GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 6, 2013

The Circus In Full Swing!

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

We strongly recommend that every single Glen Eira resident should at least once in their lives attend a council meeting in order to view the continual circus, and general incompetence of our elected representatives. Tonight was no exception. Below is a very brief summary of what occurred. Full reports will follow in the coming days.

MORTON AVE APPLICATION

1. Pilling and Magee moved to accept the recommendations for a 6 storey development with the usual arguments of ‘appropriate’ for this zone; ‘reasonable’ high density; ‘right building for right place’, etc. etc.

2. Arguments against were waiving of loading bay, reduction in visitor parking.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

3, Esakoff then moved another motion that this be 5 storeys and 33 dwellings plus 4 visitor car parking spots. Seconded by Okotel. Main arguments were problems with traffic, parking, and that 5 storeys was okay plus a waiver of 3 parking spots ‘was fair’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST

Great confusion at this point since: – (a) no decision on application and, (b) no amendment had been put. Everyone scurried around like lost sheep ‘consulting’. Pilling then came up with a third motion – back to 6 storeys and 3 visitor car parking spots! This time motion got up unanimously!

MAV CONFERENCE

Esakoff reported on the MAV conference she attended and the raft of resolutions passed at the conference. All well and good. Trouble is that not once did she say anything about the voting pattern of Glen Eira City Council!!!! We remind readers that none of the motions were presented at an ordinary council meeting and no formal resolution has ever been taken on how to vote on any of the motions. Worse still, is that residents are kept in the dark. It is secrecy, lack of transparency and abysmal governance all over again!

Plenty of calls for Lobo to withdraw some of his comments which he eventually did but not before he named Lipshutz as the councillor who told him that officers could not understand him. Okotel was having hearing problems and attempted to use ‘right of reply’ to counter some comments from other councillors (Lobo, and she assumed an error by Delahunty) – so, on and on, with utter nonsense – especially the interminable, and in our view either trivial, or irrelevant, Requests for Reports. Perhaps we should consider retitling this post since circuses are entertaining. Tonight’s effort was definitely not ‘entertaining’ but an indictment of councillors, their priorities, and their total lack of knowledge when many have been councillors for yonks!

Finally, responses to public questions were either evasive, non-informative, or entirely irrelevant to the questions. Well done Mr Burke!

 

November 2, 2013

Inequity & More Humbug!

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

Up for decision are several planning applications that are worthy of comment. Given the empty promises of the new residential zones these applications in our view are a sign of what is to come.

Bolinda St Application

This is for 2 double storeys in a minimal change area. No objections were received, so the question needs to be asked why something like this should even make it to a full council meeting for decision? Countless others of far more import are decided by officers who do have the delegated authority to refuse this outright. Our take on this is that it represents nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to dupe and lull the community into believing that the residential zones are really ‘protecting’ neighbourhoods.

Here’s what we are told about this application:

  • The site is large enough for increased density
  • Site coverage is 44% – the standards are 50%
  • Rear and side setbacks are 4.5m for one unit when standard is 4m
  • Unit 2 has 154 square metre private open space when standard is 60 square metre
  • No overshadowing of note
  • No significant or valuable trees
  • Solar access to private open space is fine

So, on basically every single important ResCode and council standard this proposal meets the requirements. Yet officers have refused a permit. Their primary ground of objection is stated as:

This planning policy/discouraging two storey dwellings in rear yards has been rigorously followed for over 10 years. The policy is soundly based in town planning principles. Namely, 2 storey developments in rear yards potentially causes visual bulk issues for abutting rear yards of neighbouring properties. This is evident in this proposal whereby the visual bulk is considered unreasonable on the backyards of the properties to the north and the east. This policy of discouraging 2 storey development in rear yards is widely understood and accepted including by VCAT. Precedent is a concern. Approval of this proposal weakens the future application of this policy.

So all of a sudden ‘precedent’ is important and we’re expected to believe a 2 storey dwelling in the back yard of a minimal change area is ‘widely understood’ and even ‘accepted’ by VCAT. In other words it is ‘verboten’! The facts certainly don’t bear out this version of reality. Here are some VCAT decisions from the past 5 or 6 months where permits were granted for backyard double storeys –

19 Wilks St., North Caulfield

38 Victoria St, Elsternwick

60 Neville St., Carnegie

312 Glen Eira road, Elsternwick

9 Brian St., Bentleigh East (council itself granted a permit for this one and confirmed by VCAT)

24 Marara Rd., South Caulfield (2 double storey attached dwellings)

3 Osborne Ave., Bentleigh (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

7 Irving Ave., Murrumbeena (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

Since the introduction of the new zones there have been numerous applications for exactly this type of development. We list some of them here:

22 Waratah St., Bentleigh

36 Adrian St., Bentleigh East

18 Beddoe Avenue, Bentleigh

32 Seaview Caulfield South

Nothing but nothing in council’s old planning scheme, or the new, prevents this kind of development. All council has been able to come up with for the past 12 years is: “Discourage the siting of two storey or multiple storey dwellings at the rear of sites.” And that’s only when it suits! VCAT has repeatedly ignored this as has council itself.

If council was really serious in enforcing its own planning scheme and doing its utmost (as it claims) to protect minimal change, then all those applications listed immediately above should have been rejected outright under manager delegation. Instead they remain on the planning register awaiting decision – whereas applications for subdivision and other forms of development receive the nod in the matter of days! We will keep a very close eye on these applications.

We have no doubt that if councillors reject this application and it goes to VCAT that the council decision will be laughed out of court!

Morton Avenue Carnegie 

This is an amended permit application in a commercial zone for a 6 storey, 40 unit, 1 shop and loading and car parking waivers. Ron Torres has given the go ahead. The original permit was for 4 storeys and 20 dwellings; now it’s gone up to 6 storey and double the number of dwellings – all one and 2 bedroom units.

Inaccuracies, or deliberate misleading information is ever present. We’re told: The site is included in the Mixed Use (East) precinct of the Carnegie Urban Village. It’s not! This is zoned as Commercial 1! Torres goes on to state that the proposal is ‘consistent’ with policy because there already are 4 storeys in the area and a permit was just granted for 5 storeys – so now 6 storeys doesn’t matter. Pity that the argument regarding ‘precedent’ used for the Bolinda application has suddenly gone out the window!

But there’s more:

  • Parking and loading bay waivers are fine because the shop is ‘small’. Perhaps someone should tell Torres that the size of a shop has got absolutely nothing to do with the size of the truck rolling up to deliver goods and its need for adequate parking provision! As for the number of customers, well who bothers going to small shops these days according to this logic?
  • No specifics are given anywhere, and terminololgy such as ‘no unreasonable’ overshadowing abounds.
  • Nor is there any valid and quantified explanation as to why council’s own Traffic Department has been overruled when that officer believes: The parking demand associated with visitors to the site should be provided onsite. As such a provision of 5 parking spaces is considered warranted.
  • There are also comments about stackers, setbacks from the street, lack of daylight for some dwellings, small narrow balconies.

Thus on countless standards this proposal fails outright. Yet the recommendation is to grant a permit albeit with conditions. Thus anything goes as far as council is concerned in housing diversity, mixed use and commercial zones. Glen Eira is thus actively encouraging a system which cannot adequately protect minimal change, but worse, those residents living in housing diversity and/or commercial or mixed use do not warrant any consideration whatsoever as to open space, height limits, parking, site coverage and so on. The system deliberately fosters inequality and officer reports are part and parcel of the public relations arm of the administration.

 

October 18, 2013

Policies, Strategies & Plain Old Humbug!

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

Readers may remember that at the second last council meeting Cr Delahunty was not satisfied with an answer to a public question and asked that the question be responded to adequately either directly to the resident or via herself.   From the resident’s latest public question, it is clear that in the space of three weeks no further communication had been entered into! Below is the question and council’s ‘new’ response. Please note the implications of what is being stated, namely:

  • Glen Eira Council’s policies and/or strategies are indeed ‘flexible’ beasts, able to be changed, altered, ignored, or simply not adhered to whenever suits
  • The above may occur without full council approval
  • Decision makers on what will change and when, is left strictly in the hands of those ‘faceless’ and unaccountable administrators

Here’s the question and the response:

“The response given to my public question (24 Sep 2013), apart from being demonstrably wrong on most points, was not relevant to my question, so I am resubmitting in the hope of getting accurate information from either Councillor Delahunty (who said at the last meeting she would make inquiries), other councillors, or the administration. Earlier this year, after rows of exotic trees were planted in Marara Road Reserve, which is designated for native plantings, the council explained that the 1988 written strategy had been superseded.

1. If the 1998 strategy is superseded then where is this decision recorded, and

2. who made the decision, and

3. why was the strategy superseded, and

4. when was the strategy superseded?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“I refer you to the answer given to your Public Question at the 24 September 2013 Council Meeting and add the following:

The 1998 Open Space Strategy has provided Council with a strategic framework to guide its approach to open space. Council has been able to implement many of its recommendations. The strategy has not been superseded.

From time to time changes and developments happen or issues come to light that create the need to change, modify or amend a specific part of a wider guiding strategy. This happened in the case of the specific matter you refer to.

The reasons for recently planting exotics in the reserve are outlined in response to your 24 September 2013 Public Question.”

No further utterance from any councillor when this was read out. We can only assume that silence is consent and that appropriate governance does not concern those sitting in chamber!

 

October 16, 2013

Still Going Round The Mulberry Bush – 10 Years On!

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

TREE REGISTER

Lipshutz moved motion not to accept Tree Register. Seconded by Okotel.

LIPSHUTZ: started by saying that this has been up at council many times and that it’s a ‘vexed’ issue and many in the community want a register for the ‘best of our best trees’. Claimed that it was ‘a very long and ardous process’ that the Local Law Committee went through in trying to determine how this could be achieved and the other major consideration was the ‘protection of property rights’ and ‘the two don’t mix’. Said that trees on public land are ‘protected’ by council but this is ‘your own land’ and you should be able to protect that ‘as you wish’. Went on to give example of someone with a significant tree and ‘if they want to develop their land’ then ‘they will not be able to do so’. There’s also the question of ‘how do you determine what is a significant tree?’. Problem is that ‘some third party’ will ‘make that decision’ and that worries him. Said that heritage advisors come along and decide that something is heritage ‘when many people think it is not heritage’ so then they ‘can’t develop can’t do what they want to do on their own land’. In his opinion when ‘you buy your land it is your land’ so you can ‘deal with it as you wish’. Gave the example again of when he bought his place and there were trees which he kept but over the years they’ve now gone. He isn’t referring to ‘moonscaping’ because what he’s on about is simply ‘people who want to develop their land’. In the end it’s a ‘toss up’ as to what people think is more important – ‘other people’s trees’ because no-one ‘really puts their own trees on the register’ or ‘property rights’. He thinks property rights are important and that’s why there is the motion.

OKOTEL: thought that council already has ‘appropriate mechanisms in place’ to stop moonscaping and removal of trees. Went through the options in the officer’s report and said that trees are ‘protected’ under ‘our current scheme’. Said that ‘we do have regulations against moonscaping’ such as the penalties. Admitted that the register was only applicable to trees on private and not public land. Said that it is ‘incumbent’ on council to look after trees that ‘are important’ on public land and that at times councillors have ‘robust discussions’ about chopping down trees in parks that are ‘dear’ to residents and that she ‘would welcome’ the community having input into those trees about whether they should be ‘retained or not’. But in relation to the motion she thought that the ‘only appropriate action’ for council was not to impinge on property rights. People themselves are ‘capable’ of looking after their own trees ‘if it is important’ to them and if they’ve got a ‘sentimental attachment to the tree’ or ‘if it is particularly beautiful’.  So in these circumstances people would ‘themselves look after’ that tree so there is ‘no need’ for the register. ‘Endorsed’ Lipshutz’s comments that ‘at the end of the day it is someone’s property’ and they should be able to do ‘what they like, of course, within limits’. Having a tree register will be ‘costly to council’ and it’s not ‘cheap to hire consultants’ to go round identifying trees, ‘prosecute people’. Rather than spending money on this she’d be in favour of using that money to plant more trees. Thought that planting trees in streets where there aren’t trees and around roundabouts would be a ‘far more useful’ use of money than a register and forcing people to ‘maintain trees that they may not want’. People should be able to make decisions about ‘what’s best for their property’ and even ‘what’s best for their tree’.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got a view of the local law and would expect that it shouldn’t be so ‘obstructive’ and ‘bureaucratic’ ‘as the current one’. Whilst the community plan recommended the ‘introduction of a local law’ he feels that ‘there was a lost opportunity’ to find out from the community what ‘kind of local law’ they are ‘amendable to’. Said that his preferred option would be to discover how the community and council can come to some resolution on how best to preserve the ‘residential landscape’. Thought that what is presented is ‘the wrong approach’ because there are ‘many ways of doing things’. As it stands there are opportunities for appeal but that would take ‘weeks, months’ and then other people would sit on the review. Said that the East West tunnel proposal has got less appeal rights than this document for a tree. ‘Recognised’ that trees are ‘an emotional matter’ and that council has got a duty as ‘custodians’ but that council ‘could be more friendly’ to residents who want trees protected. Accepted that the planning scheme provides protection and this was ‘valuable’ but there’s the need for ‘more conversations about that’. Said he’d vote against the motion and if lost then he is foreshadowing another motion – that council accepts Option B. (ie planning scheme amendment).

MAGEE: said that his view is ‘selfish’. He’s in favour of council protecting trees in parks and on nature strips but on private land that’s something that ‘belongs to myself and my family’. And from this he thinks that only he and his family have got the ‘right to decide what trees grow on our land’. Said he’s lived on his block for 27 years and it’s been cleared twice and revegetated and he is even thinking now of putting in a swimming pool, so the land will be cleared again. ‘I will fight for my right and my neighbour’s rights’ to do what they want with their land. Residents have got the right to ‘decide what tree they plant’ or ‘whether they take it away’. Went through the current ‘protections’ from the planning department. Claimed that ‘99% of those who live in Glen Eira would not deliberately destroy their gardens’. A tree register ‘is fine on council land, but not on my land’.

ESAKOFF: shouldn’t have controls on people ‘in their own gardens’ from pruning. She is ‘a firm believer’ that people ‘love’ the trees they’ve got in their gardens and they don’t remove them ‘unless there’s a valid need to do so’. Didn’t think that council has the ‘right’ to impose restrictions on what people ‘can do in their own gardens’ since there’s already enough ‘red tape and hoops for people to jump through’. Went on to say that all the complaints that she’s heard about relate to moonscaping and developers and not one about what people do in their ‘back gardens’ and there are good protections currently existing via what council already has to deal with moonscaping.  Mentioned ResCode and how this ‘removes the advantage that developers gain’. Permits also come with conditions that trees can’t be removed but this also has a ‘down side’ because years later there’s the request for a change in condition so these trees which are now ‘causing damage’ can be removed. There have to be avenues of appeal with the tree register because that would make it ‘fair’ and to remove ‘those rights of appeal would not be a fair process’. Said that ‘my position remains unchanged’ and that she is against ‘tree control in Glen Eira’.

PILLING: said there’s a ‘lot of history’ here and it’s not about ‘tree control’ but ‘tree register’. Part of community plan as well and it’s not about ‘being selfish’ as Magee stated. Said that many ‘councils have the approach’ of Option C (ie local law). Went over some of the history such as previous council’s majority vote to go ahead with register. Thought this was a ‘modest, reasonable proposal that most other councils do’. Thought that the community would readily accept this. That was already approved with the approval of the community plan but ‘what’s come back’ from the local laws committee is ‘way over the top’ and that the committee has been ‘over zealous’ . Also thought that the argument on ‘property rights’ was ‘way overstated’ since there already are many laws which restrict what property owners can do such as fences, pergolas, etc and this is ‘no different’.  Said if the motion failed then he’s also foreshadowing a motion that this go back to the local laws committee and that they ‘redraft’ a proposal on the ‘same basis’ as other permits.

LOBO: said that the vast majority of residents believe that councils only deal with ‘rates, rubbish and roads’ even though they keep saying ‘in chambers’ that councils do much more.  Thought that having a tree register is ‘a dictatorial way’ since ‘we are saying that this tree in your house cannot be touched’. Went on to extrapolate from this by saying that ‘tomorrow we will say’ that ‘this child of yours cannot get married’ and ‘this child of yours cannot leave the house’. Didn’t understand why anyone could ‘come in my yard and look at my tree’ and they could even ‘look through the toilet’. Said he was ‘against this and I agree with Cr Sounness’.

HYAMS: began by saying that if Lobo was against the register then he shouldn’t be agreeing with Sounness. Didn’t agree with Lipshutz but did agree that it’s about ‘competing considerations’ such as protecting ‘people’s property rights’ opposed to ‘protecting neighbourhood character’. Admitted that it’s ‘not quite true’ that council doesn’t interfere with ‘people’s properties’ and gave the example of the new zones where 80% of people are told that they ‘can only build 2’ units on their land. So ‘regardless of what they want to do’ this is now the situation. Same applies for heritage areas. Overall, ‘it’s a balancing act’. Current planning law is ‘about any tree on the property’ and not just ‘landscaping’, so ‘we already do that’ (ie protect what’s on private property) and ‘no one is saying we shouldn’t do that’. It’s not about ‘protecting every tree in Glen Eira’ but just those deemed ‘valuable’. Not saying ‘you can’t prune the tree’ because the local law says you can prune up to 25% of the tree ‘before it’s considered lopping’. Aim is to ‘strike a balance’ between protection of neighbourhoods and ‘letting people do what they want on their own property’ and a tree register ‘does that’.  So he’s in favour of a ‘minimal’ tree register in contrast to what other councils have.

LIPSHUTZ: said that when the local laws committee first started thinking about the issue they knew that council just wanted a ‘bare bones’ register. But with investigation they found that it was ‘not possible to do that’. Said that Sounness’ and Pilling’s argument about the East West tunnel and the lack of appeal rights is correct, but that doesn’t mean that just because this project hasn’t got enough appeal rights that ‘we shouldn’t have appeal rights here’. Said that there is a ‘whole raft of potential issues’ that have to be taken into consideration like classifying the tree in the first place. Someone who nobody knows, and perhaps nobody trusts comes out to make the decision. What happens then if someone says it’s a classified tree and someone else says it isn’t? That’s why there are appeal rights. Then the tree may be ‘knocked down’ and the owner claims it was dangerous and someone else says ‘no it wasn’t’ and that a planning permit should have been gotten to start with.  So people  have to ‘have appeal rights’. ‘The more and more we went along’ the committee found that it became ‘more and more difficult’. The real issue however is ‘whether we have the tree register at all’. If there’s a register then in his view you ‘can’t have a bare bones law’ but something that ‘deals with every eventuality’ so that in the end it ‘becomes quite complex’. ‘Do we want to dictate to our neighbours that you must have this or not’. He would guess that Glen Eira has got plenty of significant trees but if council approached the owners and said we think your tree is significant and ‘would like to put a covenant on your property’ they would be opposed. He thinks that it would be ‘some third party coming along’ and demanding that trees of neighbours be put on the register. If by chance there are owners in Glen Eira ‘who are so committed to their trees’ then ‘they are welcome to put covenants on their property’.

MOTION PUT AND VOTE WENT 4 TO 4. VOTING FOR THE MOTION NOT TO HAVE A TREE REGISTER – LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL AND MAGEE. VOTING AGAINST MOTION – LOBO, PILLING, SOUNNESS AND HYAMS.

HYAMS: said that he was ‘surprised’ at Lobo’s vote for a tree register given that he ‘had spoken so much against the tree register’

LOBO: claimed that he had changed his mind after ‘hearing you and Michael’ – ‘that’s my prerogative’.

HYAMS: confirmed that it’s Lobo’s prerogative and that he would be voting against the motion with his casting vote.

MOTION THEREFORE LOST AND PILLING MOVED MOTION THAT THE REGISTER GO BACK TO LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE AND ‘TONED DOWN’ AND BE ON THE BASIS OF OTHER COUNCILS. SOUNNESS SECONDED.

Both Pilling and Sounness affirmed that they had already made their views known so didn’t speak to the motion. Okotel spoke again.

OKOTEL: said that the issue now revolved around appeal rights and that in other aspects like planning there are appeal rights which are ‘exhaustive’. Said that with planning objectors have rights to make submissions to council, attend dpc or planning conferences and ultimately vcat and even further to the supreme court. Even on simple infringements people can appeal to council, then if not happy to the courts, and all of these involve ‘lengthy periods of time’ and if still unsatisfied people can go to county courts, magistrate courts and then again to supreme court. So for a minor traffic offence of $50 there is leeway to do all the above. Claimed that with the tree register appeals a court won’t ‘deal with such matters’ so there has to be something in the local law that provides that.

LIPSHUTZ: doesn’t support register but if council is going to have it then he’s in favour of 4.1 rather than 4.2. SAid the appeal rights cover all possibilities and ‘allow for representation’ which is important since not too many people know anything about trees. ‘I know nothing about trees, I should be able to have representation there’. Same for damaged trees and if you claim you didn’t damage it and that someone else did, so there ‘ought to be appeal rights’. With a ‘bare bones law’ you can’t ‘have that’ and ‘you have to have appeal rights’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Lipshutz and that if ‘you don’t like dictatorial government’ then ‘you’ve got it in 4.2″ whereas 4.1 ‘leaves avenues of appeal’.

HYAMS: reminded people that if the motion is passed then there still isn’t a tree register but just sending it back to the local laws committee to ‘redraft’ and then ‘putting it out to public consultation’ with the ‘rest of the local law changes’. Then after this ‘consultation’ they make the decision about ‘whether there should be a classified tree register’. ‘This is the opportunity to find out what the community wants’. If they don’t ‘put it out for community consultation’ then there might be a ‘backlash’ and people saying that’s it’s an infringement on property rights. So Hyams would accept the public views. Said that he ‘wasn’t comfortable’ with either 4.1 or 4.2 because as it stands it’s ‘a bit too comprehensive’  but on the other hand comparing it to other sections of the local law because ‘it is more of an impingement on people’s rights’ than some of the other things in the local law. ‘There should be some appeal rights’ but not sure ‘where they should be’. Said that he’s not voting that ‘there be a classified tree register’ but just moving the process along and ‘to see what the community’ thinks so he will support Pilling’s motion. He also noted that he is probably speaking for Delahunty as well given her views on the subject.

PILLING: re-read the motion. Lipshutz brought up a point of order that what Pilling read out wasn’t ‘what was originally put to council’. Pilling read the motion again. Agreed with Hyams that this was another step in the process and that there would be community involvement on ‘whether they do want a tree register’ or not. This is then ‘the best way forward’.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. LOBO ASKED FOR A DIVISION. IN FAVOUR – SOUNNESS, HYAMS, LOBO, PILLING, MAGEE. AGAINST – ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL.

 

COMMENT

Several things need to be made 100% clear. With typical sleight of hand, Hyams and then followed by Pilling, argue that what will happen is that the community will be ‘involved’ in deciding whether they want a tree register or not. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! When the Local Laws Committee finally gets its act together and produces the draft law, then the LAW will be put out for submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act. This will not be a ‘consultation’ on whether or not the community wants a tree register, but what their view is of the proposed local law addressing the issue. If council was really interested in gauging community feeling on the issue then it could have done this years ago. A simple question such as ‘Are you in favour of……..’ would have sufficed. This has NEVER BEEN DONE and this process will not allow this either. This is not ‘consultation’ on the issue – it is anything but satisfactory consultation – especially when this section of the local law will be enmeshed in countless other ‘changes’ such as the organised sport, (can’t wait for that one and what happens to Frisbee!) and hopefully meeting procedures.

We also need to point out that when Lobo voted FOR the tree register the look on Hyams’ face was priceless. We can only assume that Hyams would have thought that the ‘no tree register’ gang had the motion in the bag and thus he would not be called upon to exercise his casting vote. Having basically spruiked in favour of the register, he was now beholden to vote accordingly and use his casting vote to oppose Lipshutz, Okotel and Esakoff. If planned by Lobo, then we congratulate him on his political manoeuvring!

Finally, we remind readers that in February 2013 when the Tree Register was last on the agenda, Magee voted in favour. Time can certainly do strange things to men of principle!

 

October 16, 2013

C60 & More Trees Get The Chop

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

C60 AMENDMENT

Moved to accept by Esakoff and seconded by Sounness

ESAKOFF: said that council could only express its view on this since it came from the developer to the Minister and it’s the Minister’s decisions as ‘to whether he approves this or not’.  Council can’t abandon the amendment. Said that the over-riding document is the ‘incorporated plan’ and whether the applilcation would meet ‘the requirements of that’. On the various divergences (height) Esakoff said that ‘it’s usual practice to allow for that intrusion’ and for plant equipment ‘sometimes there is a height adjustment there’. Balcony intrustion are also ‘common practice’. Third request on the development plans is ‘simply’ a ‘trigger’ if outside the stipulations. The final change regarding sequencing of building is there to ‘allow flexibility’ within the ‘precinct boundaries’ and ‘that’s considered to have’ ‘no impact and is considered reasonable’. It’s not council’s role to ‘oppose’ the amendment, merely to ‘add some words’ especially about height in the Incorporated Plan and ‘this already applies’ so it’s just a matter of ‘repeating’ the stipulations.

SOUNNESS: thought that developers should have the opportunity for ‘minor’ ‘cosmetic changes’ to ‘facade’ and ‘structure’ of buildings. Admitted that the C60 is ‘contentious’ and ‘I had very little dealing with it’ and that he’s new and that there are ‘strong feelings’ about it. Said that it was ‘worthwhile’ for council to ‘provide helpful commentary’ and that he thought this was ‘quite reasonable’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: not for the first time does Sounness claim ‘innocence’ . That is, he wasn’t involved, he knows nothing. Whilst true, we do not believe that after serving on council for a year that this excuse carries weight any longer. Surely it is not too difficult to ask for previous reports? previous decisions? previous background on all matters? Surely when making decisions for the future of the municipality it is incumbent on councillors to ensure they have a good grasp on what has occurred and why. We note that no councillor and certainly nothing in the officer’s report even came close to justifying why something is earmarked as ‘reasonable’ and why, oh why, not one iota of real information as to what these ‘intrusions’ might mean has been provided. It is council once again acting blindly, or willingly, and making decisions based on no upfront evidence.

KOORNANG RD TREES

Moved by Esakoff and seconded by Pilling

ESAKOFF: said it’s not a ‘simple’ decision because there were ’11 for and 11 against’ the proposal to remove the trees. The ‘best outcome’ is a ‘compromise’ and that’ what she’s looking for. Said that most people against removal of the ‘very old’ cypress ‘hedge’ were concerned about the traffic on Koornang Rd and noise. Said that her proposal would provide something like a ‘buffer’ to the noise. These new planting would replace the ‘partly diseased’ and ‘stressed’ cypress trees. Claimed that these cypresses had ‘been there for a very long time’ even when she was a young girl. Spoke about Caulfield Park and Duncan McKinnon suffering the same fate because the cypresses there were ‘at the end of their useful life’. Hoped that people would be ‘satisfied’ with her ‘compromise’ and that this would ‘bring all parties on board’.

PILLING: thought that Esakoff’s motions addressed ‘some of the concerns’ that people had raised. Was in favour of making parks ‘accessible’ to the community. Said that the cypress trees are ‘in a fairly poor state’  but ‘accepts that there are some concerns’. Said that the concept plans went out to 1500 nearby residents so the responses represent only a ‘small number’ but he still supports the motion.

HYAMS: congratulated Esakoff and Pilling on ‘their efforts’ for a compromise because both council’s and residents’ concerns are dealt with. Council has in the past removed trees but they will be ‘replaced’ so the place won’t be ‘bare’ and then said that one of the most vocal opponents to removal of trees at Duncan McKinnon had rung him  months after they were removed and told him that he ‘was right’ and that the place is improved.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

October 15, 2013

Back To The Drawing Board!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s)
1 Comment 

Here’s a rundown of council decisions from tonight. The full reports in coming days. It should be noted that Delahunty was absent.

  • C60 Amendment – passed unanimously in about 2.5 minutes
  • Koornang Rd trees – all to go. This took about 5 minutes to decide.
  • Tree Register – back to Local Laws committee. About 20 minutes of awe inspiring argument – we are joking of course!
  • Magee’s request for a report that police not use council land for hidden traffic cameras – longest ‘debate’ of the evening perhaps. Shows a fantastic grasp of priorities by these councillors.
  • Open Space strategy – passed unanimously – maybe 6 minutes.

It would also appear that the penny has well and truly dropped for Cr Lobo in his realisation that he will not be Mayor next year. Lobo provided the fireworks tonight and achieved one spectacular result – pulling the rug from under Hyams feet on the Tree Register item. More on this soon.

All in all, another evening of stunning grandstanding, misleading statements (ie cypress trees are only ‘hedges’) and arguments based on anecdote, emotions, and very, very short on substance, logic, and plain old ‘facts’.

 

October 11, 2013

Cramming It All In – As Per Usual!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Cramming It All In – As Per Usual! 

Tuesday night’s agenda contains at least 4 crucial items for decision and discussion –

  • The Draft Open Space Strategy
  • The Tree Register
  • Caulfield Racecourse and the C60
  • Koornang Park removal of Cypress Trees

We will need some time to fully digest the implications of all these documents and recommendations. What is obvious from a superficial reading is:

  • Nothing much will change in terms of open space – everything is qualified by the term ‘where feasible’ – the typical Glen Eira Council jargon for ‘we will decide what, when and if something is ‘feasible’.
  • Developers have hit another home run with the mooted changes to the Incorporated Development Scheme for C60. Council officers do not see too much wrong with ‘little’ changes such as intrusions, height, etc.
  • It’s ironic that when on the one hand council consistently states its commitment to trees and landscape in Glen Eira it is again so willing to take out the  axes to an entire group of trees in Koornang Park. Taken together with the lame waffle that constitutes the tree register report (no author assigned of course!) developers are again given a free hand to remove as many trees as they like.

We urge all residents to carefully read these agenda items. We will provide our analysis of each in the next few days.

 

September 30, 2013

Words Of Wisdom Or Newtonspeak?

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

Below we feature the ‘discussion’ from Tuesday night’s council meeting on a 3 storey development in Centre Rd. We certainly would not dignify this by employing the word ‘debate’. Please read and laugh at the nonsense continually perpetrated on residents under the guise of ‘informed decision making’!

Pilling moved motion to accept. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: noted that this was housing diversity, 3 storeys, 2 shops, and car parking will mainly be ‘out of hours’ so there’s a waiver for car parking. ‘All in all, this is a very modest proposal’ for an area that ‘can take’ extra ‘diversity’.

OKOTEL: agreed with Pilling and that the proposal is for 8 dwellings and 2 shops in 3 storeys but the ‘original application’ had been for 4 storeys but ‘because of council’s concern’ this was now reduced.  ‘Given the other buildings nearby’ of 4 or more storey developments so this is ‘not an overdevelopment’ and if it went to VCAT ‘it would be highly unlikely’ that the permit was refused.

LOBO: said he visited the site on two days and the proposal was ‘good’ and no objections, there is a ‘major concern’ of the laneway which is used as a shortcut to go to the pub for ‘glasses of beer’.  People from neighbouring municipalities also use this laneway to avoid the busy intersection. So residents ‘will suffer’ from both noise and ‘space’. 2 other developments are on the cards and there will be about 17 or 18 ‘rubbish bins’  from ‘businesses’ ‘kept near the parking area’. There will be a ‘lot of stench because food smells’. Talked about the need to ‘find ways to have a compromise’ and that the planning department had told him that the laneway is not council property.  The question then becomes ‘what to do with the traffic’ that uses the laneway? ‘I’m not against the development but I’m against the process’. ‘We have to get process right’ because this makes council ‘transparent’. If the process isn’t right then ‘it is assumed we are not transparent’.

MAGEE: ‘it’s not a nice development’ and they are ‘taking out one shop and squeezing on 8 developments’. ‘But it is in the right position’. To answer Lobo, Magee said that there is a ‘waste management plan’ and on process ‘I think the process is right’ because of what they’ve implemented which is a ‘very stringent process’. If council wants to ‘encourage development in shopping strips’ he can live with 2 shops instead of one, even though he ‘wouldn’t be racing out to buy one of the units’ . For anyone living close to shopping centres then they ‘know what happens in the laneway’. Admitted that the extra traffic would be ‘imposed on those residents’ living close by and when they bought their properties 10 or 20 years ago they ‘certainly did not see this happening’. In 30 years he’d never ‘gone up that laneway once’ and certainly not to get a ‘glass of beer’. He will support the application because ‘you can support it without liking it’ and ‘developer does have the right’ to go for ‘the maximum’ and ‘the planning scheme allows that’. So that’s the policy and he will ‘support it’.

HYAMS: as a ward councillor here he needed to say something and he supported most of what’s already been said. Stated that the question that councillors have to ask is whether the application ‘complies with the planning scheme’. If yes, then ‘we approve it’. Since the plans now remove one storey it won’t ‘impose’ on height and bulk. The waiving of visitor and retail parking spots is ‘justified’ because the spot now for office is only one and replacing this with a ‘shop won’t make any difference’. On the visitor spot, well ‘people tend to have visitors mostly when’ the shops are already closed and there’s ‘more parking around’. Said he’d been down there and there’s timed parking until 5.30 so that when visitors do come that time period will have expired and they can park there. The problem with the laneway will be solved by ‘screening’. Waste management plan will take care of bins and there will be a construction management plan too so the laneway won’t be blocked. ‘We’re told’ that overshadowing ‘won’t affect solar panels’. Dentist next door was worried about impacting on their business but ‘that’s not part of the planning process’. Said there was an agreement between developer and objectors about installing skylights and ‘they can agree if they want’ but it’s ‘not something by law that we can put in the planning permit’. So ‘I don’t necessarily have to like it but if it fits into our planning scheme’ then it will be approved.

PILLING: in response to Lobo’s concern about ‘amenity’ reiterated that there is a waste management plan and construction management plan which will ‘try to protect residents’. Laneway and managing traffic is long term and important and that’s ‘an ongoing’ process. There are problems with ‘traffic volumes in side streets’ so ‘that’s a long ongoing issue’. Application ‘does comply with planning scheme’ so ‘on that basis I will certainly be supporting the motion’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED – LOBO AGAINST.

 

September 27, 2013

Being Dragged Screaming Into The 21st Century?

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

We feature 2 more items from Tuesday night’s council meeting – the Delahunty Request for a Report on recording council meetings and the non-answer to a public question. The latter comes from the now published minutes.

DELAHUNTY: said that there had recently been a ‘flurry’ of councils providing recordings and videos of their council meetings. ‘I think it’s a great idea’. If people can’t show up to the meeting then they can watch it at their leisure. It will also help people ‘understand the values we impart’ and ‘how we come to a decision’ and ‘helps with participation’. Not fully supportive of visual recordings but if the issue is to be investigated then ‘might as well’ have all the information up front. ‘What’s said is most important’. It’s ‘moving into the area’ of ‘what other municipalities are doing’ and it’s ‘old fashioned’ to ‘expect people to rock up’ to council meetings all the time.

MAGEE: likes the idea but didn’t at first. Residents often ask ‘what happened at the council meeting?’ and he can’t always remember what was said. Recording would therefore be ‘an opportunity for people to look back at particular items’. Said that he’s been watching the videos of Kingston and Dandenong ‘and they are atrocious’ so ‘we would really have to life our game if we looked like that’. In those council meetings the Mayor tells the gallery that it’s being recorded so there are legal questions that could be added to the report. Since the town hall is a ‘heritage building’ then every ‘infrastructure we put in we have to be very careful of’ and that ‘maybe we can’t facilitate’ the recordings. Thought that in 2013 ‘there is a need’ for recordings.

LOBO: ‘excellent idea’ and it’s like a ‘performance report on a monthly basis from residents’. They can be seen by residents on ‘how we perform’. ‘We should not be scared’. ‘Directors have to be appraised by Andrew Newton’ and for councillors when people want to ‘look how they behave, professional or unprofessional’ then the recordings will tell them.  ‘Even if a mayor acts unprofessional…has to be seen by the residents’. Residents ‘should know’ so when the elections come up they know (hand gestures) who to vote for (the implication).

DELAHUNTY: would be amazed if there was any consequences about heritage. Couldn’t see how placing a tripod with a camera in the corner could be a heritage problem. Hoped that councillors would support the call for a report which was to tell them if they can do this and not the merits of doing it.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PUBLIC QUESTION

Subject: Marara Road Reserve
“Glen Eira Council has a written strategy, as part of the Open Space Strategy 1998, to plant out the Marara Road Reserve with indigenous species so as to form a corridor for native fauna to move to and from the parks of Glen Eira, a strategy
widely accepted by ecologists. Earlier this year, after rows of exotic trees were planted in Marara Road Reserve, the council explained that the 1988 written policy had been superseded.
1. If the 1998 policy is superseded then where is this decision recorded, and
2. who made the decision, and
3. why was the policy superseded, and
4. when was the policy superseded? “
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Since the finalisation of the 1998 Open Space Strategy, Council has completed the trail.
In the recent past Council’s Park Services Department planted shade trees along the shared path in Marara Road Reserve, a combination of Acer platanoides and Fraxinus pennsylvanica both exotics.

Council’s arborist selected these species because:
 They are medium to large trees when mature providing good shade;
 They are suitable for the soil profile in the park;
 They do not have aggressive roots, unsuitable for planting near the path;
 They do not cause excessive leaf litter that may cause a hazard to path users; and
 They are not prone to tree diseases present in the current tree population in the area.

Although the strategy did specify native trees, natives were not appropriate in this instance because the larger native trees:
 Have aggressive root systems that would damage the path over time; and/or
 Have woody fruit litter which may cause the path to become slippery; and/or
 Are susceptible to leaf skeletoniser pests which are current active in the area.”

At this point the following exchange took place –

DELAHUNTY: Wondered if she ‘could ask a question’

HYAMS: ‘You can make a statement’ or give your own answer ‘but you can’t ask a question’

After giving her statement Hyams then said ‘it’s been pointed out to me that’ this isn’t a ‘policy, it’s a strategy’

Delahunty then went on to state – “I don’t feel that the answer given there actually answers the substance of the question which was has the policy been superseded and so in my statement what I will seek to do is ask that question myself and put that through our Councillor request system and see if I can’t get an answer to that question to Mr XXXXXX (omitted)  of Balaclava Road Caulfield North.”

 

September 26, 2013

More Fun & Games

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONCERTS

Sounness moved motion that Friends of Caulfield Park receive $1000 for promotion, performers, etc. and that receipts be provided and that this is only a ‘once off grant’. Lipshutz seconded.

SOUNNESS: went over history that FOCP had applied for a grant but not all of their application was in line with grant guidelines. Felt that the group’s objectives were directed to the ‘wider community’. Also said that the motion ‘is exceptional’ and that the FOCP have to become ‘sustainable’ and ‘it should not be a continuation of funds’ for them to continue holding these concerts. They should ‘actively’ look for other means of support such as through ‘advertising’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Caulfield Park was our ‘premier park’ and that last year’s concert was ‘very successful’. He ‘liked the idea’ of using the bandstand but council shouldn’t just give community groups this money since ‘if they want to do’ these things then they ‘should raise the money themselves’ and ‘become sustainable’.  Thought the project ‘was good’ in that it’s ‘community based and will be good for the community’. Stated that council was using ‘ward funds to do this’ and that this has ’caused some concern’ in other councils since ward funds are ‘discretionary’ and therefore they can be used in ways that are ‘not so transparent’. Glen Eira in contrast is ‘putting it to the whole council’ so that it is fully transparent and ‘all above board’. He therefore supports the motion but it’s impoortant to ‘recognise quite clearly that this is a one off’ and won’t happen again ‘next year’.

ESAKOFF: stated that she ‘continued to hold the view’ that the Community grants process got it right that the FOCP were funded for the bandstand itself but not the rest. Went on to talk about the Arts and Culture program and how Glen Eira holds a broad range of events ‘which includes entertainment in our parks’. Thought that this bandstand series organised by FOCP ‘duplicates what council does’ and for her wherever the money comes from ‘it is still ratepayer money’ and shouldn’t be used for a ‘duplication of what we do’. She didn’t ‘want to be a killjoy’ but she needs to be convinced that ‘this is not a duplication’.

DELAHUNTY: said that Esakoff raised important governance issues about the use of discretionary ward funds. Didn’t think that this was ‘duplication’ since the bandstand has been ‘underused’ in the past. Said that the concerts achieved what ‘council hasn’t managed to be able to do’ since council does things ‘on a very large scale’ and this is different. Said that it’s ‘fantastic’ that a community group is willing to run with this and ‘do something positive’. She was confident that this would ‘become a self-sustaining event’ and councillors can help with advice and support.

PILLING: said that concerns had been raised but it’s transparent since they’re deciding this ‘tonight’ in open council.

LOBO: ‘I have the floor’. Said that it’s important to encourage people but ‘at the same time we should not eat the flesh on the bone and throw the bone’ to ‘wolves’ or being ‘licked by dogs’.  Said that definition of professional is ‘to behave as one should and not as one feels’ so those who make decisions have to make these decisions ‘with their mind’ and not ‘their heart’. Stated that he ‘wasn’t very happy with this small piece of bone’ and it’s like being a deputy mayor where ‘nothing is given’ but just ‘a bone is thrown’.

HYAMS: defended Esakoff by saying he didn’t think that anyone ‘should be called a killjoy because’ they’re trying to ensure that ‘council funds’ are used properly. He also thought that Esakoff wasn’t referring to the concerts in the park but to the smaller events like spring music series’ and this could be what she was referring to when saying ‘duplication’. Esakoff agreed with his interpretation. Agreed with the motion and stated that last year an individual artist was granted funding to a mosaic and that wasn’t within the guidelines but they still granted her the money. This ‘is similar’ because it ‘does provide benefit to the community’. Asked that the motion be amended to include the wording ‘ward funds’ and this was accepted by mover and seconder.

SOUNNESS: saw this as 2 issues – ward funds and supporting community groups. This is transparent and making good use of the bandstand for the community. Wanted resources to be used better and this was one way of doing it. Went through what the program would be and said he was ‘proud’ to support Friends of Caulfield Park.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. ESAKOFF VOTED AGAINST.

++++++++++++++++++++++

URGENT BUSINESS

Lipshutz moved the motion that the Local Law committee make some recommendations regarding the ‘operation’ of Urgent Business. Okotel seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: reminded everyone that the Notice of Motion had been rejected recently because with Urgent Business the ‘system worked very well’. It works now that if something crops up between the issuing of the agenda and council meeting it can have the status of ‘urgent business’. The committee will look at the issue and make recommendations on ‘how best to deal with that’ and then report back to council.

OKOTEL: did not say anything.

SOUNNESS: wanted to ‘clarify’ the ‘nature of urgent business’. Read out the relevant clause from the Local Law and said that there was not ‘great clarity’ as to what could be considered as urgent. Went on to question whether ‘sunshine’ is urgent and wanted more ‘clarity’.

DELAHUNTY: was happy for the committee to ‘have a look at it’ as this might address ‘some of the gaps that were found without having a notice of motion’ but then the logic says if gaps were found then why not have a notice of motion? ‘It doesn’t seem to be necessary to me’ and would involve ‘a lot of work for really no gain’. ‘But then, here we are’ and ‘onward’!

COMMENT: how informative! and what happened to the usual Lipshutz slogan – ‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT’?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Pilling moved motion and included that public be ‘involved’ in restoration options. Magee seconded.

PILLING: Went over the ‘consultation process’ and how this was ‘thoroughly done’. Hoped that councillors would support his motion.

MAGEE: said that this had come up 5 years ago and that there had been at least 3 decisions on the conservatory in the recent past. Said that it was now ‘very, very clear’ what people wanted. They wanted it maintained, restored and ‘they want to use it’ and that was ‘talked about 5 years ago’. ‘And here we are in 2013’ and he hoped that they were going to vote to ‘restore it’.

DELAHUNTY: ‘that’s the process, that’s how it should happen’ that people are asked. ‘I really want to see the community involved in this’ so that in ‘ten years time’ if it comes up again. Wanted community groups to put forward their ‘great ideas’ and that it ‘encourages interaction’. ‘It’s a very clear outcome now’.

LOBO: ‘yes this is democracy, although we ask again and again and again’. To keep asking again and again is an ‘unnecessary process’. The $600,000 from Centenary Park ‘could be used here’. Referred to a letter he had received which criticised his statement that Australia was not democratic. ‘I disagree with him. Yes there is democracy’ but he’s concerned about the ‘processes’ and ‘they are wrong’. Decmocracy should not ‘be made up as you go’.

SOUNNESS: conservatory is a ‘scrappy piece of plastic’ but it will be nice to see it restored. They’ve now got the results of the survey and ‘I’ve got nothing further to say’.

HYAMS: was pleased that ‘we went through this process’ because previously the results were either ‘in favour of the coffee house or inconclusive’. Also ‘last council did change its mind a bit’ but ‘now we have this survey. It is conclusive’ even though ‘it is not what I thought was best for the community’ but was ‘more than happy top go along’ with these results.

PILLING: acknowledged that there were divergent views from councillors but they were motivated by the desire to use ‘the conservatory better’ and ‘this has been justified by the consultation’. Ultimately ‘this is a win for everyone’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

COMMENT: Many things remain unclear.  The current budget allocated $105,000 for ‘restoration’. Exactly what does ‘restoration’ mean? Is this enough to cover the replacement of rotting timbers, paintwork, plantings? Is an extra sum of money even budgeted for? If not, where will this money come from? And the most vital question – when will this ‘restoration’ start and when will it be finished? We remind readers that many ‘capital projects’ undertaken by this council magically seem to fall behind schedule not by months, but by years! We won’t be holding our breath to see work start on this!

Last but not least, a word on ‘transparency’. When one counts up the number of items which are NEVER TABLED at council then it is fair to say that Glen Eira is far from ‘transparent’. According to the above discussions, ‘transparency’ involved information being laid on the table and discussed openly – as suggested in the ‘ward funds’, and ‘consultation’ results. It’s just a pity that this maxim receives so little coverage from both administrators and their all too complaint councillors on far too many occasions.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »