GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

February 27, 2014

Public Questions

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

Another two instances reveal what a joke Council Minutes are turning into. The (infamous) Lipshutz Right of Reply fails to include his little ‘addendum’ that was not in the printed agenda version. This in itself calls into question council’s Local Law since it specifies that all rights of reply have to be published in the agenda. Lipshutz’s concluding paragraph (relating the experience of a relative under Nazism) was not in the agenda. This was an ‘add on’ and has now been left out of the draft minutes.

The far more important omission from the minutes relates to a public question where a resident asked why previous minutes did not include the Delahunty phrase ‘be provided’. By excluding this phrase, the administration is not ORDERED to produce the vital traffic management studies on surrounding streets to the Caulfield Village Development. The fact that time and again councillors sit in silence and accept the distortion of history without a whimper should give residents an insight into the machinations that occur in this council and the integrity of those who sit in chambers.

Below are a selection of these public questions and their non-answers.

Question – On December 17th 2013 Cr Delahunty stated that Council had undertaken some ‘recent’ traffic studies on Queen’s Avenue, Eskdale Road and the surrounds of Sir John Monash Drive. I ask:
(1) Why have these studies not been placed in the public domain so that residents may be privy to all relevant information that could help inform their submissions to the MRC Development Plan?
(2) Why have the minutes of this December 17th meeting not included Delahunty’s words that the studies be ‘provided’ – presumably to councillors and potentially the public?
(3) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with hard copies of these studies? If so, when?
(4) Have councillors been ‘provided’ with verbal reports of these studies? If so, when?”

Response –

1. Generally ‘traffic studies’ are undertaken by Council on an ongoing basis. Detailed traffic studies have been (and are continuing to be) undertaken by Caulfield Village’s traffic engineers to determine the extent and appropriateness of the required traffic management works as part of Amendment C60. These studies have been placed in the public domain. In turn, Council’s traffic engineers are reviewing the traffic studies to ensure that the appropriate analysis is undertaken.
2. At the Council Meeting on 4 February 2014 Council unanimously confirmed the Minutes of the 17 December 2013 Council Meeting without any changes to the Minutes.
3. Councillors were provided with written advice in January 2014 that provided information about the Queens Avenue / Normanby Road intersection, the Queens Avenue / Sir John Monash Drive roundabout, Eskdale Road and pedestrian conditions in Queens Avenue.
4. I refer you to 3 above.”

COMMENT

It should be carefully noted that ‘reviewing’ the MRC’s traffic studies is not what Delahunty requested. Secondly ‘written advice’ is not the same as providing councillors with the hard copy studies themselves. It is more than likely that it is a short memo crafted by the admin. We further believe that no councillor has as yet clapped eyes on the traffic studies.

Question – In 2011 Council rejected C60 Panel’s view that there shouldn’t be preferred maximum height limits near Monash University. On 10 October 2013 Council voted not to oppose the changes sought by the developer through Ministerial Amendment C111, to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the Caulfield Mixed Use Incorporated Plan, which removed height limits from that portion of C60.

What were Council’s reasons for supporting the removal of height limits from a portion of the precinct, and what were Council’s reasons for deciding to exempt balconies when assessing fit with the specified building envelope, which makes it inconsistent with the rest of the Planning Scheme, and why were the details of the changes being sought not included in the Agenda or Minutes? Was Council misled about the extent of the changes that it voted on and ultimately supported?

Response –

Council officers identified what was a DTPLI’s error with respect to the Smith Street height limits in the approved documentation for Amendment C111. The height limit was not proposed to be altered by Council under Amendment C111. The DTPLI has acknowledged its error and is currently in the process of reinstating the height limit within the Smith Street precinct to reflect the maximum height limit of 120m AHD (typically 20 storeys).

With respect to balcony projections, it is common for minor building intrusions to be disregarded in setback distances prescribed. The State Government’s Rescode specifically states that verandahs, porches, pergolas and eaves are allowable encroachments. It is noted that if Council is not ultimately happy with the extent of any balcony intrusions, it can either condition a development plan to alter or remove the intrusions or refuse the development plan outright.

COMMENT

Another example of the incompetence of both Council and the Department as we have previously commented. More importantly, the reference to ResCode is quite laughable and designed to camouflage the truth since ResCode does not apply to buildings of this proposed height. Add to this that to the best of our knowledge there is nothing in the MRC’s plans which indicate the EXTENT OF INTRUSION in the ‘sacrosanct’ set backs, nor is this spelt out in the officer’s report, and we have before us in this response the biggest con job of all time.

From the in camera items we have this notice:

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

Note that the proceedings brought by Council have been settled by the payment to Council of $2,000,000.00 and that this part of the resolution be incorporated in the public Minutes of this Meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

COMMENT

This really does not tell us a thing since:

1. Council was still with-holding close to $2M from the original contract
2. It does not state who is paying for lawyers
3. Nor does it tell us if any penalties were applied
4. Nor does it tell us if the counter claim by Hansen and Yuncken is still going ahead

PS: And to completely shatter the myth of a ‘united’ councillor group here is the Lobo gem taken from the minutes –

Cr Lobo: “I foreshadow a right of reply at the next Council Meeting.
Cr Lipshutz is yet to apologise to me for asking me in writing if my previous employers in Middle East and I were involved in terrorism and then dismissing the written words as innocuous, a word he has used again in tonight’s
meeting.
When Councillor Lipshutz apologies to me in writing then he might be in a position to lecture on appropriate behaviour to the friends of Caulfield.

February 25, 2014

Shonky, Shonky, Shonky!

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

Tonight’s council meeting started with a whimper and ended with a real bang – especially in relation to the public questions and the Delahunty Request for a Report. Here is just a brief summary of what occurred. Details of all council’s shenanigans will be up over the next few days. The most important things to note are:

Glen Eira Debates takes a lot of the credit for pointing out the continual stuff ups that this Council and the Department oversees. Our recent post highlighted the discrepancy between the 2009 and the November 2013 ‘preferred height limits’ in the respective Incorporated Plans for the Caulfield Village. Well, lo and behold, this was another ‘clerical error’ and the Department is now working on correcting it!
Councillors have not got a copy of council’s ‘recent’ (pre December 2013) traffic analysis. The answer to this public question basically said that the Caulfield Village people (not to be confused with the Village People!) have done extensive studies and that’s what is basically relied upon. We wonder if these bunnies have even bothered to DEMAND access to these reports or as with the Redan St. stuff up they still maintain their unshakeable faith in the abilities of the traffic department?
Delahunty requested a report that sought the Valuer General’s estimation of the ‘value’ of the Caufield Racecourse Reserve. She stated that he had never been approached to provide a valuation. Please note: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF did NOT DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND VOTED ON THIS ITEM.
Pilling will be chairing the Planning Conference on Monday evening. We maintain that this represents ANOTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
Our final comment relates to the foreshadowing by Lobo of his Right of Reply to Lipshutz asking him (years ago now!) whether the banks he had worked for were in any way associated with terrorism?

February 6, 2014

More Smoke & Mirrors & Achieving Nothing!

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

This post features the ‘discussion’ on visitor car parking and Esakoff’s motion. Readers should focus on part (c)

Crs Esakoff/Okotel

That Council:

(a) Notes the report.

(b) Acknowledges that each multi-dwelling planning permit application contains a different set of circumstances. Therefore, the provision of onsite visitor car parking must be considered on the individual merits of the particular application being assessed.

(c) Request further investigation in to pathways, such as fast track assessment processes, that encourage and promote provision of adequate, accessible visitor car parking, especially in areas where parking demand is already high and in growth areas in general.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ESAKOFF: said that by inserting the extra clause in the motion that she ‘hoped’ to ‘encourage’ an extra pathway for ‘adequate and accessible visitor car parking’ – in particular in those areas where there is already ‘high demand’ for parking. Thought this meant ‘predominantly’ Carnegie and to ‘a lesser extent’ Bentleigh. Stated that parking rates are ‘discretionary’ and she thought that this motion was a ‘tool’ or a ‘mechanism to reduce building costs’ . Went on to say that if visitor car parking is provided at all then it ‘shouldn’t be in car stackers’ in basements, but ‘we’re seeing more and more of them’. Her aim was to ‘promote’ and ‘encourage applicants’ to work within the ‘pathway’ ‘similar to the way we offer the faster and more efficient’ fast tracks programs or ‘pre-certification process’ and this could be done ‘via a tick all the box system’ and these can then be ‘swiftly’ and ‘efficiently be processed through the planning department’. Would also cut ‘costs for developers’ such as ‘saving time’ and reducing ‘angst in neighbourhoods’ where these applications apply. In turn, this would ‘then prevent another delay at VCAT’. All of this would mean a ‘faster and more efficient process’ that would also have to adhere to other planning components. But she’ fear(ed)’ that ‘we are degrading our present liveable city’ into a ‘nightmare’ for people living near activity centres. Admitted that not all councillors would agree with her because they wanted to reduce cars in these areas and providing car parking doesn’t do this in their view. On this she said that this is likely to be ‘a very slow change’ and is something for future generations. So, ‘in the meantime we need to address the problem’. Activity centres have changed from ‘predominantly retail’ to now have many residential apartments, and restaurants and cafes that are ‘open to very late at night’ so ‘parking demands are long into the evening’. She thought that ‘they can only get worse and not better’. Her motion therefore was aimed at ‘attacking this from a planning perspective’ and to ‘provide adequate provision now’.

COMMENT

Please note how devoid of anything relating to residents is the above argument. How on earth the equivalent of a fast track system or similar will CHANGE the outcomes of more or less visitor parking remains a total mystery. Once again this council creates the illusion of concern for residents, but fails to attack the central problem – ie. not processes but making dramatic changes to the Planning Scheme, such as parking overlays, parking precinct plans, and creating sound schedules that become mandatory! It’s also illuminating that all of Esakoff’s little speech basically focuses on benefits to developers. Please also note that Esakoff is in favour of a ‘tick the box’ approach, when this has consistently been condemned by Hyams, for one, and overall Glen Eira policy statements!

OKOTEL: claimed that Esakoff had ‘covered all the points’ on the issue. Thought that it was ‘essential that we investigate pathways’ for visitor car parking especially since ‘we see more and more applciations’ in activity centres for waivers. ‘This is something that will continue to happen under our current policy’ so council needs to ‘pay attention now’ and if they don’t it will ‘possibly cause a lot of problems’ such as accidents from traffic and people ‘enjoying’ their ‘municipality’.

COMMENT: Okotel has unwittingly undermined Esakoff with her statement ‘this is something that will continue to happen under our current policy’. Exactly! Implicit in this statement is the acknowledgement that the Planning Scheme is a dud and however much tinkering there is with ‘process’, unless the Scheme changes, then all will stay the same!

SOUNNESS: started by saying that dwelling and ‘having a place to park’ cars are linked. Having somewhere to park is ‘common sense’. Said he recognised that there are ‘benefits’ and that it’s important to know whether there is an ‘excess’ of ‘demand over supply’. The advice that has come from Traffic Management to staff know how things ‘operate’ in other municipalities so having ‘more information’ is good.

PILLING: said that Esakoff was probably referring to someone like him when she spoke about opposite viewpoints. He thought that ‘by encouraging visitor car parking brings more cars’. Thought that having more cars in places like ‘Koornang Road’ and Murrumbeena Road only ‘exacerbates the problem’. Said that he would ‘vote in favour’ because ‘it’s always good to have more information’.

HYAMS: thought that people would be driving cars and hoping ‘that they would find somewhere to park’. Believed that developers should provide car parking that ‘at the least is recommended by ResCode’ instead of ‘trying to shift’ this onto streets and wanted to see developers ‘abide’ by this.

ESAKOFF: thought that ‘demand for car parking’ is going to creep into ‘our Minimal Change’ areas. Said that driving around ‘there’s very few car parking spaces left on the street’. Didn’t know if this is a result of more teenagers with cars or people ‘not using their garages’. Streets ‘are full now’ and ‘we’re going to be in a great deal of trouble’ if the problem ‘isn’t addressed now’. Admitted that there are other councils who aren’t providing any visitor parking but ‘they are predominantly inner suburbs’ and ‘what goes on’ in these suburbs is ‘not clearly what Glen Eirians want’. Went on to say that mothers with prams need to be able to park close to ‘where they’re going’ and this also applies to ‘the elderly’ and ‘the disabled’. Stated that there are ‘many reasons’ why people use and need cars. Hoped that ‘we can do something with this new pathway’ and that ‘it is a success’.

COMMENT

1. On the one hand Esakoff talks as if this nebulous ‘pathway’ is already in existence. Sounness and Pilling want ‘more information’. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in the motion that directs when or how, any ‘investigation’ and its ensuing ‘information’ will be (a) reported back to councillors (b) reported back to Council and a vote taken! Nor is there any clear direction as to exactly what is to be investigated – are we talking ‘supply and demand’? Area versus number of residents? Street availability for parking to accompany each application? And then what?

Conclusion? Another useless exercise in public relations reliant on vagueness and which still leaves plenty of room for backroom decision making. In the meantime, the central problem (ie Planning Scheme) remains untouched! Well done councillors!

February 4, 2014

Council Meeting: Same Old, Same Old!

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

Both Lobo and Delahunty were apologies for tonight’s Council Meeting. Here are the lowlights:

Lipshutz played the race/religious card again in announcing that next council meeting he would be putting together a formal statement about the Friends of Caulfield Park’s newsletter which used the term “storm troopers” in response to Council dawn removal of 21 trees.
Visitor car parking item had Esakoff crying crocodile tears with her added clause to the motion that council investigate some tools to alleviate the worsening parking situation.
Car share trial got up – begging the question of course, as to why this couldn’t have been resolved one year ago
Public questions revealed that the Dover Street car park ‘redevelopment’ was to lose another tree but gain more yellow brick roads and concrete plinthing. The question called for details. The answer was ‘generalities’.
Apart from these items, this was a quick, self-congratulatory meeting where Glen Eira was ‘tracking well’ and compared to other councils, the best in the state according to some councillors!

Finally, and we will be making a major post on this tomorrow, the minutes were accepted without any correction. Needless to say, they are not an accurate or true reflection of a resolution that was passed on December 17th! Keep watching this space!

February 1, 2014

Parking: Why Have ‘Standards’?

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

Agenda item 9.4 on Visitor Car Parking says it all in the following recommendation:

…..each multi-dwelling planning permit application contains a different set of circumstances. Therefore, the provision of on-site visitor car parking must therefore be considered on the individual merits of the particular application being assessed.

For eons this has been Council’s official line on most policies or strategies. It does, however, beg the central and most vital question – what’s the point of having any standard, policy, plan, strategy, if that standard is not applied? The answer of course is dead simple. Council does not want to be ‘tied down’ with something that could potentially limit development. That’s also why there has never been any attempt to implement sensible Parking Overlays throughout the municipality (except for the ‘gone missing’ C99 for student housing) or even Structure Plans that address parking in a comprehensive and analytical manner. And that’s why council will probably accept the Caulfield Village development plan where NOT ONE SINGLE VISITOR CAR PARKING SPACE has been assigned for 442 dwellings!

Akehurst’s arguments are worth looking at in detail. There is the usual point about ‘mandatory’ versus ‘discretionary’ parking rates and how council is ‘powerless’ under such circumstances where VCAT is the single ‘villain’. But as councillors themselves have repeatedly stated – why should VCAT enforce the standards when council on its own repeatedly whittles away at those very standards? Esakoff remember, recently settled quite happily for 3 visitor car parks, when 5 should have been demanded.

Akehurst then presents the bogus argument of a 40 seat restaurant and its need for 16 onsite parking spots. What is not disclosed is that if this same restaurant had a parking overlay assigned, then the rate would be 3.5 car parking spaces for every 100 square metres of leasable floor space instead of the 0.4 ratio! And besides, most problems are not the result of restaurants, but residential over-development! It’s a pity that Akehurst doesn’t release any figures on how many units have been built and how many potential parking spots have been waived by this council and its failure to insist on its own policy!

Much is made of VCAT decisions and the reliance on ‘evidence’. We would also love council to rely on ‘evidence’. Unfortunately most VCAT decisions feature council actively supporting car parking waivers with very little quantified data presented by council’s advocate: Some recent examples:

Further I note that on-street parking is available along Centre Road and Grey Street at peak visitor times (i.e. non –business hours) that the Council is satisfied is sufficient to meet demand. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2067.html)

I also agree with Council that one car space for each shop is appropriate. The shops have a floor area of around 50 sq m. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1791.html)

…the proposal has a shortfall of two car parking spaces for visitors. Condition 1(j) requires the provision of one car parking space for visitors to be provided within the basement car park. This reflects a position of Council that some waiver of parking may be acceptable. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1713.html)

Whilst other councils undertake thorough local analysis in order to introduce Parking Precinct Plans, or Structure Plans, Glen Eira does nothing. We doubt that council even knows how many street parking spots are available in its Activity Centres, much less in other zones. Akehurst’s report is true to form for a council that has consistently failed to enforce its own plans and is reluctant to put in place any strategy which will ameliorate the impact on local amenity – especially if it means that development may be somewhat curtailed.

January 31, 2014

Agenda: Chip, Chip, Chipping Away!

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

In typical piecemeal fashion, another Amendment is up for discussion at next week’s council meeting. It involves ‘non-residential uses in residential areas’. Granted that with the new residential zones, there are some changes – ie businesses may set up within 100 metres of a designated activity centre without permit requirements depending on size, etc. Much is still the same however. What therefore needs to be seriously queried is:

Why do we need another watered down amendment at this point in time?
The Planning & Environment Act states that councils MUST REVIEW their planning schemes “no later than one year after each date by which it is required to approve a Council Plan under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989”. Council Plans according to the LGA must be approved no later than June 30^th after an election. Glen Eira approved its Council Plan last year. That means that it is now due to REVIEW IN FULL ITS PLANNING SCHEME. Why isn’t this happening and why is there this consistent chipping away at residents’ amenity in every single amendment that is being pushed through?

We’ve done what we’ve done in the past – compared the proposed new version with the old. It should be obvious to even Blind Freddy that what this administration now proposes is to expand development and business ‘opportunities’ in residential areas at the cost of local amenity, environment, traffic, parking and all the other components that go into sound planning. For starters, here are just a few of the sentences which have now been dropped completely from the proposed amendment – followed by the more important changes via the table.

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

To maintain and protect any dwellings/buildings of historical/cultural significance

To ensure that adequate provision is made for appropriate on-site parking for all non-residential uses

To maintain the garden character of the neighbourhood

Car parking facilities not dominate the development or street frontage

CURRENT PLANNING SCHEME

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Objectives

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.

REMOVED ARE THE FOLLOWING important clauses –

To successfully integrate non-residential uses into residential areas with minimum impact
To ensure that adequate provision is made for appropriate on-site parking for all non-residential uses
To ensure that traffic generated by the use of the site is appropriate to the street and the locality and will not adversely affect existing traffic patterns and safety
To maintain the garden character of the neighbourhood

Objectives

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

POLICY

The 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
Loading bays be provided where necessary
BOTH OF THESE ARE NOW TOTALLY ABSENT IN THE NEW DRAFT

INSTEAD THERE ARE THESE QUALIFIED STATEMENTS –

Ensure that the streetscape character of the neighbourhood is respected and maintained, particularly in terms of building height, length, location, setbacks (front, side and rear), front fences and appearance.

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

Performance measures

Do not exist in current version

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Any buildings are not greater than mandatory maximum height specified in the relevant residential zone applying to the subject land.

(note: does this now mean that a 3 or 4 storey medical centre may be built in a GRZ or RGZ zone?)

LANDSCAPING

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

LANDSCAPING

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

GENERAL AMENITY

The developments not overload the capacity of public infrastructure

THIS IS MISSING IN PROPOSED VERSION

SET BACKS/CORNER SITES

Buildings proposed fronting the long side of a corner site have a side street setback of 3 metres

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

The planning scheme for corner sites now states –

The same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.

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

HOURS OF OPERATION

Mon-Friday – 8.30am – 6.00pm

Saturdays – 9.00am – 1.00pm

Sundays/Public Holidays – Closed

HOURS OF OPERATION

Mon- Friday – 7.00 – 6.30pm

Saturdays – 8.00am – 6.00pm

Sundays/Public Holidays – Closed

January 17, 2014

How To Further Stifle Debate!

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

December 21, 2013

Your Future In Their Incapable Hands?

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

A new low has been reached with the following ‘debate’ on the Kornhauser application.

Delahunty moved the motion to accept with changes – conditions requiring unloading area and that this shouldn’t be ‘used for any other purpose’. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that this was ‘incredibly difficult process’ for residents and didn’t give her any ‘pleasure to stand here and deliver a verdict tonight’. Said it was a ‘beautiful’ street and ‘suffers from being very beautiful and popular’ and she uses it when she visits Masada hospital. Said that councillors had asked officers to ‘review’ the parking in the area and that the notice of decision does have ‘regard’ for the ‘very relevant objectors’ opinion’. Realised that the objectors would be wondering how councillor can ‘allow’ this to ‘come about’ and she thought that the non-residential uses in residential zones policy has some ‘deliberate ambiguity to it’ so that decisions can be made on some non residential uses. Went on to say that in order to ‘minimise’ the impact on neighbours ‘council has done several things’ such as limiting hours and numbers of students and to limit ‘traffic movement’ and to provide car parking ‘which is an absolute necessity’. Said that what council can’t do in a permit, but she hopes will happen in that ‘everyone will go away’ here tonight ‘in good faith’ and that people come together and work together. Hoped that the permit will not ‘interrupt neighbourhood amenity’. Stated that there were some things raised by objectors that ‘may seem relevant but can’t actually be considered’ such as noise and the type of education being provided. These couldn’t be ‘discussed’. Thought that the conditions were trying to ‘strike a balance’ and hoped that everyone would be kind to one another and that the applicant adheres to the conditions.

SOUNNESS: acknowledged that there’s a history to this application and that there are ‘grounds’ under planning to consider it again. He found it ‘striking’ that such a small school could ‘generate’ that amount of ‘correspondence’ and that it’s ‘got support by the community’ and also ‘concerns’ from the community. Went on to claim that the conditions seek to ‘confirm’ numbers of staff, students, etc. ‘These things give surety’. Said that the planning scheme isn’t definitive and ‘there is ambiguity’. He thought that a school is one thing and a home education is another and that this application ‘sits’ somewhere in between. Ultimately he couldn’t see anything to say ‘that this should not proceed’. Thought that the conditions ‘encourage good behaviour within the community’ but council isn’t a ‘policeman’ that’s going to stand ‘at the corner counting’ so he ‘hopes’ that parties recognise the conditions and act accordingly. Council needs to do the ‘best’ they can ‘by the tools they have’. He was confident that the conditions set down would provide the best ‘outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that he chaired the planning conference and said that he was ‘disappointed’ that no objectors showed up because he wanted to hear what they had to say. Stated that he did hear from objectors ‘this morning’ but that this was ‘too little too late’ in ‘terms of trying to convince councillors’. If they had shown up then they would have heard that officers look at parking and amenity and noise and that ‘those are the issues’. Many objections were raised but ‘outside those principles’ and which ‘can’t be looked at’ since council is only able to look at ‘planning law’ since they had a ‘quasi-judicial’ function and have ‘to enforce planning law’. Said that in the past he had said that he doesn’t want ‘a school in my street. I don’t want Mr Scopus in my street’ but ‘this is 25 students’and for him this wasn’t ‘particularly onerous’. Talk about parties intimidating each other was ‘unfortunate’ but all council can do is ‘look at planning principles’. Claimed that council basically ‘tried to limit the nature of this institution’. If there is student ‘creep’ well all that means is that the ‘applicant will have to come back to council to make an application’ and he thinks that it won’t be looked upon ‘favourably’. In answering the question of ‘how do we know’ how many students front up Lipshutz said ‘well council can have spot checks’ and ‘they will be brought to task’ if the permit isn’t adhered to. There’s been ‘distrust’ and now it’s ‘important’ that everyone ‘goes away’ and allow the ‘applicants to proceed and do what they have to do’ and ‘be good neighbours’. ‘If they’re not, they will pay the consequences’.

LOBO: went through the history of the application – ie council refusal, vcat. Said that the school ‘has been operating for some time now’ but the owners are now ‘trying to put their records in order’. Claimed that officers had addressed all issues like parking and the covenant. Said that Victoria accepts ‘home schooling’ and that council’s policy ‘cements’ this approach. Went on to say that ‘I have always said that schools should be separate from residents’ so kids can ‘shout and play’. Said the motives in running the school by the applicant is ‘commendable’ and that they are an ‘epitome of the community’ because ‘they enjoy good integrity and character’. Since he’s got a few ‘Jewish family friends’ he ‘understands’ the organisation who are ‘selfless’ and ‘reach out to everyone without discrimination’. He’s also been told that ‘preconceived evil is not in their nature’. Said that this needs to looked at in terms of the new application and the ‘Kornhauser’s philanthropic’ contribution to society. “I do not think that their rabbis hate me anymore’.

DELAHUNTY: said that objectors not attending the planning conference is ‘disappointing but understandable under the circumstances’ and this doesn’t mean that their written objections weren’t ‘taken into consideration’. She didn’t think that ‘Cr Lipshutz was suggesting that’. Said that one objector had asked her whether she would like to live there her response was that if she didn’t ‘know the history, I would be absolutely thrilled’ but if she had ‘been through’ what residents have been through ‘I might think differently’. But ‘as it stands now’ being close to parks and transport, ‘Yes I would live there’. She ‘hoped that this street is a happy place to live’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PS: A reader kindly posted the URL for the Dilbert cartoon below. We thought that it so precisely sums up the Glen Eira Council culture and philosophy that it requires highlighting.

December 20, 2013

Another Snow Job!

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

Below we feature the incredible ‘discussion’ on the Sporting Ground Allocation Policy. We urge readers to carefully note:

Delahunty’s turncoat performance
Okotel’s remarks
Lipshutz’s inanities and little games of semantics
Both Hyams and Lipshutz’s attempts to win favour with Ajax – quite frankly we do not believe a word of it!
Control vested 100% in the hands of Burke and his cohorts, especially in regards to Expressions of Interest since the policy gives these bureaucrats the authority to ‘invite’ submissions!
Not one councillor commented or provided any reasons as to why ‘indoor recreation facilities’ (ie GESAC BASKETBALL ALLOCATIONS) are EXEMPT from this policy! To our mind the reason is obvious – so that the Warriors can continue unimpeded and no one will ever know whether or not they are fulfilling to the cent the obligations of their allocations!

ITEM 9.12 – SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATION POLICY

Delahunty moved motion with some changes – ie. putting policy up on website; to help public understand role of local government in sport; the policy would apply to Expressions of Interest by ‘inviting applications from any party’ and ‘Eoi’s will only be called if there is a permanent vacancy’. Hyams seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said this was a ‘long time coming’ but it doesn’t mean that the ‘operational’ processes ‘haven’t been applied’. Said that she’s always believed that if ‘we are applying something operationally’ then there should be a policy that is clearly ‘understood’ and ‘available’ to the public. This ‘helps the public understand’ council’s ‘role and commitment’ to local sport which is the ‘fabric of our society’ and helps people participate. Council is the ‘guardian of the places’ where this happens but council shouldn’t be ‘managing that in a different way to other people in Victoria’. Said that her objectives with the amendments were to ‘make it clearer what sort of’ principles are involved, but not ‘to differ terribly much from our municipal neighbours’. Went on to say that if Glen Eira did ‘differ’ then it would cause ‘operational chaos’. Also stated that by putting in ‘subjective’ criteria this would help people understand how council sees its ‘role’ BUT there may be times when ‘we may not be able to apply those principles’. This is something that officers have always ‘grappled with’ and the policy won’t cause a major ‘upheaval’ in regards to this since it’s important to have a ‘transparent policy’. She ‘recommends’ the amendments since they don’t basically change the ‘operational’ nature of what has already been happening. The amendments just ‘make it clearer’. The changes to ‘purpose’ explain ‘why we have written the document’. Second amendment was to ‘better explain the scope and not to change it’. Said she found that the McKinnon Basketball Association and some of its members use the terms ‘allocation’ and ‘expression of interest’ as ‘interchangeable’ and this has been ‘widely misunderstood’. The third change was in regards to the table and this sought to ‘clarify how many points were available’. On the expressions of interest she wanted it better understood so ‘that’s why I put in some subjective points’ that extend parts of the community plan, health plan into this policy. Importance of community sport ‘can’t be underestimated’ but ‘operationally’ it’s important that council doesn’t ‘differ that much’ from other councils.

HYAMS: said the policy sets out in a ‘straight forward and transparent way’ how grounds are allocated. The policy isn’t ‘being done for a particular football club’ but that’s ‘not so’. Said that they ‘brought to their attention’ the ‘need for policy’ and that ‘one incident brings shortcomings to our attention’ and this is an example of that. Claimed that council even decided to have a policy before all the public questions started flooding in from Ajax. Said that the policy shows that ‘we don’t throw’ out existing clubs if they are meeting their ‘obligations’. Some people might be suggesting this but he plays for a club that isn’t in Glen Eira and wouldn’t want that to happen so he could play in Glen Eira. Some ‘suggestions’ have been that council should consider the ‘number of residents in each club’ but ‘doing that may be difficult if not impossible’ but ‘we do it for community grants in a slightly different way’. The EOI ‘supposes a community connection’ and that’s ‘important’. ‘Personally’ he would like to have junior and seniors of the same club ‘playing together’ but he ‘understands’ that ‘that was not the will of the group’. Thought that Delahunty’s changes ‘improve’ the policy ‘especially’ on the tables and explaining that these also apply to EOI’s. The real solution is more open space and the policy sets out the plan for the racecourse and will be reviewed then or other times deemed necesary.

OKOTEL: appreciated the ‘work of officers’ and councillors for the policy but ‘I have been highly disappointed with the process that council has undertaken’. Said that she had ‘asked for a process of consultation’ with sporting groups and community ‘before we put this policy to the vote’ because this is a ‘new policy’. Previously council had been merely operating ‘on tradition’ and there was ‘no written documents before us’. Because this is new and ‘none of us are experts’ it ‘would have been appropriate’ for council to ‘engage in some form of’ consultation. Therefore she ‘doesn’t feel comfortable voting on a motion’ that she’s ‘unfamiliar with’ and therefore making a decision on behalf of people was ‘inappropriate without some level of feedback from the community’. As a result she contacted some sports clubs herself and asked them if they had any comments. Said that the feedback ‘wasn’t that much’. When she raised the need previously she was told that inviting comments would only invite feedback that ‘might polarise the community, cause division’ therefore ‘it is best not to engage in consultation’. ‘I think that was entirely inappropriate and misconceived’ and that ‘we should never shy away from consultation with the community’. Quoted Delahunty saying that council is ‘guardian’ of sport. She thought that ‘partners’ is better so ‘it’s important that we do have feedback from our community’ on ‘such policies’. Said that the feedback from clubs was that there ‘was a lack of clarity in our policy’ as to clubs losing their allocations, and ‘what the deduction of penalty points would mean’ and she also ‘felt that there was uncertainty in that respect’. She’s ‘disappointed that such recommendations haven’t been taken into consideration’. She hoped that councillors vote against the policy but if not that any future review looks at these issues.

MAGEE: said he ‘disagreed with all speakers so far’. There is not ‘need to consult’ on sporting policy since ‘all that matters is longevity’. Said that clubs ‘don’t look at it as a seasonal allocation’. Said he can accept the policy ‘because it’s simple’. Said that they’re trying to do a ‘policy by committee’ and that’s not working. ‘This is a policy looking for a purpose’ and the purpose is that people who have a ground ‘are used to it’. Said that the argument that people who live around a ground have got a ‘greater connectivity’ to that ground and therefore ‘should score higher’ is not right. Didn’t think that any clubs would ever ‘fold up and move out from Glen Eira’ or that there would ever be enough grounds. Even if the racecourse is opened up he would bet that ‘Glen Eira would not be the committee of management’ and therefore allocations ‘would not be up to us’, so ‘this policy won’t matter’. He can’t see anything that would mean that ‘this policy is actually needed’. ‘The policy needs to be kept simply because the clubs don’t care’. All clubs worry about is ‘tenure’ and that’s ‘all this is about’. ‘You don’t need to go ask them that’. Said he was ‘disappointed’ that ‘we’re trying to make something that is relatively simple’ and ‘complicate’ it.

LIPSHUTZ: brought up a point about ‘incorporated’ bodies and ‘incorporated associations’. After some confusion, Delahunty didn’t accept. Lipshutz then said Magee is right in that ‘not much is going to change’. However, pavilions and grounds are important to council and clubs don’t have ‘adverse possession’ claims. So council does have an ‘obligation’ to act in accordance with policy. Said that if there is no policy then it’s ‘open slather and let the officers do as they wish’. A policy ‘gives a framework’ on how ‘things should be done’. Referred to Okotel saying that council should consult but ‘council does not consult on policies. Council consults on strategies’. Said that like Hyams he would like to see seniors and juniors together but that ‘the group’ didn’t agree on ‘this one’. Referred to sport and the ‘corruption’ that went on in Brimbank council where ‘clubs’ took ‘allocations for clubs or money or whatever’ but this ‘can’t happen here’ because there’s a ‘policy that doesn’t allow that’. In Glen Eira ‘council doesn’t get involved, council doesn’t have a say in who gets allocation’ because ‘the officers make that decision’. But ‘we set the framework’. Said that every corporate body has a ‘group’ that sets policy but then ‘officers implement that policy’. At this point LOBO VOTED AGAINST GIVING LIPSHUTZ A TIME EXTENSION. Lipshutz went on with ‘we have to have a franmework that is clear and unambiguous’. Said that the issue ‘didn’t come to council today out of the blue’ and that ‘every councillor’ has discussed it.

LOBO: said that if ‘I don’t know how minutes are taken at an assembly’ then Lipshutz should know the difference between operations and policy. Said that the latter is established on ‘legal matters’. Here ‘smooth functioning of sports club is all that is required’. If people don’t complain then this shouldn’t be ‘a big hassle’. He will ‘stick to the officers’ recommendation’.

DELAHUNTY: started by saying that it’s not like the officers ‘have been operating without guidelines’. They’ve had strategies and ‘conversations’. Said that there’s not this policy because of the ‘commitment to transparency’ so what’s been previously done under ‘operational’ they are now done under policy and this should be ‘open to the public’. Said this should be true for ‘all operational decisions’ but particularly for decisions that ‘affect so many people’. Council is ‘guardian’ of the facilities so they have to make sure to ensure the ‘longevity’ of these facilities. Said there are ‘principles written into the policy’ because Glen Eira doesn’t have a ‘strategy’ on community sport. Said again that her changes do not alter ‘operational’ matters but that ‘they do seek to make those decisions more transparent’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING FOR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness. VOTING AGAINST – Lobo, Magee, Okotel

December 18, 2013

Rewriting History Again & Again!

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

Readers will remember that we queried the accuracy of the last set of draft minutes in that the Sounness comments on the removal of Caulfield Park Trees were omitted – despite the fact that other councillor statements were included in the draft minutes. Selective editing and the rewriting of history all over again. Sadly, the minutes (as drafted) were accepted without any single comment by any councillor!

When it came to the minutes of assembly meetings, the following occurred. Lipshutz and Magee moved to accept. Lobo then said:

LOBO: quoted the draft minutes from the 29th October where Hyams brought up the issue of ‘councillor conduct’ and said that ‘these minutes are not a true reflection of what happened’. Went on to say that ‘next year’ council needs to ‘review’ how it does things because it’s pointless to put in ‘a line which has no sense’ and ‘we can’t remove things from the assembly of councillors just because we don’t like something’. Concluded by saying that he wants a ‘proper process’.

HYAMS: claimed that Lobo ‘seems’ to want minutes to ‘record specific comments’ but the minutes only ‘record’ the ‘topics covered and nothing more’ and he thought they were ‘fine’.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that the minutes were ‘perfectly correct’ and that Lobo doesn’t ‘understand’ the purpose about listing topics only.

MOTION PUT: Lobo voted against.

COMMENT

The minutes of councillor assemblies are merely another tool in the armoury of this administration and its compliant councillors. Far from only recording broad topics, the minutes have been used to either place pressure on individual councillors who have not toed the party line, or to further the public relations agenda in portraying council as simply ‘wonderful’. Hyams and Lipshutz really need to revisit some of these minutes to see the complete mistruths of their above statements. Here are just some examples of what we mean and ask readers to contemplate whether these ‘minutes’ are in fact indicating far more than mere ‘topics’.

Minutes of 5^th July, 2011 – Hyams – Leader newspaper story on the community satisfaction survey. Said that he had telephoned the Editor of the Caulfield Lead who had conceded that the paper had misinterpreted the facts and had corrected the story of their website. Cr Hyams said that the newspaper had indicated that they would print a corrected story in their next edition.

Magee – GESAC basketball courts allocations. Asked officers to provide councillors with a copy of the ‘brief’ that has been given to the legal practitioner following the Resolution adopted by Council at the 28 June 2011 council meeting (Agenda Iem 12.4 refers)

Hyams – that public questions on matters relating to particular long running issues at Caulfield Park may not constitute harassment under Local Law 232 (j) (iii). How to deal with this issue from hereon.

26^th July, 2011

Penhalluriack – Nic Varvodic. Council decision to declare his public questions to be harassment. Need to change the Local Law

9^th August 2011 – 12.2 ‘confidential’ – Magee access to two other legal opinions and his conversation with the Ombudsman

PLEASE NOTE: In our report on the council meeting of 27^th November, Lobo mentioned his ‘interview’ with the Municipal Inspector. Magee jumped up with a ‘point of order’ (upheld by Pilling) and Hyams then had his say – “Went on to say that ‘the last time’ he spoke with an ‘integrity agency’ he was told all discussions were confidential and commended Magee for the point of order in order to prevent Lobo ‘from breaking that law’.

Our knowledge of such investigations is that not only are discussions ‘confidential’ but investigations themselves are ‘confidential’ and participants are not permitted to reveal their participation. Yet here we have an official record of assembly that confirms Magee’s ‘interview’ with the ombudsman! The Records of Assembly are therefore never an innocuous list of topics discussed. They become as we said another weapon in the attempt to ensure that all councillors toe the party line and thus power and control remain vested in those that compose and distribute the minutes!

PS: AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES

Lipshutz moved to accept with amendments to certain words. Sounness seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: repeated the officers’ report that the committee met 4 times during the year and looked at many issues. Emphasised tenders and how ‘this council has got an outstanding record’ when it comes to tenders. Risk management is another area that the council is ‘outstanding on’ and Newton even gives presentations in NSW on risk management. He felt that ‘overall we are kicking goals’ and ‘rated number one’ by various bodies.

Sounness reported on community grants. Okotel then asked a question.

OKOTEL: asked about item 4 of the audit committee meeting minutes where it referred to risk A’; ‘B’ and ‘C’ what ‘these things actually refer to’.

NEWTON: said that the ‘internal auditors’ raised these issues so that they are ranked according to ‘importance’ and ‘A’ is ‘most serious’ and down the scale. These things are ‘reviewed at every meeting, so every meeting knows’ what actions have been taken.

COMMENT

Okotel’s question raises a number of important issues regarding governance, communication, and work done by councillors. There are several ways of interpreting this question:

1. Most importantly – the Audit Committee does not communicate its deliberations and problems back to full council. It remains a closed shop with Lipshutz, Magee, McLean, Gibbs, and Newton running the show and controlling the flow of information?
2. Okotel after being a councillor for one year does not really know what is going on in Audit Committee meetings?
3. Okotel may be asking for the ‘benefit’ of the community. However, that begs the question of why such reports are couched in double-dutch so that the community would not have the foggiest of what the A, B, and C refers to.
4. Has Okotel been performing her duty by asking such questions ‘in-house’ and privately, or has she only picked up on this after one year on council? Or, has she asked and not been provided with an adequate response, so she is now forced to ask in a public forum where a response is required. We note that Newton’s response was certainly bereft of much detail!
5. The Audit Committee has been pronounced by councillors as the most important committee on council. If other councillors do not know what the hell goes on, if they aren’t provided with regular updates, then we can only speculate as to how on top of things the entire group of councillors really is.

We finally note that in the countless records of assembly published for 2013 there is NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ITS DELIBERATIONS. So, either there are no reports back to all councillors or, as Lobo tells us, the minutes of assemblies are nothing more than fiction!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates