reduction in carparking and waiver of loading bays
Part six and seven storey, 39 dwellings, 4 shops, reduction in car parking and waiver of loading bays
Two storey child care centre for 118 children in a minimal change area.

Council’s recent trend of NOT DISCLOSING how many proposed units will be one bedroom should be deplored, especially when residents are continually fed the rubbish about creating ‘diversity’ in the municipality. What is even more deplorable is the continuation of officer reports that are entirely bereft of sufficient detail, though replete with waffle, repetition, generalities, and plain old humbug. ‘Clerical errors’ still manage to creep in – ie Council has labelled one zone as operating under Schedule 1 whereas it is in fact designated as Schedule 2. It would be wonderful if planners actually knew their own planning scheme or at least double checked what went out!

Here are some of the most memorable lines from the various officer reports –

Guidelines suggest 6 car spaces for the proposed shops. Four are proposed. Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the reduction of car parking for the shops, given that two spaces have been provided for each tenancy. Given the size of the shops, this will cater for the likely staff demand.

All habitable rooms will have access to daylight either directly through windows facing the front, side and rear boundaries or light courts which will provide an acceptable level of internal amenity.

Here’s a quote from the second application which is for the 6/7 storey building –

Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.

By way of comparison, the following quote is from the first application (ie 4 storeys). Please note the repetition with no explanation of why one design is deemed to be ‘high standard’ and the other application is only of ‘relatively high standard’ –

Furthermore, the architectural quality of the building is considered to be of a relatively high standard. This is demonstrated in the level of visual interest exhibited in the facades, which feature balconies, balustrades, glazing and a mixture of materials that moderate the effects of visual bulk.

There are further gems as well! We especially love the logic that since there already are 3 and 4 storeys in another municipality, that a six and seven storey building is therefore acceptable!

In light of the emerging built form in this centre (up to 5 storeys has been approved to the south at 77-79 Poath Road), and opposite in the City of Monash (3-4 storeys) the scale of the building is considered suitable.

State Government guidelines suggest seven (7) on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the on-site visitor car space provision. On balance, this is considered reasonable in this instance given: Visitor parking is most common after normal business hours…

There are countless other examples we could have provided, but we believe these will suffice in order for residents to come to some conclusions as to the quality and transparency of planning application reports.

August 8, 2014

Residents Beware! – Another Caulfield Village Around The Corner!

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

Residents Beware! We are about to be dudded by this administration and its developer friends and councillors in the very near future in relation to the Virginia Estate site. Item 9.14 of today’s agenda tells us:

An amendment is in the pipeline to rezone all of the 12 hectares into Commercial 1 zone. Currently only the centre of this site is suitable for residential development and not its ‘ourskirts’ that abut residential streets.
No detail is provided by the Akehurst report as to the precise nature of this proposed amendment and its potential ramifications
There is absolutely no sense in rezoning this land unless the objective is to cram more residential units onto the land. Currently up to 10 storeys is mooted. How many units will 12 hectares hold we wonder?

What we do object to most strongly however is the entirely devious, disingenuous and ultimately misleading information that is contained in the Akehurst report. Readers are told –

The amendment seeks a rezoning of the land only. No development application has been received. Any future development will be subject to a town planning permit process which will be advertised to the public. VCAT appeal rights, including to the community, would also apply to any planning permit application.

What Akehurst does not fully reveal in this report, and instead resorts to totally incorrect language of ‘town planning permit process’ is that Amendment C75 passed in 2011 comes with a specific Schedule that demands the submission of a DEVELOPMENT PLAN. In other words, whatever planning processes will evolve over time will follow the same course as the Caulfield Village fiasco – ie an Incorporated Plan that residents did not see prior to the Panel hearing, then a Development Plan where all residents could comment upon were heights and setbacks with NO APPEAL RIGHTS. In this instance however, there is not even an Incorporated Plan.

Below we quote what was written at the time of the original Amendment and these quotes come directly from the minutes –

8^th June 2010 –

The schedule to the DPO, introduces a requirement for Council approval of a Development Plan (i.e. the “detail”) to be submitted down the track when the specific design of a particular building/s is known. The Development Plan must be generally in accordance with the Precinct Plan, however, no third party appeal rights apply at this stage. This is a similar approval mechanism as proposed by Amendment C60 (Melbourne Racing Club). It allows community input at the broad conceptual level. At the detailed level, Council must seek community feedback by advertising the development plan. However, there are no third party (residents) appeal rights. This approval process is becoming common in cases like this where there is no actual development currently under consideration.

It is recognised that this amendment does result in some uncertainty about “what” is being proposed and the ability for the community to have a say when the detail is known. To this end, the requirement for a Development Plan to be submitted when the detail of development is known should give some comfort to the community. Development Plans are required to be submitted on a precinct by precinct basis and are required to provide detailed information on likely traffic impacts and the traffic management works which may be necessary to accommodate the predicted traffic generated by the development. Council is also required to display these plans and seek community views. It is important to note, however, that third party appeal rights will not apply at this stage. This is a similar process to that adopted by the Melbourne Racing Club with its masterplan amendment.

Following the Panel Hearing, council had to decide what to do with the amendment. On 5^th March 2011 the following appears in the minutes –

Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreement with Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The one issue where the Panel disagrees with Council is in relation to the extent of the landscaped setbacks to the south and east of the site. Council proposed an 8 metre setback to accommodate substantial canopy trees. The Proponent argued that 5m was sufficient. The Panel agreed with the proponent and accepted the evidence given on this issue on behalf of the proponent.

It is recommended that in this instance, Council should accept the ‘umpire’s decision’ and adopt the amendment with reduced landscape setbacks to the south and east.

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That Council:

Adopts Amendment C75 in the form recommended by the IndependentPanel with the following change:

(a) The exhibited setback of 8 metres to the southern boundary (Virginia Reserve Interface Precinct) and eastern boundaries (Third Avenue Precinct) is adopted.

Does not forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planningfor approval until the Gillon Group enters into a Section 173 agreementwith Council for the provision of infrastructure works.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

Please note that the final gazetted version of the Amendment includes the following in the Schedule –

West boundary (East Boundary Road Precinct): 8m landscape setback.

 South boundary (Virginia Park Precinct): 5m landscape setback

 East boundary (Third Avenue Precinct): 5m landscape setback for a 4 storey building from a public open space, or 5m landscape setback for a 3 storey building from interface with any residential use.

Figures, Figures & More Shonky Figures!

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

The Open Space Contribution Levy has featured prominently at the last two council meetings. At the July 1^st meeting the claim was that with objectors going to a Panel this is estimated to add approximately 7 months and that revenue ‘foregone’ during this time could be of the order of $2m. At last night’s council meeting the $2 million suddenly morphed into this (from the officer’s report) – At the 2013-14 rates, that would be a difference of about seven months or around $700k. Lipshutz even made up his own figures and spoke of a million dollars! The best lines however came from Hyams with his assertion that the objectors had a ‘tribal distrust of council’ and this was their ‘motivation’ for lodging objections.

Perhaps a far more reasonable take on council’s approach to collecting money from developers would be to calculate how much money has been LOST over a period of 11 years. Perhaps residents should also be seeking answers as how much land council has sold, as opposed to how much land has been purchased in order to meet the open space demands – first identified in 1987.

Even on the new ‘transparency’ so lauded by Delahunty, the figures provided in the officer’s report are fascinating – and of course entirely begs the question as to why such data is only made available now and not on a regular basis! More telling is the fact that council states that the range of rates currently applied are – 2.25% to 5.0% (maximum). So how come, when the supplied list is analysed NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LIST OF 54 HAS PAID 5%? Further questions should also be asked. For example:

If this is truly a complete list of all payments received, then given that council admits to roughly 350+ subdivisions (according to the State Planning Activity Permit Reports for last year) and if even half are for 2 lot subdivisions and therefore exempt, what has happened to the other 175 subdivisions? Did council collect a cent? Or were all of these subdivision payments waived?
If on the other hand this is not a complete listing, then why hasn’t this been stated upfront?

For eleven years now (since 29/5/2003) council has done nothing to up its open space levy – even though it has been fully cognisant of the fact that open space is a premium in Glen Eira. How many millions have been lost during this time? And how much money has been lost by not even applying the full 5% that council could legally apply?

Compared to the 11 years of doing absolutely nothing, a delay of even 7 months, seems very worthwhile in order to ensure that an amendment is passed which will truly benefit the community!

July 22, 2014

Just For The Record!

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

Tonight’s vote on the CCTV policy should be very entertaining if nothing else. The policy itself (in stark contrast to other councils) contains the following paragraph –

Council will not operate CCTV where the primary purpose is enforcement of the criminal law. Enforcement of the criminal law is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. If such agencies wish to install and operate CCTV systems on Council property, Council will not unreasonably withhold consent

And just for the record, we invite readers to compare what Jim Magee is cited as stating above, and what he said in December, 2013. This is taken from our post of the time –

MAGEE: said that cctv is ‘now a necessity’ and claimed that in 2010 he had called for a report on this. Even though Glen Eira isn’t a ‘hot bed of crime’ it’s important because ‘a lot of people take comfort’ and the cameras give a sense of security to people. Repeated that cameras can detect crime and prosecuting people. Thought that the Bentleigh rotunda would be ‘one of the first places’ where they could put the cameras. Thought it was also ‘incumbent’ for council to ‘do things’ for all those people likely to commit a crime in order to ‘discourage the anti-social behaviour’. Said that ‘this would probably be a large part of council’s operations’ in the future. This would be the role of policy in identifying ‘how to manage that in the future’. ‘This is the beginning, this is the first step’. He commends the motion.

Consistency is, of course, none of these councillors’ strong point!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates