GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

November 22, 2013

Agenda: Recording Council Meetings

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

There are many agenda items of interest for Tuesday night’s meeting. This post will focus only on Paul Burke’s lamentable effort to maintain the status quo and not have audio recordings and/or webcasts of formal council meetings available to the public. The arguments trotted out are entirely predictable and far from convincing.

First off, readers are hit with the suggested cost – $44,000+. Next there is the ‘legal risk’ with statements such as this – Although the likelihood of a defamation action being brought against the Council, individual Councillors or council staff for comments made at a meeting may appear remote, the broadcasting/podcasting of Council Meetings increases the risk due to the larger audience created by the broadcast/podcast of the meeting.

Burke then goes on with this incredible statement – The increased risk is created due to the much wider audience created by the broadcasting/podcasting. Obviously if comments are made at a meeting with no public gallery and the meeting is not broadcast and the comments made receive no publicity it is unlikely that any action would be brought, but this could be different if the meeting is then podcast.

So, are we to assume that it is ‘permissable’ for councillors or administrators to ‘defame’ others when no-one is present in the public gallery, but unacceptable when visitors are present to witness or hear the potential defamation?

What then follows are some attempted distractors such as ‘file size’ and whether people will be able to find the ‘specific items’ that interest them in the recording. Below we feature how simple the solution is and how it does not present any problems whatsoever for Manningham. They simply splice the recordings into the specific agenda items. It shouldn’t take Einstein to figure this out.

Then comes the typical Glen Eira administration tactic of only presenting ‘selective’ rather than full and comprehensive information. Burke lists several councils and their policies and current practice. Not only is this list incomplete – but it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! For example Burke states that Frankston council only provides audio recording for ‘internal use’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s what the Frankston website has got to say on the issue –

Members of the public can request an audio recording of a Council Meeting on CD. This new initiative is to increase the accessibility of Council meetings for those unable to attend in person.

Recordings of Council meetings are available for meetings occurring on or after 6th April 2010. Recordings of Council meetings will be retained for three months only.

On completion of the required details in the form below, a CD will be mailed to the person at the nominated address. Please allow up to 10 working days for the CD to arrive.

Please note that the audio recordings do not constitute an official record of the meeting. The official record of a Council meeting is the Council meeting minutes, which can be accessed on Council’s website or upon request to Council’s Governance unit. (http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Meetings/Council_Meetings_Available_On_CD)

Burke of course does not reveal that there are numerous other councils that broadcast their council meetings. These include:

Melbourne City Council

Hobson’s Bay – Audio recordings of Ordinary and Special Council meetings will be made available for download on the internet via the Council’s website not later than the day following the meeting and will be retained and made publicly available for 12 months following the meeting date. Members of the public may purchase copies of recordings for a fee of $1.00.

Mornington Peninsula – http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Our_Shire/Our_Council/Minutes_Agendas/Council_Meeting_Audio_Recordings

Ballarat – moving towards this with a resolution passed on September 25^th 2013 – http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/1882408/25_september_public_minutes.pdf

There are probably many others that we have not bothered to chase down. Once again the failure of officers to provide accurate and comprehensive information for councillors is unforgiveable. No specific recommendations are part of the item – so it is once again over to councillors to make a stand and to earn their keep. Will transparency win out over secrecy? Will the rhetoric of increasing public interest and participation stand up or will councillors merely ‘note’ the report and consign this to the dustbin of history for another 3 or 4 years? Will Burke be told to rewrite and this time ensure that he earns his $200,000+ pa salary by providing accurate information or will it be passed off as another ‘clerical error?

Allowing residents to actually hear the continual shenanigans, the appalling level of debate, the inconsistencies, and the repeated failures of good governance is not something that this council and its administrators want to publicise. Transparency and accountability are anathema. That’s why we will continue to provide what we regard as a vital public service in reporting on each council meeting.

PS: HERE ARE A FEW MORE COUNCILS THAT DON’T HAVE THE ‘PRIVACY’ AND ‘RISK’ ISSUES THAT GLEN EIRA ALWAYS SEEMS TO HAVE. THEY HAVE INSTITUTED AUDIO AND LIVE BROADCASTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE IT WOULD APPEAR!

Greater Bendigo – Council meetings are broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7Mhz. http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/About_us/The_Council/Council_meeting_agendas_and_minutes

Moyne Shire Council – http://www.moyne.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=2562&h=0

Wellington Shire Council – http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/Your-Council/Council-Meetings/Live-Council-Meetings

November 15, 2013

Quiet! Genuises At Work!

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

Item 9.3: BOLINDA ST APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept officer recommendation to refuse application and Magee seconded.

PILLING: began by describing location – ie minimal change, alongside park – and then went on to say that it’s been rejected because ‘for the last ten years’ council policy has ‘discouraged’ second store dwellings at the rear of properties. Admitted that on ‘corner block(s)’ they allowed such applications but with ‘appropriate setbacks’ and because this was near parkland it shouldn’t have ‘special dispensation’ from policy. Thought the recommendations were ‘appropriate’ since ‘this is contrary to what we’ve tried to achieve’ and ‘sets a precedent’ about houses alongside parks. Therefore ‘we need to try and apply our policy’.

MAGEE: started by saying that the site would have to be ‘rated amongst the top sites’ in Glen Eira. He didn’t ‘think for a minute’ that ‘local amenity’ wouldk be affected but the recommendations are a ‘sensible outcome’ and the ‘simple fact that we do have a policy’ and then the ‘personal view comes into it or it doesn’t’ and the question of whether ‘this is the right thing to do’. ‘It wouldn’t be allowed in the house next door’ or behind so councillors are ‘conflicted’. Overall ‘it’s not consistent without current policy’ and ‘not fair to residents’.

LOBO: called the site ‘an ideal place’ and promised ‘not to bang the table’. ‘I don’t believe that we have not made an exception’. Stated that this ‘looks at the park’ and that there’s another development that ‘looks at the kittens’ and asked ‘what is good – to look at the kittens or look at the park?’. Said that since no objections and ‘residents are happy with neighbours’ he doesn’t see ‘any problem’. ‘Policies, policies, policies – who made them?’ Asked whether these policies were the ‘ten commandments’? ‘Policies can be bent’ but not the commandments. Thought that the recommendations were ‘cruel’.

ESAKOFF: said this was ‘difficult’ and that it ‘should’ be seen as a corner block and allowed double storey in rear, but on the other hand ‘I don’t necessarily agree with that practice’. There are always neighbours. Said that what complicates this further is the lack of objections. ‘Suggested that to approve this may cause a precedent at VCAT’ but she wasn’t ‘so sure’ about this since it would be seen as a corner block and ‘that doesn’t create an issue at VCAT’. Admitted that the application ‘complies’ with other standards apart form 1m front setback which she thought ‘is no fatal flaw’. Claimed that she didn’t know ‘how I’m going to vote’ so wanted to listen to the debate and ‘vote accordingly’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was ‘in two minds’ on this application. First he thought ‘no’ because ‘it goes against our policy’ but after looking at the site he thinks that ‘we have policy but policy is not law’….’I don’t think we want to be hard bound by policy’. All policy does is ‘gives us a framework’ and ‘you have to look at each site individually’. Went on to say that since there weren’t any objections and that it ‘abuts’ open space he would ‘reject’ the recommendations. Foreshadowed another motion on conditions. Reiterated that ‘we have to look at each case on an individual basis’. Said he was ‘concerned’ that council ‘should be adhering to policy’ and that VCAT wouldn’t be impressed if they didn’t stick to policy – but ‘equally VCAT’s record’ is that they ‘look at things individually’ so since VCAT ‘is so all over the shop’ he thinks that ‘no harm is done’ and that it’s ‘appropriate’ to make an exception on this application.

SOUNNESS: said that ‘this is a park’ and council is the ‘custodian’ of such facilities so council shouldn’t set aside ‘the requirements and policy’. Was worried that in the future all properties abutting parks would suddenly ‘bob up’ with two storeys.So this is an ‘uncomfortable precedent to have’.

OKOTEL: agreed that there is policy and it’s ‘important that we do apply our policy’. Stated that you should look at the reasons why there’s specific policies and in this case it was to prevent ‘overlooking’ and ‘visual bulk’. She felt though that the policy ‘doesn’t consider situtions like this’. Thought setbacks could be better but overall when applying policy councillors ‘need to look at the purpose of those policies’ and ‘what we are intending to protect’ so the ‘recommendations perhaps goes too far’.

HYAMS: this is ‘tough one’. Noted that those in favour of policy here weren’t in favour of policy in the previous item (Morton Ave. Thought that the policy on back yard double storeys was ‘pretty black and white’ and it was ‘to protect neighbourhood amenity’. Even though there are no objections, the policy is put in place not just for the ‘current owners of land’ but also for ‘future owners of land’ and if ‘future owners don’t like it, they don’t need to buy it’ and that would answer that argument. Thought in the end that ‘it is appropriate’ and they can’t complain that VCAT ignores their policies and then they do so themselves. But ‘we do need to look behind those policies’ to see the objectives and if amenity isn’t affected then maybe it’s not so bad. And council does put in side by side 2 storeys all over the place, with setbacks anyway. Said he looked at another motion if this one is lost about increasing upper floor setbacks.So since noone is affected here apart from the developer Hyams set that he is ‘going against gut feeling and policy’ and rejecting the recommendations.

PILLING: objections are ‘only part’ of the process and only ‘one consideration’ and besides ‘residents move on, owners change’. Saw this as ‘contravening’ policy and if the application was successful then he didn’t like the idea that this could be seen as ‘special treatment’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

Lipshutz then moved an alternate motion that LASTED LEAST 10 MINUTES IN READING OUT. During his recitation it was literally musical chairs with councillors getting up and leaving chambers. Seconded by Lobo.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to repeat what he’d previously said but the conditions imposed were ‘appropriate’ and looks at overdevelopment in the future.

LOBO: ‘now we are talking’. Said there were residents who sent in photos of brick walls that planners see as ‘visual bulk’ so there’s a brick wall between Renown and Bolinda St. Said that ‘residents were fooled by the real estate company’ in the first motion. Pilling raised a ‘point of order’ at this point on relevance and Lobo responded that the ‘relevance’ is why ‘they put in this application’. Said that the ‘reason I”m standing here is that the house was about to be collapsed’ and that’s why there’s this application since the house is ready to be bulldozed. That’s why ‘the motion’ is ‘fully justified’.

DELAHUNTY: said she would support the motion because it ‘does represent’ a ‘compromise’ and ‘was a hard decision to make’. They have to decide the application and ‘what is acceptable to the area’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that this is ‘a compromise’ and the reason why an application comes in is irrelevant.

MOTION PUT AND LOBO REQUESTED A DIVISION.

IN FAVOUR – Delahunty, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams, Magee, and Okotel

AGAINST: Pilling, Sounness.

COMMENT

Ah, the inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and past comments really come back to bite some of these councillors on their backsides. Here are just a few gems from the past, taken from our reports on previous council meetings and councillors’ utterances.Dates provided relate to the dates of our posts.

ESAKOFF : “an application either meets policy or it doesn’t” (March 24^th, 2013 )

MAGEE: ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’ (March 24^th, 2013)

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme. (March 24th, 2013)

LIPSHUTZ: ..’yes it’s unfortunate’ (in this case but) ‘the bigger picture is that we have to look at our policy’ (and make sure that all properties are safeguarded)…’because we’re here to protect our neighbourhood not just one particular property’….’I had to think very hard about that’…. (June 13^th 2012)

November 11, 2013

Blah, Blah, Blah…..: Part 2

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

PS: A reader has sent us the following image which clearly illustrates the woeful traffic situation in Morton Avenue. Please keep this in mind as you read the ‘debate’.

Below is our continuation of the Morton Avenue ‘debate’ aka debacle. Just for the record, we have also gone through the minutes of this new council in order to highlight the hypocrisy, lack of consistency, and sheer humbug that represents planning argument by these councillors. On each of the decisions listed car parking requirements were waived – whether this be onsite resident parking, visitor parking or loading bays, or a combination of all.

ESAKOFF: moved motion for 5 storey, 33 dwellings, 1 shop and a visitor car parking to 4 spaces. Seconded by Okotel. Esakoff didn’t say much except that this was ‘more in keeping’ and that since there’s already a permit for 5 storeys then ‘this was more in keeping’ with the area. On car parking Esakoff stated that this was a waiver of 3 and ‘this was fair’. Moreton Avenue is ‘busy’ so ‘it’s important that onsite visitor parking is provided’ and her motion would make it ‘nearly adequate’.

OKOTEL: even though this is ‘overdevelopment’, 5 storeys is ‘more resonable’ than 6 storeys and with the increased parking requirements and the ‘reduction in dwellings’ that residents ‘in that street’ will be better off.

PILLING: claimed it was ‘ironic’ that in providing more car parking spaces it could be seen as inviting ‘more cars to the area’ and ‘that’s the opposite of what we probably want’. Went on to say that if people are worried about ‘congestion’ then giving more car parking spaces will only ‘bring more cars in’. Spoke about ‘precedents’ and how other councils have given permits for developments near railway stations minus any car parking provisions. Glen Eira needs to be more ‘flexible’ on this because the result will just be ‘bringing more and more cars’ into these areas ‘which doesn’t help anyone’.

MAGEE: ‘everyone knows’ that in Glen Eira there’s an ‘unprecedented need for housing’ and there are plenty of areas where ‘we struggle to build’ places. ‘We have to supply affordable housing in those areas’ that they think are ‘acceptable’. Said that ‘we’re failing with this motion’ by not accepting the ‘opportunity’ that the site presents. Stated that every time in sites like this if they keep taking off a floor then it ‘reduces the opportunity to maximise not just the investment’ but ‘returns to us the community’. Went on to speak about ‘amenity’ and the impact of 4 more ‘units doesn’t stack up’ to the ‘need for community housing’. Thought that ‘we need to be a little bit braver’ and ‘seize the opportunities in front of us’. ‘It doesn’t get any clearer than this’ and council is ‘missing a great opportunity’ here.

SOUNNESS: said that things are a ‘little bit incongruous’ and ‘wished that we as a council group can form a clear picture’ of what’s the future for these areas because ‘we can’t have dense development and car parks’. Said he saw this happening in other areas like Murrumbeena, Elsternwick etc.

DELAHUNTY: didn’t want the discussion on parking and encouraging users onto public transport be ‘laid to rest’ and that there should be a ‘look at impact on future traffic flow’. There was the need to determine ‘what we want’ things to be like and ‘how we can actually make that happen’. Said that she would ‘bring this up at a later date’.

HYAMS: thought that the issue boiled down to whether visitor car parking ‘encouraged people to drive’ or whether ‘they are just going to drive anyway’. He thought that the ‘reality’ is that people will drive regardless. Therefore ‘incumbent on developers’ to provide parking spots. He’s therefore in favour of visitor car parking because not having this won’t stop people from using their cars. So ‘visitor parking is still important’.

ESAKOFF: didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the building ‘one iota’. Problem is parking and ‘it will be a long time’ before behaviour changes so there’s a need for parking. What will hapen is that with no parking then people will park ‘in the nearest possible’ side residential streets and ‘impact’ on these people’s amenity. She’s therefore ‘trying to avoid that impact on the wider community’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST. Hyams admits that now ‘I don’t know what to do’!!!! Chaos now reigns supreme for about 5 minutes whilst everyone runs around trying to figure out what to do and drafting another motion. At one point Pilling wanted to move the original motion again!

Pilling then moved the motion for 4 car spaces and seconded by Lipshutz. Pilling didn’t speak to his motion at this point.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he voted against first motion because his ‘concern’ is parking.

OKOTEL: asked if they made the application include car parking spaces ‘where would they go’ on the plan?

AKEHURST: basically said that this would force down ‘the number of dwellings’

OKOTEL: asked if the top storey was removed whether the developer would have to ‘reduce the amount of greenery’ around the site and the setbacks?

AKEHURST: said he didn’t think this would happen.

OKOTEL: asked if he thought there would be ‘a reduction in open space’

AKEHURST: the decision is being made on ‘the basis of the plans submitted’ and the conditions imposed would be making one change.

PILLING: this was a ‘compromise’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Here are previous decisions, all taken directly from the minutes. Readers should note the previous comments from Lipshutz and Hyams and how they stack up against the comments represented above!

127-131 Gardenvale Road (November 27^th 2012) – motion carried. At the time this is what Lipshutz said: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’. Hyams in turn stated the following: “‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

At least on this occasion, Esakoff and Okotel were consistent on their advocacy for visitor car parking.

483-493 Glen Huntly Road (Feburary 5^th, 2013) – Lipshutz and Sounness moved this motion for reduction of car parking, visitor car parking, loading bay, etc. Motion carried. On this one even Esakoff and Okotel voted to accept.

687-689 Glen Huntly Rd (February 5^th, 2013) – Lobo and Delahunty moved to reject application. Motion lost and subsequently Pilling and Lipshutz moved to accept. Motion carried.

645-647 CENTRE ROAD (April 9^th, 2013) – Magee and Delahunty moved to accept. Motion carried.

451-453 South Rd (2^nd July, 2013) – Pilling and Magee moved to accept. Motion carried unanimously.

261 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH (August 13^th, August) – delahunty and lipshutz moved to accept. Motion passed unanimously.

674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST (24^th September 2013) Pilling and Okotel moved to accept. Passed unanimously.

November 8, 2013

‘Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do’: Part 1

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

This is the first part of a very long post, which we’ve interspersed with our own commentary on the continual nonsense that issues from the mouths of all our elected representatives. We are admittedly having great difficulty in deciding whether most of these councillors are just plain ignorant and haven’t done the necessary homework or, whether all their utterances are designed to deceive, beguile and play to the audience. Or whether they simply don’t give a damn and are only going through the motions. Whichever, one thing is absolutely clear – they are not up to the job in any shape or form. The following illustrates this completely.

MORTON AVENUE APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept and seconded by Magee

PILLING: stated that this was a ‘key site’ being ‘opposite a railway station’. Supported the officer’s recommendation and said that recently they’d lobbied and been ‘successful in getting new zones’ and this application ‘falls into 3%’ of the municipality and ‘it’s the only zone which hasn’t got height restrictions’. Pilling also said that ‘6 storeys in this location is quite acceptable’. Said that all round there really weren’t any residences – a library, carpark, etc. Claimed that people ‘shouldn’t shy away’ from the fact that the city is protected and that 3% around activity zones is quite acceptable. ‘We should be true to what we’ve been advocating’. Acknowledged that there was some concern about the reduction in visitor car parking but this could be ‘justified’ by the nearby VicTrack public car park. Went on to say ‘that we are encouraging high development in this area’ so that people will end up using public transport. ‘This is in keeping of where we were aiming for’.

COMMENT: Pilling should definitely check his facts – the Commercial zone is NOT the only zone within Glen Eira that does not have height limits. The Mixed Use Zone (of which there are 23 within Glen Eira) is also without prescriptive height limits.

MAGEE: said that when an application like this comes up then ‘we know’ that parking will be an ‘issue’. Then ‘you go through things that as an individual councillor concern you’. Claimed that this ‘meets every criteria for a six storey building’ and for ‘the right building in the right place’. ‘It’s a very good looking building’ and ‘I think it’s a responsible height‘. Said that there’s an ‘abundance’ of car parking nearby and ‘visitor parking isn’t such an issue’ because ‘evidence based’ information says that this is after hours. Said he hoped that it ‘does meet the community’s expectations’. ‘I believe that this is the right building at the right place and certainly at the right time’.

COMMENT: A bit rich for Magee to comment on ‘community expectations’ when the community has NEVER been provided with the opportunity to state clearly what its preferred height limit is in any area of the municipality. We would also advise that Magee sits down and carefully reads the government guidelines on higher density development. We certainly doubt that he has! We also love the appeal to ‘evidence based’ data. We interpret this to mean any data that is provided by the developer’s traffic consultant!

OKOTEL: said that this is a ‘gross overdevelopment of this area’ since Morton Avenue is ‘small’ and already has many ‘new developments’. It’s already ‘congested’ and made worse by ‘traffic’ and there’s a ‘lack of amenity’ for those people already living there. ‘It is incumbent on council to consider that’. Reported that in 2003 VCAT approved a 4 storey dwelling in Morton Avenue but ‘at that time Morton Avenue was a very undeveloped area’. Now ‘ten years on’ this is a ‘completely different area’. But since council has since approved a 5 storey development nearby it would therefore ‘be fair’ for this to also be five storeys. Said that infrastructure was ‘lacking’ and that turning into Koornang Rd is ‘a nightmare’. Visitor car parking is also ‘of great concern’ and ‘we do need to look at our policies and what we require’ and that even if one storey is lopped off there would still be ‘inadequate car parking spaces’. Spoke about how residents can be impacted by such developments and the lack of amenity. Said that potentially this means ’80 people’ moving in and finished by saying that ‘this is not an appropriate development’.

COMMENT: ‘need to look at our policies’!!!! Well, all we can say is that this is why you and other councillors are there! When was the last time that the Road Safety Strategy came up for review? When was the last time that Parking Precinct Plans were even thought about? When did council last successfully introduce any parking overlays in its Planning Scheme? What on earth have these councillors been doing – except to mouth the platitudes that certain policies need to be ‘looked at’!!!!!!Actions count and not public grandstanding!

ESAKOFF: agreed with Okotel that 6 storeys, 40 units and waiving car parking is ‘a little too much’ for the ‘busiest corner of Carnegie’. Said that if they start waiving 7 car parking spots then they’re ‘asking for incremental trouble’. She would ‘like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’ but ‘would consider a waiver of perhaps three’. Agreed that if ‘there’s a place, this is the place’ but ‘it is not providing sufficient parking’ and for her this has ‘always been a sticking point’. Foreshadowed a motion for 5 storeys. Went on to say that ‘in an ideal worls’ she’d like to see ‘something happening’ up on roofs as part of open space such as a garden or just ‘a space’.

COMMENT: ‘would like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’. Wow! Perhaps someone should point out to Esakoff that there are standards in the planning scheme that council, including herself, simply like to ignore. Here are just a few of decisions FROM 2013 that have waived car parking, and/or loading/shop front parking bays! And all have been given the stamp of approval by councillors themselves – often in unanimous votes. It’s a bit difficult then to swallow the guff about providing what’s necessary when waiver after waiver is granted, not by VCAT, but by councillors themselves.

645 – 647 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST

198-202 BALACLAVA ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH

483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD ELSTERNWICK

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH

We also have to ask whether a waiver of 3 car parking spots does NOT REPRESENT ‘INCREMENTAL TROUBLE’ OR IS 7 SOMEHOW THE MAGICAL NUMBER?

SOUNNESS: was in support of the recommendations but had some concerns. Thought it was ‘good to have people’ close to transport, and a good facade which this has. Was worried about the lack of 3 bedroom units. Said that there are similar zones in Glen Eira and that greater density will be happening and that council ‘will be facing pressure’ from developers for 6, 7 or even higher buildings. Claimed that there has to be a ‘range’ of dwellings and not just ‘boxes’. He will support the recommendation, but he sees this issue as ‘lacking in Glen Eira’s policy’.

COMMENT: Oh dear – another councillor who does not know his own planning scheme and community plan. The scheme clearly states the need to encourage a ‘diversity’ of dwellings including 3 bedroom units. The fact that council does nothing about this is another matter. Please Sounness, do your homework. It’s a year now since you’ve become a councillor and should at least know the basic but unimplemented vision!

HYAMS: didn’t have ‘a problem with the height’ because it’s the ‘right place’ and ‘next door to a five storey building’. Conceded that there are one storey houses in Sheppason Avenue but ‘they won’t even be able to see’ the building because of setbacks and the 5 storey building. Was worried about parking and that there is ‘policy’ and that the ‘reason why we have policy’ is to make Glen Eira ‘a whole better place to live’ and they adhere to policy when they consider how the ‘amenity’ of other people is affected. Said it was hard to get parking in the area and ‘especially on a Saturday’ so ‘we should continue to do what we can’ to make developments have sufficient car parking. Putting in more stackers won’t solve the problem. All that will help is ‘reducing’ the number of units. Thought that ‘it is important that we try to stick to our policies’. On that ‘basis’ he is against the motion.

COMMENT: good to know that ‘policy is policy’ (but only when it suits) since in the past Hyams has clearly stated that applications should be looked at on a case by case basis! Wonderful rhetoric that leaves room for all kinds of inconsistencies and political manoeuvring!

DELAHUNTY: ‘as a general rule’ she believes in ‘sustainable development’ and that higher density has to go near railway stations, etc. This is good for ‘traders’ and ‘the city’ and that it’s ‘council’s job to make sure that the traffic flows’ and also ‘encourage’ people to use alternative modes of transport. ‘The only thing’ with this application that worries her is the lack of visitor car parking. Said that council’s policy on visitor car parking ‘is not necessarily consistent’ with other councils’ guidelines. She is ‘torn about this’ but will support the recommendation. Admitted that ‘it might set quite a precedent for that area’.

COMMENT: what a pity that Delahunty doesn’t acknowledge that without height limits, without parking overlays, without any attempt to introduce structure plans for activity centres in the past decade, there is no such thing as precedent! Anything goes, and it’s already long gone!

PILLING: ‘this is the right area’ for this development. Thought that there ‘has to be some flexibility around visitor car parking’ and the problem is also level crossings so have to be ‘flexible’ about the car parking and get people to use transport. ‘Balancing’ the ‘pros and cons’ he thought that officers ‘had got it right’ and ‘it’s in line with the zones’

MOTION PUT AND LOST 4 TO 5.

VOTING FOR – MAGEE; PILLING, SOUNNESS, DELAHUNTY

VOTING AGAINST: ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ; HYAMS, LOBO

Part 2 will focus on the next motion from Esakoff that also went down in a flaming heap! and nor did it lift the level of debate as readers will see.

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’.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates