GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

June 28, 2014

Agenda Items

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

Audit Committee

There finally appears to be some ‘movement at the station’ with the following statement – The Chairman recommended that the process for the recruitment of a new Independent Audit Committee Member commence. The in camera items suggest that this process is near completion with this one liner – under s89 2(a) “personnel” which relates to the Audit Committee. Conclusion? That the reign of either Gibbs or McLean is about to end. Reasons for one of these departures is of course not mentioned, and nor has there been any public announcement that we are aware of for the advertising or recruitment of a new member.

Several other items also drew our attention –

The CEO noted that post implementation reviews of previously sub-contracted major projects, had resulted in the tender and referee evaluation process focusing more on how companies managed their subcontractors.

Following consideration of the Land and Buildings valuation paper, the Chairman requested that Council’s top ten open space assets be verified for accuracy of area size.

And from the Charter – An independent minute taker shall be responsible for keeping the minutes…… . A few sentences later there is this sentence – An appropriate officer shall act as independent minute taker to the Committee. We remind readers that for Councillor Assemblies, the municipal inspector had recommended, and council took up the recommendation (for at least some time) of obtaining a completely external minute taker.

Community Consultation Committee

Once again, two of the selected community representatives were absent! If memory serves us correctly, this would mean that only once have all four reps been present at such meetings. Hardly a result to write home about!

Amendment C120 – Open Space Levies

There is much in this item that we will comment upon in the coming days. One thing however is staggeringly clear – the inability of this planning department, plus the State Government’s offices to get something right the first time around. How an amendment can be drafted, sent off for permission to be advertised, given the go-ahead and STILL CONTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS of fact and accuracy is simply beyond belief. Who is responsible for vetting such documents? Why do these errors occur? What does this say about the entire shemozzle that is the process of drafting and implementing amendments? And most importantly, what does this say about the processes adopted by council. For example: submissions on the amendment closed on the 23^rd of June. Submitters were notified on the 24^th June that there would be a planning conference held on the 25^th June. More indecent haste? More disregard for the public?

June 12, 2014

The Art Of Sophistry

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

Tuesday night’s council meeting was replete with bouts of amnesia, inconsistencies, and some wonderful (unconscious?) irony found in the bombast of Lipshutz and his cronies – these latter examples still to come!

This was evident in the item on Amendment C102 (Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas). Amazingly, not one single councillor referred to the watering down of conditions; not one single councillor mentioned that this was a deferred item from 2010, and not one single councillor provided any explanation as to why what was unacceptable two years ago should now be lauded as wonderful.

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Delahunty

HYAMS: started off by saying that there’s ‘a need to update’ policies from ‘time to time’ and this is one of those times. Said that the only contentious issue was the stipulation that heights be consistent with what the current zones dictate. There had been one objection. Argued that it would be a pity if the zones provided protection elsewhere but if here ‘they were disregarded’. Said that there are ‘objectives’ and that if an application ‘basically’ complies with policy and doesn’t cause ‘undue’ ill effects on ‘amenity’ then ‘there is a bit of latitude there’. Said that council isn’t making a decision but sending it off to an ‘independent panel’ and objectors can then present their views to the panel and the report will come back to council for decision.

DELAHUNTY: agreed with Hyams about need for policy so that residents would ‘understand’ what is required and the ‘basis of how we make decisions’. Spoke about ‘measures’ and said that even if the measures ‘aren’t met’ then the application can still meet ‘the objectives of this policy’. This is just part of the ‘deliberate ambiguity that’s built into the policy’ and this allows places like schools to ‘lobby council’. There are other measures which ‘aren’t set in stone’ so it’s ‘wise’ to go onto the next step in sending it off to a panel.

OKOTEL: noted the two objections from private schools and how they were opposed to the height limits and the ‘limiting of set backs’. She agreed with the objectors. Gave an example of a doctor’s surgery opposite her parents’ house which wasn’t taking any more new patients because they were already so busy. Same applied to schools and in order to cater for the increase in population and demand that the best way to go was to ‘build up’ and this would also help people recognise and ‘see a GP practise’ from the street, rather than if it was set back. ‘It wouldn’t be set back with a garden at the front’ so people wouldn’t be able to easily identify that it was a GP practice. Therefore didn’t think that the policy should try and limit heights.

LOBO: said that he’s never been in favour of non-residential uses in residential areas because ‘everything has its time and place’. Noted Regent St application as an example. Said that this ‘was fine 15 years ago’ when population was smaller. Said that the policy has to be ‘rectified’ so that ‘no further damage is created’. Said that council need to ‘look after’ residents since they are the ones ‘who pay the rates’. Didn’t like gyms in streets, bars and that these sorts of establishments ‘shouldn’t be put in the streets’.

ESAKOFF: acknowledged that the policy came in in 1999 so it’s necessary to have a ‘review undertaken’ and that it should be ‘updated’ and to ‘conform’ to the way policies work. She has ‘some empathy’ with the objectors and had ‘concerns’ about ‘restricting the growth of schools’ and also doctors surgeries. These places don’t have a ‘lot of space’ and they can’t ‘go out’ so they ‘have to go up’. Noted that schools are ‘immune to’ council planning processes so the policy only applies to the ‘private school sector’. She didn’t want to ‘restrict’ these schools potential growth but ‘has been assured’ because of how the policy is drafted there is ‘some flexibility’ for these schools to make ‘their case’ so she’s ‘happy to take this to the next level’. Noted that the panel’s report isn’t ‘binding’ and that council can make its own decisions when the advice comes back from the panel.

LIPSHUTZ: said that there needs to be some ‘flexibility in terms of heights’. Lobo’s view about no non-residential uses in residential areas meant that he wasn’t ‘sure’ where you could then put ‘schools, churches’ and that he was ‘assured’ that if schools or churces wanted more than 2 storeys that ‘we would restrict that’. He was also ‘assured’ that these are ‘guidelines’ and ‘flexible’ so since they are ‘flexible’ he supports it.

SOUNNESS: started by saying that people who live in cities want facilities and there are residential areas and non-residential assets. Said that even living in a local street people can wander down to the corner and ‘have a coffee’ and that’s part of living in a city. The amendment is to avoid duplication and update policy according to the new zones and therefore it is very ‘reasonable’. Thought that it was good to have the ‘conversation’ about height because necessary to know what ‘the height might be in an area’. But it’s all relative and in a conversation with someone they spoke about height in relation to ‘tree height’ so if there’s is a bush close by then a ‘two storey height seems enormous’ and if there are huge gums nearby then this would ‘seem tiny’. It all depends ‘on the scale of what’s in the municipality’. And this policy ‘allows this conversation to take place’.

MAGEE: said that because there are schools and churches that ‘makes our residential zones’. Said his place was near schools and doctors and ‘two hospitals’. Change was inevitable and there would always be changes to the planning scheme. Although he doesn’t ‘particularly’ want to live in an industrial area or ‘near a beach’ and he picked where he lives ‘because of the amenity around it’. This was only the ‘first stage’ and where people live is ‘what we make it’. It’s okay to say that schools should only be 2 storeys in residential areas but ‘sometimes’ they do ‘run out of space’ and they can ‘only go up’. Gave examples of packed schools like McKinnon secondary. Repeated that this is only the ‘first stage’ of the process.

PILLING: thought that it was ‘quite reasonable’ to give ‘consideration’ to the area but as he ‘understands’ it, ‘there is nothing’ in the policy to ‘preclude schools going higher’. If there was an application for a ten storey non residential use then ‘I don’t think that’s what we want’. What council wants is ‘some form of uniformity’ and that’s why the current residential zones are ‘so unique’.

HYAMS: said that all they are talking about are schools etc. and not ‘commercial uses’. Council should protect height and also heights in General Residential Zones and Growth Zones. Said that if doctors surgeries wanted to be 3 storeys then there are areas in Glen Eira where they can build to this height.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – VOTING FOR – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, SOUNNESS, PILLING, MAGEE, DELAHUNTY.

VOTING AGAINST – OKOTEL, LOBO.

COMMENT

It’s worth asking why have policy at all, if it is ‘flexible’? Does ‘flexibility’ actually provide the ‘certainty’ to residents that this council always claims? Or is the desired ‘flexibility’ simply there to assist developers in building whatever they like, wherever they like? The problem with setting binding standards is that it leaves no wriggle room later on and commits council to a certain form of action. That in itself is anathema to the way this council operates on innumerable issues.

We also direct readers to the Okotel comments and point out the incredible inconsistencies in her logic. On the previous agenda item (9.1- the Ames St application for 13 double storeys) Okotel argued for protection of ‘neighbourhood character’. Five minutes later height limits should go. Surely height is the cornerstone of ‘neighbourhood character’? We are also really bemused by the argument that setbacks shouldn’t apply so that residents can more easily identify what is a doctor’s surgery!

June 11, 2014

Ho, Ho, Ho – It’s the ‘Silly Season’

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

Item 9.8 featured Xmas/Chanukah decorations. We note at the outset this item probably involved the longest ‘discussion’ of the evening going on for about 20 minutes. Far more than delegations, planning applications, financial reports, Amendments, etc. Good to see that councillors know what deserves top billing! We also remind readers that the razing of the conservatory was voted in on the basis that ‘restoration’ was too expensive and that council had to be frugal with its limited finances!

Lipshutz ‘expanded’ the recommendation to include lighting, Xmas trees and Chanukias in all four libraries, at the town hall and at Gesac. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: said there was some ‘vexed issues’ about installing both Xmas trees and Chanukias. Stated that this is a ‘largely Christian’ society where ‘Christmas is celebrated’ so it’s ‘appropriate’ to have ‘festive lights’ and a tree. Even people who aren’t religious still ‘celebrate Christmas’. Glen Eira has the largest Jewish population of ‘anywhere in Australia’ and since Chanukah ‘falls around the same time’ as Christmas it’s appropriate that ‘we also recognise that’. Council shouldn’t be just looking at ‘bricks and mortar’ but also how ‘people feel’ and that Council should recognise that there are people who want to ‘celebrate Christmas, celebrate Chanukah’.

OKOTEL: delighted with the motion because she has been ‘envious’ of what other councils such as Stonnington do in comparison to the ‘bare town hall’ that is in Glen Eira and thought that it was ’embarrassing’ that there’s nothing at the town hall here. Even though some people might think of such decorations as ‘trivial’ she doesn’t think so. Having decorations brings ‘hope’ and a feeling of ‘celebration’. Council should ‘help’ and ‘facilitate’ people entering into ‘that festive season’. Decorations are ‘simple’ but it helps people enter ‘into that spirit’.

SOUNNESS: said he was sorry because he thought that they should be ‘doing councillor’ things and not so much about religion which ‘isn’t to my comfort’. Foreshadowed that he would abstain from the vote.

DELAHUNTY: asked anyone that since Lipshutz’s motion covered all the recommendations plus the extra one about Gesac, she wanted to know what this added to the $40,000 cost.

JONES: said he assumed that ‘we would be adding an additional’ Christmas tree and Chanukiah but ‘wasn’t quite sure’ what the answer was.

After some confusion it was decided that this would be an extra $2000 – making it $42,000

DELAHUNTY: said she was in ‘two minds’ on the issue. Was happy with lighting but not with ‘religious icons on state buildings’. Said that what needed to be ‘weighed up’ wasn’t just the money but ‘the value’. Claimed that $42,000 wasn’t a ‘relatively small amount of money’ and what was important was the ‘value that the community could get from that’ and she wasn’t sure that the value was there. Didn’t think that one the one hand councillors could argue about being treated like adults (ie the previous item on the agenda about rate capping) and then turn around and argue that $42,000 was a small amount of money. Can’t support anything but Option A because she thought that’s what would best suit the community. Nothing wrong with having the town hall lit as ‘opposed to religious events’.

MAGEE: started by saying that of the 140,000 residents that each experiences Christmas differently. For some it’s ‘spiritual’, and for others just a holiday. Didn’t see any of the options as ‘particularly religious for myself’. Said he saw this as a ‘multicultural item’ and not a ‘spiritual’ item. Just like Chinese new year and the dragon, it was good to watch but that ‘doesnt mean that I would build one’. Didn’t see the Christmas tree as a ‘religious symbol’ but just a ‘symbol of Christmas’. Even with 20% of the community being Jewish he thought that ‘every single one of them’ would have a different view and for some it would be ‘spiritual’ and for others it ‘would be just a symbol’. Saw this as an opportunity to ‘stop being politically correct’ and ‘just be ourselves’. Saw this as an ‘acknowledgement of the time of year’. Nothing wrong with that.

HYAMS: said that all they’re doing is ‘acknowledging the two largest cultures’ in the community and it’s not only about ‘recognising minorities’ but recognising ‘all cultures’ and most people would be ‘Christian or Jewish’. He knows plenty of people who aren’t religious but still have Christmas trees or Chanukiah at home at this time of year. This would ‘add a lot to the festive feel of the city’. It’s like saying that the City of Melbourne shouldn’t be spending a lot on fireworks but people do ‘get a lot out of it’ and ‘enjoy it’. Same goes for mixing state and religion because that would mean not having Carols in the Park. He goes and doesn’t feel offended by carols that have ‘got a lot to do with a religion that I don’t believe’. It’s ‘all part of being in a multicultural society’. Melbourne city council puts up a chanukiah in Fed Square and so does New York but they have a huge Jewish population. Saw it as ‘acknowledging a multicultural society’.

ESAKOFF: was ‘sitting on the fence’ and she really wanted only lighting and what the motion is, is even more than what Stonnington has got. Said she was ‘hesitating’ to go for all the options. ‘At this stage’ she was more in favour of Option B.

DELAHUNTY then asked about acknowledging the ‘traditional owners of the land’ and the past issue of putting up the aboriginal flag at the town hall.

PILLING: said that council doesn’t have a ‘continual presence’ but only during Reconciliation Week.

DELAHUNTY said that it was before her time, but she was wondering about a request for a report on putting up a flagpole for the aboriginal flag ‘in line with many other councils including Stonnington’. Wanted to know what the ‘cost of that was’.

Again, confusion and Burke said that ‘off the top my head’ he didn’t remember the cost.

Delahunty then asked if this was going to be a yearly cost. Jones said that it would be a once off cost apart from maintenance.

HYAMS then said that according to his memory cost wasn’t the only reason against the aboriginal flag but the question was about flagpoles of the same height as the Australian flag. Burke confirmed this.

PILLING: was in favour of Option A because it ‘wasn’t too costly’

LOBO: said that the Christmas tree ‘has a significance’. Asked ‘why don’t we give the same money to the charities?’ The season is meant to ‘give out things to the poor’ so it should go to charity.

LI8PSHUTZ: said this isn’t only about ‘dollars’ but ‘human capitol’. Council does have parties in the park but it’s not like Christmas and that’s the time when it’s a ‘festive season’ for everyone. Thousands show up for Chanukah in the park and they aren’t all Jewish. ‘It’s summer, it’s warm, it’s Christmas’ and ‘people feel good about it’. So it’s an ‘opportunity’ for council to ‘do something about it’. If it was a continual cost of $42,000 then he wouldn’t be in favour of it, but it’s only a start up cost and then a ‘very small’ maintenance cost and it will ‘go on for years and years’. In Australia there isn’t the ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘we’re not scared of offending’ by ‘having a Christmas tree’ and not scared of offending Muslims by having a Chanukiah, or offending Christians.’We are a multicultural society’ and when people see the Christmas trees, Chanukiah and lights they will ‘recognise it’. It’s important and council spends money on infrastructure and ‘improving our libraries’, streets, but a criticism is given about what council doesn’t do in ‘bringing people together’. It will ‘make people feel good’

MOTION PUT and CARRIED: VOTING FOR – LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE

VOTING AGAINST: DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

June 7, 2014

Amendment C102: Con Job Par Excellence!

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

Apologies for this long post – but it’s important!

Item 9.2 for Tuesday night’s council meeting exemplifies in our view the continued ‘con job’ that this administration foists on residents and probably most councillors. Here are some very illuminating facts:

The bogus Planning Scheme Review of 2010 resolved to review all policies
In June 2012, Amendment C102 first reared its ugly head
GE DEBATES at the time provided the following commentary –

Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.

Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.

Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.

EXISTING POLICY

PROPOSED CHANGES

To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side. Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.

The proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.

Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.

Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.

he standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car parking and public transport.

The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.

Where car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure.

To encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Encourage the location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably compromised.

DISAPPEARED and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas (as defined in Clause 22.08)

Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.

To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner.

Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)

Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report

Retain any high priority significant trees or landscape features within the design where possible.

Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.

Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.

DISAPPEARED

At the July 2012 Council meeting an unanimous resolution was passed to DEFER THE AMENDMENT. Here is the what Tang, Hyams, Esakoff, and Lobo stated at the time –

Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.

TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.

ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’

LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’

HYAMS: Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.

TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own. Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-whiff-of-revolution/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/

So now, AFTER A 2 YEAR DELAY, Amendment C102 makes a comeback! Has it changed? Has it addressed all the concerns that were evident in 2012? Not by a long shot. Admittedly some things have changed as a result of the New Zones – but the basics, such as protecting ‘significant trees’, setbacks, drainage, and many of the other points we raised are still valid, relevant and represent a bonus to applicants and not residents!

That of course raises the very serious question of:

Where is corporate memory, and especially the memory of councillors who (pretended?) at the time that they weren’t satisfied with the proposed changes? Since the 2012 and 2014 version are practically identical, and so is the officer’s report (word for word) why did they permit this amendment to be advertised as it stood? And the $64 question – how will they vote? Surely if it wasn’t good enough in 2012, it can’t be good enough now?
Or was this all smoke and mirrors – with knowledge of what was to come via the new zones legislation and the 100 metre extension around activity centres for uses without permits? There can be absolutely no excuse for a delay of 2 years from Version 1 to Version 2, when there have hardly been any changes whatsoever except the removal of the car parking measures and objectives.
Do the powers that be simply rely on poor memory so that they can ram through whatever accommodates developers rather than doing their jobs of trying their utmost to protect neighbourhood amenity? It would seem so we believe.
The councillors ‘excuses’ this coming Tuesday should be a highlight!

Residents and readers also need to take a very, very close look at Amendment C120 (open space levy) and how this has been manipulated. We will comment in detail on this in the coming weeks.

June 6, 2014

Agenda Items: More Emasculation?

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting is quite literally a ‘doozy’! What stands out clearly is the ceding of more and more power to unelected bureaucrats and removing the ‘influence’ of councillors even further. This has been done via suggested changes to the Planning Delegations. Councillors have never had (unlike other councils) the option of ‘legalised’ ‘call ins’. That is, if one councillor decides that an application should come before council for decision, that option is open to him/her. This does not exist in Glen Eira. What is now up for decision makes the sidelining of councillors even more ‘efficient’. The proposal is that if no more than 3 objections come into an application, then officers may decide. They may also decide if an objector has received a phone call from a planning officer and thereby had the ‘opportunity’ to voice concerns! Even worse is that the power to grant an amended permit for three storeys is now also in the hands of the unelected if they have previously been involved.

Akehurst provides SOME details of other councils’ delegations and how Glen Eira fares in comparison. For example, he cites that Port Phillip requires 15 objections, Stonnington 6 objections. However, what is conveniently omitted in relation to these other councils is the option for a single councillor to insist that the application come before council – ie. even on parking dispensations the Port Phillip delegation states: Non-compliance with residential parking requirements (except that a minor dispensation can be determined by the Manager City Development or Neighbourhood Coordinators unless a councillor requests that the application be determined by Council.

The best line however comes in the conclusion to his report – Even with the recommended 3 objection limit our delegations would be more conservative than all the above mentioned Councils but our decision making performance would significantly improve. How effective ‘decision making’ is predicated on the number of objections is, of course, unstated and ultimately quite ridiculous.

But there’s even more of totally unsubstantiated and suspect logic. We quote directly from Akehurst’s report –

Attendees at DPC are dropping. Increasingly objectors and even applicants are not attending. This is likely the outcome of town planning rules which are now clearer.

Council also proposes to shorten the ‘lay off period’ over Christmas since this disadvantages the applicant and ‘benefits the objector’. During this time, phone calls may suffice! – On the last dot point, it is proposed that each objector has been spoken to either in person or telephone by a senior planning officer as delegated by the manager (the outcomes of which would be formally recorded on file). The senior officer will repeatedly attempt to contact an objector over a 48 hour period, after which a decision can be made.

This approach would still satisfy a fundamental principle of Glen Eira’s town planning process by allowing objectors an opportunity to elaborate on their objection with the decision maker. This would build on and follow the recent ‘consultation/mediation’ process adopted for applications with 1 objection.

Ironically we also have in this same agenda more evidence of how poorly council informs residents of what is going on in their direct vicinity. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, the practise of minimal notification whenever many objections are anticipated, is alive and well. Item 9.1 features an application for 13 double storeys in Carnegie. Only 13 properties were notified, 16 notices sent and 44 objections received.

There is much more more that we will be commenting upon in the days ahead. However of real interest is this in camera item

12.2 which relates to the awarding of the contract for 2014.036 Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – New Building, Civil Works and Landscaping.

Number of tenders received Four

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against Three

Estimated contract value $8m

Surely residents deserve some public statement on what is happening at Duncan Mackinnon and why a project that originally was costed at 7 million has blown out to nearly ten million and now another 8 million possibly? And why the years and years of delay?

PS – UNRELATED, BUT WE’VE RECEIVED A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY BY A RESIDENT WHICH REVEALS THE CARNAGE ALREADY UNDERWAY FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE. Location is corner of Bond/Station Streets.

May 29, 2014

Notice Of Motion

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

The next Kingston Council Meeting set down for June 2^nd should be well worth watching on their live streaming. Several Notices of Motion stand out for their call for greater transparency and accountability and hence overall governance practices. None of these, of course, could ever happen in Glen Eira given the current status of Meeting Procedures as well as a culture that shuns public scrutiny on all matters.

Here are the most ‘interesting’ items –

(Councillor Bearsley) – I Move

A. That council launches an independent review of the following areas in order of priority:

a. Community Engagement

b. Economic Development

c. Communications

d. Statutory Planning

B. That council scopes a tender process for an efficiency and effectiveness report for whole of council to be compiled by a reputable accounting/auditing firm and completed no later than August 2014.

C. That council develops an annual assessment and review process of efficiency and effectiveness of the council organisation with appropriate reporting measures which improve accountability and transparency.

D. That performance reporting KPIs be incorporated as part of an annual review.

(Cr Eden) – I move that:

Kingston Council seek to appoint an independently appointed observer to explore whether there are poor practices at Kingston Council, and whether Councillors have been acting in a questionable manner with respect to Planning matters.

(Cr Bearsley) – I move :

I move that planning officers prepare a report that details all developments, over the past two years, that have significantly breached the approved permit conditions and required amendment/resolution. The report is to indicate the breach, address, owner/applicant and final outcome. The report should include ways Kingston identify and minimise such breaches occurring and be provided by the 30th June.

(Cr Eden) – I move :

1. Council record the ‘in camera’ part of the Council meeting, so that if & when the item(s) are later made public the debate / discussion accompanying the confidential item will also be available to the public.

2. That officers report to Council on the reasons for ‘glitches / errors’ in the live recording and streaming of council meetings, and possible actions to rectify these problems, including:

a) That officers explore alternative mechanisms for recording the sound generated at meetings to ensure that regardless of whether the person speaking has their microphone on, their comments will be recorded – this will ensure if there is debate /discussions around the room that such comments are captured.

b) Officers implement a system to ensure that the live recording / streaming is working during meetings, and that Councillors are immediately notified if there are ‘technical issues’.

++++++++++

Another agenda item includes an indepth report on items declared ‘confidential’ which is well worth reading.

May 23, 2014

Flip-Flopping & Musical Chairs!

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

The continued ‘musical chairs’ between Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz on the issue of conflicts of interest show no sign of abating. What was a new step on Tuesday night is that both Hyams and Esakoff did not declare a conflict in relation to the MRC giant screen application under the clauses they had previously used (78B), but instead declared a ‘personal interest’ under Section 79B. The minutes record the following:

Cr Hyams applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act stating that there is no Conflict of Interest as such but as he is a member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust which has also needed to look at this issue.

Cr Esakoff applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act as she is a member of the Trust that has looked at this issue.

8.48PM Cr Hyams and Cr Esakoff left the Chamber.

In the interests of complete accuracy, here is what Section 79B of the Local Government Act States. We draw readers’ attention to clause 2 and 5.

Conflicting personal interest

(1) This section does not apply to a Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest in the matter.

(2) If a Councillor or a member of a special committee considers that he or she has a personal interest in relation to a matter that is in conflict with his or her public duty in relation to the matter, the Councillor or member may, immediately before the matter is considered at the relevant meeting, apply to the Council or special committee to be exempted from voting on the matter.

(3) If a Councillor or member of a special committee makes an application under subsection (2), he or she must give reasons in support of the application.

(4) A Council or special committee may consent to an application made under subsection (2) and must not unreasonably withhold consent.

(5) If a Council or special committee consents to an application under subsection (4), sections 79(6), 79(7), 79(8) and 79(9) apply as if the personal interest that is the subject of an application under subsection (2) were a conflict of interest specified under this Act.

Lipshutz remained in the chamber, seconded the motion, spoke to it and voted! His ‘explanation’ and comments were –

LIPSHUTZ: began by declaring that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest in this item ‘because I am not a member of the MRC’ and that ‘when I look at this (application) it is appropriate‘. Since one of the purposes of the racecourse is ‘racing’ and the screen isn’t any ‘bigger than the one in NSW’ and that racing brings in a ‘lot of revenue for the State’ and ‘I think it’s important’. Said that this doesn’t mean that it’s ‘more important than the other two purposes’ (ie park). This is ‘appropriate’ and won’t have any ‘impact on houses nearby’ and isn’t an ‘amenity issue’. He saw ‘no reason to refuse it’.

All in all quite staggering we say. How one councillor continually adjudges that his position is different to two other councillors in the identical situation is mind boggling. And of course, this application has never rested on the premise as to whether anyone is a member of the MRC. That is a nonsense, since it is the Trust which has legal oversight of the MRC. Even more disturbing is that not one single councillor has challenged Lipshutz in his refusal to leave the chamber, or possibly to leave councillor assemblies. So much for adhering to the principles of ‘conflict of interest’.

May 21, 2014

Defending The Indefensible!

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

Lipshutz moved some amendments (balconies to be 8 square metres; on site visitor parking increase to make up for lost car spots – ie 130 spots; peak hours for paid parking; screening allowed for ‘alternate methods’). Sounness seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: called this a ‘vexed issue’ and that Council has been accused of being ‘treacherous but the reality’ is that the government has given the development the ‘go ahead’ and therefore ‘Council has an obligation’ to do things properly. Said that ‘we can refuse’ the plans but all that would mean is that the developer will go to VCAT and they ‘will get what they want’. Went on to say that all councillors had looked very carefully at the plans and that they had seen some ‘defects’ and are now correcting these defects. Said that C60 is ‘going to go ahead’ and that it’s going to be a ‘very high class village’ and that this is ‘unstoppable’. Council now has to deal with this ‘appropriately’ and the conditions put ‘satisfy this’. Claimed that he has always been ‘concerned’ about car parking and traffic. Since there will be a loss of car spots then council is ‘increasing’ the number of car parking spots ‘up to 130’. Mentioned that the Tabaret’s permit is for 127 off site car parking spots and that has to be maintained and ‘how the developer does that’ is his problem. On balconies he was ‘concerned’ that they get a ‘high quality development in this area’ so ground floor balconies should all be at least 8 square metres because he doesn’t like the situation where people buy and they have ‘very small balconies’. Went on to explain that there are 373 dwellings above the ground floor ones and these balconies on average are over 7 square metres but only ‘22% are greater than 8 square metres’. Council is trying to make sure that these dwellings are ‘in accord’ those on the ground floor and ‘so when you have this people have open space’ and people can ‘walk around and enjoy some of the gardens and balconies’. The developer will have to ‘relocate’ parking machines and pay for this. Overlooking is another issue and ‘fixed glazing’ is one method, ‘there may be other methods’ and if council is satisfied then ‘we have to go ahead with that’.

Kept saying that this is only ‘the first stage’ since over the next 10 to 15 years more development plans will be coming in. Admitted that the issue of ‘social housing’ isn’t part of the plans for this stage but it will be in future stages and if not then council ‘will have something to say about that’. Concluded by saying that he thought that with the amendments they had ‘improved’ the plans.

SOUNNESS: called the history of the development a ‘strange beast’ and ‘contentious’ and claimed there is ‘little capacity’ for councillors to do much within the ‘framework’ of the legislation. So given the ‘current form’ of the application ‘there is only so much that Council can do’. Said that car parking was ‘one of those features’ that had been ‘taken away’ from council to look at. This also applies to ‘active open public space’ and the relationship to the racecourse has ‘also been removed from consideration’. Said that all this is ‘complicated, confusing’ and ‘vexed’. Claimed that ‘grounds to say ‘no’ to it are very limited’ and therefore ‘saying ‘yes’ to it is where we’re at’. He thought that if there has to be higher density then ‘where better to do it’ than ‘next to a train station’ and in a place ‘that’s already been affected by urban development’. He would rather see it here than in undeveloped land in the ‘peripherary of Melbourne’.This also applies to infrastructure so ‘I would rather see it here than elsewhere’. The Residential Zones only came in with ‘so much protection’ because of developments like this. This is part of a Glen Eira, Melbourne and ‘Green’s story’. Thought that the development ‘ticks a lot of boxes’. Said that he ‘wasn’t entirely happy with it, but it’s suitable enough’.

DELAHUNTY: said that even though something had to be built there, she thought that the ‘premises’ were wrong and that she’s got 3 major objections to the plan. First was the ‘lack of social housing’ which was included in the planning panel report and in the Incorporated Plan and she was ‘disappointed’ that it isn’t in this part of the Residential Precinct. It shouldn’t be ‘an after thought’ and it belongs here. Second was the ‘shortfall in the car parking’ and the amendment won’t fix it because people who know the area know that ‘there’s an enormous demand’ for car parking there. There is still too much of a ‘shortfall in my mind’. Thirdly the plan ‘falls down’ in the ‘provision of open space’. Said that the panel rested its recommendations on the fact that there was open space in the centre of the racecourse and Council’s Open Space Strategy found that there wasn’t enough accessible open space via the racecourse centre. So if the panel recommended rezoning based ‘on this premise’ and if the premise is wrong then the whole plan falls down.

MAGEE: agreed with Delahunty on social housing. Said that hearing that the Incorporated Plan is now going to ‘be looked at through fresh eyes’ and when the MRC sold it off to a developer and that developer looks at the Incorporated Plan and decides that this isn’t ‘what I want to build here’ so this leads to a ‘situation’ where council ‘thought’ one thing and another thing is happening. Said that since this will take 10 to 15 years and these councillors won’t be there it’s important that future councils keep tonight’s ideas in place. Said that in planning terms for the city this ‘is a race to the bottom’ and won’t benefit Caulfield or ‘amenity’ of Caulfield. Won’t help people trying to ‘commute to an from the city’ and if ‘we don’t do the job properly now then parking’ will be decided ‘in ten year’s time’ . Said ‘there’s questioning’ about rail, the superstop tram stop and whether this will even be built. Said that Caulfield could have ‘another 7 or 8 thousand people’ living here and how does everyone survive in ten years time and ‘how do we make a decision today’ when they don’t even have the ‘foresight to see exactly what’s going to happen’? The Incorporated Plan has changed so taking away commercial areas means ‘more units’ therefore ‘more people’ and ‘more stress on car parking’.

When there are events on at the racecourse then car parking is impossible and that’s ‘why roads are closed off’. The ‘perfect storm’ will be when people are living there already, and there’s races and Monash and then people will ‘look at us and say how did you get this so wrong’? Lipshutz’s amendments are ‘commendable’ but he has ‘still got some severe concerns’ about it. Said that if the motion is defeated then he’s got an alternate motion to put up.

LOBO: after listening to both sides he thought that it was ‘unfortunate’ that when the Special Committee made their decision on the C60 they now ‘have to keep that decision going’. Said that if he would have been in the position of deciding he would have sent it back and asked them to come up with something else. Said it wasn’t the ‘right development’ because there will be a ‘lot of traffic problems’ and because of the railway the ‘chaos will be unimaginable’. Ended up by saying that ‘I am not happy with this at all’.

HYAMS: agreed that this has a long history and goes back to the C60 and that it’s ‘important to remember’ that this involved a ‘long consultation process’ and an ‘independent panel’. When the Panel reported back ‘we ameliorated the original proposal’ and with the panel’s report ‘we ameliorated it a bit further’ so ‘given the outside constraints’ Hyams claimed that they did the ‘best we could have done’. ‘It clearly is an appropriate site for a large development’. Said that ‘a lot of work has gone into this’ and praised the planners. Said that this is the ‘first’ and the ‘less intense’ of all the precincts and with drainage and traffic plans council is looking both at bits and the entire 3 precincts. Even though there have been changes such as less office space, the ‘building envelopes comply with the incorporated plan’ and Council even got ‘independent legal advice’ on this. Said that he didn’t think anyone would be advantaged by ‘forcing’ the developer to ‘build offices’ and then ‘no-one is going to use them’. Stated that council used ResCode as a ‘guide’ even though they weren’t ‘applicable’. Even though council’s traffic department was ‘comfortable’ with 73 car parking spaces on site, and even though he has ‘respect for our traffic engineers’ he doesn’t ‘always agree with them’ and this is where he thought they were being a bit ‘conservative’ about what was needed. So councillors are now asking for 130 which equals the spaces lost on Station Street. Since there won’t be any residential parking permits issued this means that ‘eventually’ there will be Residential Parking Permits for ‘surrounding streets’ so the residents ‘won’t have the option of clogging up nearby streets’. Said that the Transport Plan ‘is not acceptable to us’ or Vic Roads but this latest version is now ‘acceptable’ to everyone. Summarised what else was required such as Waste Management and Construction Plans as well as amended Section 173 Agreement. Admitted that ‘this won’t please everyone’ but it’s a ‘huge site’ near shops and transport so ‘we need to strike a balance between protecting neighbourhood amenity’ and accepting ‘appropriate development’.

ESAKOFF: said that she was ‘satisfied’ with the conditions placed on overlooking and setbacks since they are ‘ResCode compliant’ but didn’t agree that private open space ‘on the ground should be less than 8 square metres’ and agreed that private open space for balconies above was good. Thought that the Integrated Transport Plan ‘must be addressed now’ . Agreed that ‘parking will be an issue’ but it’s an ‘issue throughout all of Glen Eira’ and that ‘replacement of some of these lost spaces is imperative’.

OKOTEL: although the original decision was made in 2011 these current plans have raised concerns by residents and councillors but Lipshutz’s amendments do ‘address those concerns’. The motion will ‘strike the right balance to ensure that’ the development will be ‘satisfactory for the residents’ and for use of ‘future infrastructure in the area’ and it will ensure that there won’t be ‘interruption to traffic flow in the area’.

PILLING: supported Lipshutz’s amendments and thought there was ‘much merit in the application‘ especially in light of Plan Melbourne. Said it was ‘about a sustainable city’ and seeing that people have more ‘accessible public transport’. Pilling did note that there still ‘would be reduction in car parking’ from what’s ‘there now’ but that’s ‘in keeping with our policies, with State Government policies’ in that for such areas the priorities ‘won’t be cars‘. Said again that this ‘reflects’ state and council policies and how they are all trying to create a ‘sustainable city’. Thought that ‘the grounds for refusal are fairly weak’. This is only stage one and social housing will be ‘pushed’ for later since this is only ‘early days’. The racecourse ‘was considered’ but not tied in ‘legally’ to a condition here so the grounds for refusal are ‘relatively weak’. Said that councillors and the planning department had ‘spent a lot of time on it’.

LIPSHUTZ: quoted Bismark about politics being the art of the possible and community would like to still rage and fight the battle over C60 but ‘that’s come and gone’ and the ‘reality’ now is the development plan.Councillors have to look at this and ‘see how best we can deal with it’. Claimed that ‘everyone here’ has really considered this carefully and ‘given a great deal of thought’ including from the officers. His motion was the ‘product of a lot of people’. Claimed that they asked officers to ‘consider’ what a refusal would mean but that the grounds for refusal were ‘weak’ and ‘in my view would have been knocked out very quickly’ at VCAT. But if it still goes to VCAT as a result of the conditions put on it then Council can then go to VCAT and say ‘here are our reasons why’ and ‘we could have a proper argument’ and ‘that’s a far better way’. Not about VCAT though but about ‘community’ and they’ve ‘looked very carefully’ about all such concerns as parking, screening, open space, traffic. It’s not ‘perfect’ but it ‘ensures’ the best for residents. Again, it’s only the ‘first stage’ and they will keep ‘looking at it again’ at each stage. In terms of traffic there will be road redesign and this will ‘improve things’ to ‘some extent’ and there will definitely be ‘more traffic, more parking’ problems but people who will ‘live there will live there knowing these are the restrictions’. Council has ‘ensured’ that there is no overlooking and that there is ‘open space’ . In his view ‘it is a bonus to Caulfield, not a detriment’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED

COMMENTS

Not one word mentioned about permeability, PUBLIC open space, site coverage, sunlight. Questions on these aspects were asked at the Planning Conference. The answer was that officers were ‘investigating’ and had not finished their analysis. Yet not one single word in either the report, nor any of the councillor comments touches on these aspects. What makes it even more outrageous, is that for the other applications on the agenda (ie Neerim Rd – 16 units) Esakoff was very concerned about the number of units which would not have access to natural light. What all this means is that people living in Activity Centres and potentially high density commercial zones have greater protection of their amenity than will those residents who end up in the Caulfield Village!
How many more times will that old scapegoat of VCAT be pulled out of the hat by Lipshutz and his ilk? What this red herring totally ignores is: (1) Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling had the option way back to reject both the rezoning as PDZ and the C60. The clandestine machinations in setting up the Special Committee when there was no need for one was deliberate with the purpose of facilitating what is now a fait accompli!
Not one single word by any councillor or the report talks about Design as such or even the Planning Scheme for that matter? Residents are supposed to grovel in sheer gratitude that ResCode has been applied, even though it is not applicable! Why then couldn’t other aspects of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme also be applied such as site coverage, permeability, etc. In the end, all we have to go on is that self proclaimed expert on everything (Lipshutz) that the Caulfield Village will be ‘high quality’.
Council’s ‘legal advice’ is simply that – advice. It is not fool proof, nor is it set in concrete. It could have been challenged as other councils have challenged Ministers and VCAT. But of course to do this would mean that the old argument of ‘the Minister will call it in’ or ‘VCAT will make it worse’ would go out the window.

Finally it is worth noting that for all the Lipshutz talk about the amount of effort that councillors put into this decision, we have to wonder:

Did every councillor bother to read every submission? Were these submissions (apart from VicRoads) treated with the respect they deserved given the time and effort that people put into them?
When were they handed the submissions? For example, we know that councillors were not privy to any documents until the Planning Department deigned to provide councillors with something. As late as April councillors had not clapped eyes on anything to do with the plans is the rumour.
If these councillors put in hours of toil in discussing, arguing, arriving at consensus on the biggest residential development in the history of the municipality THEN WHY IS THERE NOTHING IN THE RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY leading up TO LAST NIGHT’S MEETING? One could be forgiven for thinking that something of such a scale should have been discussed over and over and over again at assemblies. It either wasn’t, or the other possible alternative is that the minutes of the Records of Assemblies are nothing more than figments of someone’s imagination!

We pass on our sincere condolences to all those residents currently living in North Caulfield for the sheer destruction of their amenity that this project will cause and the unmitigated chaos that they will have to endure for the next 15 years. That is the legacy that will be left by Newton and his gang.

May 20, 2014

Arrogance, Disrespect & Betrayal

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

Tonight’s council meeting could arguably be said to represent the nadir of councillor/community relations. At the start of the meeting Esakoff began to give her ‘report’ on the MAV State Conference. She actually started to disclose not only some motions which Glen Eira council had put forward, but how they voted! A first – but always after the fact and never as a tabled document for a full Council Resolution but discussed and decided in secret assembly meetings.

Following about a minute of her report, approximately 50 to 60 residents carrying placards entered the chamber and once assembled started chanting ‘Save the Conservatory’. The chants continued for about 4 to 5 minutes. THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME ESAKOFF CONTINUED SPEAKING AS IF NOTHING WAS HAPPENING. NO COUNCILLOR UTTERED A WORD ALTHOUGH AT ONE POINT PILLING DID ‘CONFER’ WITH BURKE. Whilst many may regard disrupting a council meeting as inappropriate, in our view, what is even more inappropriate is that Esakoff’s actions speak volumes. Not only is this totally ignoring ratepayers and refusing to even acknowledge their presence, but it embodies the ‘us and them’ mentality which is the hallmark of this council and its attitudes and treatment of residents. The latter simply do not exist. Their opinions, aspirations, and even presence in chamber, does not matter! This is more than rudeness. It says very, very clearly ‘get stuffed’ to residents and we will continue along in the same autocratic and anti-community fashion.

The complete betrayal by the ever growing ‘gang’ was in relation to the C60 Development plans. It was voted in by 6 to 3 with some pathetic little cosmetic amendments put up by Lipshutz – ie peak hour times were now 8.00am; more visitor car parking which still doesn’t cover the loss of existing car parking spots. Trivial, insignificant, and just tinkering. The arguments presented were woeful in their inconsistency and in their self-serving. We will report on this in detail in the next day or so. Suffice to say that those who voted to accept the Development Plans were (and this shouldn’t be a surprise) –

LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, PILLING, OKOTEL AND SOUNNESS.

Voting against were – LOBO, MAGEE AND DELAHUNTY

The big screen was voted in unanimously (Okotel had left the meeting at this stage). More fun and games were evident by the fact that both Hyams and Esakoff left the chamber, but not by declaring a conflict of interest – but this time a ‘personal interest’ as Trustees. Lipshutz not only stayed in chamber – he seconded the motion and voted!

May 19, 2014

Development Plan

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

The recommendation from Akehurst for the “Approval of Development Plan and Whole of Land Plans subject to Conditions’ highlights the insanity of the current planning system and in particular, this council’s approach to planning. First off, there is the recommendation that Council approve the development plans and then down the track approve further crucial amendments related to traffic management, drainage, Environmental Sustainability, construction, Section 173 agreements, etc. etc. In other words, give the green light to the developer and we will worry down the track as to the fine detail.

Residents are of course expected to swallow the guff that this development and council’s entire approach has been in accordance with the stated Community Plan objection of – manag(ing) the rate and extent of change to the built environment consistent with state and local planning policies to achieve a diversity of housing as sympathetic as possible to neighbourhood character.

Akehurst’s analysis (explanation/justification?) of the development plan runs to precisely 11 pages of mostly generalities. And of these 11 pages many simply repeat themselves. The absence of detail is staggering. Not once is any mention made of:

Flow on traffic effects
Non peak periods are now regarded as being from 8.30am onwards.
No reporting on council’s own traffic analysis – in fact we doubt that they even bothered to undertake any such thing!
Real detail of amended Section 173 agreement, and so much more…….

Below we feature extracts taken directly from this report. The only concessions to residents are the imposition of increased balcony sizes (which are allowed to encroach on setbacks thanks to an earlier Amendment), and the requirement for screening. Readers should also note that when it suits, ResCode is called in as the ‘standard’, but when it doesn’t suit, ResCode is conveniently forgotten!

The development’s side setback to 3 Bond Street (to the north) and side and rear setbacks to 70 Kambrook Road (to the south) are required by virtue of the Incorporated Plan, to comply with ResCode. The development has provided the required setbacks and transitioning of building heights to these adjoining residential properties in accordance with ResCode requirements.

Amenity Impacts

Submitters have raised concerns with respect to potential overlooking from balconies and windows of the proposed dwellings. A review of the development plans indicates that a number of the proposed dwellings will have overlooking opportunities into the adjoining residential properties north at 3 Bond Street, to the west at 40, 42, 44, 46 and 54 Kambrook Road and to the south at 70 Kambrook Road. A condition forms part of the recommendation requiring windows and balconies to be screened in accordance with ResCode requirements. ResCode does not apply in the Priority Development Zone but has been used as a guide.

However, over half (250) of the proposed apartment dwellings are considered to have inadequate outdoor open space areas in the form of balconies. These balconies range from 3.5m2 to 7m2. It is noted that a majority of the apartments are comparatively spacious and range from 50m2 up to 108m2 in size. Given the size of the proposed apartments all future residents should be provided with a minimum balcony area of 8m2 in compliance with Rescode. Again, it is acknowledged that Rescode does not apply but is used as a guide. This can be readily achieved as balconies are an allowable encroachment for the specified setbacks.

It is noted that there is no requirement for visitor car parking consistent with Amendment C60.

Street Tree Planting

Council’s Parks Services Department has raised no concern with respect to the removal of existing street trees along Kambrook Road and Bond Street and the replacement trees proposed. Conditions form part of Appendix 1 requiring protection measures around the street trees to be retained.

Council’s Sustainability Department is satisfied with the Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features proposed within the development. There are two items which need to be addressed before the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) can beapproved. A condition has been included in Appendix 1 outlining these requirements.

A number of submitters have raised concerns that these development details are not in accordance with the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan. Council has obtained independent legal advice which concluded that the dwelling numbers and retail and office floor areas set out in the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan relate to a ‘tested development scenario’ and, unlike the height and setback provisions (which are fixed), do not restrict the development to a particular mix of residential or office development. The developer has indicated that there is currently no demand for office floor space within the area. However, should this change in the future then they would seek to incorporate office floor space into the development.

Both concept plan options show some significant increases in the road widths for both Normanby Road and the new Boulevard. These changes are required in order to accommodate greater number of road lanes for traffic as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths. As a consequence the developer will lose approximately 600m2 of otherwise developable land comprising up to 6 storey development. The developer is aware of this loss of development opportunity and is strongly opposed. It should be noted that this loss of land is substantially driven by VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria and Yarra Trams. The proposed double tram length ‘super stop’ is considered by the developer to be unreasonably opportunistic.

In order to ensure that the new Boulevard meets the objectives of the Incorporated Plan (which is to create a street that supports retail shop fronts) conditions are recommended within Appendix 1 which will allow for car parking to occur on the eastern and western lanes of Boulevard during non-peak periods. The additional road lanes will be made available to address the peak traffic periods.

The principle used is that these additional lanes of traffic and intersection changes are needed as a result of the traffic likely to be generated by the Caulfield Village development alone.

Council’s Engineering Assets Department has viewed the Drainage Management Plan and has advised that additional information is required. A condition forms part of Appendix 1 which requires the submission of an amended Drainage Management Plan incorporating this additional information. In addition, a condition will require the submission of a Site Management Plan to ensure that stormwater runoff is appropriately managed (Appendix 1).

Section 173 Agreement

The existing Section 173 Agreement will need to be amended to incorporate the works required to Normanby Road (as outlined in the concept plan options) and possibly the Station Street new Boulevard intersection and Smith Street’s intersection with the Boulevard on Normanby Road. This forms a condition within Appendix 1.

A minimum of 73 off-street car spaces are to be provided across the entire Caulfield Village development site in order to accommodate existing visitors to the area.

Event Parking

The submitted Car Park Management Plan indicates that the existing demands associated with events at Caulfield Racecourse can be accommodated within the Racecourse. The on-site areas include the centre of the track, Guineas car park and Kambrook Road car park.

On this basis, the centre of the track, Guineas car park and Kambrook Road car park must all be available for public parking at “major events” (i.e. no marquees, no caravan displays etc. can be provided within the car parking areas).

Additionally, the on-site parking shall be cost free to encourage on-site parking (rather than in local streets further afield).

Loss of on-street and off-street spaces

Noting that as many as 192 on-street spaces would be lost in the streets abutting the development, some off-setting allocation must be provided within the proposed developments (across the entire site) to accommodate visitors to the area. The parking losses associated with the new pedestrian refuge in Kambrook Road (5 spaces), access points and road closure in Bond Street (20 spaces), access points in Smith Street (5 spaces) and intersection upgrade associated with Normanby Road (22 spaces) can be accepted.

It is acknowledged that Station Street experiences low – medium parking demands on non-event days. There are 190 on-street spaces in Station Street. Removing 130 of these spaces as proposed would result in 60 onstreet spaces remaining. Adopting the ‘medium’ parking demand (which is up to 70% occupancy), there may be a demand of up to 133 parking spaces in Station Street on a non-event day. It is therefore considered appropriate that 133 (demand) – 60 (proposed supply) = 73 spaces (shortfall) be provided within the development. Therefore, it is recommended that a further 73 offstreet spaces be provided across the proposed development sites to accommodate existing visitors to the area.

The on-street spaces in Station Street are managed via parking machines. The estimated loss of 130 on-street spaces in Station Street will correspond to a reduction in parking revenue (approx. $50,000 p.a). Any relocation /reprogramming of parking machines will need to be funded by the applicant.

PS: here’s one of the traffic proposals

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates