GE Council Meeting(s)
Archived Posts from this Category
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 5th 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.
26th July, 2011
Penhalluriack – Nic Varvodic. Council decision to declare his public questions to be harassment. Need to change the Local Law
9th 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 27th 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!
December 17, 2013
Council Meeting Marathon!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance1 Comment
Detailed reports on tonight’s council meeting will follow in the days ahead. However, readers should note the following outcomes:
- The Kornhauser application accepted unanimously and not one single word stated about student accommodation/shared housing. Lobo even declared at one point that ‘rabbis would love’ him now!
- The so called greens see nothing wrong with the Gordon St 8 storey 55 unit development because it’s close to transport and will ‘enliven’ the area. Lobo/Magee motion to refuse got up by 5 votes to 4. Voting against refusal – Lipshutz; Delahunty, Sounness and Pilling
- The most important items (ie. proposed amendments for large lot sizes and the revisiting the C87) took about 10 minutes in total! Passed unanimously. Our view is another ‘victory’ for developers and deceiving the public.
- A sporting allocation policy that changes nothing and still cedes all control to unelected officers
- Audit committee report nothing more than self-congratulations and how wonderful Gibbs and McLean are.
- CCTV funding from government refused. Voting to accept – Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel.
- Many public questions demanded that councillors provide INDIVIDUAL answers to specific queries – in other words, tell residents of their views and why they voted or felt the way they did. No councillor had the guts to address the questions and state what their actual views were. Instead it was all about ‘councils’ views.
December 15, 2013
Double Standards?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[15] Comments
This council has had no qualms in spending tens of thousands of dollars in pursuing Frank Penhalluriack over an alleged boarding house violation that in effect was only in existence for several weeks. It would appear that the same diligence, persistence and consistency of law and principle does not apply to all residents and properties. We are referring to the new application for 8 -10 Springfield Avenue, North Caulfield. What councillors are now being asked to do is grant a ‘retrospective permit’ for an ‘education centre’ and we believe a ‘shared accommodation’ site.
The question of double standards centres on the following:
- If there is a component of this ‘education centre’ that provides a 10 month course and offers ‘accommodation’ for these students (some of whom are from overseas) does this constitute a ‘boarding house’?
- Why has council turned a blind eye to this and not pursued the owner in a manner that is commensurate with the approach taken to Penhalluriack? We refer readers to the boarding house registry where they will find that NO PERMIT exists for this property (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/types-of-rental-agreements/public-register-of-rooming-houses?rs=Glen+Eira+City&sz=20&pg=1&ct=4
- Why does the Ron Torres report not mention the fact that the 10 month course also offers ‘accommodation’. All that we are told is: The intensity of the current version of the proposal has been reduced compared with the previous version that was refused. For example, the 2 week intensive MerkosWomen course will not be offered and a maximum of 10 women will be enrolled in the 10 month course rather than 15. Whilst the maximum number of boys is not proposed to be reduced, the hours of operation will no longer include any Sunday classes. Similarly, there will be no evening classes for the MerkosWomen that were part of the original application.
- Yet, the current website of Merkos Women, makes it absolutely clear that the site provides for live-in accommodation, and according to the VCAT member the 10 month course charges US $12,000!
Participants are provided with beautiful accommodation in the heart of Melbourne’s Jewish community. The accommodation includes comfortable shared bedrooms, modern formal and informal lounging areas and a large kitchen in which the girls are guided in preparing communal based meals and are given the opportunity to explore the cultural aspect of food preparation. For the hotter summer months, there is a swimming pool and outdoor area.
Source: http://merkoswomen.com.au/general-info-for-overseas-participants
This ‘new application’ is ‘retrospective’. In other words the site has been operating for years without the appropriate permits. And what has council done? Very little it would seem! The earlier VCAT decision even included this admission by Council’s representative (Mr Leary) – Council’s Enforcement Officer having apparently had problems in the past with being granted access on to the subject land. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1157.html)
As to the merits of the ‘new’ application we only reiterate that for years neighbours have complained to council about the operation of this site as a school and they have basically been ignored. Now council proposes to grant a permit despite traffic concerns, and entirely overlooks the question of whether or not the site is in part operating as ‘shared accommodation’. Thus our question of double standards and why the law is not applied equally to all?
Finally, we draw readers’ attention to the following Age/SMH article and especially to the alleged council position as stated in the penultimate sentence – The council has agreed not to fight the move in exchange for a promise from the Kornhausers that they would not seek to force the council to pay any legal costs if the family wins the case.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/family-seeks-to-run-school-20130917-2tx2r.html#ixzz2nUskMgpk
December 13, 2013
Agenda: Stuff Ups & Spin
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
Apologies for what is an exceedingly long post but which focuses on 2 vitally important Amendment proposals that basically admit council’s previous stuff ups, plus the public relations exercise on the C60 and Caulfield Village. Please refer to the actual agenda items on council’s website for other items including – walking strategy, sporting ground allocations policy, and some very interesting in camera items concerning the Audit Committee.
Caulfield Village Development
Rocky Camera’s report is in response to the following Request for a Report passed at last council meeting – “That a report be prepared to determine the best methods to engage with the community surrounding the Caulfield Racecourse in light of impending developments which will impact their amenity. That the report recommend ways to involve the community in helping to shape the future of their area be that through structure planning or another method used by other councils.”
We note at the outset that the request for ‘methods’ is not really addressed by Mr Camera’s response and ‘structure’ planning is mentioned only twice in passing, in the entire 6 pages of script! Instead, the report is a follow up to the Akehurst comments from this council meeting and the admission that residents’ opportunities to ‘object’ to the Caulfield Village are dead and buried!
Once again there is plenty of misleading information. Even though Probuild has formally announced its intention to build 1500+ units, this report still maintains – “Caulfield Village will contain 1200 dwellings’ and ‘improvements to three main road intersections’. The report then continues with assurances that “details” are known and this followed (of course) ‘extensive community consultation’. Probuild could not have employed a better public relations firm that Glen Eira City Council in spruiking the development as evidenced by the following highly dubious claims.
This document gives certainty to the local community by precisely stipulating building envelopes; their heights, setbacks, and siting. It can be said that the Caulfield Village development is one of the most planned development sites in the municipality. The future development of this land has been “locked in” following a rigorous community consultation and amendment process, the community now has a high level of certainty in what to expect at Caulfield Village. This certainty even extends to the location of new roads, infrastructure upgrades, and the use of laneways. If any person is unaware or unsure of the future development of the Caulfield Village, they simply just need to turn to the Incorporated Plan. In this respect, the community’s involvement in “helping shape the future of the area” has occurred.
The degree of detail and certainty far exceeds what a structure plan could offer. At best, structure plans are policy documents, providing general guidance on future development. The framework for Caulfield Village, with precise controls, and a rigorous ‘recipe’, means there is already absolute certainty about what the extent of future development will be.
Thus, after a page and a half of unfounded assurances, the real truth emerges. All residents will be able to do regarding the Development Plan is submit ‘comments’. They will not have any objection rights to VCAT. The best residents can hope for is that someone with common sense realises that 1500+ units as opposed to 1200+ units, does in fact constitute a marked departure from the Incorporated Plan. The domino effect should then be applied to traffic, etc. But all we’re told is:
if the developer deviates from the Incorporated Plan (‘recipe’) and proposes, say, taller buildings than what is specified in the building envelope. In this case, a full town planning process, together with typical third-party rights must be undertaken. That is, if a proposal contains taller buildings than the agreed envelopes, or departs from the Incorporated Plan, the community needs to be further consulted.
What will be interesting is how ‘deviates’ is defined and by whom and what constitutes a ‘deviation’ from the sorely lacking detail of the Incorporated Plan!
There are several other admissions most notably that the open space levy extracted from the developers only amounts to $4m for the residential components. Given that the law at the time permitted up to 5% Council has again let the big boys off very cheap at 4%! Mention is made of the possibility of ‘back dating’ rates, but we assume that this will be calculated on the miniscule rates that have been part of the Planning Scheme since 2006/7 and not the uppermost limit currently available. Another present to developers!
We urge residents to read this report very, very carefully and to note the following:
- The first development plan is already in the hands of council and will be made public early 2014
- After so many assurances that ‘precise details’ are known about the future of this area, the recommendations confess that the C60 in effect only supplies ‘broad parameters’!
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND HERITAGE CONTROLS
If ever there was an admission of a total stuff up then Item 9.9 is the living proof. This harks back to Amendment c87 where the Neighborhood Character Overlays were introduced into the planning scheme. Readers will remember that councillors in their wisdom promised those residents who asked that their areas be included, or not excluded, that they could present their case to the Planning Panel, only to find that the ‘terms of reference’ could not be altered. Hence, all those individuals who believed council found out to their horror that their claims were not relevant to the deliberations of the Planning Panel. We also remind readers that both residents and councillors were not given the opportunity to put in any recommendations – it was all done ‘inhouse’ by officers and through the Planisphere report.
Well now (a year later) there is a massive public relations exercise about to happen, where a handful of residents from that time will get a look in. The proposals are minimalist in the extreme – a couple of more houses added to the heritage listing and basically one more street included. Of course, none of this will happen in the short term, given the length of time it takes for Amendments to get through. We simply ask why this couldn’t have happened right from the start? Why does it take this council attempt after attempt to get something close to ‘correct’?
LARGE SITES – NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE
This is nothing but a confession that the zone reforms are another major stuff up and this is purely a limited attempt at ‘damage control’ given the outcry from developers. It does not excuse, nor solve the problem as we see it because:
- The proposed amendment only addresses lots that are larger than 2000 sq. m. What if block of land is 1000sq.m for example?
- With no minimum size prescribed in the planning scheme we can have subdivisions upon subdivisions so the myth of two dwellings per lot may stand – but the overall effect would mean 2 dwellings on each subdivision. There is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent this and we believe it is already happening.
There is much, more more of significance in these agenda papers. As per the norm, major issues are all presented at the one time so that real discussion, debate, and the prospect of intelligent and careful decision making is jeopardised. We even wonder whether councillors have taken the time to actually read all 377 pages!
PS: We’ve neglected to mention the Elsternwick Plaza item. At last council meeting the following resolution was passed – “That Council not accept VicTrack’s revised offer and continue to advocate for finalisation of the lease as per the original plan.”. This was after the Lipshutz/Hyams motion was defeated. However, being persistent little councillors, we now find that Newton has undertaken further negotiations and that there has been some ‘movement at the station’. This new recommendations DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE EXISTING RESOLUTION. We presume that the motto of the gang is that if you don’t succeed first time around, try, try, try again! It will be fascinating to see if councillors have got the gumption to stick to their original motion or whether they will cave in as per usual. This item just happens to be 9.20 – last cab off the rank when ‘determination’ and ‘stamina’ have been well and truly exhausted by everyone! Ah, the games that we play!
November 29, 2013
Burke’s Re-Writing Of History – Again!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[14] Comments
Council minutes are meant to provide an accurate record of what occurs at council meetings. That is both a legal and an ethical obligation. In Glen Eira it often is not! Council’s past responses to questions about accuracy has been that:
- Minutes are not Hansard
- They are required to only record resolutions and votes
- Sorry, another ‘clerical error’ perhaps
All of the above may be true, BUT NOT when council uses quotation marks as an indication of a verbatim, word by word account of what took place. This has been the practice for years when it comes to Rights of Reply and Councillor Questions. To then fiddle with the occasional wording (and this is not to correct grammar it should be said!) or omit huge chunks from the official record because it is ‘embarrassing’ for council is nothing short of deceitful, devious, and unconscionable. No wonder the audio/visual recording of council meetings has been opposed so often and for so long!
On this occasion we are referring to Councillor Questions on the Caulfield Park tree removal. Following the Dorothy Dixer’s asked by Magee and Lipshutz we suspect that the two questions asked by Sounness were not pre-prepared and rehearsed. These and Burke’s answers are absent from the minutes. THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. PILLING HIMSELF REFERRED TO SOUNNESS’ QUESTIONS AS ‘COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS’. HENCE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR ENTIRETY IN THESE MINUTES AS WELL AS BURKE’S RESPONSES. THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CENSORED IS THE DELIBERATE DOCTORING OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD!
Here’s what occurred –
Pilling asked ‘any other councillor questions?’
SOUNNESS: directed his question to Burke and wanted ‘clarification’ about the 2001 Master Plan. Said that the ovals were reduced from 7 to 6 and he wanted this made clear as well as what could be put up on the website as information for people about the numbers of trees affected and the impacts on ‘birdlife’ and other issues of ‘biodiversity’.
BURKE: said that the Master Plan does ‘talk of a reduction’ of ovals to 6 and that ‘there’s already been a wicket taken out’ so that the ‘reduction has already happened’. Went on to say that the “master plan is a representation of how the park should look’ when all the work ‘has been completed’. As far as the plan’s ‘vision for trees’ he thought that ‘it is fair to say we are achieving that’. The 2 trees that they’ve agreed to preserve are ‘actually contrary to the master plan’ but they’ll be kept. As far as bird life is concerned rangers tell council that with the planting of indigenous trees the number of birds visiting the park has increased and that this was ‘expected’ with all the plantings of native trees.
Pilling then asked again if there were ‘further councillor questions’
SOUNNESS: asked about the junior ovals and how come ‘the trees were planted’ basically on these sites in the first place. He then asked whether the ‘plantings’ had ‘been in the wrong place’ to begin with.
BURKE: said that ‘some of the trees to be removed predate the master plan’. He then ‘agreed’ that some of the plantings of these trees were post master plan development and could only explain why they were planted there because of ‘people’s over-exuberance’.
COMMENT
What this tells residents is:
- Incompetence all round! The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing!
- Masterplans are useless pieces of paper that are changed on mere whim
Please note: the issue of trees, master plans is not our focus here. What we and all residents should object to in the strongest possible terms is the rewriting of history and what can only be a conscious and deliberate decision to present minutes that falsify the series of events. These are not ‘minutes’ therefore – they are the political doctoring by this administration. Again, the question falls back onto councillors. Will they demand that the minutes be corrected? Or will this be another distortion of reality and allowed to pass through to the keeper unchallenged. We remind readers that those who control history control the future (apologies to Orwell!)
PS: We see that the Friends of Caulfield Park have published their latest newsletter where they respond to the latest council pronouncements. See: http://www.caulfieldpark.com/latest-news.html
November 27, 2013
Sporting Grounds Policy
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[29] Comments
Item 9.17 – Sporting Allocation Policy
Hyams moved to defer item until next council meeting.Lipshutz seconded.
HYAMS: said this was a ‘complicated matter’ that they ‘wanted to get right’ and that the policy ‘requires a bit more work’ and that councillors after ‘a bit more discussion’ revisit the issue.
LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘various emails went around’ today and that ‘some councillors’ proposed some changes. So he thought that it ‘was appropriate’ that all councillors get a chance to look at the proposed ‘amendments’ and ‘get it right’. Delaying would give councillors the ‘opportunity to look at the various changes’ in greater ‘detail’.
MAGEE: began by saying that it’s ‘important that we get this document right’. More people are playing sport and there’s ‘not enough open space for them all’ and 20 teams couldn’t be accommodated. Said there are clubs who aren’t playing who would want to play in Glen Eira and ‘how we manage that is incredibly important’. Said that after ‘6 or 8 months’ that they are ‘still debating’ the issue, shows how important this is. What councillors are trying to do ‘is refine it’ (the policy) so that the majority are benefitted and any negative repercussions are limited to the least number of people. Also said that the open space should also be used properly ‘not just for active events but also passive events’. Thought the ‘policy is very, very close’ to ‘getting it right’. Said he got a couple of emails today one of which ‘I liked’ and one which he didn’t like. So all that mattered now was that the policy be given a little ‘tweak’.
DELAHUNTY: supported deferring because ‘we haven’t really come to consensus’ on the issue. Thought that ‘this was a good lesson’ about what should have been done ‘in the beginning’ and that there’s been ‘no transparency on the decision making’ and that council ‘needs to take that lesson on board’. Said that it will be completed soon because ‘we can’t drag this on any longer’ and ‘whatever it takes we need to get transparency’ into the process.
OKOTEL: said this was important because this was ‘the first time’ that council’s ‘practices would be put into a policy that would be followed’. Also wanted ‘some feedback’ to be ‘received from the community’ and this could take the form of either ‘some satisfaction feedback from sporting clubs’ and others that it was important for ‘the development of this policy’.
LOBO: started by saying that history shows that council ‘jumps’ to make laws and policies and codes of conduct ‘just because of one instance’ and said that this policy is ‘because of one club’ and ‘we have not checked with the other clubs if they are also facing issues’. Went on to say that out of the other clubs there haven’t been any ‘issues with them’ who ‘conform to our rules and regulations and working with council’. Claimed that ‘the practice’ was ‘working well’ and an ‘unwritten policy so far has been working extremely well’ and that the government told them that they are one of the ‘best’ in terms of processes and if nothing is wrong then ‘why do we try to repair it’. Said that policies do need to be ‘reviewed’ from time to time ‘based on experience’ and that many residents also play in ‘neighbouring municipalities’ and that ‘sport does not recognise municipal boundaries’. Lobo then went on to mention the ombudsman and said ‘when I was last interviewed by the Municipal Inspector’ he was ‘asked whether it is my responsibility to enter into the operational side’. AT THIS JUNCTURE MAGEE SPRANG UP WITH A POINT OF ORDER. WITHOUT EXPLAINING ANY POINT OF ORDER PILLING SAID “I WILL UPHOLD THAT’ and whilst Pilling ‘appreciated’ Lobo’s concern and passion asked that he stick to the motion. Lobo then said ‘we should not interfere with the operational side of the council’.
HYAMS: said that although November is the time for sending out requests for allocations the delay won’t hurt this because ‘we can still do this’. Referred to Lobo’s statement about ‘doing this for the benefit of one club’ and that that’s not correct. Said that issues might be brought up by one person and that causes a rethink. Went on to give example of Weekend Story time where a resident had told him that they couldn’t make the midweek time slots but they could if this was held on weekends. So he ‘suggested’ this change and it was brought in. So this is an example where someone has brought to council’s attention that the ‘policy is not as transparent as it could be’ and as a result ‘we decided to act on it’. Not about one club because there are plenty of others who can’t get allocations so ‘they also want to know why they can’t get the allocations’. He ‘rejects the slur’ from Lobo that ‘we’re doing this for one club’
PILLING: said he didn’t think that Lobo was ‘slurring’ one club. ‘It wasn’t a slur’ and asked Hyams to ‘withdraw’ that comment.
HYAMS: ‘Okay’ that was his interpretation. 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’. Said that Lobo ‘was right’ about councillors not being involved in ‘operations’ and that ‘he’s right’. Councillors ‘set policy’ and ‘this is what we’re doing’.
MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT
Doublespeak continues unabated. Hyams’ use of the term ‘transparency’ in regards to introducing weekend Story Time is the highlight of the debate in our view. Next, Okotel’s call for ‘feedback’ is also remarkable and we ask – why wasn’t this done BEFORE any so called policy came into being? And how does she suggest this now be incorporated into what’s already been written? Formal submissions? ‘Private’ discussions? The latter will really enhance ‘transparency’ no doubt! Delahunty’s little kick up the backside would be far more convincing if real actions actually preceded the tabling of such a document. Lobo’s and Okotel’s admissions that there was no policy, just ‘process’ signifies the extent to which Glen Eira Council believes, adheres to, and implements any form of ‘transparency’. It would appear that only when residents have had a gut full of this administration’s autocratic rule and there are sufficient complaints from possible vested interests, or simple outrage together with negative publicity, that councillors see the need to ‘tweak’ something rather than doing what they should have been doing months and months ago. This isn’t a question of 6 to 8 months of delay. It’s years and years of secrecy and the failure to ensure full accountability.
November 26, 2013
Words, Words, Words – Signifying Nothing!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
A very brief report on tonight’s marathon council meeting. Full coverage in the next few days.
- Approximately 20 residents marched into the meeting after it started and stood there for several minutes holding placards about saving the Caulfield Park trees. Hyams couldn’t resist making a supercilious comment.
- Lobo was the ‘conservatives’ target on the first item. Delahunty was the second target given her comments regarding Southwick’s involvement with the Elsternwick Plaza lease and the problems with VicRoads
- More backsliding and more reports requesting more ‘information’ on audio/webcasting of council meetings
- The sporting ground allocation policy deferred until next meeting. Talk of lack of transparency and Lobo laid the blame at the feet of one club – presumably Ajax.
- Public questions went largely unanswered and on one point when challenged by Delahunty, Pilling continued his inauspicious debut as Mayor by fluffing the answer and having to be corrected by Hyams. Burke of course, rapidly interceded.
- All in all a brain-numbing talk-fest that achieved practically nothing. On the Caulfield park trees the only concession was that the 2 elms would remain and that 13 would be ‘relocated’. We express deep concern for the survival chances of these 13 trees going on past record.
Glen Eira Debates 